|
|
Post by Crow Dust on Aug 6, 2016 3:12:40 GMT -5
Casting and the related story/character like if they decided ok Machine Gun Kelly is Ferris Buller and now instead of being a pretty friendly teenager who is mostly trying to just have fun now he's an angry tattoo loving Swearing d-bag with no character development then they try to coast off the name when they could have just made him his own movie with a different title not just tried to use an already established story/premise. Yeah basically. Would that make you just as angry/more angry/less angry than an instance of "forced diversity" like GB 2016? About the same i just kinda look at it like the same thing bad casting/bad story but like i said i actually found the film pretty good i walked in wanting to dislike it but i thought it was ok i just didn't like the fact that instead of trying to build a good or great movie it was all female main actors when there were likely other male actors that would have been better than some of the actresses and could have accentuated the better actresses and the actresses could have done them in turn and i hate doing things just to do them instead of thinking it out and trying to write the best for things. And i don't get how a badly written forced character change or reboot helps anyone just seems lazy and quantity over quality. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2016 3:20:13 GMT -5
Yeah basically. Would that make you just as angry/more angry/less angry than an instance of "forced diversity" like GB 2016? About the same i just kinda look at it like the same thing bad casting/bad story but like i said i actually found the film pretty good i walked in wanting to dislike it but i thought it was ok i just didn't like the fact that instead of trying to build a good or great movie it was all female main actors when there were likely other male actors that would have been better than some of the actresses and could have accentuated the better actresses and the actresses could have done them in turn and i hate doing things just to do them instead of thinking it out and trying to write the best for things. And i don't get how a badly written forced character change or reboot helps anyone just seems lazy and quantity over quality. I mean, and maybe it's just how I'm reading your responses - the problem, or at least the ROOT of the problem is not so much "forced diversity" as it is simply just bad casting/lazy writing in general. Don't get me wrong, I understand that to you, forced diversity can be a result or motivator of bad casting, but that kind of lazy, cash-grabby casting overall seems to be the real issue. As it happens regardless of race/gender very often with these kinds of movies. |
|
the2ndevil
Grimlock
Super Seducer Survivor
Where Is Your Santa, Now?
Posts: 13,635
|
Post by the2ndevil on Aug 6, 2016 10:11:28 GMT -5
So when people ask me how do you feel about how your race is treated in movies I don't know what to say to them. I hope I'm not being out of line, but as written, this comes across as you being treated like you're not human. |
|
Shai
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,507 
|
Post by Shai on Aug 6, 2016 10:22:05 GMT -5
So when people ask me how do you feel about how your race is treated in movies I don't know what to say to them. I hope I'm not being out of line, but as written, this comes across as you being treated like you're not human. I don't know how else to say it. Black kids always treated me badly and told me I wasn't really black because I have a white mom and dad. It's something I've spent a lot of time in therapy for. My therapist likened it to being transgender except for me I feel like my race doesn't match and like being transgender it's not something that shows on the outside. I literally feel like I was born the wrong race. I don't usually say anything about it because people don't know how to react to hearing something like that. Like for example when I was about 5 I had an older black woman in a store tell me my Daddy wasn't my Daddy because he was white. I've had people think my Grandfather was kidnapping me and call the police. |
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847 
|
Post by Reflecto on Aug 6, 2016 15:35:17 GMT -5
About the same i just kinda look at it like the same thing bad casting/bad story but like i said i actually found the film pretty good i walked in wanting to dislike it but i thought it was ok i just didn't like the fact that instead of trying to build a good or great movie it was all female main actors when there were likely other male actors that would have been better than some of the actresses and could have accentuated the better actresses and the actresses could have done them in turn and i hate doing things just to do them instead of thinking it out and trying to write the best for things. And i don't get how a badly written forced character change or reboot helps anyone just seems lazy and quantity over quality. I mean, and maybe it's just how I'm reading your responses - the problem, or at least the ROOT of the problem is not so much "forced diversity" as it is simply just bad casting/lazy writing in general. Don't get me wrong, I understand that to you, forced diversity can be a result or motivator of bad casting, but that kind of lazy, cash-grabby casting overall seems to be the real issue. As it happens regardless of race/gender very often with these kinds of movies. That really does tie to the other side, because bad casting does not necessarily mean "race/gender" as much as possible. Fantastic Four was one good example- maybe Michael B. Jordan's casting as the Human Torch was controversial- but then when the movie came out, he was the only good thing about that movie and the one member of the team who actually felt like he could stand to be in the same room as the other three 'team members' and they could stand to be in the same room as him (and no matter what group the people is in: If you are writing the Fantastic Four, and they don't seem like a family unit and have a deep bond with each other, YOU FAILED AT WRITING THE FANTASTIC FOUR. Period.) By the same token, you also have GB2016- where the James Rolfe comments were also proof that even if there was a lot of people angry it was an all-woman cast, there was ALSO a non-zero portion of the people who were angry about that casting where even if the races were the same, they still would not be happy unless the cast was Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson, and Sony doing like in "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" by making a CGI-ghost built around unused footage of Harold Ramis. |
|
wisdomwizard
King Koopa
Too Salty
Watching you.
