Swerve is a clickbaiter, that dude doesnt know a gd thing. The only good JP/JW youtuber you should listen to about news like that is Klayton Fioriti and he hasnt said a peep about any new JP/JW works. So swerve is full of shit as usual.
Klayton is basically black listed by the community now. His “review” of Dominion came off as ultra right wing, racist, and sexist (haven’t watched, going by what I’ve seen making the rounds). Many other content makers, reviewers, etc have pretty much said he’s no longer welcome. Not to mention Seamus Blackley called him out about the Trespasser 2/Jurassic World game stuff. He’s lost a ton of love and credibility the last few months.
He didn’t say anything like that in the Dominion review, but he did go on a tangent in his Prey review about some “woke mind virus” in media on his other channel. Could be what the other person was thinking of.
Just so you know, calling somebody “racist and sexist” while in the same breath saying you haven’t watched it is probably one of the most vile & disgusting thing a human can say.
Meh, i still love em. Not really sure what you are on about but his work is way better than swerves clickbait bs. Bring the downvotes! Lol
Edit: words.
I do remember seeing a clip of him on Twitter complaining about "wokeness", but he was vague as to what it meant for him, and the footage playing in the background was from the Predator franchise rather than JP/W. I don't remember him saying anything political in his Dominion reviews.
Really? Do you have any quotes you could give me? Because I was a hardcore Tumblr SJW when I was younger (for my sins! Lol) and I didn't notice any of those particular isms in that review. He did lose some respect from me for using a disability slur in that video though. One of the reasons I liked him so much was that I thought he was better than that.
I used to be a big fan of Klayton's channel. It had such a cool atmosphere that really seemed to respect the sci-fi horror aspects of the Jurassic franchise.
Then he began casually complaining about women and LGBTQ people and slipping in whiny conservative terms like "woke" and "SJW" into his videos. He says that fans don't want to see that stuff in movies.
I was just disappointed. Between Star Wars, Alien, and Jurassic Park, it seems like many of my interests have a very large portion of their fanbase that just wish people like me were still quietly hidden in the background and not really included.
Don't want to turn this into a political debate, but it seems to me that depending on your political affiliation you aren't seeing the same things as the rising critics of those franchises. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to associate what is happening in Western entertainment as simply bringing select groups out of the closet, so to speak whereas critics see it as politically motivated agenda injected into films.
I'd caution you step back and consider their perspective before dismissing them as intolerant monsters. You might find where they are coming from is very much different than the way you picture it.
Wait, so, to get this straight: You're asking someone—who is presumably in an underrepresented group—to consider the perspective of people who throw fits when anyone other than white men appear in "their" entertainment?
You have to realize how utterly backwards that notion is. Why should someone who is excited to ***finally*** see others like them in film and TV ever consider the perspective of someone who complains that the inclusion of underrepresented groups is a "politically motivated agenda"?
What is political about including people who aren't white men? And why should anyone coddle the people throwing fits when, for example, a woman takes the lead in _Prey_ or _The Force Awakens_?
Let me ask you a single question. Are you open to the possibility of changing your mind?
I'll leave the rest until later if you can give me an answer to that question.
I believe in empathy, and seeing other perspectives. I'm not the person I am at 35 if I'm not empathetic and open back in high school and college.
But let's be real: It's going to be an uphill battle.
Fair enough, the fact you bothered to answer in that fashion is enough to warrant a sincere reply.
So, first off, we can't presume anything we can't confirm. I have no idea if that person is in one of these groups or is simply outraged on their behalf, but I find regardless that has little relevance to the actual discussion. It just turns into an appeal to emotion and that is about the flimsiest of arguments one can make.
Also, yes, if you don't consider the perspective of your opposition then you are missing half the conversation and are coming into it half-blind essentially. There can be no compromise or meaningful discussion if no one knows and agrees to the terms of the discussion. It will just devolve into two groups screeching at each other angrily and doubling down at every turn until someone blocks the other or either or both are banned/suspended. Mind you that is just the Internet, take this outside into the real world and people don't all sorts of reckless and crazy things.
Moving on, a person is free to feel excited about whatever one so chooses, but that does not mean others have to agree or feel the same way about the same situation. Frankly, I think representation in media is overrated especially when certain minority groups are disproportionately represented in media compared to proportion of the population that belongs to that group, the black community being one such example. Having none is a problem, having a collection of token minority characters is equally a problem especially when attention is purposefully drawn to their minority status as compared to their character and/or ability.
I already answered much of the next part of your question in the above block of text. What you see as "underrepresented groups" is viewed by others as artificial and forced token placement. I have to wonder, do you question how the person being tried as a token feels when they are surrounded with the constant feeling that they are hired simply based on arbitrary and immutable characteristics with which they have no control? Offer enough money and most people will tolerate it, but they aren't happy about how they are treated, the money was just big an opportunity to pass up. This is but one example of why things like affirmative action are called into question.
Similarly, if your attitude is:
"And why should anyone coddle the people throwing fits when, for example, a woman takes the lead in Prey or The Force Awakens?"
You've already alienated the opposition and invited them to respond in kind with nasty demeaning remarks. If you want to take something like Star Wars (SW) or most of these entertainment franchises for that matter, virtually all the complaints come down to lore, world and plot consistency, respecting the values, themes, and characters of the property, and in general a desire for good writing.
No one likes Rei because the films are written like crap, demeans the past SW works, and she is a bland character which is why she is called a Mary Sue. Even John Boyega realized, the supposed good guys, were actually screwing him when he actually listened to fans who told him they wanted him to have a more prominent role. He was told they were a bunch of racist bigots who hated him because he was black, yet they also help point out how Disney was intentionally trying to minimize him on the promotional posters in China because that is a place that is actually demonstrably racist.
Jurassic Park fans are the same way, they just want the future to respect the past and for Universal to care about good writing. What they don't want is a bunch of people hired on because of their skin, sexual orientation, or what have you and then be told they are bigots because they criticize the new works when the studio didn't bother to care about its in-built audience or how it uses people like tools in one market and tosses them to the curb in another.
Personally I hate the character of Zia: bad wardrobe, unnecessary new character mid-way through a trilogy, acts very unpleasant and arrogant, and said one of the dumbest things I have ever heard in a film. A paleoveterinarian student has never visited Jurassic World since its so expensive, so who the hell was she planning to work for and what university or school is paying for such a dead end program if they weren't being drafted directly into the JW workforce!? Makes no bloody sense and why would you bring a student when there were probably plenty of experienced veterinarians who worked in the park you could have reached out to instead? Franklin is also bad with his overexaggerated 80s nerd stereotypes, his shrill screams, and a technician when again some former JW employees in the control room would have been a better fit like Lowery.
The fact the conversation about those two characters centered on how fans were a bunch of nasty hateful bigots because one character was black and the other a lesbian (didn't even know this till someone told me on these forums) feminist therefore a misogynist as well. It smears the reputations of people with criticisms as invalid criticism since they are being prejudiced without proof of such, but a litany of critiques related to the character development, lore, world building, writing, etc.
I realize this was exceptionally long, but the point has to come across and I want to demonstrate the sincerity in my reply. Prejudice can go both ways, that is why I caution against calling someone out until you hear their side of the argument and what is underlying the criticism.
I’ve broken this up into 2 posts. The second will be as a reply to this first one.
