Bold, italic, and underlined; this is the simple answer, right here. I agree 100% with this - if all things carry the same message, themes, structure, and overall feel, nothing is unique, and nothing has flavor. Another post I quoted had a similar take, where they used the top-ten grossing films in a certain period to point out just how different the productions were from one-another. Where we used to have a spectrum of colors, today's entertainment is often written and produced into a beige sludge. 

This is the precise issue I take with modern entertainment; everyone injects the same ingredients, baking time is the only difference, and perhaps some sprinkles. In a twist of irony as hilarious as it is tragic, the chase for diversity has led us into the least diverse period of entertainment in a very long time (in idea, opinion, endeavor, vision, and messaging, not sexuality or ethnicity). One can only hope that the creative industries manage to tie together the latter part within the parentheses with more dynamic and organic versions of the points before it. If we get to a place where hyper-capitalizing on messaging and any form of grandstanding is no longer seen as the main objective, there's still hope, and all involved parties will be better off for it.

You could almost say it lacks "diversity".

Problem is, this is much harder to accomplish. Creating new IP and having it end up popular and a big deal is much easier said than done at any time. Far worse, if your group, that you usually hire from, isn't as creative as they used to be, or is practically 'bankrupt' creatively, especially if they're all in line with "a new message" needed to be spread, to accomplish "a new goal".

It's much easier to take what's already popular, and try to inject new theme's and idea's, etc, into them instead. Best case scenario, it works. Worst case scenario, the industry burns to the ground, which isn't a problem, because it was supposedly a "problem" to begin with and needed to be "changed" in some manner anyway. Usually you should assume stupidity instead of wrongdoing, but sometimes it's not always stupidity.

At the same time, I think some people on this thread are over-estimating how widespread the appeal of this kind of storytelling actually is, and under-estimating the sophistication of audiences.

Let's look at the James Bond series, which is arguably the stereotypical male-focused franchise. Bond girls have a reputation for just being there to look hot in a bikini and get saved by Mr. Bond in the climax. Yet if you look at fan polls ranking the Bond girls, a pretty clear pattern emerges - the top of the list is dominated by the ones who are shown to be capable in their own right and can hold their own with Bond in the action sequences, while the bottom (once you get past Denise Richards in The World Is Not Enough, which was a case of a character just misfiring on every possible level) is filled by the ones who serve the traditional "damsel in distress" role and add nothing to the plot beyond just being there to look pretty and be saved. Heck, Lea Seydoux managed to turn around from being one of the worst-regarded Bond girls in Spectre to one of the best-regarded ones in No Time To Die, precisely because the latter portrayed her as more than just a pretty face who needed to be saved by the hero.

Or, let's take another example, the Michael Bay Transformers movies. They were arguably the last major Hollywood franchise to be completely and unashamedly aimed at men, but guess who complained about the series the most? Men, because they could tell that Bay was treating them like drooling idiots who weren't capable of doing anything more than looking at explosions and hot chicks. And he might have gotten away with that approach for a while, but guys eventually got tired of being taken for granted and turned away from the series.

ok, so then show me any evidence that the women in that field are the top tier. Because when I look up lists of the most famous architects or "the best architects" it's all dudes except Jeanne Gang. Why would it be that women aren't known for or flock to this field that naturally they should be so much better at? 

The issue is who decides what makes the most sense and how accurate are they. I imagine that there are so few female architects because it's been thought of as dude's work even though they seem like they'd naturally be better at it. Think of all the amazing architects who never even considered the field because society pushed them away. Similarly how many Francis Arnold's would we have in Chemistry that were lost to being housewives back in the 30's and before? Allowing people to pursue what they want as a career is the easiest way to try to naturally sort people into the best positions, because the question is too granular to say "most architects should probably be women because they care more about how people are impacted by building design". 

The Fast and the Furious is another example like what you've mentioned. My friends, especially those who are hardcore into (tuner) cars, used to love the franchise, and now can't stand it, because the cars aren't treated the same, the seriousness of the plot is less believable, and the core focus and message is now all about family and not the cars. Most of us haven't seen the last 3 or 4 films and don't care.

Now how much of this is also due to, "too much of the same"? Any type of entertainment that doesn't have enough diversity or breathing room is going to eventually become more boring and dull.

