Skip Navigation

User banner
EightBitBlood @ EightBitBlood @lemmy.world
Posts
0
Comments
174
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Chloé Zhao has wrapped filming the pilot on the new ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ series, which is set 25 years later

    Jump

  • Hey - for what it's worth, I apologize for coming across as hostile.

    Admittedly, this conversation hits close to home, so I've been treating your words with more suspicion than they deserve.

    I understand if you don't want to continue the conversation, as understandably, I've made a pretty awful impression. But I do sincerely want to know what you mean by "inorganic representation" as I find the topic interesting to say the least.

    If you're willing to chat, I certainly am, and it won't be under any assumptions of mine from here out.

    Thanks for treating me with a better intention than I could.

  • Chloé Zhao has wrapped filming the pilot on the new ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ series, which is set 25 years later

    Jump

  • I agree! My point exactly was that OG Buffy is pretty "inorganic" when it comes to LGBTQ representation. As large parts of it felt forced in the original show.

    I used werewolf lover to lesbian as an example, simply because it was one of the more notable obvious shifts in the show that came off as forced.

    Willow raping her gf on screen is likewise the exact kind of horrible representation that I'm talking about. And it seems you agree that it would be nice to have stuff like that fixed in the reboot.

    I'm just unclear if OP would find these kinds of changes "too woke" or not.

    I'm certainly for more organic representation, but I feel making the new Buffy a bit more "woke" than it was is the only way to do that.

  • Chloé Zhao has wrapped filming the pilot on the new ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ series, which is set 25 years later

    Jump

  • Cool. I didn't attack anyone for using the wrong jargon.

    I DID explain one of several reasons I'm suspicious of their use of an outdated term. That is in no way an attack.

    Specifically, I made it clear that the use of LGBT is outdated, and that I personally find anyone claiming to be part of that community while still using outdated terms suspicious.

    To be crystal clear:

    I feel using "LGBT" gives off "hey fellow kids" meme vibes. Especially when it comes from someone who claims to champion inclusivity, it then becomes hard not to notice when they choose language that isn't. Apologies if that point came across as an attack.

    Using LGBT is a choice, so why was that choice constantly made instead of the more commonly accepted LGBTQ? This is my point.

    And the others I made are the same: a basic analysis of the OPs use of language.

    Which to me seemed suspicious when being "too woke" was a concern. Because that term means completely different things depending on who you ask. So I find it incredibly frustrating, and even more suspicious, that OP refused to clarify what they meant by it.

    Seeing as this show is already legendarily known for its "woke" content, I still don't see the point OP was making about worrying it would now become "too woke" for their tastes.

    It would be nice to know what they mean instead of needing to guess while being told I'm hostile for basing my guesses on OPs behaviour. If they aren't going to clarify despite my efforts, then am I not supposed to make assumptions about what they're saying?

    You know, the same way you have in thinking that I'm attacking anyone.

  • Chloé Zhao has wrapped filming the pilot on the new ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ series, which is set 25 years later

    Jump

  • Will do. And thank you for the suggestion. I explained why I had my assumptions to begin with for the goal of clarity, and to no longer make them assumptions. I'm not looking to start a fight, just a conversation.

  • Chloé Zhao has wrapped filming the pilot on the new ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ series, which is set 25 years later

    Jump

  • You're using the same vague baby language and poor argument structure as MAGA in describing the LGBT group you claim to be a part of. So yeah, I'm hostile.

    "Too woke" is something you failed to define, so I did, and now you don't like the definition I picked for your conversation. This is also MAGA behaviour, and makes me hostile.

    You used LGBT instead of LGBTQ or any other modern term. You claim you're about inclusion while making a consistent choice to exclude the other groups in the modern LGBTQIA+ namesake. LGBT is a term that's been outdated since the 90's. Which is also MAGA behaviour, and makes me hostile.

    Your behaviour very much suggests you're a bad actor pretending to be LGBT. If you want to know what my assumptions are, there you go.

    I'll take any hostility you show as proof I'm right. A real person would want to clear up an accusation like this, not get angry about it to distract from the points I made.

    Instead, If you actually want to discuss all this in a more constructive manner like you claim, you can do it right now by describing what "inorganic representation" is to you.

