And I had to say, yeah. Good question. What are right wingers on about?
Maybe if any of them could define what they mean by that word, it would be more clear. LOL.
What's so woke about this?
People seem to be forgetting the McCarthyist subplot in Crystal Skull.
shareWhat are right wingers on about?
Haslet is literally a simp for that worthless sack of shit Biden, whose praises he sings in that board while displaying advanced degrees of TDS. Dumb, even for a lefty.
He also thinks people don't like Phoebe Waller Bridge due to misogyny (eye roll), even though she's got no looks or personality or charisma - she literally looks like a man in drag, is awkward & gangly, and plays an annoying Mary Sue that's better at everything automatically than her wiser, stronger and more experienced male counterpart IJ.
I'm somewhat on the right on the political spectrum--and yes, I can see that this movie was no more liberal than any of the other IJ movies. A point of contention among the "fandom menace" is the presence of the young black lady with the afro, but I think that was a way for the creators of the movie to connect IJ to the 1960s counter culture.
Indiana Jones himself says in the first movie that he hates nazis--which makes him a liberal. But then he does say "I like Ike" in Crystal Skulls, so he may actually be a small-r republican. And then in this movie, he joins an anti-war protest--but that really was just a ruse so that he can fit in with the crowd while he runs away from the bad guys.
I don't think this was the greatest IJ movie, but I kind of liked it.
If you hate nazis than you’re a liberal? Conservatives can’t hate nazis?
shareSure they can. But you need to consider the context.
Raiders takes place in 1936–years before the war. At that time, people who tended to hate the Nazis were on the left of the political spectrum.
Utter bullshit. Despite Time Magazine's idiocy, Hitler was equally despised along both political spectrums. Everyone knew how he came to power.
shareObviously, you never heard about the “America First” movement of that era.
https://time.com/5414055/american-nazi-sympathy-book/
"More Americans than you may think" ROFLMAO Proving nothing.
And you go the magazine that was wrong about Hitler to prove your point about Hitler. BIG time fail. LOL
The Nazis were ‘The National Socialists and Workers Party of Germany’ - they had plenty of support from the Left.
Wait, what? I was always told the democrats were right wing until some magical shift took place in the 1960s.
shareHating Nazi's has been a right-wing thing since basically the get-go. Don't forget that the Democrats initially backed Hitler as he was allied with Stalin, and only turned on him once he invaded Russia. And more generally, if you look at where Nazism falls on the political spectrum, it's nothing more than a nationalistic version of socialism, where the state controls everything and everyone, a firmly far-left ideal.
That aside, I didn't find anything politically objectionable in the film, and was at times shocked that Disney had made something that was such a throwback to the '80s.
I’m all of aware of the Molotov-Ribbentropp pact of nonaggression. And yea, for a short period between 1939-1941, Stalin ordered communist activists to tone down their anti-German stance because he didn’t trust the West and was making overtures toward Hitler.
But in 1936, with the Spanish Civil War in full swing, the international left was firmly in the anti-Nazi camp as Hitler supported the nationalists while the USSR supported the republicans. So for Indiana Jones to say in 1936, “I hate Nazis” would put him in the liberal side at the time. American liberals went to Spain to fight against Franco and formed the Abraham Lincoln Brigade during that era.
The posters who angrily denounce me, calling me stupid, have no clue about context and the nuances of the time period.
And yea, pre-1964 Democrats from the US South were conservatives on social issues. Both parties flipped around that time. Concepts like political realignment will sometimes fly over most people’s head.
All they need do is look at Electoral College maps in an almanac at their local library. Texas used to be a blue state and California a red state. Many blacks were Republicans and many white Southerners were Democrats. Desegregation, Vietnam, and 1968 changed all that. The "flip" didn't happen all at once, and was in actually a realignment that occurred over several election cycles from 1968 until it fully coalesced in 1980 with the election of Reagan. Some parts 9f both parties stayed the same, but different bedfellows were added to each of their respective coalition ls. The anti-desegregationist votes were up for grabs. Originally, Wallace got a lot of it (1968, 1972). Over time they either dropped out of voting or became Republicans because the Democrats were split on race and eventually rebranded themselves a pro-minority party.
shareThere's that "the parties flipped" lie again. The parties never flipped. The Republicans were anti-slavery, and fought for Civil Rights, first in the 1950s, and again in 1964. Look at the voting record... the Republicans staunchly supported it, the Democrats opposed it. The parties didn't somehow switch after that. They remain today as they were then.
shareDemocrats sucked hard on race up until the late 60s. They lost in 1968 and got cremated in 1972 because they were tearing themselves apart over race and Vietnam. Saying the parties "flipped" is a glib and misleading generalization. 1968 was a pivot point in American poliitcs and much political realignment occurred. What is false or controversial about that?
shareDemocrats sucked hard on race up until the late 60s. They lost in 1968 and got cremated in 1972 because they were tearing themselves apart over race and Vietnam. Saying the parties "flipped" is a glib and misleading generalization. 1968 was a pivot point in American poliitcs and much political realignment occurred between 1968 and 1980, culminating in Reagan. What is false or controversial about that?
shareWhat I'm saying is false is the notion that there was some flip in the parties. That Republicans and Democrats at some point switched sides or changed policies. That never happened. The public perception has long been that Republicans are the racists and Democrats aren't, but history suggests the opposite.
