The Oscars controversy surrounding the lack of diversity

[Johnnypenso]

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.

Why is it automatically misogynist hate because people don't want to see women in the role? Maybe people just long for a remake of the old movie with a modern update of male comedians? I wouldn't want to see Superman be a woman, nor Batman, nor Ironman either, why can't people feel the same way about this movie without having a negative label attached to them? Why do fanboys need to get over themselves? Why can't they just have preferences like everyone else? Aren't they just paying customers, or not, in the end? Why does it affect the critics?

 

[squadops]

I think there has been an overzealous wave on the net over the movie for whatever reason. People are crazy sometimes.

 

[niky]

Why is it automatically misogynist hate because people don't want to see women in the role? Maybe people just long for a remake of the old movie with a modern update of male comedians? I wouldn't want to see Superman be a woman, nor Batman, nor Ironman either, why can't people feel the same way about this movie without having a negative label attached to them? Why do fanboys need to get over themselves? Why can't they just have preferences like everyone else? Aren't they just paying customers, or not, in the end? Why does it affect the critics?

Who said it was all automatically misogynist hate? I simply noted that the negativity towards the movie is wildly disproportionate to whatever shortcomings the trailer has.

Also, they do need to get over themselves, because if you paid attention to the cartoons and the comics that followed, there is a lot of continuity beyond the original membership. And that continuity already includes a lot of female Ghostbusters.

Remaking it with a new Egon, Ray, Peter and Winston would be largely pointless. This isn't Superman or Spiderman.

Making a new movie with female analogues, however, instead of going for a more varied and original composition, is just as pointless, but not worth a 2:1 hate ratio on YouTube. There are definitely people discounting the movie because they think the trailer sucks... but a lot of those votes are likely being made for reasons beyond that, as many comments on YouTube and elsewhere attest to.

 

[squadops]

The hate is crazy, I mean who really cares about one silly flic? Or does it stem from the reason for this OP?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Who said it was all automatically misogynist hate? I simply noted that the negativity towards the movie is wildly disproportionate to whatever shortcomings the trailer has.

Also, they do need to get over themselves, because if you paid attention to the cartoons and the comics that followed, there is a lot of continuity beyond the original membership. And that continuity already includes a lot of female Ghostbusters.

Remaking it with a new Egon, Ray, Peter and Winston would be largely pointless. This isn't Superman or Spiderman.

Making a new movie with female analogues, however, instead of going for a more varied and original composition, is just as pointless, but not worth a 2:1 hate ratio on YouTube. There are definitely people discounting the movie because they think the trailer sucks... but a lot of those votes are likely being made for reasons beyond that, as many comments on YouTube and elsewhere attest to.

It was you that labeled the vitreol against the movie "misogynist hate". My question is why is it automatically misogynist hate if people don't want to see women in the role? Why can't people just not want to see women in the role because they love the first movie, loved the way men played the characters and want to see men in the role?

I don't see that as an explanation of why fanboys need to get over themselves. They have preferences. So what? Why do they need to drop their preferences on behalf of someone else who doesn't like their preferences? I'm sure there are several hundred million movie goers that can still see the movie if fanboys don't like it anyway right?

 

[niky]

It was you that labeled the vitreol against the movie "misogynist hate". My question is why is it automatically misogynist hate if people don't want to see women in the role? Why can't people just not want to see women in the role because they love the first movie, loved the way men played the characters and want to see men in the role?

I don't see that as an explanation of why fanboys need to get over themselves. They have preferences. So what? Why do they need to drop their preferences on behalf of someone else who doesn't like their preferences? I'm sure there are several hundred million movie goers that can still see the movie if fanboys don't like it anyway right?

So what do you call it when people don't want to see women in a movie?

I mean: If you don't want to see someone else filling an iconic role played by a previous actor, that's a fair complaint... but if you specifically don't want to see a woman playing a role that's not defined as a male role, and that doesn't require a male to play it, then that's...?

