Oscars 2019

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Explained that further down the paragraph, the fact that everything is tethered to a preexisting brand now isn't a 'woke' thing it's a laziness thing. It's a Hollywood thing. It's a capitalism thing. The gender swap isn't woke, it's a new coat of paint that is marketed as woke, and the dummies on both sides of the online culture war lap this shit up because it's what they live for. The only way that things are 'vastly different' now is that Hollywood is much, much lazier and out of touch than it was 20 years ago

[Funcrusher]

You seem to be very invested in asserting that things like #oscarssowhite and woke culture generally have absolutely no effect on US cinema generally and the Oscars specifically when it's obvious and inevitable that they do have an effect given their prominence right now.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Oh, it's self-evident? I guess that proves me wrong just like that then!

[Mister Six]

I think those films could easily have existed at any point since the 90's, and aren't really qualitatively different from things like the 'Charlie's Angels' films.

Well yes, it's qualitatively different in that:

1- Charlie's Angels was at the upper end of mid-budget for an action movie, whereas Ghostbusters was a proper big-budget blockbuster, because it's only recently that Hollywood has been willing to consistently put big money behind this kind of thing (Bridesmaids was made for even less, and was a small pseudo-indie comedy);

2- Charlie's Angels was based on a property that was already about women, which is a step removed from consciously changing a male-dominated franchise to be about women, as with Ghostbusters, which is a conscious attempt to spin films for the newly discovered female market, same as the Anne Hathaway Dirty Rotten Scoundrels remake);

3- Charlie's Angels is about three conventionally attractive, physically fit women running about in tight clothes, which is an easier sell to Hollywood; Ghostbusters is not.

We had 'Catwoman' in the mid-2000s, a POC led superhero film

Exception that proves the rule, as they say (and budget-wise it was only just tipping into high-budget, and that because it had been stuck in development hell for so long - $100m compared with BP's $210m). Also different from BP because it had a single very light-skinned black protagonist (whose race has no bearing on the character) and a white director, rather than a majority dark-skinned black cast and black director. See also the effort made to give Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel female directors (or co-director in Marvel's case).

This all matters. Hollywood has until recently been reticent to throw big money at non-white-male directors (with the odd exception such as Kathryn Bigelow) and non-white-male-centric (if not led) projects. Stuff like Ghostbusters, the Dirty Rotten Scoundrels remake, the black Charmed TV show, the planned black Buffy remake - this stuff exists because the money men have been convinced that there is a market for such things, and that has at its root awareness campaigns on social media.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

I would concede all of that, it seems convincing enough to me. Except that there isn't a 'newly discovered female market', there has been a significant female market for cinema going back to Hollywood's earliest days (even someone recent like Anne Hathaway is a mainstay of films that are marketed towards women, so there's simply no change there). Splashing out more cash on these kinds of films is not nothing, but it hasn't really resulted in any truly new developments either. These are the same kinds of films we've always had, with some casting differences here and fewer pennies pinched there. In the end it's all performative. This kind of push for represention hasn't made cinema any better or worse. What has made cinema worse is brand/franchise dominance, and the co-opted fan culture that props that up. That's the bigger picture that the excessive focus on' woke culture' serves to obscure

Also, I think that the arc of time bending towards progress in terms of onscreen representation over the course of decades and the current online 'woke culture' are two distinct entities, and most of what you describe is due to the former as opposed to the latter. Much of this stuff is due to decades and decades of writing and activism breaking the dam, rather than a hashtag campaign

[greenman]

I'd say the point about laziness is well made, not just in terms of dependence on franchises but on dependence on "woke" marketing. It does seem a bit of a coincidence that films such as the Ghostbusters remake and the Starwars sequels had a much stronger marketing push in this direction than say Fury Road or Rogue One, as if Hollywood knows when it has poor quality cinema to sell or indeed knows before production how its going to sell said cinema.

[Mister Six]

I would concede all of that, it seems convincing enough to me. Except that there isn't a 'newly discovered female market', there has been a significant female market for cinema going back to Hollywood's earliest days (even someone recent like Anne Hathaway is a mainstay of films that are marketed towards women, so there's simply no change there).

