|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Jun 4, 2018 21:09:22 GMT
One doesn't have to go far to find claims that Hollywood is "forcing diversity down our throats", with some people making claims that Hollywood is giving a disproportionate amount of roles to female or minority actors/actresses to push such an agenda. So I decided to do my own little study, and looked at major film release from the first full weekend in April (April 6-7) until this past weekend (June 1-3). Here's what I found:
Demographics in the United States (percentage of the population which each group makes up):
Gender:
Male: 49.2%
Female: 50.8%
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian: 61.3%
African-American: 12.7%
Hispanic: 17.8%
Asian: 5.6%
Other: 2.6%
Demographics of 130 major characters (total number/percentage of total/plus-or-minus difference compared to national demographics):
Gender
Male: 77 (59.3 %, +10.1)
Female: 53 (40.7%, -10.1)
Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian: 94 (72.3%, +11)
African-American: 15 (11.5%. -1.2)
Hispanic: 9 (6.9%, -10.9)
Asian: 6 (4.6%, -1)
Other: 6 (4.6%, +2)
Conclusion:
White and male characters make up an unquestionably disproportionate percentage of film characters.
The next time somebody feeds you the "Hollywood is giving every role to [insert non-while male term here], feel free to link to this. The only people with an "agenda" are the people who go to the movies and literally see something that is the opposite of what is actually up on the screen.
Notes:
What constitutes a "major release" is subjective, so I used my best judgement. Likewise, what constitutes a "major character" is subjective, and again I used my best judgment. The percentages under the race/ethnicity category for film characters doesn't add up to exactly 100% because I didn't do any rounding.
|
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Jun 25, 2018 14:24:58 GMT
WOW, You Really Did Your Homework!
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Jun 25, 2018 14:39:38 GMT
One doesn't have to go far to find claims that Hollywood is "forcing diversity down our throats", with some people making claims that Hollywood is giving a disproportionate amount of roles to female or minority actors/actresses to push such an agenda. So I decided to do my own little study, and looked at major film release from the first full weekend in April (April 6-7) until this past weekend (June 1-3). Here's what I found: Demographics in the United States (percentage of the population which each group makes up):
Gender:Male: 49.2% Female: 50.8% Race/EthnicityCaucasian: 61.3% African-American: 12.7% Hispanic: 17.8% Asian: 5.6% Other: 2.6% Demographics of 130 major characters (total number/percentage of total/plus-or-minus difference compared to national demographics):
GenderMale: 77 (59.3 %, +10.1) Female: 53 (40.7%, -10.1) Race/EthnicityCaucasian: 94 (72.3%, +11) African-American: 15 (11.5%. -1.2) Hispanic: 9 (6.9%, -10.9) Asian: 6 (4.6%, -1) Other: 6 (4.6%, +2) Conclusion:White and male characters make up an unquestionably disproportionate percentage of film characters. The next time somebody feeds you the "Hollywood is giving every role to [insert non-while male term here], feel free to link to this. The only people with an "agenda" are the people who go to the movies and literally see something that is the opposite of what is actually up on the screen. Notes: What constitutes a "major release" is subjective, so I used my best judgement. Likewise, what constitutes a "major character" is subjective, and again I used my best judgment. The percentages under the race/ethnicity category for film characters doesn't add up to exactly 100% because I didn't do any rounding. You forgot one major stat: the amount of money being paid by everyone beyond us white males to watch movies & keep the industry from collapsing. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 25, 2018 14:49:36 GMT
One doesn't have to go far to find claims that Hollywood is "forcing diversity down our throats", with some people making claims that Hollywood is giving a disproportionate amount of roles to female or minority actors/actresses to push such an agenda. So I decided to do my own little study, and looked at major film release from the first full weekend in April (April 6-7) until this past weekend (June 1-3). Here's what I found: Demographics in the United States (percentage of the population which each group makes up):
