Netflix loses subscribers for the first time in 10 years

jason10mm

Gold Member
Though female warriors certainly were not the norm during that period there are numerous example of them in medieval Europe. Matilda of Canossa is an example and I'm sure you've heard of Joan of Arc. There is also recent archeological proof that women (or at least this woman) fought for Vikings in Sweden, as she was buried with a full weapon set next to a garrison.

There are also examples of non-white people in Europe in warfare during that time period. You are probably aware of the Moors, who conquered most of Spain and Portugal.

You should not let this sort of thing detract from your enjoyment of a work of fiction. If its good, then its good regardless of the sex or race of the actors.
Not this argument again. Look, there are clearly female commanders, leaders, and strategists. It was often expected that the wife would manage the household/estates and settle business if the husband was away, indisposed, or whatever. But even Joan of Arc or Matilda, maybe even Boudica, Zenobia were not ACTUAL COMBATANTS, at least no primary source states it. How many representations of women in combat or female remains with combat injuries are there compared to hundred, THOUSANDS of representations of men? There are some eyewitness reports of female fighters, particularly from Romans fighting celts, but these were likely acts of tribal desperation rather than what a more 'civilized' military force, particularly one of occupation or raiding, would do. There are also reports of celtic women attacking and killing their own men who were retreating, then they killed their kids rather than see them enslaved by the romans (I'm thinking of Aquae Sextiae but I'm probably confabulating accounts).

Anyhoo, speaking for the viking era in particular, you'd think there would be ample primary source evidence for any significant numbers of women in battle, or foreigners mixed in with their units. But there isn't. Taking very rare contrary examples as justification that "it must have been common" is a fallacy. Granted, we may never know the truth as we are always looking at very selective slices of history.

But before dismissing it all, just consider if this was the next "non-documentary" fiction movie about Shaka Zulu...


or if this was how they depicted Miyamoto Mushashi at Ganryu Island...


I mean, if it is all fictional, then nothing really matters, right??
 

BadBurger

Is 'That Pure Potato'
I cancelled a long time ago mostly due to the output of their movies being so poor. I figured I'd just sign up a month here-or-there for their main shows - their main attractions. I resubscribed at the tail end of 2019 for The Witcher season 2, and was so disappointed with the low quality of the production, boring story, and consistently horrible casting, that I cancelled again without even finishing the season and never looked back.

From what I can tell, month to month Netflix still licenses the most decently-to-good rated movies to watch in their catalog of all of the major services, but the original feature length films of everyone else keeps improving by leaps and bounds (even winning major awards), while Netflix's original movies are still utterly average, and even their flagship shows are waning.

They have needed to refocus on quality over quantity for years now.
 
Last edited:

belmarduk

Member
Not this argument again. Look, there are clearly female commanders, leaders, and strategists. It was often expected that the wife would manage the household/estates and settle business if the husband was away, indisposed, or whatever. But even Joan of Arc or Matilda, maybe even Boudica, Zenobia were not ACTUAL COMBATANTS, at least no primary source states it. How many representations of women in combat or female remains with combat injuries are there compared to hundred, THOUSANDS of representations of men? There are some eyewitness reports of female fighters, particularly from Romans fighting celts, but these were likely acts of tribal desperation rather than what a more 'civilized' military force, particularly one of occupation or raiding, would do. There are also reports of celtic women attacking and killing their own men who were retreating, then they killed their kids rather than see them enslaved by the romans (I'm thinking of Aquae Sextiae but I'm probably confabulating accounts).

Anyhoo, speaking for the viking era in particular, you'd think there would be ample primary source evidence for any significant numbers of women in battle, or foreigners mixed in with their units. But there isn't. Taking very rare contrary examples as justification that "it must have been common" is a fallacy. Granted, we may never know the truth as we are always looking at very selective slices of history.

But before dismissing it all, just consider if this was the next "non-documentary" fiction movie about Shaka Zulu...

or if this was how they depicted Miyamoto Mushashi at Ganryu Island...

I mean, if it is all fictional, then nothing really matters, right??

Not only were females generals and leaders in wars but they were also prominently featured in Norse mythology at the time. I feel like if it was good enough for them, then it ought to be good enough for a modern show about people living during that time period. I absolutely love history but none of these shows are presented as being historically accurate. Netflix also produces some great documentaries with re-enactments. Roman Empire is one of the best things they've ever done. What I wouldn't give to have another season of that.

