|
|
Post by ClockworkOcean on Jun 12, 2022 9:09:03 GMT
Why would anyone trust a company? You trust artists. They're the ones who give a shit about delivering good content. Companies literally exist to profit off of you. By "trust" I refer only to the reasonable expectation that a company won't allow or actively ensure the vandalism of an established piece of art in the interests of a political or ideological agenda; the absence of any reason to assume that this is a likely outcome. In 2013, there was no reason to suspect that the BBC were about to do what they've done to Doctor Who because despite the myriad of ways in which they'd mishandled the show throughout the first 50 years of its existence, they'd never before sought to repurpose it as a one-sided propaganda vehicle. Now that there's a precedent for this, the possibility of it happening again is likely always going to be a worry for fans to whom the thought never even occurred nine years ago. Companies decide who to hire, and have the power to filter out artists who won't deliver ideologically partisan propaganda in place of honest storytelling. Artists who might otherwise have delivered good work can have their hands tied by corporate diktats, as happened with Steven Moffat and the BBC from 2014 onwards. Whether we're discussing Doctor Who, Star Wars or Star Trek, none of these disasters have been the result of independent artists being left to their own devices. The companies that own the rights to these properties have engineered these situations, often on the basis of a misguided view that capturing a new audience of woke ideologues would be a profitable move, and sometimes because individuals in positions of power (such as Disney's corporate president Karey Burke) are true believers themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Jun 13, 2022 10:59:22 GMT
A/ What good image does Disney have left? What being founded and named after an anti semite, psycho anti communist, rip off artist? Bullying grieving fathers? B/ How did all of these other series and films, like John Carpenter and Kurt Russell's collaborations, True Who, Supernatural, all endure for decades and have tremendous success, despite the people involved having much more extreme political views to one another from being communists to Ayn Rand fans? C/ That Disney lied about Gina Carano, stating that her posts denigrated people based on their culture and ethnicities and called her an anti semite? Quite frankly she had a right to f*cking sue them for that. D/ That she was blacklisted? E/ That these people were so vindictive they tried to make it so that she couldn't even appear at conventions? Also on top of that, this all began because Gina Carano refused to put her support behind BLM and her pronouns in her bio. That is why the SJW twats targeted and bullied her and smeared her as a bigot, and then it escalated from there. So what was she to jump to their every whim? What if she finds it creepy to list your pronouns (it is. It's actually one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen. Imagine if I wrote "Burrunjor licensed hetero" in my description? Would be no more stupid.) What if she hates BLM? That's her decision and absolutely no one has a right to force her to go along with their opinions. BTW the same thing happened to the Ducky from Lucifer, Aimee Garcia. She also hated BLM and didn't want to pledge her support to them, whilst the rest of the cast of Lucifer did. The SJWs then similarly started smearing her as a bigot and demanded she be fired. However the makers of Lucifer it seems were adults and had what's the word? A backbone and didn't cave. The very idea that anyone here could be on the side of the crooked, evil company, and support modern day McCarthyism is laughable. I think you just like be contrarian in this case. It's the only explanation? A - Walt Disney has been dead for 56 years. I don't know what grieving fathers you're talking about. B - I already answered that. Disney's success as a company is not relevant to their right to let go of an employee for not agreeing to represent them in the way they choose to. Every company has a different imago. Some are open, some specifically want to appeal to certain people to the exclusion of others. I'm not here to say that Disney is right or wrong to appeal to certain people only. That's their decision, and they live with the consequences. Much like how kids companies don't like employees swearing online, Disney doesn't like employees saying right-wing stuff online. Maybe that's wrong. But that's not the point here. The point is that Carano made a decision to directly go against her company's policy. She was told "we don't like that here". She should've gotten the message, left, and then done and said whatever she wanted. But she stuck around to earn the money they gave her and still misrepresented them. That's grounds for firing. C - Yes, I agree with that. She has the right to sue them for that. That doesn't make her a heroine. D - Blacklisted implies that she doesn't get any work. That's factually wrong. She is still employed and still makes content. She is only avoided by companies who either also have a left-wing, non-inclusive to all imago, or companies who just don't want to risk dealing with someone who can't take a hint. E - Lmfao. I bet she got a good laugh out of that one. 1. Disney stopped a man whose son died at the age of 4 from putting a Spider-Man picture on his grave. (Spider-Man was the boys hero.) It's there in the link. We always knew they were money grubbing creeps, but that took them into the level of the lawyer from the Simpsons trying to stop children singing copyrighted Christmas Carols. 2. What your arguing for is the right for big companies to fire someone based on petty politics and dislike, rather than because they did their job. Gina's opinions were not putting the company in danger. They were at most in danger of annoying a tiny percentage of their audience, who they pandered too at the expense of the majority. Your also overlooking the fact that said minority started the fight with Gina Carano. They started to attack her because she wouldn't pledge her support to BLM like the other sheep in the Mandalorian cast. Also as I pointed out other shows have had people with differing political beliefs behind them from True Who to Supernatural, and have done a lot better than the Mandalorian. PS I might add that Buffy is another example believe it or not of people of different political groups being involved. Emma Caulfield (Anya) is a staunch Republican yet that never seemed to bother the others? God when the Mandalorian runs a less tolerant set than Joss Whedon, you know something is wrong. 3. Never said it does make her a heroine? Still answer me this, if her behaviour was such an embarrassment. Why not just say why she was fired? Why lie and make out it was worse than it was? Could it be because Disney know the majority would react negatively if the actual reason was given and could lead to a serious backlash that would actually affect sales, so making out she is a racist can win everyone around? 4. Yes she is blacklisted. Only independent companies will hire her. That's exactly what happened to actors like Lee Van Cleef in the 50s. He was blacklisted for having left wing beliefs, and as a result no big company would work with him. He subsequently had to flee to Europe and get jobs with independent companies. He managed to carve out a niche for himself there, and maybe Gina will do the same, but that doesn't mean that opportunities weren't denied to them, that they didn't have to work twice as hard as other actors, that they weren't stabbed in the back by people that were their friends (like Gina's cowardly, lowlife agent) and that their careers weren't limited entirely for reasons that had NOTHING to do with their acting. 5. I don't know why she would? These same people who didn't want her there had already managed to get her booted from a high paying job on a tv show? Why is it so ridiculous that they could also get her banned from a convention? Had the people behind that convention caved, then word would have spread "don't bring in Gina, there will be too big a backlash." PS as it is there are already conventions that wouldn't hire her. Big Glasgow Comic Con for instance. They actually fired me from a job writing for them, because in their private chat I said that Gina Carano didn't deserve to get fired. They told me I had deeply upset people with that remark by defending a notorious anti semite! I told them to tell me one example of something she said that was anti semitic and they refused. To be fair they also hated me because I said that Missy was an utter abomination too, but either way if the cucks behind that comic con fly into an NPC rage at the mere mention of Gina Carano's name, I don't think it's likely that she would be invited. I might add the cucks behind Big Glasgow Comic Con also destroyed articles I had written for them too. Quite funny in a way. Gina Carano compared them to Nazis in terms of intolerance, and their way round that was to resort to the digital version of burning things people they didn't like had written. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2022 20:47:17 GMT
Great final episode. Really well made and what the show should have always been. I'm glad they brought back the actress who played Luke's aunt in the prequels. She's lovely.
|
|
|
|
Post by rushy on Jun 25, 2022 16:24:01 GMT
Mixed bag for me. I'm very glad Neeson reprised Qui-Gon, but it felt obligatory rather than natural, and they gave him nothing interesting to say.
The duel is good as long as you ignore Obi-Wan randomly letting Vader live. It's like a microcosm of the whole show - things are good as long as you ignore certain facts.
|
|
