MovieChat Forums > His Dark Materials (2019) Discussion > A Difference in Message Boards

A Difference in Message Boards

posted 5 years ago by Ace_Spade (9658)
15 replies | jump to latest

I remember when The Golden Compass came out all the IMDb boards were lit up (ironically) like a Christmas tree with everybody arguing about religion. On-topic, off-topic, for and against, that was all anybody was talking about.

But here the boards look much different, just discussing casting and whether or not the series is/will be good.

Could it be the change of year (attitudes have shifted) or a change of boards (Moviechat has a different fan base than IMDb)?

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 5 years ago

Moviechat is tiny in comparison to what IMDb used to be as far as the number of people who post here goes. And my sense is that quite a few of the few people who do post here are in an older demographic and don't get so worked up about things in general.

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 5 years ago

This, too, makes sense to me. I knew that Moviechat is smaller (I prefer to think of it as "concentrated"), but if the demographic skewed older, I might expect it to go the other way: newer generations seem less interested in tradition or religion.

That said, I also think of Moviechat as being more "movie geeks", people who are really into movies (who else would care enough post-IMDb message boards to track down another arena to discuss film?), and those people might care more about the pictures themselves and less about being shocked by religion.

Kuku has an interesting theory down there, though: there's a new religion, and the argument is now about casting.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Not really.

The Golden Compass was released more than 10 years ago. During that time, Wokeness has become the new mainstream religion replacing Christians. I'm not kidding. It's basically a cult, and it controls deep state, most of media and big tech companies. It's the new Church.

Racial and gender quotas are some kind of commandment in this new religion. In modern western world, debating about casting is debating about religion, the same way that in Israel, debating about working on Saturdays is debating about religion.

The forum hasn't changed. The debate was about religion, and the debate is about religion. What has changed is the religion under discussion.

And what's more interesting: these books were written to criticize Catholicism... and they're used now as a tool for Wokeness proselytism. Oh! the irony.

[–] Kowalski (79077) 5 years ago

UGH...WOKENESS...ENJOY THE JOKER.

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 5 years ago

I think most moviegoers would, it's a superb picture.

[–] Kowalski (79077) 5 years ago

THAT SPECIAL SMALL GROUP WHO LIKE IT FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS ARE THE ONES YOU HAVE TO KEEP AN EYE ON.

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 5 years ago

Sure thing; there are some people who like Joker because they're relating to him and want to be more like him - your basic incel types. But, I feel like most people who like the movie just enjoyed watching a great psychological thriller, draped in the finery of comic books, questioning a lot of that superhero fiction (ie, the depiction of Thomas Wayne), throwing in political commentary without preachyness (do we side with the anarchic, violent mob, or the callous, political snobs? - who's really evil here?), and then tie it all together under the umbrella of Joaquin Phoenix's gangbuster performance as Arthur/Joker, and you've got a great film.

Surely, though, a percentage of every audience are jerks or creeps looking to start some mayhem.

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 5 years ago

That's an interesting take on it... Is that what people are debating in those threads? I saw some threads on casting and I just assumed that they were about the characters' accuracy to the book (which is usually what people are talking about - legions of fans annoyed that they changed somebody's hair colour or something).

I've seen a lot of the arguments on other boards about whether or not certain properties are making certain moves based on political posturing and identity politics. They kinda fascinate me; I'm not sure why.

But, if that's the argument going on here, then yes, I guess it's the same controversy, repackaged.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

There's a lot of politics in those threads. For example:

https://moviechat.org/tt5607976/His-Dark-Materials/5dbcdfed823e13459d0d7080/Why-is-she-a-brunette

That question could seem innocent (and perhaps it was innocent) but there's more than meets the eye.

There's a very common trend in modern Hollywood which is the use of a white caucasian female and a non-white male. That case, what hair color should have the white female? Blond and redhair are now considered 'evil haircolors', not suitable for good guys. Dark hair is mandatory in Asian, Black and Hispanic females. The remaining choice is... brunette. So you have most of female leads right now being brunettes. Even feminist magazines have realized it:
https://www.themarysue.com/star-wars-brunettes/

And yeap, the reason is political.

---

about whether or not certain properties are making certain moves based on political posturing and identity politics. They kinda fascinate me; I'm not sure why.

Yeap, it fascinates me too... much more than the movies and series themselves, to be honest. That ones I find increasily boring. I'm leaning now towards classic Hollywood movies and Asian modern ones, but still... the drift of modern Hollywood (and western society in general) is strangely addictive, like watching a drunkard walking erratically towards a cliff.

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 5 years ago

The funny thing is, I don't mind political movies, it's just when it becomes propaganda or a callous gesture to appease the gods of public opinion, that's when it goes wonky for me.

For instance, I don't understand why people are upset by Star Trek: Discovery "going woke" because that fits with Star Trek's MO. Star Trek was always "woke". It was woke in the 1960s when it put a multi-ethnic cast up as officers working together and had the first interracial kiss on TV. It was woke in the 1990s when it did gender-bending plotlines on TNG. It was always about social progression, so that fits with the theme.

I think one of the things I find fascinating is that there are two main sides arguing. The Woke/SJW types and the grumpy incel types. I don't like either faction. So when they bludgeon each other, I don't feel the pain.

I do worry that one of them will win, though... But I also get the impression that both side are not a significant portion of the population - just a loud portion.

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 5 years ago

I think it was the girl's role in Logan that caught the producers' attention. They just needed to audition her and make sure she could act a somewhat different character. Lyra has to be strong and do the action stuff like Wolverine Jr., sure, but also handle more emotionally intense scenes, smile and laugh, she's less of a loner and not so full of anger. I doubt her hair color had much to do with it.

For many years Hollywood gravitated toward blonde female characters, and white actors in general. There are people of all backgrounds and skin tones out there on the street though. There are gay people out there. Some seem to believe casting is being done on a token, box ticking basis now. But really movies and TV shows are just coming into line with the actual diversity that exists in our population.

[–] spurtle467 (1558) 5 years ago

Sadly this is true, and from such a left-wing corporation as the BBC, you know they're going to be ticking boxes in the casting.

I've never read the His Dark Materials books, but I noticed how diverse the cast in this TV production was. I'm guessing they've changed a few of the races, and possibly genders from the books?

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 5 years ago

I haven't read them either. I saw The Golden Compass way back when, but it wasn't a good adaptation by all accounts, so - unsurprisingly - it never hooked me in.

I don't mind swaps that feel okay. I mind when they go against the property and/or smack of political correctness - box ticking, as you've said.

For instance, I don't mind that Batman '89 has Billy Dee Williams playing Harvey Dent. I actually am a little sad that Burton didn't crank out a full trilogy and fulfill his vision for Two-Face, because I think Williams would have rocked it. I don't mind the idea of a different race actor playing, say, Bond (because that doesn't feel integral to the character to me), but I understand why some people do (and I would firmly refuse to see a female Bond picture).

So, if the swaps are made with actors who can crush the part, that's great. But most of the time, I get the feeling it was done specifically to tick a box.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

How dare they cast people from different races! They should all be segregated! /s

Some of us genuinely don't notice or care.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 5 years ago