Jump to content

Debate on Social Agendas/Commentaries in Movies


Dazey

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I could care less about this film. Star Wars is dead to me, thanks to Disney. Besides out of ALL of the sid3 stories they could tell, this just seems like a BAD idea. As others have said, how much you want to bet that the "black guy" and female characters "try" and steal the show.

I'm all for black guys and female characters stealing the show. I've got no problem with that whatsoever. The film wasn't shit because of girls and minorities. The film was shit because the story was awful.

Edit. For some reason I thought that last bit was about Last Jedi. 

Edited by Dazey
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic grew out of discussions from the Star Wars - Han Solo film.  I decided to move the posts that don't apply to that thread into their own thread so as to continue the discussion.

 

On 2018-01-28 at 6:43 PM, Iron MikeyJ said:

I agree with you Dazey, the last Jedi was awful, but not because of Rey or Finn or what not. 

I was just making a statement about what's to expect with these films going forward. Disney has a clear agenda, and they are GOING to make sure women and minorities are CLEARLY getting their time to shine. Which I'm all for, if the story warrants it... but that's the thing isn't it?

I watched Beauty and the Beast with my wife the other day (for the first time), and the "agenda" was apparent in that film as well. It's a film set in the 1600/1700 in France, and the minority characters were FAR to prevalent for a time period piece for me. It took me out of the story, because I didn't find it realistic. In some small little French village like 15-20% of the population was black.

A movie about a pretty girl falling in love with a half-man/half-beast that includes dancing ornaments and housewares was unrealistic because there were too many black people for a 1700s French village.  

Got it.

BTW, you might want to stay clear of the Jungle Book if you're at all aware of the geographic locations of wild animals.  

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, downzy said:

A movie about a pretty girl falling in love with a half-man/half-beast that includes dancing ornaments and housewares was unrealistic because there were too many black people for a 1700s French village.  

Got it.

BTW, you might want to stay clear of the Jungle Book if you're at all aware of the geographic locations of wild animals.  

To me, it's not about realistic. From the moment I saw that black singer and the black book seller (I think? It's been a while since I've seen it), I immediately thought: Oh, they need a few black people in it, apparently. It just comes across as silly to me and as trying to overcompensate. (Since you mention Jungle Book: Mowgli isn't a little black boy or a blonde one for that matter.)

I'm all for having films that are a better representation of the world as it is now, but not when it seems really forced. I think that does more harm than good to be honest.

On the other hand, there are films where black/Arab/whatever people are portrayed by white people, which is ridiculous as well.

I suppose it's a touchy subject in the US, because of the racial history there, but overcompensation is never the answer, I think.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Lio said:

To me, it's not about realistic. From the moment I saw that black singer and the black book seller (I think? It's been a while since I've seen it), I immediately thought: Oh, they need a few black people in it, apparently. It just comes across as silly to me and as trying to overcompensate. (Since you mention Jungle Book: Mowgli isn't a little black boy or a blonde one for that matter.)

I'm all for having films that are a better representation of the world as it is now, but not when it seems really forced. I think that does more harm than good to be honest.

On the other hand, there are films where black/Arab/whatever people are portrayed by white people, which is ridiculous as well.

I suppose it's a touchy subject in the US, because of the racial history there, but overcompensation is never the answer, I think.

 

Do you think this ruins the movie for its intended audience (kids).

These kinds of movies don’t really need anything. They’re based on fantasy with kids in mind.  I’m not sure what’s the issue with the inclusion of a few non-white characters for the benefit of both white and non-white audiences.  Unless, of course, parents are taking their kids in the hopes of giving them a lesson in 1700s French history.  Then by all means, have at it.  But the last time I checked, I don’t recall half man, half-beast lords living in French chateaus around this time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lio said:

To me, it's not about realistic. From the moment I saw that black singer and the black book seller (I think? It's been a while since I've seen it), I immediately thought: Oh, they need a few black people in it, apparently. It just comes across as silly to me and as trying to overcompensate. (Since you mention Jungle Book: Mowgli isn't a little black boy or a blonde one for that matter.)

I'm all for having films that are a better representation of the world as it is now, but not when it seems really forced. I think that does more harm than good to be honest.

On the other hand, there are films where black/Arab/whatever people are portrayed by white people, which is ridiculous as well.

I suppose it's a touchy subject in the US, because of the racial history there, but overcompensation is never the answer, I think.

 

This!!

I felt the same way. Downzy might disagree with me, and that's fine. It just felt forced to me, which seems to be happening more and more lately. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is somewhat like David Brent (Ricky Gervais) ambulating up to a black employee and saying, ''that Sidney Poitier...great actor isn't he?'' - it has that level of subtly.

3 hours ago, Lio said:

On the other hand, there are films where black/Arab/whatever people are portrayed by white people, which is ridiculous as well.

Like that Samurai film set in 18th century Japan with Keanu Reeves - it bombed as I recall! There is also a film set in 12th century China featuring Matt Damon mincing around The Great Wall. In a non-racial sense you might also mention (white) Americans such as Kevin Costner playing Robin Hood, the 13th - 14th century English outlaw, and making no attempt to hide their American accent (or mullet)! 

Edited by DieselDaisy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, downzy said:

Do you think this ruins the movie for its intended audience (kids).

These kinds of movies don’t really need anything. They’re based on fantasy with kids in mind.  I’m not sure what’s the issue with the inclusion of a few non-white characters for the benefit of both white and non-white audiences.  Unless, of course, parents are taking their kids in the hopes of giving them a lesson in 1700s French history.  Then by all means, have at it.  But the last time I checked, I don’t recall half man, half-beast lords living in French chateaus around this time.  

It's not really an issue for me. It doesn't ruin the film for me either. It just made me chuckle and I think in this film, it has no purpose. You get the distinct feeling that those actors are there because they are black in the first place. It doesn't serve them either. It doesn't mean they don't deserve a role in a film, it just means that it feels forced in that specific film. They needed a few black actors in some minor roles, and they fit the bill.

Would non-white audiences feel left out if there were no black people there? I don't think so. How about Asian people? South Americans? I don't think they would care, and certainly not kids, as they have a way to look past skin colour and don't even notice it. Or that's my experience anyway. Same way I wouldn't mind if there are no white people in an animation film set in the jungle in South America or in the Sahara or by the Great Wall.

It's just because of the tremendous discrimination against black people in the USA that people don't seem to realize that anymore and they're over sensitive and looking for racism everywhere. And now Disney wants to show it's not racist by having black people in 17th Century France. It's like appeasing the (adult) black population by having a few minority actors here and there. I just don't think that's the way to fight discrimination. To me, it just makes it a bit ridiculous.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lio said:

It's not really an issue for me. It doesn't ruin the film for me either. It just made me chuckle and I think in this film, it has no purpose. You get the distinct feeling that those actors are there because they are black in the first place. It doesn't serve them either. It doesn't mean they don't deserve a role in a film, it just means that it feels forced in that specific film. They needed a few black actors in some minor roles, and they fit the bill.

Would non-white audiences feel left out if there were no black people there? I don't think so. How about Asian people? South Americans? I don't think they would care, and certainly not kids, as they have a way to look past skin colour and don't even notice it. Or that's my experience anyway. Same way I wouldn't mind if there are no white people in an animation film set in the jungle in South America or in the Sahara or by the Great Wall.

It's just because of the tremendous discrimination against black people in the USA that people don't seem to realize that anymore and they're over sensitive and looking for racism everywhere. And now Disney wants to show it's not racist by having black people in 17th Century France. It's like appeasing the (adult) black population by having a few minority actors here and there. I just don't think that's the way to fight discrimination. To me, it just makes it a bit ridiculous.

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?  How much harm is really being done here by having a few black characters.  If the intended audience aren't old or knowledgeable enough to know that there weren't a lot of free black people in 1700s France, what is really the harm here.

People use the word agenda as if it's always a bad thing.  But there's almost always an agenda in kids movies.  They're steeped in morality lessons and have become one of the leading sources for parents in installing some sort of moral compass in their children.  

It's not about leaving out black or asian people, though I would think that a visible minority child seeing other visible minorities in their favourite thing a good thing.  Sure, I don't think they would care or even notice if it was an all white cast, but the fact that they're in there makes them notice and teaches them a few things.  I really don't see the problem with that "agenda" when we're already exposing children to morality plays.  Like I said, unless people are taking their kids to a Disney movie to teach them history (which, says something about their parenting), there really shouldn't be an issue.  You feeling like the matter is forced is irrelevant considering you're not really the targeted audience for this movie.

