Hijacking a former hit show with racial and LGBT politics...will not guarantee the same success, STUPID.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.konbini.com/us/entertainment/charmed-reboot-casts-sisters/amp/
You aren’t catering to a LARGER audience...you are simply driving away the original fan base.
🙄
Racial comments aside, do you think it was a wrong choice to make this shit series follow Latina witches?
shareLemme put it to you this way...
Just because I, myself am not white nor a natural-born American...doesn’t mean I have a bug up my ass to DEMAND inclusion.
I was a casual fan who watched with my daughters and the show was fairly successful.
These politically-motivated RETARDS...foolishly believe they can duplicate the same success by hijacking it.
My (biracial) daughters’ black, Asian and Latino friends made a night of it binge-watching the DVD set.
None of them were bitching about racism and a lack of inclusion.
Now these dumbass studios have a bug up their ass about it.
What’s next, a biopic series about the Beatles with a BLACK Ringo Starr and Latino George Harrison?
🙄
Don't give them any ideas.. . .
They can say what they want to attempt to "better" their wrong doings, but they KNOW exactly what they are doing and a lot of us aren't happy, with it being a "reboot" alone.
My biggest problem with these "sisters" is 2 of them look identical to where it looked like one was talking to themselves in the trailer. Then they bring in a SUPER tall sister.........I just don't know what they were thinking AT ALL in casting.
Oh they’ll no doubt gush all over themselves in an LGBT sh*tfest about a “brave new direction” the show’s producers took.
But nobody ELSE will be farting rainbows and lucky charms.
Least of all SPONSORS.
🧚♀️ 🌈 🧚♂️ 🍀
Trust me. It's not an agenda. The reason it feels like an agenda is because they've been cramming diversity into properties a lot more in recent years compared to the past. The reality is, their research has figured out that diversity sells. Or I should say, properties that are not lead by white males are doing better than ever. Since they are all about making money, they go the easier route by being more inclusive with their casting, and then they use politics to pretend like it isn't about money.
sharePfffft...they took a Tyrannosaurus-sized sh*t with “Ghostbusters” on the big screen. This show will fare no better on the small screen.
No GUY is gonna gush all over a cast who can’t hold a candle to Rose McGowan and Alyssa Milano or even Holly Marie Combs.
And that was half their original fan base.
🙄
Diversity doesn't make a movie automatically. Ghostbusters had absolutely nothing going for it. Paul Feig put a bunch of women comedians together and told them to say something funny and tried to make a movie out of it. He didn't even have the sense to let the lead actress write it like she did for Bridesmaids.
Now take a decent director, a decent cast, and a decent script like we had with Black Panther. It was an ok movie, but nothing amazing. But holy shit did it bring in the numbers.
Yes...but that Black Panther was already piggybacked to a successful franchise.
This new show isn’t a piggyback...it’s a HIJACK.
And for the dumbest gamble:
Stupidly believing that pleasing the miniscule PC/Libtard crowd will somehow bolster viewership with fans of the original who AREN’T PC/Libtards.
💀
Ant-Man and Doctor Strange are in the same franchise. Didn't even get half. Trust me. They're just going where they believe the money is.
share[deleted]
I guess just keep on believing what you want to believe. I didn't see any such criticism from any community, but these days all it takes is some random person's blog post to count as significant criticism to someone else. If you have no interest in looking at things from both sides and just want to repeat your narrative, then that's fine. It's proven that diverse casting equals more dollars on average. Greed is all you need. There's no reason to look for any other agenda, unless you are so dissatisfied with how things are that you need an excuse to rant about it. So... self therapy? Idk
shareBoo frickety hoo.
Cry me a river when this show takes a Titanic dump with its lesbian storylines and God only knows what other Libtard bullsh*t they plan to throw in our faces.
See ya 👋!
The money is at Soros and his kind. Trust me. Diversity itself does not sell. Most people don't give a shit.
shareOnly political hacks complain about Soros. He's your boogeyman because he donates to democratic campaigns.
