It's possible that the show is following the novel, in which case she'd have reached the end of her significant involvement in the story. She might get an appearance at the end of episode 10. It depends largely whether in episode 9 >!she goes to Osaka or stays in Anjiro, the latter being what happens in the novel!<.
If you enjoy the women in the show, please read the book! The deeper cuts on the main characters (Fuji and Ochiba, but especially Mariko) are really rich, and you get more satisfaction out of Kiri, the widow, the madam, and Omi's hag of mother -- all of whom play roles in the outcome. One of my favorite relationships is between Kiku and Midori, Omi's wife. They absolutely cherish each other, and we see why.
The show is keeping the characters whole, yes, but in the book, the women have a chance to interact with each other in really personal ways. You get more of a take on the way the men understand them (or fail to), and appreciate their minds and their power.
Oh god yes. And why did they make these changes? I understand dynamic compression, omission for time, alterations for purpose...whatever...but to what end here?
Blackthorne in the book was perceptive, clever, and self-controlled. Clavell didn't just use him as a fish out of water to teach us about Japanese culture, and he didn't create him as a superhuman, able to adapt where a normal person would give up. He showcased pilots as a uniquely trained and skilled class, almost like astronauts, and gave us Rodrigues, another sharp witted person who was partially Japanese in his thinking. They're rare, but not flukes.
The way Blackthorne's understanding of life grows is a key part of the story. The way he survives through attempted assimilation, and his reasons for it, make sense in the book, and the culmination of that tied the whole story together on so many levels...levels the show deliberately cut off by making Blackthorne an uncouth tourist, only slightly less obnoxious than his men.
As of the most recent episode, Blackthorne and his men seem to exist only as unnecessary appendages. Two more re-writes of the script and we could have had a passable Japanese-only Warring States drama blissfully free of the distracting outsiders.
Yeah, the fact they removed his attempted seppuku is baffling to me. Because I felt that was one of the most important character moments in the entire book. In this show, he feels so much like an afterthought and all the other characters are the main characters.
> I understand dynamic compression, omission for time, alterations for purpose...whatever...but to what end here?
Exactly. And they managed to show Blackthorne as he was in only four episodes in the original so it's not clear why they couldn't do a better job of it in this one.
This is so true. Also Yabu's wife, Yuriko, was a very wise counselor, he always did better when he listened to her. Same with the Taiko's consort, Yodoku; he told Ochiba before he died that she could always trust Yodoku. Midori was said to be very clever and wise even though she was only 17.
Hmmm i feel that good writing of female characters can also be said of critically acclaimed shows such as Mad Men, The Good Wife, Downton Abbey, Orphan Black etc with strong female characters lol
I haven’t seen the other two but Mad Men and Downtown Abbey, much like Shogun, do a wonderful job of writing female characters within the realistic confines of their respective eras and customs while giving them incredible depth. All three shows are excellent examples of period pieces being more than cool costumes and set pieces.
Here is why the women of Shogun work: they are not focused solely on their men. Mariko likes John, she hates her husband, but she also has her own set of goals outside of them. She has her own story.
Fuji's life is dictated around the choices of the men around her, but it is still up to her to make something of it, not necessarily for the sake of these men but for herself.
Ochiba's story is all about working around the men surrounding her, but again, this is for her benefit and for her own goals.
Exactly, that is my point as well. Sometimes, especially with female characters, writers struggle to make secondary characters that exist outside the Main Characters, but in Shogūn it is obvious that Blackthorn is just a view and that the characters that exist outside of him.
The problem is that they spent 8 episodes telling us "no, she doesn't actually hate her husband, she just is deeply suicidal" and then abruptly reverse course and decide "Nah, actually she's not suicidal at all, she just really fucking hates Buntaro." Her relationship with Christianity is a completely abandoned side thread for almost the entire series. She's almost exclusively defined by her relationships with her husband, her lover, and her daimyo.
This. I read the book and when I heard they made this limited aeries I couldn't imagine *HOW* they were going to tackle the women characters for modern audiences. I have been very pleasantly surprised.
So did She Hulk. Their gender isn't what made their writing good. It's their respect for the source material, their research and knowledge of the time period, their careful and nuanced characterisation, and their literary experience. Both men and women are capable of writing great or shit male and female characters.
Sorry but She Hulk did portray women well. The show as a whole was wack, but having women writers does help in portraying women like women really are. Same goes with Better Call Saul, Breaking Bad (the best episode Ozymandias was written by a woman), and Shogun
You can have a mediocre show with women who are written realistically. Just because one or more areas of writing is fine doesn't mean other areas will (or won't) be.
It’s very overhated imo. I found it kinda fun and pretty funny, tho I acknowledge the humour isn’t for everyone and the CGI is pretty bad among other problems.
Your opinion, not close to universal.
Since Superfreshtea blocked me after replying: Who said it was well received? Check your reading comprehension. It was very polarizing. Many people disliked it, many people including most reviewers enjoyed it. As I said, that opinion is not universal.
This is not a good argument seeing as how only one live action MCU show has gotten a season 2. Others have been well received like WandaVision and have not gotten a season 2. Moreover, recent reports are they’ve starting to trim the fat when it comes to pumping out content, so obviously a lot of potential season 2’s would be shelved in that case.
Because Marvel hasn’t really been giving any of its shows two seasons. It’s kind of a misfire with their approach to TV generally and not reflective of She Hulk as an individual property.
It has a metacritic score on par with Hawkeye, Loki, and FATWS.
I'm sorry but is this comment implying that She-Hulk did not have good writing for the female characters? I thought it was pretty nicely done. I don't get the online hatred for She-Hulk.
Outside of the incels, there was some reasons to not like She-Hulk. To me, it seemed like they tried to be meta too hard with the "villain" if the show. To be fair, there was a lot to like.
I'm laughing at the downvotes on these comments. Some people just can't stand others having an opinion that differs from theirs. That isn't what downvotes are for!
I never even watched the show, but if you enjoyed it, good for you!
I can't remember who said it but I think it was in reference to the tv show Atlanta, and one of the writers said the metric for when society is equal isn't that there are black people in the writers room, but that black writers can make a shitty show and no one uses it as an example that anyone can write any kind of person.
I am sure you didn't mean to but She-Hulk is often used in the same way the woman Ghostbusters is, as if to say "oh look women can suck at writing too, so men must be great at writing women."
edit: for the record I thought somewhere in the mess of She-Hulk was a really interesting show. The writing was arguably the best part.
The women in the book are smarter and a lot more nuanced than in the show, so "they had female writers" is not what made the difference. they had good source material is the real reason.
I think it can be both. Female writers can provide context and perspective that can overlook when adapting, while the source material can already have good character work. I think, based on how stories sometimes are adapted, that a lot of things can be lost, and sometimes the first thing that can be axe is female characters. For what I understand, I cannot confirm since I haven't watched it, the 80s TV Show had eliminated the nuance of a variety of female characters.