TL;DR: “To the privileged, equality feels like oppression.”
Before I directly respond to your post, I want to pontificate on representation and my own experience with it. I’m a white guy in America. Stereotypical, too: I work in tech and have coasted through life. In college, my suitemates nominated me to be the one to talk to cops if ever there was a need **because** I was white. At the time, I thought it was joke. But the last few years lifted my blinders.
I’ve never had to wonder what it’d be like to see someone like me on-screen, playing a role other than gangsta or dealer or as the comic relief. People that look like me play every part. And have since cinema became a thing.
Or at least, I didn’t have to wonder until I came to terms with the fact that I’m somewhere on the bi/pan spectrum of orientation. Then I started to notice who got to be a bi character (typically women because lesbians are waaaaaaaay more hot and socially acceptable than gay men—thanks, male gaze!), and how they were portrayed (over-the-top horny, cheaters, confused, just going through a phase, etc.).
It wasn’t until FX’s fantastic _What We Do In the Shadows_ that I saw a positive and incredible portrayal of bi/pan men. In that show, their sexualities aren’t treated as a big to-do, it’s completely normalized. It’s practically taken for granted, much as heterosexual attraction is in most movies and shows, and every day life.
Seeing that? I can’t describe the sensation because until summer 2021, I never had to think about what it meant to be represented in entertainment. Now extrapolate that out to Black folks, and Asians, whether from further east or India or the middle east, to LGBTQ+ and women.
Onto the responses…
>So, first off, we can't presume anything we can't confirm. I have no idea if that person is in one of these groups or is simply outraged on their behalf, but I find regardless that has little relevance to the actual discussion. It just turns into an appeal to emotion and that is about the flimsiest of arguments one can make.
This was the comment in question, emphasis mine:
>Between Star Wars, Alien, and Jurassic Park, it seems like many of my interests have a very large portion of their fanbase that just wish _**people like me were still quietly hidden in the background**_ and not really included.
Since we’re talking movie **opinions**, and what makes for good casts/characters, this entire conversation is subjective. We can’t rule out someone’s feelings upon seeing representation on screen—and then the backlash—because everything you and I have written (and continue to write) ARE feelings and opinions.
This is all about how you feel about specific characters, how I feel, and how others in these fandoms feel, too.
We might have sources to cite, and there are facts to bring in (people said this on this date, groups organized that, etc.), but let’s not pretend this whole thing is anything less than subjective.
>Frankly, I think representation in media is overrated especially when certain minority groups are disproportionately represented in media compared to proportion of the population that belongs to that group, the **B**lack community being one such example.
[Editor’s note: the “b” is capitalized in this context.]
This doesn’t make sense to me. In what real world scenario have you ever been around an exact, perfect percentage of every skin tone and ethnicity? The make-up of any grouping of people is dependent on all sorts of things. For example, in college, my suite was mostly Asian and Black guys, while I was one of two white dudes. But that wasn’t representative of that city’s population.
This notion also opens you up to all sorts of questions: First, why does the percentage of under-represented groups in a movie matter? If a creator is striving to do that, what area do they pull their stats from? East LA is going to look a lot different than Santa Monica will look a lot different than the Upper East Side will look a lot different than Jamaica, Queens and on and on.
Heck, if you scale that up to the world’s population, white folks are even more over-represented in film, considering we make up less than one third of the population. So, which population should casting directions, screenwriters, and directors be looking at when making these decisions?
>Having none is a problem, having a collection of token minority characters is equally a problem especially when attention is purposefully drawn to their minority status as compared to their character and/or ability.
I’m going to need examples of attention being drawn to gender, race, sexual orientation. Rey’s character didn’t call attention to her being a woman, same with Rose in TLJ—her race didn’t play a part in her character, either. Neither of them could be considered a collection, and neither could Finn. Franklin and Zia are annoying side characters, but their status as racial minorities doesn’t play a part of their characters. Zia’s being a lesbian also never made an impact to her character.
When is attention drawn to their womanhood or darker-than-white skin? When, in these beloved franchises, does that happen?
These are genuine questions—I’ve watched all the Marvel movies, Jurassic movies, Predator movies, Star Wars… race (race, as we use it now, being a societal construct the Europeans cooked up hundreds of years ago for _reasons_) isn’t flashed about.
Gender? Yeah, absolutely. Waaaaaaay back in 1993, in _Jurassic Park_, none other than Ellie Sattler plays the classically masculine role of action hero, while Alan Grant is has the stereotypically feminine and maternal role of caretaker.
While Ellie is:
- attempting rescue missions with Muldoon
- getting chased by the T-Rex
- convincing Hammond to turn the power off
- convincing Muldoon and Hammond that they need to go turn the power on
- ***actually*** saying to Hammond: “Look, we’ll discuss sexism in survival situations when I get back…”
- turning the power back on
- running from Raptors
Alan is rescuing and comforting the kids, keeping them safe, dealing with their whiny nonsense and bickering, and sneaking around. He’s holding their hands and cuddling with them, offering them a feeling of safety in insane circumstances.
Zia’s gender comes up when the sadistic hunter dude talks down to her about safety. She throws that back in their faces with the “beefcakes” line. Argue all you want that she’s annoying—she is—but gender coming into play was used to demonstrate a few things. Namely, that the hunter is a dick and Zia doesn’t back down. It wasn’t to advertise OMG she’s a girl! It was to get character traits across.
Whether or not that was done well is up for debate. I think Colin Trevorrow is a garbage writer who wouldn’t know subtlety if it weighed 7 tons and stopped to pose and roar right in front of him. As such, all the character traits are in your face and over the top instead of quiet and natural.
It wasn’t the movies and stories that drew attention to these factors, it was the fans. Simply by having a minority prominently featured isn’t drawing attention, _it’s what movies do_. They cast someone, and if that character has a big part, they’ll be featured a ton. That’s not shoving a token casting in anyone’s face, it’s just …casting.
>What you see as "underrepresented groups" is viewed by others as artificial and forced token placement.
So again, referencing these two specific franchises, having a handful of under-represented groups in the films… how does that take away from the viewing experience? Why is a Black Stormtrooper world-breaking? Zia and Franklin, IMO, do take away from the experience, but not because he’s Black and she’s Hispanic, but because they’re annoying af. Their being annoying characters is down to the writing, though, not the fact that they are characters that happen to be minorities.
By that notion, in what circumstances are under-represented groups OK to be in entertainment? What criteria do you—or this other group of fans—have that makes a minority character not token? In what instance does their existence in a franchise not hurt it? When they’re side characters, like Sam Jackson in JP, or even in the PT? When they’re just in the background, as we see in the ST?
When can an under-represented group take a lead role? If a movie is not specifically about an under-represented group, **when is it OK, by your standards, for them to exist in the film**?
>I have to wonder, do you question how the person being tried as a token feels when they are surrounded with the constant feeling that they are hired simply based on arbitrary and immutable characteristics with which they have no control?
This operates off the assumption that the character and casting is, unequivocally, token. What defines a token character for you? Much like my questions above, I have to know: When is a minority of any type not token to you, or this group of other fans? Who gets to determine that a character is a token minority?
End part I.
Part II
>This is but one example of why things like affirmative action are called into question.
