3 Messages

 • 

90 Points

Tuesday, May 9th, 2023

Closed

Answered

Please check my review and tell me why it was declined

House of the Dragon (2022-)

User Review Addition

Text: The story is good! It was a pity in the first few minutes of the first episode that I became suspicious that they had tampered with it. I went online to check (I haven't read the books yet, but I want to because I believe they have the same potential as A Song of Ice and Fire), and, unfortunately, I confirmed that they had usurped the physical characteristics of one of the families with the sole aim of keeping the woke flame alive... Until the last episode of the season I could not abstract from the mop heads, which spoiled the whole experience. Surely it would be a seven or an 8 eight that could increase in the following seasons, but no.

Summary: One more usurpation...

Oldest First
Selected Oldest First

10.7K Messages

 • 

226.1K Points

3 years ago

Hi, Antenorsilva. Thank you for including the content of the subject heading and the body of the declined review of yours for House of the Dragon. If you believe there is a chance at all that the IMDb staff would change the item from declined to approved, keeping your text "as is", then please share here the reference number of the submission containing the declined item. I don't believe there is any chance that happen, though. The problem here is that your review is spending words to complain about the "woke" (as you have expressed) direction that the studio is taking the works of art under its control. Doing that kind of thing is, so to speak, off-topic. And that's not to mention the fact that the word "woke" as a colloquialism has been somewhat twisted and abused by many multitudes of people on both wings of politics.

3 Messages

 • 

90 Points

3 years ago

Hello. First off all thank you @jeorj_euler for your help.

I'll change the woke reference and submitt again my review. Although I think it's important to make my point about the possible (almost sure!) reason behind this type of (I don't know how to adjective) acts in the cinema industry nowadays. It's a relevant appreciation to justify how poor the series become, for example, in the casting area.

Have a nice day, and thanks again.

10.7K Messages

 • 

226.1K Points

I'm doubtful that there is much room for any attention to the university-endorsed cultural phenomena of corporate behaviors motivated by shallow (or otherwise deep) understandings of intersectionality theory, critical theory, "diversity equity inclusion" ("DEI") ideas and new "environmental social governance" ("ESG") metrics, unless with regards to a movie or show that explicitly, maybe implicitly, has one of these things as its primary theme.

3 Messages

 • 

90 Points

I agree that people don't want to talk about it. There's no room for it explicitly, especially when decisions are made as blatant as tampering with the physical characteristics of pre-existing characters without any plausible justification. I'm waiting for Nelson Mandela's biographical film, played by Jackie Chan...

10.7K Messages

 • 

226.1K Points

Thus far (say, in the context of the past thirty years), it only flows in one direction (as if to compensate for 1910s minstrel shows). Characters of the Caucasian descent may be re-written as Black or East Asian, maybe South Asian or alternately Latinoamerican. If there isn't full blown sex-swapping of a sort of team of characters, then at least one among the team, usually the outspoken man/boy, is re-written as woman/girl whose path through the story may unfortunately manifest as an Ary Sue trope. More recently, lesser-known iconic characters may be re-written from being straight or even cisgender with completely unspecified orientation (hence perhaps cisgender asexual), to being cisgender homosexual. I've not observed much mingling with characters' faiths and denominational associations thereinwithin, though. For that, usually it is more of a thing that a pious character (whether Jewish, Catholic or Muslim) may be re-written as atheist, rather than changed from subscribing to a "majority group" religion to subscribing to a "minority group" religion, as the matter of intersectionality with regards to religion is way more complicated than the attention to the history of racism and sexism. (To be clear, the term "majority group" refers to demographic properties over-represented in leadership of government, media, banking, military, statecraft, diplomacy, STEM and law enforcement; whereas the "minority group" for the under-represented therein.)