site banner
ZorbaTHut  2yr ago (text post)   Edited 2yr ago   38751 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 12, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

40
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don't think it is any more complex than Amazon simply throwing money at a franchise which is universally known so that it is very likely to draw a large viewership and then producing some generic uninspired series which postures as part of the universally known franchise while pandering to whatever Amazon thinks is the current zeitgeist. On the level of the people who actually produce and write the series there may be some conscious ideological commitment, but on the corporate level where the decision to make this series was actually made, I doubt it is more than just pure indifference to franchise itself and a simple desire to make money.

Also, it is pretty ironic that a multinational tech giant is working with Tolkien material, when Tolkien himself was a bit of a Luddite and a localist.

It's not ironic, they had to wait for the man himself and his son to die to pull this bullshit off.

On the level of the people who actually produce and write the series there may be some conscious ideological commitment, but on the corporate level where the decision to make this series was actually made, I doubt it is more than just pure indifference to franchise itself and a simple desire to make money

But shouldn't they, in theory, make more money if they make something that's remotely high quality? Wouldn't someone be more likely to subscribe or keep their subscription 20 years from when this woke shit expires?

I'll push it further - the people who produced and wrote the serious do have a conscious ideological commitment, and the check writers were too cowardly to make the maximum amount of money possible. They said "OK... we'll make $100m instead of $300m but at least we won't have to have a tough conversation about respecting the source material".

I'd bet against the latter.

My assumption is that writing is hard. Cohesive or compelling writing is harder. "99% of everything is crap." Given a random TV team*, I'm expecting a starting point of mediocrity.

Now add the source material. Compelling worldbuilding, yes. Nail-biting plots and snappy dialogue, no. So they're required from the start to take some sort of liberties. Maybe in the hands of a bold visionary, that means subversion of tropes, detailed intrigue, a stylistic homage. We get a standard hero's journey.

Throw in some romance to hit one crowd, a couple "relatable" characters for others. Marketing is throwing in a demand for one or another actor. Are they running an agenda? Doesn't matter--it's not like the direction is going to conflict. Appeal to the diehard fans with a couple name-drops. Don't worry too much, they'll come back to Middle-Earth for anything. Fill in the stock characterizations and frayed plot threads with luscious set pieces and big-budget CGI, since money is flowing freely.

That's how you get something like this.

* As a side note, the two main writers are both practicing Mormons. Not exactly the first demographic I'd pick for woke ideological capture.

Bezos is only concerned with making money. This show is meant to be the flagship that hooks everyone into paying for a Prime subscription.

I think it's painfully obvious that Payne and McKay have no experience or track record in writing or creating a successful show or movie. They have, what, writing credits on the third reboot Star Trek movie? That's about it, and I have no idea how two guys with nothing to back up "yeah, we did this hit show, that hit movie, etc." could get hired just on the recommendation of J.J. Abrams. How Abrams can manage to get his mucky paws either directly or by proxy all over three beloved fandoms like Star Trek, Star Wars and now Lord of the Rings, in order to mess them up, is another puzzle for the ages.

So they're falling back on standard tropes and slapping an epic fantasy coat of paint on them, as well as borrowing the names of Tolkien characters. Strong Independent Woman who is (spins wheel) motivated by Revenge Quest to avenge (throws dart) her dead brother. Stomps and scowls her way everywhere, because she don't need no stinkin' allies to achieve her aims, she is so omnicompetent she can take down Sauron and his entire army all by her ownsome.

Unless they manage to pull off a heck of a lot of improvement all round in the remaining episodes, there won't be a season two. It's already veering on omnishambles, not omnicompetent.

  • As a side note, the two main writers are both practicing Mormons. Not exactly the first demographic I'd pick for woke ideological capture.

It's been my experience that Christians are the worst about wokeness in the racial division.

The racial angle is looking like the weakest criticism of this particular show. See this comment for examples of dumb characterization, Mary Sueing, and blue-tribe audience pandering.

This is my thought as well.

The LotR appendices were, shockingly, not TV ready. A team applied them to what is by all accounts a fairly standard plot. Much budget was spent on CG and costuming. Casting was more diverse than Peter Jackson’s oeuvre, presumably in an attempt to hit a slightly broader audience.

All pretty vanilla decisions, but because of the brush with diversity, critics have a nice scapegoat.

If they'd spent less money on terrible wargs and more on finding somebody who knew how to write scripts for TV that involved credible dialogue, there would be less to complain about. Their inexperience is not helping them; if they had enough successes under their belt then they could pull off selling the woke stuff. But since their major idea of filling in the gaps in the Second Age seems to be "We have 1 black dwarf and 1 black elf, yay diverse representation!!!!" - no, it's not working.

I don't think it as any more complex than Amazon simply throwing money at a franchise which is universally known so that it is very likely to draw a large viewership and then producing some generic uninspired series which postures as part of the universally known franchise while pandering to whatever Amazon thinks is the current zeitgeist.

Yeah, there's functionally no difference with the Wheel of Time scenario. Or what happened to Percy Jackson. Or what happened to Dark Tower. Or Dragonball: Evolution...

It's simply a matter of magnitude: Tolkien is the most well-known fantasy author (except maybe JKR) and so doing it to his works correspondingly draws more attention

More than a bit. He once resolved to speak in nothing but old Mercian as a protest for the conversion of the midlands from woods and villages to industry, and the intrusion of radio, television, and other mass-media

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats