Debate on Social Agendas/Commentaries in Movies

[downzy]

9 minutes ago, Gordon Comstock said:

 

If it fits the context of the show or movie, then yea, cast non-white people. I'll use the show Black Mirror as an example again (if you haven't seen it, you should btw), there are plenty of episodes with female or minority leads, and they're great episodes, like Men Against Fire, White Bear or San Junipero, but when it's just sloppily thrown in there to appease the vocal sjw-types, like with USS Callister, it's uninteresting and almost defeats its own purpose.

As far as your last sentence, I wish that were true, but it's not really. It's the same stories with liberal politics shoe-horned in, sometimes literally; but Ghostbusters was a failure, 24 was a failure, I'm willing to bet Ocean's 8 will be a failure... if screenwriters were actually telling new stories, it'd be a different argument, but like @Iron MikeyJ said they are just having people shoe-horned into stories instead of creating something for them, and IMO that comes across poorly.

I've seen the first episode of the most recent season Black Mirror and don't agree with your criticism.  You'll have to explain how having the female save the day was sloppily done.  I thought it was explained fairly well why the previous victims had given up hope and it took an outsider aware of a timely system flaw to figure things out.

Ghostbusters and 24 were failures not because of their casts but because they weren't well done.  In my opinion they didn't offer anything fresh and the material was weak.  I would wager they would have done just as poorly with new casts that were predominantly male.  Reboots in general, save for those based on comic-book heroes, don't do well in general.  They're stale rehash of old ideas.  There are exceptions to the reboot curse, of course.  Take Mad Max, where the lead role is shared between Mad and the strong female character Furiosa. That movie did well both commercially and critically.  

36 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

To cycle this conversation back to Star Wars a bit, doesn't anyone else find it a bit telling that (in the Disney trilogy) that the white males are evil (Kylo and Hux), die (Han Solo), or get severely tarnished then die (Luke Skywalker). But the females and minorities get ample time to shine and save the day? Which again, if it serves the story I don't have a problem with it. But that's the problem with the Disney trilogy isn't it? The story is garbage, Rey is a Mary Sue, etc, etc. The actual story telling has taken a back seat to pushing the agenda. Which the same thing happens with the Ghostbusters remake. So ya, I have a problem with that. What's next, Marla Mcfly???

So I guess you went to the washroom whenever Poe was on screen.  

[Gordon Comstock]

1 minute ago, downzy said:

Ghostbusters and 24 were failures not because of their casts but because they weren't well done.  In my opinion they didn't offer anything fresh and the material was weak.

 

That is basically the argument though - "creators" use the same basic stories they've told forever, and adding token minorities doesn't do much of anything other than make it seem like hollywood is pandering to the vocal millennial crowd, because it largely does seem shoe-horned in.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about USS Callister, I thought it was predictable and instead of fleshing out the story more, it seemed like they just went with what people wanted to see, which is unfortunate for a show like Black Mirror.

However, if you can point me towards something more original, like Get Out, then please do.

[Iron MikeyJ]

@downzy,

You made my point for me in regards to Poe. He was ACTUALLY bringing something fresh and interesting to TLJ, but what happened? He got put in his place by the new strong female with blue hair. Instead of having them work together to solve the problem, they created a false dilemma between the two of them. Which communication could of prevented all of that (again poor writing). They then choose to make the female the BIG hero by self sacrificing herself. Which Admiral Ackbar should have been the one to lead while Leia was "injured". Instead they killed him off screen just to give the female character something to do. Like really??? That's just bad, agenda based writing. 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Iron MikeyJ

[downzy]

46 minutes ago, Gordon Comstock said:

 

That is basically the argument though - "creators" use the same basic stories they've told forever, and adding token minorities doesn't do much of anything other than make it seem like hollywood is pandering to the vocal millennial crowd, because it largely does seem shoe-horned in.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about USS Callister, I thought it was predictable and instead of fleshing out the story more, it seemed like they just went with what people wanted to see, which is unfortunate for a show like Black Mirror.

However, if you can point me towards something more original, like Get Out, then please do.

Well, it's not as though Hollywood has been creating original stories for male leads either.  How many creatively and commercially successful films have there been in the last 15-20 years that wasn't based on a comic book or a retread of previous franchises.  

