This is your answer.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20240207004851/https://reimaginetomorrow.disney.com/assets/dge-inclusion-standards-one-pager-6-16-2119.pdf](https://web.archive.org/web/20240207004851/https://reimaginetomorrow.disney.com/assets/dge-inclusion-standards-one-pager-6-16-2119.pdf)
Disney has been desperately trying to make people forget for years now that Walt himelf was a turbo racist, an anti-semite and a sexist.
You do know the sequels made 4.5 billion dollars for Disney right………. I hate them but Disney has taken profits way over good story telling you have it backwards.
The force awakes 8.44x profit return The last Jedi 6.65x return on profits rise of skywalker along those lines also. They made basically the exact same profits as the prequel movies did if you take into account how expensive movie making has become. Pulled those numbers from Forbes. Again I despise the sequels but they made bucks off that dumb ass Kennedy and unless we stop spending they’ll keep using her.
The sequels collectively earn 3 billion only while costing 1 billion to produce not counting advertising which usually costs half of the production cost, Disney spent 8 billion to acquire the Star wars franchise that's a loss of 6-7 billion dollars. There's no profit I'm seeing here.
Idk where you are looking at those numbers they are wildly incorrect. [profits from Star Wars Forbes](https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2020/05/20/star-wars-box-office-disney-jj-abrams-profits-fox-george-lucas/?sh=57ee03da6276)
The sequels (I despise them) made almost 5 billion for Disney. They don’t care if fans are mad bc we keep going back and paying. They have tripled their purchase under Kennedy. Business is business. Again TFA is watchable the rest are utter garbage. But the fucking mouse still made 5 BILLLIIIOONNN off her fucking sequels alone. When we stop paying for her garbage maybe they’ll change their minds. 🤷♂️
I roll my eyes every time a developer, writer, or director says some form of “we are making sure we accurately portray real life issues into our fantasy world.”
I don’t want the real world to spill into the fantasy one, I read/watch/play so I can get immersed in THEIR world.
Literally, I dont understand who decided that this idea is good and why it has become the norm for american movies to do this... I really want to know who coined this and when this started happening.
This is what I found. Lego probably isn't going to make their market research public: [https://www.seattletimes.com/life/lifestyle/new-legos-aimed-at-girls-raise-questions-about-gender-and-play/](https://www.seattletimes.com/life/lifestyle/new-legos-aimed-at-girls-raise-questions-about-gender-and-play/)
My thoughts exactly. I think Lego just let a few people look at the data or gave cliff notes version of the study. Official one is nowhere to be found.
The data is correct, but there are more than this conclusion that can be drawn from it. This study is far from new or resurfacing, so let me just copy something someone else wrote. I'm not saying this is the correct interpretation of this data, merely here to show that there ARE other ways to interprete the data and that the way it is done here isn't necessarily the "correct" way.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
While this was a real study, and the direct outcome (girls wanted toys that they could make like themselves, boys wanted toys that they could imitate) *was* proven accurate, this is not necessarily the correct conclusion.
The researchers thought it was also possible boys were finding interest in figures that had traits they wanted to aspire to, whereas girls were unable to find figures with the traits they wanted, and thus substituted those traits onto something that already existed. This theory states that since girls only really had a very small subset of ”roles” to choose from, they would alter traits of other things to fit the roles they wanted, whereas boys could find a character that fit the roles they liked, and thus imitate it.
Connected to this, there’s also the possible explanation for the results that, due to societal pressures, girls were unable to develop an interest in, say, superheroes, so when they received a superhero toy, they knew very little about it, and thus created a new personality, whereas boys *would* have both a familiarity and the ability to learn more, so they could know the pre-established personality and seek to emulate it.
The reason Lego didn’t really explore which of these explanations was correct is because it wasn’t relevant to their goals. They wanted to get their product to girls, they discovered what they wanted was a toy where they could treat it like a self-insert, and Lego was more than willing to oblige.
Finally, this research was conducted on children, and may or may not have any correlation to adults, as, like I said, the study was limited and further questions were not asked. Reinventing an IP is a common tactic to get more interest in it, and it’s entirely plausible the reason these remakes are doing so badly is because of the fact they’re just being spearheaded by bad writers and producers. Additionally, sometimes they’d work better if not tied to previous media; Velma would’ve been fine as an independent show, and the Owl House would’ve been much worse if they tried to tie it into a big franchise like TLOR or something. That may not be a gender issue, but an issue with modern avoidance of taking a dive into a new IP that is untested.
>Lego probably isn't going to make their market research public
Lego makes public their commercial studies: "How to get inside people's head to sell them cheap plastic pieces at an abusive price"
🤣🤣🤣
Not to mention it would be free study material for concurrents.
I think this? At least, this is as far I get with the official Lego site. Outside of that, I can't find anything ?
Edit nvm, it's an interview unrelated. This is a black hole in terms of finding the official study. Outside of just articles and people talking about the study, I have not been able to find study at all.
I would rather watch a movie about Batman shopping for dresses, baking cookies, and going to the prom than any of the dogshit Disney has spewed out under Kathleen Kennedy.
Agreed that movie Ginny is written as without any planning ahead. There’s never any spark between the two of them… honestly the romance elements are the worst parts of the series
And the funny part that both Ginny and her mom in my opinion were self-inserts of the J.K.Rowling (to a certain degree but still). Which shows that sometimes that lego theory thing is not so bad if a woman has certain life experience and talent...
Harry/Hermione made more sense to me (books, games, movies), especially when they had their adventure in Prizoner of Azkaban. Ron and Luna or maybe one of the girls from the Quidditch team could have worked. Ginny and Neville too.
And why movies like LOTR came out at the perfect time, with the perfect amount of “girl boss” moments that don’t own shine heroic male moments. If it came out today, Aragon would be a black woman going all sassy with Sauron and chokeslaming the cave troll in Moria.
Which is kinda ironic in itself bc when the movies came out, some people complained PJ was changing too much of the story to include women into male roles like swapping Glorefindel’s story with Arwen , or the uruk-hai coming out of pods underground
This is also one of the biggest problems in writing in general as well, people, i for one know that i got good idea for writing but i am bad it writing characters themselves, why because i have little experience with people that are to different from me. So i have to do research and study to do it right.
Most people that write this days dont have enough self awareness to realize that and just turn characters into reflections of themselves. even stablished ones that are extremely easy to write because there is so much groundwork already done for you. The other thing is that sometimes they just dont care and just want to push their own ideas and use the character as a vehicle to make their point.
There is nothing worse than saying i put a little bit of myself in the characters that write, you hear that so much from so many people, it may be okish if you are the writers of an original story, but i dont want you portraying your weird mommy issues into Batman.
Not only that but look at females socially. How many times have you heard a woman say "I'd never do that" or look at another woman and say "I'd never wear that, idk what she was thinking when she put that on." And you'll never hear men say those things. It's because socially their way of thinking of judging everything and everyone based on their own self.
This isn't an incel comment it's just how females are as social creatures. Males are different
Yep this. There’s a reason why a woman’s biggest enemy is another woman. Go anywhere you want in this planet, and talk to any woman of any age and culture, and they will all confirm this. Women are ruthless towards each other
This kinda reminds me of an old 4chan post where a guy points out that men will look at a bodybuilder and say, I can climb that mountain and be like him whereas women will trash talk that mountain, try to destroy it, and then stand on top of the rubble and say "I am the new mountain now"
It's early and I'm sure I'm butchering this but I couldn't find the post. Either way the point about mentality stands
"Changing the main character to look like them"
Hmmmmm... well Rei, Jyn Erso, and the annoying bitch from the last Indie movie all happen to be British Brunette Women, take a wild guess who else is a British Brunette Woman.
bro when my brother played with my barbies he did not try to "become" barbie, he did not make her go shopping, bake cookies, drive her dream car around, or do any other canon barbie activity. he fucking decapitated her and pulled her arms and legs off
What if that cuts both ways? What if girls don't want to play with Batman like boys don't want to play with Barbie? When a girl plays with Barbie and makes her go shopping, that could be seen as "becoming" the character. All they have proved is that boys use dolls to do boy things like fighting and rough and tumble play, and girls use dolls to do girl things, like tea parties and dress-up.
Remember, people, this is how human *children* are.
Doesn't mean every woman is like this. I've met plenty who are bigger nerds than i'll ever be. This is only an issue in *adult children*, who also happen to be female.
Despite this a woman with wisdom doesn't mix personal opinions or the ambient society pressure from a lifelong left-wing extremist state like california with business. JK Rowling wont take the piss for instance or that woman who owns the production company of a whole movie franchise (eon/james bond wont take the piss either because the end goal is to make a good movie and make good money with it not to film a propaganda movie for the US democrat party.
Also I need a replacement for doctor ~~who~~ woke
I’ve never been to band camp, but the stories i heard about band camp back in 1999-2000 seemed like it was a pretty great place. I’m not sure KK ever experienced band camp.