As for actors playing characters of different races based upon historical figures, it doesn't bother me at all. It would be out of place in a documentary but perhaps the actors were selected because they're good actors? To me it doesn't matter. Mage, Black, Transgender, Minotaur, Thor... if it's a compelling story, I'll watch it.
 

Hari Seldon

Gold Member
Not only were females generals and leaders in wars but they were also prominently featured in Norse mythology at the time. I feel like if it was good enough for them, then it ought to be good enough for a modern show about people living during that time period. I absolutely love history but none of these shows are presented as being historically accurate. Netflix also produces some great documentaries with re-enactments. Roman Empire is one of the best things they've ever done. What I wouldn't give to have another season of that.

As for actors playing characters of different races based upon historical figures, it doesn't bother me at all. It would be out of place in a documentary but perhaps the actors were selected because they're good actors? To me it doesn't matter. Mage, Black, Transgender, Minotaur, Thor... if it's a compelling story, I'll watch it.
Those docudramas are great. They have actors (and nudity) but also have interviews with real historians. They have the one about Rome, the Ottomans, the Romanovs, and the Samurai one (which I didn't care for).
 
And I’m here watching better call salud season finale , Russian doll season 2, grow ups (Japanese) and waiting for ozark .


(Share my account to another 3 people lol)
 

Azurro

Member
I'd argue it's one of the few reasons to have the service. South Korea, Scandinavia (if you are into those types of shows) and the occasional shows from other places like Dark (Germany) and Suburra (Italy) are the only think keeping Netflix originals from being mostly trash.

Though IMO even those are starting to suffer from Netflix continuing with their strategy of seemingly saying yes to every project and throwing a ton of shit at the wall hoping some of it sticks.

There's also some of the anime that they are funding that is actually pretty good. Not everything is trash, just the original movies.
 

jason10mm

Gold Member
As for actors playing characters of different races based upon historical figures, it doesn't bother me at all. It would be out of place in a documentary but perhaps the actors were selected because they're good actors? To me it doesn't matter. Mage, Black, Transgender, Minotaur, Thor... if it's a compelling story, I'll watch it.
You gots some low standards, my man. And folks like you (not you specifically perhaps, just ones that think like you) are often the first in line to bemoan "cultural appropriation" when someone uses part of another culture out of context or savagely critique a show about Cleopatra starring someone not Egyptian.

If the goal is color wheel casting, then don't use actual historic events, people, and settings. Vikings:Valhalla could have just been "Kingdoms at War" for all the generic shit it has with a slapdash of viking aesthetic. You can have strong female characters just using the ones we DO know about and all the awesome shit they did, none of which involved rowing a longship into battle or standing in the shield wall. Women of that period were master schemers, deal makers, and politicians with lots of rights and freedoms that all get shit on to construct a modern narrative of a "strong woman" in the one area with the LEAST historical evidence. The character moments are almost all undermined by the actual true events it is heavily based on but can't improve. Stop using Vikings if that is the intent. Make a show about the Barbary Corsairs of Tripoli or the Varangian Guard in Constantinople if you want a very cosmopolitan atmosphere and a bunch of history most folks are totally ignorant about so you can improvise at will.

Netflix. Give me a 200 million dollar production deal (that's like 1% of your 2022 production budget) and I will make you some shit that is historically accurate, multicultural, totally novel in this space, and respects both genders. You just gotta get away from the same 4 periods done over and over.
 

kurisu_1974

is on perm warning for being a low level troll
I haven't seen Cuties but what I know is that the movie does not condone what it shows, but actually is a critique on sexualization of children. That it does that by sexualizing children is probably somewhat questionable, but as I said I can't really comment on how exactly it does that because I haven't seen it, but it seems neither did most people being outraged about this. Also here in Europe I can't remember this being a big thing, outrage only started when Netflix showed it in the USA. It did make Tim Dirks's 100+ Most Controversial Films of All-Time list.

Some quotes from a movie site I use

A provoking reality check.

I get why some people may be offended, but isn't that the point? Be mad at what it presents and not for presenting it in itself. A current score of 1.9 on IMDb is embarassing.