I really don't think Disney makes these decisions because it wants to show it's not racist.  There's just as much to the assumption that such choices are meant to promote the principle of diversity in an America that is increasingly becoming less white.  You might say there are better ways, but discrimination is often taught at young ages, so what better place than in a Disney movie to combat such prejudices?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I apologies and realize that I'm participating in topic that is unrelated to the thread, so I'll leave it at that, allow others to make one more post about the issue of race in movies, and ask that we return to discussing the new Star Wars movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, downzy said:

Do you think this ruins the movie for its intended audience (kids).

These kinds of movies don’t really need anything. They’re based on fantasy with kids in mind.  I’m not sure what’s the issue with the inclusion of a few non-white characters for the benefit of both white and non-white audiences.  Unless, of course, parents are taking their kids in the hopes of giving them a lesson in 1700s French history.  Then by all means, have at it.  But the last time I checked, I don’t recall half man, half-beast lords living in French chateaus around this time.  

You've been reading the wrong history books then! Or maybe I have. I'll have to get back to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are missing my point. Perhaps the "general" population doesn't address these issues (race, sex, etc) with their children, but I do. I go to the movies for ENTERTAINMENT, not social commentaries. So when I see social commentaries getting pushed on me, through entertainment, if offends me. Even if I agree with the overall point (which I do in this case). It's a subtle form of brainwashing, the Disney way. Sure you could argue that Disney and most children's programming have been doing this for years, but that doesn't make it right. In today's society we haven't moved past propaganda and brainwashing??? I guess not. 

To be clear, these issues didn't take away from me enjoying that particular movie. Having said that, I did find it distracting and forced. I understand that in the past, white actors played roles that were intended for minorities, and that's unfair and unfortunate. I however don't see doing the opposite as progress. Since when do 2 wrongs make a right? Only if it fits the liberal agenda, clearly. (Which I am not liberal or conservative, I find them BOTH to be deplorable, but that's an issue for another thread). 

My problems with Disney have been brewing for a few years now. In case you are unaware, they also own ESPN (which is a network I watch a lot of). If you are unaware, they censor the things that people on their networks are allowed to discuss. Basically if your opinions don't agree with their liberal agenda, you will be censored, repremaned, or even fired. So basically, if you want to work for Disney, you either have to be liberal or shut up. Is this really how far we have fallen as a society, that we can't just peacefully disagree??? 

I for one find racists, sexist, and other "oppressors" to be terrible human beings. But I also feel that they have the RIGHT to believe, feel, and live that way as long as they are not causing harm to others. Trying to force or regulate how people choose to live their lives is NOT freedom. Even if that means I am forced to defend groups like the KKK (which I DETEST, for the record). But I also admit they have the RIGHT to exist. We can't pick and choose what's ok for our society, as long as people are obeying the laws, then they have the RIGHT to live their life however they see fit. Even if that means I don't agree with their life choices. You can NOT fight evil or hatred with more hatred, it doesn't work that way. It only makes them stronger. If liberals actually just decided to ignore groups like the KKK, then they might actually die out this century. But do liberals do that??? No. They have fallen down to their level, they attack ANY group that they disagree with. Essentially creating hate campaigns themselves. Which is only fanning the flames of hate, not fighting it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

You are missing my point. Perhaps the "general" population doesn't address these issues (race, sex, etc) with their children, but I do. I go to the movies for ENTERTAINMENT, not social commentaries. So when I see social commentaries getting pushed on me, through entertainment, if offends me. Even if I agree with the overall point (which I do in this case). It's a subtle form of brainwashing, the Disney way. Sure you could argue that Disney and most children's programming have been doing this for years, but that doesn't make it right. In today's society we haven't moved past propaganda and brainwashing??? I guess not. 

To be clear, these issues didn't take away from me enjoying that particular movie. Having said that, I did find it distracting and forced. I understand that in the past, white actors played roles that were intended for minorities, and that's unfair and unfortunate. I however don't see doing the opposite as progress. Since when do 2 wrongs make a right? Only if it fits the liberal agenda, clearly. (Which I am not liberal or conservative, I find them BOTH to be deplorable, but that's an issue for another thread). 