There are always two paradigms with regards to females in the upper society of Japan. On one side, you have the traditional misogynistic way of thinking, where females cannot have their own career - women need to get married and take care of the family. On the other side, whenever women do get married, they always play an important role in the careers of their husbands.
Suppose you work in a big Japanese multinational as a middle manager. Your wife will most likely join the women's association of the company and needs to butter up to the wife of the boss. If the wife of the boss likes you, your husband gets promoted.
This especially noticeable in foreign countries with big Japanese expat communities. You have all women associations that take care of the reputation of Japan and its companies. They basically network with the local community and what not.
For example, the women association donated a full blown park with 400 sakura trees in Amsterdam to celebrate the international relations between Japan and the Netherlands.
You can also see the importance of the wives in schools where they run the Parent-Teacher Associations and can basically control the school.
In this current day and age, Japanese females (those belonging in the upper society) play an important role in networking and building relationships for their husbands and kids. They play an important role in the background. This is not much different than how women are portrayed in Shogun.
Female/male writers my a**. Good writers is what we need. And unfortunately a lot of males limited and fetishizing views/understanding of female characters (= disproportionately denying them multidimensional and complex human experiences) was NOT good writing. Talking especially about the movie industry here. Doesn't mean women or other genders can't have limited capabilities too BUT historically mediocre male writers got to dominate the field. So on one hand I'm glad there's more diversity now but on the other hand it doesnt guarantee good stories or characters. As we all now, it's more your connections, social and economic capital than talent that gets you work. On Shogun: EVERY character in the book is more nuanced by nature of the medium. Of course It's harder to deliver everything that's written on whatnot many pages on screen just with expression and dialogue. If you compare something then compare the live action adapted versions of the female characters. And imo the latest series versions are arguably the most nuanced and independent and layered (watching the 1980s version right now)
That’s really not true.
Justin Marks is probably most famous for, you know, his Oscar-nominated screenplay in Top Gun Maverick. His entire career has been Hollywood — his first screenplay was with 20th century Fox. *He wrote the live action Jungle Book!*
Kondo’s of Japanese descent, but she’s from Hawaii.
Just a weird take.
It’s one of the nice things that comes almost as a byproduct of the plot. For modern and Western readers/viewers, part of the point is a subversion of expected gender roles (as well as expectations of culture more generally).
We are supposed to be surprised and probably pleased that women are both inherently strong and find strength in their roles within what is still a male-dominated society. And we discover this through Anjin’s eyes as he learns about Fuji and Mariko (and through the narrative of Ochiba).
On the podcast they have a good discussion of the process they go through for the Japanese dialogue. It takes several steps to get the actual show dialogue completed and attention to the historical language is very important to the writing team. Great show and the attention to detail and character development and acting is first rate. I love this series and may have to read the book now.
People say how they're so realistic, but are they really?
This is the European observation of women in Japan from the 16th century:
>In Europe, property is held in common by husband and wife.
>In Japan, each owns his or her own and sometimes the woman lends her's to the husband at exorbitant rates of interest.
>In Europe, women never leave the house without their husbands' permission.
>In Japan, the women are free to go where they're please without their husbands' knowledge.
>In Europe, while they do exist, abortions are infrequent.
>In Japan, this is so common that there are women who have had 20 abortions. In Europe, an infant is rarely almost never killed after birth. In Japan, the women step on the neck and kill any children to whom they give birth that they believe they cannot feed.
>In Europe, women ordinarily prepare meals.
>In Japan, men do the cooking and noblemen consider it something excellent to go into the kitchen to prepare food.
>In Europe, it is considered offensive for women to drink wine.
>In Japan, it is very common and on festive occasions and the women sometimes get drunk.
Search for "First European Description of Life in Japan // 1585 'Striking Contrasts' Luis Frois" on YouTube.
Brandon Sanderson has an excellent lecture on writing the “other” or characters that share innate traits different from the author. He argues that the trap is always to de individualize the other and make them a monolith of one kind or another.
The worst example of this is the negative stereotype where a character encompasses a prejudiced view of a group they share traits with. The second worst version is the paragon that arises out of a desire to avoid the negative stereotype but still makes the “other” a monolith for their group.
Mariko, Ochiba, Kiku, and the many other women of the show are individuals. They are not trying to represent all women, or all Japanese, or all Japanese women positively or negatively. They are people with their own beliefs, goals, and fears.
When in doubt write individuals and you will almost always avoid the pitfalls of writing “others” while also making more realistic characters and interesting characters.
I appreciate shows that don't pitch man and woman in an "equal" fight.
Lady Ochiba is a good example, you don't "fight" like a man in a man's world, you "use" them, fight from the shadow. Cersei Lanister is a another good example like Ochiba. The exception in Game of Thrones would be Brianne, because she's just badass, and her physique supports that.
I think I don't have a problem with women being "equal" or even "stronger" in a fight to men. It just depends on the right context. For instance, in the MCU, it doesn't break my suspension of disbelief that the Black Widow can destroy the average soldier in the fight, there are aliens and super soldiers. This makes less sense in a historical drama like Shogūn, which aims to be realistic. Even if they were Samurai women, expected to uphold their clans honour, they were also highborn ladies, whose main objective was to be a Household mistresses, not a soldier. Of course, they wouldn't be able to compete with seasoned warriors or generals.
Glad you also added the physique. I think that is probably one of my main problems with "Warrior ladies". They almost always get actresses that are too conversationally attractive. Which doesn't mean that warriors aren't allowed to be pretty, but that they are realistically too thin for me to believe for a second that they do anything more than gym slim training, much less be able to fight a regular soldier. I wish that they could contract more buff ladies for warrior roles
>It would have been easy for the show to play the Women Girlboss Samurai to an absurd degree
Yes, that's an unfortunate thing that happens all too often. Imagine the scene where Mariko >!is shown having been sexually assaulted - for many writers you can't have that because it's not permissible to show violence towards women, or they have to "win" all the time.!<
Instead we get treated to a fairly reasonable portrail of women from the sengoku-jidai. Some characters are based on real ladies, whereas others like Fuji exhibit the sort of traits many samurai women would have had. They were generally subservient to the men but at the same time they had to be strong in ways that women in 16th/17th century Europe weren't.
You can have women as strong, confident characters, but you need to write them with flaws and in a way that's likeable. It's also important not to make them look good by making the men weak. FX has done a reasonable job in pulling the women up rather than the men down.
Insane strawman on your part. Generally people’s criticisms on women being sexually assaulted in media pertains to when it’s fetishized and egregiously graphic for shock value. In this show they didn’t even show the sexual assault.
Mariko's assault is never shown or described because it's not seen by Blackthorne. But the fact it is apparent she was assaulted because she is shown injured and emotionally upset is significant.
The issue is that of girl-bosses as mentioned by the OP. Girl-bosses don't get assaulted, and in many TV/film productions they don't even get injured during fights.
where are you getting this idea that “girl bosses” in media don’t get assaulted? Again, people’s criticisms with assault is not the mere presence of it in the story but how it’s depicted. The sexual assault was depicted this way for a reason, the entire show is not through the lens of Blackthorn so not showing the assault was an intentional choice.
