ADVERTISEMENT

Movies - woke or conservative

So people don't want to guess, but I truly don't get what makes Das Boot (or Casablanca) "woke". Both are great movies, I don't see politics in either. In fact, in many of the movies listed I don't see politics. Blazing Saddles is anti-racism, is that really how we are defining "woke"?
Re: Das Boot, maybe they are projecting the themes of the novel onto the film?
 
@Marvin the Martian

While I won't participate here, other than hoping against hope the Ghostbusters they reference was the original just to drive home the silliness of this argument, I did have an opportunity to listen to some very shrill commentary about how D&D used racial stereotypes and constructs in the different types of characters. This was on NPR, who I thought might have had a bit higher journalistic standards (even on a weekend show) as it relates to what was clearly opinion/commentary.

Have you heard of this "controversy"? I guess the creator of D&D might have had some questionable views around biological determinism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamieDimonsBalls
@Marvin the Martian

While I won't participate here, other than hoping against hope the Ghostbusters they reference was the original just to drive home the silliness of this argument, I did have an opportunity to listen to some very shrill commentary about how D&D used racial stereotypes and constructs in the different types of characters. This was on NPR, who I thought might have had a bit higher journalistic standards (even on a weekend show) as it relates to what was clearly opinion/commentary.

Have you heard of this "controversy"? I guess the creator of D&D might have had some questionable views around biological determinism.
I heard the same show. Try not to get too judgmental. It was Code Switch. The entire premise of that show is to dig deep into racial issues, even in places where people might not normally look for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: larsIU
I heard the same show. Try not to get too judgmental. It was Code Switch. The entire premise of that show is to dig deep into racial issues, even in places where people might not normally look for them.
Fair enough but it was nails on a chalkboard, especially as I'm assuming D&D has evolved over the years to be more inclusive, etc. I believe they had even noted that on the show.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_6hv78pr714xta
@Marvin the Martian

While I won't participate here, other than hoping against hope the Ghostbusters they reference was the original just to drive home the silliness of this argument, I did have an opportunity to listen to some very shrill commentary about how D&D used racial stereotypes and constructs in the different types of characters. This was on NPR, who I thought might have had a bit higher journalistic standards (even on a weekend show) as it relates to what was clearly opinion/commentary.

Have you heard of this "controversy"? I guess the creator of D&D might have had some questionable views around biological determinism.

D&D has used a lot of mythology for its source. Unfortunately, that means that dark creatures are typically inferior, or evil. orcs, trolls, and whatnot. D&D invented drow, evil elves.. Gygax did defend bioessentialism, the idea that all orcs are evil or all of another race is good. Part of it is it made the game easier. More like a western where all the bad guys where black hats. See an orc, know it is evil, move on with whatever you do with evil characters.

But it has 1) offended some and 2) made the game a harder sell among some groups. So there have been a whole lot of adjustments to D&D today. I have barely played the current version, so I don't know all details. But they have almost completely removed alignment (good, evil, combined with lawful or chaotic). Basically, if you want to play a lawful good orc, now you can. If you want to play a chaotic evil high elf, not a problem.

As I read it on fan pages, it isn't completely where some want it. But it is vastly improved. I love Lord of the Rings, it wasn't completely enlightened. A quick glance at Middle Earth leads one to creatures from the north and west are good, creatures from the south and east are evil. Tolkien pointed out why that didn't hold up entirely, but one example is Morgoth and Morgoth isn't as known among casual readers. HP Lovecraft was a full-on racist (though Lovecraft was dropped from D&D after some legal battling but it was originally present). The general idea now is that now race is never automatically evil or automatically good. That is fine by me, but If I get back into playing it is going to take some getting used to a lawful good orc.
 
Ackshullyy, they prefer "indigenous" dragons.
I think it depends upon their location for that one. Northern dragons go with the "indigenous" label while the Southern dragons go with the "Native American" label.

The government sent a group of bureaucrats out to a Lich Dragon's lair to ask what the dragons preferred pronoun would be, but they sadly have not reported back yet......after 2 years.....
 
  • Haha
Reactions: anon_6hv78pr714xta
There were just misunderstood.

Like the Klingons. Or the Borg. Ok, maybe not the Borg.
Voyager-jeri-ryan-seven-of-nine-600x300-2.jpg
 
An election blog I follow mentioned a website that rates movies by being woke or supportive of conservative values. In each pair of movies below is one woke and one conservative, guess which is which. I won't have answers until Friday. Most of them are, I suspect, pretty easy. But if my guesses are right, I can't figure out why the WWII movie is woke.

