Remember all the uproar over Crown Jewel and how everyone was going to boycott WWE? Nobody did and the core fan base is still watching, with the Nia Jax outrage being mostly subdued now as well.

It seems the more outraged people get over nothing, the less impactful they are, mostly because people don’t actively boycott anything and just virtue signal. I wasn’t in a rush to buy Nike products after the whole Colin Kaepernick saga but I didn’t go and burn sneakers I already own like a dumbass. There’s been so many twitter campaigns that I’m having a mental blank to name more as they’ve been mostly ineffective.

Also on FB I saw a campaign of a one day strike from being buying fuel to protest fuel prices. It’s pretty much a necessity for most people so I feel like it would just drive up prices if enough people stopped buying as the rest will still pay.

The only thing I’ve really “boycotted” was the local video store when I lived in NT because the guy kept accusing me (to my friend, not to my face) of pirating the dvd’s. I didn’t have TV first set up when I got there so I just hired movies. It was $10 for 10 movies a week so it was a good deal and way to keep entertained. But apparently not to this guy, he used to be a cross dressing escort so I think I was the least of his problems.

Have you ever boycotted a company or product and was there an effect on the company?

Virtue signalling is all it is, people won't cross a road they absolutely don't have to and people are far too lazy and stupid to make any sort of moral stand if it requires any actual effort.

I will boycott some things:
I haven't watched Doctor Who since the Female doctor took over and I won't until she's gone
I refuse to buy $2 milk that hurts the dairy farmers
I won't pay for $1,000 software which is extortion

Dec 19, 2018 3:17:22 GMT iNCY said:

I will boycott some things:
I haven't watched Doctor Who since the Female doctor took over and I won't until she's gone

Why?

(I've never watched Doctor Who, I don't know anything about a female doctor)

I stopped watching wrestling when Hogan took the belt off HHH. Barely seen it since. That’s my one and only boycott.

Dec 20, 2018 2:58:09 GMT Foos said:

Dec 19, 2018 3:17:22 GMT iNCY said:

I will boycott some things:
I haven't watched Doctor Who since the Female doctor took over and I won't until she's gone

Why?

(I've never watched Doctor Who, I don't know anything about a female doctor)

I’m curious about this too.

Dec 20, 2018 2:58:09 GMT Foos said:

Dec 19, 2018 3:17:22 GMT iNCY said:

I will boycott some things:
I haven't watched Doctor Who since the Female doctor took over and I won't until she's gone

Why?

(I've never watched Doctor Who, I don't know anything about a female doctor)

There was no reason for it lore wise or in the story, it was done strictly for virtue signaling.   Female Time Lords DO EXIST within the continuity, if they wanted to go that route, just introduce a unique female character instead of changing established ones.      I didn't like it when they sex-changed The Master, and liked it even less when they did it with The Doctor.

Dec 20, 2018 4:48:49 GMT thereallt said:

Dec 20, 2018 2:58:09 GMT Foos said:

Why?

(I've never watched Doctor Who, I don't know anything about a female doctor)

There was no reason for it lore wise or in the story, it was done strictly for virtue signaling.   Female Time Lords DO EXIST within the continuity, if they wanted to go that route, just introduce a unique female character instead of changing established ones.      I didn't like it when they sex-changed The Master, and liked it even less when they did it with The Doctor.

I have similar feelings, when it comes to casting a black or female actor as a character like James Bond, for the sake of " diversity " - you wouldn't recast Lara Croft as a male character nor would you recast Black Panther with a white actor, so why else would you completely rewrite the history, and the origin of a character, other than for the sake of appeasing the Left?

Any studio or film that promotes a ' quota ' rather than just producing good characters and great content, usually gets an unofficial 'could not care less' from me.

Foos, KJ, yeah, thereallt, is pretty close to the mark on my reasoning...
I have been a Doctor Who fan since I was a little kid and the Doctor is a man.
The idea that Time Lords regenerate different genders only surfaced two years ago in the light of the current cultural climate of idiotic gender identity.
So people stand up and protest that we need to have a female Doctor.. Guess what? The people protesting never watch the show.
So now they have a female doctor and so far in the series they have had an episode on a man having a baby and an episode on Rosa Parks... Why can't a show just be a show?
Also, the ratings are tanking.
So if they made a series about a female Timelord I will watch it gladly, but taking something I like and stuffing it up to please a minority that never watches it is dumb.

A black James Bond is a similar deal, James Bond is an established character why can't we create awesome new character?

In Australia my two favourite sports are AFL and Cricket, now in the era of political correctness we have televised womens leagues.
I have no problem with female sport, I watch womens golf and tennis happily.. but the Cricket and Football played by women is of such an appalling quality that it is embarrassing and nobody will say that publicly.