Gender:Male: 49.2% Female: 50.8% Race/EthnicityCaucasian: 61.3% African-American: 12.7% Hispanic: 17.8% Asian: 5.6% Other: 2.6% Demographics of 130 major characters (total number/percentage of total/plus-or-minus difference compared to national demographics):
GenderMale: 77 (59.3 %, +10.1) Female: 53 (40.7%, -10.1) Race/EthnicityCaucasian: 94 (72.3%, +11) African-American: 15 (11.5%. -1.2) Hispanic: 9 (6.9%, -10.9) Asian: 6 (4.6%, -1) Other: 6 (4.6%, +2) Conclusion:White and male characters make up an unquestionably disproportionate percentage of film characters. The next time somebody feeds you the "Hollywood is giving every role to [insert non-while male term here], feel free to link to this. The only people with an "agenda" are the people who go to the movies and literally see something that is the opposite of what is actually up on the screen. Notes: What constitutes a "major release" is subjective, so I used my best judgement. Likewise, what constitutes a "major character" is subjective, and again I used my best judgment. The percentages under the race/ethnicity category for film characters doesn't add up to exactly 100% because I didn't do any rounding. You forgot one major stat: the amount of money being paid by everyone beyond us white males to watch movies & keep the industry from collapsing. It's almost like it's easier for white males to pay to see themselves on the screen. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2018 15:30:41 GMT
I agree there are plenty of films and television to choose from. You don't have to watch anything.
However, here is the problem I think I hear most from people.
Why add or change characters for the sake of diversity? For example, "Beauty and the Beast" (2017). Why is Lafeou gay? He wasn't gay in the animated film you are remaking. Why are there so many black citizens in 1700s France? Why are there so many interracial couples in 1700s France?
I mean, if it were a modern retelling set in 2017, then fine. I don't care, take all the liberties you want. When people have backlash, it's when you change or add things that aren't necessary.
However, I don't hear people complaining that LBGTQQXR films are being made, or on Television when it's original content.
Another example is feminism. Nobody cared that Wonder Woman was made, it was quite successful financially and critically. It was a lead female heroine. They didn't say "Oh, they are making a female superhero film and forcing it down our throats", but "Ghostbusters" (2016) caught a lot of flack because it was an all female cast remake of a film that was all males before.
You see the difference? |
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Jun 25, 2018 16:02:27 GMT
One doesn't have to go far to find claims that Hollywood is "forcing diversity down our throats", with some people making claims that Hollywood is giving a disproportionate amount of roles to female or minority actors/actresses to push such an agenda. So I decided to do my own little study, and looked at major film release from the first full weekend in April (April 6-7) until this past weekend (June 1-3). Here's what I found: Demographics in the United States (percentage of the population which each group makes up):
Gender:Male: 49.2% Female: 50.8% Race/EthnicityCaucasian: 61.3% African-American: 12.7% Hispanic: 17.8% Asian: 5.6% Other: 2.6% Demographics of 130 major characters (total number/percentage of total/plus-or-minus difference compared to national demographics):
GenderMale: 77 (59.3 %, +10.1) Female: 53 (40.7%, -10.1) Race/EthnicityCaucasian: 94 (72.3%, +11) African-American: 15 (11.5%. -1.2) Hispanic: 9 (6.9%, -10.9) Asian: 6 (4.6%, -1) Other: 6 (4.6%, +2) Conclusion:White and male characters make up an unquestionably disproportionate percentage of film characters. The next time somebody feeds you the "Hollywood is giving every role to [insert non-while male term here], feel free to link to this. The only people with an "agenda" are the people who go to the movies and literally see something that is the opposite of what is actually up on the screen. Notes: What constitutes a "major release" is subjective, so I used my best judgement. Likewise, what constitutes a "major character" is subjective, and again I used my best judgment. The percentages under the race/ethnicity category for film characters doesn't add up to exactly 100% because I didn't do any rounding.