Posts: 11,087
|
Post by wisdomwizard on Aug 6, 2016 17:46:49 GMT -5
One good point that Lady Shai brought up, is that there are plenty of people out there who don't fully relate to people like them. Even whites like myself can relate more with guys like Blade, or Static or any character Sam Jackson plays. Static is even more an ordinary kid than Spider-Man, and his rise from getting his footing in being a hero to being an accomplished superhero that we ultimately saw him as in Justice League was great journey that let everyone identify with him in his cartoon along the way. Yes it is. Either way, you're risking alienating people when there is a better alternative. You're wrong. No, I'm not. Try again. You're wrong for a multitude of reasons that can't even be discussed fully without violating the board rules. As I don't want to put this thread on a slippery slope I'm not going off-topic.  |
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Aug 6, 2016 20:21:26 GMT -5
One good point that Lady Shai brought up, is that there are plenty of people out there who don't fully relate to people like them. Even whites like myself can relate more with guys like Blade, or Static or any character Sam Jackson plays. Static is even more an ordinary kid than Spider-Man, and his rise from getting his footing in being a hero to being an accomplished superhero that we ultimately saw him as in Justice League was great journey that let everyone identify with him in his cartoon along the way. You're wrong for a multitude of reasons that can't even be discussed fully without violating the board rules. As I don't want to put this thread on a slippery slope I'm not going off-topic. No, we're within the rules and on-topic. People "getting upset with changes" is not a reason not to do something. It's a reason for those people to grow up. To equate whitewashing with "blackwashing" (read: not a thing) betrays a lack of appreciation for historical context and for current reality, and a willful ignoring of sociology. If one day a movie is made where Superman is black, it will have no impact whatsoever on us as white people; if we want a white hero to glomp onto that badly, then Batman, most of the Green Lanterns, Captain America, Spider-Man (Parker edition), Iron Man, Flash, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. will all be there for us. To deny a minority audience a character to more easily relate to does exponentially more potential harm. There is no argument on this. Go ahead and argue the artistic merits of an ethnicity/gender/whatever change, but don't pretend to equate two concepts when one of them has been made up whole cloth. It's wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Aug 6, 2016 20:22:26 GMT -5
I'm curious of some examples in recent memory that you feel are characters that are "forced diversity." Preferably in film, my TV watching game has been weak lately. Ghostbusters was one for me instead of trying to actually make the best possible thing it was GIRL POWER!!! instead of a team of equal men and women we got an average film i wont call it bad because it was actually ok i just hated the idea and still do of purposefully making it all women instead of trying to find the best actresses and actors and try to make something close to the originals. Counter to Ghostbuster i thought Star Wars was great and presented strong characters like Rey and Finn same with Mad Max with Furiosa who was a great Character And by no means is white washing a good thing either it's just the reverse and it stinks as well Prince Of Persia, Avatar, i wont say anything on Gods Of Egypt though since i don't believe i could fathom what a god would look like anyway though i am displeased at the severe lack of dog headed people Gotta be honest; finally saw Ghostbusters last week, and I don't see where the "Girl Power" angle was outside of one line during the credits. |
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 48,025
|
Post by Dub H on Aug 6, 2016 20:37:16 GMT -5
Ghostbusters was one for me instead of trying to actually make the best possible thing it was GIRL POWER!!! instead of a team of equal men and women we got an average film i wont call it bad because it was actually ok i just hated the idea and still do of purposefully making it all women instead of trying to find the best actresses and actors and try to make something close to the originals. Counter to Ghostbuster i thought Star Wars was great and presented strong characters like Rey and Finn same with Mad Max with Furiosa who was a great Character And by no means is white washing a good thing either it's just the reverse and it stinks as well Prince Of Persia, Avatar, i wont say anything on Gods Of Egypt though since i don't believe i could fathom what a god would look like anyway though i am displeased at the severe lack of dog headed people Gotta be honest; finally saw Ghostbusters last week, and I don't see where the "Girl Power" angle was outside of one line during the credits. I didnt see it,and not even saying i agree.But from what i read it stems of from of course 1- all girls team and marketing 2- All Male characters are assholes or dumbasses 3- They defeat the final ghost by shooting it on the dick |
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Aug 6, 2016 20:48:13 GMT -5
I find the whole thing...odd. I don't mind a "recasting" or "reimagining" of a premise (like Fried Green Tomatoes with an all black cast) because you can still tell a compelling story. But the thing is, a reimagining has to be compelling, it has to be done well, or else it comes across as just hack writing for the sake of hack writing.