My problems with Disney have been brewing for a few years now. In case you are unaware, they also own ESPN (which is a network I watch a lot of). If you are unaware, they censor the things that people on their networks are allowed to discuss. Basically if your opinions don't agree with their liberal agenda, you will be censored, repremaned, or even fired. So basically, if you want to work for Disney, you either have to be liberal or shut up. Is this really how far we have fallen as a society, that we can't just peacefully disagree??? 

I for one find racists, sexist, and other "oppressors" to be terrible human beings. But I also feel that they have the RIGHT to believe, feel, and live that way as long as they are not causing harm to others. Trying to force or regulate how people choose to live their lives is NOT freedom. Even if that means I am forced to defend groups like the KKK (which I DETEST, for the record). But I also admit they have the RIGHT to exist. We can't pick and choose what's ok for our society, as long as people are obeying the laws, then they have the RIGHT to live their life however they see fit. Even if that means I don't agree with their life choices. You can NOT fight evil or hatred with more hatred, it doesn't work that way. It only makes them stronger. If liberals actually just decided to ignore groups like the KKK, then they might actually die out this century. But do liberals do that??? No. They have fallen down to their level, they attack ANY group that they disagree with. Essentially creating hate campaigns themselves. Which is only fanning the flames of hate, not fighting it. 

No, I think I got your point.  You're bothered that film creators consciously decide to change the race/ethnicity of certain characters (in this instance, a kid's film) because it's unnecessary, an agenda forced upon you and your kids (despite something you agree with), and because of all of this you see this choice as an impediment to your enjoying the film.

Last time I checked, having a few black people in Beauty in the Beast isn't forcing anything on anyone - it's simply showing black and white people living together and not being too bothered by it.  For some reason, you don't want this message coming from Disney even though you agree with it.  

I'm not sure you were paying attention to the movie at all since the underlying message, before black people were included, is to look beyond the surface to see the real person; that we should look past superficial differences to judge the true character of an individual.  Isn't that the point of having the beast in the movie to begin with?  

But understand, all movies for kids, made by Disney or other studios, are heavy in social commentaries and agendas.  You just don't seem to bothered by them because they don't upset your sense of what should and shouldn't be.  Are you offended when the good guys always win out by the end of the film and that the bad guys are punished?  Does it offend you that the righteous hero is celebrated while their adversary are destroyed, imprisoned, or killed?  That cheaters always get their just desserts while those who play by the rules and are fair to others always win out in the end?   Aren't those moral and social agendas being pushed upon children?  Why is including a few visible monitories any different?  

And sorry, but how the fuck is promoting diversity and equality amongst difference races a form of propaganda that needs to be removed from kids movies?  Seriously, what is wrong with teaching children that having black people or other visible minorities within your community is so affront to your sensibilities that it should be kept out of their movies?  Do you not let your kids watch Sesame Street?  That's basically the theme and purpose of the entire show.  

I'm aware of ESPN, and I'm aware that they ask their employees to speak respectfully of others in terms of representing the company.  Those that have been fired have been let go because they chose to ignore this requirement. 

So let me get this straight, your tolerance for the KKK's ability to speak somehow connects with your affront to seeing black people in the kid's film Beauty in the Beast.  I've got to say, that's quite the tangent.  Nobody is forcing anything on you.  It's not as if Belle half way through the movie starts quoting Malcolm X or gives the towns folk a lecture on race as social construct.  How delicate and sensitive are you that the inclusion of a couple black people in a kid's film makes you roll your eyes and made to feel as though someone else's worldview is being forced down your throat?  Really?  This is a big enough problem for you that you feel compelled to write several hundred words on it.  

It's too bad you weren't around in the 1930s to tell German Jews and others to just ignore the Nazis.  We could have avoided the mess with such common-sense logic.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you about Disney ruining the Star Wars movies.

I'm worried because Disney now bought Fox and all it's channels.

I watch many shows on FX and love the violence and the cursing on this channel. Will Disney fuck this up too? lol

My advice to you is if you don't like a movie storyline don't go see it.