-

We can agree to disagree on fanboys... all I'm saying is that ship sailed long, long, loooong ago. The time to complain about the producers wrecking their beloved property came somewhere between the first movie and the second season of the cartoon (with the "new" Jeanine).

 

[Danoff]

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.

Morgan Freeman
Jamie Foxx
Don Cheadle
Samuel L. Jackson
Laurence Fishburne
and back in the day (closer to Washington's day) Wesley Snipes.

"Proportionate" would be a ratio of about 8 (other) to 1 (black), white people making up the vast majority of the 8 would be about right.

 

[squadops]

I don't really care one way or the other for Freeman, he is a good actor, Foxx I like(baite comes to mind), Cheadle is a really cool guy with talent, Jackson I loved when he said on Letterman that he was an f'n movie star Fishburne was great in outnumbered, don't care for snipes.

Does any of that count for a hill of beans?

 

[Johnnypenso]

So what do you call it when people don't want to see women in a movie?

I mean: If you don't want to see someone else filling an iconic role played by a previous actor, that's a fair complaint... but if you specifically don't want to see a woman playing a role that's not defined as a male role, and that doesn't require a male to play it, then that's...?

I call it personal preference. Let me give you an example. Tom Cruise played Jack Reacher in a movie recently. If you are familiar with the Reacher series of novels, Jack is a monster, 6'5", 215-250 lbs depending on the book. I like Tom Cruise but it's a mistake IMO to cast him as Jack Reacher because it's not faithful to the novels. You can't act your way to 6'5". Jack's whole persona is built around physical intimidation, and Tom just doesn't have that at 5'8" and a buck fifty if he's lucky. So the character in the movies simply isn't Jack Reacher to me. I'd have said the same thing if it was Don Cheadle or Angelina Jolie. Hugh Jackman...yeah he'd make a great Jack Reacher. My personal preference would be that he's played by a white American because that's what Jack Reacher is, but it's Hollywood, so, so long as they were faithful to the story and the character I could probably get into Idris Elba or Terry Crews. I'd prefer either of them to Tom Cruise, because they have that physical presence that's so critical to the character. Sorry Tom...

IMO it's perfectly normal to want certain movie roles to remain consistent in remakes or in movies adapted from books etc. It's the character you've come to know and love and when it's changed drastically by Hollywood you might have a tendency to get a bit pissed off about it. Obviously people have come to define the Ghostbusters as a male role hence the outcry. All I see are passionate fans that had certain expectations for a remake and are disappointed.

 

[A2K78]

Slate doesn't seem like The Hollywood Reporter for dishing out some facts

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat...e_s_global_ratings_is_the_latest_attempt.html

I guess this pretty much explain why Naomi Campbell is part of the Empire cast

 

[niky]

Slate doesn't seem like The Hollywood Reporter for dishing out some facts

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat...e_s_global_ratings_is_the_latest_attempt.html

I guess this pretty much explain why Naomi Campbell is part of the Empire cast

Did you actually read the article?

International audiences don't mind diverse casts.

They do mind multi-episode hard to digest stories. (Telenovelas get a break because the stories are so inane, you can miss a few episodes and still keep up with the plot)

 

[TenEightyOne]

Slate doesn't seem like The Hollywood Reporter for dishing out some facts

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat...e_s_global_ratings_is_the_latest_attempt.html

I guess this pretty much explain why Naomi Campbell is part of the Empire cast

Further to @niky's comments, my eye was drawn to this paragraph;

Welp, the Hollywood Reporter piece has the numbers! And they don’t look good. Roxborough details what makes Empire a “global flop”: In the UK, the first season brought in a “middling” 717,000 viewers, and the second season “has been worse” thus far. Australia, Canada, and Germany haven’t been feeling it, either, he reports. But what the article and those quoted in the article fail to specify, with the same attention to detail as is demonstrated here with Empire's ratings, is how other American shows with predominantly white casts are doing abroad in comparison. Apparently, it's better to just focus on the the likes of Empire, because they are the exception to the rule—they're doing it wrong, merely by existing.