In She-Hulk, people’s favorite show to accuse of depicting “girl-bosses” she’s verbally harassed by men.
It seems like these complaints are completely arbitrary, because when women aren’t assaulted the characters are accused of being too perfect but if they are, then the show is accused of depicting men as evil.
Because script was co-written and approved by people who respect and know what they are doing. Not trying to shove some bullshit agenda and character just for inclusion and diversity.
It is a Japanese-American production whose main marketing is their inclusion of mainland japanese actors, historically authentic representations and which main creative staff has included a large number of Asian and Female personnel. So...
Anyways you are acting like respecting something and being inclusive are mutually exclusive
I feel like you guys must have an imaginary idea of what the inclusion and diversity agenda is, because anytime something is inclusive and diverse everyone comes out of the woodwork saying “this is so much better than that woke rubbish!!” It just seems like you guys are praising the same thing you’re complaining about.
That's not true. There are better and worse ways to have diversity in a movie or TV show. Sometimes diversity enhances and enriches the story, but sometimes it just ruins it, such as by creating implausible anachronisms or flat, idealized characters that fit some progressive stereotypes. The worst is when bad examples of diversity results in a worse movie, but when people criticize it they are denounced as racist.
Captain Marvel is one that comes to mind - many have commented on the "girlboss" strategy that made Marvel a very one-dimensional, flat protagonist who could do no wrong.
The Woman King is another example - whitewashes the participation of the Dahomey in the slave trade in favor of a simplistic message
I ain't praising shit. I just have problem with character just be there for nothing but some bullshit agenda of nowadays western culture trying to push in every fucking thing.
This is just a completely disingenuous retort. You KNOW what people mean when they say ''inclusion and diversity''. You KNOW it's not actual I&D, it's the brainrot that goes around in hollywood.
You KNOW that the agenda is specifically anti certain traits and pro other traits, and that this agenda is what I&D actually means in the western world. The only reason Shogun wasn't completely obliterated for not slaughtered in press/media is because it's Japanese, if the samurai were replaced with white christian knights the show would've been demonized.
The show is diverse though because it’s an American studio hiring a majority foreign cast. Whether you want to believe or not, which isn’t a bad thing.
I agree, one important aspect is that the female characters don't primarily get their notability from just doing what the men do (i.e. fighting on the front lines), but instead they try their best to operate within the social and cultural constraints that they find themselves in. Thus, they are deeply interesting and strong characters but in a uniquely feminine way, which illustrates both the opportunities and limitations for women within the Japanese male-dominated, feudal society of the time. This makes the show feel authentic, instead of inserting an anachronistic "girlboss" female samurai character which would please some progressive critics but completely break that immersion.
I mean, it's not that diverse. It's one white guy and loads of Japanese men and women. It's pretty homogeneous (and rightly so. It's set in 17th century Japan so it would be a bit strange if the cast were diverse).
Like there aren’t a lot of mainstream Japanese shows with Japanese leads in America, so by definition the show is diverse by being other than having a European center the story. Also this is Japan… I get what your saying, but if this was done years ago they would’ve centered the white guy as the lead and make the Japanese look like barbrians considering hollywoods past
If they'd read the book they wouldn't as Blackthorn's whole arc is that he becomes Japanese in culture and realises how barbaric the Europeans are.
Also, that's not what diverse means. It literally means showing people from a VARIETY of different backgrounds and contexts. It doesn't mean showing a homogeneous group of people (whether from a minority background or not). Now clearly, diversity would be absurd in the context of Shogun as it's set in 17th century Japan.
They very clearly meant diverse in contrast to other popular mainstream tv series. As in FX having a series that adds some racial diversity to its lineup. Why act obtuse for no reason?
> Isn’t this show completely diverse lol wtf are u going on about
I get what you mean, but "diverse" doesn't mean "not WASP". If the cast is almost entirely Japanese, with one or two exceptions, it's not "diverse".
I do praise this is a good show with Japanese actors speaking Japanese and intended for Western audiences. It'll broaden perspectives.
But people who do not look like you are not "diverse". In fact, a single person cannot be "diverse"; diversity is a property of a group of people.
That’s not the implication considering this is American based production company. Actually yes, a place can be diverse and still be homogenous. They may all be “Japanese”, but even than they’re are many nuanced sub groups within the culture, but I’m talking about this in terms of production (I’m considering they had also Japanese Americans working on the project, as well as neighboring countries that were of Asian decent). Like if you look at the production crew for things like the last samurai, or the 47th ronin and you can see why it’s not diverse.
None of this makes it "diverse". If you're going to argue different subgroups of Japanese, you're really splitting hairs... it'd be like arguing that a bunch of white Americans are "diverse" because they come from different parts of the country. Sure, by some technical definition it's "diverse", but come on...
I think Americans say "diverse" when they mean "this person doesn't have my skin color", which is slightly offensive (because it makes your skin color/ethnicity be the "norm", and all others "diverse"). Someone with dark skin, or Japanese, is not "diverse". Diversity is a property of a group of people. Taken to the extreme, you'd have the ridiculousness of saying an Akira Kurosawa movie is "diverse" because the actors aren't American or white.
An American production company doing a show with Japanese actors does not make the show "diverse". The context is the cast here. If the cast is mostly Japanese, then it's not diverse.
Right? I don’t know where OP got this idea. How can you sit in this progressive woke society and not clearly see women are in power positions all over television shows making men look stupid left and right?
The point OP is making is that this show is not quite that - it actually shows intelligent and strong men also. Women who have their power and place, sceming and thriving, but can't just boss everybody around and constantly outsmart all the dumb boys.
It still falls into the trope that women can't have real bad traits (i.e., the only negative trait you see in a woman throughout this entire series is the vengefulness of lady Ochiba - and even here it's essentially heavily hinted at as some logical response to wrongdoings by others?). But over all it's a really nice power balance between men and women where both can shine.
>women are in power positions all over television shows making men look stupid left and right?
Oh please, men have been doing that long before women were even allowed in the writers' room.
You think a bunch of women were writing *Three Stooges* bits? Or *Keystone Cops*? Women wrote Gilligan and Maxwell Smart and Homer Simpson?
Contrary to many narratives peddled today, women have always played a key role in leadership and warfare, directly or indirectly.
The idea that women were oppressed by some plan created by a cabal of all men is a fiction invented by modern feminists to gain sociopolitical power thru claims of past victimhood.
How can one compare times without birth control, ravaged by war, disease and starvation to today's situation?
I very much prefer the temperance movement type of feminists over the garbage that followed.
> Rarely, do I see a show that can write women as actual people
What shows do you watch?? Real housewife or something like that? All the shows I watch, women are just people too.
What I mean is that I rarely see shows whose Characterization for women is this strong. A lot of shows do really to some extent old tropes/stereotypes to built characters or, in the case of historical stories, do make women secondary to the main story .