Like karate Kid remake with Will Smith's kid. OK, they kept the title, except the kid DIDN'T even learn karate. It's like they said "Well, the idea is kinda cool, so let's just use the title, call it a remake with an "updated cast" and we dont' have to even try to remotely do anything with the source material".
People freaked because "oh no, karate kid is black" when the logical response should have been, "Damn it, they couldn't even have the kid l earn karate, hence the title of the f***ing movie, those lazy douche canoes". The former is narrow and shrot-sighted. The latter has merit based on "why are you ruining movies by being lazy".
|
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 48,025
|
Post by Dub H on Aug 6, 2016 21:05:18 GMT -5
I find the whole thing...odd. I don't mind a "recasting" or "reimagining" of a premise (like Fried Green Tomatoes with an all black cast) because you can still tell a compelling story. But the thing is, a reimagining has to be compelling, it has to be done well, or else it comes across as just hack writing for the sake of hack writing. Like karate Kid remake with Will Smith's kid. OK, they kept the title, except the kid DIDN'T even learn karate. It's like they said "Well, the idea is kinda cool, so let's just use the title, call it a remake with an "updated cast" and we dont' have to even try to remotely do anything with the source material". People freaked because "oh no, karate kid is black" when the logical response should have been, "Damn it, they couldn't even have the kid l earn karate, hence the title of the f***ing movie, those lazy douche canoes". The former is narrow and shrot-sighted. The latter has merit based on "why are you ruining movies by being lazy". Honestly,i didnt see ANYONE complaing about karate kid being black. Mostly what you said,the karate part and the fact that he only got there for being Will Smith's son |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2016 21:23:44 GMT -5
I'm not going to say much. I support the creations of new characters and the changing of race and/or gender for fictional characters. I generally have. I never accepted the "Just create new characters, don't change established ones!" argument, but I couldn't really put my shiny and chrome finger on why. Watching the reactions of a lot of comic book fandom to things really put it together for me: I thought the argument was completely disingenuous as these same people in fandom who claim that changing up fictional characters is a bad thing aren't the people supporting said new characters. Especially when you talk about comic book fans. Names really do have value. Sure, it'd be cool if Miles Morales was, say, Red Spider and had his own title but from what I've seen it was the fact Ultimate Peter Parker was killed off, making Morales the Spider-Man for the Ultimate Universe for a while that pissed people off. It was the fact that if they wanted to read a new issue of Ultimate Spider-Man they had to read about a black kid in the suit, with no alternative. ...despite the fact that if I ever wanted to read new issues of the fifty million different Spider-Man books Marvel has, I've got to read about a white guy in the suit... But anyways, I ramble. Point blank, what I get from all this... 1.) The "Create new characters/properties!" argument sounds...I'd say "duplicitous" but that's not the word I want to use...I'd rather use "shady" and "two-faced"...when you know how difficult it is to get any kind of new property off the ground. It's like there's a second part to the argument people don't want to say but ends up happening: "Create new characters/propterties....so we can ignore those too." Then the new stuff fades into obscurity as the stuff with the white guys remain... 2.) Needing narrative justifications for certain minority characters existing in a setting in anything that is not a piece of hardcore non-fiction is...yes...a racist/sexist trope. Considering how often it gravitates towards Black characters in a setting, I'd say it's specifically Anti-Black. People have to stop with it. At this point there's nothing inherently white about James Bond. Yes, he could be Idris Elba. No, I don't care about what Ian Flemming said. I don't think the majority of the movie-going audience does either. Ghostbusters was one for me instead of trying to actually make the best possible thing it was GIRL POWER!!! instead of a team of equal men and women we got an average film i wont call it bad because it was actually ok i just hated the idea and still do of purposefully making it all women instead of trying to find the best actresses and actors and try to make something close to the originals. Counter to Ghostbuster i thought Star Wars was great and presented strong characters like Rey and Finn same with Mad Max with Furiosa who was a great Character And by no means is white washing a good thing either it's just the reverse and it stinks as well Prince Of Persia, Avatar, i wont say anything on Gods Of Egypt though since i don't believe i could fathom what a god would look like anyway though i am displeased at the severe lack of dog headed people Gotta be honest; finally saw Ghostbusters last week, and I don't see where the "Girl Power" angle was outside of one line during the credits. ...as a small aside, I still haven't seen Ghostbusters but from everything I've heard about it, the trailers were by far the worst thing about the movie. To the point that had I not seen them, I might have actually tried to watch it in theaters. Sony really sucks. No, not for slyly taking advantage of geek rage when it came to the marketing, but for those HORRIBLE ****ING TRAILERS. |