Republicans opposed slavery, Democrats favored it, and fought a war to keep it. Thankfully, the Republican side won, and slavery was abolished.
Some more recent history:
1954 President Eisenhower, a Republican, proposed a Civil Rights bill
1957 Despite Democrats opposition, the Civil Rights Act was passed.
House Vote
Republicans 167-19 in favor— 90% supported civil rights
Democrats 118-107 in favor— 52% supported civil rights
Senate Vote
Republicans 43-0 in favor— 100% supported civil rights
Democrats 29-18 in favor— 62% supported civil rights
The voting for the 1964 Civil Rights act was similar
House Vote
Republicans 138-34 in favor— 80% supported civil rights
Democrats 152-96 in favor— 61% supported civil rights
Senate Vote
Republicans 27-6 in favor— 82% supported civil rights
Democrats 46-21 in favor— 69% supported civil rights
The Democrats have the media and the universities on their side, so this history isn't taught, and the false perception of right-wing racism remains.
The Spanish Civil War was very different from the second World War. Franco, though fascist, was fighting to oust the communists, and his was clearly the lesser of two evils in Spain at the time. Franco and Hitler had nearly nothing in common other than a belief in a nationalistic government, and the U.S. liberal support for communism there is right in line with their support of Hitler and Stalin. In both cases, the left backed the bad guy.
shareLiberals got so many killed during ww2.
Before the u.s.entered ww2 , there were talks about what was going In Germany with the concentration camps.
And liberals were very anti war, so it took a long time to intervene. They would say not all germans are nazis.
It isn’t. Even in the original film, Marion is depicted as a headstrong woman who can outdrink men twice her size, and during her first scene with Indiana Jones, she calls him out for having taken advantage of her when she was younger.
shareWoke
Umbrella term for individuals who are engrossed by social justice and thinks of themselves as saviors with a moral high ground, but remain willfully ignorant to the irrationality of their claims and the problems they create. These individuals give special treatment to certain minorities in hopes of ending racism and perpetuate mental illnesses as the norm.
"My son's woke kindergarten teacher taught him that he's actually a girl because he played with dolls."
OK, so at least as far as this film is concerned, what moral high ground is being claimed and what problems are being created by its contents? Not box office problems but social problems, l mean.
shareMale heroes from the 80s are seen as "Da Patriarchy" by insane Feminazis with Daddy issues. Tearing down these heroes and replacing them with obnoxious female characters is Hollyweird's way of ridding movies of "toxic" masculinity. They think this will transfer from movies to the real world, basically brainwashing us all.
shareHow does film do that to Indy? I don't think it does, although it has happened in quite a few films. I just don't happen to think this is one of them.
shareIndy is shown as an old miserable useless has been with Fleabag as his female replacement.
shareShe doesn't replace Indy and it isn't suggested at any point that she will in the future. But let's say she had. Would you have said the same if Short Round had replaced him... or Mutt if he wasn' KIA? People' can claim the film originally had Helena replace Indy but was re-edited, but that's an unproven assertion.In any case I can only judge the finished film. Just because Luke being worn down in the sequels didn't work doesn't mean it doesn't work for this film. First of all, Ford is considerably older than Hamil was then. More importantly, the reasons Luke acted as he did were never adequately or believably presented. For that matter neither is anything else Ike the rise of The First Order or any of the characters. Here, Ford's portrayal and reasons are much more convincing. Indy's relationship with Marion was always tempestuous and them having problems is entirely believable and consistent with his character. By contrast Leia and Hans strained marriage was never given a good explanation. Ford is also a much better actor.
I don't agree. Sorry.
You've justified why the Dial of Destiny is woke, but not why it needed to be woke.
That's Guitar King's point.
Indy is upstaged by a younger woman. Why couldn't it be a male protegé?
Indy is knocked out and saved by a woman at the end. Why couldn't he have made that choice on his own?
Indy is undermined throughout the film by his goddaughter. He wasn't undermined by his dad in The Last Crusade. So why was that necessary in the Dial of Destiny?
Indy is also shown to be a broken down and worthless old man, which fits in line with every other franchise revival by big Hollywood studios to show White male leads from previous generations as worthless. Why couldn't he be well to do and happy? Why couldn't he be in a place that shows that he doesn't want to go on the adventure because he has a lot to lose and a lot to live for, rather than the opposite?
