The Oscars controversy surrounding the lack of diversity

[prisonermonkeys]

What do the percentages have to be in order for it to not be racist?

I can't put a number to it. But look at Smith and Washington - they're the only two African-American actors who can carry a mainstream film with top billing and command a high salary. The fact that they can do this doesn't disprove the idea of institutionalised inequality in Hollywood because they're the only two African-American actors who can do it. The number of Caucasian actors who can is disproportionately high.

Look at some of the criticisms recent films have received: Gods of Egypt cast Gerard Butler and Kurt Russell in leading roles, two actors who are notable for not actually being remotely Egyptian. Likewise, Ridley Scott's Exodus: Gods and Kings cast Christian Bale as Moses. Similarly, television shows like "Friends" and "How I Met Your Mother" faced repeated criticism for their complete lack of diversity in their casting.

 

[A2K78]

I find the "blackface" uproar against Ms. Saldana to be quite stupid when this when you consider her afro-dominican ancestry .e.g. she of african and spaniard mix.

Other than that the only reason why I can see her having the role stem from the fact she's well-known and more bankable.

@prisonermonkeys
The fact that they can do this doesn't disprove the idea of institutionalised inequality in Hollywood because they're the only two African-American actors who can do it. The number of Caucasian actors who can is disproportionately high.

This true, but at the same time many of these caucasian actors don't come nowhere in terms of commanding the type of salary or repect as these actors.

As for shows much Friends, let alone Seinfeld when you really look at the cast(and I'm referring to Seinfeld) the cast is largely jewish.

btw, I like how JS speak truth to power about diversity:

http://www.amren.com/news/2014/02/j...edy-who-cares-are-you-making-us-laugh-or-not/

 

[TenEightyOne]

I find the "blackface" uproar against Ms. Saldana to be quite stupid when this when you consider her afro-dominican ancestry .e.g. she of african and spaniard mix.

Are you saying that "Africa" is close enough? Maybe even that they all look the same? Would you say that Ms. Saldana's heritage appeared to be anywhere close to Ms. Simone's?

 

[Dennisch]

I'll bump this one back in as a general question.

Why is changing skin colour racist or discrimination?

 

[Touring Mars]

It's a grey area if you ask me... certainly not black and white.

 

[Dennisch]

I have never seen or read anything that convinces me that something like this is racist.



'people are offended' doesn’t count. It needs more.

 

[Pupik]

I'll bump this one back in as a general question.

Some folks* feel that using a white man to play a black man in a role has been considered a reflection of Hollywood's past, when roles we not offered to black actors. This was a practice over 60-70 years ago, with exaggerated stereotypes thrown in.

If we're talking about old movies or TV shows that did that, then yeah...I'd probably be a little offended, too. But it isn't practiced much anymore to still be offended about it, in my opinion.

You have your silly one-off tradition over there, good for you. Not the same thing.

* I know, weasel phrase.

 

[prousonhairy]

It dates all the way back to the early to mid 1800's, and then in the late 1800's and early 1900's with Vaudeville. "Blackface, in the 1800's was almost always used in roles belittling and making fun of African Americans.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I can't put a number to it. But look at Smith and Washington - they're the only two African-American actors who can carry a mainstream film with top billing and command a high salary. The fact that they can do this doesn't disprove the idea of institutionalised inequality in Hollywood because they're the only two African-American actors who can do it. The number of Caucasian actors who can is disproportionately high.

Look at some of the criticisms recent films have received: Gods of Egypt cast Gerard Butler and Kurt Russell in leading roles, two actors who are notable for not actually being remotely Egyptian. Likewise, Ridley Scott's Exodus: Gods and Kings cast Christian Bale as Moses. Similarly, television shows like "Friends" and "How I Met Your Mother" faced repeated criticism for their complete lack of diversity in their casting.

Define disproportionately high. It implies a standard or quota of sorts. What is this standard or quota and who determines it? And explain why anecdotal criticisms about Friends and How I Met your Mother and their individual casting selections have any relevance at all? Do the same criticisms apply to Martin, Fresh Prince of Bel Air, My Wife and Kids, Bernie Mac Show, Cosby Show etc.? Spartans weren't from the British Isles either but I don't recall anyone objecting to the casting selections of 300.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Define disproportionately high.