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 48,025
|
Post by Dub H on Aug 6, 2016 21:29:31 GMT -5
"Create new characters/propterties....so we can ignore those too." Then the new stuff fades into obscurity as the stuff with the white guys remain... I have to say that is the shady and disengenious argument. Literally placing wors in peoples mouth. And i do consider Miles Morales it is ownn character,so i will sue him as an example of one. Luke Cage Jessica Jones Steven Universe in general. The Princess and The Frog if you wanna count it. Elsa breaking away from the princess role. Falcon. I guess a movie with Will Smith or Samuel Jackson will just get brushed off,because will smith/samuel jackson. Is Hollywood the form of media most behind representation?I would say yes,but it has been show it is not the scenarios you descibre,it does not get brushed aside. It is simply that HARDER,but it is also Better. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2016 21:55:12 GMT -5
"Create new characters/propterties....so we can ignore those too." Then the new stuff fades into obscurity as the stuff with the white guys remain... I have to say that is the shady and disengenious argument. Literally placing wors in peoples mouth. And i do consider Miles Morales it is ownn character,so i will sue him as an example of one. Luke Cage Jessica Jones Steven Universe in general. The Princess and The Frog if you wanna count it. Elsa breaking away from the princess role. Falcon. I guess a movie with Will Smith or Samuel Jackson will just get brushed off,because will smith/samuel jackson. Is Hollywood the form of media most behind representation?I would say yes,but it has been show it is not the scenarios you descibre,it does not get brushed aside. It is simply that HARDER,but it is also Better. There's a difference between what's done and what's said when it comes to supporting new stuff. I'm referencing what people do, not just what everybody says. If people supported new characters like a lot of people say they would, then there'd be less instances of having to racebend and all that. Yes, you do have "The John Cena Problem" where people have been conditioned to not care about what happens to anyone outside the chosen white guy(s), but fandom in general has a lot to answer for. Maybe you think it's wrong to attribute a certain motive to it. I don't. Things like the Ghostbusters Anti-Woman Geek Rage don't just spring up like #outtanowhere. That kinda stuff festers in fandom all the time, to be seen by the general public whenever there's an intense backlash to something like Rue in The Hunger Games movie. Naming a handful of cases, not even discounting the really arguable ones ( Frozen is mediocre as hell, y'all), out of all the properties out there doesn't help your argument. |
|
Fade
Patti Mayonnaise
Posts: 38,330
|
Post by Fade on Aug 6, 2016 23:21:31 GMT -5
One good point that Lady Shai brought up, is that there are plenty of people out there who don't fully relate to people like them. Even whites like myself can relate more with guys like Blade, or Static or any character Sam Jackson plays. Static is even more an ordinary kid than Spider-Man, and his rise from getting his footing in being a hero to being an accomplished superhero that we ultimately saw him as in Justice League was great journey that let everyone identify with him in his cartoon along the way. You're wrong for a multitude of reasons that can't even be discussed fully without violating the board rules. As I don't want to put this thread on a slippery slope I'm not going off-topic. No, we're within the rules and on-topic. People "getting upset with changes" is not a reason not to do something. It's a reason for those people to grow up. So if they made a Che movie and cast a white guy, and hispanics got angry, they should grow up? If you cast a native american as MLK and blacks were pissed, they should grow up? A Hispanic as George Washington and caucasians were upset, they should grow up? I believe in equality and Che would ideally be Hispanic, MLK, Black, and Washintong, White. Now I know. Those are historical figures. Great men in their own rights that warrant a sense of respect and realistic portryals. But we live in geek age. Fandom wars. Most of us (We're on a Wrestling Board) are geeks/nerds/dweebs. So all these things MEAN a lot to People, I respect that. I aint into Star Trek. Most hardcore ST fans disliked the first two new