|
Post by Alice Syndrome on Aug 4, 2016 18:48:13 GMT -5
Elementary's {Spoiler}{Spoiler}{Spoiler}{Spoiler}{Spoiler}Genderflipped Moriarty definitely added something, but you'd have to watch the show to really understand what. I just binged watch this and damn gender flipping Watson and (spoiler) works so damn well in that show that I'm starting to prefer it to Sherlock I'm a huge fan of crime dramas like Criminal Minds, Castle and Murdoch (which may as well be the third current SH adaption in spirit) so Ele is more to my liking (Sherlock I think is great, but sometimes feels slightly rushed because they're always trying to adapt an entire story into 90 minutes of TV, E's preference for original stories with some updated use of the lore means they're actually writing for the amount of TV they have) but the main thing it scores points with for me is, Joan Watson is a female lead who is rarely if ever actually played for sexual tension with her male co-lead. The only tension they're ever played for is the usual Holmes/Watson tension of "I'm a childminder for an insufferable genius"
|
|
Shai
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,507
|
Post by Shai on Aug 4, 2016 18:52:31 GMT -5
I just binged watch this and damn gender flipping Watson and (spoiler) works so damn well in that show that I'm starting to prefer it to Sherlock I'm a huge fan of crime dramas like Criminal Minds, Castle and Murdoch (which may as well be the third current SH adaption in spirit) so Ele is more to my liking (Sherlock I think is great, but sometimes feels slightly rushed because they're always trying to adapt an entire story into 90 minutes of TV, E's preference for original stories with some updated use of the lore means they're actually writing for the amount of TV they have) but the main thing it scores points with for me is, Joan Watson is a female lead who is rarely if ever actually played for sexual tension with her male co-lead. The only tension they're ever played for is the usual Holmes/Watson tension of "I'm a childminder for an insufferable genius" It's definitely the best thing Lucy Liu has ever done.
|
|
BRV
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants him some Taco Flavored Kisses.
Posts: 17,384
|
Post by BRV on Aug 4, 2016 19:20:06 GMT -5
I was wondering what the reaction would be if they were to remake The Shawshank Redemption and cast a white Actor to play the role of Red. Considering in the original novella, Red was white, would there be a backlash? I know it's a cliche but I personally don't mind them recasting roles with different sexes or ethnicities as long as it's not just for the sake of it. Like when people say there should be a black James Bond or a female James Bond (or maybe even a black, female James Bond). I'm a huge Bond fan and I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as it was done to add a new element to a character or story rather than just it coming across as "enforced Political correctness". I would like to think that movie studios would know to leave well enough alone and not try to remake "The Shawshank Redemption". It's like that ridiculous planned "Road House" remake starring Ronda Rousey. I don't care that Rousey is a woman but what I do care about is that she's a s***ty actress and nobody should have the temerity to dare remake "Road House". Those f***ing morons will deserve it when that movie tanks at the box office and is a flop with critics. You don't screw with cinematic perfection.
|
|
agent817
Fry's dog Seymour
Doesn't Know Whose Ring It Is
Posts: 21,871
|
Post by agent817 on Aug 4, 2016 19:23:53 GMT -5
I was wondering what the reaction would be if they were to remake The Shawshank Redemption and cast a white Actor to play the role of Red. Considering in the original novella, Red was white, would there be a backlash? I know it's a cliche but I personally don't mind them recasting roles with different sexes or ethnicities as long as it's not just for the sake of it. Like when people say there should be a black James Bond or a female James Bond (or maybe even a black, female James Bond). I'm a huge Bond fan and I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as it was done to add a new element to a character or story rather than just it coming across as "enforced Political correctness". I would like to think that movie studios would know to leave well enough alone and not try to remake "The Shawshank Redemption". It's like that ridiculous planned "Road House" remake starring Ronda Rousey. I don't care that Rousey is a woman but what I do care about is that she's a s***ty actress and nobody should have the temerity to dare remake "Road House". Those f***ing morons will deserve it when that movie tanks at the box office and is a flop with critics. You don't screw with cinematic perfection. I can't argue with you on Ronda Rousey sucking as an actress. She had zero emotion in The Expendables III and in Furious 7. At least with the latter she was only in there for a bit.
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Aug 4, 2016 19:31:23 GMT -5
I was wondering what the reaction would be if they were to remake The Shawshank Redemption and cast a white Actor to play the role of Red. Considering in the original novella, Red was white, would there be a backlash? I know it's a cliche but I personally don't mind them recasting roles with different sexes or ethnicities as long as it's not just for the sake of it. Like when people say there should be a black James Bond or a female James Bond (or maybe even a black, female James Bond). I'm a huge Bond fan and I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as it was done to add a new element to a character or story rather than just it coming across as "enforced Political correctness". I would like to think that movie studios would know to leave well enough alone and not try to remake "The Shawshank Redemption". It's like that ridiculous planned "Road House" remake starring Ronda Rousey. I don't care that Rousey is a woman but what I do care about is that she's a s***ty actress and nobody should have the temerity to dare remake "Road House". Those f***ing morons will deserve it when that movie tanks at the box office and is a flop with critics. You don't screw with cinematic perfection. I'd like to think they'd leave it alone too. Then I remember this is Hollywood we're talking about.