I guess you could call something like the female Ghostbusters as pandering, others like myself might consider appealing to a new socially conscious audience.  For years Hollywood created formulaic while male-dominated films geared for while male audiences.  Was that pandering then or appealing audience at the time?  Why are film franchises like the Expendables critiqued for pandering to a particular audience?  

To be honest, I enjoyed USS Callister thanks to the performances and the overall tone (a bit lighter and using a bit more humours than the typical episode of Black Mirror).  I do agree that the themes were a bit retread of previous episodes, but I'm not sure why this problem is anyway connected to having a female lead.  Moreover, I'm not sure how one would expect anything from Charlier Brooker.  If anything, USS Callister is perhaps evidence that Brooker is starting to run out of ideas, not that he's attempting to appeal to a wider audience using a female lead.

Get Out was a great movie, but definitely a rarity in terms of creativity coming out of Hollywood.  How many original films have been released in the last 15-20 years that were without any social commentary?  Very few films achieve both financial and critical success, it's usually one or the other.  Few seem to take issue when gender parity or social issues are explored in films geared for the award season, but heavens forbid if they strive for commercial success for a wider audience.  

[downzy]

53 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

@downzy,

You made my point for me in regards to Poe. He was ACTUALLY bringing something fresh and interesting to TLJ, but what happened? He got put in his place by the new strong female with blue hair. Instead of having them work together to solve the problem, they created a false dilemma between the two of them. Which communication could of prevented all of that (again poor writing). They then choose to make the female the BIG hero by self sacrificing herself. Which Admiral Ackbar should have been the one to lead while Leia was "injured". Instead they killed him off screen just to give the female character something to do. Like really??? That's just bad, agenda based writing. 

Look, you'll get no argument from me that TLJ was a disappointment.  I have a lot of issues with how the plot advanced and the lack of communication between Resistance personnel.  But this is a failure in writing and not some poor attempt to disrupt normative gender roles.  It would seem you're so sensitive to this kind of thing that any instance where a female prevails over a male it's just another example of the liberal agenda wanting you to feel bad about being a white male.  

Nevermind that Poe is considered the best fighter pilot in the galaxy, saves the day numerous times for all involved in TFA, and figures out that leadership isn't simply going on offence and saves what's left of the Resistance in the final chapter of TLJ.

[Iron MikeyJ]

Ok... So I'm the one with the agenda, gotcha. Thanks for the chat.

[DieselDaisy]

You're using the Ghostbusters reboot as an example? That film was one of the worst films ever and justifiably pilloried for its male to female switch-up!! If there is a good example of why one should not pander needlessly to gender/minorities, the Ghostbusters reboot might be top of the list.

[Gordon Comstock]

25 minutes ago, downzy said:

Well, it's not as though Hollywood has been creating original stories for male leads either.  How many creatively and commercially successful films have there been in the last 15-20 years that wasn't based on a comic book or a retread of previous franchises.  

I guess you could call something like the female Ghostbusters as pandering, others like myself might consider appealing to a new socially conscious audience.  For years Hollywood created formulaic while male-dominated films geared for while male audiences.  Was that pandering then or appealing audience at the time?  Why are film franchises like the Expendables critiqued for pandering to a particular audience?  

I wouldn't necessarily like the characters more if they were a white guy, don't get me wrong, but when it's the same shtick with what become token characters, it sometimes defeats it's own cause. I'm not sure how else to explain it, but the 'diversity on screen' push would be more successful if it were more original.

I guess it could be called pandering, given that minorities have always existed but not always for the profit of hollywood. I don't know why the Expendables are critiqued for that of all things but I would guess that when a movie's full of wrestlers and fighters, the target audience seems obvious?

Quote

To be honest, I enjoyed USS Callister thanks to the performances and the overall tone (a bit lighter and using a bit more humours than the typical episode of Black Mirror).  I do agree that the themes were a bit retread of previous episodes, but I'm not sure why this problem is anyway connected to having a female lead.  Moreover, I'm not sure how one would expect anything from Charlier Brooker.  If anything, USS Callister is perhaps evidence that Brooker is starting to run out of ideas, not that he's attempting to appeal to a wider audience using a female lead.

I didn't care for the story overall, but I know I'm in the minority there. I agree with you that the episode might be evidence Brooker's running out of ideas, but his time to write this season was drastically reduced and it came across as a token gesture or, maybe 'formulaic Netflix-audience writing' to distract from that. Hopefully it's not a sign of what's to come with it being a yearly Netflix show now. It's not the 'strong female lead' part I have a problem with, but it's sort of like The Force Awakens (the only new Star Wars I've seen tbh) where people praise what is overall a poor product because the only difference is diversity. It's boring.