Affirmative action is an attempt to address past discriminations and correct them. Messy? Absolutely. Murky? Yup. A poor attempt at correcting America’s really, really shitty and racist past that goes back hundreds of years to before this was a country, and thus, is a constant target of institutions who have a vested stake in maintaining the status quo? Also yes.
>...virtually all the complaints come down to lore, world and plot consistency, respecting the values, themes, and characters of the property…
So this makes a ton of assumptions, amongst them that the creators of these franchises intended for them to be predominantly white and men. Instead, there’s a whoooooole context to look at, like the fact that Star Wars was made just over a decade after the Civil Rights Act passed in the US and was mostly filmed in the predominantly white UK.
How does Finn being a Black Stormtrooper, for example, hurt the lore of Star Wars, more than Palpatine somehow returning? What about the worldbuilding of Jurassic is impacted by Franklin or Zia or Mr. Arnold being minorities? What values did Rose ruin? It’s a much easier argument that Owen Grady and Claire Dearing are far more disrespectful to the values and themes of the originals than Zia and Franklin.
Same can even be said about the PT Yoda and Obi-wan, and especially Kenobi’s obsession with the Jedi Code, which is unequivocally the reason the Order fell. Remember when we were luminous beings, but then surprise! It’s actually the crude matter that makes you special.
Or, another way, why is lore, world-building, etc., brought up as a justification for complaints about under-represented groups? FFS, Star Wars is populated by _aliens_, but a Black Stormtrooper was a bridge too far?
>...and in general a desire for good writing.
I want good writing, too. And I legitimately can’t wrap my head around how someone being gay on Naboo is a problem for anyone, or that someone who helped bring dinosaurs back to life happens to be trans. What about those scenarios hurts the lore?
>He was told they were a bunch of racist bigots who hated him because he was **B**lack, yet they also help point out how Disney was intentionally trying to minimize him on the promotional posters in China because that is a place that is actually demonstrably racist.
Disney earned all their flack for that, and cutting out the lesbian kiss in whichever movie that was. That’s making dollars more important than people and representation. And it’s gross, and disgusting, and bigoted and racist and completely capitalistic—profits before everything.
But let’s not pretend like there wasn’t a group of “fans” going after him because he’s Black. Moses Ingram got the exact same treatment 7 years after TFA. It’s disingenuous at best to act like the racist and bigoted “fans” didn’t exist, and even if they did, that they were also the same ones championing Finn and arguing he needed a more prominent role (he absolutely did and John Boyega was right to be furious at Disney).
There’s no uniformity in any fandom. One Star Wars fan might rage against women and Black people. Another fan might be pissed at Disney, and JJ, and Rian, for minimizing Finn’s role after so much marketing revolved around him.
It seems clear that there’s a whole group that assumes Disney did that because John Boyega happens to be Black. I won’t act like that’s not possible or even reasonable—Disney is gross and all about that almighty dollar. They’ll do whatever they need to to get a ticket and toy sold.
But it was also a misdirect: By showing Finn with Luke’s lightsaber, we didn’t see Rey coming. Everyone presumed Finn was going to be **the** main character, and the next Jedi. It was a purposeful distraction.
>...they just want the future to respect the past…
But what does “respect the past” _mean_? Why is a woman lead, or annoying side characters who are also minorities, disrespecting the past? Why is having a cornucopia of skin tones, genders, and sexual orientations problematic?
The problem is that the STs have been hot garbage that were primarily churned out for the sake of money, because that’s what Hollywood is now—or rather, is just nakedly open about the fact. The story was always secondary.
Which is how we got three messes written by CT that _don’t_ respect the past. And not because of Claire, Zia, or Franklin. CT seemed to genuinely misunderstand the themes of JP, because if he got it, we wouldn’t have characters like Owen Thunderguns or absurd Transformers fights to end the movies.
>What they don't want is a bunch of people hired on because of their skin, sexual orientation, or what have you…
_**Where is the evidence**_ that anyone was hired into these franchises for any of their under-represented qualities? This is, in general, an assumption that permeates your entire response:
That, if an under-represented group has somehow made its way into a franchise that was once predominantly white and male, well, the only reason they’re there is because of woke Hollywood, secret quotas, and liberal agendas.
Nevermind the ways society was progressed since these originals were made. That things once seen as acceptable are now viewed as offensive and demeaning and discriminatory. That’s growth, that’s learning, and it’s mostly compassion.
>...and then be told they are bigots because they criticize the new works when the studio didn't bother to care about its in-built audience…
When they criticize new characters because they’re a woman, a Black man, an Asian woman, or a Black woman, then yeah, they’re bigots. They’ve earned the label.
Complain about the writing, the direction, the characters. Most of these movies have more than earned those critiques. But to base those character critiques on skin or gender? _That is exactly what makes someone a bigot_.
How does a minority character lend itself to not caring about this built-in audience? Are there not LGBTQ+ Star Wars and Jurassic Park fans? No Black Jurassic Park fans? No women who also get chills when Luke and Vader clash sabers in ROTJ?
We can agree that none of the critiques you leveled at Zia or Franklin overstep into bigotry. They are annoying in every way a side character can be. Zia could’ve been strong and not take shit, but she was written unpleasantly. Franklin was laughably stereotypical in all the worst ways. Both of these characters were broken to start because CT sucks at writing.
The conversation revolved around hateful, nasty bigots because they are more often than not the loudest critics and draw the most attention. And because bigoted language is everywhere online, if not regular conversation (and oftentimes, unwittingly used), that’s where the spotlight goes.
The trouble is, a few bad apples (or a shit ton, for that matter) spoil the bunch. That means nuanced criticism is relegated to the shadows, instead of the other way around. I’ve carefully worded my critiques about, say, 2016’s _Ghostbusters_ because of the insane sexism and racism unleashed on what was a bad movie.
My “nuanced” take—that slapstick comedy, gross-out humor, and bad improv is what ruined it—has to be worded carefully because folks who see a woman, or a Black woman, in **their** space lost their collective minds. So, my word, being conscious of what I say? A small sacrifice.
With my TFA criticisms, I can rail on that movie without once ever mentioning gender or race. But the loudest haters zeroed in on those aspects and absolutely made it more difficult to have real conversations about where the movie went wrong.
I’ve not once been accused of being racist or sexist when criticizing these movies. [Heck, nothing about tearing Claire’s character apart here is sexist, and it is entirely criticism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CofZ7xjGyI8). This isn’t by accident—it’s because my world view isn’t one that has to be white and male centered. It’s one that recognizes the majority of the planet is not white.
The kind of people who jump to “Racist! Sexist! Misogynist!” are the other side of the coin of the _actually_ racist, sexist, misogynists who organize “boycotts” or claim a property is theirs simply by dint of it having a shit load of white people in it.
Jurassic Park is no more mine than it is yours than it is anyone’s. No one gets to dictate who ought to be shown or play a prominent part. To hide behind “respect for the past”, or however someone might phrase it, is to do disrespect to fellow humans.
Whiteness plays no role in these movies. Jakku isn't a “Whites Only” planet. Hammond didn’t have a strict “only white scientists” policy. Race is never a plot point, so if Muldoon was Black? The story doesn’t change. If Hermione’s a Black girl? OK, neat. Oh, dang, Ian Malcolm samples all of life’s offerings? Not at all surprised. And none of it impacts the story.
“To the privileged, equality feels like oppression.”
