Most Hurtful Franchise Downfall

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

What's 'woke'? I've literally only seen it being used as some sort of insult before.

But, yeah, I agree. Bond feels kinda soulless these days.

It's kind of like SJW. It has no real meaning and exists just to describe something that you don't like.

 

[Spirit]

What's 'woke'? I've literally only seen it being used as some sort of insult before.

But, yeah, I agree. Bond feels kinda soulless these days.

Woke is like agenda politics.

Like hiring only women or people of colour to prove a political point or prove that you're a diverse product that includes everyone when it isn't necessary or is even detrimental to the product itself.

Mostly woke at the moment is white male bashing. Doctor Who is really bad for that where white males are either to blame for everything or just stupid and bumbling.

The new Birds of Prey film was apparently bad for it too.

 

[Cfrock]

For me it's got to be Harry Potter. I grew up with the franchise and it meant a lot to me as a kid who always liked reading to suddenly have everyone reading and sharing this magical fantasy. It helped foster my love of writing, alongside Discworld, and it will always mean a lot to me.

So it is a bit hurtful to see JK Rowling use it as a vehicle to try and make herself look good to the liberal elites she hangs around with. Things like saying Dumbledore is gay when there's nothing to support that, and then deliberately not making him gay in the movies about his relationship with the man he supposedly loved. Things like saying Lupin's lycanthropy was an AIDS metaphor and not thinking about the implications of Fenrir Greyback deliberately spreading his 'disease' to children in the face of the stereotype of gay men as child predators. Things like saying the house elves were included to point out the horror of slavery but making house elves not only love servitude but actively fight to preserve it when other characters try to free them.

"Are there Jewish wizards at Hogwarts?"
"Yes, I just invented one right now for this tweet so I don't look anti-Semetic."

"Did Hogwarts forbid sex between the older students?"
"No, in fact Hufflepuff house had frequent group masturbation sessions."

"When did you decide Voldemort's snake was actually an Asian woman?"
"As I was writing the script and thought I'd get brownie points for including an Asian woman, but I'm going to lie and pretend it was always my intention, even though it makes no sense and the character does literally nothing in the entire film."

And then we have the fact that everything after the books has been dog****. I think the Deathly Hallows is **** and shows many of the problems the later stuff has, but the Cursed Child was unbelievably terrible. Rowling didn't write it herself, but she signed off on it and declared it all canon, which shows she has no respect for her own creation. Then she went and wrote the Fantastic Beasts movies which are terrible. The first one is a mess constructed from mistakes, but the second one s one of the worst movies ever made. If you liked the second one, please don't talk to me. I don't care what you think about anything.

It's gotten to the point that I just want her to **** off and let the series die. Everything she does just makes it worse.

I also want to say I disagree with what's been said about the Bond franchise.

First off, the series isn't 'going woke'. If the mere inclusion of a black woman is a deal-breaker for you then you may want to have a word with yourself. Was it 'woke' when Judi Dench was cast as M? Was it 'woke' when Naomi Harris was cast as Moneypenny? Bond has always been political, even going back to the books. It's kind of hard to not get political when you're making thrillers about an agent of military intelligence. Ever seen Tomorrow Never Dies? The World Is Not Enough? Quantumn of Solace? The Living Daylights? Octopussy? There's always been politics in Bond. If it's suddenly an issue now then being political isn't what you don't like, it's the specific position you think the film is advancing that you have a problem with.

Second, I don't think the series has become 'soulless' recently. Casino Royale and Skyfall are two of the best, most earnest Bond movies of them all and were made by teams that had real passion and vision for what they were creating. Quantumn of Solace is nobody's favourite, but it does something almost no other Bond film has done and develop the character. You have to care to try that, even if it didn't work for everyone. Spectre is the only soulless one in decades, and that was because Sam Mendez didn't want to do it. Spectre is dog**** and I wish it hadn't happened, but one film out of four, two of which are two of the most beloved films in the entire franchise, hardly means Bond is getting stale and banal. It means they ****ed up on one film. It happens.