Quote

Get Out was a great movie, but definitely a rarity in terms of creativity coming out of Hollywood.  How many original films have been released in the last 15-20 years that were without any social commentary?  Very few films achieve both financial and critical success, it's usually one or the other.  Few seem to take issue when gender parity or social issues are explored in films geared for the award season, but heavens forbid if they strive for commercial success for a wider audience.  

It's a shame that hollywood feels they can only make money from diverse casts when it's through well established franchises or actors, which really only furthers the impression of tokenism.

[downzy]

40 minutes ago, Gordon Comstock said:

I wouldn't necessarily like the characters more if they were a white guy, don't get me wrong, but when it's the same shtick with what become token characters, it sometimes defeats it's own cause. I'm not sure how else to explain it, but the 'diversity on screen' push would be more successful if it were more original.

I guess it could be called pandering, given that minorities have always existed but not always for the profit of hollywood. I don't know why the Expendables are critiqued for that of all things but I would guess that when a movie's full of wrestlers and fighters, the target audience seems obvious?

I didn't care for the story overall, but I know I'm in the minority there. I agree with you that the episode might be evidence Brooker's running out of ideas, but his time to write this season was drastically reduced and it came across as a token gesture or, maybe 'formulaic Netflix-audience writing' to distract from that. Hopefully it's not a sign of what's to come with it being a yearly Netflix show now. It's not the 'strong female lead' part I have a problem with, but it's sort of like The Force Awakens (the only new Star Wars I've seen tbh) where people praise what is overall a poor product because the only difference is diversity. It's boring.

It's a shame that hollywood feels they can only make money from diverse casts when it's through well established franchises or actors, which really only furthers the impression of tokenism.

Fair enough.  I just don't see the point in getting too upset or rooting for a known franchise to fail because of a change in cast.  If they want to make an all-female Ghostbusters, what's the harm?  The injury comes if the movie proves to be substandard.  Too often the blame is directed towards the cast when really, the source material explains the failure. Similarly, if the producers of the latest Disney film decide to include a few black characters to either appeal to a wider audience or inject a little more diversity, how does this rise to the level of doing a disservice to the final product when we consider the intended audience?  

I'm not sure I understand your second point.  Are you saying that because minorities have always existed but have been ignored by Hollywood that to notice and represent them now in modern takes on old stories is akin to pandering?  Assuming I'm understanding you correctly, I don't agree and don't see any difference between appealing to a wider audience than your standard white movie goer in the same way that a movie like the Expendables was created solely to appeal to a male audience.  I'm not sure I agree that simply recognizing women and people of colour within existing franchises is akin to pandering to those people's base instincts.  Why isn't their inclusion considered respecting their presence in the community in general?

I thought USS Callister was still a better episode of television than 99 percent of the stuff out there, but just down a bit from Brooker's usual efforts.  (Side note - season three of Black Mirror is my favourite, with Shut Up and Dance being my favourite episode.  Coincidentally, San Junipero was my least favourite episode from season three).  The fact that it has a female lead is just incidental in my opinion.  Moreover, and my memory could be failing me on this one, it examines the potential dangers of merging fantasy, fandom, isolation, and technology in a way that hasn't been addressed by the series yet.  I agree that some of the elements such as conscious-digital transference has been covered before (particularly in San Junipero), but at least it fashions this theme with new elements I just mentioned.  It's also difficult to fairly evaluate new offerings from dependable franchises.  The more any creative force produces the more it will be compared to their previous work, which while likely fall short for those who revere past work.  Personally, I really enjoyed TFA but also understand people's criticisms.  In the end, they're just tv shows and movies and not worth the angst or consternation.

As for your last point, I think that might speak to society in general than Hollywood's inability to find new and original avenues for ethnically and gender diverse casts.  I think the only way Hollywood has been able to garner public acceptance of strong female or minority leads is if the source material is so great and executed upon that it distracts from any disruption of any heteronormative values.  This goes back to my example of The Expendables.  Do you honestly think they make a sequel, let a lone a third instalment, if the movie was an all black or female cast?  Are they making 10 instalments of the Fast and the Furious if characters played by Vin Diesel or the Rock were played by female actresses?  That said, I do think things are changing and audiences are becoming more receptive to different looking leads in traditional roles.  