Nobody said diversity sells by itself. I mentioned above diversity doesn't make a good movie. It's obvious that would apply to a show. If the show fails, it'll be because of bad writing and lack of story-telling, not because of diversity. You complain about diversity because you want to be a victim. Pull yourself together and be a man, for fuck sake.
He doesn't just donate to democratic campaigns. His tentacles are everywhere. Just check out his connections with Disney and ABC. He also likes to destroy entire economies. The guy's a huge creep.
I never complained about diversity. It seems you're the one with an issue here just because you can't handle the idea that the media might have an agenda.
And sorry, I'm not into this transgender nonsense like you guys are. I'll just stick to the female gender I was born with.
Just because Alex Jones says it, that does not make it true. In fact, these days he's more likely to be wrong. Stop letting other people fill your head with nonsense. The media's agenda is to make more money. If you're looking for an agenda beyond that, you're being duped. The same goes for Soros, Robert Mercer, Sheldon Adelson, etc. They all want more wealth, and they all donate on party lines. Complaining about one and not the other is just outing yourself as a political hack.
shareNo one fills my head with anything. Don't even know who that guy is. You can find this info yourself. These organisations even list it on their own websites. Follow your own advice....hack...
shareAt least I can explain the media's agenda... which I've said repeatedly is to make money. You aren't willing to explain anything, and then you whine when people fill in the blanks about where you're coming from. Soros is a bad guy because of his connections to Disney and ABC, and because he just seems creepy to you somehow? Come on now, you aren't fooling anyone.
shareSoros gives them money. What more explanation do you need?
Clearly you know nothing about the guy. Come back after you've done some research.
Ugh, you're still dancing around the issue. What is the media's agenda outside of making more money? What return is Soros looking for that Adelson, Mercer and the Koch Brothers are not? Instead of asserting that I don't know anything about some old guy, explain your position.
shareNo dancing around, it's just obvious. They spread propaganda in return for money. How difficult is that to understand? Soros is the big financer behind many organisations promoting "diversity", like BLM. It's no use discussing this if you have no clue.
shareAgain, what return is Soros looking for that Adelson, Mercer and the Koch Brothers are not? Describe the propaganda and how it benefits him. I can describe how diversity benefits both him and the media by bringing in more profits. The Alex Jones take is that he's doing it to hurt the perception of white people, and that white people are the victims, yet there's no reason for him to do so.
You've already admitted Soros has damaged economies, and I'm sure you're smart enough to understand that was a financial agenda as it made him billions. All you had to do was continue that line of thought. He goes where the money is.
That's why Roseanne and Last Man Standing were canceled, right? Because these folks only care about profit, right? That's why that Oprah movie and Black Annie were such a huge succes, right? I don't think you realize how many of these shows promoting "diversity" actually fail. But that's why Trump won, right? Because the average American just loves the leftist idea of diversity, right?
Look, I'm not going to write a whole essay about the how and why here on the Charmed board. I assumed you'd at least know what I'm talking about, but it seems you're really naive or in complete denial. If you really want to know, just Google it. There are many people who can explain it better than I could.
The financial profits of a movie are nothing to a billionaire. Obviously they gain in a different way. Soros is very open about financially supporting "diversity" policies. You just ask him why he does that. Not that you'll get an honest answer...
I've admitted three times now that diversity alone does not make a quality product. It helps to sell a quality product. There is a difference. That is how Black Panther was so successful. It was okay, but it wasn't great. A Wrinkle In Time, Ghostbusters 2016, and Annie were most definitely not okay.
Of course you're not going to explain how diversity is an agenda that benefits Soros. Of course you're going to tell me to google it. That's the only way you get to portray yourself as a victim.
If Soros' "propaganda" agenda was real, Roseanne never would've had a show to begin with. It was canceled because Roseanne made a stupid mistake. Kathy Griffin was also fired for making a stupid mistake, and you could easily argue that was done for art. By the way, Kathy Griffin has not repeated that mistake. Roseanne has had another twitter incident since her firing. Whoopsy.
Obviously diversity doesn't help to sell anything, because too many movies and shows promoting diversity flop. So at best, they're just as succesful as movies and shows that don't.