717,000 viewers really isn't bad for the UK, especially for an American drama that shows late on Channel 4.

In the UK mixed casts are the norm - there's no audience issue with Empire's casting, I'm certain of it. What there is an issue with is the growing trend towards other European dramas (or localised remakes of them). American dramas don't tend to make it as big any more, particularly not in serials. That article's scattergun shots are aimed in all the wrong places, I think. I could add that personally I think Empire is terribly written and directed even if the production is very good.

 

[A2K78]

717,000 viewers really isn't bad for the UK, especially for an American drama that shows late on Channel 4.

To you that amount of viewers might not be bad, but to the studios and advertisers investing in these such a number is bad especially when you compare it other shows that have produced much better numbers. That said ratings is more much important than you might think.

 

[TenEightyOne]

such a number is bad especially when you compare it other shows that have produced much better numbers

Such as?

 

[niky]

To you that amount of viewers might not be bad, but to the studios and advertisers investing in these such a number is bad especially when you compare it other shows that have produced much better numbers. That said ratings is more much important than you might think.

Again, have you even read the article you're criticizing?

And here is the point:

Such as?

American dramas are doing poorly in the UK. Across the board. That's the long and short of it. Crime shows are still interesting to outside viewers. The Big Bang Theory is ridiculously popular. But dramas don't do well.

It's not the color of the cast. Hell, one of the big international hits of the past decade, "Ugly Betty", featured an ethnic cast, and did great overseas. Granted, it was based on the South American "Betty La Fea", so it's not a uniquely American dramedy, but it did well, nonetheless.

-

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that international audiences don't care much about American issues, like culture-specific racism, because it doesn't apply to their cultures as much as it does in the US... but those audiences have no trouble watching US shows with black or latin leads.

 

[A2K78]

All I can say is if minorities really want to make a name for themselves in the film industry, rather than constantly blame race(as hollywood isn't racist to begin with) what need to do is not only step up their craft but also produce content the market wants e.g. films like 12 Years A Slave, Selmas or the typical Tyler Perry film isn't going to cut in a global markek.

As for the idea that hollywood need look like america, what these pundits don't get is the fact that america is no longer the center of the film universe hence why movies need no look america.

 

[TenEightyOne]

All I can say is if minorities really want to make a name for themselves in the film industry, rather than constantly blame race(as hollywood isn't racist to begin with) what need to do is not only step up their craft but also produce content the market wants e.g. films like 12 Years A Slave, Selmas or the typical Tyler Perry film isn't going to cut in a global markek

But 12 Years A Slave performed better globally than domestically, no?

As for the idea that hollywood need look like america, what these pundits don't get is the fact that america is no longer the center of the film universe hence why movies need no look america.

Who suggested that idea, and what on Earth does the end of that sentence mean? By the way, you're dodging the question;

such a number is bad especially when you compare it other shows that have produced much better numbers

Such as?

 

[JKgo]

a global mar-kek

...Dunno why, but this makes me LOL so hard.

A global market isn't something that can be easily defined. Hollywood being an American film industry, it will always have a priority towards domestic box office takings, which is the same with Nollywood, Bollywood, or the infamous Hong Kong film scenes.

What works for Chinese audiences might not work for French cinema goers, and what's considered celluloid perfection by Germans will hit like a rock thrown by a drunk with, say, Nigerian audiences.

So, what is a global market? If you want to make a billion-plus, then there's a little choice - target a market that is deemed most lucrative, which is Chinese right now, and advertize the living daylights out of it. That includes shoehorning a couple of Oriental actors in there somewhere too.

Not meant to sound cynical, but a part of me believes the inclusion of Asian elements in recent spate of blockbusters are extraneous and nothing more than Hollywood's attempt at making advertizing easier in Asian markets.

A small but insistent thought has taken a root in my head - it is saying, that Rogue One will make more money than TFA in China, by virtues of its two Chinese actors and the marketing push that'll no doubt heavily hang around these two over there.