1. Inspired by Toys:
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
Barbie


2. Disney:
Beauty and the Beast (2017 remake)
The Lion King

3. World War II:
Das Boot
Casablanca


4. Post-WWII American Conflicts:
Born on the Fourth of July
Argo


5. Starring Tom Hanks:
The Da Vinci Code
Forrest Gump


6. Black Protagonists:
Django Unchained
Black Panther


7. Westerns:
High Noon
Blazing Saddles


8. Directed by Mel Gibson:
The Passion of the Christ
Braveheart


9. Urban Corruption:
Chinatown
Robocop


10. Presidents:
Frost/Nixon
Lincoln


11. Amoral Tycoons:
The Wolf of Wall Street
Citizen Kane


12. Sci-Fi:
Star Trek: Into Darkness
Close Encounters of the Third Kind


13. Supernatural:
Ghost
Ghostbusters


14. Indiana Jones:
Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull


15. James Cameron Ocean Movies:
The Abyss
Titanic
I aint skeered

1. Inspired by Toys:
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
Barbie - woke



2. Disney:
Beauty and the Beast (2017 remake) - woke
The Lion King

3. World War II:
Das Boot - woke
Casablanca


4. Post-WWII American Conflicts:
Born on the Fourth of July - woke
Argo


5. Starring Tom Hanks:
The Da Vinci Code - woke
Forrest Gump


6. Black Protagonists:
Django Unchained
Black Panther - woke


7. Westerns:
High Noon
Blazing Saddles - woke


8. Directed by Mel Gibson:
The Passion of the Christ - woke
Braveheart


9. Urban Corruption:
Chinatown - woke
Robocop


10. Presidents:
Frost/Nixon
Lincoln - woke


11. Amoral Tycoons:
The Wolf of Wall Street - woke
Citizen Kane


12. Sci-Fi:
Star Trek: Into Darkness
Close Encounters of the Third Kind - woke


13. Supernatural:
Ghost - woke
Ghostbusters


14. Indiana Jones:
Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark - woke
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull


15. James Cameron Ocean Movies:
The Abyss - woke
Titanic


I pass all Rohrshach tests too
 
I aint skeered

1. Inspired by Toys:
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
Barbie - woke



2. Disney:
Beauty and the Beast (2017 remake) - woke
The Lion King

3. World War II:
Das Boot - woke
Casablanca


4. Post-WWII American Conflicts:
Born on the Fourth of July - woke
Argo


5. Starring Tom Hanks:
The Da Vinci Code - woke
Forrest Gump


6. Black Protagonists:
Django Unchained
Black Panther - woke


7. Westerns:
High Noon
Blazing Saddles - woke


8. Directed by Mel Gibson:
The Passion of the Christ - woke
Braveheart


9. Urban Corruption:
Chinatown - woke
Robocop


10. Presidents:
Frost/Nixon
Lincoln - woke


11. Amoral Tycoons:
The Wolf of Wall Street - woke
Citizen Kane


12. Sci-Fi:
Star Trek: Into Darkness
Close Encounters of the Third Kind - woke


13. Supernatural:
Ghost - woke
Ghostbusters


14. Indiana Jones:
Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark - woke
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull


15. James Cameron Ocean Movies:
The Abyss - woke
Titanic


I pass all Rohrshach tests too
We disagree on one, Lincoln.
 
D&D has used a lot of mythology for its source. Unfortunately, that means that dark creatures are typically inferior, or evil. orcs, trolls, and whatnot. D&D invented drow, evil elves.. Gygax did defend bioessentialism, the idea that all orcs are evil or all of another race is good. Part of it is it made the game easier. More like a western where all the bad guys where black hats. See an orc, know it is evil, move on with whatever you do with evil characters.

But it has 1) offended some and 2) made the game a harder sell among some groups. So there have been a whole lot of adjustments to D&D today. I have barely played the current version, so I don't know all details. But they have almost completely removed alignment (good, evil, combined with lawful or chaotic). Basically, if you want to play a lawful good orc, now you can. If you want to play a chaotic evil high elf, not a problem.

As I read it on fan pages, it isn't completely where some want it. But it is vastly improved. I love Lord of the Rings, it wasn't completely enlightened. A quick glance at Middle Earth leads one to creatures from the north and west are good, creatures from the south and east are evil. Tolkien pointed out why that didn't hold up entirely, but one example is Morgoth and Morgoth isn't as known among casual readers. HP Lovecraft was a full-on racist (though Lovecraft was dropped from D&D after some legal battling but it was originally present). The general idea now is that now race is never automatically evil or automatically good. That is fine by me, but If I get back into playing it is going to take some getting used to a lawful good orc.
Alignments were dumb to begin with. One of the first rules we dropped but we never did play by the book rules.