    I've literally done all the talking about whatever this point you're making is, so it would be great to hear what words you would use instead of me guessing them through a series of deductions.

    Because my deduction is currently that you don't care about this conversation as much as the shit you can stir with it.

    If you want construction, prove it. I'm down for the conversation.

  • Chloé Zhao has wrapped filming the pilot on the new ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ series, which is set 25 years later

    Jump

  • There are continually less old Buffy fans around in the future where new Buffy is being made. It would make less sense to cater explicitly to the older audience as there will be continually less of them around as the show goes on.

    Also, the original had LGBT characters that were handled with massive amounts of "inorganic representation" (werewolf-phile to lesbian is a hard pivot to say the least), so if you want less of that you should want less of the original show.

    Do you have any issues with the portrayal of realistic lesbian relationships and the problems it can cause in a mixed friend group? Situations like gay girls getting crushes on Buffy, and having to deal with her being straight, or her best friend getting a crush on her, and her having to keep it platonic would be a nice and realistic addition to the show in a way that would improve these characters over the basic LGBT shoehorning they got in the original series.

    When people talk about things that are "too woke," basic bitch gay relationships are immediately what they use as ridiculous examples. Snoop getting butt hurt about 3 seconds of lesbians in Lightyear is a great example.

    So imo if you want "organic representation" in Buffy, unstereotyping the LGBT characters in the remake would certainly make it better. But that would require making it "more woke" as the original show is what had "inorganic representation."

    So it kinda feels like original Buffy isn't a show you would like at all as it already has so much woke "inorganic representation" in it. I find it odd you would be so concerned about the remake having "inorganic representation" when that flaw is already so obviously present in the original.

  • Chloé Zhao has wrapped filming the pilot on the new ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ series, which is set 25 years later

    Jump

  • I'll be honest, with that attitude you'll likely hate it even if it is good. The world is getting younger, not older, so if media catering to younger audiences doesn't appeal to you for some reason, then you will not find much made for that audience appealing.

    Out of curiosity, was Kpop Demon Hunters too GenZ and woke for you? Because movies like Amazon's "War of the World's" are what's being made for your audience bracket. It's not woke, it's not GenZ, nothing in it really happens, so people won't really complain about it. It's also completely forgettable, and bad.

    So I'd be far more concerned that the new Buffy show becomes another bad and forgettably bland corporate IP rehash like Rings of Power, Young Sheldon, Charmed, War of the World's, and everything else that is coming out now. Because vocal audiences like you only chime up when something is vaguely woke, not when something is incredibly bad, mediocre, or stupid. So we're getting a lot more bad, mediocre, and incredibly stupid content aimed at adults, while kids are the only ones actually getting new good things. (Spiderverse, TMNT Mutant Mayhem, Lego Movies)

    Because in my opinion, the extreme mediocrity of safe corporate bullshit is ruining every IP it touches far faster than Gen Z is. So I feel your concerns about this show being bad because it might be "too GenZ or woke" incredibly misplaced. At worst, it'll just be bad to you.

  • Texas uses special session to push “discriminatory & harmful” anti-trans & anti-abortion bills

    Jump

  • Real question:

    If the goal is to change out the Dem leadership through more and more primaries -

    Then why not do the same with the GOP?

    If that is the work that needs to be done, why should it be aimed at the Democrats instead of the GOP who are the real problem?

    Why should we spend so much effort slowly reforming the good guys to do better instead of the same effort to just reform the bad guys?

    The GOP is such a mess of Swiss Cheese that the second Trump isn't holding it together, anyone progressive could likely succeed there by just giving them what Trump lied about: better wages, inflation control, rent control, universal Healthcare. You know, actual progressive policies.

    The entire conservative media system would eat itself without a political party to support, and it would be far better to split the GOP than the DNC with these candidates. (As the DNC already know how to do that themselves, clearly)

    Honestly, if Dems are only effective once their leadership is changed, then maybe that effort would be better spent on changing it for the GOP as they are the real problem. Better Democrats means the same problems with the GOP. Better GOP means no more problems.