It's why you don't have Bond movies every single year. Same reason why Hollywood doesn't just pick 1 superhero character and make different movies about them every year. Too much is a problem. Too much, too fast, is a bigger problem.

How many woman aren't getting the credit they're due? Has that been a problem across the globe? How many buildings are laid out really well internally and look great, inside and out? Could they have looked better if woman had done the work? Do those famous men actually do good work, or are there other reasons for their fame?

You keep putting me in the category of men and woman can only do this or that, when that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying it's one thing to allow men and woman to try new things as they like. It's another to push for them to do so. The same people who don't like how men and woman were pushed into positions in the past, are trying to push them into fields now.

Let them try, and if they can cut it, then there's no problem with them doing it, but don't lower standards for anyone just so they can have the position. And if you're going to try to use Hollywood to get the message out that everyone's allowed to do anything, make sure they understand they have to be able to meet the requirements, and don't take a male franchise and change it to female. Making men look like idiot's in those male franchises, so woman can overcome them, should be seen as insulting and not empowerment. Same with Rey Skywalker, being able to just be impossibly amazing, just because she is, should be insulting, and is a terrible message for females rising to the occasion. Make new IP, movies and shows, and write the story so men are dominant in some way, but then through hard work, determination, intelligence, etc, the woman, are able to match or exceed the men. Don't put one person down to lift another person up. It's liberalism 101 for heavens sake.

We don't like how they were not allowed into fields in the past. So now we encourage people to know it's an option. You can't have hundreds of years of pigeon holing people based on gender and assume that if you stop everything will be even and you can ignore it. We're encouraging people to go outside the previous societal norms, but noone is being forced like the situation was in the past. 

Apologies for not getting this into the topic of Star Wars but I just couldn't possibly care less about that facet of this. 

We, don't like how they, have been dealing with that problem. That's part of the reason for this Disney situation and the thread.

We, the majority of us anyway, aren't disagreeing with them as to the goal. We are disagreeing as to the measures being used and applied for the fix.

We, also don't want what's coming, if that's not understood and straightened out, because it's just going to be another false "racist" slur situation, where the word and cause behind it get's ignored because it's constantly being applied incorrectly and in a manner that could very well set it back.

We, are not the enemy. We just want to be heard, and most importantly, actually understood. And if not, then left alone, in peace.

You agree with the idea of encouraging marginalized communities to go into careers that they previously were unable or at least heavily societally discouraged? Because honestly based on all your "the giver-esque, we should encourage people do what they do best versus what they would want to do" shit and your confidence that you can basically figure out who would be best for a job based on gender and sexuality it really sounded like you don't agree with that concept. 

If that's the case and all you disagree with is how Disney's making movies then I don't give a shit and you can just move on to continuing to talk about how Rey is a Mary Sue. 

I guess out of curiosity, what were your thoughts on fantastic four? because it seems like it should be right in the wheelhouse of those with these concerns with the happy family of a newborn pronatalism stuff going on. 

Who said I, or anyone, are supposed to pre select people for job positions? I just said I prefer to live in a place where I have options. If there are people who like what they do but aren't good at it, then I want someone who is good if not great at it, no matter if they like the job itself or not. If I can have both obviously that would be ideal, but I also know that's not typically how the world works and is more of a rarity.

We don't want borderline good enough most of the time, and we certainly don't want everyone becoming an extreme sports athlete or Hollywood star, or YouTube personality or influencer, etc, just because that's what they like. Many more Doctors, engineers, tradesmen, etc, wouldn't just be more useful, but are flat out needed, whether enough people like those positions or not.

Now if you and others like you, don't care at all, and are willing to accept whatever the outcome, even if that's inefficiency and mediocrity for the most part, that's fine with me and people like me, just don't try to force that on us. Whether or not that's the outcome, who knows? Maybe it will lead to a better system overall, but then prove it first somewhere where only fewer pay for a failure if it occurs, not everyone everywhere. If you are right and it works much better, then it will be pretty easy to get everyone else for the most part to follow suit.

Until then, people like me think the system we have is pretty good for the most part, but like most things, has room for well thought out improvement, incrementally. Just let everyone do whatever role they like, everywhere, starting now, isn't well thought out.

I haven't seen the new F4 film yet.