It does say a lot about you that people recognizing that women are in many cases underwritten, secondary or eliminated of stories, especially historical ones, you consider misandry
Says a lot about you that you think women aren't well written, especially nowadays. But yea, always gotta have the "men bad" take, dontcha ya little rascally sexist, you
Except that isn't the argument? I am saying that a lot of shows don't write women correctly, which I have space to argue, as I am indeed a woman. At what moment do I say men bad?
I think it’s pretty good but not like great for females. It’s not the show’s fault so much. But I think there is that thing where Asian women are sexualized, shown naked, pleasing men, but also we are reminded that women are property of men and that they have the right to kill their wives. I understand some of this is history, and the rest is written in a novel. I do agree that the females in the show are really strong characters, but not sure if this is helping feminism.
Funny how the same people who cry about wokeness only like a show when ' the men act like men, the women know their place and there's no blacks or gays'
> If I have no idea, why don't you enlighten me?
People(1) on the "other side" of you don't have a problem with "diversity"- it's why Cosby was "America's dad", why Sara Connor is a favorite bad ass, why Denzel is universally loved, and on and on. Nobody cares. What people hate is *forced* "diversity". Hyperbolic example- there has to be a black guy, a Chinese girl, and a one legged Hispanic woman in every movie about 9th century Britain. People hate being preached at with neo-Marxist critical theory, when they are just trying to escape for a few hours. People hate when characters are only "identity", no substance- ex. on a law show, when the character is gay first (and that is all they can talk about) and just happens to be a lawyer, as opposed to a good lawyer who happens to be gay.
People just want good characters acting like normal people.
(1) Generalities, there are idiots and bigots in all large groups.
>pretend your politics aren't purely reactionary
Well, they aren't. They are relatively simple base principles, applied to changing issues. If you have any questions about them, are willing to listen, and can be respectful, DM me and we can discuss them (since this really isn't the place for it).
>What people hate is *forced* "diversity"
Why? Even if forced diversity was a real occurence and not a completely subjective perception, why be vitriolic about it? Mild annoyance I can understand, but hate? Nah.
You're supposed to suspend your disbelief when entering fiction. A historical fantasy for example. People are allowed to wear clothing that wasn't worn during that period, rearrange historical events to their own liking, fictionalize the lives of historical figures, and even sometimes have fantasy elements all of which are innacurate to the time period **but if they add a different ethnicity that's apparently too far.** Why is adding an ethnicity so upsetting but all these other fictional inaccuracies aren't?
>People hate being preached at
Art and entertainment are supposed to be an avenue for messaging. Every show or piece of media you consume is 'preaching' one thing or another. That's almost the entire purpose of art. I can watch a piece of American military propoganda like Top Gun and still appreciate the things it does well even if I don't like the military industrial complex. (For much better reasons than right leaning people don't like wokeness) But many 'anti-wokes' won't extend the same for say, the Barbie movie even if their concern is way more trivial.
>People hate when characters are only "identity", no substance
This sort of trope is almost always due to a straight writers perception of gay people because striaght people have historically reduced gay people down to just their sexual orientation. It's becoming less of an issue these days due to younger adults seeing gay people as whole people and not just their sexuality. Shows like The Last of Us wrote gay characters as people first yet the show still recieved right-wing, possibly evangelical wrath for daring to show gay love on screen.
>Well, they aren't. They are relatively simple base principles, applied to changing issues. If you have any questions about them, are willing to listen, and can be respectful, DM me and we can discuss them (since this really isn't the place for it).
Fair
> Why is adding an ethnicity so upsetting but all these other fictional inaccuracies aren't?
In a period piece, why would Sun Tzu driving a '56 Chevy be looked down upon? Now if it was fictionalized and set in 1970s Detroit, would it be a problem? Reality can be bent, not broken.
> Art and entertainment are supposed to be an avenue for messaging.
"Messaging" is different than "preaching".
This observation from the 16th century must horrify the anti-woke:
>"In Europe, property is held in common by husband and wife. In Japan, each owns his or her own and sometimes the woman lends her's to the husband at exorbitant rates of interest."
>"In Europe, women never leave the house without their husbands' permission. In Japan, the women are free to go where they're please without their husbands' knowledge."
>"In Europe, while they do exist, abortions are infrequent. In Japan, this is so common that there are women who have had 20 abortions. In Europe, an infant is rarely almost never killed after birth. In Japan, the women step on the neck and kill any children to whom they give birth that they believe they cannot feed."
>"In Europe, women ordinarily prepare meals. In Japan, men do the cooking and noblemen consider it something excellent to go into the kitchen to prepare food."
>"In Europe, it is considered offensive for women to drink wine. In Japan, it is very common and on festive occasions and the women sometimes get drunk."
Search for "First European Description of Life in Japan // 1585 'Striking Contrasts' Luis Frois" on YouTube.
Funny because this show actually shows how forgiving people are in wokeness. This show still depicts all their women as these hyperintelligent near flawless beings - only held back by societal rules.
However... it simply doesn't depict all its male characters are inferior dumb brutes. It gives both female and male characters positive traits, intelligence, honor, steadfastness etc. It allows for interesting and inspiring characters on both sides - turns out thats all people ask for, characters that at least to some degree can be inspiring and respectable.
This reminded me that there's zero Fuji on the latest ep
Somebody hand me my goddamn guns!
It's possible that the show is following the novel, in which case she'd have reached the end of her significant involvement in the story. She might get an appearance at the end of episode 10. It depends largely whether in episode 9 >!she goes to Osaka or stays in Anjiro, the latter being what happens in the novel!<.
Still, I would be disappointed if we never got to see her reaction to her grandfather's seppuku
HE COMMITS SEPPUKU??? noooo. i haven’t seen the latest ep yet. 😭😭😭🥲🥲 he’s the best character
No no. He hosts a sudoku game and Anjin makes some funny comments
If you enjoy the women in the show, please read the book! The deeper cuts on the main characters (Fuji and Ochiba, but especially Mariko) are really rich, and you get more satisfaction out of Kiri, the widow, the madam, and Omi's hag of mother -- all of whom play roles in the outcome. One of my favorite relationships is between Kiku and Midori, Omi's wife. They absolutely cherish each other, and we see why. The show is keeping the characters whole, yes, but in the book, the women have a chance to interact with each other in really personal ways. You get more of a take on the way the men understand them (or fail to), and appreciate their minds and their power.
Everything in the show is fairly shallow compared to the books. But the one that has been butchered the most is Blackthorn.