ST films because it didnt harken to the souce material. I respect that and feel for Trekkies (Even if I think they're a little crazy) And i havent seen GB but I only have to watch Hemsworth in the trailers to know hes portrayed as a dumb male eye candy. I mean the O.G GB werent oogling their secretary and she wasn't going around being groped or given a spank on the ass. She was actually portrayed as way stronger of a character than Hemsworth seems to be. I'll stray from GB and go to a recent issue of suggesting new material is "disengenious" to create new properties/characters. As an artist, I find that lazy and damaging to the concept of art itself. If it sinks, it sinks. There are great stories that can be pulled out of any culture (Yes. That includes Whites. Its okay), genders, sexual orientation, etc etc. And I do believe we're getting that today. What upsets me is "We don"t have a Black Superman, *pout*, racism. Let's make a Black Superman!" No, wtf are you thinking?! Now If a Black actor, be it Michael B. Jordan or or Will Smith auditions, Kills it and brings SOMETHING to the character that goes beyond his race, then Yes! Cast him!. But not just cause he's black, that's dumb and ironically, racist. A counter point is Idris Elba as bond. I love Bond. My father and I bonded it since I was a child. I gather in the recent films his heritage was brought up, so fans are like "No, his race, its in the source, blah blah blah". I think Elba would KILL it and make a great James Bond cause he's got swag, is cool, appeals to the ladies and is intimidating. Not simply because he's Black and "gosh-darnit, we should have a Black Bond!" Which is the exact mentality they had with GhostBusters except in terms of having them be female. Aaaand it sucked. Not necessarily because they went with that direction, but had they had OPEN casting, men, women, everyone and went "These 4 mix well, these 4 bring SOMETHING to the table", I'm assured you would have had a much better GB film that tried to capture the spirit of the originals. We got what we gotz, whatever. TL:DR We are getting more and more diverse. But as far as art goes, just ignore race/gender Go with who's right for the role. |
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Aug 6, 2016 23:26:11 GMT -5
"Create new characters/propterties....so we can ignore those too." Then the new stuff fades into obscurity as the stuff with the white guys remain... I have to say that is the shady and disengenious argument. Literally placing wors in peoples mouth. And i do consider Miles Morales it is ownn character,so i will sue him as an example of one. Luke Cage Jessica Jones Steven Universe in general. The Princess and The Frog if you wanna count it. Elsa breaking away from the princess role. Falcon. I guess a movie with Will Smith or Samuel Jackson will just get brushed off,because will smith/samuel jackson. Is Hollywood the form of media most behind representation?I would say yes,but it has been show it is not the scenarios you descibre,it does not get brushed aside. It is simply that HARDER,but it is also Better. Exactly. People saying that it's "create new characters/properties...so we can ignore those too" neglect to mention that a lot of times, when those new characters/properties are created? They're not ignored too...on the contrary, a lot of times they end up huge hits as comic series BECAUSE people want more representation. If it's not transferring to motion pictures, that's less about "people don't want to see [X] in a movie" and more "It TAKES TIME to make a character iconic enough for Hollywood to take notice". There's a lot of problems for which comic characters got movies first that go without saying- but at the same time, even with how long it takes for movie characters to get their film, only "Guardians of the Galaxy" had a particularly short turn around between it being a hit comic series and getting a movie, and that still took six years to go from hit comic series to a movie. Throw in how meticulous the scheduling for Marvel and DC's shared universe is (and how the Inhumans got a backlash because people felt Marvel pushed them so hard to make them getting their Phase III movie make sense), and it becomes far harder for ANY new hit series to crack through and get its own movie...and outside the Marvel universe, you have a problem where Marvel won't sell off any of their characters' rights (and for people like Miles Morales or Spider-Gwen to back into a movie, more people wanted Spider-Man and its properties back in Marvel's hands than in the hands of Sony, which could have gotten those characters a movie far quicker.) Fans want more representation and would like to see some new good characters...and for that, saying "create your own new characters/properties" is a bad thing is more bigoted than anything else on this, since you're coming right out and saying "I don't think anyone of [group] is GOOD ENOUGH to make a great character." |
|
|
|
Post by Raskovnik on Aug 7, 2016 0:30:28 GMT -5