[Lio]

18 hours ago, downzy said:

You might see no purpose, but isn't there value in having a few non-white characters for the purpose of teaching you children that inclusion and a little diversity isn't such a bad thing? 

I can only speak for my own environment of course, but my child grows up with diversity. It's not even a thing. In her class, among our friends and in our family, there are different races. She doesn't need to be taught that from a film, but like I said, she wouldn't even notice the black characters in the film. She doesn't know anything about agendas, but I do!

I guess my objection is what Gordon said:

Quote

If it fits the context of the show or movie, then yea, cast non-white people. I'll use the show Black Mirror as an example again (if you haven't seen it, you should btw), there are plenty of episodes with female or minority leads, and they're great episodes, like Men Against Fire, White Bear or San Junipero, but when it's just sloppily thrown in there to appease the vocal sjw-types, like with USS Callister, it's uninteresting and almost defeats its own purpose.

As far as your last sentence, I wish that were true, but it's not really. It's the same stories with liberal politics shoe-horned in, sometimes literally; but Ghostbusters was a failure, 24 was a failure, I'm willing to bet Ocean's 8 will be a failure... if screenwriters were actually telling new stories, it'd be a different argument, but like @Iron MikeyJ said they are just having people shoe-horned into stories instead of creating something for them, and IMO that comes across poorly.

Minorities (and women) deserve interesting roles, films... whatever. Hollywood should be ashamed for having monstrosities like Ghostbusters, as stuff like that doesn't do women any good, on the contrary.

Another example is the remake of Annie, now with a black girl. Come on, have some inspiration.

Of course all these things aren't the cast's fault, it's the big guys in Hollywood's fault.

[MB.]

Hollywood has become incredible patronising. It annoys me greatly. Movies and series have become sesamestreet for adults. Maybe it’s cause off the country where I come from and it’s less needed here or maybe it’s also less needed in the US than Hollywood seems to think. I think it annoys a lot of people and cause of that, it misses it’s purpose entirely. Sometimes the roles are so obviously added for diversity reasons it just looks stupid. Just keep it real and within the context. I just don’t want or need to be lectured by Hollywood in every movie or tvshow I watch, it’s annoying and patronising. 

Edited January 31, 2018 by MB.

[Iron MikeyJ]

Also, let me add that ANY lectures from Hollywood just feel very out of place and inappropriate. Talk about the most crooked and unethical "institution" outside of Wall street and Washington DC. It's sorta like getting health and diet advice from McDonald's. Then "they" wonder why (as a whole) their films are not doing as well as they used to, and most people feel that the quality isn't what it used to be. It's because things like story, plot and character develooment have taken a back seat to "agendas" and making cookie cutter films that follow a "formula". Also being unique and different has taken priority over telling a satisfying story. I'm looking at you Rian Johnson and Kathleen Kennedy.

[DieselDaisy]

Unless there is a demographic reason pertaining to a historical setting, or a distinct purpose in the film why one from a certain race should be cast in that role, actors should be only chosen on merit and for the creative good of the film. 

Edited January 31, 2018 by DieselDaisy

[downzy]

5 hours ago, Lio said:

I can only speak for my own environment of course, but my child grows up with diversity. It's not even a thing. In her class, among our friends and in our family, there are different races. She doesn't need to be taught that from a film, but like I said, she wouldn't even notice the black characters in the film. She doesn't know anything about agendas, but I do!

I guess my objection is what Gordon said:

Minorities (and women) deserve interesting roles, films... whatever. Hollywood should be ashamed for having monstrosities like Ghostbusters, as stuff like that doesn't do women any good, on the contrary.

Another example is the remake of Annie, now with a black girl. Come on, have some inspiration.

Of course all these things aren't the cast's fault, it's the big guys in Hollywood's fault.

Is inserting a couple of secondary black characters into a kids film really that ham-fisted of a lesson?  Is it something really to spend time griping about when really, it's not something most kids would not even consciously notice?  

Moreover, I don't understand why agenda always is viewed in the pejorative sense.  There are many agendas packed into kids entertainment properties.  Why is the subtle promotion of inclusion and diversity so affront to people when most of these films go heavy on other moral lessons?

I'm not sure if anyone notices, but Hollywood hasn't been a hotbed of creativity (at least with respect for film) for quite some time.  Studios are putting out fewer and fewer films and only really investing in films that will appeal to a mass audience or the award folks.   I'd be interested in hearing about new franchises in the last 15 years that aren't based on rehashed ideas.