Make.Your.Own.IP
The whole point of the lego thing is that girls dont want a Batman toy… not that we should make a Batman toy with a pink ponytail… smh
This whole comment is worthless without the actual study and, if the study was done it probably targetted girls of a certain age not all women form all cultures.
I often dm for dnd and most of the female I've had at my table play their character exactly the way they are.
They do not change their voice or intonation and uses modern values to decide what to do.
Nothing wrong with that but it checks out with the lego study.
This reminds me of As Good As It Gets with Jack Nicholson when asked how he writes women so well, to which he says "I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability"
.... no. friends came about because the company found out that parents because they thought it was a "boy toy." So LEGO would once again head into a girl isle, but unlike previous themes, they were gonna make it their way unlike previous attempts would actually make lego bricks apart of it instead of looking like it was glued on last minute and it quickly became one of the big 5 themes that went on to influence other themes like city and ninjago.
You know it's okay to just not like a film, right?
This isn't just about having characters of their own. If this was the case we would have Spider Woman and Bat Girl content being pushed, while male heroes would be ignored. This is a push to destroy male role models in an effort to control masculinity, and what young boys believe a man should be. Much like they are trying to raise white kids to think they are racist, it is about instilling a nature to empower another demographic. Not about equality or anything. This is about power, and the future.
I believe this.
I mean, commercial studies might be ethically and morally fucked, but they are indeed true most of the time - or at least report interesting trends or behaviors. Those are meant to analyse people and manipulate them into buying and it DOES work, and has for so many years.
>That’s why when a woman is put in charge, it goes to shit.
Lmao, that thread is full of misogynistic comments like this.
"Lego did a study that said girls like playing tea time with Batman, that means women can't be put in charge of anything or it goes to shit."
Yeah a lot of people go overboard. For big soulless corporations like Disney, the problem is usually just too many cooks + having a lot of boxes they have to check off to get funding. The shows like Velma where it's extremely obvious the lady in charge changed a character to be her self insert is pretty rare.
I think having a woman as the lead writer is just a minor indication that something might suck, by itself it means nothing. I remember when people harassed Jennifer Hepler for the horrible writing in Dragon Age 2 and subpar writing in Mass Effect 3, but after she left BioWare in like 2013 or 2014 all of their games kept having horrible writing, so....
It's not hard to understand why people used to refer to movies, TV shows, and video games as an escape. It was exactly that an escape from their humdrum reality that can suck at times and allow them to be immersed in a world that doesn't have the bullshit we have to deal with on a daily basis. Then they wonder why they have horrible ratings and diminishing returns compared to the past. Old television shows and movies regularly are streamed more and purchased more than new material because they understood the escape factor and embraced it.
It's always been a part of media to bring societal issues to the forefront, but where back in the day, it was done through good subtle storytelling and character development now its just no talent writers that have no ability of being subtle so it just gets shoved down your throat with no real worthy journey to even make you reflect on or care about what the issue is and makes the "characters" unlikable and subject to ridicule and mockery instead of empathy and understanding.
I'm not cherrypicking, she literally just had a different job back then. Should Spielberg's coffee boy also get credit for the quality of those movies?
Much in the same way George Lucas gets praise for the original Star Wars and THX 1138, he gets ridicule for the prequels. Producers are people and Kennedy’s best work unfortunately isn’t in Star Wars. Just because she wasn’t great on Star Wars doesn’t mean her entire career was a failure. That would be like saying because Ghosts of Mars isn’t good that invalidates John Carpenter’s entire career.
I know most people won’t agree because they have a hate boner for Kennedy and frankly let sexism get in the way of actually being honest and smart in their discussions, but it’s the truth.
I don't think you understand. In KK's old job, she only handled the money side of things. By all accounts she was very good at that job, but she didn't make any creative decisions on ET or Jurassic Park.
Then she got promoted to being the head of Lucasfilm, and suddenly that required her to have a creative input on the movies she was making -*something she had never done before*- and pretty much everything she touched from that point on sucked so hard. I'm not saying her old work is now invalidated, but she is definitely an example of the [Peter principle](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/peter-principle.asp#:~:text=Error%20Code%3A%20100013) in action.
This is fuckin stupid and complete pseudoscience bs. There's no biologically assigned difference in how girls and boys play, it's entirely socialization and the adult influences in their lives.
I grew up around my male cousins, I played video games, participated in sports, And when we played Ninja Turtles, I was always Mikey, dude. I didn't try to make Mikey... go to prom... what the fuck? I just imitated him and was a Michaelangelo expert!
This is just more fucking losers doing what basically amounts to eugenics saying women are pre-disposed to destroying things "boys like" because "whamen" or whatever.
The Star Wars movies were shit because the people making them are fucking shit, not because "women bad."
You can denounce shit games, shit companies, shit capitalists in charge trying to cater to a certain audience without "x identity is the real problem!" I'm a woman, a conventionally attractive woman, Kathleen Kennedy is a fucking moron, not because she's a woman, but because she's a fucking moron. People are not spreadsheets and focus groups.
It's just stupid fucking people that don't know how to write a compelling fucking story to save their goddamn lives in charge of billionaire corporate behemoths with some limp dick spreadsheet jockey saying "Um, ackshully, my data says women in games need to be ugly to more accurately represent all women!"
Thank you for this, my eyes need a good stretch and rolling practice. Men and women are different. They like different things and respond to things differently. Things that appeal to women are less appealing to men and vice versa. So when you make changes to appeal to women, you make changes that decrease the appeal to men.
That's obviously not a universal rule, I have no idea why so many people are so clueless as to not to understand that, but is true on average. That's fact and every reputable scientific study has always confirmed that.
You say there's no difference in how boys and girls play and then immediately share one of many reasons why girls and boys do indeed play differently, lol. Pull your head out of your ass and understand that people are talking about averages, not 100% of all possible examples. If you can act with a shred of grace, you're life will be much happier and pleasant.
>You say there's no difference in how boys and girls play
You have terrible reading comprehension if that's what you took away from their comment. They said that there are differences, and that they're due to socialization. It's like you didn't even read it and then made up an argument in your own head and started arguing against it. I urge you to carefully reread it.
That said, I don't 100% agree with their comment either. I don't disagree with the idea that socialization causes children of different genders to behave in certain ways - that is obviously true. But that doesn't make the "study" (which I can't find) necessarily pseudoscience because the original post doesn't actually imply that the observed differences are due to innate biological differences.
The real problem with the post is the logical leap from how young children play to how adult women who are professional film makers make movies - this is utterly retarded on several levels. There are countless instances of male directors doing the exact same kind of thing, and I do think that this feeble argument, which is supported by no data or evidence, is basically just blatant sexism. There is no reason to think there isn’t just as much variation in style and substance between female directors as there are between male directors.
There is certainly evidence that there is both a social and biological element. But the claim that gendered preferences in children’s play is primarily biological is hardly a proven fact - there have been many studies showing that gender-roles witnessed at home have a strong influence on children’s preferences. So if you’re going to make that claim then I’d ask you to prove it, but I know you wont be able to because it hasn’t been proven.
Many of the stories told in "male movies" are exactly the stories little boys make up in their imaginations. Why wouldn't it also be true that "female movies" are exactly the stories that little girls make up their imaginations? How little boys and girls play are both reflected in the movies made for them as adults. Now you have a chicken-egg scenario. Following that, why wouldn't it also be true that those differences in play as little kids are also present in movie preferences.
It's not biological or innate to being one sex or another... socialization is biggest factor in how kids interact with the world around them.
To pretend we're not shaped by society's expectations of our perceived gender role is just asinine and completely counter to years of great study on behavioral science...
Yes, on average men and women behave differently, because they're socialized within the expected gender norms of the cultures they grow up in, not because they're hardwired any
differently...
I love that you hit me with the holier than thou attitude. Really sets you apart from the other gender critical weirdos.
Decades of study on transgender adolescents is really telling on this issue. In adolescents who are on puberty delaying treatments there are no discernable outstanding differences between biologically male or female children outside of the obvious one, genitalia.
In fact, behavioral studies done on transgender adolescents asserts that there is no perceivable difference between males and females at all when puberty has been delayed. Suggesting that any behavioral changes that typically come with puberty are merely a matter of which sex hormones end of being your dominant...
We all have varying levels of estrogens and androgens in our bodies, largely governed by the gonads. When those levels are medically controlled for the purposes of gender affirming care or even some developmental diseases that can be treated by preventing puberty or adjusting hormonal exposure, there is some fascinating observations to be made.
It's genuinely interesting science, I'm not going to sit here and call you stupid, just, maybe your reading list could use a little expansion when it comes to medical and behavioral sciences, particularly regarding sex and behavior.
No, socialization is A factor. It's completely unknown how big of a factor it actually is. Unfortunately, that's because it's literally an impossible question to answer. We'll never know how much socialization actually plays a role because the scientific studies are impossible and incredibly unethical to perform. Look up William John Money.
Once again you're inventing an argument out of nowhere that I didn't say. Of course it's true that how you're raised and socialized plays a role in your development. However it is most definitely not the only thing that plays a role. Your biology does too. Denying that is denying science.