I have to say that is the shady and disengenious argument. Literally placing wors in peoples mouth. And i do consider Miles Morales it is ownn character,so i will sue him as an example of one. Luke Cage Jessica Jones Steven Universe in general. The Princess and The Frog if you wanna count it. Elsa breaking away from the princess role. Falcon. I guess a movie with Will Smith or Samuel Jackson will just get brushed off,because will smith/samuel jackson. Is Hollywood the form of media most behind representation?I would say yes,but it has been show it is not the scenarios you descibre,it does not get brushed aside. It is simply that HARDER,but it is also Better. Exactly. People saying that it's "create new characters/properties...so we can ignore those too" neglect to mention that a lot of times, when those new characters/properties are created? They're not ignored too...on the contrary, a lot of times they end up huge hits as comic series BECAUSE people want more representation. If it's not transferring to motion pictures, that's less about "people don't want to see [X] in a movie" and more "It TAKES TIME to make a character iconic enough for Hollywood to take notice". There's a lot of problems for which comic characters got movies first that go without saying- but at the same time, even with how long it takes for movie characters to get their film, only "Guardians of the Galaxy" had a particularly short turn around between it being a hit comic series and getting a movie, and that still took six years to go from hit comic series to a movie. Throw in how meticulous the scheduling for Marvel and DC's shared universe is (and how the Inhumans got a backlash because people felt Marvel pushed them so hard to make them getting their Phase III movie make sense), and it becomes far harder for ANY new hit series to crack through and get its own movie...and outside the Marvel universe, you have a problem where Marvel won't sell off any of their characters' rights (and for people like Miles Morales or Spider-Gwen to back into a movie, more people wanted Spider-Man and its properties back in Marvel's hands than in the hands of Sony, which could have gotten those characters a movie far quicker.) Fans want more representation and would like to see some new good characters...and for that, saying "create your own new characters/properties" is a bad thing is more bigoted than anything else on this, since you're coming right out and saying "I don't think anyone of [group] is GOOD ENOUGH to make a great character."That isn't what anyone who is saying that the argument of "Just make your OWN shit" is kind of bunk means by it, though. That's just pretzel logic, kind of twisting it around to make them sound like the bad guys for not having any notable characters (since they haven't had the benefit of literally running the media since forever) or being behind the idea of mixing up established characters a bit. That's not very nice.  All things being equal, it's a novel idea, which is why it always gets trotted out. It's one of those things that sounds super reasonable, the ever-appealing appeal to the middle ground. The issue is, of course, that things aren't equal. The fact of the matter is that the barrier to entry for anyone who isn't a white dude is still pretty f***ing high, especially in Hollywood, somewhat less so if you're a white girl, so while it's slowly getting better it's still simply unrealistic at the moment. There are still so many cultures and races who are woefully underrepresented and still no clear steps to take to alleviate that, which is even more glaring in a country as diverse as America. Thus, there are people who are willing to change established characters if that's what it takes to get whatever representation they can. All people are trying to do is gain a foothold. After centuries of media being so white-dominated it's really difficult to change that and gain that foothold, especially because people get so upset at most instances of anyone trying to reimagine a character or a story, or they invent concepts like "blackwashing" as if we all somehow started on a level playing field and minorities are simply trying to erase the noble history of white characters in media because they're too lazy or not interested in just carving their own path, like it's really that simple. I think the seemingly arbitrary changes will probably calm down a bit once there's more actual diversity in the market and it's proven that you really can have things such as a leading man who just so happens to be Asian, which I literally cannot think of an example of as it stands, for example. |
|
|
|
Post by Stone Cold Eleanor Shellstrop on Aug 7, 2016 2:24:26 GMT -5
As for the idea of culture or society getting more diverse, the reality is that culture and society has always been diverse, it's just that whoever or whatever constitutes the majority, i.e. the ones who wield the most power over entertainment, politics, economics, etc., are finally now paying attention to what disenfranchised groups of people have been saying all along. If they're not woke, they're shook.
