Tim Sweeny says to get dem poltiks out his games!

[Draco Dracul]

My worst fear is given how badly woke culture is going, that it could eventually convince the suits they need to tone back on it, which really wouldn't help the LGBT cause.

I mean in general the suits are the ones that have been stopping it going forward even as acceptance of LBGT groups reaches new highs because A) the suits are large older conservatives, and B) they want that Chinese money despite the fact that going all in on China basically gutted Paramount.

Is it, really? Stuff like marketing the lesbian kiss in TROS as a victory is meaningless when they knew they were gonna cut it in overseas markets. That rubs me the wrong way.

Right, and do you think the guys patting themselves on the back for giving a less than token gesture that bas been beaten out by literal children's cartoons are doing it because they believe in the cause? They're only doing it at all because support for gays and lesbians in the 18-48 demographic (the most profitable one) is sky high and film is badly lagging behind tv in representation.

I think we may be on fundamentally different wavelengths here. I was talking about how the push-back to the LGBT themes could lead them to scale it down. And it's not even really the LGBT themes. It's the fact modern corporate entertainment has very low expectations so that once something is hit with negative feedback, any little thing is open to getting criticized.

In film they can't scale it down because it's nonexistent. I mean in Thor Ragnarok they cut as scene implying Valkyrie is Bi allegedly for time even though it was all of 30 seconds.

[Captain Crimson]

My worst fear is given how badly woke culture is going, that it could eventually convince the suits they need to tone back on it, which really wouldn't help the LGBT cause.

I mean in general the suits are the ones that have been stopping it going forward even as acceptance of LBGT groups reaches new highs because A) the suits are large older conservatives, and B) they want that Chinese money despite the fact that going all in on China basically gutted Paramount.

Is it, really? Stuff like marketing the lesbian kiss in TROS as a victory is meaningless when they knew they were gonna cut it in overseas markets. That rubs me the wrong way.

Right, and do you think the guys patting themselves on the back for giving a less than token gesture that bas been beaten out by literal children's cartoons are doing it because they believe in the cause? They're only doing it at all because support for gays and lesbians in the 18-48 demographic (the most profitable one) is sky high and film is badly lagging behind tv in representation.

I think we may be on fundamentally different wavelengths here. I was talking about how the push-back to the LGBT themes could lead them to scale it down. And it's not even really the LGBT themes. It's the fact modern corporate entertainment has very low expectations so that once something is hit with negative feedback, any little thing is open to getting criticized.

In film they can't scale it down because it's nonexistent. I mean in Thor Ragnarok they cut as scene implying Valkyrie is Bi allegedly for time even though it was all of 30 seconds.

Well, look to TV then. In STD they terminated the only gay couple. And while that's a landmark, I would still prefer a tight story.

[Draco Dracul]

My worst fear is given how badly woke culture is going, that it could eventually convince the suits they need to tone back on it, which really wouldn't help the LGBT cause.

I mean in general the suits are the ones that have been stopping it going forward even as acceptance of LBGT groups reaches new highs because A) the suits are large older conservatives, and B) they want that Chinese money despite the fact that going all in on China basically gutted Paramount.

Is it, really? Stuff like marketing the lesbian kiss in TROS as a victory is meaningless when they knew they were gonna cut it in overseas markets. That rubs me the wrong way.

Right, and do you think the guys patting themselves on the back for giving a less than token gesture that bas been beaten out by literal children's cartoons are doing it because they believe in the cause? They're only doing it at all because support for gays and lesbians in the 18-48 demographic (the most profitable one) is sky high and film is badly lagging behind tv in representation.

I think we may be on fundamentally different wavelengths here. I was talking about how the push-back to the LGBT themes could lead them to scale it down. And it's not even really the LGBT themes. It's the fact modern corporate entertainment has very low expectations so that once something is hit with negative feedback, any little thing is open to getting criticized.

In film they can't scale it down because it's nonexistent. I mean in Thor Ragnarok they cut as scene implying Valkyrie is Bi allegedly for time even though it was all of 30 seconds.

Well, look to TV then. In STD they terminated the only gay couple. And while that's a landmark, I would still prefer a tight story.

30 Seconds will not make or break the pacing of a 2 hour film (there are gags, some of which hurt the tone of the film, that are longer than that), and what it says to me is that they are unwilling to state a character of any relevance as being anything other than completely straight. So instead of having a the first LGBT character in the MCU be a major supporting character that is going to be used in a fair number of future movies, it's just some guy. While the tenancy to kill off gay characters in Television has it's own problematic history, I don't actually see much chance of snap back on it because A) there is too much history of having prominent LGBT characters, and B) live action TV is still made almost entirely for the domestic market.