It's as though the working assumption here is that rebooting an established franchise with female characters is an affront to women because it's unoriginal and generally the movie turns out to be a dud.  So by that logic we should restrict all shitty reboots to the original male roles.  Women should only be given parts in movies when producers and directors know for sure it's going to be a great film.  How many films with strong female roles get green-lit then?  Making movies is a gamble.  Sure, Ghostbusters didn't work out but Mad Max: Fury Road was one of my favourite films from the last ten years.  John Wick with Keanu Reeves was a great film, but so too was Atomic Blonde (essentially the same film as John Wick) with Charlize Theron.  

It appears to me that if a movie comprised mostly with a non-controversial cast fails it's because it was a shitty movie.  When a film with a non-traditional cast fails, it's because of the cast and another example of Hollywood stuffing their progressive agenda down people's throats.   

[James Bond]

1 hour ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Also, let me add that ANY lectures from Hollywood just feel very out of place and inappropriate. Talk about the most crooked and unethical "institution" outside of Wall street and Washington DC. It's sorta like getting health and diet advice from McDonald's. Then "they" wonder why (as a whole) their films are not doing as well as they used to, and most people feel that the quality isn't what it used to be. It's because things like story, plot and character develooment have taken a back seat to "agendas" and making cookie cutter films that follow a "formula". Also being unique and different has taken priority over telling a satisfying story. I'm looking at you Rian Johnson and Kathleen Kennedy.

I feel like the whole being different and unique for the sake of different and unique, in TLJ at least, worked totally against the film. I agree that change for the sake of change is never a good thing, and the film truly didn't live up to being as different as it promised. None of the "twists" were surprising and what could have been a promising twist (say, Rey joining Kylo and forgoing the traditional dark versus light) was glossed over and never done. The film ends with us back to square one - good guys versus bad guys and a slightly modified resistance. Hooray! As if the whole film didn't even matter because minus a couple characters being bumped off our leads are no worse or better off than they were at the end of TFA.

But now I seem to be turning this into the Star Wars thread again so I'll stop there.

[downzy]

1 hour ago, MB. said:

Hollywood has become incredible patronising. It annoys me greatly. Movies and series have become sesamestreet for adults. Maybe it’s cause off the country where I come from and it’s less needed here or maybe it’s also less needed in the US than Hollywood seems to think. I think it annoys a lot of people and cause of that, it misses it’s purpose entirely. Sometimes the roles are so obviously added for diversity reasons it just looks stupid. Just keep it real and within the context. I just don’t want or need to be lectured by Hollywood in every movie or tvshow I watch, it’s annoying and patronising. 

America is still a deeply segregated country.  While I don't think that throwing diversity into movies is the be-all answer to America's social and racial issues, it's not as though one can't point to casting and roles in television and film as helping to broaden horizons.  Take a look at the acceptance and respect the gay community has received over the last 15 years.  I think it's hard to argue that America wouldn't be as far as long as it currently stands if it weren't for people like Ellen DeGenerous and shows like Modern Family.    

[downzy]

1 hour ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Also, let me add that ANY lectures from Hollywood just feel very out of place and inappropriate. Talk about the most crooked and unethical "institution" outside of Wall street and Washington DC. It's sorta like getting health and diet advice from McDonald's. Then "they" wonder why (as a whole) their films are not doing as well as they used to, and most people feel that the quality isn't what it used to be. It's because things like story, plot and character develooment have taken a back seat to "agendas" and making cookie cutter films that follow a "formula". Also being unique and different has taken priority over telling a satisfying story. I'm looking at you Rian Johnson and Kathleen Kennedy.

Hollywood has been lecturing and inserting their agenda into their products for nearly a century.  The difference now is you just don't agree with that agenda.  

Look up the Hays Code that greatly affected what films could and could not be made for over three decades.  Do you think it's an accident that almost every movie made in the late 1930s through the 1940s celebrated and aggrandized U.S. military might? 

I suppose you took issue with the heavy-handed pro-American propaganda in Rocky IV?

And finally, with respect to Star Wars, Lucas is on record saying that he originally conceived the series as a reaction to the Nixon Presidency. 

There are literally hundreds of examples of where social and political agendas have been inserted into films, whether done so with tact and subtly or with very little finesse at all.

