https://deadline.com/2019/02/bbcs-michael-moorcock-runestaff-1202556240/
This is right up the BBC's alley since they believe the UK is an Evil Empire, something akin to the Nazis, and wants to make sure that it gets rammed down everyone's throat in every scripted drama they produce. She's probably going to be in wheelchair too as that is the BBC's latest Jihad.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50631991
You're jumping the gun a bit here my dude. BBC may be saying some doofy things but the people listed in the Moorcock article all have some legit credits to their name.
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0948801/
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0831379/
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1839162/
The Sherlock and Doctor Who writer largely wrote episodes from when those series was generally regarded as on track by fans.
Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1116298You're jumping the gun a bit here my dude.
Question; would you be against this sort of adaptational change if they were doing so, and would you see any complaints to the contrary as legitimate?
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1116299Question; would you be against this sort of adaptational change if they were doing so
Possibly. Given recent trends, probably. Depends on the details.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1116299and would you see any complaints to the contrary as legitimate?
To be clear -- do I think that it is legitimate to complain that messing with the plot/casting/etc. for political points is dumb and counterproductive and usually results in a crappier product? Yes.
Something else? I dunno, I guess I didn't grok the question.
Gagarth used some strong language in OP that made me expect much worse news reading the articles. He might be proven right, but I don't think we know enough
yet to be sure, and there's some signs that it could turn out okay.
Edit: Clarification because I'm the pedantic sort -- the content of the article about the Moorcock adaptation is (currently) roughly a list of the titles to be covered; a rough overview of the series; a list of the involved creatives (the IMDB links); and everyone saying how excited they are to work with each other (including Moorcock, which gives me some hope, too). No "we're gonna show all the diversities!!!" or any such proclaimations -- light on details, no red flags that I saw, and with creatives who are attached to some respectable stuff involved.
The second link about the BBC's stance on representation is the same bonkers, demeaning crap we've seen out of them a million times already, a little bit louder and a little bit worse. But doesn't touch on the Moorcock adaptation at all. They also mention that despite being badwrongthink, they'll continue to carry Comedy Jerk, and imply that they are very sorry about that (but I guess it's doing too well to cancel).
Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1116301Possibly. Given recent trends, probably. Depends on the details.
Just making sure what pages we are on. :)
Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1116301No "we're gonna show all the diversities!!!" or any such proclaimations -- light on details, no red flags that I saw, and with creatives who are attached to some respectable stuff involved.
Where the hell have you been? Did you watch of War of the Worlds? How about the last series/season of Poldark? For at least the five years the BBC is nothing but a platform for extremist radical propaganda. If the people you listed are going to be the writers of this series they are either fully on board with it or willing to bend the knee for the pay check. Also the Gatiss and Moffat Sherlock Holmes was a pile of pretentious shite.
Quote from: Gagarth;1116353Where the hell have you been? Did you watch of War of the Worlds? How about the last series/season of Poldark? For at least the five years the BBC is nothing but a platform for extremist radical propaganda. If the people you listed are going to be the writers of this series they are either fully on board with it or willing to bend the knee for the pay check. Also the Gatiss and Moffat Sherlock Holmes was a pile of pretentious shite.
You're certainly right that the trend is not good. You might be right that this turns out to be crap, too. But we won't know for certain until:
a. Someone involved announces their intention to mess with the content
b. More details about the show come out
The BBC also didn't cancel Comedy Jerk. These seem to be some of the better creatives from the better parts of those shows. Moorcock himself is involved.
With so little detail yet, and some specific hopefully good things, what's the benefit of freaking out now?
I don't have a problem with it. In most literature, the character is supposed to be somebody you can identify with. If it's not a central conceit of the character, there's no reason to maintain it.
For example, if you're making a Tarzan movie, it's actually an important plot point that he is a foreign national who doesn't look like the nearby natives; casting a black actor if you maintain the story's setting in Africa wouldn't work. Setting the same general story in Brazil would.
Distilling what is central to a character is part of a good adaptation. Sometimes things that you immediately dismiss as ridiculous actually end up being compelling. In the original Karate Kid, the important part of Daniel's character is that he doesn't fit in and doesn't feel like he can defend himself from bullies. If a reboot featured a character in a wheelchair, we could all easily identify with how it might be hard to fit in and how one might be bullied. It'd be a harder stretch to win the All-Valley Karate Championship, but could still be a good movie.
So many of our cherished stories feature an underdog succeeding when it seems like it's impossible. Even when the character is white and without physical disability, they have a distinct lack of advantages. It's always the poor kid defeating the rich snob through cleverness and hustle - and that's just as true and often more easily shown as a disadvantage if the character is recognized as a minority.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1116389It's always the poor kid defeating the rich snob through cleverness and hustle - and that's just as true and often more easily shown as a disadvantage if the character is recognized as a minority.
More easily shown, yes, but that has really become a cheap shortcut to making an interesting character that's disadvantaged without just slapping on a minority label.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1116389It's always the poor kid defeating the rich snob through cleverness and hustle - and that's just as true and often more easily shown as a disadvantage if the character is recognized as a minority.
I find that a warping mindset. This is the same sort of logic of "Show every evil person as ugly" but reversed. It's also lazy writing.
Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1116387a. Someone involved announces their intention to mess with the content
The BBC never do announce how they are going to mould something into their form of propaganda they just do it
Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1116387The BBC also didn't cancel Comedy Jerk.
Are you talking about Jerk (https://www.comedy.co.uk/online/jerk/) ? If you are then you need to take the blinkers off and see what that really is.
Quote from: Gagarth;1116460The BBC never do announce how they are going to mould something into their form of propaganda they just do it
Are you talking about Jerk (https://www.comedy.co.uk/online/jerk/) ? If you are then you need to take the blinkers off and see what that really is.