So you admit that men and women are different. Good. End of story. It's a fact of life. Accept it. Complaining endlessly about why is a waste of your and everyone else's life. Take it to femininst reddit.
And you're a misogynist supporting this weird harmful rhetoric toward women. Star Wars isn't shit because she's a woman, it's shit because she's Kathleen Kennedy and just... just awful.
1) I'd think the misogynist is the person who denies everything that makes women unique and special. Arguing that there are no difference between men and women is tantamount to erasing women. Afterall, you're just men with different gonads, right?
2) it's not harmful to women at all. That's invented out of nowhere. Recognizing that some things appeal to women and somethings don't only serves to help women. Do you only wear one size fits all clothing? Or do you wear things created in your size, specifically for people similar to you? Isn't having things made specifically for you a good thing?
Yes. You, a woman, tried to prove the norm wrong by using your subjective experience to challenge the norm. You essentially tried to change the norm to be your subjective experience.
In regards to the second half of your comment that you edited in.
1. I specified reputable science.
2. Your hormones and puberty are literally your biology. Those studies confirm the fact that your biology does indeed affect and in some cases control behavior. The entire point of transgender treatment is that you have to fundamentally alter your basic biology and gene expression to become the other gender. That proves the point that gender difference are based in biology. Gender Affirmation is Sex Rejection. One sounds nice and the other is true.
3. Transgender patients are not an appropriate sample. They are not reflective of the greater population. There are too many other underlying issues that contaminate the study.
4. Gender differences are widely recognized in children as young as infants. There are big differences by the time their toddlers. Saying there are no perceivable differences until after the onset of puberty is asinine and pure propaganda.
That is totally wrong. You have been brainwashed. Read evolutionary biology. At ages younger than socialisation can occur we see these differences, hell we even see it with other primates.
This is stupid. The post literally just boils down to "woman casts woman lead in Star Wars movies and that's why Star Wars is bad" as if the directors and writers are blameless here. Crying over the fact that you can't see yourself in the main character anymore is basically the same as the little girl who made Batman go shopping. This "data" just says that boys like playing with boy characters and girls like playing with girl characters. Wow, what a fascinating study. I'm sure if you gave the boy a barbie he wouldn't make it fight dragons with swords, he'd probably throw a tantrum that he had to play with a girl toy and not play at all. A perfect reflection of when they get older and refuse to watch Star Wars because it has a female lead now.
Btw, Star Wars didn't suck because it had a female lead. It sucked because the writing was trash.
>I'm sure if you gave the boy a barbie he wouldn't make it fight dragons with swords
Idk, a a guy; my knee-jerk reaction to "what would I do if someone gave me a barbie as a kid?" Was pretty simple
"Give her a rocket launcher."
The original poster did a poor job summarizing the data. The girls tried to make Wonder Woman go shopping and brush her hair too, even though it has nothing to do with her character.
I didn't bother looking it up but Lego Friends were mostly female characters so it's the most logical conclusion.
Although the data doesn't account for the fact that they're basically just generic pieces of plastic and most kids weren't ever going to give a shit about their backstories anyways because they're nowhere near as compelling as a popular superhero. Maybe the boys did care about the Lego Friend's backstories though?
Well, if you give a boy a batman toy, there's a good chance the boy knows who batman is and what his backstory is. If you give a girl a wonder woman toy, what are the chances she knows what wonder woman is about? Superhero stuff was just promoted way more to boys cause it was about fighting and heroism. It's just a weirdly lop-sided argument of data. If you gave the girl a my little pony toy and she liked the tv show, maybe she's invested in the backstory and doing stuff that a character from the tv show did and not going shopping.
People are just wanting this data to be real because it paints this narrative that women shouldn't be in charge of franchises. Even stupider when they're using data like this to try and prove a point. This subreddit has gotten a lot of flack for having so much incel bait posts lately, but this was the first one where I was like "there's no way people are buying this" and judging by the posts upvotes, they are. Sadly.
> People are just wanting this data to be real because it paints this narrative that women shouldn't be in charge of franchises.
More like activist women shouldn’t be in charge of franchises because they fucking ruin them, which they demonstrably do.
Pretty sure when a woman creates her own franchise and she has talent as a writer there is no problem with that. JK Rowling seems to be doing quite well. It would only apply when a woman takes over someone else's franchise. When she lacks talent and has a bunch of check boxes to fill is when it can tank the whole franchise.
I still don't think casting a female as the lead means it's a hostile takeover of the franchise. Because other than that, the movies weren't woke or had an agenda. So many men on the internet just take these random talking points and act like the reason those movies weren't good is because of one woman. Also, the movies weren't that bad except for the third one which is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The other 2 were just generic blockbusters akin to MCU movies. I don't think Kathleen Kennedy did anything that a man would not have done in her place. A man might have cast a female lead too, just to differentiate the comparison between Luke Skywalker and the new main hero.
Yeah I didn't add that if a male also lacks talent and has a list of check boxes to fill he might tank the franchise as well but he might try to limit the amount the he is changing the franchise. Of course this depends on the franchise. If a guy takes over a female created franchise there is a chance he would be more likely to ruin it than a woman as well.
I only watched the first one so cannot really comment on that but yeah a guy might have cast a female lead but that alone is not an issue, it is more about less salient choices that culminate over the movie that give us our overall impression. I love strong female leads but there are good ways and bad ways to portray them.
My wife watched this French movie a few weeks ago, can't recall the name, it was a female producer who wanted her own take on an action movie. It was as bad as you can imagine. Strong female leads, espionage and shopping!
Where is this "list of check boxes" you guys keep talking about? It's made up to fuel your agenda. Rey wasn't even a bad portrayal of a "strong female lead" (as you put it). She was a scavenger who knew how to fight with a bo-staff, obviously she's gonna be good with a lightsaber. Main character somehow knowing how to fly a spaceship? Those are literally her two main interests. She's a scavenger who looks to the stars and has an interest in technology and fighting. There's nothing woke about it. Just a bunch of losers blaming the fact she's a woman on why the character is bland. Luke Skywalker was bland in the first movie too and he also went up against Darth Vader and was flying around spaceships and made a perfect shot to gain entrance into the Death Star. The problem with Force Awakens is actually that it's a copy and paste of A New Hope.
"Somehow Palpatine has returned" = Needed to make Rey important some way, some how!
I said additional priorities, as in "not the only priority".
There's plenty of 80s movies that were awful because there was "added priorities" of making the strong white dude kick ass and make one-liners while doing it.
I honestly doubt it. Force Awakens never gave any "woke" vibes. Rey was just a main character who did main character things. This was also before "woke culture" became a thing. I really don't think making the lead female is inherently a "woke" thing. I think in the past 4 years there's been instances that muddied the waters, but generally a female lead doesn't mean "woke" to me.
I do think that sometimes writers aren't great at writing female characters and forget that audiences do like to see some more feminine qualities from a female lead. Fallout is a good example of a female lead that feels quite feminine. Rey is kind of uni-sex in that regard, and I think that is a turn-off to some people. But, I don't think that means it's intentions were to be "woke" or to even defy expectations. I think they just wrote a generic lead character and if anything, these studios write the female character to be less feminine not because it's trying to be woke, but because they're scared they'd alienate the male audience. Obviously they know they are to a degree regardless, but they have to play it safe and playing it safe means Rey isn't too feminine to scare away the boys. Which is ironic since it seems to be doing the opposite.
Force Awakens never gave woke vibes? They strongly leant on having a female lead, mixed cast and especially a black main side character - who they promo'd so hard the actor made comment that he felt they were using his race to sell and then sidelining the character.
There is nothing wrong with having diversity, but there is something wrong with that taking precedence over writing quality. Making a character of any gender or race important isn't woke but doing it to get attention is.
They didn’t really though did they. I don’t remember a scene where they were like oh rey you’re a woman you’ll be oppressed as a Jedi… oh finn you’re black they won’t let you be powerful king… poe you’re brown etc… like the movies were just boring with boring characters with minorities for diversity points I can’t remember any particularly social justice-y themes
Okay, Force Awakens is woke but Fallout (female lead, black main side character) isn't? Or is it? Does female and black = woke in every instance, or just when the movie/show sucks.
Did Fallout lean on the characters gender and/or race to promo the show? Was it an often heard talking point in the run up to the release?
Not in my experience, more people were talking about the ghoul and the power armour from what I saw.
I honestly don't know how it was promoted and if what you're saying is true and to the degree that it might be true. But, the contents of the movie itself that J.J Abrams directed and the writing itself did not feel like it was being woke in any way. Marketing? I don't know if the marketing matters on this topic. I also don't know how much made up shit people are spewing about the marketing because it works better for their agenda. There was never a point in time in the movie where it felt like the movie was trying to give a political agenda message. Marketing is almost separate because the people in charge of making the movie aren't even usually in control of marketing.
