Now you all know what REAL cultural appropriation looks like - The Acolyte (2024) Discussion

[–] JaqenHgar (702) 21 days ago

I suggest we all pool our resources to develop time travel so someone can return back to 2012 and slap the shit out of George Lucas before he sold the rights to Disney...or at least convince him to not allow KK to carry on the legacy.

reply

[–] fc31 (4849) 21 days ago

George Lucas did nothing wrong, 400 million is 400 million.

Marvel was not run by KK, the same is happening, I think the problem is with Bob Iger.

reply

[–] JaqenHgar (702) 21 days ago

Fair, but did George really need that $400m? Probably not.

reply

[–] fc31 (4849) 21 days ago

Nobody NEEDS $400 million, nobody needs to live in a huge mansion, nobody needs butlers, personal chefs, personal assistants and drivers, nobody needs to eat a meal costs more than $3000 in a french restaurant, nobody needs to wear a tailored suit costs more than $15,000 dollars, but you wouldn't say no to those, would you?

reply

[–] rateater (9532) 3 days ago

i think he wanted to open up some museum. not sure what happened.

reply

[–] fc31 (4849) 3 days ago

That is what people say, sound better than "I sold out".

reply

[–] HolyWars (58) 21 days ago

$4.05 Billion was the sale price.

reply

[–] fc31 (4849) 21 days ago

I thought it was $400 million, but you are right, that seems to be the actual number.

reply

[–] johnmiller (3592) 3 days ago

As said in this thread, Lucas sold Lucasfilm to Disney for $4.05 billion. That included everything made by Lucasfilm, including "Star Wars," "Indiana Jones," etc.

reply

[–] fc31 (4849) 3 days ago

I think he was like "You think I did a bad job with prequels, you don't know what a bod job is, I recommended Kathleen Kennedy, you just wait. Disney will be on their knees begging to sell it back to me for 4 dollars ..."

reply

[–] Tam87 (274) 19 days ago

return back to 2012 and slap the shit out of George Lucas before he sold the rights to Disney.

I used to post on the old imdb and I remember telling everyone how bad a decision it was that Lucas was selling Star Wars to Disney, and no one could understand why I thought that.

I told them that Disney doesn't have the 'edge' to make proper Star Wars films. Disney makes safe films, kids films. Disney could never have green lit the original 77 movie in a million years (they would've wanted the Jawa's to be heroes because they could sell them as dolls).

reply

[–] fc31 (4849) 21 days ago

They don't give a damn about star wars franchise, or whether they are wrecking it, they only care about their agenda, it is not the faults of the writers they were just writing things to please producers, producers produce things Disney wants, all roads lead to Bob Iger.

If all franchises under Disney are all doing the same things, it had to be him. At this stage I think we can rule out incompetence.

And it is not just Disney, even they are pushing the hardest, I think there is a consensus among movie studios.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (7272) 19 days ago

It's nothing but a gay, stinking, rainbow-smeared shadow of what it used to be...

I don't think anyone who's watched the first couple of episodes could honestly claim this.

There was absolutely no gay aspect shown whatsoever.

reply

[–] fc31 (4849) 19 days ago

Well, some are begging to differ: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwTkxQcn3Vo

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (7272) 19 days ago

I'm not going to watch some YouTube video but if you tell me what was actually gay in the show I'll be happy to consider if I maybe missed something...

reply

[–] fc31 (4849) 19 days ago

The main cast admit it is gay in an interview in the video.

They probably have seen more.

They further said:"Nerds are gay" and "Original star wars is gay because of C-3PO"

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (7272) 19 days ago

Well maybe. But like I said, there's nothing in the first couple of episodes at all.

I mean, I've seen shows where they push gay characters almost instantly - I'm thinking that Michael Keaton drugs series - plus things likes Fargo, Outer Range, but there's nothing like that at all.

reply

[–] fc31 (4849) 19 days ago

If you check IMDB, all casts appeared for more than 2 episodes are female, if that is the case for the season, then there is no other possibility.

But I think they are trying to do it more gradually.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (7272) 19 days ago

mmm, I wouldn't read too much into that. Tmdb lists the two main guys in all eight episodes:-
https://www.themoviedb.org/tv/114479-the-acolyte

Maybe they won't be but they're certainly going to be in at least the next one, so IMDb is wrong.

But still, I don't get you - Are you complaining about it having too many women or about it being gay? It's the gayness (or rather lack of) I was addressing...

reply

[–] fc31 (4849) 19 days ago

From what I gathered so far the show is a lesbian love story, so the whole show is gay, but they have entire season to build up to it.

I think the critics usually get to see the first 4 episodes, if I am right then it won't be long before we see it happening.

The show is female oriented, that is abundantly clear right from the beginning, so what we are addressing here is whether it is gay.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (7272) 19 days ago

Well who knows what comes to pass, maybe.

But as I initially said there is nothing "gay", no "stinking, rainbow-smeared shadow" shown in the first couple of episodes so I'm not sure who'd be begging to differ with that.