Let me be more clear: a newly discovered female market for sci-fi, superhero, action, spy and other genre blockbusters. Obviously Hollywood has long recognised that women go to see movies, but films made by and for women have generally been either romcoms or kitchen sink dramas, because that's what the perceived audience was.

The idea of spending $140 million on Ghostbusters, or $150 million on Wonder Woman or Captain Marvel would have been nigh unthinkable just seven or eight years ago.

Likewise POC films, especially black-made and black-centric films. The reason it took Marvel 17 movies before putting out Black Panther and 20 before doing Captain Marvel is that former MCU head and famous racist/sexist Ike Perlmutter didn't believe there was a market for superhero movies that weren't led by white men. Also why they're only now working on a Black Widow film even though ScarJo had massive success in the shite Lucy.

[Quiote]Splashing out more cash on these kinds of films is not nothing, but it hasn't really resulted in any truly new developments either. [/Quote]

That's never been in contention.

Much of this stuff is due to decades and decades of writing and activism breaking the dam, rather than a hashtag campaign

No, bollocks. Studio execs don't even read their own scripts, much less progressive essays on social issues. They're (especially now, as Hollywood, like most industries, has become increasingly concerned with bean-counting since 2008) concerned only with the bottom line, and social media campaigns like BLM, #MeToo and #OscarsSoWhite breaking through into the mainstream news cycle and showing that younger audiences are less happy to go along with racist received wisdom and poor behaviour is what's made the difference here.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

I would have to see the figures on this, but I assume that if you looked at the average budget handed to the average black filmmaker over the course of the decades since the 70s, I'd assume that it was simply a upwards unbroken progression overtime that has now hit a high point rather than something that has significantly spiked since teenagers started using hashtags on twitter? I'm not saying that studio execs read progressive academia or anything like that, but there's a longer term cultural trend that has led to this kind of progressive representation that hasn't just landed in our laps over the last five years? I do think that things like Black Lives Matter is genuine activism about a range of progressive issues as well, and doesn't fall under the banner of 'woke culture'. If there has been a cultural shift because of BLM, that's not 'woke culture', that's an actual hard-won cultural shift. And sure, the Hollywood co-opting of that cultural shift is cynical, but isn't everything Hollywood does cynical?

[Mister Six]

I'd say the point about laziness is well made, not just in terms of dependence on franchises but on dependence on "woke" marketing. It does seem a bit of a coincidence that films such as the Ghostbusters remake and the Starwars sequels had a much stronger marketing push in this direction than say Fury Road or Rogue One, as if Hollywood knows when it has poor quality cinema to sell or indeed knows before production how its going to sell said cinema.

I think that's more because it's only become a thing in the past couple of years. Fury Road was 2015 and Rogue One 2016. Ghostbusters was 2016, Last Jedi 2017. Wonder Woman was a critically well received film and that got a similar push in 2017.

Both Fury Road and Rogue One got rapturous responses from the social justice crowd (both for powerful women, but Fury Road also for a disabled female lead and Rogue One for its multiracial cast). So did The Force Awakens, actually, for making its leads a black guy and a white woman. I suspect that - and the predictable response from the terrified male virgin crowd - have the marketing people the push to lean into it for future releases.

[Funcrusher]

Let me be more clear: a newly discovered female market for sci-fi, superhero, action, spy and other genre blockbusters. Obviously Hollywood has long recognised that women go to see movies, but films made by and for women have generally been either romcoms or kitchen sink dramas, because that's what the perceived audience was.

The idea of spending $140 million on Ghostbusters, or $150 million on Wonder Woman or Captain Marvel would have been nigh unthinkable just seven or eight years ago.

Likewise POC films, especially black-made and black-centric films. The reason it took Marvel 17 movies before putting out Black Panther and 20 before doing Captain Marvel is that former MCU head and famous racist/sexist Ike Perlmutter didn't believe there was a market for superhero movies that weren't led by white men. Also why they're only now working on a Black Widow film even though ScarJo had massive success in the shite Lucy.