Happy to be told otherwise, of course.

 

[TVR27]

Rae Dawn Chong is one of my favourite actress who is diverse in culture and is a very good actress in the movie Commando.

 

[squadops]

I grew up laughing with her father

 

[niky]

But 12 Years A Slave performed better globally than domestically, no?

A small but insistent thought has taken a root in my head - it is saying, that Rogue One will make more money than TFA in China, by virtues of its two Chinese actors and the marketing push that'll no doubt heavily hang around these two over there.

Happy to be told otherwise, of course.

I wonder if it actually will. Granted, the Chinese turn-out, though reasonably large, was still a disappointment for TFA, which should have passed the Titanic in total box office sales if not for the weak reception in China.

Adding Chinese actors should make for a bigger draw, but I don't know if the Rogue One title will have the same legs as a mainstream Star Wars movie.

-

Granted, Chinese inclusion probably helped Transformers 4... though the absolutely massive marketing tie-ins (and egregious on-screen advertising for Chinese companies) ensured that there would be a huge push for the movie in China. I don't see that kind of thing happening in Rogue One... not a lot of chances to feature characters using iPhones in a Galaxy Far Far Away...

Furious 7 didn't pander to the Chinese market at all, and it's still the highest grossing foreign movie in that market. Apparently the Chinese have no problems watching movies without any Chinese characters or locations (Han is Korean).

I don't think the lack of Chinese characters hurt TFA (it didn't hurt Age of Ultron one bit). It's simply that China is not a Star Wars market, and the hype machine hasn't hit it hard enough, yet. They're familiar with comic book superheroes (though that said, Batman Versus Superman absolutely tanked there... it won't even get into the top 50 in China) and FF7 is the closest you can get to a comic book about cars (and the Chinese are wild about cars), but the big push for Star Wars is nostalgia for a movie that was not released in Communist China back during the Cultural Revolution.

 

[JKgo]

Adding Chinese actors should make for a bigger draw, but I don't know if the Rogue One title will have the same legs as a mainstream Star Wars movie.

-

Granted, Chinese inclusion probably helped Transformers 4... though the absolutely massive marketing tie-ins (and egregious on-screen advertising for Chinese companies) ensured that there would be a huge push for the movie in China. I don't see that kind of thing happening in Rogue One... not a lot of chances to feature characters using iPhones in a Galaxy Far Far Away...

Furious 7 didn't pander to the Chinese market at all, and it's still the highest grossing foreign movie in that market. Apparently the Chinese have no problems watching movies without any Chinese characters or locations (Han is Korean).

I don't think the lack of Chinese characters hurt TFA (it didn't hurt Age of Ultron one bit). It's simply that China is not a Star Wars market, and the hype machine hasn't hit it hard enough, yet. They're familiar with comic book superheroes (though that said, Batman Versus Superman absolutely tanked there... it won't even get into the top 50 in China) and FF7 is the closest you can get to a comic book about cars (and the Chinese are wild about cars), but the big push for Star Wars is nostalgia for a movie that was not released in Communist China back during the Cultural Revolution.

....Let's not forget another main issue when it comes to foreign film markets - language barrier. Not sure the percentages, but the number of Mainland Chinese that knows English should be pretty low. Lots of things get lost in translation so it stands to reason the less dialogue a film has (plus more action set pieces) the better it is to swallow. FF7 and TF4 is a prime example of movies that follow this chain of logic.

And I've read somewhere, that Korean actors do humdinger of business there, so there are less "resistance" to Korean faces, compared to, say, a Japanese actor. Not saying this is a set rule, but it's likely the case.

But man, Donnie Yen's a big name in China. Just look at the pull his films have, whether good or bad. I've no doubt Rogue One will do better than TFA at his home. Unless piracy kills it off first...

 

[A2K78]

...Dunno why, but this makes me LOL so hard.

I was posting from a mobile phone in the middle of the night.

