Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
    • Movie
    Social Rights Movements in Entertainment
    • john_marston wrote:

      Had they casted Northern African/Middle Eastern actors for all the major roles in a film like this, good chance it would have done worse.
      hey so, how can you say nolan's claims are less worthwhile for not having good enough proof (as you put it) but then say something like this. how do you know?

      nolan's whole point is that having an all white cast doesn't considerably change a movie's chance of success over that of a film with a more diverse cast. you ask whether having someone like dwayne johnson in the film would've helped, and like, yeah, who knows. what i do know is that his star power doesn't necessarily guarantee a movie's success despite the fact that he's one of the biggest actors in hollywood right now. see: baywatch.

      if a movie's cast doesn't considerably affect whether it is good or not (yes, great performances can improve a film, but these performances are arguably limited by writing and direction) or how successful it will be, then why not cast with diversity in mind? you say that people want to see themselves reflected on screen, and yes, that's true to an extent, but as a person of middle eastern descent it's not like i refuse to see movies with white people in them; similarly, i don't think white audiences will never watch movies with people of color in them, or lgbt+ characters. relatability isn't the be all end all. in the end i think we can all agree we just want to see things that are good. like, i don't enjoy breaking bad because i agree with the protagonists desire to have a crime empire, i watch it bc it's well made and the themes are universal. i believe get out is the best performing film of the year? yes, the movie deals directly with race, but i think it appeals to so many people for more than just its cast (although the fact that it had a diverse cast may also be an appeal, because that is something that is actually fresh in films these days).

      yeah. so it's like, i'm not sure if your attitude is a necessarily helpful or good one. it feels at worst dismissive and at best defeatist.

      also, you probably know this already, but dwayne johnson isn't white. so while you may say he is one of the exceptions, i think his and others' success is proof enough that diversity isn't box office poison.

      galedeep: if i'm getting into too much sd territory lemme know and i'll cool off.

      2 Holden 2 Art ★ Signature from Cucumber Quest ★ #faroreguerrilla ★

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Holden ().

    • Holden wrote:


      hey so, how can you say nolan's claims are less worthwhile for not having good enough proof (as you put it) but then say something like this. how do you know?

      I can't know for sure in this case, that's why I said ''good chance it would do worse'', which is being realistic. Whereas Galedeep keeps saying it's ''proven'' that famous (white) actors don't help. And I'm honestly wondering where this hard proof is.

      nolan's whole point is that having an all white cast doesn't considerably change a movie's chance of success over that of a film with a more diverse cast. you ask whether having someone like dwayne johnson in the film would've helped, and like, yeah, who knows. what i do know is that his star power doesn't necessarily guarantee a movie's success despite the fact that he's one of the biggest actors in hollywood right now. see: baywatch.

      I never said that star power guarantees success, I already mentioned this. My point is simply that it will likely improve sales. Whether that be from mediocre to good sales, or shit to not-so shit. That's my point.

      if a movie's cast doesn't considerably affect whether it is good or not (yes, great performances can improve a film, but these performances are arguably limited by writing and direction) or how successful it will be, then why not cast with diversity in mind?

      But I believe that it generally will affect sales. (I feel like I'm becoming a broken record)
      Plus convenience. How many well-known Hollywood actors are there with a Middle Eastern appearance (that are also available and want to shoot this fillm), versus white ones?

      I'm not saying that I support Hollywood always casting a bunch of famous (often white & American) actors. But it is a conscious, reasoned decision. And they pay people good money for casting. And for a blockbuster wankfest like GoE, star-factor and convenience will take a higher priority than realistic representation. That's kinda my point, not trying to argue here or have an attitude.

      you say that people want to see themselves reflected on screen, and yes, that's true to an extent, but as a person of middle eastern descent it's not like i refuse to see movies with white people in them; similarly, i don't think white audiences will never watch movies with people of color in them, or lgbt+ characters. relatability isn't the be all end all. in the end i think we can all agree we just want to see things that are good. like, i don't enjoy breaking bad because i agree with the protagonists desire to have a crime empire, i watch it bc it's well made and the themes are universal. i believe get out is the best performing film of the year? yes, the movie deals directly with race, but i think it appeals to so many people for more than just its cast (although the fact that it had a diverse cast may also be an appeal, because that is something that is actually fresh in films these days).

      also, you probably know this already, but dwayne johnson isn't white. so while you may say he is one of the exceptions, i think his and others' success is proof enough that diversity isn't box office poison.

      Relatability is a factor. And I'd say 'star-factor' is a part of relatability, i.e. seeing a movie with famous actors that you are very familiar with. Do you think the general audience would rather see a movie with actors they know, or a movie with actors they don't know?