Look at LGBT. 4.5 percent of the US population are LGBT, yet almost every single last show on TV these days, and growing number of films, have LGBT characters or storylines. There are literally thousands upon thousands of other minority groups that are at least 4.5 or more of the population, but don't get even the tiniest crumbs of representation as compared to LGBT.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jun 25, 2018 16:09:37 GMT
Look at LGBT. 4.5 percent of the US population are LGBT, yet almost every single last show on TV these days, and growing number of films, have LGBT characters or storylines. There are literally thousands upon thousands of other minority groups that are at least 4.5 or more of the population, but don't get even the tiniest crumbs of representation as compared to LGBT.
Aw, you poor butthurt bigot.
Most TV shows and movies have a cast list of a few dozen characters. Therefore if you are applying the math correctly, every single one should have an LBGT character included--1 out of 20 of the characters.
Grow up and deal with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 25, 2018 16:25:02 GMT
I agree there are plenty of films and television to choose from. You don't have to watch anything.
However, here is the problem I think I hear most from people.
Why add or change characters for the sake of diversity? For example, "Beauty and the Beast" (2017). Why is Lafeou gay? He wasn't gay in the animated film you are remaking. Why are there so many black citizens in 1700s France? Why are there so many interracial couples in 1700s France?
I mean, if it were a modern retelling set in 2017, then fine. I don't care, take all the liberties you want. When people have backlash, it's when you change or add things that aren't necessary.
However, I don't hear people complaining that LBGTQQXR films are being made, or on Television when it's original content.
Another example is feminism. Nobody cared that Wonder Woman was made, it was quite successful financially and critically. It was a lead female heroine. They didn't say "Oh, they are making a female superhero film and forcing it down our throats", but "Ghostbusters" (2016) caught a lot of flack because it was an all female cast remake of a film that was all males before.
You see the difference? Because what most people don't realize is that fiction reflects reality, not the other way around. Beauty and the Beast is a story filled with magical talking appliances, hardly a contender for historical accuracy. Plus, who says there weren't interracial couples or black citizens in France. The Moors traveled all throughout western Europe. There's no such thing as unnecessary changes when it comes to fictional characters. |
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Jun 25, 2018 19:32:49 GMT
Also, to the OP - even with big rise of secularism, polls show around 70 percent of the country is still religious.
How many openly and clearly religious characters are there on TV and movies? Especially that aren't evil villains? Forget 70 percent, it's well below 7 percent. Any thoughts on that?
|
|
|
|
Post by johnspartan on Jun 25, 2018 19:46:36 GMT
Ever notice that reality shows about real life friends are not diverse at all?
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jun 25, 2018 20:02:14 GMT
That's too vague an answer. You need to analyze by film and story content (as well as audience reach). And also who is behind the camera. How many native Western Europeans are writing or directing or producing? How many own the studio (who supplies the money is important too since they dictate content)?
I.e. THOR 2011 -- They made an important (if not the most important) character in Asgard a black man. They also made Jane Foster an Israeli. We can even ponder why Thor is portrayed by an Australian. No one in North America or Western Europe qualified or they simply didn't want to look for one closer to home? That in itself is likely due to Globalist ideology and its opposition to regionalism (unless it is set in Wakanda).
In THOR 3 they made a comics character who was a European woman into someone Palestinian etc. They said it was because she gave the best audition--but why was someone who did not fit the character description auditioning in the first place?
THE LAST JEDI--how many Caucasian males are in prominent roles in the story and what do they do? It isn't just a case of forced diversity-Star Wars was exhibiting that from the beginning, but it is also how the characters are portrayed. Do the white males do something positive or negative? Do they show leadership or the opposite? Etc..
On the subject of religion, the question is how do they portray religions? We know Christianity gets a lot of negative portrayals--how often is Judaism or Islam given a similar treatment?