I haven't justified why it's woke. I've denied it's woke.
He isn't upstaged. She's clever in her way, but also morally flawed and overconfident. Indy save hers ass numerous times, and Teddy even tells her that Indy is really the one in charge, not her.
Why couldn't it not be a male sidekick? This is a preference not an argument. Besides, if Short Round had punched him out you wouldn't even mention it, and you fucking know it. On second thought, some people would say it's woke pro CCP propaganda showing the evil white man being upstaged by a POC, and you fucking know that too. There are countless movies where a buddy punches out the hero for his own good. A woman does it and you're suddenly outraged?
It was done poorly in Star Wars. It was well done here, is plausibly presented, and Ford's acting sells it, so I don't really care what you think. Why should this be punished for another film's failings? No film can ever again show a man struggling with old age and changing times because you didn't like Luke's sequel portrayal? (Neither did I btw). This is a frankly bizarre and nonsensical position to take.
.
Besides, if Short Round had punched him out you wouldn't even mention it, and you fucking know it.
On second thought, some people would say it's woke pro CCP propaganda showing the evil white man being upstaged by a POC, and you fucking know that too.
There are countless movies where a buddy punches out the hero for his own good. A woman does it and you're suddenly outraged?
It was well done here, is plausibly presented, and Ford's acting sells it, so I don't really care what you think.
No film can ever again show a man struggling with old age and changing times because you didn't like Luke's sequel portrayal? (Neither did I btw). This is a frankly bizarre and nonsensical position to take.
Most women don't knock out 80 year old men with gaping chest wounds. Also,people in movies NEVER and I mean never break bones in their hand, even thought it's common in real life. You just realized this in 2023? Most people don't neatly and politely drop dead from a single gunshot either. In most movies they do.
shareIf many of those movies were better and more original people wouldn't mind some of it as much. I still maintain this film is being punished for the sins of other films - quite a few of which were made by Disney Lucasfilm...so I guess it's a judgment call and it's clear which way a lot of the public has broken. By the way, I only liked Rogue One, Andor and Indy from the Kennedy Era, so me defending this feels a bit strange even to me. But here we are.
Anyway, to paraphrase a line from Carlito's Way: "The buttons have already been pushed and the lime pit has already been dug." So no point white knighting for it.
P.S. I believe people would have been. more forgiving of the Star Wars sequels (wokeness and all) if Luke, Han and Leia had a scene together in the first one, Snoke hadn't been killed in the second one, if Luke had physically fought Kylo in the second one, and not died until the third one. They still wouldn't have been great but people would have not been as hostile.
You're right about people not breaking their hands in movies, and a lot of people dropping dead some a single gun shot wound.
If many of those movies were better and more original people wouldn't mind some of it as much. I still maintain this film is being punished for the sins of other films
P.S. I believe people would have been. more forgiving of the Star Wars sequels (wokeness and all) if Luke, Han and Leia had a scene together in the first one, Snoke hadn't been killed in the second one, if Luke had physically fought Kylo in the second one, and not died until the third one. They still wouldn't have been great but people would have not been as hostile.
It's ok not to agree. We (society) need to train ourselves not to apologize for having different opinions.
shareI suspect you haven't seen the film if you're making that claim. Indiana Jones is strong and in control throughout the entire film, and constantly one, or more, steps ahead of his goddaughter. She is shown to be a somewhat immoral character, and only from following Indy around and learning from him does she develop a moral compass. At no point in the film is Jones' age apparent, and he does many things that someone his age probably couldn't do, though he did sip from the Holy Grail, so he may not be as physically old as his years.
shareLeftists can't define what "woman" means, either. Trying to have a conversation with them is like talking to a wall.
shareWoke represents a corporate-approved version of leftism.
That said, Every time someone calls a movie "woke," I end up watching it and thinking, "Nah, not really."
Film critics have always been a fairly left wing cadre, and I recall way back in 1984, that they carped a LOT about how Spielberg and his writers "replaced" the tough, feisty and heroic tomboy Marion(Karen Allen) from Raiders of the Lost Ark with the more va-va-voom dance club entertainer "Willie"(Kate Kapshaw) in Temple of Doom. Not only had the tomboy been replaced with a hottie -- the hottie was a scaredy-cat screamer and general nuisance(not that she WANTED to be on the adventure, she was sort of accidentally kidnapped.)
There was some real-life irony: Director Spielberg soon divorced his rather Marion-like wife(Amy Irving) and married the va-va-voom blonde hottie Capshaw. They remain married to this day and (for obvious reasons, I guess), Capshaw was never brought back for the final sequels as Allen was. (Allen could also be allowed to look a bit old, as she was and is.)