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Aug 4, 2016 19:31:36 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2016 20:59:00 GMT -5
If I feel like it's just diversity for diversities' sake, I am automatically annoyed and coming in cold.
If, however, you found someone of an alternate sex, race or both that can simply nail the role, as you were. It's fine.
I have seen way more A than B though.
You might think you're being progressive or whatever, but it often just ends up being patronizing in the end.
|
|
|
Post by Z-A Sandbaggin' Son of a b!%@h on Aug 4, 2016 21:55:12 GMT -5
There are so many things I want to say. But for the sake of the integrity of the board. I will not.
|
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 28,269
|
Post by chazraps on Aug 4, 2016 22:12:16 GMT -5
Why is "diversity for diversity's sake" something that some of you find annoying?
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Aug 4, 2016 22:59:18 GMT -5
Why is "diversity for diversity's sake" something that some of you find annoying? My take on it is nothing to do with it being a diversity issue, more that I'm a film snob and if I get pissed off when they go and change a character with no backstory or explanation, regardless of sex or creed. Again, using James Bond as an example, they want to make a female James Bond? No problem from me. If they then made a film with no story behind it, the film geek in me would be annoyed. Seriously, I'm so anal about this sort of thing, to give an example, I hated American Pie 3. But the main reason I hate it is not because of the lame jokes or turning it into The Stifler Show, it's because in the previous films they went on about how close the four main guys were and yet when one of them doesn't turn up for the wedding, there is not even a throwaway line to address it. You'd grown to understand the characters over the first two films, then they change it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2016 23:16:58 GMT -5
I just didn't understand why the new Ghostbusters couldn't be a continuation instead of a reboot. How would that have made any sense with the story? Any continuation would have to already acknowledge that ghosts exists and those who bust ghost by trade are public knowledge as well. Too difficult to do for a film but they could have worked it out as a tv series, say episode 1 has Venkman, Stanz and Zedamore as old and tired ghostbusters who just want to retire, they meet the four new ghostbusters and after giving them a bit of training they potter off to join Egon in Mexico and from episode 2 you introduce the new characters. Could work a bit like Buffy where you have monster of the week episodes and ones which focus on a big bad. Also leaves the possibility of cameos from characters from the original films. Would have been better IMO, Marvel has shown going the Netflix route is effective in establishing a 'universe' for your characters and I think Sony had similar aspirations for the Ghostbusters universe which now looks uncertain with their film likely to make a loss.
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Aug 4, 2016 23:17:13 GMT -5
Why is "diversity for diversity's sake" something that some of you find annoying? My take on it is nothing to do with it being a diversity issue, more that I'm a film snob and if I get pissed off when they go and change a character with no backstory or explanation, regardless of sex or creed. Again, using James Bond as an example, they want to make a female James Bond? No problem from me. If they then made a film with no story behind it, the film geek in me would be annoyed. Seriously, I'm so anal about this sort of thing, to give an example, I hated American Pie 3. But the main reason I hate it is not because of the lame jokes or turning it into The Stifler Show, it's because in the previous films they went on about how close the four main guys were and yet when one of them doesn't turn up for the wedding, there is not even a throwaway line to address it. You'd grown to understand the characters over the first two films, then they change it. For me, seeing more inclusion in the media is the most important priority. For people to see characters who look like them, even with someone as morally flawed (but still iconic) as James Bond, it cuts through stereotypes (both socially and in fiction) and it means that future filmmakers and creators won't be tethered to the usual images of leading protagonists. I'll more than gladly sacrifice the usual continuty of an already established IP for that.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Aug 4, 2016 23:37:17 GMT -5
My own opinion, obviously, but if a remake/reboot/whatever comes along where a major white male character is made into a woman, ethnic minority, LGBT, etc., I think the only appropriate answer is "Ok. Hope the movie's good."
Basically, it's the same response that I think is healthy to have to just about any movie that's announced...short of a remake of Triumph of the Will or something, wouldn't be too keen on that getting a wide audience.
Plain and simple, Hollywood has simply always and continues to have some major issues with representation of anybody who isn't a white dude, especially in leading roles. There are obviously films with leads who aren't white guys, but vis a vis the actual census data of places like the US, Canada, and the UK (where most Hollywood films are drawing their leads from) it doesn't mesh well. Part of this is a self-fulfilling prophecy: people see white, male faces in lead roles consistently, so studios come to think "this is what makes money", and would-be actors may tell themselves "I have to appear a certain way in order to get attention...I don't look like that, so it's not worth the effort going through all that failure". That's a shitty cycle.