Dec 20, 2018 6:45:49 GMT NATH45 said:

Dec 20, 2018 4:48:49 GMT thereallt said:

There was no reason for it lore wise or in the story, it was done strictly for virtue signaling.   Female Time Lords DO EXIST within the continuity, if they wanted to go that route, just introduce a unique female character instead of changing established ones.      I didn't like it when they sex-changed The Master, and liked it even less when they did it with The Doctor.

I have similar feelings, when it comes to casting a black or female actor as a character like James Bond, for the sake of " diversity " - you wouldn't recast Lara Croft as a male character nor would you recast Black Panther with a white actor, so why else would you completely rewrite the history, and the origin of a character, other than for the sake of appeasing the Left?

Any studio or film that promotes a ' quota ' rather than just producing good characters and great content, usually gets an unofficial 'could not care less' from me.

Sort of like the Ghostbusters remake.
It was like somebody went let's remake Ghostbusters but with a diverse female cast.
Nobody stops to ask why and if you question it your a bigot.
If you're going to remake something or change the formula then the primary guiding principal should be that you are making it better.

Dec 20, 2018 8:48:50 GMT iNCY said:

Also, the ratings are tanking.

Get woke, go broke.

Anything that really pushes any agenda. When I watch the MTV Music/Movie Awards, the last thing I want or need is a lecture from a illiterate rapper or a 22 year old Instagram model on gender pronouns or equality.

Dec 20, 2018 9:30:17 GMT NATH45 said:

Anything that really pushes any agenda. When I watch the MTV Music/Movie Awards, the last thing I want or need is a lecture from a illiterate rapper or a 22 year old Instagram model on gender pronouns or equality.

Dec 20, 2018 3:26:41 GMT mikec said:

I stopped watching wrestling when Hogan took the belt off HHH. Barely seen it since. That’s my one and only boycott.

I boycotted wrestling for like 11 years when they killed ECW

My dad is involved in the boycott halal in Australia thing.
He’s pretty much the boomer guy meme on FB.

Regardless of people’s views on it it’s probably the most successful campaign I can think of in Australia as I know many suppliers dropped their halal certifications because of it.

Dec 20, 2018 3:26:41 GMT mikec said:

I stopped watching wrestling when Hogan took the belt off HHH. Barely seen it since. That’s my one and only boycott.

Did it feel justified considering he dropped the belt to Undertaker a month later?

Or was it the final straw in your WWF watching?

Dec 20, 2018 6:45:49 GMT NATH45 said:

Dec 20, 2018 4:48:49 GMT thereallt said:

There was no reason for it lore wise or in the story, it was done strictly for virtue signaling.   Female Time Lords DO EXIST within the continuity, if they wanted to go that route, just introduce a unique female character instead of changing established ones.      I didn't like it when they sex-changed The Master, and liked it even less when they did it with The Doctor.

I have similar feelings, when it comes to casting a black or female actor as a character like James Bond, for the sake of " diversity " - you wouldn't recast Lara Croft as a male character nor would you recast Black Panther with a white actor, so why else would you completely rewrite the history, and the origin of a character, other than for the sake of appeasing the Left?

Any studio or film that promotes a ' quota ' rather than just producing good characters and great content, usually gets an unofficial 'could not care less' from me.

My wife got cast in the London cast of Hamilton.  It is an opportunity that will likely elude me.

Dec 20, 2018 14:51:34 GMT System said:

Dec 20, 2018 3:26:41 GMT mikec said:

I stopped watching wrestling when Hogan took the belt off HHH. Barely seen it since. That’s my one and only boycott.

Did it feel justified considering he dropped the belt to Undertaker a month later?

Or was it the final straw in your WWF watching?

At the time I said “I’ll turn it back on when Hogan loses”, but I just hated how quick it went off HHH after the build to Mania solely because of the response to the Rock/Hogan match. I did turn it back on after and enjoyed parts of the American Bad Ass title run, but the damage was done when I discovered I could skip wrestling and not miss it. I haven’t seen a full episode of wrestling since 02.

(Though in the interest of full disclosure a podcast about Starcade 97 did entice me to order the WWE Network for my free trial and I have been on a nostalgia binge for a week now. Wrestlemania 14, Royal Rumble 92, etc.)

Dec 20, 2018 8:50:32 GMT iNCY said:

Dec 20, 2018 6:45:49 GMT NATH45 said:

I have similar feelings, when it comes to casting a black or female actor as a character like James Bond, for the sake of " diversity " - you wouldn't recast Lara Croft as a male character nor would you recast Black Panther with a white actor, so why else would you completely rewrite the history, and the origin of a character, other than for the sake of appeasing the Left?

Any studio or film that promotes a ' quota ' rather than just producing good characters and great content, usually gets an unofficial 'could not care less' from me.