Most of the movies that are nominated for awards, I've never seen because they don't interest me at all, so I don't care what the critics say I just don't bother with it.

There are still tons of movies being made and older movies that are still cool to see. check them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

I'm worried because Disney now bought Fox and all it's channels.

I watch many shows on FX and love the violence and the cursing on this channel. Will Disney fuck this up too? lol

I wouldn't worry about Disney messing up FX and FXX.  I've read analysis on how Disney wanted to branch out into adult-oriented programming and that FX fills that niche.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... Basically instead of trying to have AN honest discussion and ACCEPT other people's thoughts and feelings, you would rather attack mine for not being the same as yours. It's funny how these younger liberals are ALL FOR ACCEPTANCE, unless someone disagrees with them. Then it's ATTACK time. Thanks, but no thanks.

Furthermore, the ONLY thing I want from movies (and Disney) is entertainment, not political B.S. If I want a to talk politics, I'll talk politics or watch the news, etc. Not sit down for an evening movie with my family. I'm sorry you don't know how to differentiate the two. 

Edited by Iron MikeyJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

So... Basically instead of trying to have AN honest discussion and ACCEPT other people's thoughts and feelings, you would rather attack mine for not being the same as yours. It's funny how these younger liberals are ALL FOR ACCEPTANCE, unless someone disagrees with them. Then it's ATTACK time. Thanks, but no thanks.

Furthermore, the ONLY thing I want from movies (and Disney) is entertainment, not political B.S. If I want a to talk politics, I'll talk politics or watch the news, etc. Not sit down for an evening movie with my family. I'm sorry you don't know how to differentiate the two. 

How am I not trying to have an honest discussion on the issue?  You've been given ample opportunity to speak and support your opinion.  I don't have to accept anything if it doesn't make sense.  

As I stated earlier, it makes little senses to question the realism of a movie like Beauty and the Beast because of the inclusion of a few black people when the movie includes a talking and dancing candlestick and a man-beast.  

You argue that Disney is forcing a morality down people's throats because they decided to diversify some of the secondary characters despite the fact the entire theme of the movie is to not judge people on their appearances.  Pointing to this irony isn't attacking you.  I just find your position ridiculous and difficult to support or agree with.  

Look, if we were talking about Denzel Washington instead of Daniel Day Lewis playing Abraham Lincoln in a historical depiction of the President's time in office, I would absolutely get and accept the criticism.  But we're talking about a kids movie that is already steeped in moral lessons.  

Btw, liberals (at least grounded and rational ones) are generally accepting of people and opinions that respect others, are consistent, and hold up to scrutiny.  

Finally, continually making movies with all white casts is a political statement.   It suggests who belongs and who doesn't in our stories, legends, and myths.  A little inclusion and diversity should be values beyond partisan politics.  If teaching children of the merits of tolerance and acceptance of others is political b.s., then it's likely you never really agreed and supported such values to begin with.  If a few black characters in a kids movie is that offensive, well, I'm not sure what else to say that likely wouldn't offend you.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically it comes across like downzy would rather see token minorities than no minorities, because yay diversity. Not that I agree with mikey's examples but it's pretty blatant that "hollywood" is shoving diversity down people's throats regardless of context - here's your black characters, your strong independent women, your gay characters, etc.

I'm not suggesting those characters never fit, but it's just pandering, isn't it? Even shows I enjoy have done this, a recent example was the episode of Black Mirror "USS Callister" - similar to Star Wars, the ideas were there, but it's sloppy and uninteresting to say "here's a problem that's been going on for ages, but this newly introduced strong female lead will save the day in no time!".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Gordon Comstock said:

Basically it comes across like downzy would rather see token minorities than no minorities, because yay diversity.

Not really.  In movies meant for adults I'd prefer to see some actual lead roles for people who aren't white.  But with respect to movies meant for children, I don't see the harm to the final product if a few more characters were a little more diverse.  

Hollywood has been making the same white-driven movies for nearly a hundred years.  Screenwriters, directors, and producers are beginning to include others tell stories in new ways.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's a film or TV show that is designed to help with these issues (like Sesame Street, like Downzy pointed out), them I have no problems with it. There is a time and a place to teach these issues, because they are important. Having said that, shoe horning these issues into an already established franchise (star wars, Ghostbusters) takes away from the story, it doesn't add to it imo. 

