What is wrong with having a show that appeals to boys/men, or having a strong male hero?
Thankfully I cancelled Netflix over a year ago, but of course I heard about the bait and switch which is pretty commonplace now. The shill websites are doing the usual fan attacks as well as praising the "stunning and brave" direction. One even called it a "radical reimaging". Netflix obviously should've just openly stated that it would be a show about Teela but they know there wouldn't be an audience for it (outside of the sycophants in media). They knew that people who grew up watching He-Man would want a show about He-Man. Although I would rather market to them because they would most likely have kids and buy merchandise, but it makes much more sense to market to blue haired feminists on twitter.
You would think what has happened with comic books over the last 7 years would wake some people up.
I'm glad Anime and Manga are doing well and I hope that Japan never bends the knee. I recently bought some Conan comic books and novels, as well as the complete Robert Howard collection. I know Netflix is doing a Conan show, but I am pretty sure he will be upstaged or he will learn everything from women.
But I will close with my question from above. What is wrong with having entertainment that appeals to boys/men? Or as Yellowflash put it "nothing wrong with having something that appeals to women/girls but why is it that something that generally appeals to men have to appeal to everybody"
Its something that has been pointed out by ClownfishTV (who have been on top of a lot of these sort of issues as people who used to work in the industry). They have been saying for years now: A lot of the writing 'Talent' in the US at the moment is using the media they make as as their own personal therapy session broadcasted to the world, and then its designed to appeal to their friends in media and in a handful of extremely progressive cities on the West Coast.
To prove this, Kneon showed one time, when talking about US made Comics, the sales numbers he had. They were abysmal, sub-200,000 for even the best performing ones. Then you look at where its selling...and its all Portland or San Francisco. Sales outside those two places were even more apocalyptic. So they THINK its what people want because it sells in their own back yard....and then they are surprised when they see all the hate. After all, all of their friends like it.
And then the writers are all of the same way, and a lot of them have unresolved issues that they deliberately write into their works. Why do you think so many female characters have "daddy issues"? Why do you think they are treated like the best people ever when they would be considered freaks by the average person? Why do so many of their stories focus on effectively reliving high school and doing it better (usually with a prom episode)?
And then they managed, with their friends in Marketing and PR (who were some of the first to be SJWs, along with HR), to convince CEO's that this is what people want. And that while you will have lots of anger and maybe lose money as people leave, eventually you will get a bigger audience to replace them.
But now, that money is starting to run out. The excuses are starting to run out. There is nothing left in the tank, which means they need to cut quality, which is just creating a negative feedback loop. And the Venture Capital money is running out (same problem a lot of the Journos are having), and now the CEOs are finally starting to wise up and go "You said there would be money by now. Where? Is? My?! MONEY?!" And most of them dont have an answer. So now a lot of companies are starting to see about creating their own Anime to ride the tide, but a lot of the Anime companies are already sending them letters saying "Fuck Off" after they got burned with a few deals and shows, so they may have problems.
Its been a long road, but it seems we are reaching the end of the "Go Broke" arc for a lot of these Entertainment companies.
Great points. I recently started watching Clownfish and they are great.
To be fair, this is a valid question when dealing with real life females too. You can't talk to a single one without uncovering something daddy related.
It's clownish:
Either "Daddy Issues" is a straw-man argument for something else (promiscuity issues) or these women are simply brats who need a real husband to tame them.
Sometimes they're just whores, sometimes they're just mentally children that never grew up (mentally, I mean) because they never faced consequences for their bad decisions.
And sometimes they're butthurt that they were raised well and are trying to rebel.
Sometimes they didn't have dads so they turn into whores.
Personally, I've always thought of it as a defect in women's emotional state that our current culture is unable to properly satisfy/control. Likely because they aren't traded from dad to husband like property anymore.
It is always funny though that complete lack of dad or too good of dad ends up with the same slutty beast of a woman who can barely function in reality. One just cries a little more, but the result otherwise is the same.
There's a loophole in "get woke go broke": it assumes that a producer of goods is dependent upon its consumers to make a profit.
Say you're an executive at some big company like Ubisoft. You sell games, got a new one in the works. The number crunchers give you a report of expected sales totalling X. Now a foreign entity approaches you with a deal under the table: force this small list of changes in your new game and receive 2X dollars. This foreign entity is now your customer base and can outvote thousands of wallets.
No proof, of course. Legitimate business deals get covered in NDAs, so of course an illegitimate business deal isn't gonna be reported. Not really the point, though, the point is that an incentive structure exists and so it shouldn't be considered impossible.
There are many variations of this. One of my favorites is when that 2X dollar payment is made in the form of product purchases, so the executive can now factually report that they doubled expected sales. Even better if the product is digital because then foreign entity doesn't have to waste a trip to the dump.
That would be the Venture Capital I was talking about. Its what got a lot of the internet journo types up and running, and they got their mitts into a lot of the entertainment industry, and its widely known that VC Money comes with a ton of strings attached. But THEY also need to make money, and they havent been, so they are starting to stop their funding to these companies, and now these companies, who were relying on the VC money to stay afloat, are up Shit Creek without a BOAT, nevermind a paddle.
So your loophole can buy time, but it wont save you in the long run. Think about it this way: Marvel and DC Comics are currently so underwater and drowning in debt, that they are talking about ceasing production of ALL new comics and focusing exclusively on reprints of old comics, since at least those sell. Now go back 30 years ago, when Comics where at their peak, and tell any rando on the street that would be the state of Comics in the US. They wouldnt believe you. They would think you are some nutjob. But 30 years later, its a very real possibility.
Anime also has a little bit of inoculation against this problem because a few decades ago, when they first tried to get into America, they changed a lot of stuff to try and appeal to Americans...and it crashed and burned. So it may be part of the reason so many Japanese companies are not really taking the bait. "We tried this whole 'Wider Audience' thing before, and it didnt work."
Basically, what I am getting at is that I dont doubt that such shenanigans are done (its actually very well known, to the point I have heard it referred to as "Hollywood Math"). But its not a thing you can do forever, and eventually the Piper comes expecting his due.
I was leaning a bit away from venture capitalists. As you say, they expect a return on their investment. Any person making a similar investment without expecting a financial return is either pulling some investment trickery or is engaging deliberate sabotage - both of which can be considered a form of financial return, I suppose.
This is a bit more of a stretch, but what if it's a foreign government? There's plenty of governments that bleed money freely. This becomes a lot more plausible if it's not concerning consumer media, like if someone were to influence our nation's military leadership into making terrible policy decisions for the purpose of weakening our strength. That's an easy write-off to a foreign nation's military budget.
Explaining such a thing for vidya or movies is more difficult, as I can barely grasp the required belief systems. I know people exist that believe you can force cultural change by manipulating media (because they think culture is a product of media when media is actually a product of culture). I do not know how this belief develops, so I can't guess as to what countries might be stuck with it in their leadership.
From there, it'd be a matter of how much of a threat a nation (or western society as a whole) is to some global power player, and them trying to put a price to the destabilization of their enemy. It certainly sounds laughable like this, though, because it's so weak and petty.
Regardless, I do agree that it cannot be done forever. If it's done for the purpose of sabotage, it won't need forever. I just find it troubling because not many seem to be prepared for actions that betray expectations.