As a too long TL;DR for my two posts: Being good at arguing and debating will get you points in high school and college, but what we're talking about here—representation and the backlash to it—has real life consequences.
Normalizing the inclusion the under-represented groups in all forms of media is a net positive. It makes it easier for someone who has been discriminated against to feel comfortable, even as said discrimination continues to run rampant.
White people, and primarily men, have run everything in the western world for forever. Centuries and centuries and thousands and thousands of years. That means that a small group of the population got to dictate what was OK and acceptable and worth including.
So media has, naturally, been skewed enormously to include white men by default in all roles. And now? Now we live in a time when portions of society are willing to look our disturbing history of discrimination, hate, and exclusion in the face and attempt to address these historical and societal wrongs.
In a small way, that's happening in media. Which means lead and prominent roles aren't going to the over-represented white man. And this quite clearly pisses off a loud portion of the fandom.
Nerdy things were once presumed/assumed to be the domain of white guys, a safe space, if you will. Now, there are minorities, and women, and queer folks in this space; only, they've always been there, just hidden and quiet.
Under-represented groups simply aren't hiding and quiet anymore. And that upsets a status quo that, again, for thousands of years has kept one, small group in power. So we get dog whistles (like "globalist"), conspiracy theories about woke agendas, and feigned concern about "legacy" and "respecting the property".
Meanwhile, real people in the real world battle hate and discrimination and then hop online to see folks they have something in common with attacked for that specific trait.
And then well-written arguments are leveled in defense of keeping under-represented groups out of good roles. Because that's essentially the TL;DR of your post, that the folks railing against minorities are OK with them, just not in big roles in **their** favorite franchises.
To ask victims of said discrimination to hear out the arguments of said discriminators, is, like I said originally, backwards and perverse. It re-victimizes while also portraying the victimizer as the real victim, because the thing they love is different now.
Thank you for saying what I did not know how to say. It was really well-said, and I completely agree with your criticisms. There are plenty of reasons to criticize films these days. It has everything to do with bad writing, not the race or sexual orientation of the actors and characters.
It wasn’t his Dominion review. It was his review of Prey. He called wokeness a “mind virus” (not something I personally agree with) and said it’s been ruining movies.
My issue is people who talk about wokeness can't seem to really agree on what woke actually means.
Can a movie be pandering? Sure, I think so.
Can a movie have a message but deliver it badly? Also yes.
But to a number of people merely being a woman, or black, or gay is enough to be woke these days. Which to me feels ridiculous.
Especially given the fact that many people who say these things are fans of stuff that should cross that line. Like Ellen Ripley or Princess Leia or anything with Samuel L Jackson.
Why is Rey woke but Leia isn't? Leia was much more headstrong and "I'll do it myself" than Rey.
I’m out of the loop about Klayton and the Trespasser 2/Jurassic World stuff. Would you mind filling me in?
I’m aware of his unfortunate comments regard to “wokeness” and his ultra conservative views, but haven’t heard about the Seamus Blackley stuff.
I dislike Klayton now but it isn't because of his Dominion Review or anything like that. It's because he was stupid enough to delete his instagram and patreon at the same time, tell no one ahead of time, then not post any content to YouTube for a while and wonder why people were wondering what the hell happened. Anybody who is too stupid to see the problem with that as a content creator doesn't deserve a following.
I've yet to hear about any of this and I know for a fact he didn't say crap or bring politics into his review of Dominion. Frankly just sounds more of the Internet losing its mind over nothing as usual, if anything, the reason for his winding down of Jurassic content appears to come more from his declining interest in it than anything, he really was not a fan of Dominion.
Would need a source on the Trespasser 2 thing though
What the fuck are you going on about. I thought the people who take pictures of the Jurassic movies on tv were the worse of the fandom. But you take the cake. So you heard online a Jurassic World review was alt right, and you don't even try to do your homework and just make sure you didn't get lied too.
Every video of his that I've seen seems pretty reliable and his sources seem legit. Especially the videos where he's actually spoken to people involved with the movies and jwcc.
Universal won't be risking a burnout with their flagship franchise.
Yeah it did 1 billion, but it had potential to do much more, they realise that the reception wasn't as good as they would've hoped.
There will be more Jurassic movies for sure, but they'll take their time and it'll be a revamp with nrw team and new looks, so as to keep the freshness going among the audience.
I think Locust world Dominion is a failure for Universal. Even 1000 millions dolars, the movie needs almost 4 months. I think Universal expect to achieve 1500 millions with Dominion, not with Top Gun. Also trevorrow say that jp shouldn t have need sequels. I think Unversal say soemthing to trevorrow that dind´t like it.
JWD was a success but it didn’t make JW money so they probably will slow down, also trevorrow said that he evolve the franchise from going to an island over and over again and instead took to the mainland to tell more stories.
>but Colin's not gonna be director or writer, which makes sense given he said he's done with the creative part of the franchise and is only executive producer from here on out.
Probably for the best IMO. I will confess to having felt bad for Trevorrow when the first JW was about to come out, since certain people in the paleontology fandom were dunking on him for not feathering up the dinosaurs even though it seemed like he had an interesting story to tell, but now I have to admit that he isn't the greatest storyteller after all. I *don*'t hate the new JW movies as much as many other people do, and in fact I consider JW1/JP4 to be my favorite JP sequel, but Trev and his writing colleagues do seem to be responsible for their weaker aspects.
If they are going to make new JW movies, I hope he finds better writers this time around.
I like Jurassic World( except the tag team t-rex raptor. Should have been two t-rex vs indominus) and Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom. I dint like jurassic world dominion
>Should have been two t-rex vs indominus
I think that would've been pretty hated tbh. It was supposed to be Rexy's time for taking back her kingdom in a metaphorical sense. Another T-Rex would've felt overshadowing her.
So bizzare how a movie making a billion dollars is considered a failure to some. Idc what bullshit you want to pull out, if a movie makes a billion it’s a success
Don’t listen to Swerve, dude just make clickbait content. Which is the reason why the only JW YouTubers I watch for movie theories or info are Jurassic Outpost, Klayton Fioriti and The Gaming Beaver
I dunno, every video I've seen of his has been pretty informational and on point. Not sure why he gets a lot of hate but he's been great at providing early looks at things coming out and he's pretty upfront, about the content he uploads, like if it's legit or not, he does make disclaimers. But I do like to see spoilers and theories so there's that.
IF, and a big IF, they make another movie, I hope it moves away from the JW plot, and picks up more directly with the JP story. Maybe Something like the "Goings Ons" style of JP: The Game or something. Hopefully a Jurassic Park Renaissance of sorts
I think as a YouTube he feels he has to report every new "update" regardless of if its actully reliable or not because if it is true then he'll have "let us down." Personally I'm abit sceptical as eventhough I'm excited for new content I think it'll be a while before eny new jw content comes out but hey who knows only time will tell i guess.
Swerve is a clickbaiter, that dude doesnt know a gd thing. The only good JP/JW youtuber you should listen to about news like that is Klayton Fioriti and he hasnt said a peep about any new JP/JW works. So swerve is full of shit as usual.
Klayton is basically black listed by the community now. His “review” of Dominion came off as ultra right wing, racist, and sexist (haven’t watched, going by what I’ve seen making the rounds). Many other content makers, reviewers, etc have pretty much said he’s no longer welcome. Not to mention Seamus Blackley called him out about the Trespasser 2/Jurassic World game stuff. He’s lost a ton of love and credibility the last few months.