[JoeThree]

My worst fear is given how badly woke culture is going, that it could eventually convince the suits they need to tone back on it, which really wouldn't help the LGBT cause.

I mean in general the suits are the ones that have been stopping it going forward even as acceptance of LBGT groups reaches new highs because A) the suits are large older conservatives, and B) they want that Chinese money despite the fact that going all in on China basically gutted Paramount.

Is it, really? Stuff like marketing the lesbian kiss in TROS as a victory is meaningless when they knew they were gonna cut it in overseas markets. That rubs me the wrong way.

Right, and do you think the guys patting themselves on the back for giving a less than token gesture that bas been beaten out by literal children's cartoons are doing it because they believe in the cause? They're only doing it at all because support for gays and lesbians in the 18-48 demographic (the most profitable one) is sky high and film is badly lagging behind tv in representation.

I think we may be on fundamentally different wavelengths here. I was talking about how the push-back to the LGBT themes could lead them to scale it down. And it's not even really the LGBT themes. It's the fact modern corporate entertainment has very low expectations so that once something is hit with negative feedback, any little thing is open to getting criticized.

In film they can't scale it down because it's nonexistent. I mean in Thor Ragnarok they cut as scene implying Valkyrie is Bi allegedly for time even though it was all of 30 seconds.

Well, look to TV then. In STD they terminated the only gay couple. And while that's a landmark, I would still prefer a tight story.

30 Seconds will not make or break the pacing of a 2 hour film (there are gags, some of which hurt the tone of the film, that are longer than that), and what it says to me is that they are unwilling to state a character of any relevance as being anything other than completely straight. So instead of having a the first LGBT character in the MCU be a major supporting character that is going to be used in a fair number of future movies, it's just some guy. While the tenancy to kill off gay characters in Television has it's own problematic history, I don't actually see much chance of snap back on it because A) there is too much history of having prominent LGBT characters, and B) live action TV is still made almost entirely for the domestic market.

How is it "problematic" to kill gay characters? If you want gays on TV, some are going to die. I don't bitch every time some black guy dies on a show I like. I'm just glad it happens first to get it out of the way.

[Draco Dracul]

My worst fear is given how badly woke culture is going, that it could eventually convince the suits they need to tone back on it, which really wouldn't help the LGBT cause.

I mean in general the suits are the ones that have been stopping it going forward even as acceptance of LBGT groups reaches new highs because A) the suits are large older conservatives, and B) they want that Chinese money despite the fact that going all in on China basically gutted Paramount.

Is it, really? Stuff like marketing the lesbian kiss in TROS as a victory is meaningless when they knew they were gonna cut it in overseas markets. That rubs me the wrong way.

Right, and do you think the guys patting themselves on the back for giving a less than token gesture that bas been beaten out by literal children's cartoons are doing it because they believe in the cause? They're only doing it at all because support for gays and lesbians in the 18-48 demographic (the most profitable one) is sky high and film is badly lagging behind tv in representation.

I think we may be on fundamentally different wavelengths here. I was talking about how the push-back to the LGBT themes could lead them to scale it down. And it's not even really the LGBT themes. It's the fact modern corporate entertainment has very low expectations so that once something is hit with negative feedback, any little thing is open to getting criticized.

In film they can't scale it down because it's nonexistent. I mean in Thor Ragnarok they cut as scene implying Valkyrie is Bi allegedly for time even though it was all of 30 seconds.

Well, look to TV then. In STD they terminated the only gay couple. And while that's a landmark, I would still prefer a tight story.

30 Seconds will not make or break the pacing of a 2 hour film (there are gags, some of which hurt the tone of the film, that are longer than that), and what it says to me is that they are unwilling to state a character of any relevance as being anything other than completely straight. So instead of having a the first LGBT character in the MCU be a major supporting character that is going to be used in a fair number of future movies, it's just some guy. While the tenancy to kill off gay characters in Television has it's own problematic history, I don't actually see much chance of snap back on it because A) there is too much history of having prominent LGBT characters, and B) live action TV is still made almost entirely for the domestic market.

How is it "problematic" to kill gay characters? If you want gays on TV, some are going to die. I don't bitch every time some black guy dies on a show I like. I'm just glad it happens first to get it out of the way.

It's not problematic because guy characters die, but guy characters tend to die at a higher rate than straight characters (even if we only look from the point where openly gay characters started regularly appearing on TV), and there is a tendency to have gay characters not actually be in relationships as compared to straight characters.

[JoeThree]

My worst fear is given how badly woke culture is going, that it could eventually convince the suits they need to tone back on it, which really wouldn't help the LGBT cause.