If you wan't the world to change, you have to face how the world already is. That's what this film does about sexualitation of 11-year olds, among other things (though that part seems to steal the show in the debating of this film.)

I found it really unsetteling, and that is without any doubt a point the film makes and succeeds with.

It's a pity that the controversy distracts from the story of this film because it's a good one.

This movie is an accomplished GenZ version of Thirteen (2003), and in my opinion is not less but also not more controversial than that film in its time.
 
Last edited:

Zeroing

Banned
Not only were females generals and leaders in wars but they were also prominently featured in Norse mythology at the time. I feel like if it was good enough for them, then it ought to be good enough for a modern show about people living during that time period. I absolutely love history but none of these shows are presented as being historically accurate. Netflix also produces some great documentaries with re-enactments. Roman Empire is one of the best things they've ever done. What I wouldn't give to have another season of that.

As for actors playing characters of different races based upon historical figures, it doesn't bother me at all. It would be out of place in a documentary but perhaps the actors were selected because they're good actors? To me it doesn't matter. Mage, Black, Transgender, Minotaur, Thor... if it's a compelling story, I'll watch it.
That is true! Hollywood never done anything historical accurate! If anyone wants to watch truly historical movies they will have to turn to foreign movies or documentaries.
 

DeafTourette

Older than air but younger than the foundations of the earth
Not this argument again. Look, there are clearly female commanders, leaders, and strategists. It was often expected that the wife would manage the household/estates and settle business if the husband was away, indisposed, or whatever. But even Joan of Arc or Matilda, maybe even Boudica, Zenobia were not ACTUAL COMBATANTS, at least no primary source states it. How many representations of women in combat or female remains with combat injuries are there compared to hundred, THOUSANDS of representations of men? There are some eyewitness reports of female fighters, particularly from Romans fighting celts, but these were likely acts of tribal desperation rather than what a more 'civilized' military force, particularly one of occupation or raiding, would do. There are also reports of celtic women attacking and killing their own men who were retreating, then they killed their kids rather than see them enslaved by the romans (I'm thinking of Aquae Sextiae but I'm probably confabulating accounts).

Anyhoo, speaking for the viking era in particular, you'd think there would be ample primary source evidence for any significant numbers of women in battle, or foreigners mixed in with their units. But there isn't. Taking very rare contrary examples as justification that "it must have been common" is a fallacy. Granted, we may never know the truth as we are always looking at very selective slices of history.

But before dismissing it all, just consider if this was the next "non-documentary" fiction movie about Shaka Zulu...


or if this was how they depicted Miyamoto Mushashi at Ganryu Island...


I mean, if it is all fictional, then nothing really matters, right??

From what I know of, the all woman Dahomey warriors were the only army of their kind. They are who the Dora Milaje are based on. They were FEARED in their region of Africa!
 

JackSparr0w

Member
The actions of a a few people on a shrinking internet forum made of up aging video game nerds is not representative of a much larger sample size. You can post as many photos of pregnant Korean men as you want but 2022 Neogaf isn't 2008 Neogaf.
You'll be surprised by how anti-woke very young teens are. Remember the next generation always goes against and finds it "uncool" whatever the previous one did.

Very young teens are increasingly all about being "based" and laughing at fragile snowflakes.
 
Last edited:

DeafTourette

Older than air but younger than the foundations of the earth
We literally have people who have stated they unsubscribed due to shitty slacktivist and blatantly pedophilic content.

And? This forum is filled with cliques of like minded people... Just because group 1 unsubscribed over these things doesn't mean a majority did for the same reasons.

Also, Netflix doesn't decree "your content MUST include x, y and z to get made!" ... They literally approve almost anything as long as it'll give them original content. I don't think 6 Underground is what you'd call "woke" ... A term that's been bastardized from it's original meaning.
 

Azurro

Member
You'll be surprised by how anti-woke very young teens are. Remember the next generation always goes against and finds it "uncool" whatever the previous one did.

Very young teens are increasingly all about being "based" and laughing at fragile snowflakes.