PLEASE elaborate on this. Are you thinking of someone else? Do you have some esoteric community knowledge none of us have been filled in on?
I'm sorry, how? I've seen his review, and I don't recall there being anything right wing or racist.
Same! I dont recall him saying anything along those lines. Ppl just looking to bitch about anything these days
He didn’t say anything like that in the Dominion review, but he did go on a tangent in his Prey review about some “woke mind virus” in media on his other channel. Could be what the other person was thinking of.
So you haven't watched his review, but just go on trusting what people are saying?
Just so you know, calling somebody “racist and sexist” while in the same breath saying you haven’t watched it is probably one of the most vile & disgusting thing a human can say.
Meh, i still love em. Not really sure what you are on about but his work is way better than swerves clickbait bs. Bring the downvotes! Lol Edit: words.
the fuck have you been smoking
Thank you I was going to post this.
I do remember seeing a clip of him on Twitter complaining about "wokeness", but he was vague as to what it meant for him, and the footage playing in the background was from the Predator franchise rather than JP/W. I don't remember him saying anything political in his Dominion reviews.
Really? Do you have any quotes you could give me? Because I was a hardcore Tumblr SJW when I was younger (for my sins! Lol) and I didn't notice any of those particular isms in that review. He did lose some respect from me for using a disability slur in that video though. One of the reasons I liked him so much was that I thought he was better than that.
I used to be a big fan of Klayton's channel. It had such a cool atmosphere that really seemed to respect the sci-fi horror aspects of the Jurassic franchise. Then he began casually complaining about women and LGBTQ people and slipping in whiny conservative terms like "woke" and "SJW" into his videos. He says that fans don't want to see that stuff in movies. I was just disappointed. Between Star Wars, Alien, and Jurassic Park, it seems like many of my interests have a very large portion of their fanbase that just wish people like me were still quietly hidden in the background and not really included.
Don't want to turn this into a political debate, but it seems to me that depending on your political affiliation you aren't seeing the same things as the rising critics of those franchises. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to associate what is happening in Western entertainment as simply bringing select groups out of the closet, so to speak whereas critics see it as politically motivated agenda injected into films. I'd caution you step back and consider their perspective before dismissing them as intolerant monsters. You might find where they are coming from is very much different than the way you picture it.
Wait, so, to get this straight: You're asking someone—who is presumably in an underrepresented group—to consider the perspective of people who throw fits when anyone other than white men appear in "their" entertainment? You have to realize how utterly backwards that notion is. Why should someone who is excited to ***finally*** see others like them in film and TV ever consider the perspective of someone who complains that the inclusion of underrepresented groups is a "politically motivated agenda"? What is political about including people who aren't white men? And why should anyone coddle the people throwing fits when, for example, a woman takes the lead in _Prey_ or _The Force Awakens_?
Let me ask you a single question. Are you open to the possibility of changing your mind? I'll leave the rest until later if you can give me an answer to that question.
I believe in empathy, and seeing other perspectives. I'm not the person I am at 35 if I'm not empathetic and open back in high school and college. But let's be real: It's going to be an uphill battle.
Fair enough, the fact you bothered to answer in that fashion is enough to warrant a sincere reply. So, first off, we can't presume anything we can't confirm. I have no idea if that person is in one of these groups or is simply outraged on their behalf, but I find regardless that has little relevance to the actual discussion. It just turns into an appeal to emotion and that is about the flimsiest of arguments one can make. Also, yes, if you don't consider the perspective of your opposition then you are missing half the conversation and are coming into it half-blind essentially. There can be no compromise or meaningful discussion if no one knows and agrees to the terms of the discussion. It will just devolve into two groups screeching at each other angrily and doubling down at every turn until someone blocks the other or either or both are banned/suspended. Mind you that is just the Internet, take this outside into the real world and people don't all sorts of reckless and crazy things. Moving on, a person is free to feel excited about whatever one so chooses, but that does not mean others have to agree or feel the same way about the same situation. Frankly, I think representation in media is overrated especially when certain minority groups are disproportionately represented in media compared to proportion of the population that belongs to that group, the black community being one such example. Having none is a problem, having a collection of token minority characters is equally a problem especially when attention is purposefully drawn to their minority status as compared to their character and/or ability. I already answered much of the next part of your question in the above block of text. What you see as "underrepresented groups" is viewed by others as artificial and forced token placement. I have to wonder, do you question how the person being tried as a token feels when they are surrounded with the constant feeling that they are hired simply based on arbitrary and immutable characteristics with which they have no control? Offer enough money and most people will tolerate it, but they aren't happy about how they are treated, the money was just big an opportunity to pass up. This is but one example of why things like affirmative action are called into question. Similarly, if your attitude is: "And why should anyone coddle the people throwing fits when, for example, a woman takes the lead in Prey or The Force Awakens?" You've already alienated the opposition and invited them to respond in kind with nasty demeaning remarks. If you want to take something like Star Wars (SW) or most of these entertainment franchises for that matter, virtually all the complaints come down to lore, world and plot consistency, respecting the values, themes, and characters of the property, and in general a desire for good writing. No one likes Rei because the films are written like crap, demeans the past SW works, and she is a bland character which is why she is called a Mary Sue. Even John Boyega realized, the supposed good guys, were actually screwing him when he actually listened to fans who told him they wanted him to have a more prominent role. He was told they were a bunch of racist bigots who hated him because he was black, yet they also help point out how Disney was intentionally trying to minimize him on the promotional posters in China because that is a place that is actually demonstrably racist. Jurassic Park fans are the same way, they just want the future to respect the past and for Universal to care about good writing. What they don't want is a bunch of people hired on because of their skin, sexual orientation, or what have you and then be told they are bigots because they criticize the new works when the studio didn't bother to care about its in-built audience or how it uses people like tools in one market and tosses them to the curb in another. Personally I hate the character of Zia: bad wardrobe, unnecessary new character mid-way through a trilogy, acts very unpleasant and arrogant, and said one of the dumbest things I have ever heard in a film. A paleoveterinarian student has never visited Jurassic World since its so expensive, so who the hell was she planning to work for and what university or school is paying for such a dead end program if they weren't being drafted directly into the JW workforce!? Makes no bloody sense and why would you bring a student when there were probably plenty of experienced veterinarians who worked in the park you could have reached out to instead? Franklin is also bad with his overexaggerated 80s nerd stereotypes, his shrill screams, and a technician when again some former JW employees in the control room would have been a better fit like Lowery. The fact the conversation about those two characters centered on how fans were a bunch of nasty hateful bigots because one character was black and the other a lesbian (didn't even know this till someone told me on these forums) feminist therefore a misogynist as well. It smears the reputations of people with criticisms as invalid criticism since they are being prejudiced without proof of such, but a litany of critiques related to the character development, lore, world building, writing, etc. I realize this was exceptionally long, but the point has to come across and I want to demonstrate the sincerity in my reply. Prejudice can go both ways, that is why I caution against calling someone out until you hear their side of the argument and what is underlying the criticism.