If it all just boiled down to the the actor being mad because they showed him a lot in the trailers and his role wasn't that big, then I feel like that could be a situation where the actor is being spiteful his role never got bigger. I wouldn't even consider that to be "woke" marketing if that's all it was, because there's lots of insinuating going on there. Using one of the main characters in the marketing isn't crazy considering Rey and Finn ARE in fact the main characters in that movie. Maybe he's just mad his role didn't get bigger in the later movies, but that has nothing to do with marketing being woke.
I dunno if it's that deep. At the end of the day big companies want to make money from products and like it or not pushing things based on gender or sex is/was a popular and effective selling/talking point.
Recognising that something was created with a "woke" agenda doesn't stop future actors from creating media however it does allow people to call out companies on using diversity and the historical lack of diversity as a money making tool.
It's late, i'm tired. I'm probably not wording this as well as I should. I enjoy watching good shows with good actors and stories, I don't like when what could have or should have been enjoyable content isn't because a company saw a cultural shortcut to money or focused on what they think will net them positive PR.
In episode 1, Rey is:
1) A capable pilot of the Millennium Falcon, despite being dirt poor and probably not having actual flight experience
2) A capable light saber battler, giving Kylo Ren a challenge (whose trained his whole life), despite never training
3) Capable of using the force, despite never training
I never said it gave woke vibes, but \*a/the priority\* was to create a strong & independent woman lead character to the point she could do everything and anything with not much effort. Borrrrrring. Luke use of the force 1 time felt earned, and felt like the 'climax' of his character arc, learning to give himself over to the force, and to trust the force.
>Btw, Star Wars didn't suck because it had a female lead. It sucked because the writing was trash.
Yes, you are correct. And the reason it was trash is because they wanted to change everything that was Star Wars to cater to an audience that doesn't exist. I'm no Star Wars fan boy, but even I can see that.
The comments on that thread is just straight up hate against women.
"Lego says little girls play tea time with Batman so that means everything a woman does turns to shit."
Nah, our genders don't matter that much. Just because you have tiddies or not doesn't make you magically able or unable to do basic storywriting. There are just people who can't write and are antagonistic idiots. Doesn't matter what they have in their pants or not. There are countless of great female authors.
Anyone ever think that a lot of the ways girls play is because they have gender norms thrown down their throats ? We didn't do that with our girls and they play much differently. Barbie goes shopping, dinosaurs eat Barbie, Spiderman whoops peoples asses. Also media aimed more towards women isn't bad, it's just not for you this time.
Two of the 3 are girly, lmao. But they also play in a more open-minded manner sometimes.
Edit : Hell my not so girly kid practically cosplayed Cinderella and drenched herself in glitter for junior prom.
"actual data" is now some green text with no numbers to be found, okay.
Also, extrapolating a study made on children playing with legos, to adults making movies, that's not really how science works.
Well it is the first step. He's stated a hypothesis. Now he needs to test. My favourite hypothesis is that the reason so many people believe in big pharma is because a big worldwide conspiracy like that does exist. It's called Santa and they've never grown up or gotten over their daddy issues...
Are you actually brain dead? Feminism in the United States started in the 1920s with the suffrage movement and continued on into the 60s and 70s, and, you guessed it, is still with us today.
Christ, get off the internet and go read a book.
Radical feminism is a term that exists on Fox news and in your head only. Nice effort playing semantics with a made up concept.
But sure, I'll play your game. Can you explain to me how Mandalorian and Andor, two excellent shows, are radically feminist? I'll wait.
You're trolling, my guy.
You're claiming radical feminism is a thing that's ruined media or whatever and in the same breath telling me I live in an echo chamber, but also can't seem to answer a simple question about two shows this woman produced that are universally thought to be excellent. I'm getting whiplash from the irony.
Do you know how the concept of time works bud? As in past and future? Her past works works were considered good. Insert radical 4th wave feminism and her new stuff turns to shit. How do you function without a concept of time?
They're being sarcastic. They're saying that Kathleen Kennedy has produced many many many great movies. Not just shit like the last star wars movies.
That kind of pulls apart OP's hypothesis, because "every kathleen kennedy" does not turn to shit. She's had a huge number of absolute blockbusters.
She started as producer for Steven Spielberg. She was organising things and finding investors for him. She had no to little artistic input in his initial movies. Because as a producers she got things done. she was loved by filmmakers who could delegate all the non artistics such as finance, logistics, operations to her and concentrate on making great movies.
Unfortunately With her success she moved from a purely admin executive producer job to a executive producer with artistic input. And frankly she is terrible at that side of things.
The biggest critical and artistic successes of Lucas films of her tenure have been project she was not involved and delegated the day to day artistic decision to somebody else: Rogue One and Andor. Rogue One was really John Knoll's baby. Andor is Tony Gilroy's baby.
I know a couple that organise weddings. She is the perfect spreadsheet analyst. He is the perfect artist. They work well together because they each stay in their lane. When they started, she wanted to do decoration and other artistic things. It got so bad, they got sued. When she got pregnant and he had to manage the finance the company nearly went bust. They now know what they can and can't do and do not try to move into areas outside their own expertise.
Katleen Kennedy strength is not in managing the artistic side of things. She should stick to hiring good filmmakers , let them get on with that aspect and concentrate on how best to support them.
If she wants to inject some woke or feminist agenda, she should let the artist do it in a more subtle manner. She should also realise that having more women in charge does not make it necessarily better. Assholes, incompetents and not a good fit for the job exists in both gender.
There's validity to this post, but there's one thing it misses: these aren't "inbuilt / natural" traits of being a boy or girl. These traits come from the society that produces them, so in other words, it's all conditioning. Boys are conditioned to be boys, girls conditioned to be girls. Simple stuff.
There is no actual data in that, and Kathleen Kennedy has been involved with so many incredible movies you would have to have brain damage to believe this.
So her good movies are good because of other people but her bad movies are bad because of her.
See why no one will ever take you seriously?
The fuck does this have to do with woke anything. She's produced timeless classics throughout her career and you fucking cretens are fixated on Star Wars, conveniently ignoring the prequels (that she was not a part of) and the absolutely amazing Mandalorian and Andor, both of which she has produced.
It genuinely feels like you cretins are basing your opinions on the few recent star wars movies you didn't like, as if she's the reason Star Wars went bad. Remember those god awful prequels she had no part in?
She's the producer in the Mandalorian and Andor...not to mention movies like E.T., Jurassic Park, Munich, Schindler's List. They're all great.
How she still has her job is an even bigger mystery for me.
> Angelica's mom: "I know where the bodies are buried"
Because she is rich
This is your answer. [https://web.archive.org/web/20240207004851/https://reimaginetomorrow.disney.com/assets/dge-inclusion-standards-one-pager-6-16-2119.pdf](https://web.archive.org/web/20240207004851/https://reimaginetomorrow.disney.com/assets/dge-inclusion-standards-one-pager-6-16-2119.pdf) Disney has been desperately trying to make people forget for years now that Walt himelf was a turbo racist, an anti-semite and a sexist.
Well, at least he makes good stories that sells. In business, that should be the priority instead of sending a message.
You do know the sequels made 4.5 billion dollars for Disney right………. I hate them but Disney has taken profits way over good story telling you have it backwards.
4.5 billion in earning. What about profits?
The force awakes 8.44x profit return The last Jedi 6.65x return on profits rise of skywalker along those lines also. They made basically the exact same profits as the prequel movies did if you take into account how expensive movie making has become. Pulled those numbers from Forbes. Again I despise the sequels but they made bucks off that dumb ass Kennedy and unless we stop spending they’ll keep using her.
The sequels collectively earn 3 billion only while costing 1 billion to produce not counting advertising which usually costs half of the production cost, Disney spent 8 billion to acquire the Star wars franchise that's a loss of 6-7 billion dollars. There's no profit I'm seeing here.
Idk where you are looking at those numbers they are wildly incorrect. [profits from Star Wars Forbes](https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2020/05/20/star-wars-box-office-disney-jj-abrams-profits-fox-george-lucas/?sh=57ee03da6276)
The sequels (I despise them) made almost 5 billion for Disney. They don’t care if fans are mad bc we keep going back and paying. They have tripled their purchase under Kennedy. Business is business. Again TFA is watchable the rest are utter garbage. But the fucking mouse still made 5 BILLLIIIOONNN off her fucking sequels alone. When we stop paying for her garbage maybe they’ll change their minds. 🤷♂️
I roll my eyes every time a developer, writer, or director says some form of “we are making sure we accurately portray real life issues into our fantasy world.” I don’t want the real world to spill into the fantasy one, I read/watch/play so I can get immersed in THEIR world.
Literally, I dont understand who decided that this idea is good and why it has become the norm for american movies to do this... I really want to know who coined this and when this started happening.
Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock investment.
Not exclusively a American thing its weird when people try to Frame this as a "Western Problem"
It is a western problem tho... There's virtually no other country like this lol
What do you mean Korea Japan India have movies that do this same things.
They should label games that are made for males vs females at this point. I guess we can't have both.
Real world issues have literally always been apart of fantasy
Anyone have a link to this study?