That's why some activists are trying to groom young children with their agenda and you see teachers teaching them about trans, lgbt and gender theory and why they are so angry with that Florida bill. In any case, we are bound to see a lot of very resented young adults in the next 10 years against their parents due to them pushing them to become trans or lgbt when young and doing a lot of damage to their bodies.
 

jason10mm

Gold Member
From what I know of, the all woman Dahomey warriors were the only army of their kind. They are who the Dora Milaje are based on. They were FEARED in their region of Africa!
I have no doubt women can fight. I have no doubt there were all female military units. But such units were acts of desperation due to lack of men or were mostly propaganda units (like the Dahomey or that Lybian all female bodyguard unit). But the undeniable reality is that such units were extremely rare, their combat prowess largely unknown or found lacking when encountering real opposition, and are mostly tool of oppression or PR. Heck, those Dahomey amazons seemed mostly to conduct raids for slaves, hope that makes it into their movie. There is a gulf of difference between leading military units and actually fighting in them.
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
The actions of a a few people on a shrinking internet forum made of up aging video game nerds is not representative of a much larger sample size. You can post as many photos of pregnant Korean men as you want but 2022 Neogaf isn't 2008 Neogaf.

Bye Bye, cunt.

And? This forum is filled with cliques of like minded people... Just because group 1 unsubscribed over these things doesn't mean a majority did for the same reasons.

Also, Netflix doesn't decree "your content MUST include x, y and z to get made!" ... They literally approve almost anything as long as it'll give them original content. I don't think 6 Underground is what you'd call "woke" ... A term that's been bastardized from it's original meaning.

No where did I state it was the *majority* reason. Just that it *was* a reason when someone claimed it wasn't. I would suggest you work on your reading comprehension.
 

Jaybe

Member
I haven't seen Cuties but what I know is that the movie does not condone what it shows, but actually is a critique on sexualization of children. That it does that by sexualizing children is probably somewhat questionable, but as I said I can't really comment on how exactly it does that because I haven't seen it, but it seems neither did most people being outraged about this. Also here in Europe I can't remember this being a big thing, outrage only started when Netflix showed it in the USA. It did make Tim Dirks's 100+ Most Controversial Films of All-Time list.

Some quotes from a movie site I use

Netflix messed up with the US promotion of the movie. Here is the original French poster versus what Netflix put out. Rather bad judgment. Even the director was surprised. I could really care less but as a business call, they had to know they were inviting criticism from certain groups of people and perhaps Netflix doesn’t see those people as customers or didn’t anticipate it as a lightning rod. Either way, it was a dumb unforced error in their part.

 
Go to any other website and see the reasons that non-gamers are giving for cancelling Netflix. Hell, go read the heavily curated comments section on website likes the BBC. Most upvoted comments are about either cancelling if password sharing is blocked, or they have cancelled due to 'woke' shows and overt politics.

When the general consensus of feedback is "I'm cancelling because of woke shite", it's probably a good idea to list that as the main reason. Or ignore it and lose 40 million subscribers.
 

Wildebeest

Member
Anyhoo, speaking for the viking era in particular, you'd think there would be ample primary source evidence for any significant numbers of women in battle, or foreigners mixed in with their units. But there isn't. Taking very rare contrary examples as justification that "it must have been common" is a fallacy. Granted, we may never know the truth as we are always looking at very selective slices of history.
I'm reliably informed that sagas are full of stories of female warriors. I don't know what more you want. Photographic evidence?
 

Reallink

Member
The real reasons are the price (shit's $20 now), covid bubble pop, and lack of watercooler phenomenon properties. The critical mass aggregate population doesn't care about woke quotas or Dance Moms movies. Amazon and Disney have even more public and extreme DEI initiatives than Netflix and their subscriber bases are growing at record levels. Even the people that complain about it online just roll their eyes and pay their $8 or $15.
 
Last edited:

MrMephistoX

Member
The real reasons are the price (shit's $20 now), covid bubble pop, and lack of watercooler phenomenon properties. The critical mass population at large doesn't care about woke quotas or Dance Moms movies.
That’s the funny thing I’ve heard so many reports on CNN, NPR FOX and elsewhere speculating on why subs are down and not one of them mentioned the price hike at a time when the content quality is in steep decline from like 2015.