And so...perhaps the original Indiana Jones was a bit "woke" (by todays standards) in making sure to give audiences the two-fisted, hard-drinking Marion as a "joint hero" with Indy, but the second one rather went "un-woke" with the hot damsel in distress type played by Capshaw. Critics "punished" Spielberg for the character of Willie, but it didn't matter: the movie still made a ton of dough.
Is it possible Marion more reflects the tough-as-nails women of the 30s and 40s, who did their share to bring the population through the Depression and World World II? I haven't watched Temple of Doom since it was in the theaters, so I don't remember Capshaw's performance or character. I wonder whether critics were deflecting their distaste for the more violent moments in the movie and going with an easy, "Aw, this female character is different from the previous movie's female character!" route.
shareI haven't seen this yet but I do think if Alien (1979) was released today people would call it woke and call Ripley a Mary Sue.
Quite a lot of older movies were 'woke' by modern standards but no one gave a shit about politics in movies. Nowadays it's all the range and movies are seen as extensions of the 'culture war' (as some call it).
I haven't seen this yet but I do think if Alien (1979) was released today people would call it woke and call Ripley a Mary Sue.
--
Ha. Yes. The thing of it was this: Ripley was originally written as a MAN. Obviously, the change was decided upon before they hired the "new" Sigourney Weaver.
---
Quite a lot of older movies were 'woke' by modern standards but no one gave a shit about politics in movies. Nowadays it's all the range and movies are seen as extensions of the 'culture war' (as some call it).
---
The thing to remember is that an entire new industry -- which makes quite a few people a LOT of money -- has sprung up in the 21st Century, birthed in the 80s and 90s: the "partisan outrage" industry. It began with the dropping of the "FCC Fairness Doctrine"(in the 80's I think) which somehow allowed more partisan broadcasting. Rush Limbaugh came out of this and later, Fox News, but certainly the left side has not been uprepresented(CNN and MSNBC.)
Partisan radio hosts, cable shows, and now internet shows have sprung up and their "bread and butter" is to pick partisan fights over movies, sports, and other things. As a historic matter, this is "tragic and terrible" but at bedrock its about one thing: making money for a lot of people and making some people RICH. Just like the past-their-date money grab sequels themselves, these outrage channels are about MONEY.
I read somewhere that the most "click worthy" headlines are ones that create OUTRAGE. Partisan outrage. Or about Prince Harry and Meghan(pick a side.)
So everybody's supposed to be outraged about Dial of Destiny. Go to YouTube and look at all the "hate channels" just about that movie.
Making a lot of money for some folks. A separate industry.
But it wasn't. Whatever problem people have with the BLARING social messaging enforced by corporate-approved leftism (aka wokism) has more to do with the obviousness of messaging than the message itself; example, everybody KNOWS bigotry is not only impolite, it's a logical fallacy, a shining example of hasty generalization. There is no generation alive today that wasn't lectured about racism going back to the civil rights. The few holdouts who insist on being racists are not going to change. So why does the rest of society have to suffer? When people put down money for overpriced tickets to mostly shitty movies, the last thing they want it a condescending lecture from somebody wearing a cape. As a result of this deluge of movies that do this, movies that do NOT do this but have a woman or "minority" character get called woke as a knee-jerk reaction. People should not judge a movie before they've seen it, but they have every right to be suspicious.
shareThe movies that people cite that demonstrate a way to have heroines and *not* be woke are ... woke now?
Have you actually seen Alien?
I think you're running out of arguments.
Of course I've seen Alien, it's one of my favorite movies.
People use it as an example for 'non woke' because they love the movie and have nostalgia for it. Woke is a label that is bandied about without much rhyme or reason.
If it was a new release people would call Ripley a Mary Sue. Almost every movie that gets released these days which features a woman doing good or being better/smarter than men is labelled 'woke'.
No they wouldn't. Do you actually know what a Mary Sue is?
Hint: It has nothing to do with the characters gender.
It does have to do with their gender because it's a quite literally a gendered term, used for female characters who are exceptional and 'too good to be true'.
A Mary Sue is a character archetype in fiction,usually a young woman, who is often portrayed as inexplicably competent across all domains, gifted with unique talents or powers, liked or respected by most other characters, unrealistically free of weaknesses, extremely attractive, innately virtuous, and/or generally lacking meaningful character flaws. Usually female and almost always the main character, a Mary Sue is often an author's idealized self-insertion, and may serve as a form of wish fulfillment.
It does not have to do with gender. It's even in your source, the word 'usually' - does not mean 'always'.
Also my point about the FACT that Mary Sue can apply to male characters is in the very next paragraph LOL!:
"The term has been applied to male characters as well" 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Talk about an own goal.
It's a LITERARY trope that actually pre-dates the Alien movie. No-one's tried to call Ripley a Mary Sue in 50 years but nice try :).
Just because someone is a main character or 'wins in the end' doesn't make them a Mary Sue.
Maybe comprehend your own source next time.
On ... Twitter?
lol