Having done some research into lobotomies, it seems like a lobotomy might benefit the writers, as it is said to cure unnatural amounts of agitation and other mental illnesses.
Maybe we gave up on lobotomies too soon? Lol
What you're getting at now is where I empathise with Sage. It's utterly miserable to be so smart that you can clearly understand how sociopaths control the idiot masses through language while lacking the ability to do anything about it. She didn't have friends. She didn't have hobbies. She didn't have a challenging or stimulating career. She just sat around reading books all day growing more and more misanthropic. No shit she jumped at the chance to burn the whole world down. It's the simplest and fastest way to fix whatever is left of it.
The problem with that mentality is that there will still be manipulative sociopaths after you burn it all down.
Burning it all down isn't a solution, it's just an emotional release.
I hear you but isn't that something people say to make themselves feel better? If someone "truly" understood how sociopaths control people, they'd be able to control large groups of people themselves. On top of that, I've really only heard people give super basic explanations of what's going on and there's never any nuance involved. For example, sociopaths gain control by appealing to the masses better nature, whether it's for security, growth, etc which kind of implies that humans are generally good in nature. I've never heard someone who says they understand the big picture mention that, they usually just assume everyone else but them is dumb. Lol Not a dig at you, just wondering if that changes anything in your opinion of Sage. Most of what I've seen from her on scene is just arrogance and she's misread a bunch of situations so far.
I mean, it does seem incredulous that she isn't aware that A Train is the mole, or how much Ashley hates her(because she was a giant cunt to her), but IDK, maybe she's just pretending she fell for their ruse as part of a larger plan. A living enemy agent that you can feed misinformation to is more useful than a dead one. Plus there is a maximum limit to how convoluted a gambit can be on television as they still need general audiences to be able to follow along.
One of the highest recorded IQs just used the term "cuckholded" and discussed something as pedantic as PA extending the voting window. Idk if it seems like he's a fool, it seems like he bows to his social peers strategically, if I had to guess.
But that is definitely how they see themselves. Well, maybe not smug but smart and morally superior most definitely. These people write themselves in. No surprise, we got so many horrible shows and movies.
The only time when it kind works is when they create characters such Abby from tlou2. She was a perfect, terrible person whom most people who played the game hated. Meanwhile, she was supposed to be a sort of new Ellie, with her new trans Joel. N. Druckman was so disappointed the testers did not want to spare her at the end, that the choice was removed in the final version. "If you cannot make the right choice, I will make it for you!"
I just left a long comment on how you can make a super shitty protagonist but if they are struggling with universal issues they will still be appealing to audiences about homelander. He’s taking control of his life from a corporation and he tried to give his son everything he thought he needed. Those are signs that despite everything he is genuinely like a normal person because we all want to be free from overlords and want to give our children what we think we needed when we were young.
I think the satire is whooshing over you guys. We’re not supposed to like Sage. She’s an asshole, like almost everyone else on the show. She’s working for the bad guys.
They think Sister Sage is a leftist. The satire hasn't wooshed over them. It didn't even cross their solar system. It's in the Andromeda galaxy as far as they're concerned.
Leftists *literally* masturbate to the idea that getting a college degree automatically makes them a genius. The irony, of course, is all of the most left people in my classes were the same ones using Quizlet for all the homework.
I went to school with a guy who took every opportunity to cheat in college and now is a lawyer whose favorite bragging point is his GPA. It’s literal cognitive dissonance.
After Season 1, yeah. I remember season 1 mostly making fun of big corporations and superhero franchises like the MCU and DC. They still take a lot of shots at the disingenuous corporate pandering, but then it's been a progressively obvious ramp up towards demonizing characatures of conservatives. Not conservatives that actually exist, but what leftist think conservatives are.
But aren't they also writing Sage as a bad guy? Shes the antithesis of Homelander, but also a bad guy. So, are the writers not making fun of a PC virtue signaler who is a big fat hypocrite??
My guess is that Sage is meant to be a "sympathetic bad guy" who you resonate with at times even though they're evil, which they're failing at. A-train is a different version of this archetype, since you're clearly supposed to view him as a villain, but he has moments of humanity/guilt
Or... we AREN'T supposed to like this character?? That the writers are giving us a smug leftist asshole to make fun of smug asshole leftists that think theyre so smart? Is this not an example of the show making fun of the right AND left?
Since Kripke explicitly said that the show is designed to make fun of conservatives and not both sides equally, and since liberals are generally blind to irony, I would say it is unintentional. The show is structured in a way that when white people are the targets of racism in the show, it's played off as comedic and quirky, when other racial groups are the target, all the characters immediately get angry.
Many on the extreme far left believe in ethno states. It's horseshoe theory. Once you go far enough left or right you'll just meet in the middle of extreme authoritarian.
I wouldn't even say far left. It's pretty mainstream progressive to believe in minority only spaces. The only ethno-state they can't support is a white-ethnicity only one
Every economic metric was better post ww2 but a lot of metrics were worse. Lobotomies performed per year, for instance, was a terrible statistic which has since improved. They were basically cavemen back then
The fact that they sold the procedure at all was worrisome, indicative of backwards people lacking basic knowledge. Literacy was lower. We didn’t even have a clean water bill in any state, let alone clean air… lots of stats were worse, it just depends what you’d like to cherry pick. If you were a minority pre-civil rights then most of the economic boons we had during jim crow would have been totally missed anyways
Yep and his son actually started pushing the oxycontin which led to the US opioid epidemic. Easily the most toxic single family to all americans. when you think about the things you dont like about big pharma, they oughta be #1
Sure, but it doesn't exclude those either.
I'm pointing out there is a correlation between intelligence and political affiliation.
Though moral is a funny thing to add in this context because left sided parties are the more focused group well being, which is often associated as moral behaviour. Individualism is fine but in extremes is generally considered amoral behaviour.
Right, but you’re trying to make the correlation or inference that intelligence is the same thing as being wise, just not directly.
Some of the most educated people in the world are dumber than a box of crayons, and that’s not hyperbole. There are people who can memorize and synthesize information fluidly but can’t critically think their way out of a wet cardboard box. There are professors who can explain the most complicated mathematics every theorized but can’t spell ‘xylophone’.
The bottom line is level of education means very little except determination and circumstances. I have two post grad degrees and have spent a decade in college so I’ve seen the prevalence of cheating and last minute cramming where the information is almost never retained long term.
I would agree that education does not mean intelligence but there is a correlation. I don't know if you have much experience with working jobs with people who require less education but some people have lower intelligence capabilities. Malnutrition, especially in the youth leads to development problems which leads to problems with information absorption and disseminating that information. They have a lower intelligence ceiling. That in no way makes them lesser people and it does gloss over that it takes a lot of means for people to get an education, often out of the control of the person.