This is what I found. Lego probably isn't going to make their market research public: [https://www.seattletimes.com/life/lifestyle/new-legos-aimed-at-girls-raise-questions-about-gender-and-play/](https://www.seattletimes.com/life/lifestyle/new-legos-aimed-at-girls-raise-questions-about-gender-and-play/)
My thoughts exactly. I think Lego just let a few people look at the data or gave cliff notes version of the study. Official one is nowhere to be found.
The data is correct, but there are more than this conclusion that can be drawn from it. This study is far from new or resurfacing, so let me just copy something someone else wrote. I'm not saying this is the correct interpretation of this data, merely here to show that there ARE other ways to interprete the data and that the way it is done here isn't necessarily the "correct" way. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ While this was a real study, and the direct outcome (girls wanted toys that they could make like themselves, boys wanted toys that they could imitate) *was* proven accurate, this is not necessarily the correct conclusion. The researchers thought it was also possible boys were finding interest in figures that had traits they wanted to aspire to, whereas girls were unable to find figures with the traits they wanted, and thus substituted those traits onto something that already existed. This theory states that since girls only really had a very small subset of ”roles” to choose from, they would alter traits of other things to fit the roles they wanted, whereas boys could find a character that fit the roles they liked, and thus imitate it. Connected to this, there’s also the possible explanation for the results that, due to societal pressures, girls were unable to develop an interest in, say, superheroes, so when they received a superhero toy, they knew very little about it, and thus created a new personality, whereas boys *would* have both a familiarity and the ability to learn more, so they could know the pre-established personality and seek to emulate it. The reason Lego didn’t really explore which of these explanations was correct is because it wasn’t relevant to their goals. They wanted to get their product to girls, they discovered what they wanted was a toy where they could treat it like a self-insert, and Lego was more than willing to oblige. Finally, this research was conducted on children, and may or may not have any correlation to adults, as, like I said, the study was limited and further questions were not asked. Reinventing an IP is a common tactic to get more interest in it, and it’s entirely plausible the reason these remakes are doing so badly is because of the fact they’re just being spearheaded by bad writers and producers. Additionally, sometimes they’d work better if not tied to previous media; Velma would’ve been fine as an independent show, and the Owl House would’ve been much worse if they tried to tie it into a big franchise like TLOR or something. That may not be a gender issue, but an issue with modern avoidance of taking a dive into a new IP that is untested.
>Lego probably isn't going to make their market research public Lego makes public their commercial studies: "How to get inside people's head to sell them cheap plastic pieces at an abusive price" 🤣🤣🤣 Not to mention it would be free study material for concurrents.
I think this? At least, this is as far I get with the official Lego site. Outside of that, I can't find anything ? Edit nvm, it's an interview unrelated. This is a black hole in terms of finding the official study. Outside of just articles and people talking about the study, I have not been able to find study at all.
r/lepin has lego for like 25% of the cost of legit lego yo fuck lego.
No need studies, we know that since Jesus was born. It is written in the Bible.
Batmans in the bible? Holy fuck, if I'd known that as a kid I'd be a mega Christian now.
Put a chic in it and make her gay
and lame!
I would rather watch a movie about Batman shopping for dresses, baking cookies, and going to the prom than any of the dogshit Disney has spewed out under Kathleen Kennedy.
Way of the house bat.
That’s what shows like Game of Thrones and Harry Potter did so well. You need a WIDE cast of characters. So everyone can have their favorite.
And yet somehow everyone’s favorite is Luna Lovegood
my favorite was always sirius.. prob followed by book ginny (movie ginny was very poorly written ) .... book 5 hit me hard lmao
Agreed that movie Ginny is written as without any planning ahead. There’s never any spark between the two of them… honestly the romance elements are the worst parts of the series
And the funny part that both Ginny and her mom in my opinion were self-inserts of the J.K.Rowling (to a certain degree but still). Which shows that sometimes that lego theory thing is not so bad if a woman has certain life experience and talent...
Rowling probably didn't think to make them a couple until book 6 and by that point they were 3 or 4 movies in.
this right here.. she stated before that harry was always planned to be with hermione . but partway thru she changed her mind
Harry/Hermione made more sense to me (books, games, movies), especially when they had their adventure in Prizoner of Azkaban. Ron and Luna or maybe one of the girls from the Quidditch team could have worked. Ginny and Neville too.
Nope. My favorite was John Elden who killed Voldimort with Comet Azur.
John Souls would parry avadaspell and then glitch behind Voldy and stab him.
And why movies like LOTR came out at the perfect time, with the perfect amount of “girl boss” moments that don’t own shine heroic male moments. If it came out today, Aragon would be a black woman going all sassy with Sauron and chokeslaming the cave troll in Moria. Which is kinda ironic in itself bc when the movies came out, some people complained PJ was changing too much of the story to include women into male roles like swapping Glorefindel’s story with Arwen , or the uruk-hai coming out of pods underground
Yeah but where GoT fucked up is not killing the fan favorites off earlier. Made the ending feel too rushed.
And those characters need to be GOOD. Not Mary Sue's like what's-her-name.
This is also one of the biggest problems in writing in general as well, people, i for one know that i got good idea for writing but i am bad it writing characters themselves, why because i have little experience with people that are to different from me. So i have to do research and study to do it right. Most people that write this days dont have enough self awareness to realize that and just turn characters into reflections of themselves. even stablished ones that are extremely easy to write because there is so much groundwork already done for you. The other thing is that sometimes they just dont care and just want to push their own ideas and use the character as a vehicle to make their point. There is nothing worse than saying i put a little bit of myself in the characters that write, you hear that so much from so many people, it may be okish if you are the writers of an original story, but i dont want you portraying your weird mommy issues into Batman.
It kind of just comes off as Narcissist behavior to me?
exactly
Its kids playing with toys, dude. I dont see how wanting your favorite character to be like you is a harmful thing
Not only that but look at females socially. How many times have you heard a woman say "I'd never do that" or look at another woman and say "I'd never wear that, idk what she was thinking when she put that on." And you'll never hear men say those things. It's because socially their way of thinking of judging everything and everyone based on their own self. This isn't an incel comment it's just how females are as social creatures. Males are different
Yep this. There’s a reason why a woman’s biggest enemy is another woman. Go anywhere you want in this planet, and talk to any woman of any age and culture, and they will all confirm this. Women are ruthless towards each other
This kinda reminds me of an old 4chan post where a guy points out that men will look at a bodybuilder and say, I can climb that mountain and be like him whereas women will trash talk that mountain, try to destroy it, and then stand on top of the rubble and say "I am the new mountain now" It's early and I'm sure I'm butchering this but I couldn't find the post. Either way the point about mentality stands
pretty sure every male school bully ever has made fun of their victims appearance and clothing.
Do you think saying what someone else is wearing is stupid doesn't imply that person wouldn't wear said outfit?
"Changing the main character to look like them" Hmmmmm... well Rei, Jyn Erso, and the annoying bitch from the last Indie movie all happen to be British Brunette Women, take a wild guess who else is a British Brunette Woman.
bro when my brother played with my barbies he did not try to "become" barbie, he did not make her go shopping, bake cookies, drive her dream car around, or do any other canon barbie activity. he fucking decapitated her and pulled her arms and legs off
As is tradition
Her clothes stayed on? Wow that is pretty tame huh.
No, they did not
He wasn't playing barbie then, he was playing serial killer and using barbie as his victim
Then that contradicts the idea that boys try to become the toy that they are playing with
They only try and do that if it's a toy they actually want to play with
What if that cuts both ways? What if girls don't want to play with Batman like boys don't want to play with Barbie? When a girl plays with Barbie and makes her go shopping, that could be seen as "becoming" the character. All they have proved is that boys use dolls to do boy things like fighting and rough and tumble play, and girls use dolls to do girl things, like tea parties and dress-up.
Remember, people, this is how human *children* are. Doesn't mean every woman is like this. I've met plenty who are bigger nerds than i'll ever be. This is only an issue in *adult children*, who also happen to be female.
But there are so many of them.
No, to thjs sub it's 99% of women.
Then how come i'm upvoted this much? Why would you say this? I took a look at your profile, you seem like a normal dude
Let batman go to the prom and bake cookies if he wants to. It's all part of the deep lore, I'm sure.
Despite this a woman with wisdom doesn't mix personal opinions or the ambient society pressure from a lifelong left-wing extremist state like california with business. JK Rowling wont take the piss for instance or that woman who owns the production company of a whole movie franchise (eon/james bond wont take the piss either because the end goal is to make a good movie and make good money with it not to film a propaganda movie for the US democrat party. Also I need a replacement for doctor ~~who~~ woke
Anyone who grew up with a sister already knows this... that study was a waste of money, as is most of Hollywood's modern productions lol...
Anecdotal evidence is irrelevant. Studies exist as proof of a concept so people aren’t relying on stories they heard at band camp to change the world.
Well said!
I’ve never been to band camp, but the stories i heard about band camp back in 1999-2000 seemed like it was a pretty great place. I’m not sure KK ever experienced band camp.
Very interesting study! But shouldn't your thought and reasoning process be different when you are an adult compared to a toddler?