The FOX crowd blames wokeness, CNN cited lack of diverse casting and Chapelle it’s like everyone is out of touch. The main issue is the price is higher and the selection is worse than it used to be because every media company decided to yank content and put it on their own platform so all Netflix has left is orginal content and some reruns that will eventually expire. The Marvel stuff like Daredevil and Punisher was great but now it’s on D+
 
Last edited:

jason10mm

Gold Member
I'm reliably informed that sagas are full of stories of female warriors. I don't know what more you want. Photographic evidence?
Sure, why not? There are numerous artistic representations of battles from eye witnesses, or at least when eye witnesses were alive to contradict any inaccuracies, as well as written descriptions. Not to mention weapons and armor, tombstones and graves, as well as the general progression of military tactics throughout time. At what point was there stuff for women warriors that got almost entirelly erased from history? No depictions of them in battle really, the few good eye witness reports we do have generally have them leading the force, staying with the goods in the back, or more of a tribal society where there is really no distinction between a shepard or hunter or warrior because folks are whatever they need to be for survival.

We have some REALLY good descriptions of some societies, like Greeks and Romans, with precious few to no female combatants. They describe their foes including women at times, but again it is basically like attacking an entire village with everyone mounting a defense (usually unsuccessfully), not really a case of an invading army of professional warriors having women in the combat line. If 20-30% of norsemen on raids were women as a regular thing, you'd think the reports by monks, mayors, and kings would have been pretty explicit about it and the archeological evidence for their existence would be overwhelming. But it is not, the tangible physical evidence is scant to say the least that ANY women participated in a battle, and by the time we get to extremely well documented civilizations with very accurate soldier accounts, guess what, somehow it became EXCLUSIVELY men, barring examples so scarse and rareof women in combat that they can practically all be counted on a single hand. So either women in combat is a practice only of barbarians, an act of absolute desperation in defense of life and home, or such a unique occurance that it highlights how truely rare it really is.

I wouldn't necessarily take oral stories, transcribed at the end of their development primarily by folks of a different religion, to indicate what actual life is like. I don't base my ability to cross rivers on Moses parting the red sea for example. I enjoy the norse sagas quite a bit but there is a lot of straight up myth in there, since I doubt there were a lot of magic swords, giants, and dragons running around in the 800's either. I think the intent of the females showing prowess at arms is because when the men were away, IT WAS the women who had to defend the homestead and those poeple very much valued that level of competence. So I don't deny that women learned some skill with some weapons, and I'm sure there were some bruiser chicks out there that could drag a plow, wrestle with the best of them, or hold the shield wall.

But IMHO shows that are turning norse women into viking men just with a long braid and ignoring all the roles WE KNOW they did, are doing a disservice to how socially advanced the norse really were and what parts the women did play. You can easily write many scenes of women exerting their dominance and power in the spheres we know they operated in throughout history without also having to throw them into battle. Instead you have women fighting on the front line like it is a normal thing but then men are all "huh whaaaaaaaa?" at the idea that a woman could be in charge of a kingdom and leading the organization of the defense when we KNOW that the exact opposite was true for this era. It's panderig to "modern sensibilties" and giving a big F YOU to the actual people the show is based on.

We should all demand better.
 

Billbofet

Gold Member
I dropped Netflix a while back as they kept hiking the price and wanted more for 4k content.
Then when you start to realize how absolutely superior all other services are - and most are cheaper, it was an easy plug to pull.

Two days later my mom called and asked why she can't watch Longmire anymore. I told her I unsubbed, so she subbed, and I have had free Netflix since. If they start to enforce and charge for this, I can't imagine either one of us will keep the service.

They also tend to ruin shows that are good - like Mindhunter (quickest turn in quality of a show I have ever experienced), or stretch a mildly interesting show out to eternity like Stranger Things.
Their original movies are rarely even average. That said, I highly recommend Apollo 10 1/2.

What they should do is instead of offering discs, work out some digital way to stream those new release dvd/bluray movies on the service. Like a digital rental, you can watch it, then you have two days to finish, then maybe you have to wait 30 days or so to view again.
Just spitballing ideas for them, but what they have to offer right now won't sustain them for long with the competition making big moves while they make another fucking cooking show with some C-tier celebrity touring Italy.
 