Any examples that spring to mind?
|
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 25, 2018 22:38:20 GMT
That's too vague an answer. You need to analyze by film and story content (as well as audience reach). And also who is behind the camera. How many native Western Europeans are writing or directing or producing? How many own the studio (who supplies the money is important too since they dictate content)? I.e. THOR 2011 -- They made an important (if not the most important) character in Asgard a black man. They also made Jane Foster an Israeli. We can even ponder why Thor is portrayed by an Australian. No one in North America or Western Europe qualified or they simply didn't want to look for one closer to home? That in itself is likely due to Globalist ideology and its opposition to regionalism (unless it is set in Wakanda). In THOR 3 they made a comics character who was a European woman into someone Palestinian etc. They said it was because she gave the best audition-- but why was someone who did not fit the character description auditioning in the first place?Because not just white people are good at acting and pretending to be fictional characters. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jun 25, 2018 22:47:43 GMT
Because not just white people are good at acting and pretending to be fictional characters. That's bs. If the part was Luke Cage and they said "well a white guy walked in and gave the best audition" we would get cries of racism and asking why he was allowed to audition. There's no reason to have someone who doesn't fit the character description to audition. They wanted to diversify it and couldn't be honest about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 25, 2018 22:53:56 GMT
Because not just white people are good at acting and pretending to be fictional characters. That's bs. If the part was Luke Cage and they said "well a white guy walked in and gave the best audition" we would get cries of racism and asking why he was allowed to audition. There's no reason to have someone who doesn't fit the character description to audition.
I'd say all the successful movies that have managed it are reason enough.
Possibly, but then they know people will cry about diversity and "SJW's ruining hollywood."
But to be fair, who cares about those people's opinions?
And it's not BS. After all, don't forget DB Sweeny in Spawn.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jun 25, 2018 23:02:08 GMT
And it's not BS. After all, don't forget DB Sweeny in Spawn.
He wasnt playing Spawn and what was the target audience for that film?
If Black Panther is this day and age can have a 99 percent black cast, then the reverse should be true-but it isn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 26, 2018 13:22:12 GMT
And it's not BS. After all, don't forget DB Sweeny in Spawn.
He wasnt playing Spawn and what was the target audience for that film?
Lol. Well, just go back to a random movie from the previous 8 decades of film making. Trust me, you'll find a bunch that were 100% white. White people have had their run. Chillax and give others a chance to make some movies. It literally will have zero effect on you. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jun 26, 2018 16:51:02 GMT
White people have had their run. That doesn't make sense. White people still exist--so why not make art for them? Art should have some elements of truth, not just a vision of what the owners want to see. Europeans invented the film camera and dramatic structure for film. Seems kinda rude to want to shut them out. Even feeds the whole "you will not replace us" theory. And here we have the BBC saying they will phase out shows that are white dominated--in a historically white dominated country. Can you imagine if such a thing were suggested in Africa or Asia?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo 🦞 on Jun 26, 2018 17:44:48 GMT
It is obvious that some roles have been purposefully cast with actors of a different race than intended...but you need to ask yourself, "Why does that bother me, or does it?"
|
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 26, 2018 18:16:03 GMT
White people have had their run. That doesn't make sense. White people still exist--so why not make art for them? Art should have some elements of truth, not just a vision of what the owners want to see. Europeans invented the film camera and dramatic structure for film. Seems kinda rude to want to shut them out. Even feeds the whole "you will not replace us" theory. And here we have the BBC saying they will phase out shows that are white dominated--in a historically white dominated country. Can you imagine if such a thing were suggested in Africa or Asia?
It makes perfect sense. Because over 90% of art is already for and by white people. History is the past. It's why we move away from it. No need to live like we used to when things were far more openly racist and homophobic. Leave it behind. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jun 26, 2018 18:23:37 GMT
It makes perfect sense. Because over 90% of art is already for and by white people. History is the past. It's why we move away from it. No need to live like we used to when things were far more openly racist and homophobic. Leave it behind. Not it doesnt make sense. If they make shows and tv stations for particular ethnicities it should work the same for all of them. The idea behind art (as it may have escaped you) is that it represents the ideas, hopes, desires, fears, of a people. This is how it has always worked-until most recent times. If a round wheel spins, no reason to try making it square.
|
|