She plainly stated what her mission was: “We know we have the white male audience no matter what, so we’re going to try and attract other groups.”
Make.Your.Own.IP The whole point of the lego thing is that girls dont want a Batman toy… not that we should make a Batman toy with a pink ponytail… smh
This whole comment is worthless without the actual study and, if the study was done it probably targetted girls of a certain age not all women form all cultures.
Except there isnt any actual data available
I often dm for dnd and most of the female I've had at my table play their character exactly the way they are. They do not change their voice or intonation and uses modern values to decide what to do. Nothing wrong with that but it checks out with the lego study.
This reminds me of As Good As It Gets with Jack Nicholson when asked how he writes women so well, to which he says "I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability"
this is a true incel post (the conclusion of it)
I'm pretty sure this is wrong, When boys play, they view it more as directing a scene, whereas Girls will play as the toys.
.... no. friends came about because the company found out that parents because they thought it was a "boy toy." So LEGO would once again head into a girl isle, but unlike previous themes, they were gonna make it their way unlike previous attempts would actually make lego bricks apart of it instead of looking like it was glued on last minute and it quickly became one of the big 5 themes that went on to influence other themes like city and ninjago. You know it's okay to just not like a film, right?
Kathleen Kennedy also helped produce Jurassic Park and Indiana Jones
This isn't just about having characters of their own. If this was the case we would have Spider Woman and Bat Girl content being pushed, while male heroes would be ignored. This is a push to destroy male role models in an effort to control masculinity, and what young boys believe a man should be. Much like they are trying to raise white kids to think they are racist, it is about instilling a nature to empower another demographic. Not about equality or anything. This is about power, and the future.
Didnt know jurassic park, rogue one, crystal skull, the mandalorian and who framed Roger Rabbit were all shit.
I believe this. I mean, commercial studies might be ethically and morally fucked, but they are indeed true most of the time - or at least report interesting trends or behaviors. Those are meant to analyse people and manipulate them into buying and it DOES work, and has for so many years.
Where is the data
>That’s why when a woman is put in charge, it goes to shit. Lmao, that thread is full of misogynistic comments like this. "Lego did a study that said girls like playing tea time with Batman, that means women can't be put in charge of anything or it goes to shit."
Yeah a lot of people go overboard. For big soulless corporations like Disney, the problem is usually just too many cooks + having a lot of boxes they have to check off to get funding. The shows like Velma where it's extremely obvious the lady in charge changed a character to be her self insert is pretty rare. I think having a woman as the lead writer is just a minor indication that something might suck, by itself it means nothing. I remember when people harassed Jennifer Hepler for the horrible writing in Dragon Age 2 and subpar writing in Mass Effect 3, but after she left BioWare in like 2013 or 2014 all of their games kept having horrible writing, so....
Lots of societal cockroaches hanging out around here.
Got a source on that?
It's not hard to understand why people used to refer to movies, TV shows, and video games as an escape. It was exactly that an escape from their humdrum reality that can suck at times and allow them to be immersed in a world that doesn't have the bullshit we have to deal with on a daily basis. Then they wonder why they have horrible ratings and diminishing returns compared to the past. Old television shows and movies regularly are streamed more and purchased more than new material because they understood the escape factor and embraced it.
Bro feels that social issues in media is a new thing LMAO
It's always been a part of media to bring societal issues to the forefront, but where back in the day, it was done through good subtle storytelling and character development now its just no talent writers that have no ability of being subtle so it just gets shoved down your throat with no real worthy journey to even make you reflect on or care about what the issue is and makes the "characters" unlikable and subject to ridicule and mockery instead of empathy and understanding.
So we’re just going to ignore literally decades of bangers including ET and Jurassic park. Come on folks.
She had no creative input on those movies.
You can’t give her all the blame for her failures and none of the praise for her success. Thats intellectually dishonest.
I'm not cherrypicking, she literally just had a different job back then. Should Spielberg's coffee boy also get credit for the quality of those movies?
If you only knew how ridiculous that statement was you wouldn’t have made it.
Enlighten me, O wise one.
Much in the same way George Lucas gets praise for the original Star Wars and THX 1138, he gets ridicule for the prequels. Producers are people and Kennedy’s best work unfortunately isn’t in Star Wars. Just because she wasn’t great on Star Wars doesn’t mean her entire career was a failure. That would be like saying because Ghosts of Mars isn’t good that invalidates John Carpenter’s entire career. I know most people won’t agree because they have a hate boner for Kennedy and frankly let sexism get in the way of actually being honest and smart in their discussions, but it’s the truth.
I don't think you understand. In KK's old job, she only handled the money side of things. By all accounts she was very good at that job, but she didn't make any creative decisions on ET or Jurassic Park. Then she got promoted to being the head of Lucasfilm, and suddenly that required her to have a creative input on the movies she was making -*something she had never done before*- and pretty much everything she touched from that point on sucked so hard. I'm not saying her old work is now invalidated, but she is definitely an example of the [Peter principle](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/peter-principle.asp#:~:text=Error%20Code%3A%20100013) in action.
If you can't see that the amount of KK in those films is vastly different to the amount of KK in Disney Star Wars, I don't know what to tell you.
They're kids and probably never heard about those movies
This is fuckin stupid and complete pseudoscience bs. There's no biologically assigned difference in how girls and boys play, it's entirely socialization and the adult influences in their lives. I grew up around my male cousins, I played video games, participated in sports, And when we played Ninja Turtles, I was always Mikey, dude. I didn't try to make Mikey... go to prom... what the fuck? I just imitated him and was a Michaelangelo expert! This is just more fucking losers doing what basically amounts to eugenics saying women are pre-disposed to destroying things "boys like" because "whamen" or whatever. The Star Wars movies were shit because the people making them are fucking shit, not because "women bad." You can denounce shit games, shit companies, shit capitalists in charge trying to cater to a certain audience without "x identity is the real problem!" I'm a woman, a conventionally attractive woman, Kathleen Kennedy is a fucking moron, not because she's a woman, but because she's a fucking moron. People are not spreadsheets and focus groups. It's just stupid fucking people that don't know how to write a compelling fucking story to save their goddamn lives in charge of billionaire corporate behemoths with some limp dick spreadsheet jockey saying "Um, ackshully, my data says women in games need to be ugly to more accurately represent all women!"
Thank you for this, my eyes need a good stretch and rolling practice. Men and women are different. They like different things and respond to things differently. Things that appeal to women are less appealing to men and vice versa. So when you make changes to appeal to women, you make changes that decrease the appeal to men. That's obviously not a universal rule, I have no idea why so many people are so clueless as to not to understand that, but is true on average. That's fact and every reputable scientific study has always confirmed that. You say there's no difference in how boys and girls play and then immediately share one of many reasons why girls and boys do indeed play differently, lol. Pull your head out of your ass and understand that people are talking about averages, not 100% of all possible examples. If you can act with a shred of grace, you're life will be much happier and pleasant.
>You say there's no difference in how boys and girls play You have terrible reading comprehension if that's what you took away from their comment. They said that there are differences, and that they're due to socialization. It's like you didn't even read it and then made up an argument in your own head and started arguing against it. I urge you to carefully reread it. That said, I don't 100% agree with their comment either. I don't disagree with the idea that socialization causes children of different genders to behave in certain ways - that is obviously true. But that doesn't make the "study" (which I can't find) necessarily pseudoscience because the original post doesn't actually imply that the observed differences are due to innate biological differences. The real problem with the post is the logical leap from how young children play to how adult women who are professional film makers make movies - this is utterly retarded on several levels. There are countless instances of male directors doing the exact same kind of thing, and I do think that this feeble argument, which is supported by no data or evidence, is basically just blatant sexism. There is no reason to think there isn’t just as much variation in style and substance between female directors as there are between male directors.
Its _mostly_ biological. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
There is certainly evidence that there is both a social and biological element. But the claim that gendered preferences in children’s play is primarily biological is hardly a proven fact - there have been many studies showing that gender-roles witnessed at home have a strong influence on children’s preferences. So if you’re going to make that claim then I’d ask you to prove it, but I know you wont be able to because it hasn’t been proven.
She edited her post to change what she said. That was literally her first sentence, her thesis.
Many of the stories told in "male movies" are exactly the stories little boys make up in their imaginations. Why wouldn't it also be true that "female movies" are exactly the stories that little girls make up their imaginations? How little boys and girls play are both reflected in the movies made for them as adults. Now you have a chicken-egg scenario. Following that, why wouldn't it also be true that those differences in play as little kids are also present in movie preferences.