Wildebeest

Member
Sure, why not? There are numerous artistic representations of battles from eye witnesses, or at least when eye witnesses were alive to contradict any inaccuracies, as well as written descriptions. Not to mention weapons and armor, tombstones and graves, as well as the general progression of military tactics throughout time. At what point was there stuff for women warriors that got almost entirelly erased from history? No depictions of them in battle really, the few good eye witness reports we do have generally have them leading the force, staying with the goods in the back, or more of a tribal society where there is really no distinction between a shepard or hunter or warrior because folks are whatever they need to be for survival.

We have some REALLY good descriptions of some societies, like Greeks and Romans, with precious few to no female combatants. They describe their foes including women at times, but again it is basically like attacking an entire village with everyone mounting a defense (usually unsuccessfully), not really a case of an invading army of professional warriors having women in the combat line. If 20-30% of norsemen on raids were women as a regular thing, you'd think the reports by monks, mayors, and kings would have been pretty explicit about it and the archeological evidence for their existence would be overwhelming. But it is not, the tangible physical evidence is scant to say the least that ANY women participated in a battle, and by the time we get to extremely well documented civilizations with very accurate soldier accounts, guess what, somehow it became EXCLUSIVELY men, barring examples so scarse and rareof women in combat that they can practically all be counted on a single hand. So either women in combat is a practice only of barbarians, an act of absolute desperation in defense of life and home, or such a unique occurance that it highlights how truely rare it really is.

I wouldn't necessarily take oral stories, transcribed at the end of their development primarily by folks of a different religion, to indicate what actual life is like. I don't base my ability to cross rivers on Moses parting the red sea for example. I enjoy the norse sagas quite a bit but there is a lot of straight up myth in there, since I doubt there were a lot of magic swords, giants, and dragons running around in the 800's either. I think the intent of the females showing prowess at arms is because when the men were away, IT WAS the women who had to defend the homestead and those poeple very much valued that level of competence. So I don't deny that women learned some skill with some weapons, and I'm sure there were some bruiser chicks out there that could drag a plow, wrestle with the best of them, or hold the shield wall.

But IMHO shows that are turning norse women into viking men just with a long braid and ignoring all the roles WE KNOW they did, are doing a disservice to how socially advanced the norse really were and what parts the women did play. You can easily write many scenes of women exerting their dominance and power in the spheres we know they operated in throughout history without also having to throw them into battle. Instead you have women fighting on the front line like it is a normal thing but then men are all "huh whaaaaaaaa?" at the idea that a woman could be in charge of a kingdom and leading the organization of the defense when we KNOW that the exact opposite was true for this era. It's panderig to "modern sensibilties" and giving a big F YOU to the actual people the show is based on.

We should all demand better.
You are simply not going to get detailed paintings surviving as artefacts from pre-Christian Northern Europe. As for graves and grave goods, it is actually not that easy for them to identify which remains are male or female. They might identify a burial as male or female simply based on the status or what grave goods it was buried with. You see the problem here? If you say that if a grave has a shield it is male, therefore there is no strong evidence of female "warrior" like graves. Male becomes an autocorrelation of burial has armaments. Despite that, there are reports of "warrior" burials which have been reclassified as female. It is not settled.

Greek and Roman culture is what became dominant and is what came to dominate European understanding. They do not represent an honest monoculture of the ancient world, but it is here where you hear stories of "Amazon women" from the Greeks. They told those stories as a way of glorifying their "masculine" ideals of battle by glorifying their ancient victory over an army containing evil "man killing" women. These stories were such sketchy propagandist myths that it is not clear if those female armies actually existed, if those victories existed, if there was any battle, or whatever. But they do partly set the tone in the west of thinking that women being involved in war is some crazy nonsense or just plain evil and barbaric. Such that you should persecute any signs of it and consider historical reporting of it in your nation as shameful.

We should demand better than assuming all history and all of its different people are all the same thing. Pre-Christian Northern Europe was a very rough place. If a woman is born into a high status "free" family that owned slaves, then I can certainly imagine situations where she sees a strong need to be able to use force to defend what she has. One thing is I think we can also glorify too much the concept of "war movie" that we see in media too much and forget more frontier "cowboy movie" type situations which might be the more regular reality of being a capable fighter in this sort of time and place. More True Grit than Saving Private Ryan.
 