The kind of argument that you have a habit of raising as a last resort. I have pointed out that there are just two African-American actors who can draw enough of an audience to turn a profit, compared to Caucasian actors. Your response has been to quibble over the definition and ask for something that cannot be defined, as if this somehow disproves everything.

And explain why anecdotal criticisms about Friends and How I Met your Mother and their individual casting selections have any relevance at all?

I can't because they're not anecdotal to begin with.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The kind of argument that you have a habit of raising as a last resort. I have pointed out that there are just two African-American actors who can draw enough of an audience to turn a profit, compared to Caucasian actors. Your response has been to quibble over the definition and ask for something that cannot be defined, as if this somehow disproves everything.

I can't because they're not anecdotal to begin with.

So asking you to define a term that your entire position rests on is quibbling? And how is quoting criticisms of a couple of tv shows out of hundreds not anecdotal? So, do the same criticisms apply to Martin, Fresh Prince of Bel Air, My Wife and Kids, Bernie Mac Show, Cosby Show etc.?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

how is quoting criticisms of a couple of tv shows out of hundreds not anecdotal?

Because anecdotal evidence is evidence that draws on personal experience and therefore cannot be proven beyond the poster's word.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Because anecdotal evidence is evidence that draws on personal experience and therefore cannot be proven beyond the poster's word.

Not sure you understand the meaning of "anecdotal". You claim that the number of white actors who make high salaries is disproportionately high. I'm asking what this is based on and so far you've avoided the question. It's a bold and incendiary claim and I'd like to know what you base it on. Nothing unreasonable about that.

And again, do those same criticisms concerning diversity also apply to Martin, Fresh Prince of Bel Air, My Wife and Kids, Bernie Mac Show, Cosby Show etc.? Spartans weren't from the British Isles either but I don't recall anyone objecting to the casting selections of 300. Does it apply to that too? Should we only cast actors in roles where they match the original characters in ethnicity, heritage, religion etc. otherwise it's racist?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I'm asking what this is based on and so far you've avoided the question.

I have answered the question. You're just choosing to disregard it.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I have answered the question. You're just choosing to disregard it.

No, you didn't. You just repeated your original statement which doesn't answer my question. Who determines the number of white actors making big money is disproportionate? What is the "right" number and what is it based on?

 

[A2K78]

I hate how Furious 7 being used as a benchmark for pushing diversity. My problem with the argument is fact the diversity police fail to recognized that the Fast&Furious franchise already has a strong built-in fanbase hence why Furious did great financially globally.

Anyhow the argument that a TV show or movies does great financially by having diverse cast is ridiculous when you consider the fact that TV shows and movies that try the diversity line often are failures unless said shows or movies are backed by a bankable actor/actrees. I point to the Fantastic Four reboot that tried the diversity thing and failed.

 

[niky]

I hate how Furious 7 being used as a benchmark for pushing diversity. My problem with the argument is fact the diversity police fail to recognized that the Fast&Furious franchise already has a strong built-in fanbase hence why Furious did great financially globally.

Anyhow the argument that a TV show or movies does great financially by having diverse cast is ridiculous when you consider the fact that TV shows and movies that try the diversity line often are failures unless said shows or movies are backed by a bankable actor/actrees. I point to the Fantastic Four reboot that tried the diversity thing and failed.

Already addressed ad infinitum. The FnF franchise benefited from a multi-cultural cast because that was what was realistic for the setting... the "street" scene, where you indeed do have a fusion of ethnicities and cultures.

Fantastic Four's casting choice was still 3/4ths white, with flimsy reasons being given for the insertion of one black character (who was there partially because he was the director's friend), resulting in the semblance of tokenism, whether this was an actual issue or not. Also, 3/4ths white, with a white villain and mostly white background characters, is not diverse.

And it failed because the studio at first gave the director completely free rein, then, at the last moment, panicked, took it away, and reshot the entire back-half of the movie and somehow made the potential clunker even worse.