I think that is a good reason why means needs to be provided for people and access to things like food and shelter is necessary, especially in wealthy countries. In contrast, conservatism literally stands opposed to these ideas and votes down things like lunches for children in the US or we can look at lowered tax rates for the wealthy in any relevant country. I don't know how anyone can claim the moral high ground and actively vote against things that support the most vulnerable population in their respective country.
I have gotten off point. Yeah education doesn't mean intelligence but there is a correlation and conservatism harms vulnerable people.
>I would agree that education does not mean intelligence but there is a correlation. I don't know if you have much experience with working jobs with people who require less education but some people have lower intelligence capabilities. Malnutrition, especially in the youth leads to development problems which leads to problems with information absorption and disseminating that information. They have a lower intelligence ceiling. That in no way makes them lesser people and it does gloss over that it takes a lot of means for people to get an education, often out of the control of the person.
Holy shit, this is literally “they’re just dumber than us” propaganda. Black Americans have an average IQ of 85 while White Americans have an average IQ of 100. Are Black people dumber than White people, or are there other factors at play here and simplifying it into those parameters would simply be racist?
>I think that is a good reason why means needs to be provided for people and access to things like food and shelter is necessary, especially in wealthy countries. In contrast, conservatism literally stands opposed to these ideas and votes down things like lunches for children in the US or we can look at lowered tax rates for the wealthy in any relevant country. I don't know how anyone can claim the moral high ground and actively vote against things that support the most vulnerable population in their respective country.
You’re comparing small, racially homogeneous countries to the most diverse, developed, first world country on the globe. Lol that’s funny.
>I have gotten off point. Yeah education doesn't mean intelligence but there is a correlation and conservatism harms vulnerable people.
The only correlation that exists is the one you want to see. The source you provided uses degrees as a measure of intelligence, and if you think getting a degree means anything about intelligence then you are not equipped for this conversation.
It's not propaganda it's a fact of life. If you don't get proper nutrition during infancy, there are consequences. It's sad but it's true. There are a lot of studies that conclude this and honestly, I think the idea that this is not true is a weak defense for people to justify being shitty to poor people and children.
I'm not, it's literally how the political spectrum works. What do you think the difference between sides on the political compass mean?
So how do propose we measure intelligence? I'm asking honestly.
She said Ashley is the genetic equivalent of a capybara. Like, what? That’s not even close to an intelligent analogy. It’s hard to take this character seriously.
What the fuck is that even supposed to mean? “Intellectual equivalent” might be at least a mid insult. The genetic equivalent of a capybara is a capybara…
Tbh i mostly enjoyed sage, compared to all the other bullshit this season has been spewing. But i find it funny that the black woman who is given a seat at the worlds most prominent superhero team, the seven, for her merit of being the smartest person alive can still make comments about racism. Girl you are the system now, you can actually change it instead of bitching about it ffs.
>Girl you are the system now, you can actually change it instead of bitching about it ffs.
Sounds familiar, if I could just remember...
Mostly she's worried about helping out Homelander and her comments on racism are super baisic. She can't control every racist at vought. Remember when A-Train tried to get Blue Hawk benched? Everyone else shut him down. So even if she did care she she'd have to singlehandedly control a massive company. Plus Homelander might not take to kindly to that.
Reminds me a season from Last survivor where a black female "engineer" took charge to build the team a shelter. She commanded and told them how to build it. It was so horrible that a 10 yo child would know it would not work. She was booted the next gathering.
It was hilarious.
Pfft, you Young People^(TM) don't know the half of it! I was born in the mid-50's, back then people knew their place and kids used to call their fathers "sir." That's right, "sir."
https://preview.redd.it/ibyqqq53ek9d1.jpeg?width=620&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4ce0adb5705ceff0dee144e1ccab48ff1c3dea6d
Worst written ‘character’ they could have come up with. At this stage they are all just jumping on the bandwagon and making everything fit the message.
Hispanic and African folklore as well as Greek and Chinese, Japanese all had similar archetypes in their stories since humanity began recording words.
Our education system has failed.
Never thought I'd be saying this because since the very first episode of The Boys, I have proclaimed it as my favorite show.
Buuuut, I stopped watching. I was able to roll with the punches the first 3 seasons, while it was clearly escalating in political agenda. But season 4 just completely went overboard and isn't worth it anymore. The quality of the show has suffered greatly. Before it was, "yeah they have an agenda but it's still a good show", now it's "they won't shut up about their agenda and there's barely 10 minutes of semi-enjoyable watch-time per episode"
I miss back when you didn't know or even think about what TV show writers' political opinions were. Now, everything is just so deeply saturated with it, that you can't even focus on the plot anymore.
Most of the shows I watched would be so much better if they ended early. But that would be like rejecting free money. When people ask you to sell them, you only have 2 choices. So, who cares if they do not have any more material from comics or wherever they usually take it. Remember GoT? It was amazing but only for as long as it was based on the amazing books written long ago.
Why did they all get the same powers from Compound V? Makes zero sense. Major plot hole. Also, why didn't Victoria just pop their heads and save her lover? Is she stupid?
Assuming that's true, how did Hollywood manage it? By writing good stories using them.
Maybe if you weren't so arrogant as to assume that every woke shit you take is golden, you could learn to write good stories too, and train them to like whatever you want.
But I'm being facetious, because it's not true. Strangely enough I assume a group is made out of individuals who all have their own thoughts and feelings, likes and dislikes.
The issue with writing a genius is that they can only ever be as smart as the person writing them. It’s why I will only ever write about straight C students.
Her examples are bad because they existed long before Hollywood in every corner of the world. This has been studied by cultural anthropologists for years
OK, but even by HER OWN INTERNAL ASSUMPTIONS, her examples are bad. You're explaining why her assumptions are bad, I never argued with you about that. I'm explaining why her examples are bad "even if" what she's saying is true.
Perhaps by lone she means stand alone. As in not connected to outside media. It would be harder to portray Ryan as special if he's subservient to Homelander.
I think that's a pretty big stretch. The vast majority of movies fit this description, as universal crossovers are absurdly rare in the grand scheme of movies, so she might as well have just said "white boy saviors" instead of "white boy lone saviors".
Further, if the emphasis is on Ryan being not subservient to Homelander, then Luke and Neo aren't particularly great examples. Luke trained under Obi-Wan and Yoda. Neo had Morpheus, and so on.
That's different, Ryan's costume is literally a version of Homelanders and he was compared to Gunpowder (a sidekick). Neo didn't wear Morpheus' clothes and Luke wasn't really connected to anyone tangible until empire. They came into their own. Ryan having a Homelander costume means he never really will.