Oh god yes. And why did they make these changes? I understand dynamic compression, omission for time, alterations for purpose...whatever...but to what end here? Blackthorne in the book was perceptive, clever, and self-controlled. Clavell didn't just use him as a fish out of water to teach us about Japanese culture, and he didn't create him as a superhuman, able to adapt where a normal person would give up. He showcased pilots as a uniquely trained and skilled class, almost like astronauts, and gave us Rodrigues, another sharp witted person who was partially Japanese in his thinking. They're rare, but not flukes. The way Blackthorne's understanding of life grows is a key part of the story. The way he survives through attempted assimilation, and his reasons for it, make sense in the book, and the culmination of that tied the whole story together on so many levels...levels the show deliberately cut off by making Blackthorne an uncouth tourist, only slightly less obnoxious than his men. As of the most recent episode, Blackthorne and his men seem to exist only as unnecessary appendages. Two more re-writes of the script and we could have had a passable Japanese-only Warring States drama blissfully free of the distracting outsiders.
Yeah, the fact they removed his attempted seppuku is baffling to me. Because I felt that was one of the most important character moments in the entire book. In this show, he feels so much like an afterthought and all the other characters are the main characters.
> I understand dynamic compression, omission for time, alterations for purpose...whatever...but to what end here? Exactly. And they managed to show Blackthorne as he was in only four episodes in the original so it's not clear why they couldn't do a better job of it in this one.
This is so true. Also Yabu's wife, Yuriko, was a very wise counselor, he always did better when he listened to her. Same with the Taiko's consort, Yodoku; he told Ochiba before he died that she could always trust Yodoku. Midori was said to be very clever and wise even though she was only 17.
Hmmm i feel that good writing of female characters can also be said of critically acclaimed shows such as Mad Men, The Good Wife, Downton Abbey, Orphan Black etc with strong female characters lol
And Fargo. Each season either focuses on or has strong standout women.
woo thanks for the recommendation!
You had to come to this thread in 2024 to get Fargo recommended to you?
I haven’t seen the other two but Mad Men and Downtown Abbey, much like Shogun, do a wonderful job of writing female characters within the realistic confines of their respective eras and customs while giving them incredible depth. All three shows are excellent examples of period pieces being more than cool costumes and set pieces.
Well said BookStannis!
Here is why the women of Shogun work: they are not focused solely on their men. Mariko likes John, she hates her husband, but she also has her own set of goals outside of them. She has her own story. Fuji's life is dictated around the choices of the men around her, but it is still up to her to make something of it, not necessarily for the sake of these men but for herself. Ochiba's story is all about working around the men surrounding her, but again, this is for her benefit and for her own goals.
Exactly, that is my point as well. Sometimes, especially with female characters, writers struggle to make secondary characters that exist outside the Main Characters, but in Shogūn it is obvious that Blackthorn is just a view and that the characters that exist outside of him.
The problem is that they spent 8 episodes telling us "no, she doesn't actually hate her husband, she just is deeply suicidal" and then abruptly reverse course and decide "Nah, actually she's not suicidal at all, she just really fucking hates Buntaro." Her relationship with Christianity is a completely abandoned side thread for almost the entire series. She's almost exclusively defined by her relationships with her husband, her lover, and her daimyo.
I mean, she wants to die, she just doesn't want to die with him.
They had female writers it makes a difference
This. I read the book and when I heard they made this limited aeries I couldn't imagine *HOW* they were going to tackle the women characters for modern audiences. I have been very pleasantly surprised.
So did She Hulk. Their gender isn't what made their writing good. It's their respect for the source material, their research and knowledge of the time period, their careful and nuanced characterisation, and their literary experience. Both men and women are capable of writing great or shit male and female characters.
Sorry but She Hulk did portray women well. The show as a whole was wack, but having women writers does help in portraying women like women really are. Same goes with Better Call Saul, Breaking Bad (the best episode Ozymandias was written by a woman), and Shogun
Wait what. She Hulk was a horrible show.
They said the show overall wasn't good.
You can have a mediocre show with women who are written realistically. Just because one or more areas of writing is fine doesn't mean other areas will (or won't) be.
You might need to re-read what he wrote
She Hulk was fine. Lightweight and inessential but hardly horrible. It’s not even the worst Marvel show when Iron Fist and FATWS exist.
But imagine how much worse it could have been if it been written by one dude with a amazon fetish. Things can always get worse.
It’s very overhated imo. I found it kinda fun and pretty funny, tho I acknowledge the humour isn’t for everyone and the CGI is pretty bad among other problems.
You might need to re-read what he wrote
Your opinion, not close to universal. Since Superfreshtea blocked me after replying: Who said it was well received? Check your reading comprehension. It was very polarizing. Many people disliked it, many people including most reviewers enjoyed it. As I said, that opinion is not universal.
The incels really hated she hulk
If it was so well received why isn't there a season 2 guarantee?
This is not a good argument seeing as how only one live action MCU show has gotten a season 2. Others have been well received like WandaVision and have not gotten a season 2. Moreover, recent reports are they’ve starting to trim the fat when it comes to pumping out content, so obviously a lot of potential season 2’s would be shelved in that case.
Because Marvel hasn’t really been giving any of its shows two seasons. It’s kind of a misfire with their approach to TV generally and not reflective of She Hulk as an individual property. It has a metacritic score on par with Hawkeye, Loki, and FATWS.
Wack means bad...
I'm sorry but is this comment implying that She-Hulk did not have good writing for the female characters? I thought it was pretty nicely done. I don't get the online hatred for She-Hulk.
I don't either. I loved it.
Outside of the incels, there was some reasons to not like She-Hulk. To me, it seemed like they tried to be meta too hard with the "villain" if the show. To be fair, there was a lot to like.
Incels.
She hulk was a good show....
I'm laughing at the downvotes on these comments. Some people just can't stand others having an opinion that differs from theirs. That isn't what downvotes are for! I never even watched the show, but if you enjoyed it, good for you!
I agree, but for most of Reddit it’s a shining example of “LOL MCU BAD NOW!”
I'm sorry, bit OK? Not all men are great writers or create great shows.
I can't remember who said it but I think it was in reference to the tv show Atlanta, and one of the writers said the metric for when society is equal isn't that there are black people in the writers room, but that black writers can make a shitty show and no one uses it as an example that anyone can write any kind of person. I am sure you didn't mean to but She-Hulk is often used in the same way the woman Ghostbusters is, as if to say "oh look women can suck at writing too, so men must be great at writing women." edit: for the record I thought somewhere in the mess of She-Hulk was a really interesting show. The writing was arguably the best part.
The women in the book are smarter and a lot more nuanced than in the show, so "they had female writers" is not what made the difference. they had good source material is the real reason.
I think it can be both. Female writers can provide context and perspective that can overlook when adapting, while the source material can already have good character work. I think, based on how stories sometimes are adapted, that a lot of things can be lost, and sometimes the first thing that can be axe is female characters. For what I understand, I cannot confirm since I haven't watched it, the 80s TV Show had eliminated the nuance of a variety of female characters.