ABC never expected a previously left-leaning tv show to be as pro-Trump as it was. Which was hardly. And if you had been paying attention, you'd know they were already trying to get rid of the show before that twitter fiasco.
I never portrayed myself as a victim. You're a typical whining snowflake, though. Yes, I went there. You were asking for it.
The last three Marvel franchise films centered around a solo character:
Black Panther - $1.3 billion
Thor Ragnarok - $850 million (superior film)
Spider-Man Homecoming - $850 million
Diversity makes money with a competent product. Instead of articulating that it doesn't, you go the identity politics route with the snowflake nonsense. You couldn't back that up either, not that you'd try. Saying that a billionaire like Soros has an agenda to make money is snowflakey? It's just one diversion after another with you.
Two posts ago you told me to google what YOU think Soros' agenda is. Yes, that is actually how stupid you are. Yet you had no problem replying again, but of course you still didn't explain it. You want me to google it for you so you know what to say. That way you can continue dribbling on yourself while screeching like an autistic person.
Soros IS trying to make money, but not in the naive way you think he is. He destroys entire economies. The profits of some little movie that rely on expensive promotion and high ticket prices is nothing to him. I'm advising you to Google it for yourself, because I don't want a tiresome discussion on a MOVIESITE with some nitwit. Shouldn't you think for yourself anyway, instead of taking my word for it?
Good luck dealing with the reality of this world!
Diversity sells a product to more people. It only helps a product. It does not hurt a product except with extreme racist bigots who can't stand people of a different color being represented. So if you agree with me that those racist bigots are not a large percentage of the population, then it's obvious diversity helps to sell a quality product. But again, it does not raise a product's quality by itself.
Going on and on about agendas and George Soros is Alex Jones identity politics nonsense that has no bearing on reality. When George Soros passes away, diversity is still going to be a thing in tv and movies... because it sells. Then you will have to find a new boogeyman to blame for your imaginary problems.
Nothing imaginary. You just choose to ignore Soros' very public connection to Hollywood and organisations like BLM (what profitable products do they sell???)
Lol! Going to see a movie because there are non-white people in it is no better than NOT going to see a movie because there are non-white people in it! Luckily most people don't care about race like you do. An agenda does not help sell a movie. It only annoys people. I see no statistics that prove that movies with white males are less succesful. Diversity sells except when it's a bad movie, huh? So basically diversity doesn't help sell anything. Good movies with diversity sell simply because they're good.
It's obvious you know nothing about making movies. All you seem to do is get upset about people with a different political view (which you know nothing about either). One has to wonder what you're doing on a moviesite...
"Luckily most people don't care about race like you do. An agenda does not help sell a movie."
You're saying two diametrically opposed things in two subsequent sentences. If no one cares about race, then no one would care if the lead and cast is diverse or not.
Nothing diametrically opposed at all. Most people won't go see a movie because of the race of a character, so having a racial agenda won't help sell more tickets.
shareI agree with that. They go based on if it's a good movie. But then you say "It only annoys people." If people don't care about race when watching a movie, then why would they notice a race based agenda and get annoyed by it?
shareBecause agendas are obvious as hell, especially if they use it in the promotion of a movie.
shareBut the only way you only notice the agenda is if you noticed and felt it detracted from the movie. You can't say it's only about agenda when the definition of the agenda is race. They are one and the same.
shareBeing annoyed by an obvious agenda
that happens to be about race is not
the same as giving a flying fuck about the race of a character.
Ok, so can a movie with diversity exist without an agenda or do all films with minorities in prominent roles have agendas in your book?
shareNo idea where you get the idea that I think all films with minorities in prominent roles have agendas. A pretty ridiculous assumption.
shareI'm asking YOU. I'm trying to understand what YOU mean by a film with an racial agenda because you really haven't done a good job making any distinction from race. What is a minority represented film without an agenda as opposed to one that has an agenda?
shareWhen I say agenda I mean agenda, when I say race I mean race. It's pretty clear. I think YOU need to read the discussion again, because dlancer and I were talking about
studios purposely putting diversity in their movies and selling it as a political move. If you're reading more into that, then that's your problem. I'm not going to play into that.
Playing into what?