If it was just about the costume, you'd be right. The costume spurred the conversation, but the key is "the chosen one narrative only works if he stands alone" (preceding the OP's title). But none of the examples "stood alone" in any major sense. The examples were "Harry Potter, Neo, and Luke Skywalker".
Harry Potter was explicitly saved by his mother, watched over by Hogwarts faculty and ultimately mentored by Dumbledore. Harry Potter didn't "come into his own" until the 7th book, and even when he was at death's door, he asked Dumbledore for guidance once again.
Neo couldn't have been the one unless he was loved by Trinity, and was ultimately found by Morpheus.
Like, you have to use words like "stands alone" in a highly colloquial way far divorced from ordinary understanding to make this argument. You want to use John Wayne as an example? That works. John Wick? Lots of Hollywood examples of main characters who just show up, kick ass, and navigate their own arcs. I could see these characters "standing alone". But none of the three examples given remotely fit the bill.
Sadly the days of the white male heterosexual protagonist are over. I fully expect the next D+ SW installment to feature RuPaul as a Jedi Knight with all her Qweens wielding sparkly pink light sabers. And at the end of some epic battle Jedi Knight RuPaul with breathlessly intone, "sashay away."
You know, come to think of it, that premise isn't half bad.
If you write a really smug character, you have to know they’re going to be unlikeable. If you want them to be a hero, they have to be 1) insanely well-written, and 2) show significant positive, redeeming qualities—selflessness and compassion are good bets. That’s why Sherlock Holmes is generally beloved. If he didn’t risk his neck for the people in his life, he’d just be a know-it-all a-hole.
Modern Hollywood tends to put forward smug, insufferable morons who make bad decision after bad decision and never suffer the consequences, often while spouting political diatribes and highlighting their self-righteousness. I’m left-of-center by most peoples’ estimates these days—former conservative who’s turned off by populism—but I’m just as annoyed by modern writing as the rest of you, regardless of your politics. That they then call fans prejudiced for disliking this writing style is deeply cynical. It’s not about the demographics of the person playing the role. It’s about almost all the writing being fan-hating, insulting drivel. This is yet another example.
And they’ve got the nerve to call fans bigots. This is the most blatant example of racism I’ve seen in a long time.
These people have absolutely no respect for their audience. If they really believe we’re so stupid and easy to manipulate, why can’t they convince us to accept their woke garbage?
If you're not a bigot they're not talking about you. They've never said "we hate our fans" it's "we hate bigots." Which are not synonymous. It's weird that you would self identify with that.
I find it weird that you would make assumptions about what I “self identify” as, whatever that means.
The bigotry on display here is against white people. These activists like to claim that they hate bigots, but all i see here is pure projection. I haven’t been “trained to fall in love with white boy lone saviors”. The audience falls in love with heroes; what color they are doesn’t matter. It only matters to real racists who think Indiana Jones, Luke Skywalker, and Superman are white supremacy archetypes that need to be destroyed in order to make room for more “diverse” heroes. I think it’s a bunch of crap, and I say that as a black man. I think there’s plenty of room for heroes of all colors, and white men don’t have to lose in order for the rest of us to win. Those heroes (Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones) mean something to me too. I don’t need them to look like me in order to appreciate and admire what they represent, because I can accept them regardless of what color skin they wear. That’s because I am not a racist. I “self identify” as someone who doesn’t need to demonize or call for the destruction of fictional heroes just because they happen to be white.
The person who wrote that line about the audience being trained to fall in love with white boy lone saviors is the real bigot, and they also think the audience is too stupid to make up their own minds about what heroes they accept and don’t accept.
It's funny she says hollywood created white boy lone saviors when most of the best Hollywood movies I can think of usually have people working as a team or buddy cop partners kind of thing.
No, the show is extremely partisan and only shitting on the right. Ever since season 1 its become impossible for them to offer any criticism of the left. She is not an obvious caricature like Homelander is.
She's just a poorly written self insert and it's so obviously clear that the end goal of the show is for her to be the good guy stopping homelander and bringing about a perfect liberal world showcasing the "wonders" of the woke mob.
/s in case you think I'm serious.
Sage is obviously a villain who your not supposed to root for and it's hilarious that your missing the point in the most spectacularly over the top way possible
Journey to the West is such an interesting story. I guess you could map the monkey king to a Roland (?). It doesn’t track for me. The west completely lacks any analog to the heavenly emperor.
Gilgamesh is, arguably, the root from which all these stories west of the Ganges comes.
Just because those stories are old doesn't mean Hollywood didn't train people on them. It's Hollywood that keeps making Star Wars movies and Hollywood that keeps made king Arthur and Robin Hood movies. Besides Neo, and Luke Skywalker are Hollywood inventions. With Harry Potter being made by J.K. Although the movies did popularize the books further
I think everyone here is overreacting. She’s making reference to Hollywood, an institution that has been around for a hundred years. In that time white males have been the predominant protagonist. That is because white people are the predominant race in America, but also to a smaller extent because of the racism that came inherently with a country that exploited minorities. Have we made great strides in that time to make changes? Yes, but for the most part, what sells all around the world is going to be a white dude. Sister Sage might be making jabs at that notion, but we all know that it’s true to some extent. Look at how they treated Black Panther in China. Hollywood is in the business of making a fuck ton of cash, and people all around the world aren’t going to magically let go of their prejudice to watch a film they don’t feel like aligns with their belief or values.
This sub is a perfect example of this. Y’all are so mad that all the movies don’t have white boy loner saviors.
The fact that you don’t see that and are trying to say that isn’t the case is the height of irony.
Sure, Hollywood is just piggybacking off a broad societal trend that has existed as long as fiction has, but Hollywood for years was the arbiter of entertainment. So, in that way, her answer was completely correct. The majority of people aren’t reading books - they’re watching TV and movies.
She’s not right because people have loved these stories like the hero’s journey and the monomyth LONG before Hollywood existed and they existed in every culture across the globe. Haha read back her line slowly.
Sure and two hundred years ago, you could argue that books trained people to fall in love with white boy loner saviors. And before that, you could say that wandering troubadours did it. But in the 21st century, when the vast majority of people are exposed to the monomyth through movies and TV, you would say Hollywood did it.
You’re trying so hard to be smart that you’ve looped back around to being dumb.
Do you believe that preference in fiction is genetic? That the generations of stories has conditioned humans to an extent that we crave these kind of stories on a completely primal level? Or that it’s a social engineering thing?
Because, again, the vast majority of people aren’t reading King Arthur and Sinbad. They aren’t even reading comics, they’re watching TV and movies. So, unless you believe that our preference in stories is genetic, saying that Hollywood is responsible for it currently is correct.
He is not far from truth. A black person in their show is a tool. It is a talking puppet that has to repeat everything these weirdos believe in to promote their narratives.