Plus, if you've watched the first couple of episodes, I'm not even sure where this lesbian love story would come from...

reply

[–] fc31 (4849) 19 days ago

But it is a gay show, your comment did imply it was not.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (7272) 19 days ago

I can only reiterate there is absolutely nothing "gay show" about it in the first couple of episodes.

If you have an issue that the show runner is gay then that is a different matter and you are going down a path I cannot follow...

reply

[–] fc31 (4849) 19 days ago

I don't have an issue about lesbians in TV series, especially if they are hot and making out, the only issue I have would be if they are just not hot.

Anyway when I know the show was gay and you were saying otherwise, I was just letting you know what I found out, and if you have problems in that direction then I tried to warn you that you might be disappointed.

PS: I have no idea if the show runner is gay or not.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 19 days ago

>I don't have an issue about lesbians in TV series, especially if they are hot and making out, the only issue I have would be if they are just not hot.

Why would that be an issue? Speaking generally.

reply

[–] fc31 (4849) 19 days ago

I am guessing you are a woman, that makes explaining that concept somewhat more difficult.

I can only say if you don't understand then you don't.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 19 days ago

No. I understand attractive women. But I don't watch TV shows just to see attractive women. I watch it for plot, writing, dialogue.

Do you think depicting a lesbian or a woman who isn't attractive is somehow... woke?

reply

[–] fc31 (4849) 19 days ago

I watch for the stories too, but beautiful women are a bonus.

I don't think it is a coincidence that most movie stars are attractive people.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 19 days ago

Okay... as I asked: Do you think depicting a lesbian or a woman who isn't attractive is somehow... woke?

reply

[–] fc31 (4849) 19 days ago

If you thought a good story and there were gay people in it, then good.

But if you start with an agenda then try to fit a story around it then it is woke, for lack of a better word.

I think most recent Disney shows are in the later category, and they are openly saying it in TV interviews, that the fact they are promoting an agenda, and they are hoping by keep pushing it people will eventually accept it, they are even willing to lose money over it.

That is saying something in a capitalist world.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 19 days ago

Right, but I was specifically focusing on where you claimed you had an issue with a lesbian in a show purely if they're not hot.

reply

[–] fc31 (4849) 19 days ago

And what I am saying is that has no relationship with whether a show is 'woke'.

reply

[–] Aries (782) 19 days ago

Once AI advances enough in the next few years or a couple of decades at best, people will start making their own versions of shows, including SW, Game of Thrones alternate ending / last season etc

When that happens, there will be a whole lot of stuff that will be based purely on good old fashioned talent, without any political leanings or lecturing whatsoever. Then we'll be able to enjoy good takes and series that focus on plot, storytelling, acting etc without being annoyed by the kind of garbage shows like this serve up.

That and hopefully, the pendulum will start swinging so we get to a point where rubbish like this isn't churned out by the Hollywoke dipshits who mistake it for entertainment because they'll have learned their lesson and try to make stuff that the silent majority want to see, like they used to up until 10-15 years ago.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 19 days ago

TV series have always had political overtones to their narratives. And Star Wars is not the only modern franchise that exists.

reply

[–] CaptBeefBlower (130) 19 days ago

But there's a difference between having a certain message or theme in a show that is conveyed by the plot and actions of characters - potentially being the entire artistic purpose of the production - and casting actors/creating characters based solely on their essential characteristics to signal the political position of the creators, usually leading to the over-representation of certain groups, and the under-representation of others. Sometimes there's also a background of identity politics point-scoring and the denigration of certain groups deemed to be acceptable targets.

So why not have a central theme of "black people/LGBTQ people/women are equal and deserve equal rights" nowadays? Because we all already know this, these groups already have equal rights and the theme has been done to death. The influential films and TV shows on this subject, like In the Heat of the Night, were made and absorbed into the culture decades ago. So instead we get this unsubtle and facile political messaging which doesn't change anyone's mind or provide any insight at all. All it does is distract from the story, make a nonsense of the story or, sometimes, get used as a lazy substitute for characterisation, motivation and plotting. Why does the villain do bad things? Because he's a racist/sexist white man. Why is the hero good? Because she's female/black/gay. Showing that people are bad because of characteristics that they didn't choose and can't change is bigotry, and even at a low level it eventually gets irritating, as does lauding certain other people for their essential characteristics.

Whether or not it's "woke" depends on your definition of the word. But this fad is most definitely lazy, overdone, intrusive and unproductive. The adding of identity politics-related messaging doesn't make a show important or allow it to effect change. It's merely virtue-signalling by the creators, and it always has a cost.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 19 days ago

Sure. There's bad, clumsy and in-your-face political messaging. But I was objecting to the claim that political messaging, social messaging in itself is some modern phenomenon. It isn't.

reply

[–] CaptBeefBlower (130) 19 days ago

Yes, there's certainly nothing new about political content in films and TV shows, whether it's partisan or neutrally presented. However, I think this kind of meta-messaging via the casting/essential characteristics/insertion of political content not relevant to the show is a fairly new phenomenon from the past five or so years. I don't even think diverse casting is a problem in itself. It's when it's forced, irrational or done to provoke that it becomes a problem. It's too much like current politics - things are done to "own" the other side rather than done on the basis of their merits.

reply

[–] Darren (1189) 3 days ago

There's a key difference between infusing your entertainment with a moral, ideological, or political message, and making the entertainment come in a very, very distant second to pushing the message. As I've said elsewhere, woke messaging is not the only kind that's guilty of this: explicitly Christian movies have the exact same problem, just a different message.

When you are message-driven, instead of prioritizing plot, character development, and all the other things that go to make good storytelling, you skew the whole thing, and usually end up making the same kinds of mistakes. Rather than letting the message definitely, but unobtrusively play out through the story, never overwhelming the entertainment, the writers become preachy and very in-your-face. The plot suffers because the writers aren't nearly as concerned with it as they are with pushing the message. The heroes suffer because, as characters who have to represent the "correct" worldview, the writers are afraid to give them human flaws, and redemptive story arcs, and all too often make them unrelatable Mary Sues, not to mention blatant author self-inserts. The villains, as representatives of wrongthink, often go way over the top and become laughably cartoonish caricatures.

And of course, the biggest difference, when you bottom line it, good entertainment that promotes a message is thought provoking, makes you question your assumptions, and consider different ideas and points of views you may not have before. The bad sort -- which The Acolyte most definitely is -- tries to tell you what the correct opinions and beliefs are.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 3 days ago

I'm sure it is. Acolyte looks like trash.

Your life will be healthier for you if you stop caring about Disney. Truly.

reply

[–] Darren (1189) 3 days ago

Oh I don't much care about Disney. I cancelled my Disney+ subscription when they fired Gina Carano for wrongthink. I won't give my money to organizations that demand ideological conformity and punish dissenters. I consider Disney Star Wars to be pastiche, not canon. I haven't seen more of The Acolyte than what I've caught on YouTube clips, but that little bit looks awful, and more importantly, awful because it's so overtly political, and written by hacks who want to push an agenda, not tell a good story.

Disney ruined Star Wars, so I tuned out a while back. I'd like to believe the franchise could be rescued someday, but I won't hold my breath.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12878) 19 days ago

I'm rather enjoying hearing that those greedy fools in Hollywoke are quaking in their boots over AI making movie-making available to the average Joe, because it would completely destroy the monopoly they had over film-making for decades. What worries me is they'll use their political connections to put a chokehold on AI usage immediately, similar to how people formed mainstream newspapers to control the flow of information right after the printing press was invented in Renaissance Europe.

I made a suggestion to dad that one thing people could do with AI in a few years is make a parody film called "The High Republic," that shows Cheech and Chong dressed as drugged up Jedi, going on a drug romp through the Star Wars galaxy on a spaceship that looks suspiciously like Cheech's Lowrider, getting into all sorts of trouble and surviving through pure dumb luck. That, and getting other people/aliens high would be a comedy bonus. Could you imagine how funny and popular such a film would be? Plus it would make KK mad :D

reply

[–] Aries (782) 5 days ago

Haha I'd watch that C & C film with pleasure!

As far as throttling the AI goes, they might be able to do it initially, but I think the AI versions themselves will be far too many in number and beyond the scope of control after a certain time. Don't know how it'll all pan out, but having remakes and alternate versions of various shows, movies and genre would definitely have some good options for those of us sick of the garbage KK and her like churn out.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12878) 4 days ago

It's true. It doesn't seem to matter how much the Powers That Be try to control things, sooner or later, to quote Leia, "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Plus, people are sick and tired of the monopoly Hollyweird has over film-making, not just indie film-makers, but everyone else nowadays. It's not fair that they get to push their twisted ideologies and have all the resources at their disposal, but nobody else does. Small wonder indie film studios start in the first place, but they are forced to piggyback on advertising firms owned by larger Hollyweird studios, as well as the Ratings System (which is also owned by Hollyweird) and they have to follow certain rules, or the major movie theater chains can easily be told by a competing studio in Hollyweird not to show what their film, killing its wider release.

It would be nice to see someone with different ideals (who can make the films they want instead of following these stupid DEI rules) who can finally compete with that messed up town on the west coast for real, to truly make them pee themselves and gnash their teeth when someone outside their control can make a blockbuster film without their help, and earn more money than their stupid woke projects ever do.

reply

[–] SolarisPatchwork (233) 3 days ago

They'll make that tech beyond illegal. For "trust and safety."

reply

[–] tvfan (9859) 19 days ago

It seems that this show is between a 4 or 5 on the woke meter.

https://checkifitswoke.com/the-acolyte/

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12878) 18 days ago

I remembered seeing a website similar to that which ranked movies on wokeness. "The Last Jedi" was the top wokest movie on the website, hehehe.

reply

[–] Sparky (2402) 5 days ago

Nice site! Gonna use that thing. Hope you're well bud.

reply

[–] tvfan (9859) 5 days ago

You too. A while back someone here posted two links to similar sites, I think that was one of them.

reply

[–] CraigC (7347) 19 days ago

More proof that everything woke turns to shit. Literally.

reply