Also, citation needed for TVs and movies that have diverse casts that are failures. I mean beyond shows like Ugly Betty, Jane the Virgin, The Mindy Project, How to Get Away with Murder, or maybe even Empire... okay... maybe Empire doesn't quite have a diverse cast, since it's mostly black.*

Heroes bombed, but that has nothing to do with diversity and everything to do with sucky writing.


In case it's not obvious, all of the shows mentioned were pretty successful.

 

[Tornado]

I hate how Furious 7 being used as a benchmark for pushing diversity. My problem with the argument is fact the diversity police fail to recognized that the Fast&Furious franchise already has a strong built-in fanbase hence why Furious did great financially globally.

So? I don't think anyone expected you to have a dramatic change from the last time you said the exact same thing.



It is pretty amusing that you think the Fantastic Four movie bombed for reasoning that had anything to do with them "trying the diveristy thing", so at least something came out of that post.

 

[A2K78]

It is pretty amusing that you think the Fantastic Four movie bombed for reasoning that had anything to do with them "trying the diveristy thing", so at least something came out of that post.

Other than the fact that it was a pretty bad movie, that's exactly why it bombed. The moral...don't change characters people are familiar with to push a diversity agenda. Sony probably got the message when it came to Ghostbusters.

 

[Tornado]

Other than the fact that it was a pretty bad movie

and everyone knew it was going to be long before it released. That's a bit more relevant to the matter at hand.

 

[niky]

Other than the fact that it was a pretty bad movie, that's exactly why it bombed. The moral...don't change characters people are familiar with to push a diversity agenda. Sony probably got the message when it came to Ghostbusters.

Now, Ghostbusters, that's one occassion where you could possibly make the complaint of the "diversity agenda" co-opting the story. And even then, you're still at a three-to-one white-to-black ratio, with the black Ghostbuster once again being the only one without a PhD... which is about as blatantly stereotypical as it gets. (Worked in the 80's, alongside chain-smoking characters, ghostly fellatios and sexist humor... not so much now).

In Fantastic Four, as I said, it reeked more of tokenism. A single black character added to "diversify" the cast without actually diversifying it at all. And it didn't even make sense, with the backstory given for the Storm siblings simply twisted to make the accomodation. A black Reed Richards would have made even more sense, as it would make for even more struggles for recognition for him. A black Johnny Storm, the priveleged son of a research scientist who refused to edu-ma-cate or apply himself, was not really prime story material.

A black Reed would work in the same way a black Nick Fury does. Nick Fury and Reed Richards in the comics even looked alike, and were similarly generically bland before Marvel swapped their white Nick out for Samuel L. Jackson.

 

[squadops]

Stereotypes are just that, I think it's a bunch of woop de do over nothing, a good black actor is exactly that.... a good actor.

No need to cram anything down anyone's throat. Affirmative action is for the birds.

 

[niky]

Stereotypes are just that, I think it's a bunch of woop de do over nothing, a good black actor is exactly that.... a good actor.

No need to cram anything down anyone's throat. Affirmative action is for the birds.

Stereotyping is, simply, bad writing. Streetwise black woman from the hood, all up in yo' grill and layin' down the smack? Yeah, like we haven't seen that character a million times before. This is part of why the reaction to the Ghostbusters trailer is so negative. Though you don't get a 2:1 hate rating on Youtube from that... there are a lot of "bros" hating on the movie specifically because they gender-swapped the entire cast... which is pretty hilarious.

What did they expect or want? All-male reboots of the Ghostbusters were up in the air... completely for the past two decades... nobody wanted to produce the project, nobody wanted to take the risks. Now there's an all-women Ghostbusters and fans are up in arms.

Personally, I don't want an all-women Ghostbusters. It's the same kind of gender exclusivity that characterized the original (only like, swapped around, for the lols). But I'm willing to give it a chance to sink or swim on its own merits.

Still, a truly diverse Ghostbusters would be something like this:

Though it was never as popular as the original cartoon, it did have its merits.

Or this:

Which was brought up by the same image search, and intrigues me enough that I'm going to hunt it up.

 

[squadops]

I would guess without seeing it of course, that movie is most likely trash.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Maybe the new Ghostbusters just sucks and that's why people don't like it. It's going to be hard to live up to a comedy classic that's stood the test of time with the likes of Bill Murray and Dan Akroyd in it anyway.

