Post by THawk on Mar 10, 2017 18:10:57 GMT
Mar 10, 2017 14:38:55 GMT @graham said:
But there is a widespread movement that says that movies should be diverse - that minority groups have a right to be represented as well. So if you make a movie that lacks such diversity, this is controversial - we see this from time to time, i.e. the "white oscars" controversy from a year or two ago.
Now of course you might want to dismiss those people and say they're stupid and wrong. But then they would do the same regarding the argument that being gay is somehow not ok. And they'd be right, IMO.
So by your logic, we must not have gays because it is controversial. And we must not exclude gays, because it is controversial. Which can only mean we must not make movies at all. Although that would probably be controversial too.
It's impossible to avoid controversy when you make movies. So the argument that movie must avoid controversy is nonsensical.
Dude I already had this exact same discussion with another person in this same thread, and they never replied.
Even if we skip ahead and take it is a "necessity" that movies "have" to be to be diverse, then why are 99.999% of other minority groups not even given a tiny ounce of the representation and attention gay people get on TV and movies? Why does "diversity" only mean gay people, and a very select few others? If you're going to make all movies social causes, and expect diversity - then you have to be outraged out of your mind that an absurd about of other minority groups are nearly always excluded.
It'd be like if they made a movie about general American history, and absolutely all of the actors were white, but one or two were Jewish Americans. And the filmmakers celebrated that as a fantastic "diversity" achievement. Would you not be asking questions instead why none of the other races were included?