I haven't seen the show. It's pointed out in the article you linked in OP as something the factions in the BBC who push this political angle think is wildly inappropriate -- and it's not canceled.
I don't know that there's much else for me to say on the subject. I understand why you're worried. My meta point with encouraging a wait and see is that if you give up and assume the worst before the first shot is fired, you're handing your opposition the battle.
See what actually happens, and then respond.
I will withhold judgment until we see the trailer BUT since its the BBC the chance of it being SJW trash is at least 90%. It is highly doubtful we will see many series produced by either Hollyweird or the BBC that isn't SJW trash as long as viewers keep gobbling down the propaganda like good little lemmings.
But who knows? Maybe this one will be different!
However, the most important point to remember is you can still buy the original books and skip all the Leftist garbage.
Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1116487I haven't seen the show. It's pointed out in the article you linked in OP as something the factions in the BBC who push this political angle think is wildly inappropriate -- and it's not canceled.
I don't know that there's much else for me to say on the subject. I understand why you're worried. My meta point with encouraging a wait and see is that if you give up and assume the worst before the first shot is fired, you're handing your opposition the battle.
See what actually happens, and then respond.
There is nothing in that article that talks about infighting in the BBC regrading Jerk. Although given the BBC hiring practices there are defiantly people in there that are so extremist that they think that any portrayal of poc and disabled people that does not have them as Mary Sue's and paragons of virtue would be tantamount to a hate crime. It is not a matter of losing. The BBC are beholden to no-one as the organisation that is supposed to be their oversight is as thoroughly infiltrated as they are.
Quote from: Gagarth;1116538There is nothing in that article that talks about infighting in the BBC regrading Jerk. Although given the BBC hiring practices there are defiantly people in there that are so extremist that they think that any portrayal of poc and disabled people that does not have them as Mary Sue's and paragons of virtue would be tantamount to a hate crime. It is not a matter of losing. The BBC are beholden to no-one as the organisation that is supposed to be their oversight is as thoroughly infiltrated as they are.
You're right -- looking again, I can't find the implied criticism of Jerk, which I remember being partially from the placement/names of related articles. The strongest commentary about it currently is that it's sandwiched between paragraphs about "improving representation".
I mean, Spinachcat has the right of it. There's definitely an element of "this time will be different!!!"-style insanity to my point. OTOH: Ghostbusters: Afterlife? WW84? Not series though. But I'm pretty out of the loop on those.
If nothing else, this was a good reminder that I haven't read Hawkmoon in a long time and I have some long flights coming up. :D
Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1116569I mean, Spinachcat has the right of it. There's definitely an element of "this time will be different!!!"-style insanity to my point. OTOH: Ghostbusters: Afterlife? WW84? Not series though. But I'm pretty out of the loop on those.
Those are good curious examples. Wonder Woman was a target for the new ultra woke James Cameron. Patty Jenkins is directing WW84 and haven't I haven't seen anything from her about how if you don't like WW84 movie you are a racist and a misogynist. Ghostbusters: Afterlife is directed by Jason Reitman the son of the director of the Ghostbuster I & II and stated this fans of the original films. Defiantly not the team of Ghostbusters 2016 who said if you don't like our movie you are a racist and a misogynist.
A better comparison with BBC would be saying "this time will different!!!!" about the next output from the makers of HBO Watchmen, Ghostbusters 2016, Terminator: Dark Fate, Charlie's Angels, Captain Marvel, Disney Star Wars or Lena Dunham.
Quote from: Gagarth;1116666Those are good curious examples. Wonder Woman was a target for the new ultra woke James Cameron. Patty Jenkins is directing WW84 and haven't I haven't seen anything from her about how if you don't like WW84 movie you are a racist and a misogynist. Ghostbusters: Afterlife is directed by Jason Reitman the son of the director of the Ghostbuster I & II and stated this fans of the original films. Defiantly not the team of Ghostbusters 2016 who said if you don't like our movie you are a racist and a misogynist.
A better comparison with BBC would be saying "this time will different!!!!" about the next output from the makers of HBO Watchmen, Ghostbusters 2016, Terminator: Dark Fate, Charlie's Angels, Captain Marvel, Disney Star Wars or Lena Dunham.
Emphasis mine -- that's the point I was trying to make way back upthread, why I think there is a glimmer of hope that at least merits a "wait for more information before going in swinging": based on their previous work, the listed leaders of the Hawkmoon efforts appear to be more of the Reitman / Jenkins / Tarantino / try to make things that don't suck camp than the Feig / Dunham / Johnson / make a bad movie then blame the audience for disliking it camp.
Yes BBC's bonkers politic is a risk, and maybe these guys are in the other camp after all. But also I think every studio has released audience-blaming garbage at this point, and having the right people involved seems to help at least some. Both 2016 and Afterlife are Sony, for example.
Also, thanks to this thread I have also learned that the world is basically out of luck buying an eBook copy of the Hawkmoon series if you're not in the UK. :( Can I Brenter for like 5 mins? I like tea well enough.
I would love some original tv series in the vein of the Dancers at the End of Time or Jerry Cornelius. But alas, Hawkmoon is pretty.. hmm. Standard fantasy fare. Elric is too these days. And if they make it woke im gonna be doubtly discouraged. I wonder if Moorcock actually gives an iota of a care what they do with his property.
Quote from: Warder;1117118I wonder if Moorcock actually gives an iota of a care what they do with his property.
Moorcock is 80. At this point, media interest equals a big fat check to leave his kids and grandkids so they can buy Porsches, mansions and cocaine.
So is Dorian Hawkmoon going to be a black lesbian?