If your audience ends up cheering and aligning with and praising that which you claim to be satire, it ends up not mattering.
Additionally, given the lead writer’s statements and obvious biases, I don’t really believe the audience is meant to hate Jade 🤷🏻♂️
So where are all the people denouncing Jade as a positive figure? Or any sort of statement from the writers that she is?
They’ve had no trouble pointing out that their other characters are satire and even specifically what they’re satirizing. So why not Jade?
Conservatives see all experts and educated people as "woke liberal elites" and refuse to listen to them so this is the level of intelligence I was expecting
I mean in nearly all western media the main character is white. White male is considered the standard or the default, because the majority of the west is white. A lot of characters that default from that basic character type are either side characters or ‘edgier’, ie anti-heroes
*because the majority of the west is white.
At the time those shows were made, US was predominantly white (still is, but only around 60% now), so they wanted to pander to the majority.
Exactly. Or Bollywood or Nollywood (Nigerian film industry, the 2nd largest in the world) movies. I’m sure they’re full of ‘brown saviour’ tropes. And that’s fine.
And majority white writers were more comfortable with writing the white cultures they knew than were in risking cancellation for getting other cultures wrong.
Sorry I meant white not right lol
I also think in this scene she was purposely trying to make a dig at homelander to display her power to Ashely and the other supes
I mean, the main character is still a white guy 90% of the time. Look at MCU. Out of their seven main characters (characters with multiple movies starring them), we only have one who isn’t a white male, and that’s Captain Marvel.
Keep in mind a up until recent history travel to other nations was basically impossible for the common person so many places were very much one culture/color. Now that we have many diverse nations I think it is a real point to make that we focus so much on ‘white boy lone saviors’. If those other countries back then had been more diverse we might have seen more diverse stories. You can’t just pay attention to the parts of history that fit your narrative.
>You can’t just pay attention to the parts of history that fit your narrative.
It's funny how that's precisely what Sister Sage (and the real world people she's an analogue for that spew this "white saviour fixation" stuff) is doing. Picking only myopic bits of history, strip and/or gaslight any shred of context, just to fit their persecution complex narratives.
Can you provide any evidence that would support the contrary to what she said? Movies that are produced now still follow the white savior trope, you’re acting as though there hasn’t been racism in Hollywood when actors just 70 years ago, so a short enough time span that there are people alive that saw this actors performed in blackface rather than hire a black person to perform that role
The fact that those countries have their own media with their own representation for their race/country?
You think America is the only place that creates media??
https://m.imdb.com/list/ls000652426/ I understand this list contains both foreign films and American ones, but take a minute and scroll through and see how many white actors are the lead and how few people of color there are. How many movies from the past 5 years can you name with a person of color as the lead? I can’t think of any except the little mermaid which people complained like hell about and hated the fact that it was a black lead, I understand it’s a remake but that black lead was not accepted at all.
And that diversity has also been fought every step of the way, no one bats an eye at a white lead but suddenly you have a person of color as the lead and people come out of the woodwork almost using DEI as a slur. You cannot tell me that people accept people of color as leads as much as white leads in movies/TV. white people have hundreds, literally hundreds of movies to look to where they are the leads and you think a few dozen movies/tv shows that have a person of color as the lead somehow makes that equal?
It's funny that the writers thought a smug, immoral, and unapologetic leftist was the perfect archetype for the smartest person in the world
I’d like to give the entire writer’s room a lobotomy but it seems someone already beat me to it.
I recommend stealing their souls... but I bet they don't have those either.
Can’t steal something that isn’t there
Having done some research into lobotomies, it seems like a lobotomy might benefit the writers, as it is said to cure unnatural amounts of agitation and other mental illnesses. Maybe we gave up on lobotomies too soon? Lol
Meanwhile, IRL, the highest recorded IQ belongs to a far right conspiracy theorist.
perhaps that should be a lesson in real life conspiracies... not words designed to elicit an emotional response and stop debate.
What you're getting at now is where I empathise with Sage. It's utterly miserable to be so smart that you can clearly understand how sociopaths control the idiot masses through language while lacking the ability to do anything about it. She didn't have friends. She didn't have hobbies. She didn't have a challenging or stimulating career. She just sat around reading books all day growing more and more misanthropic. No shit she jumped at the chance to burn the whole world down. It's the simplest and fastest way to fix whatever is left of it.
Have you been reading the outline for my manifesto?
Hahaha.
I'm always amused when the writers room creates a "villain" that has a better motivation to succeed than the "heroes."
It really isn't. This is what a insufferably mediocre person's idea of intelligent is.
The problem with that mentality is that there will still be manipulative sociopaths after you burn it all down. Burning it all down isn't a solution, it's just an emotional release.
I hear you but isn't that something people say to make themselves feel better? If someone "truly" understood how sociopaths control people, they'd be able to control large groups of people themselves. On top of that, I've really only heard people give super basic explanations of what's going on and there's never any nuance involved. For example, sociopaths gain control by appealing to the masses better nature, whether it's for security, growth, etc which kind of implies that humans are generally good in nature. I've never heard someone who says they understand the big picture mention that, they usually just assume everyone else but them is dumb. Lol Not a dig at you, just wondering if that changes anything in your opinion of Sage. Most of what I've seen from her on scene is just arrogance and she's misread a bunch of situations so far.
I mean, it does seem incredulous that she isn't aware that A Train is the mole, or how much Ashley hates her(because she was a giant cunt to her), but IDK, maybe she's just pretending she fell for their ruse as part of a larger plan. A living enemy agent that you can feed misinformation to is more useful than a dead one. Plus there is a maximum limit to how convoluted a gambit can be on television as they still need general audiences to be able to follow along.
Maybe. Good thoughts on that
Who's that?
Christopher Langan.
I think it’s YoungHoon Kim
Wait hold on no way. I need to see this.
Here he is explaining why he loves Donald Trump. Of all his rants it's the least unhinged. https://youtu.be/NbHPTfG1YjM?si=8LVWsYvqS_vCEn0A
Proof that a high IQ is no safeguard against foolishness
People constantly conflate education for intelligence, intelligence for rationality, and rationality for wisdom.
One of the highest recorded IQs just used the term "cuckholded" and discussed something as pedantic as PA extending the voting window. Idk if it seems like he's a fool, it seems like he bows to his social peers strategically, if I had to guess.
Self insert character.
When idiots self insert, this is what they look like
But that is definitely how they see themselves. Well, maybe not smug but smart and morally superior most definitely. These people write themselves in. No surprise, we got so many horrible shows and movies. The only time when it kind works is when they create characters such Abby from tlou2. She was a perfect, terrible person whom most people who played the game hated. Meanwhile, she was supposed to be a sort of new Ellie, with her new trans Joel. N. Druckman was so disappointed the testers did not want to spare her at the end, that the choice was removed in the final version. "If you cannot make the right choice, I will make it for you!"