  • MAGA Puts Wikipedia in Its Crosshairs

    Jump

  • Practicing due diligence to make sure Wikipedia's sources are legit isn't difficult. You can check the sources listed on every single Wikipedia entry yourself for bias. It's not like they hide their sources. That alone is what makes it so valuable. Anyone trying to push a narrative can easily see it sourced as bullshit.

    Kind of like how the article you linked is a worthless, factless, opinion piece about Wikipedia becoming "woke" due to the feelings of Larry Sanger being hurt. Nothing that article says is based on anything factual, and the only studies mentioned are wildly taken out of context.

    Wikipedia let's me do that analysis for myself, so I don't get tricked into thinking an obvious piece of propaganda is real.

  • Gavin Newsom mocks Trump with parody merch store—including $100 signed Bible

    Jump

  • Cool. So to clarify:

    • Newsom's strategy is to copy Trumps.
    • Democratic Voter strategy is to vote for Newsom and pray all he copies from Trump is campaign strategies.

    Remember Bernie and his horde of young male Bernie Bros supporters?

    Remember Mamdani and his horde of Republican supporters?

    Yeah. Dems just need policies that made these candidates popular if they want young male and Republican voters.

    Instead, they fight these candidates harder than any Republican.

    Maybe if Democrats want votes they should do more of what makes them popular, not what brings popularity to Trump.

    Until then, it's no surprise they're struggling with respect because they've done nothing but ignore what works for their constituents in favor of what works for Trump. Eventually there will be no difference in behavior at all, which is basically where we are now.

    Imo, the better strategy would simply be for every Dem to abandon the party, and instead register as Republican. Trump reformed the entire GOP in 10 years because they have no rules for who they'll let into the party. Seeing as there's far more registered Democrats in the country than republicans, and the GOP is a lot weaker towards reformation because of Trump, taking them over with progressives and progressive policies would just be putting condidates in place who don't lie to their GOP constituents.

    Honestly, if you want progress, Democrats should start a movement to abandon their party and reform the GOP into the organization it used to be. INCLUDING Democrat candidates. You want to take advantage of gerrymandering? Do it as the GOP instead of fighting them.

    This is basically what Russia did to the GOP and in its shape, it would not at all be hard to take it back. And once the GOP isn't all foreign agents promoting an media echo chamber working for a dictator, there's no more evil party the Dems have to fight.

    Taking on Trump from the outside has literally never worked. And in the last 20 years, the GOP has undone almost 100 years of American and Democratic policy.

    So take them over with non insane Americans, and the GOP bullshit ends.

    If you fight them as Democrats, they just get stronger, because Democrats just fight with words.

    Not that this will ever happen. But it's by far the best option America has for moving forward.

  • How the Richest People in America Avoid Paying Taxes | A clever new paper puts concrete numbers to the taxes paid by members of the Forbes 400.

    Jump

  • I'd really like to get one of those toilets from the original album cover for every billionaire to sit on comfortably each morning.

  • The umpire who picked a side: John Roberts and the death of rule of law in America

    Jump

  • Be an adult:

    List a single Democrat judge that has done this and how. Then compare it to the list provided by OP.

    This is called critical analysis. It will easily reveal a completely different answer than what you are implying.

    Since you've clearly never done this analysis yourself, you've likely trusted someone else to do it for you. Which allows you to be manipulated.

    Other people can't tell you these results if you are willing to just do them yourself.

    So do it here and prove you aren't just repeating what others told you.

  • The umpire who picked a side: John Roberts and the death of rule of law in America

    Jump

  • Trumps already done that with COVID. The US had 50% of the COVID deaths worldwide. Totalling well over a million American citizens. Which is more dead Americans than from all the wars we've ever fought in combined.

  • Appeals court throws out Trump's $500m civil fraud penalty

    Jump

  • Now do the trial that never happened.

    You know, the one with Top Secret Docunents in Trumps international hotel bathroom that anyone could access. Seeing as a single similar document being leaked sent Reality Winner to jail for over 5 years. Then why could Trump have boxes of these documents, and never see trial?

    If you care about law and order explain to me how the largest violation of national security ever will never see trial?

    You gonna hand wave away America's nuclear secrets in a Mar-a-Lago shitter as being safe for us because it's profitable to Trump?

    Respectfully, answer this question.