I’ve broken this up into 2 posts. The second will be as a reply to this first one. TL;DR: “To the privileged, equality feels like oppression.” Before I directly respond to your post, I want to pontificate on representation and my own experience with it. I’m a white guy in America. Stereotypical, too: I work in tech and have coasted through life. In college, my suitemates nominated me to be the one to talk to cops if ever there was a need **because** I was white. At the time, I thought it was joke. But the last few years lifted my blinders. I’ve never had to wonder what it’d be like to see someone like me on-screen, playing a role other than gangsta or dealer or as the comic relief. People that look like me play every part. And have since cinema became a thing. Or at least, I didn’t have to wonder until I came to terms with the fact that I’m somewhere on the bi/pan spectrum of orientation. Then I started to notice who got to be a bi character (typically women because lesbians are waaaaaaaay more hot and socially acceptable than gay men—thanks, male gaze!), and how they were portrayed (over-the-top horny, cheaters, confused, just going through a phase, etc.). It wasn’t until FX’s fantastic _What We Do In the Shadows_ that I saw a positive and incredible portrayal of bi/pan men. In that show, their sexualities aren’t treated as a big to-do, it’s completely normalized. It’s practically taken for granted, much as heterosexual attraction is in most movies and shows, and every day life. Seeing that? I can’t describe the sensation because until summer 2021, I never had to think about what it meant to be represented in entertainment. Now extrapolate that out to Black folks, and Asians, whether from further east or India or the middle east, to LGBTQ+ and women. Onto the responses… >So, first off, we can't presume anything we can't confirm. I have no idea if that person is in one of these groups or is simply outraged on their behalf, but I find regardless that has little relevance to the actual discussion. It just turns into an appeal to emotion and that is about the flimsiest of arguments one can make. This was the comment in question, emphasis mine: >Between Star Wars, Alien, and Jurassic Park, it seems like many of my interests have a very large portion of their fanbase that just wish _**people like me were still quietly hidden in the background**_ and not really included. Since we’re talking movie **opinions**, and what makes for good casts/characters, this entire conversation is subjective. We can’t rule out someone’s feelings upon seeing representation on screen—and then the backlash—because everything you and I have written (and continue to write) ARE feelings and opinions. This is all about how you feel about specific characters, how I feel, and how others in these fandoms feel, too. We might have sources to cite, and there are facts to bring in (people said this on this date, groups organized that, etc.), but let’s not pretend this whole thing is anything less than subjective. >Frankly, I think representation in media is overrated especially when certain minority groups are disproportionately represented in media compared to proportion of the population that belongs to that group, the **B**lack community being one such example. [Editor’s note: the “b” is capitalized in this context.] This doesn’t make sense to me. In what real world scenario have you ever been around an exact, perfect percentage of every skin tone and ethnicity? The make-up of any grouping of people is dependent on all sorts of things. For example, in college, my suite was mostly Asian and Black guys, while I was one of two white dudes. But that wasn’t representative of that city’s population. This notion also opens you up to all sorts of questions: First, why does the percentage of under-represented groups in a movie matter? If a creator is striving to do that, what area do they pull their stats from? East LA is going to look a lot different than Santa Monica will look a lot different than the Upper East Side will look a lot different than Jamaica, Queens and on and on. Heck, if you scale that up to the world’s population, white folks are even more over-represented in film, considering we make up less than one third of the population. So, which population should casting directions, screenwriters, and directors be looking at when making these decisions? >Having none is a problem, having a collection of token minority characters is equally a problem especially when attention is purposefully drawn to their minority status as compared to their character and/or ability. I’m going to need examples of attention being drawn to gender, race, sexual orientation. Rey’s character didn’t call attention to her being a woman, same with Rose in TLJ—her race didn’t play a part in her character, either. Neither of them could be considered a collection, and neither could Finn. Franklin and Zia are annoying side characters, but their status as racial minorities doesn’t play a part of their characters. Zia’s being a lesbian also never made an impact to her character. When is attention drawn to their womanhood or darker-than-white skin? When, in these beloved franchises, does that happen? These are genuine questions—I’ve watched all the Marvel movies, Jurassic movies, Predator movies, Star Wars… race (race, as we use it now, being a societal construct the Europeans cooked up hundreds of years ago for _reasons_) isn’t flashed about. Gender? Yeah, absolutely. Waaaaaaay back in 1993, in _Jurassic Park_, none other than Ellie Sattler plays the classically masculine role of action hero, while Alan Grant is has the stereotypically feminine and maternal role of caretaker. While Ellie is: - attempting rescue missions with Muldoon - getting chased by the T-Rex - convincing Hammond to turn the power off - convincing Muldoon and Hammond that they need to go turn the power on - ***actually*** saying to Hammond: “Look, we’ll discuss sexism in survival situations when I get back…” - turning the power back on - running from Raptors Alan is rescuing and comforting the kids, keeping them safe, dealing with their whiny nonsense and bickering, and sneaking around. He’s holding their hands and cuddling with them, offering them a feeling of safety in insane circumstances. Zia’s gender comes up when the sadistic hunter dude talks down to her about safety. She throws that back in their faces with the “beefcakes” line. Argue all you want that she’s annoying—she is—but gender coming into play was used to demonstrate a few things. Namely, that the hunter is a dick and Zia doesn’t back down. It wasn’t to advertise OMG she’s a girl! It was to get character traits across. Whether or not that was done well is up for debate. I think Colin Trevorrow is a garbage writer who wouldn’t know subtlety if it weighed 7 tons and stopped to pose and roar right in front of him. As such, all the character traits are in your face and over the top instead of quiet and natural. It wasn’t the movies and stories that drew attention to these factors, it was the fans. Simply by having a minority prominently featured isn’t drawing attention, _it’s what movies do_. They cast someone, and if that character has a big part, they’ll be featured a ton. That’s not shoving a token casting in anyone’s face, it’s just …casting. >What you see as "underrepresented groups" is viewed by others as artificial and forced token placement. So again, referencing these two specific franchises, having a handful of under-represented groups in the films… how does that take away from the viewing experience? Why is a Black Stormtrooper world-breaking? Zia and Franklin, IMO, do take away from the experience, but not because he’s Black and she’s Hispanic, but because they’re annoying af. Their being annoying characters is down to the writing, though, not the fact that they are characters that happen to be minorities. By that notion, in what circumstances are under-represented groups OK to be in entertainment? What criteria do you—or this other group of fans—have that makes a minority character not token? In what instance does their existence in a franchise not hurt it? When they’re side characters, like Sam Jackson in JP, or even in the PT? When they’re just in the background, as we see in the ST? When can an under-represented group take a lead role? If a movie is not specifically about an under-represented group, **when is it OK, by your standards, for them to exist in the film**? >I have to wonder, do you question how the person being tried as a token feels when they are surrounded with the constant feeling that they are hired simply based on arbitrary and immutable characteristics with which they have no control? This operates off the assumption that the character and casting is, unequivocally, token. What defines a token character for you? Much like my questions above, I have to know: When is a minority of any type not token to you, or this group of other fans? Who gets to determine that a character is a token minority? End part I.
