|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 27, 2018 21:45:41 GMT
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. Yeah, I remember hearing a couple of years ago that they wanted to make James Bond black. Why? They were thinking of casting Idris Elba as Bond. Why? It's pointless and stupid. Hell, they already made Miss Moneypenny black. God forbid a talented British actor play a British character. Besides, Bond wasn't Scottish until they hired Sean Connery. Looks like fictional characters can be changed.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 27, 2018 21:49:13 GMT
Just accept that white supremacy is over. You'll feel better and have less stress. But that slogan doesn't address the reality. It has nothing to do with supremacy except in your neurotic mind. It is just about fair representation and self-determination and the logistics of art and audiences. To use something you understand, are you upset that Scooby Doo is about a group of white people and a dog solving crimes? Do you feel it is really a KKK-inspired vigilante gang?
If I walk down the street and see a room full of white people, that doesn't mean it is a KKK meeting. It is just biology. Ideology has nothing to do with it.
Hollywood is driven by an agenda of forced multiculturalism and liberal propaganda, this is why they are losing audiences. It is far removed from artistic expression.
We'll just ignore digital piracy then. Like I said, white supremacy is a thing of the past. No need to live in the 50s.
Not at all. That's just trying to justify not having diversity.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 27, 2018 21:54:06 GMT
How do you know so much about the other candidate? You don't actually have to answer that, I don't want you to have to write anymore fiction today. It is a great example of the worst case scenario for hateful bigots to rally around though, I'll give you that. But hey, in the words of the other guy: they [and the world] give the jobs to people who NEED it rather than those who are qualified. But they did give the job to someone who was qualified. She was already qualified. That's why she was getting the interview. Unless you think she put "Single mother of 6" somewhere on the application.
I'd say that a woman with six kids and still looking for a full time job works very hard. How many kids did you have at the time? Let's compare.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jun 27, 2018 21:56:17 GMT
So it seems you have a problem with a black actor playing a character with some authority rather than wnat his race was in the comics. ****** I have a problem with forced diversity and its political agenda. Disney did the same with Pirates 4 where they made an Obama-type black character the strong authority character in the story. You will be hard pressed to find any white male character being shown as a similar kind of authority figure. It's a political decision. It is consistent and ubiquitous. Artistically is is dishonest. Dislike has absolutely nothing to do with political povs, art has got to be truthful to Nature or it is propaganda.
And just to clarify...Asgard in the comics is not the Asgard of Norse myth.
**And it is irrelevant. Wakanda was presented as an all black society--Asgard in the comics was all white or pseudo-Scandinavian realm. Disney chose to preserve the homogeneity of the African country but not that of the European counterpart. Thus a double standard.
She has Polish, Austrian, Russian grandparents...some European in there
*in other words not in keeping with the "Jane Foster" heritage assumptions.
So now not matching up to an unspecified heritage of a fictional character, despite a visual match is a problem?
**no just pointing out the tendency of Hollywood to look for reasons not to use Europeans in artistic presentations. How stupid of me.
***you are forgiven
They cast an Australian to appeal to the 25 million Australians, whilst alienating 325 million Americans. Despite him having a stronger European heritage than most American actors considered for the role. Which shouldn't really matter because ASGARD IS NOT ON EARTH **no they didnt do it to appeal to 25 million Australians. They did it because they are committed to globalism in business practices. Blockbuster movies are probably the closest you'll get to it. So should studios give up trying to have worldwide appeal, because if they do, films of this type will soon die out
**the blockbuster came into being because Hollywood wanted to reassert its domination of cinema screens (it had been temporarily thwarted by the block-booking scandal of the 1940s as well as SIMPP/United Artists). Through the 60s it was small production companies that were taking a big slice of audiences--the big studios were doing slice of life political messages and ignoring fantasy. In Europe, England was developing its own film industry. This came to a halt by the early 70s--not because audiences didnt want regional film, but because no native film producer could compete with Hollywood when it had all the money from financial sources as well as friends in government to ensure it maintained control.
The media (friends with Hollywood) claimed the blockbuster wowed people so much that they no longer wanted choices. BS. Hollywood was buying out distribution and making it impossible for independent production companies to exist. Big Hollywood is not capitalistic--it is not dependent on audiences to survive.
Then in the 90s when trade agreements opened up new markets, Hollywood corporate studios started to focus on worldwide markets--and the regional elements of film got weaker and weaker. This is not about maximizing profits-since Hollywood could easily make films that cater to regional audiences across the globe. They prefer one-size fits all art--though I think their desire to cater to China is greatly exaggerated. The main objective is to water down European identity. As Orwell said, the best way to destroy a people is to erase their history. This is why Hollywood is sticking Japanese and African knights in Arthurian legends or making Achilles a black man.