That's never been in contention.

No, bollocks. Studio execs don't even read their own scripts, much less progressive essays on social issues. They're (especially now, as Hollywood, like most industries, has become increasingly concerned with bean-counting since 2008) concerned only with the bottom line, and social media campaigns like BLM, #MeToo and #OscarsSoWhite breaking through into the mainstream news cycle and showing that younger audiences are less happy to go along with racist received wisdom and poor behaviour is what's made the difference here.

Is it really true that there's a newly discovered female market for genre films and films are being made to cater to that? Ghostbusters was a flop. Wonder Woman is an established DC character who is decades old and surely it's the same fanboy (and some girls) audience that turns up to all comic book movies, irrespective of the gender of the lead character. As far as I can see it's only really some individuals involved in the making of some recent genre pictures (Kathleen Kennedy, Rian Johnson, Brie Larsen) who've been pushing the equivalent of 'gamers are over' and talking about giving the finger to 'manbabies'. The studios just want to make money and if woke posturing gets in the way of that it'll be gone.

[Funcrusher]

Both Fury Road and Rogue One got rapturous responses from the social justice crowd (both for powerful women, but Fury Road also for a disabled female lead and Rogue One for its multiracial cast). So did The Force Awakens, actually, for making its leads a black guy and a white woman. I suspect that - and the predictable response from the terrified male virgin crowd - have the marketing people the push to lean into it for future releases.

Because female, black or disabled characters have never been popular in genre films and "male virgins" (mate) have always fled the cinema in terror at the sight of them.

[Mister Six]

Because female, black or disabled characters have never been popular in genre films and "male virgins" (mate) have always fled the cinema in terror at the sight of them.

They don't tend to front big budget films.

I would have to see the figures on this, but I assume that if you looked at the average budget handed to the average black filmmaker over the course of the decades since the 70s, I'd assume that it was simply a upwards unbroken progression overtime that has now hit a high point rather than something that has significantly spiked since teenagers started using hashtags on twitter? I'm not saying that studio execs read progressive academia or anything like that, but there's a longer term cultural trend that has led to this kind of progressive representation that hasn't just landed in our laps over the last five years? I do think that things like Black Lives Matter is genuine activism about a range of progressive issues as well, and doesn't fall under the banner of 'woke culture'.

The two highest-budgeted films from black male directors came in the past two years - The Fate of the Furious and Black Panther. Ava du Vernay became the first black woman to direct a $100+ million film in 2018 with A Wrinkle in Time. This has come as online campaigns calling for better representation in the media have spilled over into real-life protests, like Frances McDormand's call for diversity riders at last year's Oscars. Yes, this follows a "shoulders of giants" period of development for black directors over decades, but there has been a massive push in the past few years in development and marketing of these films, and it's not a coincidence that it has come as online campaigns have grown in size and prominence in mainstream media.

BLM is entwined with, and irremovable from, the rise of woke culture, and trying to separate them feels like you're splitting hairs to win the argument on technicalities rather than just acknowledging that there is a massive societal change occurring, and that is being facilitate by woke cultural presence on social media.

Got to go do things - might not reply for a bit.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

I'm not trying to win an argument, I think we were digging up interesting stuff by batting this subject back and forth. I've certainly learned quite a bit

I don't think that BLM is completely unconnected to 'woke culture', I just see 'woke culture' as being a trend of favouring representation in institutions and inclusive language above all (often minus genuine structural and material critique), and I don't think BLM can be boiled down to that. BLM is genuine left-wing activism

[Funcrusher]

Of course, if the Oscars want to recognise black American filmmakers they should probably give Tyler Perry a lifetime achievement award.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Set it off was better than all this comic book dross. There.

[chveik]

can well all agree that the oscars are shite and irrelevant?

[Monsieur Verdoux]

I mean, that's essentially what I'm trying to put across, as this whole discussion started because someone thought that they were so on the pulse that they might have awarded a prize specifically to repudiate current social media trends. My position remains that this is obviously not the case, the oscars remain an incredibly insular institution