Last edited:

jason10mm

Gold Member
You are simply not going to get detailed paintings surviving as artefacts from pre-Christian Northern Europe. As for graves and grave goods, it is actually not that easy for them to identify which remains are male or female. They might identify a burial as male or female simply based on the status or what grave goods it was buried with. You see the problem here? If you say that if a grave has a shield it is male, therefore there is no strong evidence of female "warrior" like graves. Male becomes an autocorrelation of burial has armaments. Despite that, there are reports of "warrior" burials which have been reclassified as female. It is not settled.
But they have skeletal remain analysis for gender determination as well as DNA analysis (now), plus they often know who was buried there. So I don't think you can eliminate virtually EVERY grave as just a guess to the gender. And they have found mixed gender mass graves with evidence of violent injury, I take this to represent a village put to death rather than evidence that men and woman fought shoulder to shoulder away from home.
Greek and Roman culture is what became dominant and is what came to dominate European understanding. They do not represent an honest monoculture of the ancient world, but it is here where you hear stories of "Amazon women" from the Greeks. They told those stories as a way of glorifying their "masculine" ideals of battle by glorifying their ancient victory over an army containing evil "man killing" women. These stories were such sketchy propagandist myths that it is not clear if those female armies actually existed, if those victories existed, if there was any battle, or whatever. But they do partly set the tone in the west of thinking that women being involved in war is some crazy nonsense or just plain evil and barbaric. Such that you should persecute any signs of it and consider historical reporting of it in your nation as shameful.
But if women standing next to men was so common throughout the world EXCEPT the Greeks (and they just so happen to the be one good documenting source we have left [narrator:they are not]) then you'd think inventing an amazon army wouldn't be necessary. But we know the Assyrians, the Egyptians, probably the Babylonians, none of these cultures seemed to have much, if any, remaining evidence of women routinely (or hardly ever, really) in combat. Were there some sling wielding women with the Greeks or Romans? Perhaps, but there must have been so few no contemporary author, sculptor, or mosaic depicts them. It just wasn't a thing and no amount of wish fullfillment is gonna magic up the evidence that there were hordes of women engaged in mass combat across the world in any era.
We should demand better than assuming all history and all of its different people are all the same thing. Pre-Christian Northern Europe was a very rough place. If a woman is born into a high status "free" family that owned slaves, then I can certainly imagine situations where she sees a strong need to be able to use force to defend what she has. One thing is I think we can also glorify too much the concept of "war movie" that we see in media too much and forget more frontier "cowboy movie" type situations which might be the more regular reality of being a capable fighter in this sort of time and place. More True Grit than Saving Private Ryan.
I agree with you here, gonna do that, then have the balls to make the casting, costumes, and script reflect what we know of those periods. Otherwise just option a YA fantasy or invent your own.

Next you are gonna tell me that the 82nd Airborne Division jumped into Normandy with 30% female soldiers because there are records of 1 woman who passed jump school in WW2 [narrator: there weren't until decades later]. It just isn't true and making a movie with that stuff in it devalues the actual sacrifice of all the men who were there (IMHO).
 

Hari Seldon

Gold Member
I have never understood why netflix is held up as a FANG company. They barely have any tech at all compared to the other companies. And MS is not even part of that lmao.
 
Last edited:

Wildebeest

Member
But they have skeletal remain analysis for gender determination as well as DNA analysis (now), plus they often know who was buried there. So I don't think you can eliminate virtually EVERY grave as just a guess to the gender. And they have found mixed gender mass graves with evidence of violent injury, I take this to represent a village put to death rather than evidence that men and woman fought shoulder to shoulder away from home.

But if women standing next to men was so common throughout the world EXCEPT the Greeks (and they just so happen to the be one good documenting source we have left [narrator:they are not]) then you'd think inventing an amazon army wouldn't be necessary. But we know the Assyrians, the Egyptians, probably the Babylonians, none of these cultures seemed to have much, if any, remaining evidence of women routinely (or hardly ever, really) in combat. Were there some sling wielding women with the Greeks or Romans? Perhaps, but there must have been so few no contemporary author, sculptor, or mosaic depicts them. It just wasn't a thing and no amount of wish fullfillment is gonna magic up the evidence that there were hordes of women engaged in mass combat across the world in any era.