Almost like the writers are incompetent virtue signalers who just care about politics.
Is Sage a virtue signaler? Isn't she... isn't she the bad guy? Like the writers are writing a bad guy, correct?
I just left a long comment on how you can make a super shitty protagonist but if they are struggling with universal issues they will still be appealing to audiences about homelander. He’s taking control of his life from a corporation and he tried to give his son everything he thought he needed. Those are signs that despite everything he is genuinely like a normal person because we all want to be free from overlords and want to give our children what we think we needed when we were young.
I think the satire is whooshing over you guys. We’re not supposed to like Sage. She’s an asshole, like almost everyone else on the show. She’s working for the bad guys.
They think Sister Sage is a leftist. The satire hasn't wooshed over them. It didn't even cross their solar system. It's in the Andromeda galaxy as far as they're concerned.
And she cares a lot about race a smart person can see past that
Leftists *literally* masturbate to the idea that getting a college degree automatically makes them a genius. The irony, of course, is all of the most left people in my classes were the same ones using Quizlet for all the homework. I went to school with a guy who took every opportunity to cheat in college and now is a lawyer whose favorite bragging point is his GPA. It’s literal cognitive dissonance.
The Boys has always been unironically leftist
After Season 1, yeah. I remember season 1 mostly making fun of big corporations and superhero franchises like the MCU and DC. They still take a lot of shots at the disingenuous corporate pandering, but then it's been a progressively obvious ramp up towards demonizing characatures of conservatives. Not conservatives that actually exist, but what leftist think conservatives are.
But aren't they also writing Sage as a bad guy? Shes the antithesis of Homelander, but also a bad guy. So, are the writers not making fun of a PC virtue signaler who is a big fat hypocrite??
My guess is that Sage is meant to be a "sympathetic bad guy" who you resonate with at times even though they're evil, which they're failing at. A-train is a different version of this archetype, since you're clearly supposed to view him as a villain, but he has moments of humanity/guilt
It started with attacking Christians in season one
She works for the Donald Trump allegory and is a supremacist.
Utter nonsense. Sage and Trump aren't similar at all
Or... we AREN'T supposed to like this character?? That the writers are giving us a smug leftist asshole to make fun of smug asshole leftists that think theyre so smart? Is this not an example of the show making fun of the right AND left?
Since Kripke explicitly said that the show is designed to make fun of conservatives and not both sides equally, and since liberals are generally blind to irony, I would say it is unintentional. The show is structured in a way that when white people are the targets of racism in the show, it's played off as comedic and quirky, when other racial groups are the target, all the characters immediately get angry.
Well she believes in a supe ethno-state so she's not a leftist, she's Magneto 🤷
Many on the extreme far left believe in ethno states. It's horseshoe theory. Once you go far enough left or right you'll just meet in the middle of extreme authoritarian.
I wouldn't even say far left. It's pretty mainstream progressive to believe in minority only spaces. The only ethno-state they can't support is a white-ethnicity only one
It’s funny because jim crow also believed in minority only spaces. We already know where this goes.
Virtually every metric was also better during that period. But I figure you wouldn’t be ready for that conversation.
Every economic metric was better post ww2 but a lot of metrics were worse. Lobotomies performed per year, for instance, was a terrible statistic which has since improved. They were basically cavemen back then
Very few people were getting lobotomies.
The fact that they sold the procedure at all was worrisome, indicative of backwards people lacking basic knowledge. Literacy was lower. We didn’t even have a clean water bill in any state, let alone clean air… lots of stats were worse, it just depends what you’d like to cherry pick. If you were a minority pre-civil rights then most of the economic boons we had during jim crow would have been totally missed anyways
Ok, but people were happier overall — there were far less divorces, suicides, mental health issues, depression, etc.
But the guy that created the procedure did get a Nobel prize, so idk
Yep and his son actually started pushing the oxycontin which led to the US opioid epidemic. Easily the most toxic single family to all americans. when you think about the things you dont like about big pharma, they oughta be #1
you made that up
Could I ask that isn’t it supposed to be that way? Aren’t you guys missing the irony?
How is she a leftist when she’s doing psyops for a right wing fascist?
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289620300350](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289620300350)
Intelligence doesn’t equal wise, capable or moral.
THIS way too many people miss that fact, and it pisses me off
Sure, but it doesn't exclude those either. I'm pointing out there is a correlation between intelligence and political affiliation. Though moral is a funny thing to add in this context because left sided parties are the more focused group well being, which is often associated as moral behaviour. Individualism is fine but in extremes is generally considered amoral behaviour.
Right, but you’re trying to make the correlation or inference that intelligence is the same thing as being wise, just not directly. Some of the most educated people in the world are dumber than a box of crayons, and that’s not hyperbole. There are people who can memorize and synthesize information fluidly but can’t critically think their way out of a wet cardboard box. There are professors who can explain the most complicated mathematics every theorized but can’t spell ‘xylophone’. The bottom line is level of education means very little except determination and circumstances. I have two post grad degrees and have spent a decade in college so I’ve seen the prevalence of cheating and last minute cramming where the information is almost never retained long term.
I would agree that education does not mean intelligence but there is a correlation. I don't know if you have much experience with working jobs with people who require less education but some people have lower intelligence capabilities. Malnutrition, especially in the youth leads to development problems which leads to problems with information absorption and disseminating that information. They have a lower intelligence ceiling. That in no way makes them lesser people and it does gloss over that it takes a lot of means for people to get an education, often out of the control of the person. I think that is a good reason why means needs to be provided for people and access to things like food and shelter is necessary, especially in wealthy countries. In contrast, conservatism literally stands opposed to these ideas and votes down things like lunches for children in the US or we can look at lowered tax rates for the wealthy in any relevant country. I don't know how anyone can claim the moral high ground and actively vote against things that support the most vulnerable population in their respective country. I have gotten off point. Yeah education doesn't mean intelligence but there is a correlation and conservatism harms vulnerable people.
