

Discussion summary
Discussions focus on the portrayal of villains in media, with debates about diversity, woke ideology, and storytelling trends. Some argue that modern content is influenced by societal pressures, while others defend creative freedom.
What the discussion says
- Some believe media is increasingly influenced by woke ideology, affecting character choices.
- Others argue that diverse characters, including villains, have existed before 'woke' influence.
- There is a debate over whether fiction should reflect current moral panics or remain purely fictional.
“Fiction should be fictional and not be forced to carry today's immoral panic with it.”
“Most of this article is tilting at windmills, criticizing minority villains pre-woke.”
Comments
Hacker News
There is a spiritual successor to The Wire: 2022’s miniseries We Own This City. Same complicated representation of Baltimore. Same complicated representation of American policing. Good critical reception, but less widely-known than a legendary show that ran for six years and sixty episodes.
The substantive difference between the two is that 2020’s-era HBO doesn’t make long-running serials like The Wire and The Sopranos anymore (Hacks is a notable exception).
That’s not a political change forced on them by unnamed leftists. That’s a change in business model.
Give Telugu, Tamil, Hindi, Korean, British, Japanese, Hongkonger, Chinese, Taiwanese, Thai, etc films are try. If you're like me, you'll be delighted with the change of pace and focus on more human-centered stories and grounded portrayals of characters and relationships.
American cinema feels so uncanny and sterile by comparison.
by bbg2401
by 6510
The protagonist is merely the main character, while the antagonist is the person or group standing in their way.
There are many stories where the protagonist is evil/bad. Like I hope people don't think Walter White was good, while ASAC Schrader was bad.
And FWIW, while the pendulum went far into the "all non-whites are morally superior", just a couple of decades earlier minorities were almost always the bad guy. Like in the 80s an Arab or clearly Muslim character = terrorist. It was a lazy shortcut, just like the current waning "put in a black woman and she'll be superior to everyone" thing is a lazy shortcut.
by llm_nerd
Like going back to the early 90’s there was this incredible rash of bad films, especially action movies, and that was just the nature of Hollywood incentives.
Because I think the complaint in some sense isn’t the fact that there are progressive movies, it’s the fact that it’s a layer added to all low risk big budget studio films.
But these movies would likely be bad for other identifiable reasons if not for the sprinkling of diversity. The lord of the rings on Amazon isn’t otherwise great.
So sometimes I think this criticism is just feeding into the very thing it’s trying to fight. Industry is great, and it’s great for the reasons described, but I think the moral ambiguity problem as described isn’t caused by diversity, they’re correlated. Bad movies have less moral ambiguity and use diversity in a hamfisted way.
by mikgp
Also, I think narrative is not the main issue with recent blockbusters. Their issues is dedramatization and impersonal stakes, which makes them weaker than movies from 20-30 years ago. I think A24 studio and the Daniels showed you can be goofy and fun while still making the audience care and even cry a bit, so this is probably a skill issue.
by orwin
Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- I have very little sympathy for “You couldn’t write X today” arguments. Here, X is The Wire.
There is a spiritual successor to The Wire: 2022’s miniseries We Own This City. Same complicated representation of Baltimore. Same complicated representation of American policing. Good critical reception, but less widely-known than a legendary show that ran for six years and sixty episodes.
The substantive difference between the two is that 2020’s-era HBO doesn’t make long-running serials like The Wire and The Sopranos anymore (Hacks is a notable exception).
That’s not a political change forced on them by unnamed leftists. That’s a change in business model.
- I have to disagree. Multiracial casts are a relatively new convention, so I think it's premature to draw conclusions on casing patterns generally. But casting a heterosexual white man is representative of the real world. Who has all the power in the real world? What race is your congress person, your states federal judges, the supreme court... all but one president in American history...
- If you're tired of modern American film tropes, there's a world of cinema to explore and enjoy from other cultures.
Give Telugu, Tamil, Hindi, Korean, British, Japanese, Hongkonger, Chinese, Taiwanese, Thai, etc films are try. If you're like me, you'll be delighted with the change of pace and focus on more human-centered stories and grounded portrayals of characters and relationships.
American cinema feels so uncanny and sterile by comparison.
by bbg2401 - Gradually, over a 2 hour movie, change the protagonist from a white guy into a black woman and the villain from a black man into a white woman without the plot ever accounting for it.by 6510
- "one protagonist (who we know is good) and one antagonist (who we know is evil)"
The protagonist is merely the main character, while the antagonist is the person or group standing in their way.
There are many stories where the protagonist is evil/bad. Like I hope people don't think Walter White was good, while ASAC Schrader was bad.
And FWIW, while the pendulum went far into the "all non-whites are morally superior", just a couple of decades earlier minorities were almost always the bad guy. Like in the 80s an Arab or clearly Muslim character = terrorist. It was a lazy shortcut, just like the current waning "put in a black woman and she'll be superior to everyone" thing is a lazy shortcut.
by llm_nerd - I don’t entirely disagree with this criticism, but it also feels to me like - progressivism is the flavor of modern bad studio films, but not a cause of bad media.
Like going back to the early 90’s there was this incredible rash of bad films, especially action movies, and that was just the nature of Hollywood incentives.
Because I think the complaint in some sense isn’t the fact that there are progressive movies, it’s the fact that it’s a layer added to all low risk big budget studio films.
But these movies would likely be bad for other identifiable reasons if not for the sprinkling of diversity. The lord of the rings on Amazon isn’t otherwise great.
So sometimes I think this criticism is just feeding into the very thing it’s trying to fight. Industry is great, and it’s great for the reasons described, but I think the moral ambiguity problem as described isn’t caused by diversity, they’re correlated. Bad movies have less moral ambiguity and use diversity in a hamfisted way.
by mikgp - The main issue described in all that writing is that studios are risk-averse and won't take any narrative risks. I heavily dislike recent marvel movies, but avengers endgame first movie made a bold choice, and that was the first blockbuster I enjoyed the story of in a long time (I dislike the dedramatization though, so I still think it's a below average movie).
Also, I think narrative is not the main issue with recent blockbusters. Their issues is dedramatization and impersonal stakes, which makes them weaker than movies from 20-30 years ago. I think A24 studio and the Daniels showed you can be goofy and fun while still making the audience care and even cry a bit, so this is probably a skill issue.
by orwin