I agree with you here, gonna do that, then have the balls to make the casting, costumes, and script reflect what we know of those periods. Otherwise just option a YA fantasy or invent your own.

Next you are gonna tell me that the 82nd Airborne Division jumped into Normandy with 30% female soldiers because there are records of 1 woman who passed jump school in WW2 [narrator: there weren't until decades later]. It just isn't true and making a movie with that stuff in it devalues the actual sacrifice of all the men who were there (IMHO).

1. Not as easy as you think. There are some doubts about the most famously well-preserved body of all time, king tut, because the hips are so wide on the skeleton. Was it inbreeding or misclassification or what?

2. The best guess is that the Greeks were talking about horse warriors from Scythia (Ukraine/S Russia area), not another Mediterranean culture.

3. Pop culture media is very often not going to reflect anything like the best knowledge, a lot of which is not much better than guesswork anyway. Yes we have documents about who was in US regiments, but not all history is like that and war films often completely change everything anyway to tell what they think is a more marketable story. Always have done. An interesting example of things staying somewhat realistic while not being what you typically expect from a war film, though, is the sniper scene from Full Metal Jacket.
 

3liteDragon

Member
  • Mindhunter season 1: compelling show with great story and characters, instant hit
  • Mindhunter season 2: almost nothing that made season 1 great remains (after first few episodes), replaced with forced LGBT romance that takes up huge percentage of runtime and poorly fitting social justice storyline
Netflix cancels Mindhunter, citing low watch numbers for season 2

  • Altered Carbon season 1: compelling show with great story and characters, instant hit
  • Altered Carbon season 2: showrunner Laeta Kalogridis fired and replaced with incompetent activist, writing team and cast also replaced, politically sanitized across every relevant dimension, now has zero redeeming qualities
Netflix cancels Altered Carbon, citing low watch numbers for season 2


:messenger_expressionless:
God I hope we get a season 3 of Mindhunter. Why was it even put on hold in the first place?
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
Netflix has confirmed they are adding adverts within the next 24 months.

I’ve got access to iPlayer, All4, 5od, ITV Hub and Youtube for free in the UK and Now TV/Prime and Disney have all surpassed Netflix in quality for a cheaper price. They going down.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Netflix has confirmed they are adding adverts within the next 24 months.

I’ve got access to iPlayer, All4, 5od, ITV Hub and Youtube for free in the UK and Now TV/Prime and Disney have all surpassed Netflix in quality for a cheaper price. They going down.
I missed that.

Googling it, here's a good quick article talking about streaming services and ads.

 
Adverts, increased price, no password sharing, reduced quality of shows, all when Kodi/Firestick and downloads are easier than ever before?

Someone is getting paid to short the stock or is smoking Bob Marleyian strength drugs.
 

DragoonKain

Neighbours from Hell
The only streaming services I’m currently subscribed to are HBO Max and Apple TV and that’s only because I got a free year when buying Apple TV. I don’t have Netflix or Disney plus anymore. Don’t really need them with torrents honestly. But I do password share someone else’s Netflix, I guess that’ll be coming to an end. Will just torrent the series. Netflix has some good stuff, but it’s extremely watered down. I think the best things they do is every once in a while a really awesome documentary will pop up and I love documentaries.
 
Last edited:

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
God I hope we get a season 3 of Mindhunter. Why was it even put on hold in the first place?
Season 2 watcher count wasn't high enough to justify the production costs, in Netflix's eyes. Fincher also mentioned that he was getting burnt out, but that didn't have a direct bearing on the cancellation ("indefinite hold" with everyone released from contract), afaik.
 

sol_bad

Member
Go to any other website and see the reasons that non-gamers are giving for cancelling Netflix. Hell, go read the heavily curated comments section on website likes the BBC. Most upvoted comments are about either cancelling if password sharing is blocked, or they have cancelled due to 'woke' shows and overt politics.

When the general consensus of feedback is "I'm cancelling because of woke shite", it's probably a good idea to list that as the main reason. Or ignore it and lose 40 million subscribers.

How many comments are there like this? Is it a number close to 200,000? I doubt it.
Therefore, no, you can't use few random forums or BBC as proof of a majority reason for cancelling.
 
Top Bottom