 

[niky]

Maybe the new Ghostbusters just sucks and that's why people don't like it. It's going to be hard to live up to a comedy classic that's stood the test of time with the likes of Bill Murray and Dan Akroyd in it anyway.

I've been pretty much expecting it to suck. And the trailer didn't change my mind all that much, some okay footage, some cringe-worthy footage, some good dialogue, some really bad dialogue... But there's a vast difference between potentially sucking and being the most hated trailer ever on YouTube. (474k dislikes and counting)

Not even Zoolander got that much hate. And that was a movie that well and truly sucked.

Fanboys need to well and truly get over themselves. I loved the original movie, but I'm not afraid to admit it had problems. Uneven pacing, lulls, jokes that didn't always hit (but the comedic chops and deadpanning of the leads (plus Rick Moranis) really buoyed the movie), a lack of chemistry and a total lack of plot direction.

It succeeded, though, because it was original, there was some truly intelligent and funny dialogue, and the SFX were spectacular.

GBII, unfortunately, sucked horribly, and Murray, Akroyd, Ramis and Moranis were all still in it. (To be fair, though, the cast chemistry worked a bit better this time around, and Winston graduated from being the token black to being an actual character).

I'm willing to give this one a chance. But I'm afraid that the massive misogynistic hate for the movie up front is going to prevent us from getting a valid consensus from the critics once it comes out.

 

[squadops]

It's riding coat tails and attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of a younger generation.

 

[prousonhairy]

I've been pretty much expecting it to suck. And the trailer didn't change my mind all that much, some okay footage, some cringe-worthy footage, some good dialogue, some really bad dialogue... But there's a vast difference between potentially sucking and being the most hated trailer ever on YouTube. (474k dislikes and counting)

Not even Zoolander got that much hate. And that was a movie that well and truly sucked.

Fanboys need to well and truly get over themselves. I loved the original movie, but I'm not afraid to admit it had problems. Uneven pacing, lulls, jokes that didn't always hit (but the comedic chops and deadpanning of the leads (plus Rick Moranis) really buoyed the movie), a lack of chemistry and a total lack of plot direction.

It succeeded, though, because it was original, there was some truly intelligent and funny dialogue, and the SFX were spectacular.

GBII, unfortunately, sucked horribly, and Murray, Akroyd, Ramis and Moranis were all still in it. (To be fair, though, the cast chemistry worked a bit better this time around, and Winston graduated from being the token black to being an actual character).

I'm willing to give this one a chance. But I'm afraid that the massive misogynistic hate for the movie up front is going to prevent us from getting a valid consensus from the critics once it comes out.

I honestly think the people in Hollywood who try to redo classics, get what they deserve when everyone is hating on their movie before it is released.

It seems super lazy, uncreative, and like its a quick money grab to keep redoing these movies that shouldn't ever be touched. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a new version of Caddyshack, The Great Outdoors, Or The Goonies, just because it gives Hollywood an easy pay day.

On the subject of an all Female Ghostbusters, Meh. It don't really matter either way, they should never be redoing it. The only possible way they can make this fair, is if they do an all Male version of Steel Magnolias. 💡

 

[niky]

It's riding coat tails and attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of a younger generation.

Yes to the first, as with all remakes, but to the second, eh? That younger generation can go out and rent/download/Netflix/whatever the original movie whenever they want.

This is a problem all remakes face (and one that really haunted The Amazing Spiderman, a movie which was much better than many people gave it credit for)... the original source material for any remake is easier than ever to access.

While it is easy to be cynical about a gender-swapped Ghostbusters being nothing more than an audience-pandering cash grab, as I've pointed out, the comics and cartoon continuity, which are regarded as part of the original movie canon, have already gone there... and it is often fun to play around with ideas like this.

@prousonhairy - I would like to see them make a gender-swapped To Wong Foo, for extra credit.

 

[squadops]

Maybe they actually pulled it off, but I somehow doubt it. Remakes are not bad by definition in my book.

I can't see an 18 year old watching a movie from 1980 with any sort of serious intent, maybe I'm wrong on that part.