As for Daniel Craig saying he would rather kill hmself than play Bond again, everyone's said that they'd like to stop at one time or another. Connery did, Moore did, Brosnan, did, hell, even Lazenby did and he only did one. Being Bond is a big job, it consumes over a year of your life through filming, promotion, promos, interviews, press conferences, etc. It's hard work and that's what Craig was talking about. But then he gets some time away from it, he unwinds a bit, he comes back again. If he didn't want to be there he wouldn't be. It's that simple.

I don't know if No Time To Die will be good. It might be dog****. The title song certainly is. But one bad film hardly means Bond, as a franchise, is soulless. Two might damage it, but the franchise will likely go on another hiatus and come back years down the line revamped and reinvigorated. It happened with Goldeneye. It happened with Casino Royale. If it needs to, it'll happen again because the people behind it genuinely care for it. If they didn't it would have ended decades ago.

 

[Castle]

What's 'woke'?

At the risk of going off topic, 'woke' is when you start believing that everything wrong with the world is because of the patriarchy, blaming everything on racism and sexism, develop misandry and start hating on white dudes, begin virtue signaling and pandering to lgtbqrsuvwxyz+-&*/, "people of color" and other so-called "minorities" and begin self-identifying as a moonbeam.

It's a common reason why so many entertainment franchises are failing. Ever heard the phrase, "Get woke, go broke." Franchises that start doing this quickly experience a tremendous drop in sales.

Gillette
Ghostbusters (2016)
The National Football League
Marvel Comics and the Netflix shows
DC Comics and the movies
The Dark Tower movie
Birds of Prey movie
Numerous colleges and universities that tolerate or encourage sojus agiprop
Star Trek Beyond and Picard
HBO's Westworld
The Boy Scouts of America
Numerous online journalistic outlets, Gawker.
Agents of Mayhem
Mass Effect: Andromeda
Battlefield V
Lawbreakers

... It's a long list.

A lot of examples also go broke simply because they're trash. After all, being woke is a hallmark of the intellectually and creatively bankrupt hacks who are producing our entertainment these days. Many of these hacks have even gone so far as to accuse audiences of being racist or sexist or phobic for not buying it. But it is often pretty clear that woke politics also has a hand in franchise failure if it's not the main contributing factor.

By and large people don't mind gays, blacks, women or whatever else in their movies and stuff. But by and large people are also turned off by bigotry and gross pandering and empty virtue signaling. Nobody wants to go to a movie, read a book or comic, watch a show or whatever to be pandered to and insulted.

 

[Castle]

I also want to say I disagree with what's been said about the Bond franchise.

First off, the series isn't 'going woke'.

Yeah, but they're thinking it.

All this talk of "OMG 007 is a chick!!" might just be marketing fluff, but that their going with that during their promotional run is indicative of media spin and controversy (empty virtue signaling) and if that's all they have to talk about at present then the movie must not have much of anything else going for it.

Of course it's already pretty much been outright stated that it amounts to nothing. A female agent took the 007 designation while Bond was away. Big deal. So what was the point of all the hype?

Was it 'woke' when Judi Dench was cast as M? Was it 'woke' when Naomi Harris was cast as Moneypenny?

No, because both women are good actors who are perfectly suited to the part and nobody made a particularly big deal out of it, the casting doesn't come at anyone else's expense, and because why not?

Just writing a non- straight white male thing on its own doesn't qualify as "woke."

Second, I don't think the series has become 'soulless' recently.

I'm glad you think so, but many people are feeling the fatigue set in, including the actors and producers.

FWIW, I pretty much agree entirely with your assessment, @Cfrock .

I hope No Time to Die is a hit. But you're right. If it bombs, they'll regroup and try harder with the next one after a brief hiatus like has happened before.

It's a little disconcerting that they're flirting with woke marketing, however. I hope it isn't indicative of the final product. There is a lot of potential in writing a female opposite to James Bond, who can hold her own against him and is a femme fatale in her own right. I'd love to see a good buddy cop rivalry/uneasy alliance come from it, and a legitimately strong female protagonist to boot.