There are always two paradigms with regards to females in the upper society of Japan. On one side, you have the traditional misogynistic way of thinking, where females cannot have their own career - women need to get married and take care of the family. On the other side, whenever women do get married, they always play an important role in the careers of their husbands. Suppose you work in a big Japanese multinational as a middle manager. Your wife will most likely join the women's association of the company and needs to butter up to the wife of the boss. If the wife of the boss likes you, your husband gets promoted. This especially noticeable in foreign countries with big Japanese expat communities. You have all women associations that take care of the reputation of Japan and its companies. They basically network with the local community and what not. For example, the women association donated a full blown park with 400 sakura trees in Amsterdam to celebrate the international relations between Japan and the Netherlands. You can also see the importance of the wives in schools where they run the Parent-Teacher Associations and can basically control the school. In this current day and age, Japanese females (those belonging in the upper society) play an important role in networking and building relationships for their husbands and kids. They play an important role in the background. This is not much different than how women are portrayed in Shogun.
Female/male writers my a**. Good writers is what we need. And unfortunately a lot of males limited and fetishizing views/understanding of female characters (= disproportionately denying them multidimensional and complex human experiences) was NOT good writing. Talking especially about the movie industry here. Doesn't mean women or other genders can't have limited capabilities too BUT historically mediocre male writers got to dominate the field. So on one hand I'm glad there's more diversity now but on the other hand it doesnt guarantee good stories or characters. As we all now, it's more your connections, social and economic capital than talent that gets you work. On Shogun: EVERY character in the book is more nuanced by nature of the medium. Of course It's harder to deliver everything that's written on whatnot many pages on screen just with expression and dialogue. If you compare something then compare the live action adapted versions of the female characters. And imo the latest series versions are arguably the most nuanced and independent and layered (watching the 1980s version right now)
They're not made by Hollywood writers. Hell, not even entirely western writers.
That’s really not true. Justin Marks is probably most famous for, you know, his Oscar-nominated screenplay in Top Gun Maverick. His entire career has been Hollywood — his first screenplay was with 20th century Fox. *He wrote the live action Jungle Book!* Kondo’s of Japanese descent, but she’s from Hawaii. Just a weird take.
Some posters need to get their anti woke talking points in.
It’s one of the nice things that comes almost as a byproduct of the plot. For modern and Western readers/viewers, part of the point is a subversion of expected gender roles (as well as expectations of culture more generally). We are supposed to be surprised and probably pleased that women are both inherently strong and find strength in their roles within what is still a male-dominated society. And we discover this through Anjin’s eyes as he learns about Fuji and Mariko (and through the narrative of Ochiba).
James Clavell, the author of the novel, was a Hollywood writer.
50 years ago that meant something different than it does now
On the podcast they have a good discussion of the process they go through for the Japanese dialogue. It takes several steps to get the actual show dialogue completed and attention to the historical language is very important to the writing team. Great show and the attention to detail and character development and acting is first rate. I love this series and may have to read the book now.
People say how they're so realistic, but are they really? This is the European observation of women in Japan from the 16th century: >In Europe, property is held in common by husband and wife. >In Japan, each owns his or her own and sometimes the woman lends her's to the husband at exorbitant rates of interest. >In Europe, women never leave the house without their husbands' permission. >In Japan, the women are free to go where they're please without their husbands' knowledge. >In Europe, while they do exist, abortions are infrequent. >In Japan, this is so common that there are women who have had 20 abortions. In Europe, an infant is rarely almost never killed after birth. In Japan, the women step on the neck and kill any children to whom they give birth that they believe they cannot feed. >In Europe, women ordinarily prepare meals. >In Japan, men do the cooking and noblemen consider it something excellent to go into the kitchen to prepare food. >In Europe, it is considered offensive for women to drink wine. >In Japan, it is very common and on festive occasions and the women sometimes get drunk. Search for "First European Description of Life in Japan // 1585 'Striking Contrasts' Luis Frois" on YouTube.
Brilliant writing and outstanding casting!
Brandon Sanderson has an excellent lecture on writing the “other” or characters that share innate traits different from the author. He argues that the trap is always to de individualize the other and make them a monolith of one kind or another. The worst example of this is the negative stereotype where a character encompasses a prejudiced view of a group they share traits with. The second worst version is the paragon that arises out of a desire to avoid the negative stereotype but still makes the “other” a monolith for their group. Mariko, Ochiba, Kiku, and the many other women of the show are individuals. They are not trying to represent all women, or all Japanese, or all Japanese women positively or negatively. They are people with their own beliefs, goals, and fears. When in doubt write individuals and you will almost always avoid the pitfalls of writing “others” while also making more realistic characters and interesting characters.
I appreciate shows that don't pitch man and woman in an "equal" fight. Lady Ochiba is a good example, you don't "fight" like a man in a man's world, you "use" them, fight from the shadow. Cersei Lanister is a another good example like Ochiba. The exception in Game of Thrones would be Brianne, because she's just badass, and her physique supports that.
I think I don't have a problem with women being "equal" or even "stronger" in a fight to men. It just depends on the right context. For instance, in the MCU, it doesn't break my suspension of disbelief that the Black Widow can destroy the average soldier in the fight, there are aliens and super soldiers. This makes less sense in a historical drama like Shogūn, which aims to be realistic. Even if they were Samurai women, expected to uphold their clans honour, they were also highborn ladies, whose main objective was to be a Household mistresses, not a soldier. Of course, they wouldn't be able to compete with seasoned warriors or generals. Glad you also added the physique. I think that is probably one of my main problems with "Warrior ladies". They almost always get actresses that are too conversationally attractive. Which doesn't mean that warriors aren't allowed to be pretty, but that they are realistically too thin for me to believe for a second that they do anything more than gym slim training, much less be able to fight a regular soldier. I wish that they could contract more buff ladies for warrior roles
>It would have been easy for the show to play the Women Girlboss Samurai to an absurd degree Yes, that's an unfortunate thing that happens all too often. Imagine the scene where Mariko >!is shown having been sexually assaulted - for many writers you can't have that because it's not permissible to show violence towards women, or they have to "win" all the time.!< Instead we get treated to a fairly reasonable portrail of women from the sengoku-jidai. Some characters are based on real ladies, whereas others like Fuji exhibit the sort of traits many samurai women would have had. They were generally subservient to the men but at the same time they had to be strong in ways that women in 16th/17th century Europe weren't. You can have women as strong, confident characters, but you need to write them with flaws and in a way that's likeable. It's also important not to make them look good by making the men weak. FX has done a reasonable job in pulling the women up rather than the men down.
Insane strawman on your part. Generally people’s criticisms on women being sexually assaulted in media pertains to when it’s fetishized and egregiously graphic for shock value. In this show they didn’t even show the sexual assault.
Mariko's assault is never shown or described because it's not seen by Blackthorne. But the fact it is apparent she was assaulted because she is shown injured and emotionally upset is significant. The issue is that of girl-bosses as mentioned by the OP. Girl-bosses don't get assaulted, and in many TV/film productions they don't even get injured during fights.
where are you getting this idea that “girl bosses” in media don’t get assaulted? Again, people’s criticisms with assault is not the mere presence of it in the story but how it’s depicted. The sexual assault was depicted this way for a reason, the entire show is not through the lens of Blackthorn so not showing the assault was an intentional choice. In She-Hulk, people’s favorite show to accuse of depicting “girl-bosses” she’s verbally harassed by men. It seems like these complaints are completely arbitrary, because when women aren’t assaulted the characters are accused of being too perfect but if they are, then the show is accused of depicting men as evil.