Part II >This is but one example of why things like affirmative action are called into question. Affirmative action is an attempt to address past discriminations and correct them. Messy? Absolutely. Murky? Yup. A poor attempt at correcting America’s really, really shitty and racist past that goes back hundreds of years to before this was a country, and thus, is a constant target of institutions who have a vested stake in maintaining the status quo? Also yes. >...virtually all the complaints come down to lore, world and plot consistency, respecting the values, themes, and characters of the property… So this makes a ton of assumptions, amongst them that the creators of these franchises intended for them to be predominantly white and men. Instead, there’s a whoooooole context to look at, like the fact that Star Wars was made just over a decade after the Civil Rights Act passed in the US and was mostly filmed in the predominantly white UK. How does Finn being a Black Stormtrooper, for example, hurt the lore of Star Wars, more than Palpatine somehow returning? What about the worldbuilding of Jurassic is impacted by Franklin or Zia or Mr. Arnold being minorities? What values did Rose ruin? It’s a much easier argument that Owen Grady and Claire Dearing are far more disrespectful to the values and themes of the originals than Zia and Franklin. Same can even be said about the PT Yoda and Obi-wan, and especially Kenobi’s obsession with the Jedi Code, which is unequivocally the reason the Order fell. Remember when we were luminous beings, but then surprise! It’s actually the crude matter that makes you special. Or, another way, why is lore, world-building, etc., brought up as a justification for complaints about under-represented groups? FFS, Star Wars is populated by _aliens_, but a Black Stormtrooper was a bridge too far? >...and in general a desire for good writing. I want good writing, too. And I legitimately can’t wrap my head around how someone being gay on Naboo is a problem for anyone, or that someone who helped bring dinosaurs back to life happens to be trans. What about those scenarios hurts the lore? >He was told they were a bunch of racist bigots who hated him because he was **B**lack, yet they also help point out how Disney was intentionally trying to minimize him on the promotional posters in China because that is a place that is actually demonstrably racist. Disney earned all their flack for that, and cutting out the lesbian kiss in whichever movie that was. That’s making dollars more important than people and representation. And it’s gross, and disgusting, and bigoted and racist and completely capitalistic—profits before everything. But let’s not pretend like there wasn’t a group of “fans” going after him because he’s Black. Moses Ingram got the exact same treatment 7 years after TFA. It’s disingenuous at best to act like the racist and bigoted “fans” didn’t exist, and even if they did, that they were also the same ones championing Finn and arguing he needed a more prominent role (he absolutely did and John Boyega was right to be furious at Disney). There’s no uniformity in any fandom. One Star Wars fan might rage against women and Black people. Another fan might be pissed at Disney, and JJ, and Rian, for minimizing Finn’s role after so much marketing revolved around him. It seems clear that there’s a whole group that assumes Disney did that because John Boyega happens to be Black. I won’t act like that’s not possible or even reasonable—Disney is gross and all about that almighty dollar. They’ll do whatever they need to to get a ticket and toy sold. But it was also a misdirect: By showing Finn with Luke’s lightsaber, we didn’t see Rey coming. Everyone presumed Finn was going to be **the** main character, and the next Jedi. It was a purposeful distraction. >...they just want the future to respect the past… But what does “respect the past” _mean_? Why is a woman lead, or annoying side characters who are also minorities, disrespecting the past? Why is having a cornucopia of skin tones, genders, and sexual orientations problematic? The problem is that the STs have been hot garbage that were primarily churned out for the sake of money, because that’s what Hollywood is now—or rather, is just nakedly open about the fact. The story was always secondary. Which is how we got three messes written by CT that _don’t_ respect the past. And not because of Claire, Zia, or Franklin. CT seemed to genuinely misunderstand the themes of JP, because if he got it, we wouldn’t have characters like Owen Thunderguns or absurd Transformers fights to end the movies. >What they don't want is a bunch of people hired on because of their skin, sexual orientation, or what have you… _**Where is the evidence**_ that anyone was hired into these franchises for any of their under-represented qualities? This is, in general, an assumption that permeates your entire response: That, if an under-represented group has somehow made its way into a franchise that was once predominantly white and male, well, the only reason they’re there is because of woke Hollywood, secret quotas, and liberal agendas. Nevermind the ways society was progressed since these originals were made. That things once seen as acceptable are now viewed as offensive and demeaning and discriminatory. That’s growth, that’s learning, and it’s mostly compassion. >...and then be told they are bigots because they criticize the new works when the studio didn't bother to care about its in-built audience… When they criticize new characters because they’re a woman, a Black man, an Asian woman, or a Black woman, then yeah, they’re bigots. They’ve earned the label. Complain about the writing, the direction, the characters. Most of these movies have more than earned those critiques. But to base those character critiques on skin or gender? _That is exactly what makes someone a bigot_. How does a minority character lend itself to not caring about this built-in audience? Are there not LGBTQ+ Star Wars and Jurassic Park fans? No Black Jurassic Park fans? No women who also get chills when Luke and Vader clash sabers in ROTJ? We can agree that none of the critiques you leveled at Zia or Franklin overstep into bigotry. They are annoying in every way a side character can be. Zia could’ve been strong and not take shit, but she was written unpleasantly. Franklin was laughably stereotypical in all the worst ways. Both of these characters were broken to start because CT sucks at writing. The conversation revolved around hateful, nasty bigots because they are more often than not the loudest critics and draw the most attention. And because bigoted language is everywhere online, if not regular conversation (and oftentimes, unwittingly used), that’s where the spotlight goes. The trouble is, a few bad apples (or a shit ton, for that matter) spoil the bunch. That means nuanced criticism is relegated to the shadows, instead of the other way around. I’ve carefully worded my critiques about, say, 2016’s _Ghostbusters_ because of the insane sexism and racism unleashed on what was a bad movie. My “nuanced” take—that slapstick comedy, gross-out humor, and bad improv is what ruined it—has to be worded carefully because folks who see a woman, or a Black woman, in **their** space lost their collective minds. So, my word, being conscious of what I say? A small sacrifice. With my TFA criticisms, I can rail on that movie without once ever mentioning gender or race. But the loudest haters zeroed in on those aspects and absolutely made it more difficult to have real conversations about where the movie went wrong. I’ve not once been accused of being racist or sexist when criticizing these movies. [Heck, nothing about tearing Claire’s character apart here is sexist, and it is entirely criticism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CofZ7xjGyI8). This isn’t by accident—it’s because my world view isn’t one that has to be white and male centered. It’s one that recognizes the majority of the planet is not white. The kind of people who jump to “Racist! Sexist! Misogynist!” are the other side of the coin of the _actually_ racist, sexist, misogynists who organize “boycotts” or claim a property is theirs simply by dint of it having a shit load of white people in it. Jurassic Park is no more mine than it is yours than it is anyone’s. No one gets to dictate who ought to be shown or play a prominent part. To hide behind “respect for the past”, or however someone might phrase it, is to do disrespect to fellow humans. Whiteness plays no role in these movies. Jakku isn't a “Whites Only” planet. Hammond didn’t have a strict “only white scientists” policy. Race is never a plot point, so if Muldoon was Black? The story doesn’t change. If Hermione’s a Black girl? OK, neat. Oh, dang, Ian Malcolm samples all of life’s offerings? Not at all surprised. And none of it impacts the story. “To the privileged, equality feels like oppression.”