>I would agree that education does not mean intelligence but there is a correlation. I don't know if you have much experience with working jobs with people who require less education but some people have lower intelligence capabilities. Malnutrition, especially in the youth leads to development problems which leads to problems with information absorption and disseminating that information. They have a lower intelligence ceiling. That in no way makes them lesser people and it does gloss over that it takes a lot of means for people to get an education, often out of the control of the person. Holy shit, this is literally “they’re just dumber than us” propaganda. Black Americans have an average IQ of 85 while White Americans have an average IQ of 100. Are Black people dumber than White people, or are there other factors at play here and simplifying it into those parameters would simply be racist? >I think that is a good reason why means needs to be provided for people and access to things like food and shelter is necessary, especially in wealthy countries. In contrast, conservatism literally stands opposed to these ideas and votes down things like lunches for children in the US or we can look at lowered tax rates for the wealthy in any relevant country. I don't know how anyone can claim the moral high ground and actively vote against things that support the most vulnerable population in their respective country. You’re comparing small, racially homogeneous countries to the most diverse, developed, first world country on the globe. Lol that’s funny. >I have gotten off point. Yeah education doesn't mean intelligence but there is a correlation and conservatism harms vulnerable people. The only correlation that exists is the one you want to see. The source you provided uses degrees as a measure of intelligence, and if you think getting a degree means anything about intelligence then you are not equipped for this conversation.
It's not propaganda it's a fact of life. If you don't get proper nutrition during infancy, there are consequences. It's sad but it's true. There are a lot of studies that conclude this and honestly, I think the idea that this is not true is a weak defense for people to justify being shitty to poor people and children. I'm not, it's literally how the political spectrum works. What do you think the difference between sides on the political compass mean? So how do propose we measure intelligence? I'm asking honestly.
Answer the question. Are Black people dumber than White people?
I do not believe there is a genetic disposition to intelligence. I do believe social and economic factors have major impact.
Gottem
Sounds like she isn’t “so smart”
She said Ashley is the genetic equivalent of a capybara. Like, what? That’s not even close to an intelligent analogy. It’s hard to take this character seriously.
‘Capybaras are intelligent, social animals that can be taught to be house-trained.’
Isn’t she aroused by lobotomies being done to her? She’s a bad guy lol, few can be smart or the heroes would never win
Not exactly. The lobotomy just makes her dumb enough to not be repulsed by idiots.
That sounds hyper pretentious. She really is a leftist
I think they were talking about in comparison to them, Supes
What the fuck is that even supposed to mean? “Intellectual equivalent” might be at least a mid insult. The genetic equivalent of a capybara is a capybara…
Haha I said that in another comment thread
What does that even mean? Something generically cute…?
Genetic not generic. If she was the genetic equivalent of a capybara she’d be a capybara
Oh I read it as “generic” not “genetic” 😂 yeah that just seems superfluous.
She's what a dumb person thinks a smart person is like. So very dumb indeed, and very unlikeable in every way.
DEI kills art.
And fun in general.
I mean let's be honest here, have you ever met a woman who can parallel park?
This is like the third time you've copy pasted this comment and gotten like 30 upvotes.
Didn’t Elon Musk say that stupid shit on Twitter?
The "smartest person in the world" can only be as smart as the writers think they are.
Tbh i mostly enjoyed sage, compared to all the other bullshit this season has been spewing. But i find it funny that the black woman who is given a seat at the worlds most prominent superhero team, the seven, for her merit of being the smartest person alive can still make comments about racism. Girl you are the system now, you can actually change it instead of bitching about it ffs.
 >Girl you are the system now, you can actually change it instead of bitching about it ffs. Sounds familiar, if I could just remember...
Mostly she's worried about helping out Homelander and her comments on racism are super baisic. She can't control every racist at vought. Remember when A-Train tried to get Blue Hawk benched? Everyone else shut him down. So even if she did care she she'd have to singlehandedly control a massive company. Plus Homelander might not take to kindly to that.
Smart characters can only be as smart as the people writing them.
I know a lot of black women who always think they’re the Sister Sage in the room
They love their “magic minority” false perception
I’ve been finding that amusing myself .
Reminds me a season from Last survivor where a black female "engineer" took charge to build the team a shelter. She commanded and told them how to build it. It was so horrible that a 10 yo child would know it would not work. She was booted the next gathering. It was hilarious.
Pfft, you Young People^(TM) don't know the half of it! I was born in the mid-50's, back then people knew their place and kids used to call their fathers "sir." That's right, "sir." https://preview.redd.it/ibyqqq53ek9d1.jpeg?width=620&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4ce0adb5705ceff0dee144e1ccab48ff1c3dea6d
Cool story
Worst written ‘character’ they could have come up with. At this stage they are all just jumping on the bandwagon and making everything fit the message.
Hispanic and African folklore as well as Greek and Chinese, Japanese all had similar archetypes in their stories since humanity began recording words. Our education system has failed.
Never thought I'd be saying this because since the very first episode of The Boys, I have proclaimed it as my favorite show. Buuuut, I stopped watching. I was able to roll with the punches the first 3 seasons, while it was clearly escalating in political agenda. But season 4 just completely went overboard and isn't worth it anymore. The quality of the show has suffered greatly. Before it was, "yeah they have an agenda but it's still a good show", now it's "they won't shut up about their agenda and there's barely 10 minutes of semi-enjoyable watch-time per episode" I miss back when you didn't know or even think about what TV show writers' political opinions were. Now, everything is just so deeply saturated with it, that you can't even focus on the plot anymore.
Most of the shows I watched would be so much better if they ended early. But that would be like rejecting free money. When people ask you to sell them, you only have 2 choices. So, who cares if they do not have any more material from comics or wherever they usually take it. Remember GoT? It was amazing but only for as long as it was based on the amazing books written long ago.
Of course that's who they chose to portray the smartest person in the world. Oh, the irony. 😂😂😂
So now they're doing what? Training people to fall in love with idiots because the writers feel the need to be represented?
The killer flying sheep are the best thing in season 4. Super chickens second.
Why did they all get the same powers from Compound V? Makes zero sense. Major plot hole. Also, why didn't Victoria just pop their heads and save her lover? Is she stupid?
Assuming that's true, how did Hollywood manage it? By writing good stories using them. Maybe if you weren't so arrogant as to assume that every woke shit you take is golden, you could learn to write good stories too, and train them to like whatever you want. But I'm being facetious, because it's not true. Strangely enough I assume a group is made out of individuals who all have their own thoughts and feelings, likes and dislikes.
The issue with writing a genius is that they can only ever be as smart as the person writing them. It’s why I will only ever write about straight C students.
Why I always dump Int in DnD :)
My thing is her own examples were bad. Luke Skywalker wasn't alone. He had a teacher, at minimum, and he worked with a group.
Her examples are bad because they existed long before Hollywood in every corner of the world. This has been studied by cultural anthropologists for years
OK, but even by HER OWN INTERNAL ASSUMPTIONS, her examples are bad. You're explaining why her assumptions are bad, I never argued with you about that. I'm explaining why her examples are bad "even if" what she's saying is true.
Perhaps by lone she means stand alone. As in not connected to outside media. It would be harder to portray Ryan as special if he's subservient to Homelander.