I mean in general the suits are the ones that have been stopping it going forward even as acceptance of LBGT groups reaches new highs because A) the suits are large older conservatives, and B) they want that Chinese money despite the fact that going all in on China basically gutted Paramount.

Is it, really? Stuff like marketing the lesbian kiss in TROS as a victory is meaningless when they knew they were gonna cut it in overseas markets. That rubs me the wrong way.

Right, and do you think the guys patting themselves on the back for giving a less than token gesture that bas been beaten out by literal children's cartoons are doing it because they believe in the cause? They're only doing it at all because support for gays and lesbians in the 18-48 demographic (the most profitable one) is sky high and film is badly lagging behind tv in representation.

I think we may be on fundamentally different wavelengths here. I was talking about how the push-back to the LGBT themes could lead them to scale it down. And it's not even really the LGBT themes. It's the fact modern corporate entertainment has very low expectations so that once something is hit with negative feedback, any little thing is open to getting criticized.

In film they can't scale it down because it's nonexistent. I mean in Thor Ragnarok they cut as scene implying Valkyrie is Bi allegedly for time even though it was all of 30 seconds.

Well, look to TV then. In STD they terminated the only gay couple. And while that's a landmark, I would still prefer a tight story.

30 Seconds will not make or break the pacing of a 2 hour film (there are gags, some of which hurt the tone of the film, that are longer than that), and what it says to me is that they are unwilling to state a character of any relevance as being anything other than completely straight. So instead of having a the first LGBT character in the MCU be a major supporting character that is going to be used in a fair number of future movies, it's just some guy. While the tenancy to kill off gay characters in Television has it's own problematic history, I don't actually see much chance of snap back on it because A) there is too much history of having prominent LGBT characters, and B) live action TV is still made almost entirely for the domestic market.

How is it "problematic" to kill gay characters? If you want gays on TV, some are going to die. I don't bitch every time some black guy dies on a show I like. I'm just glad it happens first to get it out of the way.

It's not problematic because guy characters die, but guy characters tend to die at a higher rate than straight characters (even if we only look from the point where openly gay characters started regularly appearing on TV), and there is a tendency to have gay characters not actually be in relationships as compared to straight characters.

Eh, there's a lot more gays on TV than there are in real life as well, so them being disproportionately represented swings both ways.

[GreyICE]

Disney is the great king of virtue signalling, if anyone is. Have a very brief gay kiss in the background, or two guys dancing in a split cut. Remove it for the overseas market. Have a black character, have a female character, make sure their role is supporting. Franchises getting too big? Make a film starring a black man or a woman or whatever demographic check box it's getting obvious you're avoiding. Use that as a shield whenever you need to deflect criticism (like when your toy line skips having women, because you're not marketing the toys to girls).

It's immediately obvious that they have demographic focus groups and will pander to anything that they can use to maximize their profit and avoid any controversy with well-placed fig leaves. It's not so much that they're sexist or racist, it's just that they're happy to use and even encourage those attitudes, as long as they can make money.

[JoeThree]

Disney is the great king of virtue signalling, if anyone is. Have a very brief gay kiss in the background, or two guys dancing in a split cut. Remove it for the overseas market. Have a black character, have a female character, make sure their role is supporting. Franchises getting too big? Make a film starring a black man or a woman or whatever demographic check box it's getting obvious you're avoiding. Use that as a shield whenever you need to deflect criticism (like when your toy line skips having women, because you're not marketing the toys to girls).

It's immediately obvious that they have demographic focus groups and will pander to anything that they can use to maximize their profit and avoid any controversy with well-placed fig leaves. It's not so much that they're sexist or racist, it's just that they're happy to use and even encourage those attitudes, as long as they can make money.

All Leftists are just virtue signalling. There is no consistency to their positions anymore other than "Orange man bad".

[GreyICE]

... you just think "virtue signalling" is two words you can say that mean "other person evil", don't you?

[Draco Dracul]

Disney is the great king of virtue signalling, if anyone is. Have a very brief gay kiss in the background, or two guys dancing in a split cut. Remove it for the overseas market. Have a black character, have a female character, make sure their role is supporting. Franchises getting too big? Make a film starring a black man or a woman or whatever demographic check box it's getting obvious you're avoiding. Use that as a shield whenever you need to deflect criticism (like when your toy line skips having women, because you're not marketing the toys to girls).

It's immediately obvious that they have demographic focus groups and will pander to anything that they can use to maximize their profit and avoid any controversy with well-placed fig leaves. It's not so much that they're sexist or racist, it's just that they're happy to use and even encourage those attitudes, as long as they can make money.

All Leftists are just virtue signalling. There is no consistency to their positions anymore other than "Orange man bad".

If you didn't want people pointing out how shit the president is maybe y'all shouldn't have elected the Beast.