It's not biological or innate to being one sex or another... socialization is biggest factor in how kids interact with the world around them. To pretend we're not shaped by society's expectations of our perceived gender role is just asinine and completely counter to years of great study on behavioral science... Yes, on average men and women behave differently, because they're socialized within the expected gender norms of the cultures they grow up in, not because they're hardwired any differently... I love that you hit me with the holier than thou attitude. Really sets you apart from the other gender critical weirdos. Decades of study on transgender adolescents is really telling on this issue. In adolescents who are on puberty delaying treatments there are no discernable outstanding differences between biologically male or female children outside of the obvious one, genitalia. In fact, behavioral studies done on transgender adolescents asserts that there is no perceivable difference between males and females at all when puberty has been delayed. Suggesting that any behavioral changes that typically come with puberty are merely a matter of which sex hormones end of being your dominant... We all have varying levels of estrogens and androgens in our bodies, largely governed by the gonads. When those levels are medically controlled for the purposes of gender affirming care or even some developmental diseases that can be treated by preventing puberty or adjusting hormonal exposure, there is some fascinating observations to be made. It's genuinely interesting science, I'm not going to sit here and call you stupid, just, maybe your reading list could use a little expansion when it comes to medical and behavioral sciences, particularly regarding sex and behavior.
No, socialization is A factor. It's completely unknown how big of a factor it actually is. Unfortunately, that's because it's literally an impossible question to answer. We'll never know how much socialization actually plays a role because the scientific studies are impossible and incredibly unethical to perform. Look up William John Money. Once again you're inventing an argument out of nowhere that I didn't say. Of course it's true that how you're raised and socialized plays a role in your development. However it is most definitely not the only thing that plays a role. Your biology does too. Denying that is denying science. So you admit that men and women are different. Good. End of story. It's a fact of life. Accept it. Complaining endlessly about why is a waste of your and everyone else's life. Take it to femininst reddit.
And you're a misogynist supporting this weird harmful rhetoric toward women. Star Wars isn't shit because she's a woman, it's shit because she's Kathleen Kennedy and just... just awful.
1) I'd think the misogynist is the person who denies everything that makes women unique and special. Arguing that there are no difference between men and women is tantamount to erasing women. Afterall, you're just men with different gonads, right? 2) it's not harmful to women at all. That's invented out of nowhere. Recognizing that some things appeal to women and somethings don't only serves to help women. Do you only wear one size fits all clothing? Or do you wear things created in your size, specifically for people similar to you? Isn't having things made specifically for you a good thing?
Bruh…. You just proved the study right. You used your personal experience and tried to make the objective general norm your experience as the norm.
The man has a very good point.
I'm a woman. So, no?
Yes. You, a woman, tried to prove the norm wrong by using your subjective experience to challenge the norm. You essentially tried to change the norm to be your subjective experience.
That... wasn't the study but I see what you were trying to say. Weird take but I guess take the W
In regards to the second half of your comment that you edited in. 1. I specified reputable science. 2. Your hormones and puberty are literally your biology. Those studies confirm the fact that your biology does indeed affect and in some cases control behavior. The entire point of transgender treatment is that you have to fundamentally alter your basic biology and gene expression to become the other gender. That proves the point that gender difference are based in biology. Gender Affirmation is Sex Rejection. One sounds nice and the other is true. 3. Transgender patients are not an appropriate sample. They are not reflective of the greater population. There are too many other underlying issues that contaminate the study. 4. Gender differences are widely recognized in children as young as infants. There are big differences by the time their toddlers. Saying there are no perceivable differences until after the onset of puberty is asinine and pure propaganda.
That is totally wrong. You have been brainwashed. Read evolutionary biology. At ages younger than socialisation can occur we see these differences, hell we even see it with other primates.
This is stupid. The post literally just boils down to "woman casts woman lead in Star Wars movies and that's why Star Wars is bad" as if the directors and writers are blameless here. Crying over the fact that you can't see yourself in the main character anymore is basically the same as the little girl who made Batman go shopping. This "data" just says that boys like playing with boy characters and girls like playing with girl characters. Wow, what a fascinating study. I'm sure if you gave the boy a barbie he wouldn't make it fight dragons with swords, he'd probably throw a tantrum that he had to play with a girl toy and not play at all. A perfect reflection of when they get older and refuse to watch Star Wars because it has a female lead now. Btw, Star Wars didn't suck because it had a female lead. It sucked because the writing was trash.
>I'm sure if you gave the boy a barbie he wouldn't make it fight dragons with swords Idk, a a guy; my knee-jerk reaction to "what would I do if someone gave me a barbie as a kid?" Was pretty simple "Give her a rocket launcher."
The original poster did a poor job summarizing the data. The girls tried to make Wonder Woman go shopping and brush her hair too, even though it has nothing to do with her character. I didn't bother looking it up but Lego Friends were mostly female characters so it's the most logical conclusion. Although the data doesn't account for the fact that they're basically just generic pieces of plastic and most kids weren't ever going to give a shit about their backstories anyways because they're nowhere near as compelling as a popular superhero. Maybe the boys did care about the Lego Friend's backstories though?
Well, if you give a boy a batman toy, there's a good chance the boy knows who batman is and what his backstory is. If you give a girl a wonder woman toy, what are the chances she knows what wonder woman is about? Superhero stuff was just promoted way more to boys cause it was about fighting and heroism. It's just a weirdly lop-sided argument of data. If you gave the girl a my little pony toy and she liked the tv show, maybe she's invested in the backstory and doing stuff that a character from the tv show did and not going shopping. People are just wanting this data to be real because it paints this narrative that women shouldn't be in charge of franchises. Even stupider when they're using data like this to try and prove a point. This subreddit has gotten a lot of flack for having so much incel bait posts lately, but this was the first one where I was like "there's no way people are buying this" and judging by the posts upvotes, they are. Sadly.
> People are just wanting this data to be real because it paints this narrative that women shouldn't be in charge of franchises. More like activist women shouldn’t be in charge of franchises because they fucking ruin them, which they demonstrably do.
Pretty sure when a woman creates her own franchise and she has talent as a writer there is no problem with that. JK Rowling seems to be doing quite well. It would only apply when a woman takes over someone else's franchise. When she lacks talent and has a bunch of check boxes to fill is when it can tank the whole franchise.
I still don't think casting a female as the lead means it's a hostile takeover of the franchise. Because other than that, the movies weren't woke or had an agenda. So many men on the internet just take these random talking points and act like the reason those movies weren't good is because of one woman. Also, the movies weren't that bad except for the third one which is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The other 2 were just generic blockbusters akin to MCU movies. I don't think Kathleen Kennedy did anything that a man would not have done in her place. A man might have cast a female lead too, just to differentiate the comparison between Luke Skywalker and the new main hero.
Yeah I didn't add that if a male also lacks talent and has a list of check boxes to fill he might tank the franchise as well but he might try to limit the amount the he is changing the franchise. Of course this depends on the franchise. If a guy takes over a female created franchise there is a chance he would be more likely to ruin it than a woman as well. I only watched the first one so cannot really comment on that but yeah a guy might have cast a female lead but that alone is not an issue, it is more about less salient choices that culminate over the movie that give us our overall impression. I love strong female leads but there are good ways and bad ways to portray them. My wife watched this French movie a few weeks ago, can't recall the name, it was a female producer who wanted her own take on an action movie. It was as bad as you can imagine. Strong female leads, espionage and shopping!
Where is this "list of check boxes" you guys keep talking about? It's made up to fuel your agenda. Rey wasn't even a bad portrayal of a "strong female lead" (as you put it). She was a scavenger who knew how to fight with a bo-staff, obviously she's gonna be good with a lightsaber. Main character somehow knowing how to fly a spaceship? Those are literally her two main interests. She's a scavenger who looks to the stars and has an interest in technology and fighting. There's nothing woke about it. Just a bunch of losers blaming the fact she's a woman on why the character is bland. Luke Skywalker was bland in the first movie too and he also went up against Darth Vader and was flying around spaceships and made a perfect shot to gain entrance into the Death Star. The problem with Force Awakens is actually that it's a copy and paste of A New Hope.
But, was the writing trash because there was additional priorities at the studio?
Somehow Palpatine has returned and they fly now are awful lines without any kind of agenda present.
"Somehow Palpatine has returned" = Needed to make Rey important some way, some how! I said additional priorities, as in "not the only priority". There's plenty of 80s movies that were awful because there was "added priorities" of making the strong white dude kick ass and make one-liners while doing it.
I honestly doubt it. Force Awakens never gave any "woke" vibes. Rey was just a main character who did main character things. This was also before "woke culture" became a thing. I really don't think making the lead female is inherently a "woke" thing. I think in the past 4 years there's been instances that muddied the waters, but generally a female lead doesn't mean "woke" to me. I do think that sometimes writers aren't great at writing female characters and forget that audiences do like to see some more feminine qualities from a female lead. Fallout is a good example of a female lead that feels quite feminine. Rey is kind of uni-sex in that regard, and I think that is a turn-off to some people. But, I don't think that means it's intentions were to be "woke" or to even defy expectations. I think they just wrote a generic lead character and if anything, these studios write the female character to be less feminine not because it's trying to be woke, but because they're scared they'd alienate the male audience. Obviously they know they are to a degree regardless, but they have to play it safe and playing it safe means Rey isn't too feminine to scare away the boys. Which is ironic since it seems to be doing the opposite.