The issue here, however, is that you seem fine with some agendas but not others.   

[downzy]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

Unless there is a demographic reason pertaining to a historical setting, or a distinct purpose in the film why one from a certain race should be cast in that role, actors should be only chosen on merit and for the creative good of the film. 

But how does one evaluate or judge merit?  By your two standards as I understand them, movies would then only get made if and when Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep are available for non-gender or race specific roles. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

If you can't tell the difference between taking inspiration from something that is happening in society, but then creating something new and unique out of it. Versus shoe horning agendas into a film, then I feel sorry for you.

[downzy]

12 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

If you can't tell the difference between taking inspiration from something that is happening in society, but then creating something new and unique out of it. Versus shoe horning agendas into a film, then I feel sorry for you.

So you're saying there's just no space in the Beauty in the Beast for a couple of black characters?  That the universe in which the movie operates can't handle a couple of black people who don't play a big role in the film?  Or, like I mentioned earlier, maybe I missed the part when Belle pontificates about segregation in 1700s France.

Are you really suggesting in a universe as large as Star Wars that there's no room for a strong female lead?  That every Star Wars anthology requires a white male lead because that's what became before? 

[Iron MikeyJ]

Your grasping for straws now...

 

I never said "I don't want black characters in beauty and the beast." I made a comment that they CLEARLY made a conscious effort to turn as many characters as they could black. So I stated that it was a clear agenda on the part of Disney, and YOU had a problem with that.

As for Star Wars, last time I checked Princess Leia was a VERY strong female character, ever since the FIRST film. So clearly there is room in the universe for such characters. But ya, Rey is CLEARLY a Mary Sue, so ya I have a problem with that. It's bad writing that is ruining a once great franchise, causing more damage than the prequels did imo. That's not my only problem with the sequel trilogy, but that's where you want to focus. 

Whatever Downzy, I care not to engage in your Social Justice Warrior arguments anymore. You believe what you want to believe, do I attack you for it? No. Which this is typical liberal behavior, you think you are "all inclusive" but you are not. You are only all inclusive to those that agree with YOUR ideals. I never said you were wrong for your opinions, just that I don't agree with them. Unfortunatly you don't know how to reciprocate those sentiments. 

I miss UK Subs...

Edited January 31, 2018 by Iron MikeyJ

[downzy]

1 hour ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Your grasping for straws now...

I never said "I don't want black characters in beauty and the beast." I made a comment that they CLEARLY made a conscious effort to turn as many characters as they could black. So I stated that it was a clear agenda on the part of Disney, and YOU had a problem with that.

As for Star Wars, last time I checked Princess Leia was a VERY strong female character, ever since the FIRST film. So clearly there is room in the universe for such characters. But ya, Rey is CLEARLY a Mary Sue, so ya I have a problem with that. It's bad writing that is ruining a once great franchise, causing more damage than the prequels did imo. That's not my only problem with the sequel trilogy, but that's where you want to focus. 

Whatever Downzy, I care not to engage in your Social Justice Warrior arguments anymore. You believe what you want to believe, do I attack you for it? No. Which this is typical liberal behavior, you think you are "all inclusive" but you are not. You are only all inclusive to those that agree with YOUR ideals. I never said you were wrong for your opinions, just that I don't agree with them. Unfortunatly you don't know how to reciprocate those sentiments. 

I miss UK Subs...

Your comment on Beauty and the Beast was that the inclusion of too many black actors to play French people in 1700s France made the film unrealistic.  That the effort was made to ensure that minorities have their time to shine.  I responded that I thought it was ridiculous in a movie where there are talking and dancing housewares and a man-beast that what made the film unrealistic was the inclusion of a few black cast members.  And I checked the IMDB cast list, it's maybe five to ten percent black.  So my question is, how many black people are too many?  Would you have had the same complaint about a kids fantasy film were black actors kept to one or two?  Moreover, why is the effort to incorporate a more inclusive cast a problem?  Why does this warrant criticism when other agendas that are clearly evident in the film get a pass?

Princess Leia isn't the leading character in the films, is she?  She's your typical damsel in distress in the first film and primarily serves as a love interest to Han in the next two instalments.  Do I really need to post a picture of her outfit Jabba makes her wear in ROTJ?  Not that I have problems with her role and the part that she plays in the series, but she's not exactly Ripley from Aliens now is she.  Fisher said herself back when ROTJ came out said that the three Star Wars films are essentially boys' fantasies.  