  • Israel Says It Killed a Hamas Commander. It Killed a Pulitzer-Winning Journalist....

    Jump

  • Show me as many pictures of this journalist with terrorist leaders as Trump with Epstein and maybe you could consider them close friends. Until then, you are exaggerating at best, or spreading clearly fake propaganda about a dead Pulitzer prize winning journalist at worst. If you aren't state sponsored, grow the fuck up.

  • Israel Says It Killed a Hamas Commander. It Killed a Pulitzer-Winning Journalist....

    Jump

  • Yes, that is indeed what a good journalist looks like.

    Especially one who won a Pulitzer for covering Palestinians. You know, the people in all those pictures. Almost like he needs to be around them to journal what's happening. You know, for good journalism.

    How fucking cooked is your brain on propaganda to think this indicates anything to the contrary?

    You think someone taking a picture in front of a Ronald McDonald statue means they work at McDonald's?

    Propaganda is easy to spot when it is this incredibly stupid. What's your excuse to not spot it?

  • Microsoft Still Can't Say How Much the ROG Xbox Ally X Will Cost Due to "Macro-Economic" Conditions, Despite Announcing Release Date and Availability Details(Leaked prices $549.99/$899 for Ally/Ally )

    Jump

  • Interesting strategy! And thank you for describing it in detail as well! If I sounded condescending at all, it was certainly towards Microsoft 😉 But you're right - that path is worth pursuing for that value proposition. It's a safer path than others as well.

    Agreed it's almost destiny that the futon will be dueced. But at least this approach could make things interesting 🤘

  • Microsoft Still Can't Say How Much the ROG Xbox Ally X Will Cost Due to "Macro-Economic" Conditions, Despite Announcing Release Date and Availability Details(Leaked prices $549.99/$899 for Ally/Ally )

    Jump

  • I agree this is clever, and a decent shot at evolving what an "Xbox" is. I just think it's spreading the brand thin when it's already been stretched far. While it would be very convenient and cool to have a certified Xbox machine, outside of CoD or Overwatch, there's not much software that makes the Xbox brand as a recognizable game service valuable.

    Basically, If all Microsoft has to offer on our Xbox PC's are CoD and Overwatch, then that is what the name "Xbox" will be worth. I would not say either of those games have a bright future, let alone one that's uniquely identifiable as "Xbox."

    So while I agree that Microsoft is making sure everything can be an Xbox, I disagree that will increase its brand value. I think, if anything, it will just further dilute the value of Xbox as a service or name that people relate to for games. If the only games offered are ones that have shrinking crowds, then what else is growing them that Xbox offers?

    Imo, more entry points into having an Xbox doesn't mean there's more of a reason to enter.

  • Microsoft Still Can't Say How Much the ROG Xbox Ally X Will Cost Due to "Macro-Economic" Conditions, Despite Announcing Release Date and Availability Details(Leaked prices $549.99/$899 for Ally/Ally )

    Jump

  • So in ten years Xbox won't exist as a brand at all? I agree. No need to take the bet.

    I think what you're describing is exactly what Microsoft is doing. Except I think it's incredibly short sighted from a business, consumer, and brand perspective.

    IMO, It's basically the brand equivalent of seppuku.

    With no functional distinction between Xbox and Windows, you just get the entirety of the Xbox ecosystem silently competing with all of Steam. But even worse: it's now just the word Xbox on Windows. And everyone really hates Windows at the moment. It's bleeding OS marketshare to Linux like nothing I've ever seen.

    So they want to put the entirety of Xbox recognition on a Platform (PC) that their console users won't be familiar with, and the OS they're integrating it with is actively losing users. Mostly to Linux. Which Steam has an entire OS built on top of that anyone can use for their games for free.

    So the consumer choice for PC users will be between:

    • Steam OS based on Linux for free. Runs all steam games and has a desktop mode for all other apps.
    • Windows 11 for $hundreds, smaller pool of games + worse performance.

    I don't think people are going to choose option 2 just because the word Xbox is in it somehow. Some might, but this is just HBO becoming MAX all over again, but without the escape plan of returning to HBO.

    Destroying a console AND brand just to compete with Steam with an inferior product is incredibly dumb, and incredibly Microsoft.