BTW-I notice no European names in the cast list for Disney's upcoming blockbuster Mulan film. If they avoid any white actors, then the theory on Disney's agenda will be validated even more.
On the contrary, it reflects the hero myth studied in Joseph Campbell's "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" which Lucas used as the template for Star Wars *the heroes in classical stories are never beta types. That is the Liberal edit. They are usually the best warrior or healthiest specimen of the group. And they usually show a great deal of independence. Contrast Luke with Prince Valiant for example. Valiant is also a farm boy with a father who was a warrior--but he is not dependent on magic. In fact, Luke gets weaker as the story progresses. In the first movie he is triumphant, but in the second he is shown to be reckless, angry, and needs to be rescued by friends. In the third film, he has to be saved by his father. This is NOT traditional. Flash Gordon being rescued by his dad? You argued that there would be uproar if a white actor "right for the role" got the part of Luke Cage. And I pointed out that there should be outrage, because unlike other characters who may have their race changed Luke Cages race defines him, is the reason he was created and makes himculturally important.
**you do realize that neither Black Panther nor Luke Cage were created by black artists-writers right? For a black-made superhero, you have to go back to the 1940s Lion-Man. But the point remains, they made a white woman into a non white, and the only reason they could have done it was because they wanted to force diversity.
I'm talking about Wakanda and why a "99%" black cast is not a big deal. I've already mentioned why a black character in Asgard it's not a big dea.
**that just shows your double standard. You are perfectly fine with blackwashing a white character, but any occurrence of the opposite is a big no no. This just proves why regional art is better, it avoids clashes in taste which is completely natural. Different strokes for different folks..
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jun 27, 2018 21:58:48 GMT
Like I said, white supremacy is a thing of the past.
The fact that you think regional art is an example of supremacist thinking shows how looney you are.
You must think kabuki in Japan is also an example of supremacist thinking (or you haven't thought your beliefs through which is probably the case).
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 27, 2018 22:02:19 GMT
Like I said, white supremacy is a thing of the past.
The fact that you think regional art is an example of supremacist thinking shows how looney you are.
You must think kabuki in Japan is also an example of supremacist thinking (or you haven't thought your beliefs through which is probably the case).
And if you think mainstream releases are "regional," well, let's just say I'm not alone in the looney bin. Just let it go. The white supremacists lost. Let's all live in 2018 where we welcome and enjoy diversity.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Jun 27, 2018 22:04:03 GMT
they [and the world] give the jobs to people who NEED it rather than those who are qualified. But they did give the job to someone who was qualified. She was already qualified. That's why she was getting the interview. Unless you think she put "Single mother of 6" somewhere on the application.
I'd say that a woman with six kids and still looking for a full time job works very hard. How many kids did you have at the time? Let's compare. people got interviews at schools because nyc was so hard up for teachers! and why??? because no one wanted to teach there anymore. they still don't. that is why they have teach for America and teaching fellowes programs. i have no kids and i really resent the insinuation that i am less of a person for not having kids.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Jun 27, 2018 22:04:57 GMT
So it seems you have a problem with a black actor playing a character with some authority rather than wnat his race was in the comics. ****** I have a problem with forced diversity and its political agenda. Disney did the same with Pirates 4 where they made an Obama-type black character the strong authority character in the story. You will be hard pressed to find any white male character being shown as a similar kind of authority figure. It's a political decision. It is consistent and ubiquitous. Artistically is is dishonest. Dislike has absolutely nothing to do with political povs, art has got to be truthful to Nature or it is propaganda.
And just to clarify...Asgard in the comics is not the Asgard of Norse myth. **And it is irrelevant. Wakanda was presented as an all black society--Asgard in the comics was all white or pseudo-Scandinavian realm. Disney chose to preserve the homogeneity of the African country but not that of the European counterpart. Thus a double standard.
She has Polish, Austrian, Russian grandparents...some European in there *in other words not in keeping with the "Jane Foster" heritage assumptions. So now not matching up to an unspecified heritage of a fictional character, despite a visual match is a problem? **no just pointing out the tendency of Hollywood to look for reasons not to use Europeans in artistic presentations. How stupid of me. ***you are forgiven They cast an Australian to appeal to the 25 million Australians, whilst alienating 325 million Americans. Despite him having a stronger European heritage than most American actors considered for the role. Which shouldn't really matter because ASGARD IS NOT ON EARTH **no they didnt do it to appeal to 25 million Australians. They did it because they are committed to globalism in business practices. Blockbuster movies are probably the closest you'll get to it. So should studios give up trying to have worldwide appeal, because if they do, films of this type will soon die out **the blockbuster came into being because Hollywood wanted to reassert its domination of cinema screens (it had been temporarily thwarted by the block-booking scandal of the 1940s as well as SIMPP/United Artists). Through the 60s it was small production companies that were taking a big slice of audiences--the big studios were doing slice of life political messages and ignoring fantasy. In Europe, England was developing its own film industry. This came to a halt by the early 70s--not because audiences didnt want regional film, but because no native film producer could compete with Hollywood when it had all the money from financial sources as well as friends in government to ensure it maintained control.