I just hope they don't @#$% it up. And if her character is only there to earn diversity points, then it was all for naught then wasn't it?

 

[Cfrock]

All this talk of "OMG 007 is a chick!!" might just be marketing fluff, but that their going with that during their promotional run is indicative of media spin and controversy (empty virtue signaling) and if that's all they have to talk about at present then the movie must not have much of anything else going for it.

All that talk is coming from tabloids and 4chan, though. The movie itself isn't being marketed with a black woman as 007 front and centre. Hell, Barbara Broccoli even explicitly stated that a woman would and should never be James Bond when asked about it. The trailers and promos aren't focusing on the new 007. She's there, sure, but not so much it drowns out everything else. I don't see why you think the producers were hyping her up because they really haven't been.

 

[Rubik]

'

 

[Sheikah_Witch]

@Castle Uhm, okay. So, did Battlefield V really " develop misandry and start hating on white dudes" just because they had women in their game?

 

[el :BeoWolf:]

Doctor Who definitely went down for me. Eccleston, and Tennant were fantastic. I've watched all their episodes. Smith wasn't bad but he was brought down by his companions I felt. Capaldi was also great but again everyone else was pretty lackluster bringing him and the series down. Smith and Capaldi I missed quite a number of episodes. I was excited for Whittaker but yet again the doctor herself was pretty cool but everyone else I just feel no investment for. I loved Rose, Martha, Donna, even Rory and Amy were alright and River was great too but every companion since just feels boring. Only companion I can name after Rory and Amy is Clara.

@Sheikah_Witch

Spoiler: About Battlefield V

Battlefield V was presented as HISTORICALLY ACCURATE yet a crippled woman is the poster face of the game which is a huge red flag they don't care about historical accuracy. Woman were never on the front lines and it's a pretty safe bet if you were missing your arm, you're not getting into the military. Another issue I've heard supposedly was having blacks and whites together in American units. This would never happen as segregation permeated the American military.
There might be other examples but the issue is

the developers don't actually care.

 

[Cfrock]

Battlefield V was presented as HISTORICALLY ACCURATE

But it wasn't. Dice were clear from the very start that their goal was an inclusive vision of World War 2, just like they had with World War 1 before it. Their goal was never to accurately recreate WWII, just like the Battlefield franchise never has since it began. It's a heightened, over-the-top WWII, and this time they added women, black people, and disabled people to further a design goal Dice has had for most of its games in recent years.

If historical accuracy is genuinely what people are upset about then they don't care about Battlefield as much as they pretend to. If historical accuracy isn't what they're upset about, it's pretty easy to figure out what is.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

But it wasn't. Dice were clear from the very start that their goal was an inclusive vision of World War 2, just like they had with World War 1 before it. Their goal was never to accurately recreate WWII, just like the Battlefield franchise never has since it began. It's a heightened, over-the-top WWII, and this time they added women, black people, and disabled people to further a design goal Dice has had for most of its games in recent years.

If historical accuracy is genuinely what people are upset about then they don't care about Battlefield as much as they pretend to. If historical accuracy isn't what they're upset about, it's pretty easy to figure out what is.

When have any of the popular World War 1 and 2 video games ever been historically accurate? They're video games designed with a distinctly arcade-y feel.

 

[Castle]

Uhm, okay. So, did Battlefield V really " develop misandry and start hating on white dudes" just because they had women in their game?

No. But it did feature an enlisted woman fighting on the front lines... with a mechanical peg leg.

Look. There's movie inspired WWII with an action bent, arcade-y gameplay, and somewhat loose historical accuracy on occasion.

Then there's depicting a woman soldier with a disability as though that actually happened. It's pushing credulity. Over the top, arcade-y or not, COD has never been a fantasy version of WWII. In Wolfenstein something like that wouldn't be out of place (although that's a game series that did develop misandry and start hating on white dudes). COD has even sold itself on its ZOMG!! REALiZM!! at least when it comes to its cinematic focus.