What I have noticed lately is that Hollywood WANTS to address these issues, which I think is a good thing. But instead of creating more original franchises, they want to shoe horn them into already established ones. Why? Money!! Doesn't that seem a little ironic to you??? They are about making money first and foremost, then they say "Hey let's get political." If this issue is SO important, how about make more films like the Hunger Games which is about a strong female lead from the get go. Or how about make an ACTUAL documentary type film that address these issues head on? But no, they would rather take the easy way out, for fear of financial failure. 

So instead of more Katnis type characters, we are getting Reys that are just a Mary Sue. It's pandering on the highest level. But when you call them out on it, you get called a bigot or worse. So yes, I agree with @Gordon Comstock many people would rather get the Tolkien black guys or Mary Sue females. Which just seems shallow, uninspired, and probably is hurting more than helping. 

As for Beauty and the Beast, I rather enjoyed it myself. As I said esrlier, It just felt very much like they said "which characters can we make black?" I fail to see how thst type of thought process helps the creative integrity of a film. Or really helps the overall problem at all. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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???

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, downzy said:

Not really.  In movies meant for adults I'd prefer to see some actual lead roles for people who aren't white.  But with respect to movies meant for children, I don't see the harm to the final product if a few more characters were a little more diverse.  

Hollywood has been making the same white-driven movies for nearly a hundred years.  Screenwriters, directors, and producers are beginning to include others tell stories in new ways.  

 

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.

Edited by Gordon Comstock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

If it's a film or TV show that is designed to help with these issues (like Sesame Street, like Downzy pointed out), them I have no problems with it. There is a time and a place to teach these issues, because they are important. Having said that, shoe horning these issues into an already established franchise (star wars, Ghostbusters) takes away from the story, it doesn't add to it imo. 

What I have noticed lately is that Hollywood WANTS to address these issues, which I think is a good thing. But instead of creating more original franchises, they want to shoe horn them into already established ones. Why? Money!! Doesn't that seem a little ironic to you??? They are about making money first and foremost, then they say "Hey let's get political." If this issue is SO important, how about make more films like the Hunger Games which is about a strong female lead from the get go. Or how about make an ACTUAL documentary type film that address these issues head on? But no, they would rather take the easy way out, for fear of financial failure. 

So instead of more Katnis type characters, we are getting Reys that are just a Mary Sue. It's pandering on the highest level. But when you call them out on it, you get called a bigot or worse. So yes, I agree with @Gordon Comstock many people would rather get the Tolkien black guys or Mary Sue females. Which just seems shallow, uninspired, and probably is hurting more than helping. 

As for Beauty and the Beast, I rather enjoyed it myself. As I said esrlier, It just felt very much like they said "which characters can we make black?" I fail to see how thst type of thought process helps the creative integrity of a film. Or really helps the overall problem at all. 

Why does there need to be a clear delineation between entertainment properties that have social messages?  Moreover, how would a producer/director even attempt to make such a distinction?  Why can't it be both.  As for Ghostbusters, it's not as though they recast the role of Luke Skywalker with Whoopi Goldberg.  They created a new chapter in the Star Wars universe with new completely characters, some happen to be non-white males.  I didn't realize that for Star Wars to work it needs to have an all white cast where the hero is another white guy.  

Hollywood, like any business, needs to make money to survive.  Addressing social concerns and making need not be a binary consideration.  Like I said, it's not like they're reprising the role of Peter Venkman in Ghostbusters with a girl.  The new ghostbusters is with all new characters with a new cast. 

Why does your enjoyment of previous or current franchises depend on everything remaining the same?  How does having a female driven Ghostbusters diminish the franchise?  Doesn't the quality of the material and the execution of production determine the value of the film, not whether men or women play certain roles?  Or does having female leads make it too difficult to gauge the artistic merits?  

As for Reys being a Mary Sue, but no.  She almost never saves the day on her own, her stubbornness nearly got her killed in TLJ (saved by Kylo Ren), while the Resistance relied on Luke to save them at the end of TLJ.  How Mary Sue of her.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...