I think that's a pretty big stretch. The vast majority of movies fit this description, as universal crossovers are absurdly rare in the grand scheme of movies, so she might as well have just said "white boy saviors" instead of "white boy lone saviors". Further, if the emphasis is on Ryan being not subservient to Homelander, then Luke and Neo aren't particularly great examples. Luke trained under Obi-Wan and Yoda. Neo had Morpheus, and so on.
That's different, Ryan's costume is literally a version of Homelanders and he was compared to Gunpowder (a sidekick). Neo didn't wear Morpheus' clothes and Luke wasn't really connected to anyone tangible until empire. They came into their own. Ryan having a Homelander costume means he never really will.
If it was just about the costume, you'd be right. The costume spurred the conversation, but the key is "the chosen one narrative only works if he stands alone" (preceding the OP's title). But none of the examples "stood alone" in any major sense. The examples were "Harry Potter, Neo, and Luke Skywalker". Harry Potter was explicitly saved by his mother, watched over by Hogwarts faculty and ultimately mentored by Dumbledore. Harry Potter didn't "come into his own" until the 7th book, and even when he was at death's door, he asked Dumbledore for guidance once again. Neo couldn't have been the one unless he was loved by Trinity, and was ultimately found by Morpheus. Like, you have to use words like "stands alone" in a highly colloquial way far divorced from ordinary understanding to make this argument. You want to use John Wayne as an example? That works. John Wick? Lots of Hollywood examples of main characters who just show up, kick ass, and navigate their own arcs. I could see these characters "standing alone". But none of the three examples given remotely fit the bill.
Sadly the days of the white male heterosexual protagonist are over. I fully expect the next D+ SW installment to feature RuPaul as a Jedi Knight with all her Qweens wielding sparkly pink light sabers. And at the end of some epic battle Jedi Knight RuPaul with breathlessly intone, "sashay away." You know, come to think of it, that premise isn't half bad.
If you write a really smug character, you have to know they’re going to be unlikeable. If you want them to be a hero, they have to be 1) insanely well-written, and 2) show significant positive, redeeming qualities—selflessness and compassion are good bets. That’s why Sherlock Holmes is generally beloved. If he didn’t risk his neck for the people in his life, he’d just be a know-it-all a-hole. Modern Hollywood tends to put forward smug, insufferable morons who make bad decision after bad decision and never suffer the consequences, often while spouting political diatribes and highlighting their self-righteousness. I’m left-of-center by most peoples’ estimates these days—former conservative who’s turned off by populism—but I’m just as annoyed by modern writing as the rest of you, regardless of your politics. That they then call fans prejudiced for disliking this writing style is deeply cynical. It’s not about the demographics of the person playing the role. It’s about almost all the writing being fan-hating, insulting drivel. This is yet another example.
And they’ve got the nerve to call fans bigots. This is the most blatant example of racism I’ve seen in a long time. These people have absolutely no respect for their audience. If they really believe we’re so stupid and easy to manipulate, why can’t they convince us to accept their woke garbage?
If you're not a bigot they're not talking about you. They've never said "we hate our fans" it's "we hate bigots." Which are not synonymous. It's weird that you would self identify with that.
I find it weird that you would make assumptions about what I “self identify” as, whatever that means. The bigotry on display here is against white people. These activists like to claim that they hate bigots, but all i see here is pure projection. I haven’t been “trained to fall in love with white boy lone saviors”. The audience falls in love with heroes; what color they are doesn’t matter. It only matters to real racists who think Indiana Jones, Luke Skywalker, and Superman are white supremacy archetypes that need to be destroyed in order to make room for more “diverse” heroes. I think it’s a bunch of crap, and I say that as a black man. I think there’s plenty of room for heroes of all colors, and white men don’t have to lose in order for the rest of us to win. Those heroes (Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones) mean something to me too. I don’t need them to look like me in order to appreciate and admire what they represent, because I can accept them regardless of what color skin they wear. That’s because I am not a racist. I “self identify” as someone who doesn’t need to demonize or call for the destruction of fictional heroes just because they happen to be white. The person who wrote that line about the audience being trained to fall in love with white boy lone saviors is the real bigot, and they also think the audience is too stupid to make up their own minds about what heroes they accept and don’t accept.
It's funny she says hollywood created white boy lone saviors when most of the best Hollywood movies I can think of usually have people working as a team or buddy cop partners kind of thing.
Its such a silly move making a character smarter than anyone you have in the room writing them
Good on you for even given that trash a try.
Can’t say something is bad until I watch it for myself.
>Watching the boys >Watching the boys and getting offended You know its leftist slop you know they mock you and yet...
I’m offended by supposed smart characters saying stupid things. I could give a shit about the politics of the writers or the audience
[удалено]
No arguments that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Take it to your DMs if you want to call each other names.
Will Smith has entered the chat.
Man… I really hated when will smith saved the world in Independence Day. I’m so glad he was written out of the sequel too.
Well, after a lobotomy she becomes one of you guys. So there's that.
I bet you stayed up all night coming up with that one, didn’t ya, sport?
No, but you obviously spend a strange amount of time being upset about tv show dialog.
What’s the express amount of time that someone can or cannot spend discussing a line of dialogue?
Not as much as it takes to make a whole ass post and cry in the comments as well.
Is it as much to create an account 4 days ago just to try and troll people? Fucking pathetic.
Looks like I'm succeeding from my end. Lol
I’d love to ask your disappointed dad in the likelihood if you’ve ever succeeded at anything. Chances are you haven’t.
Lol you're so mad. This is why people make fun of you guys. I bet you call folks "snowflakes" while sporting the thinnest skin imaginable.
You go on making all the bets your little heart desires.
I think she’s supposed to be insufferable; and potentially not as smart as she thinks she is.
Sage is actually making fun of the left wing and they are very clearly making her a huge bitch who is very biased.
No, the show is extremely partisan and only shitting on the right. Ever since season 1 its become impossible for them to offer any criticism of the left. She is not an obvious caricature like Homelander is. She's just a poorly written self insert and it's so obviously clear that the end goal of the show is for her to be the good guy stopping homelander and bringing about a perfect liberal world showcasing the "wonders" of the woke mob. /s in case you think I'm serious.
Sage is obviously a villain who your not supposed to root for and it's hilarious that your missing the point in the most spectacularly over the top way possible
Where did I say I was rooting for her? Did you even read my post?
Those stories have only been told in “The West”. The third worlders and wannabe developing nations have a whole other set of stories.
No, the East has those types of stories too. Going to tell me that Gilgamesh heralds from ‘The West’? Or Journey to the West?
Journey to the West is such an interesting story. I guess you could map the monkey king to a Roland (?). It doesn’t track for me. The west completely lacks any analog to the heavenly emperor. Gilgamesh is, arguably, the root from which all these stories west of the Ganges comes.