      I know Dwayne isn't 'white', but he has that star-factor that will draw audiences. Which is also part of the discussion, as gladeep seems to believe otherwise:

      the point is that having the recognizable white cast instead of non-white (or non-recognizable) didn't help.

      I thought it was common sense that famous actors generally help sell a movie.
    • Red Dingo wrote:

      So instead of taking risks with a diverse cast and a well written script, Hollywood prefers to produce a movie with a shit script and well known white actors?
      haha. it isn't one or the other, but yeah.

      like, i understand why hollywood prefers to cast white actors. because of how race works (as a systemic force), that is often the default for these type of movies. it is the safe option. however, i don't think it is a particularly interesting decision or a good one for that matter.

      marston, i would reply to your post but i just got out of class, still have class later, and i don't particularly want to get into a quote war rn lmao. but i want to quickly touch on this idea of star power... which is to say, how does someone become a star? you say there are more famous white actors than actors of color, and yeah, i agree with you there. but why is this? again, how do these actors become stars? it is in part bc of their own ability, or their hard work, but i think that it is equally bc studios invest in them. we don't have a lot of middle eastern stars in hollywood bc there aren't that many roles made available for them and more often than not the roles that are available for them aren't top billing. or the roles are somehow tied into their race or background, which limits the type of movies they might star in. one rising middle eastern star for example is rami malek (the lead in mr robot; he's also appeared in films in minor roles). his character in mr robot is not specifically tied to his race (i believe his character is mixed race, but it's barely brought up). since it's not tied to his race, anyone could have been cast, yes? why not cast a better known white actor? if the usa network hadn't taken a "risk" in casting him, he wouldn't be a rising star in the industry. we would've been robbed of what is a really phenomenal performance that i think few people can give like malek (for that role).

      opportunities need to be created both on screen and behind it so that non-white actors and creators can actually become household names. if you keep doing the same thing over and over, hiring the same type of people over and over, it becomes a self-perpetuating issue.
    • This is What Latino Film Critics are Saying About Pixar's 'Coco'

      Remezcla wrote:

      Hollywood is a (white) boys’ club, and so is film criticism. Nowhere is this more evident than in the multitude of reviews published about Pixar’s Coco. The majority of critics have been positive in their remarks about the animated feature, but many lack the cultural competence to discuss the most Mexican aspects of the film. From calling Coco inauthentic to misspelling words in Spanish, the stockpile of opinions disseminated by major media sites has one glaring omission – not one of them is penned by a Latino writer.
      This is something that I've been musing about as I looked at the reception Coco was receiving approaching its release - something that also cropped up when I was thinking about seeing The Book of Life a few years back (never ended up seeing it).

      I think uninformed criticism can suffer from the same pitfalls as uninformed writing about other cultural groups (ie appropriation) in general - and I've been trying to make more of a concerted effort to seek out a variety of voices in the criticism I read as well as in my general consumption habits.
    • I found this op-ed by Molly Ringwald in the New Yorker a really good read. There's been a lot of re-examining of how films in the past have portrayed and dealt women as a part of #MeToo and surrounding social rights movement, with the teen movies of the 80s getting a lot of (rightful) criticism in that area. While the films of John Hughes haven't been immune to that criticism (nor should they), The Breakfast Club is always the hardest one because it's such an important movie to so many people, myself included. Molly Ringwald is uniquely positioned to examine the film in the context of #MeToo and I think she does a fantastic job.


      The New Yorker wrote:

      John’s movies convey the anger and fear of isolation that adolescents feel, and seeing that others might feel the same way is a balm for the trauma that teen-agers experience. Whether that’s enough to make up for the impropriety of the films is hard to say—even criticizing them makes me feel like I’m divesting a generation of some of its fondest memories, or being ungrateful since they helped to establish my career. And yet embracing them entirely feels hypocritical. And yet, and yet. . . .

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Galedeep ().

    • GLAAD's latest Studio Responsibility Index, which annually "maps the quantity, quality, and diversity of LGBTQ people in films released by the seven largest motion picture studios and their subsidiaries," has been released.

      While they note that the early portion of this year's release is promising, with films like Love, SImon and Annihilation having good LGBTQ representation, unfortunately 2017 was a step down from last year:


      GLAAD wrote:

      GLAAD found that of the 109 releases from major studios in 2017, only 14 (12.8%) of them included characters that are LGBTQ. This represents a significant decrease from the previous year’s report (18.4%, 23 out of 125), and the lowest percentage of LGBTQ-inclusive major studio releases since GLAAD began tracking in 2012. Not one of the 109 releases included a transgender character, a drop from the one transgender character portrayed in 2016, who only served as a punchline.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Galedeep ().