The media (friends with Hollywood) claimed the blockbuster wowed people so much that they no longer wanted choices. BS. Hollywood was buying out distribution and making it impossible for independent production companies to exist. Big Hollywood is not capitalistic--it is not dependent on audiences to survive.
Then in the 90s when trade agreements opened up new markets, Hollywood corporate studios started to focus on worldwide markets--and the regional elements of film got weaker and weaker. This is not about maximizing profits-since Hollywood could easily make films that cater to regional audiences across the globe. They prefer one-size fits all art--though I think their desire to cater to China is greatly exaggerated. The main objective is to water down European identity. As Orwell said, the best way to destroy a people is to erase their history. This is why Hollywood is sticking Japanese and African knights in Arthurian legends or making Achilles a black man.
BTW-I notice no European names in the cast list for Disney's upcoming blockbuster Mulan film. If they avoid any white actors, then the theory on Disney's agenda will be validated even more.
On the contrary, it reflects the hero myth studied in Joseph Campbell's "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" which Lucas used as the template for Star Wars *the heroes in classical stories are never beta types. That is the Liberal edit. They are usually the best warrior or healthiest specimen of the group. And they usually show a great deal of independence. Contrast Luke with Prince Valiant for example. Valiant is also a farm boy with a father who was a warrior--but he is not dependent on magic. In fact, Luke gets weaker as the story progresses. In the first movie he is triumphant, but in the second he is shown to be reckless, angry, and needs to be rescued by friends. In the third film, he has to be saved by his father. This is NOT traditional. Flash Gordon being rescued by his dad? You argued that there would be uproar if a white actor "right for the role" got the part of Luke Cage. And I pointed out that there should be outrage, because unlike other characters who may have their race changed Luke Cages race defines him, is the reason he was created and makes himculturally important. **you do realize that neither Black Panther nor Luke Cage were created by black artists-writers right? For a black-made superhero, you have to go back to the 1940s Lion-Man. But the point remains, they made a white woman into a non white, and the only reason they could have done it was because they wanted to force diversity.
I'm talking about Wakanda and why a "99%" black cast is not a big deal. I've already mentioned why a black character in Asgard it's not a big dea. **that just shows your double standard. You are perfectly fine with blackwashing a white character, but any occurrence of the opposite is a big no no. This just proves why regional art is better, it avoids clashes in taste which is completely natural. Different strokes for different folks.. why are you quoting nothing and making an argument out of it?
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 27, 2018 22:12:50 GMT
But they did give the job to someone who was qualified. She was already qualified. That's why she was getting the interview. Unless you think she put "Single mother of 6" somewhere on the application.
I'd say that a woman with six kids and still looking for a full time job works very hard. How many kids did you have at the time? Let's compare. people got interviews at schools because nyc was so hard up for teachers! and why??? because no one wanted to teach there anymore. they still don't. that is why they have teach for America and teaching fellowes programs. There's always an excuse, right? Not less, just not as hard working. I mean, that was your point, right? People don't want to work hard? Yet, a mother of six with a full time job sounds very hard working to me. I don't have kids either and even I know it's hard.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jun 27, 2018 22:20:51 GMT
And if you think mainstream releases are "regional," Regional film as in films made for specific audiences. Not big Hollywood. It is globalist, not regional.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jun 27, 2018 22:23:47 GMT
why are you quoting nothing and making an argument out of it? I am quoting the source (unless you feel it is technically nothing--certainly that's a perspective I may not dispute)
Unfortunately they keep replying in a he said, she said fashion so I have to cut and paste it. I much prefer they say their piece and I respond at the bottom instead of having to cherry pick the quotes.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Jun 27, 2018 22:28:07 GMT
people got interviews at schools because nyc was so hard up for teachers! and why??? because no one wanted to teach there anymore. they still don't. that is why they have teach for America and teaching fellowes programs. There's always an excuse, right? Not less, just not as hard working. I mean, that was your point, right? People don't want to work hard? Yet, a mother of six with a full time job sounds very hard working to me. I don't have kids either and even I know it's hard. no. i am actually very proud of her for becoming a teacher with 6 mouths to feed at home. it is not about what she was getting, it was about what i actually already had. they gave her the job because she needed it. i understood that she really DID need the job so i guess give her some sort of stress relief by giving her a job. thank you for not having kids. i don't mean that literally but i go into my school and am constantly looked down on because i don't have kids to take care of at home. i am sick of feeling like i am less than for 'choosing not to have kids'. it in fact wasn't a choice for me. i come from a family where you can not have a child without another half to the equation. that just wasn't what our family was about. when i started teaching i was 25. my first year i taught 3rd grade and had parents of my 8 