We instead incorporated the best of every gaming system. Aftermath, squad leader, mini strategy games, old school military battle games, MERP .. and called it the +5 Game of Playing.

Melee battle in DnD lacks severely, very little movement which doesn't alllow for any tactics. Shields especially are severely underrated in that game. Gygax dumbed battle down for the common masses a bit too much ..
 
  • Like
Reactions: larsIU
Based on posts you have made to this forum going back a decade or more, I don't think anyone would label you as anything other than left of center. I am right of center, probably further right than quite a few. Just own it. Saying, "I am in the middle" is usually jus a person making the claim to prove they are the "rational" person in the room (in their own mind).

Which is what you did. "I am above the fray laughing at all of you...." Sure you are...
Don't put words into my mouth.

Sorry to disappoint you on your political assessment.
 
Alignments were dumb to begin with. One of the first rules we dropped but we never did play by the book rules.

We instead incorporated the best of every gaming system. Aftermath, squad leader, mini strategy games, old school military battle games, MERP .. and called it the +5 Game of Playing.

Melee battle in DnD lacks severely, very little movement which doesn't alllow for any tactics. Shields especially are severely underrated in that game. Gygax dumbed battle down for the common masses a bit too much ..
Wow. If Gygax was still alive and heard you say that, he'd drop a can of whoop-ass all over your THAC0.
 
Alignments were dumb to begin with. One of the first rules we dropped but we never did play by the book rules.

We instead incorporated the best of every gaming system. Aftermath, squad leader, mini strategy games, old school military battle games, MERP .. and called it the +5 Game of Playing.

Melee battle in DnD lacks severely, very little movement which doesn't alllow for any tactics. Shields especially are severely underrated in that game. Gygax dumbed battle down for the common masses a bit too much ..

Damn. You Mu's sure can party.
 
Blazing Saddles is definitely not woke. That movie couldn’t be made today.

That’s why I said no thanks to this game. I don’t think the movies listed make much sense.

Re Das Boot, I guess you could stretch (ridiculously) and say that one of its premises is cultural relativism? Or that not all WW II German sailors were evil? I haven’t seen the film.
Das Boot depicts the futility and sheer horror of total war and would classify as an anti-war flick. Thus it’s “woke.”

The list is silly. How is Django conservative?
 
Alignments were dumb to begin with. One of the first rules we dropped but we never did play by the book rules.

We instead incorporated the best of every gaming system. Aftermath, squad leader, mini strategy games, old school military battle games, MERP .. and called it the +5 Game of Playing.

Melee battle in DnD lacks severely, very little movement which doesn't alllow for any tactics. Shields especially are severely underrated in that game. Gygax dumbed battle down for the common masses a bit too much ..
That’s a lot of word salad to say you never lettered in shit.
 
Alignments were dumb to begin with. One of the first rules we dropped but we never did play by the book rules.

We instead incorporated the best of every gaming system. Aftermath, squad leader, mini strategy games, old school military battle games, MERP .. and called it the +5 Game of Playing.

Melee battle in DnD lacks severely, very little movement which doesn't alllow for any tactics. Shields especially are severely underrated in that game. Gygax dumbed battle down for the common masses a bit too much ..

The first person in our group to buy D&D back when it was the 3 paperback set completely rewrote the rules before we ever played. Everything had a speed, an attack rating (such as 2D12+2) and a block rating (such as 1D6). So if I tried to hit you with my broadsword, I would role my weapon speed to see if it actually struck you. He was heavily into martial arts and firmly believed a lightly armored man could mostly evade someone in heavy armor with a heavy sword. So if I hit, you would start with your defense. You might roll 1D4-1 for your foil. Then roll 1D6 for your small shield (after rolling against its weight to see if it got there in time). If you blocked with your foil, there would be a minus to your shield. Then you would roll against your leather armor which might be 1d6. At that point, anything left is blocked by meat. Body parts could take so much damage, so if I gave 5 to your left arm, you would lose your ability to use that arm. Weapons took damage, seldom in a long battle would one finish with the sword they started with and anything slashing, cutting, or stabbing began losing effectiveness long before that.

Tactics mattered, if we could get 2 people attacking one, the one couldn't attempt to dodge both, couldn't block against both unless they gave up their attack.