    • Following on from James Gunn's termination at Disney, Dan Harmon is now being targeted for a video he made 9 years ago where he parodies dexter as a pedophile. He's deleted his twitter.

      It seems he's similarly being targeted for speaking out against trump similar to Gunn, but that doesn't necessarily make the joke okay. I do genuinely think both Gunn and Harmon have changed in the last 10 years and know what they used to joke about was wrong. Gunn's apology seems as compelling as it could be. I also personally think Harmon has changed, mostly because i've watched a lot of harmontown and i can't think of any times i've pulled a face at his off-the-cuff jokes. The only argument i think of would be that Rick and Morty can push boundaries, but even then I attribute that more to Roiland who's humour is juvenile at best (see Doc and Mharti which is essentially a series of pedophillia sketches)

      EDIT: For those unaware, here's a complete enough summary of the situation with James Gunn (though the bias is palpable lmao)



      why would trump support the vikings

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Keith ().

    • I really want to get into the film industry. Sadly I don't know what steps to take without having to sell my soul to Hollywood. Hollywood is a machine, they don't care about things that actually matter, they only care about how people view them, and whatever makes them the most money. Speaking of that I dont even think they even make movies for that actually like movies. What I mean is that they are so concerned about selling their product to countries like China. Which to be fair is kind of hard to make stories for because everything is under strict censorship by the government. Despite this they attack any sort of competition like foreign films. One by either buying different studios or give them little to no recognition to the mass market. Just look at the Academy Awards. Where a few members called a studio ghibli's Tale of Princess Kaguya"Some Obscure F@#king Chinese thing that nobody freakin saw". Not only was that racist and Ignorant but it also shows how little the industry actually cares for the medium.

      Links: vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/1/19…pixar-independent-academy

      washingtonpost.com/news/democr…on&utm_term=.2a3295f5d328

      businessinsider.com/hollywood-movies-in-china-2016-10

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Ambiant ().

    • Whoa whoa whoa whoa WHOA!

      WHO the #%#% was hating on Princess Kaguya?!

      That's in my top three favorite animated movies! It was magical! Radical! It was fucking BREATHTAKING!

      Whoever said that, they SUCK and they DON'T KNOW WHAT A GOOD MOVIE IS!

      Edit- It made me CRY like a baby. It made me question so many things. It is, in my opinion, Studio Ghibli's SHINING GEM.

      I'm legit mad right now. Those people are NOT human beings. To HELL WITH THEM!
      :ghirahim: :cucco: :look: :tingle: :moon:

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Guinea ().

    • F### the Academy Awards. Sorry for cursing.

      I would buck up to those fools I swear.

      Edit- I'ma say this: Big Hero 6 was a fantastic movie, I don't fault it for winning.

      But Frozen beating The Wind Rises? Nah. That's messed up. The Wind Rises was really good, when dude put out his cig because his wife was dying of a lung disease, I cried. Studio Ghibli makes me cry like nobodies business. I don't understand this world.

      Grr!!!
      :ghirahim: :cucco: :look: :tingle: :moon:

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Guinea ().

    • Keith wrote:

      Following on from James Gunn's termination at Disney, Dan Harmon is now being targeted for a video he made 9 years ago where he parodies dexter as a pedophile. He's deleted his twitter.




      ...
      This is not going to stop with these two. Bautista was quite right in calling these folks cybernazis in his defense of Gunn. Who hasn't made a joke that they regret? That they have grown past? For many people on this forum, and the internet in general, there hasn't been a time when they haven't been using the internet: think of how fucking stupid you (not keith, just you lot in general) were a decade ago. Now imagine someone was combing through all of that to deliberately spike your career because you disagreed with their politics.

      Let's be clear here: this isn't people rightly getting outraged because a celebrity is a racist (a la Roseanne) - this is people creating a mob to falsely vilify someone. In the screenshots being spread around, they're deliberately misleading people by blanking out information which could prove them wrong, such as youtube urls. This is pizzagate but instead of being direct it at a nebulous pizza shop, it's directed at individuals.

      There is a really good piece on this by Luke O'Brien.


      “Gandalf put his hand on Pippin's head. "There never was much hope," he answered. "Just a fool's hope, as I have been told.”
      ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King

    • Ambiant wrote:

      I really want to get into the film industry. Sadly I don't know what steps to take without having to sell my soul to Hollywood. Hollywood is a machine, they don't care about things that actually matter, they only care about how people view them, and whatever makes them the most money. Speaking of that I dont even think they even make movies for that actually like movies. What I mean is that they are so concerned about selling their product to countries like China. Which to be fair is kind of hard to make stories for because everything is under strict censorship by the government. Despite this they attack any sort of competition like foreign films. One by either buying different studios or give them little to no recognition to the mass market. Just look at the Academy Awards. Where a few members called a studio ghibli's Tale of Princess Kaguya"Some Obscure F@#king Chinese thing that nobody freakin saw". Not only was that racist and Ignorant but it also shows how little the industry actually cares for the medium.
      Hi, I work in the film industry.

      The film industry (and Hollywood, for that matter) is not a monolith. There are plenty of people working in the industry who prioritize telling stories that they find important or worthwhile. If they're very very lucky, they'll actually manage to earn a living doing so. But movies are expensive, so a lot of the time compromises need to be made in order to secure the financing necessary to actually make the film. Often than means pre-selling the movie internationally, which means when putting the movie together consideration needs to be given to appeasing those international markets in order to make sure the investors will see a return. Otherwise they won't invest, and the movie doesn't get made.

      It's a tough, constantly changing business. But it is a business, and always has been.

      As for the Academy, it's certainly a flawed institution with nomination and voting practices that will always favour popularity over merit. But it's also made up of thousands of people across all the trades and craft areas of filmmaking (they just added 928 this year), so again - not a monolith.
    • Adult Swim is standing by Dan Harmon, so there's that.

      Variety wrote:

      “At Adult Swim, we seek out and encourage creative freedom and look to push the envelope in many ways, particularly around comedy,” the statement reads. “The offensive content of Dan’s 2009 video that recently surfaced demonstrates poor judgement and does not reflect the type of content we seek out. Dan recognized his mistake at the time and has apologized. He understands there is no place for this type of content here at Adult Swim.”

      I think (or hope) for the most part similar responses will come from the companies that frequently work with other people being targeted (Patton Oswalt, Sarah Silverman, etc). My own feelings toward Harmon are somewhat complicated because of how he has treated his employees and specifically his treatment of Megan Ganz when she was on Community, but even in that regard he has acknowledged his shitty behaviour and actually attempted to make restoration to the victim specifically so...I dunno.

      I'm curious to see if Disney does anything about Silverman because she is one of the voice stars of one of their upcoming movies but, like...Disney is nothing if not hypocritical and like with James Gunn it's not like they didn't know she trades in shock humour when they hired her in the first place. It's all just such a huge mess.
    • Galedeep wrote:

      Ambiant wrote:

      I really want to get into the film industry. Sadly I don't know what steps to take without having to sell my soul to Hollywood. Hollywood is a machine, they don't care about things that actually matter, they only care about how people view them, and whatever makes them the most money. Speaking of that I dont even think they even make movies for that actually like movies. What I mean is that they are so concerned about selling their product to countries like China. Which to be fair is kind of hard to make stories for because everything is under strict censorship by the government. Despite this they attack any sort of competition like foreign films. One by either buying different studios or give them little to no recognition to the mass market. Just look at the Academy Awards. Where a few members called a studio ghibli's Tale of Princess Kaguya"Some Obscure F@#king Chinese thing that nobody freakin saw". Not only was that racist and Ignorant but it also shows how little the industry actually cares for the medium.
      Hi, I work in the film industry.
      The film industry (and Hollywood, for that matter) is not a monolith. There are plenty of people working in the industry who prioritize telling stories that they find important or worthwhile. If they're very very lucky, they'll actually manage to earn a living doing so. But movies are expensive, so a lot of the time compromises need to be made in order to secure the financing necessary to actually make the film. Often than means pre-selling the movie internationally, which means when putting the movie together consideration needs to be given to appeasing those international markets in order to make sure the investors will see a return. Otherwise they won't invest, and the movie doesn't get made.

      It's a tough, constantly changing business. But it is a business, and always has been.

      As for the Academy, it's certainly a flawed institution with nomination and voting practices that will always favour popularity over merit. But it's also made up of thousands of people across all the trades and craft areas of filmmaking (they just added 928 this year), so again - not a monolith.
      Wow man thanks for clearing things up me. Hearing someone that works in the industry really does make a difference.
    • Ambiant wrote:

      Wow man thanks for clearing things up me. Hearing someone that works in the industry really does make a difference.
      No problem. I'm always conflicted when people talk about the industry as this soulless machine only interested in making money because there are plenty of parts of the business that lend credence to that perspective, but I think it sells short the many many people who do put a lot of care and consideration into the projects they work on, and push to get worthwhile but difficult to sell projects off the ground. Even within the larger institutions.