It sounds what you call "agenda" are films that are specifically targeted for minority markets and you aren't the target audience. So I don't know why you're complaining.
I'm not going to play into your racebaiting game.
No, it's definitely not just minority specific markets.
I wasn't "complaining", just disagreeing with dlancer that intentional diversity sells more tickets and more likely annoys people. Yes, agendas annoy me
and my response is to simply ignore
those movies. Satisfied?
[deleted]
Why are you being such an a-hole? You don't even know when someone's on your side. I wasn't even talking to you. I was explaining to dlancer the money is not where he thinks it is. You talk about "libtards", but I can't mention Soros?
Soros matters because he's behind a lot of these diversity policies and organisations like BLM. He's got connections with networks making these shows. Are you as dumb as dlancer? Maybe don't talk about shit you don't know anything about.
Maybe comment on the shit show that’s doomed to fail instead of blaming the boogeyman.
Because it WILL.
Just because it worked for two implied fruitcakes on “Modern Family” doesn’t mean every show that follows such a formula will be a hit.
This show had a built-in fan base they’ve ALREADY isolated with their bullshit. So any analogy to other leftist crap is irrelevant.
Their “You’ll see! You’ll see!” will be replaced rather rapidly with “fuck you, you RACISTS are to blame for its failure, not us!”
We can all pretty much guarantee that.
I actually agree with you for the most part (sorry, not with the namecalling).
But Soros is no boogeyman. His connections to all these organisations are on the internet for everyone to see. And I'm not just putting the blame on him. I also made no analogy, just explained to the other guy where the money's really at. Obviously they don't care about what the public wants.
Well he obviously had no sway with Marvel seeing as the LGBT community was “disappointed “ that the Valkyrie’s lesbian backstory was completely left out.
Good riddance.
They probably didn't want to push it too far. But you don't think those superhero movies have an agenda when they turn Norse gods into black guys?
Whatever they do, there's always something to whine about for the chronically offended.
Not quite, but inevitably they did make a Beatles film centred around minorities ('Yesterday'), where the role is played by a British-Indian who's the only person who remembers The Beatles' music.
shareOne of them is Latina, the other looks Mediterranean and the oldest one looks half black half white! That in itself just made me roll my eyes. The mother is/was white. So are they all from a different father?
It's just too much PC nonsense stacked on a pile of already too high PC nonsense.
Of course they're from 3 different fathers. Their mother was a strong independent "womyn" who don't need no man (snaps fingers in the air like a sassy black woman) and enjoys sleeping with 10 different strangers every week... because that shit's empowering, and shit.
shareAgree, 2 of 3 are ugly
shareAw you poor thing, I'm so sorry that all the leads aren't white enough or straight enough for you.
shareI think you totally missed the point, the reboot is pandering to a audience that’s only a small minority instead of continuing on from the original series with the original actors, and the Charmed reboot is now PC with its diversity garbage.
The reboot is shit compared to the original series, adding PC nonsense destroys the franchise even more.
[deleted]
I do hate when self righteous PC activists climb up on their moral high horses and imply people are non inclusive or hateful just because they happen to care about the characters.Got a lot of that on the Doctor who board.I doubt there's a single sexist,racist or homophobic person on this board.Just people who are tired of studios not giving a crap what the fans want because their to busy pandering to this gender or that race.
I've said this before and i'll say it again.Shoehorning ethnicity's,genders and sexuality's into already established characters where they didn't exist before is the laziest and easiest form of diversity.There is zero creativity or originality in it.It's essentially Hollywood's way of saying "Hey we don't want to make the effort so were gonna throw you these hand me down characters instead".
[deleted]
I couldn't care less about being 'pc', I'm sorry that the race/sexualities/ethnicities of fictional characters doesn't make me foam at the mouth and have a fit. That crap is the least of my worries. And for the record I don't expect this reboot to be anything less than shite, I hope I'm wrong and it has something going for it, but I won't hold my breath. I could understand being upset if they were changing the race/sexuality of pre-existing characters, it would be like making Blade white. But this isn't Prue/Piper/Phoebe/Paige so I really don't see how it matters.
share