We played that way all through high school. I came to college and played my first D&D and had no concept what I was playing. And they had no idea why I thought I could block with my weapon.

He also invented an alchemist class. The alchemist had to collect stuff to make potions, poisons, and, well, bombs. So we would attack some monsters just because he needed their slime, or blood, or whatever. That character was real weak to begin with, but by 10th level it was far and away more powerful than anything. A thermite bomb fired from a sling was unstoppable by almost anything that didn't have fire resistance.
 
The first person in our group to buy D&D back when it was the 3 paperback set completely rewrote the rules before we ever played. Everything had a speed, an attack rating (such as 2D12+2) and a block rating (such as 1D6). So if I tried to hit you with my broadsword, I would role my weapon speed to see if it actually struck you. He was heavily into martial arts and firmly believed a lightly armored man could mostly evade someone in heavy armor with a heavy sword. So if I hit, you would start with your defense. You might roll 1D4-1 for your foil. Then roll 1D6 for your small shield (after rolling against its weight to see if it got there in time). If you blocked with your foil, there would be a minus to your shield. Then you would roll against your leather armor which might be 1d6. At that point, anything left is blocked by meat. Body parts could take so much damage, so if I gave 5 to your left arm, you would lose your ability to use that arm. Weapons took damage, seldom in a long battle would one finish with the sword they started with and anything slashing, cutting, or stabbing began losing effectiveness long before that.

Tactics mattered, if we could get 2 people attacking one, the one couldn't attempt to dodge both, couldn't block against both unless they gave up their attack.

We played that way all through high school. I came to college and played my first D&D and had no concept what I was playing. And they had no idea why I thought I could block with my weapon.

He also invented an alchemist class. The alchemist had to collect stuff to make potions, poisons, and, well, bombs. So we would attack some monsters just because he needed their slime, or blood, or whatever. That character was real weak to begin with, but by 10th level it was far and away more powerful than anything. A thermite bomb fired from a sling was unstoppable by almost anything that didn't have fire resistance.
200w.gif
 
The problem with these type of lists is that invariably, a movie will be called conservative (like Blazing Saddles) when in reality it makes fun of idiocy on the right.

And vice versa
 
  • Like
Reactions: larsIU
The first person in our group to buy D&D back when it was the 3 paperback set completely rewrote the rules before we ever played. Everything had a speed, an attack rating (such as 2D12+2) and a block rating (such as 1D6). So if I tried to hit you with my broadsword, I would role my weapon speed to see if it actually struck you. He was heavily into martial arts and firmly believed a lightly armored man could mostly evade someone in heavy armor with a heavy sword. So if I hit, you would start with your defense. You might roll 1D4-1 for your foil. Then roll 1D6 for your small shield (after rolling against its weight to see if it got there in time). If you blocked with your foil, there would be a minus to your shield. Then you would roll against your leather armor which might be 1d6. At that point, anything left is blocked by meat. Body parts could take so much damage, so if I gave 5 to your left arm, you would lose your ability to use that arm. Weapons took damage, seldom in a long battle would one finish with the sword they started with and anything slashing, cutting, or stabbing began losing effectiveness long before that.

Tactics mattered, if we could get 2 people attacking one, the one couldn't attempt to dodge both, couldn't block against both unless they gave up their attack.

We played that way all through high school. I came to college and played my first D&D and had no concept what I was playing. And they had no idea why I thought I could block with my weapon.

He also invented an alchemist class. The alchemist had to collect stuff to make potions, poisons, and, well, bombs. So we would attack some monsters just because he needed their slime, or blood, or whatever. That character was real weak to begin with, but by 10th level it was far and away more powerful than anything. A thermite bomb fired from a sling was unstoppable by almost anything that didn't have fire resistance.
Could you dual class in alchemy and a fighting class if your Intelligence was high enough?
 
Could you dual class in alchemy and a fighting class if your Intelligence was high enough?

Yes. Alchemist-cleric was also popular as some undead are hard to kill with what alchemists had. It was their weak suit as their explosives and poisons weren't "magical". I don't know if I ever saw a magical grenade in the game.

I almost always played a ranger. Sometimes a paladin if my roll was good enough. We started playing with straight 3-die rolls, so classes that required high stats required luck, you had to roll high in the right attribute. We eventually moved to roll 7 times, choose 6 and place them where you want.

In my D&D career, I never got past 4th level. I don't know why. We also played a secret agent game called Top Secret which we modified to really be commando operations. I had the highest level character in our group by far. He would be the character Jason Bourne feared. But in D&D? My characters died almost every.single.game.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT