Definitely some people were put off by the ideological bent to it. I found it slightly grating (and I'm a center-left type), but I could have excused it if there was anything else to the films. The first one seemed promising if finished, but the rest were just sloppy.

In other words, it's not like an unwoke version of those films would have been good. Like, they resorted to bringing Palpatine back. That's not being fixed by changing Finn's race, Rey's gender, or that one chick's hair color or whatever else people are upset about who stole the Picard Maneuver.

Every popular movie gets leveled with some criticism about its politics. But just like most of my computing tools, I really care more about whether they work than whether the company posts a logo I agree or disagree with.

Here the second two especially were just trash movies that put the elements of the universe in a blender.

Making it less woke would have made it successful with one simple trick . Let Luke be a positive male hero.

What does "less woke" have to do with "positive male hero"? Do you think there is no woke media with positive male heroes? Do you believe all non-woke media has positive male heroes?

The best positive male representation I've seen was on very progressive (what you'd call "woke") shows.

I agree that making Luke turn out better would have been one of many keys to its improvement, but I don't think that was done to be woke. If anything it was more regurgitation. They felt like he needed a hermit phase like Obi Wan.

Also, there were supposed to be positive male heroes in it, right? Finn, even Kylo Ren in the end, and the guy whose name I forget that's the pilot.

Having one of the key characters be a female hero goes back to A New Hope so I'm not sure if this is actually a good faith complaint.

> Alignment with current social issues happens based on calculations of profit, not based on sincere ideological commitment.

Yeah, Bud Light was just “calculating profit” when it alienated its customer base.

Yes, they did. They had a calculated marketing campaign where they paid various influencers to market towards their respective audiences. I'm sure they made a risk analysis - and if you look at other transgender influencers paid by other companies who were spared this moral outcry, you'll see that it's more bad luck than anything else that the conserviative media machine focused so much on them.

I don't think so. Gay Marriage bills didn't even pass in California, or 29 other states. The supreme court overturned the will of Americans (btw I'm French).

It's clear American elites are far far more liberal progressive than the American people themselves. The country that had Nixon win in a landslide, brought Trump too.

Luckily that's very easy to disprove, since we have statistics about the amount of Americans supporting e.g. same-sex marriage: in November 2022, 61% of Americans saw it as a net positive. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/15/about-six...

No, they had one marketing executive making the decisions, who was subsequently thrown under the bus. Get your facts straight.

> No, they had one marketing executive making the decisions, who was subsequently thrown under the bus

What did I write that you think you're disagreeing with here? I didn't specify the amount of marketing executives who made the decision, so what are you trying to say I should get my facts straight on?

>I'm sure they made a risk analysis - and if you look at other transgender influencers paid by other companies who were spared this moral outcry, you'll see that it's more bad luck than anything else that the conserviative media machine focused so much on them.

You're throwing around ridiculous speculation.

Well, there definitely are other transgender influencers paid by other companies who were spared this moral outcry. So what is the ridiculous speculation? That they made a risk analysis?

You're lacking examples

This is the first time you're asking for examples. Given both your way of asking and your previous messages I'm neither interested in continuing this "discussion" with short and snippy responses, nor do I feel safe directing you to any individuals.

You think that it is ridiculous speculation to say that a large company did something with the goal of making money and it just didn't work out how they expected it to?

Several times in a row over multiple years? Yeah.

The Bud Light controversy is absolutely stunning, and is affecting my job in directional planning.

I don't think any high level executive saw that coming.

The customer base was alienated because Bud Light made one (1) custom can of beer. Not one kind of custom can, literally only one can.

Strangely, Bud Light has made special cans for pride month for years now and no one much cared. Strangely, people are boycotting Bud Light specifically and Anheuser-Busch is largely ignored. Strangely, major beer companies have had much more prominent partnerships with trans people with no similarly hysterical reaction.

This is not a story that makes sense. Even from the perspective of the modern American right it doesn't make sense. It's just a herd of people freaking out for no reason.

The explanation is that Bud Light is viscerally associated with Dylan Mulvaney, who shot videos promoting the custom can. Bud Light's masculine, blue collar customer base does not want to be associated with Dylan Mulvaney. However, they are not sophisticated enough to extend the association to AB-InBev's other products. It's not hard to understand.

As I said, this doesn't make sense even within the modern American right. Bud Light has been loudly supporting trans rights for years now with no backlash I can remember. Why did associating with a transgender person for a single video result in more outrage than years of deliberate political activism?

It's a random social media outburst. People latched on to one trivial event because that's what happens on the Internet. There is no rational explanation.

>Alignment with current social issues happens based on calculations of profit, not based on sincere ideological commitment.

I guess they need to do a better job with their market research. Because destroying Luke Skywalker and redefining the Mary Sue trope doesn't seem like what the public wanted.

Did you read my previous comment? I explained reasonably clearly that they didn't focus on making a good movie. You yourself are saying that destroying Luke Skywalker and redefining the Mary Sue trope doesn't seem like what the public wanted. But I'll guarantee you that there was a lot of market research which determined that:

- strong female leads are popular

- "defying expectations" is popular

- Marvel style humor is popular

And when you put those things together without caring about making a good movie, you will do things like destroying Luke Skywalker, or redefining the Mary Sue trope. These things didn't happen because they wanted them to happen, they happened because they didn't care enough to not make them happen.

Your comments about what Disney thinks is popular amount to nothing but conjecture on your part. Meanwhile, the sequels were not well received by fans. And, while I'm certain you would make the argument about the movies making money, they underperformed with regards to expectations. Merchandise did not sell. Solo lost money because of the bad sequels. Spin-offs were canceled.

So, regardless of market research or whatever, the end result was not good.

> So, regardless of market research or whatever, the end result was not good.

Do you believe I'm trying to say anything different? You're arguing against something that is not my point.

You just seem to think Disney has the absolute worst market research on the planet instead of admitting they are trying to push ideological messaging.

No, I am not. I'm saying they don't care about making good movies, only about putting in what market research is telling them they should. My version of things doesn't rely on a conspiracy to push ideological messaging like yours, it only relies on market forces and big companies coming together to create a lazy and bad product that still sold, albeit under expectations (because, surprise, people care about quality).

Just stop for one second and consider this - is there literally no way to increase the quality of the movies without changing the "ideological messaging"? I think there are tons of ways, e.g. by removing the incredibly annoying slapstick humor overpresent in Episode 8. So why didn't they try to make it better? If they want to push ideological messaging, why not at least put effort into the movies, so your messaging is effective?