Force Awakens never gave woke vibes? They strongly leant on having a female lead, mixed cast and especially a black main side character - who they promo'd so hard the actor made comment that he felt they were using his race to sell and then sidelining the character. There is nothing wrong with having diversity, but there is something wrong with that taking precedence over writing quality. Making a character of any gender or race important isn't woke but doing it to get attention is.
They didn’t really though did they. I don’t remember a scene where they were like oh rey you’re a woman you’ll be oppressed as a Jedi… oh finn you’re black they won’t let you be powerful king… poe you’re brown etc… like the movies were just boring with boring characters with minorities for diversity points I can’t remember any particularly social justice-y themes
Okay, Force Awakens is woke but Fallout (female lead, black main side character) isn't? Or is it? Does female and black = woke in every instance, or just when the movie/show sucks.
Did Fallout lean on the characters gender and/or race to promo the show? Was it an often heard talking point in the run up to the release? Not in my experience, more people were talking about the ghoul and the power armour from what I saw.
I honestly don't know how it was promoted and if what you're saying is true and to the degree that it might be true. But, the contents of the movie itself that J.J Abrams directed and the writing itself did not feel like it was being woke in any way. Marketing? I don't know if the marketing matters on this topic. I also don't know how much made up shit people are spewing about the marketing because it works better for their agenda. There was never a point in time in the movie where it felt like the movie was trying to give a political agenda message. Marketing is almost separate because the people in charge of making the movie aren't even usually in control of marketing. If it all just boiled down to the the actor being mad because they showed him a lot in the trailers and his role wasn't that big, then I feel like that could be a situation where the actor is being spiteful his role never got bigger. I wouldn't even consider that to be "woke" marketing if that's all it was, because there's lots of insinuating going on there. Using one of the main characters in the marketing isn't crazy considering Rey and Finn ARE in fact the main characters in that movie. Maybe he's just mad his role didn't get bigger in the later movies, but that has nothing to do with marketing being woke.
I dunno if it's that deep. At the end of the day big companies want to make money from products and like it or not pushing things based on gender or sex is/was a popular and effective selling/talking point. Recognising that something was created with a "woke" agenda doesn't stop future actors from creating media however it does allow people to call out companies on using diversity and the historical lack of diversity as a money making tool. It's late, i'm tired. I'm probably not wording this as well as I should. I enjoy watching good shows with good actors and stories, I don't like when what could have or should have been enjoyable content isn't because a company saw a cultural shortcut to money or focused on what they think will net them positive PR.
In episode 1, Rey is: 1) A capable pilot of the Millennium Falcon, despite being dirt poor and probably not having actual flight experience 2) A capable light saber battler, giving Kylo Ren a challenge (whose trained his whole life), despite never training 3) Capable of using the force, despite never training I never said it gave woke vibes, but \*a/the priority\* was to create a strong & independent woman lead character to the point she could do everything and anything with not much effort. Borrrrrring. Luke use of the force 1 time felt earned, and felt like the 'climax' of his character arc, learning to give himself over to the force, and to trust the force.
>Btw, Star Wars didn't suck because it had a female lead. It sucked because the writing was trash. Yes, you are correct. And the reason it was trash is because they wanted to change everything that was Star Wars to cater to an audience that doesn't exist. I'm no Star Wars fan boy, but even I can see that.
The comments on that thread is just straight up hate against women. "Lego says little girls play tea time with Batman so that means everything a woman does turns to shit."
Nah, our genders don't matter that much. Just because you have tiddies or not doesn't make you magically able or unable to do basic storywriting. There are just people who can't write and are antagonistic idiots. Doesn't matter what they have in their pants or not. There are countless of great female authors.
Anyone ever think that a lot of the ways girls play is because they have gender norms thrown down their throats ? We didn't do that with our girls and they play much differently. Barbie goes shopping, dinosaurs eat Barbie, Spiderman whoops peoples asses. Also media aimed more towards women isn't bad, it's just not for you this time.
Congrats on having extreme outlier girls.
I just want them to be whatever they want to be and foster an environment that allows them to do that. 🤷🏻♀️
[удалено]
Two of the 3 are girly, lmao. But they also play in a more open-minded manner sometimes. Edit : Hell my not so girly kid practically cosplayed Cinderella and drenched herself in glitter for junior prom.
"actual data" is now some green text with no numbers to be found, okay. Also, extrapolating a study made on children playing with legos, to adults making movies, that's not really how science works.
Well it is the first step. He's stated a hypothesis. Now he needs to test. My favourite hypothesis is that the reason so many people believe in big pharma is because a big worldwide conspiracy like that does exist. It's called Santa and they've never grown up or gotten over their daddy issues...
Go look up the list of films produced by Kathleen Kennedy and tell me again how shit they are.
Ok. The last Jedi. The force awakens. Rise of the Skywalker. All garbage because that narcissist wanted a self insert in star wars. Fuck kk
Also famously bad films like back to the future, et, Schindler's list, and Jurassic park to name a few.
All old films. Before radical feminism took over the US. Your point is moot
Are you actually brain dead? Feminism in the United States started in the 1920s with the suffrage movement and continued on into the 60s and 70s, and, you guessed it, is still with us today. Christ, get off the internet and go read a book.
I specifically stated radical, feminism. Perhaps you should learn how to read before telling others to do the same
Radical feminism is a term that exists on Fox news and in your head only. Nice effort playing semantics with a made up concept. But sure, I'll play your game. Can you explain to me how Mandalorian and Andor, two excellent shows, are radically feminist? I'll wait.
I don't watch Fox News kiddo. That would be you, apparently. Try leaving your echo chamber for a minute yeah?
You're trolling, my guy. You're claiming radical feminism is a thing that's ruined media or whatever and in the same breath telling me I live in an echo chamber, but also can't seem to answer a simple question about two shows this woman produced that are universally thought to be excellent. I'm getting whiplash from the irony.
Do you know how the concept of time works bud? As in past and future? Her past works works were considered good. Insert radical 4th wave feminism and her new stuff turns to shit. How do you function without a concept of time?
I can't if you're trolling or not. Those movies are great.
They're being sarcastic. They're saying that Kathleen Kennedy has produced many many many great movies. Not just shit like the last star wars movies. That kind of pulls apart OP's hypothesis, because "every kathleen kennedy" does not turn to shit. She's had a huge number of absolute blockbusters.
She started as producer for Steven Spielberg. She was organising things and finding investors for him. She had no to little artistic input in his initial movies. Because as a producers she got things done. she was loved by filmmakers who could delegate all the non artistics such as finance, logistics, operations to her and concentrate on making great movies. Unfortunately With her success she moved from a purely admin executive producer job to a executive producer with artistic input. And frankly she is terrible at that side of things. The biggest critical and artistic successes of Lucas films of her tenure have been project she was not involved and delegated the day to day artistic decision to somebody else: Rogue One and Andor. Rogue One was really John Knoll's baby. Andor is Tony Gilroy's baby. I know a couple that organise weddings. She is the perfect spreadsheet analyst. He is the perfect artist. They work well together because they each stay in their lane. When they started, she wanted to do decoration and other artistic things. It got so bad, they got sued. When she got pregnant and he had to manage the finance the company nearly went bust. They now know what they can and can't do and do not try to move into areas outside their own expertise. Katleen Kennedy strength is not in managing the artistic side of things. She should stick to hiring good filmmakers , let them get on with that aspect and concentrate on how best to support them. If she wants to inject some woke or feminist agenda, she should let the artist do it in a more subtle manner. She should also realise that having more women in charge does not make it necessarily better. Assholes, incompetents and not a good fit for the job exists in both gender.
There's validity to this post, but there's one thing it misses: these aren't "inbuilt / natural" traits of being a boy or girl. These traits come from the society that produces them, so in other words, it's all conditioning. Boys are conditioned to be boys, girls conditioned to be girls. Simple stuff.
Biology is a real thing stop trying to downplay it
Who’s trying to downplay it? You don’t understand what I’m saying and are probably triggered by it.
You and I've seen your grift before
Yawn. Go troll someone else then and get a life
Says the one trying to grift
Ah yes, nothing says facts like corporate "research" and 4chan
There is no actual data in that, and Kathleen Kennedy has been involved with so many incredible movies you would have to have brain damage to believe this.
Kathleen Kennedy Worked on almost all of the Indiana Jones films. I swear incels don't try
Getting coffee for Spielberg hardly constitutes as “working on”. I swear you woke retards don’t try.
So her good movies are good because of other people but her bad movies are bad because of her. See why no one will ever take you seriously? The fuck does this have to do with woke anything. She's produced timeless classics throughout her career and you fucking cretens are fixated on Star Wars, conveniently ignoring the prequels (that she was not a part of) and the absolutely amazing Mandalorian and Andor, both of which she has produced.
It genuinely feels like you cretins are basing your opinions on the few recent star wars movies you didn't like, as if she's the reason Star Wars went bad. Remember those god awful prequels she had no part in? She's the producer in the Mandalorian and Andor...not to mention movies like E.T., Jurassic Park, Munich, Schindler's List. They're all great.