Anyhow my point is black actors by large(as oppose to a few names) have the ability to become bankable in the international market. The problem is they aren't producing the type of content the global audience crave the end result is you having a relative few being big names.

Overall the problem isn't a matter of race or ethnicity, but the simple principle of supply and demand.

 

[JKgo]

simple principle of supply and demand.

...I agree about the supply/demand bit. It is true some black actors and film makers consciously choose to make films that seemingly lack international appeal.

But that is also a bit.... incorrect assumption. Movies made by hacks like Tyler Perry does big business in African markets. Ditto for flicks like Set It Off and Boyz in The Hood et al. Admittedly, this may not mean much from international box office takings as Africa accounts for only a small slice, but the Black American films do have their audiences outside US.

 

[niky]

I was posting from a mobile phone in the middle of the night.

Anyhow my point is black actors by large(as oppose to a few names) have the ability to become bankable in the international market. The problem is they aren't producing the type of content the global audience crave the end result is you having a relative few being big names.

Overall the problem isn't a matter of race or ethnicity, but the simple principle of supply and demand.

And who produces the content? Not the actors. Unless you're a big name like Will Smith, who can pitch and bankroll his own films, you're not producing the film or pitching it for production. You're just the guy/girl cast to play a part.

Also, as @TenEightyOne pointed out: 12 Years A Slave did well internationally.

-

Your original post in this flurry of thread activity was in disagreement with a Slate article, which was a response to a claim that ethnicity was not well received overseas, more correctly pointing out it was the content that was not doing well, not the ethnicity of the actors/actresses.

Since you've apparently come to the same conclusion, albeit in a roundabout way, what's the problem with the Slate article, then?

 

[A2K78]

Apparently the issue isn't going away...this time GITS and Doctor Strange are heart of the matter, in this case accusations of whitewashing:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/doc-strange-whitewashing-shell-884385

http://www.tor.com/2016/04/20/why-are-we-still-white-washing-characters

My view..... as a fan of those 2 works of literature I would've prefer the asian characters to at least be played by a asian actor/actress however when you take supply and demand into consideration its obvious to why non-asians would be cast in asian roles when you look at how the film industry works.

 

[Touring Mars]

I was going to write something about that but I believe Calvin said it best...

 

[niky]

Yup. Real shortage of Asian actresses in Hollywood right now... yup yup yup.

Oh, wait.

Top 40 Asian Actresses Under 40 to Watch for in Hollywood

That said: Kusanagi is a horrible character to go ape-crap over. Major Kusanagi has never seemed wholly Japanese to me. GITS is not "big eye" anime, many characters have notably Oriental or Caucasian features, while Kusanagi seemed somewhere between the two... a good comparison would be Maria Ozawa... a half Canadian, half Japanese... uh... actress.

Besides, the Japanese don't mind:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/scarlett-johansson-ghost-shell-japanese-885462

They're used to mixing ethnicities within their properties. The AOT thing is really telling... the only character in the TV series that is actually Japanese is the girl. Everyone else is supposed to be Caucasian.

But still, the issue with the AOT movie was that they don't have a deep pool of Japanese-speaking Caucasian actors in Japan.

Saying, however, that there aren't any Asian-american actresses fit for the role is wrong. There are. They just aren't Scarlett Johansson. Not that I care, either way. I'll wait for the reviews.


-

Doctor Strange, on the other hand: The fact that it has Tilda Swinton and Chiwetel Ejiofor in it just makes me want to watch it more.

 

[DK]

I'll repeat what I said in the GitS thread in the Movies & TV forum:

I'm kind of in two minds about a white actress portraying Motoko. If you were to show a picture of her to someone who had no idea about her, I guess it'd be hard to determine her ethnicity. It's a shame Hollywood are unwilling to take the risk to cast an Asian actress as Motoko, though.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Again, people make movies to make money. They'll put whomever they can afford that they think will sell the most tickets in the lead role. A movie isn't a tour de force for political correctness or enforcing individual rights unless, of course, they think that theme will sell more tickets.