Robyn Hood (TV series) - Oh dear

[Neil]

Critical Drinker seems to love it... Not! Not even the veiled social comments such as graffiti of black (George Floyd?) Christ figures. Hmmm... How do these things get funded?

[MinionZombie]

By the sounds of it we've now reached the Hot Shots/Airplane/Naked Gun zone of "diversity".

[JDP]

Woke Approved!

[EvilNed]

I would never, ever have even heard of this tv show unless you posted about it, and I'm pretty sure it would have stayed that way. The reason is because there's so much stuff out there that caters to me, and my tastes, that I have no reason to seek out or make a fuzz out of stuff that doesn't appeal to me.

[MinionZombie]

Rubbish like that deserves to be mocked as it makes "diversity" into a full blown joke, while being desperately po-faced and serious and self-important about it. I'd argue that this sort of silliness actually damages the pursuit of tolerance and furthers the notion of segregating people according to race/sex/gender/etc, something we were supposed to be moving away from being so concerned about. But then again, the people who shout the loudest about this stuff have now made a literal business out of it, so it's not in their best financial interests to get rid of racism/sexism/etc - to perpetuate it actually works in their favour financially. Grotty bastards.

[EvilNed]

I think the people who shout the loudest about this sort of stuff are the people trashing it. I've literally not seen anyone else mention it. Most of this stuff comes to my attention by angry people against it. Just drop it, don't even click.

[MinionZombie]

I think the people who shout the loudest about this sort of stuff are the people trashing it. I've literally not seen anyone else mention it. Most of this stuff comes to my attention by angry people against it. Just drop it, don't even click. Except the junk gets made in the first place, by people like 'Director X' who shout extremely loudly about whatever issue suits them the most. He even appears to be ranting and raving on the Internet with 'trolls' as if he's one himself. Low ratings alone doesn't seem to get the idea through to execs that the majority of audiences aren't interested in this sort of poorly written tripe, so it kinda has to be spelled out for them - heck, even then they don't 'get it', sometimes doubling-down out of spite while their profits continue to shrink or disappear entirely. For all the talk of "conversation" from folks like these, they're not actually interested in conversing, merely lecturing without listening. The issue isn't the boxes being ticked, but rather the manner in which they're being ticked (which is often grotesquely corporatised, corrupted by a mythical financial benefit to stock prices, and deployed with a degree of subtlety that can best be described as toddler-like).

[EvilNed]

Lots of junk gets produced all the time, and always has been.

[MinionZombie]

Lots of junk gets produced all the time, and always has been. And people voice their opinions on that, too. There's also junk and pandering, lecturing, poorly written junk.

[EvilNed]

And people voice their opinions on that, too. There's also junk and pandering, lecturing, poorly written junk. Sure they do, all I'm saying is that if you're trying to make the point that this stuff is so in your face, then I disagree. It's not in my face until someone who get's pissed off about it starts raging about it. Which is ironic.

[MinionZombie]

Sure they do, all I'm saying is that if you're trying to make the point that this stuff is so in your face, then I disagree. It's not in my face until someone who get's pissed off about it starts raging about it. Which is ironic. "In your face" can also apply to the methods and styles in which these things are addressed in media, even in stuff that might have small audiences. As previously said, it's not an issue of which boxes are being ticked, but the manner in which the ticking is being conducted. It's quite unnatural and forced and, well, for all the talk about cultural appropriation, is that not still applicable here? It's all the more gross being that it's ultimately a cynical cash grab, cashing in on an established story while trampling all over it in a way that's like Leatherface ripping off someone's face and wearing it to pretend to be them. I understand the point you're making, but I'd also raise the counter that many people talking about this are laughing at the contemptuous idiocy of it. The likes of "Director X" (a pretentious name if ever there was one, invoking an important historical figure like Malcom X whilst just making ... this TV show? ) brandish a degree of self-important delusion that really is quite bizarre and oddly fascinating in its grossness. It's also part of a wider on-going conversation. Being somewhat obscure doesn't mean there isn't value in its discussion and even mockery (where earned). It'll be interesting to see South Park's upcoming take on the aforementioned wider conversation with "Joining the Panderverse" later this month. The pants pissing reactions from the likes of The AV Club kinda prove one of the points they'll no doubt be making.

[EvilNed]

I don't believe it's all that unnatural. I just believe that internet has opened up more culture to a wider audience, whom they were not originally intended to be exposed or aimed at. I'm glad shows like Robyn Hood exist, because it means somewhere, someone gets to watch a piece of culture that's aimed at them. Myself? I'm secure enough in my beliefs that I just shrug it off. To me, it looks like crap and I don't give it a second thought. And Like I said; the only people giving it attention seem to be people who don't like it...

[MinionZombie]

I don't believe it's all that unnatural. I just believe that internet has opened up more culture to a wider audience, whom they were not originally intended to be exposed or aimed at. I'm glad shows like Robyn Hood exist, because it means somewhere, someone gets to watch a piece of culture that's aimed at them. Myself? I'm secure enough in my beliefs that I just shrug it off. To me, it looks like crap and I don't give it a second thought. And Like I said; the only people giving it attention seem to be people who don't like it... Comparing progressive-minded films and shows of, say, the 1990s and 2000s to the output of the past decade is markedly different. Part of the reason is social media, which has corrupted public discourse with its trampling of context, nuance, and detail, reducing it all down to an ill-judged hashtag slogan. The past decade, but especially the last five years, has seen a relentless amount of tub-thumping from extraordinarily vocal extreme minorities of opinion. The vast majority would prefer folks chill the fuck out, including most people in the very minorities these loud-mouths claim to represent. Folks want to be accepted for who they are as a person, for their personality, for their accomplishments, for their deeds ... not be segregated, not be brandished as a political tool for oftentimes corrupt and hypocritical leaders (be they political, corportate, or protest), not be reduced to mere colours or political persuasions. Folks who think the likes of Robyn Hood are good ideas probably think Big Brother in 1984 are the good guys, because of course 2+2=5; you're a reprehensibly evil bigot if you say otherwise.

[EvilNed]

I disagree, but whatever floats your boat.

[beat_truck]

I'm glad shows like Robyn Hood exist, because it means somewhere, someone gets to watch a piece of culture that's aimed at them. That must be why it is so highly regarded, with a rating of 1.0 out of 10 on IMDB.