I would encourage you to look up the definition of what a Mary Sue is because you clearly have little idea as to what it describes if you think Rey is a Mary Sue.

I don't disagree with you that the writing and lack of organization and planning are hurting the new Star Wars trilogy, but you seem to want to hand a disproportionate of the blame to the film's handling and inclusion of characters like Finn, Rey, and Rose.  That they're only in their to appease Disney's progressive and liberal overlords.  

Look, no one is forcing you to respond or engage in this discussion, let alone visit this forum in general.  You're free to do whatever you want with respect to your opinions.  But if you're going to post your opinions in a discussion forum, understand that not everyone will agree with them and attempt to explain why.  That's all I'm doing here.  I'm not attacking you personally and have focused my discussion and responses to the points you have made.  Iin my opinion and for the reasons previously given, your opinions/arguments don't seem very consistent and lack understanding of what Hollywood has and hasn't been since its inception.   If that bothers you, well, I'm sorry, but what is a discussion forum if every time there's a disagreement the next post is, "well, let's agree to disagree."  Personally, if I hold opinions that are off base or lack understanding I'd prefer someone challenge me on it and make me see things differently.  But hey, maybe that's just me.  

[Dazey]

44 minutes ago, downzy said:

Do I really need to post a picture of her outfit Jabba makes her wear in ROTJ?  

You don't NEED to but it's always welcome.

[MB.]

5 hours ago, downzy said:

  I think it's hard to argue that America wouldn't be as far as long as it currently stands if it weren't for people like Ellen DeGenerous and shows like Modern Family.    

I have no idea if the US would still be that behind when it comes to gays, maybe you are right. The thing is, lots of shows or movies are also broadcasted here. In my country our most famous tv show hosts were and are gay, black or female. For instance we had openly gay tv show hosts since the 60s. So it’s such a non issue. We don’t understand the fuzz made.  I understand in some countries it could be a good thing, but when I personally see those parts added and often not good or totally not needed, it annoys me, I don’t need the lecture. I also think, way less Americans need the lecture as Hollywood thinks. It really comes across patronising.

[downzy]

27 minutes ago, MB. said:

I have no idea if the US would still be that behind when it comes to gays, maybe you are right. The thing is, lots of shows or movies are also broadcasted here. In my country our most famous tv show hosts were and are gay, black or female. For instance we had openly gay tv show hosts since the 60s. So it’s such a non issue. We don’t understand the fuzz made.  I understand in some countries it could be a good thing, but when I personally see those parts added and often not good or totally not needed, it annoys me, I don’t need the lecture. I also think, way less Americans need the lecture as Hollywood thinks. It really comes across patronising.

But I'm curious as to what constitute as a lecture with respect to putting forward an agenda?  I do think things can go too far.  For example, a studio casting a black or female actor to play the role of historical character that is white and male is a bridge too far.  

But when we're talking about fictional characters, how is it forcing one's agenda by casting a non-white person for the role, especially if no attention is paid to the person's race?  Again, I would understand people's complaints if the film's subject became about the actor's race or gender identity, but when it's a non-issue relating to the plot, what's the harm?

In 2001, 57 percent of Americans opposed gay marriage while only 35 percent supported it.  It took only ten years for social attitudes in America to change, with 2011 showing for the first time that more Americans supported gay marriage than opposed.  That is lightening quick with respect to social acceptance.  I don't pretend to suggest that the change in attitudes can be attributed completely to a change in gay representation and portrayal in television, but it's hard to ignore considering the increased presence of gay roles and actors that populated television and movie landscape beginning in the late 1990s and into the 2000s .  Popularity and social acceptance of shows like Will & Grace, Modern Family, Ellen DeGenerous (both in her situational comedy and talk shows) and films like Broke Back Mountain exposed Americans to gay people who, besides their preference in partners, were generally normal and dissimilar to gay characters in previous films and tv shows who were often presented as effeminate weirdos or serial/psycho killers (Strangers on a Train, Psycho, Dressed to Kill, American Graffiti, Silence of the Lambs, Basic Instinct, Braveheart, etc.).  I think generational shifts played a huge factor, but polling on the issue also reveal that all age demographics showed increased acceptance of gay people and couples over the same ten year period.  I would think that film and television creators and producers telling new and different stories that involved gay people in a less patronizing or offensive way had an effect.