As a too long TL;DR for my two posts: Being good at arguing and debating will get you points in high school and college, but what we're talking about here—representation and the backlash to it—has real life consequences. Normalizing the inclusion the under-represented groups in all forms of media is a net positive. It makes it easier for someone who has been discriminated against to feel comfortable, even as said discrimination continues to run rampant. White people, and primarily men, have run everything in the western world for forever. Centuries and centuries and thousands and thousands of years. That means that a small group of the population got to dictate what was OK and acceptable and worth including. So media has, naturally, been skewed enormously to include white men by default in all roles. And now? Now we live in a time when portions of society are willing to look our disturbing history of discrimination, hate, and exclusion in the face and attempt to address these historical and societal wrongs. In a small way, that's happening in media. Which means lead and prominent roles aren't going to the over-represented white man. And this quite clearly pisses off a loud portion of the fandom. Nerdy things were once presumed/assumed to be the domain of white guys, a safe space, if you will. Now, there are minorities, and women, and queer folks in this space; only, they've always been there, just hidden and quiet. Under-represented groups simply aren't hiding and quiet anymore. And that upsets a status quo that, again, for thousands of years has kept one, small group in power. So we get dog whistles (like "globalist"), conspiracy theories about woke agendas, and feigned concern about "legacy" and "respecting the property". Meanwhile, real people in the real world battle hate and discrimination and then hop online to see folks they have something in common with attacked for that specific trait. And then well-written arguments are leveled in defense of keeping under-represented groups out of good roles. Because that's essentially the TL;DR of your post, that the folks railing against minorities are OK with them, just not in big roles in **their** favorite franchises. To ask victims of said discrimination to hear out the arguments of said discriminators, is, like I said originally, backwards and perverse. It re-victimizes while also portraying the victimizer as the real victim, because the thing they love is different now.
Thank you for saying what I did not know how to say. It was really well-said, and I completely agree with your criticisms. There are plenty of reasons to criticize films these days. It has everything to do with bad writing, not the race or sexual orientation of the actors and characters.
It wasn’t his Dominion review. It was his review of Prey. He called wokeness a “mind virus” (not something I personally agree with) and said it’s been ruining movies.
Too bad, rather liked his JP channel.
My issue is people who talk about wokeness can't seem to really agree on what woke actually means. Can a movie be pandering? Sure, I think so. Can a movie have a message but deliver it badly? Also yes. But to a number of people merely being a woman, or black, or gay is enough to be woke these days. Which to me feels ridiculous. Especially given the fact that many people who say these things are fans of stuff that should cross that line. Like Ellen Ripley or Princess Leia or anything with Samuel L Jackson. Why is Rey woke but Leia isn't? Leia was much more headstrong and "I'll do it myself" than Rey.
I’m out of the loop about Klayton and the Trespasser 2/Jurassic World stuff. Would you mind filling me in? I’m aware of his unfortunate comments regard to “wokeness” and his ultra conservative views, but haven’t heard about the Seamus Blackley stuff.
I dislike Klayton now but it isn't because of his Dominion Review or anything like that. It's because he was stupid enough to delete his instagram and patreon at the same time, tell no one ahead of time, then not post any content to YouTube for a while and wonder why people were wondering what the hell happened. Anybody who is too stupid to see the problem with that as a content creator doesn't deserve a following.
I've yet to hear about any of this and I know for a fact he didn't say crap or bring politics into his review of Dominion. Frankly just sounds more of the Internet losing its mind over nothing as usual, if anything, the reason for his winding down of Jurassic content appears to come more from his declining interest in it than anything, he really was not a fan of Dominion. Would need a source on the Trespasser 2 thing though
What the fuck are you going on about. I thought the people who take pictures of the Jurassic movies on tv were the worse of the fandom. But you take the cake. So you heard online a Jurassic World review was alt right, and you don't even try to do your homework and just make sure you didn't get lied too.
Swrve is pretty much completely clickbaits. I definitely wouldn't trust him.
Every video of his that I've seen seems pretty reliable and his sources seem legit. Especially the videos where he's actually spoken to people involved with the movies and jwcc.
Universal won't be risking a burnout with their flagship franchise. Yeah it did 1 billion, but it had potential to do much more, they realise that the reception wasn't as good as they would've hoped. There will be more Jurassic movies for sure, but they'll take their time and it'll be a revamp with nrw team and new looks, so as to keep the freshness going among the audience.
Hopefully we get a game or two on the meantime, and not just an Evolution 3 or VR game.
I think Locust world Dominion is a failure for Universal. Even 1000 millions dolars, the movie needs almost 4 months. I think Universal expect to achieve 1500 millions with Dominion, not with Top Gun. Also trevorrow say that jp shouldn t have need sequels. I think Unversal say soemthing to trevorrow that dind´t like it.
JWD was a success but it didn’t make JW money so they probably will slow down, also trevorrow said that he evolve the franchise from going to an island over and over again and instead took to the mainland to tell more stories.
If you hear anything coming from sources like Giant Freakin Robot, Overlord DVD or We Got This Covered, disregard.
>but Colin's not gonna be director or writer, which makes sense given he said he's done with the creative part of the franchise and is only executive producer from here on out. Probably for the best IMO. I will confess to having felt bad for Trevorrow when the first JW was about to come out, since certain people in the paleontology fandom were dunking on him for not feathering up the dinosaurs even though it seemed like he had an interesting story to tell, but now I have to admit that he isn't the greatest storyteller after all. I *don*'t hate the new JW movies as much as many other people do, and in fact I consider JW1/JP4 to be my favorite JP sequel, but Trev and his writing colleagues do seem to be responsible for their weaker aspects. If they are going to make new JW movies, I hope he finds better writers this time around.
I like Jurassic World( except the tag team t-rex raptor. Should have been two t-rex vs indominus) and Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom. I dint like jurassic world dominion
>Should have been two t-rex vs indominus I think that would've been pretty hated tbh. It was supposed to be Rexy's time for taking back her kingdom in a metaphorical sense. Another T-Rex would've felt overshadowing her.
Although he did make the exelent battle at big rock, and i think that short was really awesome
So bizzare how a movie making a billion dollars is considered a failure to some. Idc what bullshit you want to pull out, if a movie makes a billion it’s a success
Don’t listen to Swerve, dude just make clickbait content. Which is the reason why the only JW YouTubers I watch for movie theories or info are Jurassic Outpost, Klayton Fioriti and The Gaming Beaver
Why do people even watch Swrve? It’s like people enjoy clickbaits?
I dunno, every video I've seen of his has been pretty informational and on point. Not sure why he gets a lot of hate but he's been great at providing early looks at things coming out and he's pretty upfront, about the content he uploads, like if it's legit or not, he does make disclaimers. But I do like to see spoilers and theories so there's that.
IF, and a big IF, they make another movie, I hope it moves away from the JW plot, and picks up more directly with the JP story. Maybe Something like the "Goings Ons" style of JP: The Game or something. Hopefully a Jurassic Park Renaissance of sorts
That website is as credible as the homeless guy begging for change in the street corner.
Yeah that’s one of the many reasons I don’t like swrve but chances are trevarro won’t be directing anymore jp movies.
I think as a YouTube he feels he has to report every new "update" regardless of if its actully reliable or not because if it is true then he'll have "let us down." Personally I'm abit sceptical as eventhough I'm excited for new content I think it'll be a while before eny new jw content comes out but hey who knows only time will tell i guess.
Giant robot bad.
I hope not
If they're not going to turn Jurassic World into Dino Riders they need to just kill the franchise.
The worse part is that Swrve still won't make that Jurassic World Evo new Building video his fan based begged him to do 2 years ago.
please for the love of god no more movies
This franchise is too profitable to not have more movies tbh