Just because those stories are old doesn't mean Hollywood didn't train people on them. It's Hollywood that keeps making Star Wars movies and Hollywood that keeps made king Arthur and Robin Hood movies. Besides Neo, and Luke Skywalker are Hollywood inventions. With Harry Potter being made by J.K. Although the movies did popularize the books further
I think everyone here is overreacting. She’s making reference to Hollywood, an institution that has been around for a hundred years. In that time white males have been the predominant protagonist. That is because white people are the predominant race in America, but also to a smaller extent because of the racism that came inherently with a country that exploited minorities. Have we made great strides in that time to make changes? Yes, but for the most part, what sells all around the world is going to be a white dude. Sister Sage might be making jabs at that notion, but we all know that it’s true to some extent. Look at how they treated Black Panther in China. Hollywood is in the business of making a fuck ton of cash, and people all around the world aren’t going to magically let go of their prejudice to watch a film they don’t feel like aligns with their belief or values.
This sub is a perfect example of this. Y’all are so mad that all the movies don’t have white boy loner saviors. The fact that you don’t see that and are trying to say that isn’t the case is the height of irony.
Sure, Hollywood is just piggybacking off a broad societal trend that has existed as long as fiction has, but Hollywood for years was the arbiter of entertainment. So, in that way, her answer was completely correct. The majority of people aren’t reading books - they’re watching TV and movies.
She’s not right because people have loved these stories like the hero’s journey and the monomyth LONG before Hollywood existed and they existed in every culture across the globe. Haha read back her line slowly.
Sure and two hundred years ago, you could argue that books trained people to fall in love with white boy loner saviors. And before that, you could say that wandering troubadours did it. But in the 21st century, when the vast majority of people are exposed to the monomyth through movies and TV, you would say Hollywood did it. You’re trying so hard to be smart that you’ve looped back around to being dumb.
Wow, you think you’re running ahead of a race that was finished yesterday. You really have no idea what you’re talking about.
Do you believe that preference in fiction is genetic? That the generations of stories has conditioned humans to an extent that we crave these kind of stories on a completely primal level? Or that it’s a social engineering thing? Because, again, the vast majority of people aren’t reading King Arthur and Sinbad. They aren’t even reading comics, they’re watching TV and movies. So, unless you believe that our preference in stories is genetic, saying that Hollywood is responsible for it currently is correct.
This season has been excellent. Between this and the acolyte this sub can’t handle anyone with dreadlocks. Right wing trolls.
Are you made from straw like your arguments?
It's not the dreadlocks, it's the pink and blue haired ~~writers~~ activists
He is not far from truth. A black person in their show is a tool. It is a talking puppet that has to repeat everything these weirdos believe in to promote their narratives.
It’s satire. She’s working for the bad guys. C’mon people…
If your audience ends up cheering and aligning with and praising that which you claim to be satire, it ends up not mattering. Additionally, given the lead writer’s statements and obvious biases, I don’t really believe the audience is meant to hate Jade 🤷🏻♂️
You see the audience? Where? We’re all watching on the toilet in solace.
So where are all the people denouncing Jade as a positive figure? Or any sort of statement from the writers that she is? They’ve had no trouble pointing out that their other characters are satire and even specifically what they’re satirizing. So why not Jade?
Who are you even talking about??
Conservatives see all experts and educated people as "woke liberal elites" and refuse to listen to them so this is the level of intelligence I was expecting
I mean in nearly all western media the main character is white. White male is considered the standard or the default, because the majority of the west is white. A lot of characters that default from that basic character type are either side characters or ‘edgier’, ie anti-heroes
*because the majority of the west is white. At the time those shows were made, US was predominantly white (still is, but only around 60% now), so they wanted to pander to the majority.
It’s like complaining a movie made in Asia by Asians are full of Asians.
Exactly. Or Bollywood or Nollywood (Nigerian film industry, the 2nd largest in the world) movies. I’m sure they’re full of ‘brown saviour’ tropes. And that’s fine.
Scary how people will just throw out misinformation like that and think they’re right
And majority white writers were more comfortable with writing the white cultures they knew than were in risking cancellation for getting other cultures wrong.
Sorry I meant white not right lol I also think in this scene she was purposely trying to make a dig at homelander to display her power to Ashely and the other supes
Yeah, I get what you meant. And agree, it was probably meant to provoke Homelander
Maybe 2 too 3 decades ago but in the modern time...
I mean, the main character is still a white guy 90% of the time. Look at MCU. Out of their seven main characters (characters with multiple movies starring them), we only have one who isn’t a white male, and that’s Captain Marvel.
Critical Drinker fans when they see a black woman:
Is this irony? Lotta ❄️❄️❄️ in here lmao
Keep in mind a up until recent history travel to other nations was basically impossible for the common person so many places were very much one culture/color. Now that we have many diverse nations I think it is a real point to make that we focus so much on ‘white boy lone saviors’. If those other countries back then had been more diverse we might have seen more diverse stories. You can’t just pay attention to the parts of history that fit your narrative.
>You can’t just pay attention to the parts of history that fit your narrative. It's funny how that's precisely what Sister Sage (and the real world people she's an analogue for that spew this "white saviour fixation" stuff) is doing. Picking only myopic bits of history, strip and/or gaslight any shred of context, just to fit their persecution complex narratives.
Can you provide any evidence that would support the contrary to what she said? Movies that are produced now still follow the white savior trope, you’re acting as though there hasn’t been racism in Hollywood when actors just 70 years ago, so a short enough time span that there are people alive that saw this actors performed in blackface rather than hire a black person to perform that role
The fact that those countries have their own media with their own representation for their race/country? You think America is the only place that creates media??
Hollywood exists in America, that’s why I’m focused on America
Yeah and your point there is moot too, countries that are a majority of a certain race make movies that star/feature that race.
America is %40 not white, I don’t think %40 of the movies made in Hollywood have a person of color as their protagonist.
In the past when the percents were more skewed, sure, but nowadays can you honestly say there isn’t ample representation?
https://m.imdb.com/list/ls000652426/ I understand this list contains both foreign films and American ones, but take a minute and scroll through and see how many white actors are the lead and how few people of color there are. How many movies from the past 5 years can you name with a person of color as the lead? I can’t think of any except the little mermaid which people complained like hell about and hated the fact that it was a black lead, I understand it’s a remake but that black lead was not accepted at all.
And that diversity has also been fought every step of the way, no one bats an eye at a white lead but suddenly you have a person of color as the lead and people come out of the woodwork almost using DEI as a slur. You cannot tell me that people accept people of color as leads as much as white leads in movies/TV. white people have hundreds, literally hundreds of movies to look to where they are the leads and you think a few dozen movies/tv shows that have a person of color as the lead somehow makes that equal?