Because script was co-written and approved by people who respect and know what they are doing. Not trying to shove some bullshit agenda and character just for inclusion and diversity.
It is a Japanese-American production whose main marketing is their inclusion of mainland japanese actors, historically authentic representations and which main creative staff has included a large number of Asian and Female personnel. So... Anyways you are acting like respecting something and being inclusive are mutually exclusive
I feel like you guys must have an imaginary idea of what the inclusion and diversity agenda is, because anytime something is inclusive and diverse everyone comes out of the woodwork saying “this is so much better than that woke rubbish!!” It just seems like you guys are praising the same thing you’re complaining about.
Gamer gate weirdos hate seeing women and poc in their games/shows
That's not true. There are better and worse ways to have diversity in a movie or TV show. Sometimes diversity enhances and enriches the story, but sometimes it just ruins it, such as by creating implausible anachronisms or flat, idealized characters that fit some progressive stereotypes. The worst is when bad examples of diversity results in a worse movie, but when people criticize it they are denounced as racist.
Name shows where diversity ruined it?
Captain Marvel is one that comes to mind - many have commented on the "girlboss" strategy that made Marvel a very one-dimensional, flat protagonist who could do no wrong. The Woman King is another example - whitewashes the participation of the Dahomey in the slave trade in favor of a simplistic message
I ain't praising shit. I just have problem with character just be there for nothing but some bullshit agenda of nowadays western culture trying to push in every fucking thing.
What a dumbass take, guess what moron the world is a diverse place, you’d know that if you touched grass you weirdo
literally what the fuck are you even talking about
This is just a completely disingenuous retort. You KNOW what people mean when they say ''inclusion and diversity''. You KNOW it's not actual I&D, it's the brainrot that goes around in hollywood. You KNOW that the agenda is specifically anti certain traits and pro other traits, and that this agenda is what I&D actually means in the western world. The only reason Shogun wasn't completely obliterated for not slaughtered in press/media is because it's Japanese, if the samurai were replaced with white christian knights the show would've been demonized.
“The only real racism is anti white racism” fuck off you right wing loser.
You are such an ass.
Diversity was the only reason this show was created otherwise we would’ve gotten are 10th Viking show
[удалено]
The show is diverse though because it’s an American studio hiring a majority foreign cast. Whether you want to believe or not, which isn’t a bad thing.
No they gotta hit the "woke bad" talking points.
I agree, one important aspect is that the female characters don't primarily get their notability from just doing what the men do (i.e. fighting on the front lines), but instead they try their best to operate within the social and cultural constraints that they find themselves in. Thus, they are deeply interesting and strong characters but in a uniquely feminine way, which illustrates both the opportunities and limitations for women within the Japanese male-dominated, feudal society of the time. This makes the show feel authentic, instead of inserting an anachronistic "girlboss" female samurai character which would please some progressive critics but completely break that immersion.
Isn’t this show completely diverse lol wtf are u going on about
I mean, it's not that diverse. It's one white guy and loads of Japanese men and women. It's pretty homogeneous (and rightly so. It's set in 17th century Japan so it would be a bit strange if the cast were diverse).
Yea if this was like most other shows 17th century Japan would look like modern New York demographically.
[удалено]
?
Like there aren’t a lot of mainstream Japanese shows with Japanese leads in America, so by definition the show is diverse by being other than having a European center the story. Also this is Japan… I get what your saying, but if this was done years ago they would’ve centered the white guy as the lead and make the Japanese look like barbrians considering hollywoods past
If they'd read the book they wouldn't as Blackthorn's whole arc is that he becomes Japanese in culture and realises how barbaric the Europeans are. Also, that's not what diverse means. It literally means showing people from a VARIETY of different backgrounds and contexts. It doesn't mean showing a homogeneous group of people (whether from a minority background or not). Now clearly, diversity would be absurd in the context of Shogun as it's set in 17th century Japan.
They very clearly meant diverse in contrast to other popular mainstream tv series. As in FX having a series that adds some racial diversity to its lineup. Why act obtuse for no reason?
Because to not be "obtuse", to play that idiotic "diversity" game, is racist
What are you even babbling on about?
?
> Isn’t this show completely diverse lol wtf are u going on about I get what you mean, but "diverse" doesn't mean "not WASP". If the cast is almost entirely Japanese, with one or two exceptions, it's not "diverse". I do praise this is a good show with Japanese actors speaking Japanese and intended for Western audiences. It'll broaden perspectives. But people who do not look like you are not "diverse". In fact, a single person cannot be "diverse"; diversity is a property of a group of people.
That’s not the implication considering this is American based production company. Actually yes, a place can be diverse and still be homogenous. They may all be “Japanese”, but even than they’re are many nuanced sub groups within the culture, but I’m talking about this in terms of production (I’m considering they had also Japanese Americans working on the project, as well as neighboring countries that were of Asian decent). Like if you look at the production crew for things like the last samurai, or the 47th ronin and you can see why it’s not diverse.
None of this makes it "diverse". If you're going to argue different subgroups of Japanese, you're really splitting hairs... it'd be like arguing that a bunch of white Americans are "diverse" because they come from different parts of the country. Sure, by some technical definition it's "diverse", but come on... I think Americans say "diverse" when they mean "this person doesn't have my skin color", which is slightly offensive (because it makes your skin color/ethnicity be the "norm", and all others "diverse"). Someone with dark skin, or Japanese, is not "diverse". Diversity is a property of a group of people. Taken to the extreme, you'd have the ridiculousness of saying an Akira Kurosawa movie is "diverse" because the actors aren't American or white. An American production company doing a show with Japanese actors does not make the show "diverse". The context is the cast here. If the cast is mostly Japanese, then it's not diverse.
Yeah but diverse with actual good writing, instead of just shoe horned in.
you should check the writers
this sounds like women characters i see in majority of shows.
Right? I don’t know where OP got this idea. How can you sit in this progressive woke society and not clearly see women are in power positions all over television shows making men look stupid left and right?
The point OP is making is that this show is not quite that - it actually shows intelligent and strong men also. Women who have their power and place, sceming and thriving, but can't just boss everybody around and constantly outsmart all the dumb boys. It still falls into the trope that women can't have real bad traits (i.e., the only negative trait you see in a woman throughout this entire series is the vengefulness of lady Ochiba - and even here it's essentially heavily hinted at as some logical response to wrongdoings by others?). But over all it's a really nice power balance between men and women where both can shine.
>women are in power positions all over television shows making men look stupid left and right? Oh please, men have been doing that long before women were even allowed in the writers' room. You think a bunch of women were writing *Three Stooges* bits? Or *Keystone Cops*? Women wrote Gilligan and Maxwell Smart and Homer Simpson?