In short, it's pandering and disrespectful. Some people can't help but feel as though such a thing only ever happened for the sake of attention.

If historical accuracy is genuinely what people are upset about then they don't care about Battlefield as much as they pretend to. If historical accuracy isn't what they're upset about, it's pretty easy to figure out what is

You're talking about gameplay, not historical context.

Has any COD game set in WWII ever had mechs? Ray guns? Magical occult artifacts? No. COD tries to imitate WWII movies by creating a cinematic look that makes it feel like you're playing one of those movies. To do that, the series has stuck as close as possible to an accurate historical presentation of WWII. Female soldiers with peg legs are a far cry from that.

Thing is, if DICE really wanted to put a chick in their WWII game it's not like there isn't plenty of WWII history to draw from to do that. Russian snipers, French resistance spies, female aviators who were so insanely badass that they flew aircraft unarmed through enemy territory.

But one can only suppose that portraying women who actually fought in WWII would be too HARD. Simpler to just come up with some ridiculous character that exists solely to drum up controversy and clicks before release to get people talking about your game because your banal cash-grab product certainly won't entertain anyone on substance or merit.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

No. But it did feature an enlisted woman fighting on the front lines... with a mechanical peg leg.

Look. There's movie inspired WWII with an action bent, arcade-y gameplay, and somewhat loose historical accuracy on occasion.

Then there's depicting a woman soldier with a disability as though that actually happened. It's pushing credulity. Over the top, arcade-y or not, COD has never been a fantasy version of WWII. In Wolfenstein something like that wouldn't be out of place (although that's a game series that did develop misandry and start hating on white dudes). COD has even sold itself on its ZOMG!! REALiZM!! at least when it comes to its cinematic focus.

In short, it's pandering and disrespectful. Some people can't help but feel as though such a thing only ever happened for the sake of attention.


You're talking about gameplay, not historical context.

Has any COD game set in WWII ever had mechs? Ray guns? Magical occult artifacts? No. COD tries to imitate WWII movies by creating a cinematic look that makes it feel like you're playing one of those movies. To do that, the series has stuck as close as possible to an accurate historical presentation of WWII. Female soldiers with peg legs are a far cry from that.

Thing is, if DICE really wanted to put a chick in their WWII game it's not like there isn't plenty of WWII history to draw from to do that. Russian snipers, French resistance spies, female aviators who were so insanely badass that they flew aircraft unarmed through enemy territory.

But one can only suppose that portraying women who actually fought in WWII would be too HARD. Simpler to just come up with some ridiculous character that exists solely to drum up controversy and clicks before release to get people talking about your game because your banal cash-grab product certainly won't entertain anyone on substance or merit.

But the Call of Duty games never follow real people. None of the male characters (beyond more famous historical figures quotes between linear action set-pieces) are based on real people involved in World War II. If you think that female characters from World War II should be drawn from real people, shouldn't male characters be subjected to the same standard?

 

[Cfrock]

@Castle Why are you talking about COD? The question was about Battlefield.

Battlefield has always been more arcade-y than the likes of COD, Brothers in Arms, and Medal of Honour. Battlefield has always used WWII (or WWI, or modern war, or space wars) as a backdrop to contextualise huge battles. It's never pretended to emulate reality.

And then saying there are plenty of real world female soldiers they could use, yeah, there are. But why can they put in as many fictional men as they want without anyone even thinking about it, but when they put a woman in suddenly you need her to be a depiction of a woman who existed in real life? You're holding female characters to a different standard, and then arguing that it's the devs being sexist.

You're assuming Dice put female characters in Battlefield V for the purpose of generating outrage, which is paranoid as hell. Dice has always been pretty left-leaning. Do you seriously think they sat there and said "How can we piss people off to get attention for our game, which is an entry in one of the most popular and successful multiplayer shooters in the market?" or do you think it's more likely they sat there and said "Hey, women play games, too, so let's put some female characters in our next big dumb action game"?