|
|
Fade
Patti Mayonnaise
Posts: 38,330
|
Post by Fade on Aug 7, 2016 2:53:48 GMT -5
As for the idea of culture or society getting more diverse, the reality is that culture and society has always been diverse, it's just that whoever or whatever constitutes the majority, i.e. the ones who wield the most power over entertainment, politics, economics, etc., are finally now paying attention to what disenfranchised groups of people have been saying all along. If they're not woke, they're shook. There might be some truth to this, but it doesn't boil down to "Yay, diversity" as much as it does "$$$". I think its just a natural progression. Culture reflects how we as a Nation are changing. I really don't want to make this a political thing but it kinda is, but it's a positive observation. For example gay rights have been passionately fought for years and years but I feel peaked in the last ten years (with the legalization of gay marriage, Yay, Thats a good thing). But when I grew up (the 90s) it was still filled with hyperbole and cliches, today, I personally feel it's not. Theres this negative blowback towards Whites in media (perhaps because of the plethora of it) but that's changing seeing as it's forecasted that Hispanics will be the dominant race in 30+ years and no longer be a minority. I don't exactly concede ita always been as diverse as far the facts and statistics go. Theres SO many more whites than blacks in this country. I simply think we're getting more tolerant of said diversity today, than ever before. The melting pot is thriving...and that's a good thing. But again, I think it boils down to ignoring it. And going for who's right for the part or the medium of the art you're going for. I genuinely don't believe in "diversity for the sake of diversity". Because I think that's inherently sexist/racist. I think We, as a Nation, are improving, and culture is reflecting that. Much of the uproar is moot, IMO. EDIT: I will say this: The Asian thing is weird. I don't know what the radical element of that is. But Asians are typically portrayed as A-Sexual or not represented as much in Media. I'm not sure why. The latest Matt Damon thing is a clear example of that, but again, it probably boils down to $$$. |
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Aug 7, 2016 3:51:11 GMT -5
EDIT: I will say this: The Asian thing is weird. I don't know what the radical element of that is. But Asians are typically portrayed as A-Sexual or not represented as much in Media. I'm not sure why. The latest Matt Damon thing is a clear example of that, but again, it probably boils down to $$$. It's less about it being weird in the level of representation and more that there are similar examples to: Where's the line for proper representation? From an earlier example of whitewashing given in the thread: Emma Stone in Aloha, playing a woman who apparently looked a lot like Emma Stone in real life- but who was a half white, one-quarter Chinese, one-quarter Hawaiian person. If they give the role to an Asian character- yes, it's more representation for Asian actresses...but on the other side, even THAT wouldn't be perfect- and it gets to different levels of representation from there- whether they be absolutely reasonable (say: You need to cast a CHINESE actress- don't you dare cast a Japanese woman or a Korean woman in the role)...but if you're going to this level of complaint, then it's equally likely that they would go even further (okay, you cast a woman who is half-white, and her grandfather was Chinese...but her grandmother in that relationship was Vietnamese, not Hawaiian! You're not giving an opportunity to a woman who is half-white, quarter-Chinese, quarter-Hawaiian like this movie was supposed to!)- a level where maybe it is just as worthy as any other claim for representation, but also goes into patents of nobility-levels of bullshit and just makes things worse. |
|
All things being equal, it's a novel idea, which is why it always gets trotted out. It's one of those things that sounds super reasonable, the ever-appealing appeal to the middle ground. The issue is, of course, that things aren't equal.