year old students who were 25 that year. about the 'excuse'. it really isn't an excuse. when i first got to the school i am in now i started out with about 8 or so teach for America/teaching fellowes participants -- these are programs for college graduates from all over the country/world to teach for nyc and take masters degree courses at the same time. the city is basically paying them to get their masters degree for free. well... i started with like 8 of these girls... they all went out to lunch the first day of school... and only one came back. seriously no lie. they were lied to about the program. they left their little home town of wherever they lived, god bless them, and moved to nyc to make a difference in kids lives. then they saw the reality. kids throwing things at you. calling you kracka and you not being able to do A THING ABOUT IT. all sorts of crap. THAT WAS/STILL IS THE REALITY OF MANY NYC STUDENTS. that was not what the program was selling to them before they signed up. they thought they were going to join the peace corps or something. what they joined was the tenth level of hell. i don't blame them, i don't look down on them, i am actually glad they had enough sense to leave when they did and not waited to have some sort of mental break which is what many teachers have. i at least knew what i was walking into and was prepared. and i stayed. i am still there after 16 years.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Jun 27, 2018 22:29:03 GMT
why are you quoting nothing and making an argument out of it? I am quoting the source (unless you feel it is technically nothing--certainly that's a perspective I may not dispute)
Unfortunately they keep replying in a he said, she said fashion so I have to cut and paste it. I much prefer they say their piece and I respond at the bottom instead of having to cherry pick the quotes. i just don't know what you are arguing against or for.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 27, 2018 22:34:17 GMT
Even if it had been your choice, believe me, I would never make anyone feel like less than a person for not having kids.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 27, 2018 22:35:19 GMT
And if you think mainstream releases are "regional," Regional film as in films made for specific audiences. Not big Hollywood. It is globalist, not regional. Hate to break it to you, but this whole thread is about Hollywood.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Jun 27, 2018 23:14:24 GMT
Even if it had been your choice, believe me, I would never make anyone feel like less than a person for not having kids. thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jun 28, 2018 0:41:20 GMT
Hate to break it to you, but this whole thread is about Hollywood. You were saying that films where the cast is mostly white is white supremacy. I said a film that shows an all white is not white supremacy, just regional film. I asked you if you then believed that kabuki theater was supremacist since it is all japanese, and you ignored the question.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Jun 28, 2018 1:04:01 GMT
why cant we all go back to the 80s and watch the cosby show?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2018 1:11:51 GMT
WOW, You Really Did Your Homework! He did, and all it proves is that Hollywood Is forcing diversity. Because all you have to look at is how much in the past did they force diversity versus how much they're doing it now. Let's see that statistic CrepedCrusader
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Jun 28, 2018 6:20:45 GMT
Not surprising. because I would assume your typical person here in the USA wants to see mostly that, at least as far as us guys go since we tend to get into movies that are more male oriented in general since they fit the kinds of movies we tend to like the most. but basically the top three you listed (White/Black/Hispanic) seems to be what, at least I think, tend to be what those in the USA want to see and would connect with the most as they tend to have the best screen presence in general, at least for those of us in English speaking countries. you can occasionally go outside of those three but not often.
with that said... I would not be surprised if Hollywood is pushing more minorities to be in movies lately vs what they used to just because they are a minority. I think this is what the whole 'forcing diversity' stuff is about. like I doubt they would go too far from the normal just for $$$ sake, in terms of more leading roles etc, but in terms of side roles it does seem like there is at least some uptick of minorities a bit more lately. maybe that would be more difficult to calculate though vs the kind of test the OP did.
p.s. even with the Oscar awards you can see politics play a big part in who wins etc. but like I always say... since white people tend to make up the bulk of people in movies for those of us in USA etc, they will naturally win the most awards as I see it in terms of basic math. sort of how like in the NBA, like the MVP award for example... a black person will naturally win that the vast majority of the time because they tend to make up a large portion of the NBA in general. that's what I don't get about that #OscarsSoWhite crap because it's like they are pretty much forcing the academy to hand out awards based on skin color than a honest win as it would be like us white people complaining that black person always wins the MVP award or something like this, which I would not do as it would cheapen the award if say a white person did win after pretty much forcing them to give it to you by complaining. I would rather just let it play out however it plays out and whatever happens, happens. at least then you know the awards are more legitimate that way instead of politics. so that's why I think those awards are worth less lately than they used to be because it seems like Hollywood's politics play a bit part in who wins as it more about who's in a movie or the subject matter of a movie more than a movie just being a great movie to watch straight up.
|
|