It's like when people complained that Dishonored: Death of the Outsider was 'going woke' because you played as a black woman. But that black woman was a major character in the world. She was an important character in the previous game's DLC, she's been in some of the books and comics, and she's a major supporting character through the entirety of the second game. So what's more likely? They put her in as part of some agenda to push white men out of the industry, or they put her in because she's part of the world and connected to characters they want to tell stories about?

Not everything is a left-wing conspiracy.
_______

This has gone really off topic from what this thread is about. I feel as a mod I shouldn't be helping push it further off topic, so I'm not going to reply to this particular point here anymore. I'd ask others follow suit and move this discussion elsewhere so this thread can get back to talking about things we once loved that have since broken our hearts.

Might be an interesting topic for its own thread though, just saying, if you want to make one

 

[Castle]

If you think that female characters from World War II should be drawn from real people,

no

Why are you talking about COD? The question was about Battlefield.

My bad. All these derivative shooters look alike.

Battlefield has always been more arcade-y

You're talking about gameplay again.

But why can they put in as many fictional men as they want without anyone even thinking about it

Why do you two think that every character must be based on a real life person?

You're holding female characters to a different standard, and then arguing that it's the devs being sexist.

Wrong.

which is paranoid as hell.

how ignorant of you to say. You are misunderstanding my point and assuming things I've never alluded to. Don't call me paranoid just because you can't understand what I'm getting at.

Dice has always been pretty left-leaning.

I guess that's why they chose to pander instead of putting forth some basic effort to represent real women who actually helped win the war.

Which for that matter, in the actual game they did! The campaign features a chapter that portrays a decent story lead by a female character and it is all very honest and tasteful, doesn't reek of pandering, and actually does itself credit.

So then why did they ever bother with the ridiculous peg legged chick?

Do you seriously think they sat there and said "How can we piss people off to get attention for our game

I wouldn't be surprised if that's exactly how it went down in some marketing meeting.

Controversy sells. Especially if your product doesn't have anything else to offer.

or do you think it's more likely they sat there and said "Hey, women play games, too

or, what they could have said was, "Hey, let's honor some of the women who helped win the war by basing a few characters and levels off actual brave women who actually fought in WWII. We could do research, conduct interviews, and be really honest and thorough so we don't come off looking like bellends for making some grossly inaccurate portrayal."

instead, they gave us peggy sue the one legged commando.

Besides, if "women play games too" was their reason for doing this, then the only reason they did it was to make $$$ off of women by pandering to them. In which case, they don't care about women. They care about their money.

It's like when people complained that Dishonored: Death of the Outsider was 'going woke'

Dishonored is another game people panned for going woke. I haven't played it and I know nothing about it so I can't say. It's certainly true that a lot of times pieces of media get unfairly panned for going woke when they really haven't. Even if they fail it's likely due to something else. It is an unfair stigma that entertainment media has to share now that no-talent hacks have made this a thing.

And that is unfortunate. I for one enjoy seeing anything other than straight white dudes in my entertainment, if only for the sake of something different. Now every time an artist portrays something other than that they have to get hit with speculation that they're just trying to pander. People remember a time when this wasn't a thing. A time before political correctness when you could put a chick or a black person or whoever/whatever into your story and nobody would think anything of it.

You yourself, @Cfrock are calling Rowling out on her pandering. So why is it suddenly acceptable when DICE and EA do it? While I understand and agree with your point on Rowling %100, Harry Potter isn't even remotely based on real life or anyone or anything that has ever actually happened. So why can't Rowling just make stuff up on the fly just because she didn't commit it to print yet outside of Twitter?

But you know, I'm not even against women being portrayed this way in a cynical cash grab that is already disrespecting WWII by profiteering off a deadly conflict. DICE isn't really interested in doing WWII any justice, so why not?

Long and short of it is, these games tanked, lost money, and now the online modes are ghost towns. Maybe being woke had something to do with that. Maybe it was just because they're dull games that people quickly got bored with.

Since the mods are now declaring that everyone give up on this particular point, however relevant to the topic it may be, I might as well.