Sort of like the Ghostbusters remake.
It was like somebody went let's remake Ghostbusters but with a diverse female cast.
Nobody stops to ask why and if you question it your a bigot.
If you're going to remake something or change the formula then the primary guiding principal should be that you are making it better.

This makes sense to me in the real world, but in terms of art and commerce I’m not sure the the guiding principle is ever anything more than “Am I inspired to do this?” or “will it make money?”

Dec 20, 2018 17:23:19 GMT mikec said:

Dec 20, 2018 8:50:32 GMT iNCY said:

Sort of like the Ghostbusters remake.
It was like somebody went let's remake Ghostbusters but with a diverse female cast.
Nobody stops to ask why and if you question it your a bigot.
If you're going to remake something or change the formula then the primary guiding principal should be that you are making it better.

This makes sense to me in the real world, but in terms of art and commerce I’m not sure the the guiding principle is ever anything more than “Am I inspired to do this?” or “will it make money?”

I agree, but I see those things as being aligned, bad remakes don't make money.
It's a cash grab, but it rarely works, there have been very few remakes better than the originals, the only ones that come to mind are: Batman, The Italian Job and Oceans 11.

Dec 21, 2018 11:35:00 GMT iNCY said:

Dec 20, 2018 17:23:19 GMT mikec said:

This makes sense to me in the real world, but in terms of art and commerce I’m not sure the the guiding principle is ever anything more than “Am I inspired to do this?” or “will it make money?”

I agree, but I see those things as being aligned, bad remakes don't make money.
It's a cash grab, but it rarely works, there have been very few remakes better than the originals, the only ones that come to mind are: Batman, The Italian Job and Oceans 11.

The Ghostbusters remake made tons of cash though.

Dec 21, 2018 23:56:59 GMT mikec said:

Dec 21, 2018 11:35:00 GMT iNCY said:

I agree, but I see those things as being aligned, bad remakes don't make money.
It's a cash grab, but it rarely works, there have been very few remakes better than the originals, the only ones that come to mind are: Batman, The Italian Job and Oceans 11.

The Ghostbusters remake made tons of cash though.

No it didn't.  It made 128 million domestically and 100 million overseas against a 144 million budget.   When you include marketing, Ghostbusters would have had to make over 300 million total (US+Worldwide) to be considered a financial success.   Ghostbusters 2016 is considered a bomb by it's own studio.

Exactly, it didn’t make a profit let alone make tonnes of cash.

The marketing budget wasn’t something I could find, so at a glance it made tens of millions of dollars.

Though profit wasn’t really the point of my argument. It sold tons of tickets? People being stupid with money (on both expensive reshoots and an apparently crazy marketing buy for something with built-in name recognition) doesn’t really change what I was saying, that people will remake things if people will spend money on it. 200+ million in sales suggests there was money there to be made on a fairly lousy movie.

So if you don’t make a return on an investment you consider it a success mikec ?

Dec 22, 2018 3:14:27 GMT System said:

So if you don’t make a return on an investment you consider it a success mikec ?

At the point you tell me they spent more than 200 million on the Ghostbusters movie, recouping that feels like a little victory. But no, we’re talking about process versus purpose. Obviously the process that made Ghostbusters was flawed, any process that makes a movie that makes 200 million into a “bomb” isn’t a success.

But the argument was that the reason for making the sequel was if it could have made money, and it isn’t disproven by its 200 million dollar box office pull.

Instead of remaking a classic like Ghostbusters or Footloose. I wish they would remake a bad or lesser known movie and make it better.

Dec 25, 2018 13:43:57 GMT bodyslam said:

Instead of remaking a classic like Ghostbusters or Footloose. I wish they would remake a bad or lesser known movie and make it better.

Why, when the marketing in re-producing an old movie is too easy? It's building on the strength of an already established brand.

I am just leaving this here.

www.indiewire.com/2018/12/dominic-west-transgender-james-bond-actor-daniel-craig-replacement-1202030574/

Dec 27, 2018 16:51:26 GMT theend said:

I am just leaving this here.

www.indiewire.com/2018/12/dominic-west-transgender-james-bond-actor-daniel-craig-replacement-1202030574/

Yes, and let's have an anorexic Bond girl... If we are celebrating mental disease. 

Dec 27, 2018 22:39:28 GMT iNCY said:

Dec 27, 2018 16:51:26 GMT theend said:

I am just leaving this here.

www.indiewire.com/2018/12/dominic-west-transgender-james-bond-actor-daniel-craig-replacement-1202030574/

Yes, and let's have an anorexic Bond girl... If we are celebrating mental disease. 

You say that like they haven’t / wouldn’t have a woman with an eating disorder as a Bond girl.