So, some writer, director, or studio head comes along and wants to change that. Ok, cool. Is the change being made simply because they found an actor/actress who could nail the part, appearance be damned? Awesome. Are they doing it for "pandering" reasons? That'd kind of suck, but it's no biggie for me, since I'd end up judging the movie on its merits, regardless.
Because really, at day's end that'll be the chief issue: "was the movie any good?" The odds that the ethnicity, gender, etc. of the lead character (or one of the lead characters) will have the greatest impact on the overall quality of a film are slim-to-none, so "was it good?" is about all there is to ask, at least for me. And even if it sucked? Hey, at least for a day somebody who comes from an underserved/underrepresented group could look at a flick and say "Hey, that lead who we're supposed to cheer on looks like me, that's pretty sweet." Maybe the movie sucks, but maybe it helps a person who doesn't have "traditional Hollywood looks" to think "I could do that", or at the very least allows a kid to see a potential role model they can more closely relate to.
The one bit of harm would be if a remake/reboot was shitty and tanked the chances for fans to get more films in that franchise, but again, that's more an issue of overall quality, not really about the race/gender/sexuality of the characters. And if it's good and some folks don't like the changes, hey, the originals (if we're still talking about remakes/reboots) still exist, not like they magically disappear or anything.
Unfortunately, you really can't go the other way with it; whitewashing (or whatever you want to call a version of that involving gender or sexuality) is a very different topic, precisely due to the aforementioned representation issues Hollywood has. It's tough enough out there for minority actors, for example, to get steady work in varied roles (let alone a lead), so reducing the number of them to serve an overrepresented demographic, even unintentionally, is really a dick move.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2016 1:22:20 GMT -5
I think it less about diversity and more about it being used as a gimmick to sell movies. I rather have the best person for the role and not because they were just black or female. If anything I would view it as a insult, if I was only hired because of the color of my skin or my gender not because I was the best person for the role. Imagine going to a casting call and nailing the role but being told that they won't hired you because your not black. It shit like this that the SJW idiot need to think about instead of calling everyone a sexist shitload in the name of diversity.
|
|
|
Post by "Trickster Dogg" James Jesse on Aug 5, 2016 4:07:05 GMT -5
People being hired according to the merits of their capability would be ideal, but that also assumes that everyone starts on an even playing field to begin with, which, in today's parlance, would be a privileged position of not knowing or not realizing the structural disadvantages that hinder someone being cast because of their gender or skin colour. Does Hollywood only care about diversity when targeting different demographics, those who aren't straight, white, and/or male, when those who aren't those things are actually willing to part with their money to buy a product?
The question people should ask is if change in the representational field of media entertainment real change? Is more diversity behind media production necessary to bring about change in the representations that matter? And even then, would we really call it change or difference if it comes at the cost of a dollar, when monetary exchange homogenizes everything? Have identities not become another commodity to be bought and sold back to the people who desire to see themselves in the very things that otherwise exclude them? These questions occur at the same time the hegemony of straightness, whiteness, and masculinity are being challenged (if not also reinforced?) as the norms by which the world operates that really aren't the norms at all.
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Aug 5, 2016 5:58:07 GMT -5
I hate this thread. I can't deal with this anymore. I'm legit saddened by the responses I'm reading.
|
|
|
Post by OGBoardPoster2005 on Aug 5, 2016 7:39:07 GMT -5
As long as you're sticking with the character and who they are, I'm fine. I do understand there are some circumstances that can work (Joan Watson, since its a different setting and time frame), but I ask some, "Why not an Ken Wantanabe as Shaft or Idris Elba as Miss Marple?"
|
|
Bobeddy
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Made a Terrible Mistake
Posts: 15,183
|
Post by Bobeddy on Aug 5, 2016 8:07:10 GMT -5
I rather have the best person for the role and not because they were just black or female. If anything I would view it as a insult, if I was only hired because of the color of my skin or my gender not because I was the best person for the role. Imagine going to a casting call and nailing the role but being told that they won't hired you because your not black. It shit like this that the SJW idiot need to think about instead of calling everyone a sexist shitload in the name of diversity. Best example of 'best person being cast on the role' I can think of is Peter Dinklage being the lead in The Station Agent. The character wasn't written as having dwarfism but Dinklage nailed it so much they realised they couldn't not use him. I'd imagine most productions would've thanked him for coming and left it at that.
|
|
Fauxnaki
Unicron
0 Followers Club
Posts: 2,861
|
Post by Fauxnaki on Aug 5, 2016 8:30:13 GMT -5
A female Tarzan film would be pretty hot
|
|
|
Post by Cela on Aug 5, 2016 8:33:51 GMT -5
A female Tarzan film would be pretty hot It's been done, sort of.
|
|