Sigh. Honestly looks underwhelming. I was expecting bigger and better than the original miniseries. Some of those scenes are clearly filmed on sets.
shareLooks like an episode of “Supernatural” LoL
shareI'm relieved they finally have some diversity in a Stephen King adaptation.
shareI'm relieved they finally have some diversity in a Stephen King adaptation.
It has nothing to do with showing how 'woke' they are and 'virtue signalling' might be a nice buzz word but it means nothing.
It has to do with how much representation matters, which is a ton.
Having tv shows and movies that are diverse make them interesting to a broader audience.
It has nothing to do with showing how 'woke' they are and 'virtue signalling' might be a nice buzz word but it means nothing.
It has to do with how much representation matters, which is a ton.
Having tv shows and movies that are diverse make them interesting to a broader audience.
Well obviously period pieces should be accurate. But in modern times, there should be modern representation. And by modern I mean the last 80-100 years, not just since 2005 lol
shareI was speaking in general terms. In my own writing, I am, I think, reasonably diverse, having minorities and females as both villains and heroes. My piece on kindle is a post-apocalyptic yarn set in the post-2000 USA, and the USAF security units are the chief military force surviving. They have females serving so it wasn't a stretch at all to include them in the story.
Likewise, as I said earlier, I have racial and ethnic minorities as both good and bad guys, so I practice what I preach.
Where I might be a bit unusual these days, the villains are Marxist fanatics. Too many writers try to be PC and have the bad guys as neo-Nazis, or other members of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy and that gets old really fast.
Forced diversity is never interesting. It's quite boring.
shareQuite so.
shareMaybe if you don't like diversity. The rest of us are good.
shareI don't like forced diversity.
shareSo you like diversity even when it's forced and everything else is missing?
No story, no interesting characters but we have diversity, yey. If that's your kind of story that you like, i'm sorry for you.
Who said the story or characters would not be interesting? That's a weird disconnect you have there.....
shareThe history of other woke productions.
Like ... let's say ... Ghostbusters?
That was terrible lol
Exactly, so you have a very good example where wokeness and diversity are pushed without any other qualities.
A good example of good propaganda and wokeness plus a bit of diversity is in The Queen's Gambit.
It has enough woke moments but overall i wasn't bothered by those. And that's because the show is amazing in all other areas. And the woke moments I have to admit were pretty subtle.
And that's the right way to do it, not in your face without any other qualities, not pushed down our throats but subtle and without becoming obnoxious - in which case most of us will reject it.
But the movie was not bad because it starred women.
Maybe you should go back and re read what all I posted because this seems to have taken a weird turn somewhere.....
Right, it wasn't bad because it starred women. It was bad because that was the only purpose of the movie ... and that it's my point: if your only reason to make a movie is to check some items from the woke list and nothing else, then the movie IS going to be bad.
And sometime when the changes are too many and all in that direction it can be a sign that someone wants to woke checklist.
Ghostbusters had behind a strong franchise and was bad due to "we only need to checklist" - that could happen with this one as well. Could.
A lot of movies are remade though. And most of them not as good as the original. The remake of Roots was not great either.
It wasn't said they remade the movie for the sole purpose of making the main characters female.
> Changing the ethnicity of Larry and the gender of Ralph and Ratman doesn't make me angry, but I stil don't see the point of doing it.
Replying two months later, three days before the release date ...
Looks like there are now a few more changes. From the IMDB full cast list, it seems Judge Farris has been replaced by a female Judge Harris. There are numerous minor characters here who were trimmed from the book for the 1994 miniseries or who never appeared directly in the book at all. Harold's mother and sister are both in this miniseries. And a few characters we've never heard of before -- Sofia, Dr. Biswas, Dr. Sylvia Wen. On the other hand, no Dietz, Denninger, or Starkey.
I also note that, at least from the list of character names, they seem to have removed the military element that was in the novel. Not one person with a title of rank, or even a credit as an anonymous "Soldier." And, Glen Bateman is in only one episode out of nine.
Also, the impression I've gotten from the trailers and such is that Stu is a somewhat different character; at least, he seems more extroverted and sure of himself. But admittedly trying to infer that from pre-release clips is like reading tea leaves.
I recently watched Peacock's "Brave New World" miniseries, *very* loosely based on Aldous Huxley's novel. So loosely that I think it would have been fairer to the viewers if they'd given it a different title and merely said it was inspired by Huxley's book. I'm getting the feeling we'll see the same thing here. If nothing else, cutting Glen's role down that much changes quite a lot. Although I suppose Harold might get fairer treatment than in 1994, but I doubt it for other reasons.
And I agree -- the stench of woke virtue signalling is pretty strong.