|
Post by Vits on Apr 14, 2018 10:27:13 GMT
I got this from a Rotten Tomatoes article published due to a controversy with THE SIMPSONS and their famous Indian character. There's also been a debate about ROSEANNE that I think is similar to the debate about ARCHIE BUNKER. I wanted to see if you folks agreed. I also wanted to give my 2 cents on the subject.
Look, things aren't black or white (no pun intended). If an old show (or movie) has a stereotype, the viewer has to analyze how it affects things before deciding whether it ruins the whole thing or not. A lot of times, a stereotype is a character that appears briefly and has no real relevance to the story.
APU's portrayal is positive. He's a good person in a show that doesn't have that many good people. He just happens to have an exagerated accent that we don't even pay attention to after a while. Yeah, he has done wrong things from time to time, but he always redeems himself. If anything, HOMER is the offensive stereotype. He combines all the negative aspects of a white American man (I'm not one, by the way) and rarely redeemds himself... and he's the protagonist!
GENERAL LEE is the vehicle that the heroes use not only for transport but also during the action sequences. I think we see more shots of the car than the DUKES. It's like having a superhero with an offensive symbol on the chest. Again, I'm not American, so I don't have a stance on the debate about banning the flag from public places but, if one uses it personally, it's because one believes in those ideologies.
I remember seeing Leonard Maltin introducing old cartoons and explaining the context and why they had something that could offend modern viewers. Then they showed the cartoon without any edits. That's how they should broadcast the shows in this article.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Apr 14, 2018 10:32:15 GMT
mr i only have one shirt jj evans: god, that lilac heather turtleneck was DISGUSTING! and he was the reason the parents eventually left the series.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2018 14:07:44 GMT
None.
|
|
|
Post by movielover on Apr 14, 2018 14:44:37 GMT
None
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Apr 15, 2018 22:04:56 GMT
Since I'm not a pathetic whiny white liberal that only interacts with other pathetic whiny white liberals none of them make me cringe. It never ceases to amaze me how many sjw's would rather find something to be OUTRAGED about and then demand it be banned instead of leaving their safe space and meeting some of those poor defenseless non whites they insist they are saving from seeing evil cars.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Apr 15, 2018 23:14:32 GMT
Since I'm not a pathetic whiny white liberal that only interacts with other pathetic whiny white liberals none of them make me cringe. It never ceases to amaze me how many sjw's would rather find something to be OUTRAGED about and then demand it be banned instead of leaving their safe space and meeting some of those poor defenseless non whites they insist they are saving from seeing evil cars. This actually reminds me of something I was thinking the other day. It's a general consensus that liberals, especially of the 'pathetic whiny white' type don't read, if they do it's probably very limited so they don't get offended, and I was thinking if you were to compile a list of books that in some way involve guns, since the pathetic whiny white liberals especially hate those even though they don't know anything about them, as such it's a safe bet they must've never read any of those books, how many would be on that list? Even extending to children's books it would have to be a s**tload, The Matchlock Gun for instance, or when I was growing up, Prisoners at the Kitchen Table, when 2 kids finally get away from their kidnappers they take off into the woods with a loaded rifle, which the spoiled rich girl knows how to use because she has one just like it at home, ooh the liberals would have a field day with that one.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Apr 16, 2018 16:43:40 GMT
I got this from a Rotten Tomatoes article published due to a controversy with THE SIMPSONS and their famous Indian character. There's also been a debate about ROSEANNE that I think is similar to the debate about ARCHIE BUNKER. I wanted to see if you folks agreed. I also wanted to give my 2 cents on the subject. (...) APU's portrayal is positive. He's a good person in a show that doesn't have that many good people. He just happens to have an exagerated accent that we don't even pay attention to after a while. Yeah, he has done wrong things from time to time, but he always redeems himself. If anything, HOMER is the offensive stereotype. He combines all the negative aspects of a white American man (I'm not one, by the way) and rarely redeemds himself... and he's the protagonist! (...) From that list, the only one that I know is Apu, and I am of the opinion that the criticisms he’s been getting are preposterous. I agree with you, the portrayal is largely positive – except for being a slightly dishonest merchant (overcharging for items and changing expiration dates), there is not much that one can criticise about him. He is not lazy, inconsiderate and a slob like Homer, evil like Mr. Burns, a miserable creature like Moe, pathetic like Principal Skinner or Comic Book guy, borderline retarded like Chief Wiggum, a drunk like Barney, or a selfish asshole like Krusty. And don’t even get me started on the idiotic complaint that the character is voiced by a white actor. Why should that matter? It’s just a voice! When The Simpsons is dubbed in Argentina or in Italy or in Finland does anybody expect that an Indian actor would be hired? Obviously not, that would be stupid. So why should the American dubbing have to be done by an Indian actor? Might as well complain that Bart is voiced by an adult woman and not by a ten-year old boy.
|
|