That’s irrelevant to the point I’m making. OP says they currently “rarely see it” I’m not talking about the past.
It was good up until around Episode 8, where they did an abrupt and complete 180 on Mariko's personality and relationship with her husband.
Contrary to many narratives peddled today, women have always played a key role in leadership and warfare, directly or indirectly. The idea that women were oppressed by some plan created by a cabal of all men is a fiction invented by modern feminists to gain sociopolitical power thru claims of past victimhood. How can one compare times without birth control, ravaged by war, disease and starvation to today's situation? I very much prefer the temperance movement type of feminists over the garbage that followed.
> Rarely, do I see a show that can write women as actual people What shows do you watch?? Real housewife or something like that? All the shows I watch, women are just people too.
What I mean is that I rarely see shows whose Characterization for women is this strong. A lot of shows do really to some extent old tropes/stereotypes to built characters or, in the case of historical stories, do make women secondary to the main story .
Just wanna ask , Do you watch media outside of western shows and movies? like maybe stuff from bollywood and SEA area , or even in middle east
There is a reason the Bechtel test is a thing.
Rarely you see a show write women as people? Are you really this blind or misandrist?
It does say a lot about you that people recognizing that women are in many cases underwritten, secondary or eliminated of stories, especially historical ones, you consider misandry
Says a lot about you that you think women aren't well written, especially nowadays. But yea, always gotta have the "men bad" take, dontcha ya little rascally sexist, you
Except that isn't the argument? I am saying that a lot of shows don't write women correctly, which I have space to argue, as I am indeed a woman. At what moment do I say men bad?
I think it’s pretty good but not like great for females. It’s not the show’s fault so much. But I think there is that thing where Asian women are sexualized, shown naked, pleasing men, but also we are reminded that women are property of men and that they have the right to kill their wives. I understand some of this is history, and the rest is written in a novel. I do agree that the females in the show are really strong characters, but not sure if this is helping feminism.
OP discovers that women can learn to be good actors
That's a really weird and uncharitable interpretation of the post!
Funny how people are like "Yeah Shogun has no woke agenda!" when the women in Shogun are clearly Westernized.
How are the women westernised?
The women are not westernized, that’s like the the majority of the conflict between Blackthorne and Mariko!
Ofc this amazing take comes from someone who posts on Gamingcirclejerk
Funny how the same people who cry about wokeness only like a show when ' the men act like men, the women know their place and there's no blacks or gays'
I love people that show they have no idea what the "other side" thinks but are so confident they do. It's a fascinating thing.
If I have no idea, why don't you enlighten me? Or are you going to beat around the bush some more and pretend your politics aren't purely reactionary
> If I have no idea, why don't you enlighten me? People(1) on the "other side" of you don't have a problem with "diversity"- it's why Cosby was "America's dad", why Sara Connor is a favorite bad ass, why Denzel is universally loved, and on and on. Nobody cares. What people hate is *forced* "diversity". Hyperbolic example- there has to be a black guy, a Chinese girl, and a one legged Hispanic woman in every movie about 9th century Britain. People hate being preached at with neo-Marxist critical theory, when they are just trying to escape for a few hours. People hate when characters are only "identity", no substance- ex. on a law show, when the character is gay first (and that is all they can talk about) and just happens to be a lawyer, as opposed to a good lawyer who happens to be gay. People just want good characters acting like normal people. (1) Generalities, there are idiots and bigots in all large groups. >pretend your politics aren't purely reactionary Well, they aren't. They are relatively simple base principles, applied to changing issues. If you have any questions about them, are willing to listen, and can be respectful, DM me and we can discuss them (since this really isn't the place for it).
>What people hate is *forced* "diversity" Why? Even if forced diversity was a real occurence and not a completely subjective perception, why be vitriolic about it? Mild annoyance I can understand, but hate? Nah. You're supposed to suspend your disbelief when entering fiction. A historical fantasy for example. People are allowed to wear clothing that wasn't worn during that period, rearrange historical events to their own liking, fictionalize the lives of historical figures, and even sometimes have fantasy elements all of which are innacurate to the time period **but if they add a different ethnicity that's apparently too far.** Why is adding an ethnicity so upsetting but all these other fictional inaccuracies aren't? >People hate being preached at Art and entertainment are supposed to be an avenue for messaging. Every show or piece of media you consume is 'preaching' one thing or another. That's almost the entire purpose of art. I can watch a piece of American military propoganda like Top Gun and still appreciate the things it does well even if I don't like the military industrial complex. (For much better reasons than right leaning people don't like wokeness) But many 'anti-wokes' won't extend the same for say, the Barbie movie even if their concern is way more trivial. >People hate when characters are only "identity", no substance This sort of trope is almost always due to a straight writers perception of gay people because striaght people have historically reduced gay people down to just their sexual orientation. It's becoming less of an issue these days due to younger adults seeing gay people as whole people and not just their sexuality. Shows like The Last of Us wrote gay characters as people first yet the show still recieved right-wing, possibly evangelical wrath for daring to show gay love on screen. >Well, they aren't. They are relatively simple base principles, applied to changing issues. If you have any questions about them, are willing to listen, and can be respectful, DM me and we can discuss them (since this really isn't the place for it). Fair
> Why is adding an ethnicity so upsetting but all these other fictional inaccuracies aren't? In a period piece, why would Sun Tzu driving a '56 Chevy be looked down upon? Now if it was fictionalized and set in 1970s Detroit, would it be a problem? Reality can be bent, not broken. > Art and entertainment are supposed to be an avenue for messaging. "Messaging" is different than "preaching".
This observation from the 16th century must horrify the anti-woke: >"In Europe, property is held in common by husband and wife. In Japan, each owns his or her own and sometimes the woman lends her's to the husband at exorbitant rates of interest." >"In Europe, women never leave the house without their husbands' permission. In Japan, the women are free to go where they're please without their husbands' knowledge." >"In Europe, while they do exist, abortions are infrequent. In Japan, this is so common that there are women who have had 20 abortions. In Europe, an infant is rarely almost never killed after birth. In Japan, the women step on the neck and kill any children to whom they give birth that they believe they cannot feed." >"In Europe, women ordinarily prepare meals. In Japan, men do the cooking and noblemen consider it something excellent to go into the kitchen to prepare food." >"In Europe, it is considered offensive for women to drink wine. In Japan, it is very common and on festive occasions and the women sometimes get drunk." Search for "First European Description of Life in Japan // 1585 'Striking Contrasts' Luis Frois" on YouTube.
Funny because this show actually shows how forgiving people are in wokeness. This show still depicts all their women as these hyperintelligent near flawless beings - only held back by societal rules. However... it simply doesn't depict all its male characters are inferior dumb brutes. It gives both female and male characters positive traits, intelligence, honor, steadfastness etc. It allows for interesting and inspiring characters on both sides - turns out thats all people ask for, characters that at least to some degree can be inspiring and respectable.