|
The Warszawa posted:It's easy, by taking away the culture's agency by making a decision for it - by deciding "for its own good," and it matters the same way any conduct framework matters, in how it governs behavior and what that behavior does. So your suggestion is that Starfleet should contact planets to ask them if they want to be made aware of the existence of aliens? How does that make sense? And how is there an adverse effect in not doing so? My hypothetical relevant because it is designed to carry the implications of your ideological objection to its logical conclusion. I presented one of a multitude of possible dilemmas presented by taking an ideological stance that those cultures should have a say in whether they're "ready" or not. Starfleet has to make a decision one way or another whether to contact other cultures previously unaware of their existence, and the only way to make that decision is by determining whether it would have an adverse impact. The decision by its very nature is a unilateral one.
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 21:30 |
|
|
A Steampunk Gent posted:Most people are going to simply conclude it was a profit-led piece of Hollywood casting to maximise ticket sales at the expense of minority representation, and from their level of analysis that is a good place to leave it. If this JJ Abrams Star trek film is too academic for general audiences, then the battle is already lost.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:So your suggestion is that Starfleet should contact planets to ask them if they want to be made aware of the existence of aliens? How does that make sense? And how is there an adverse effect in not doing so? And that decision robs them of their agency. Perhaps that's an unavoidable consequence of exploration, perhaps its not - that's what the film is asking us to grapple with. Starfleet wants to observe, categorize, define, without reckoning with the ramifications of that decision by preaching non-interference. Is observation - especially the type we're talking about here - not its own interference? euphronius posted:People from Spain aren't white? I get that this can be counterintuitive to non-Americans or even people who haven't had to grapple with this because of the circumstances of their birth, so that's why I posted a bunch of links on the subject. I can probably recommend some basic texts on racial identity and race in the United States if you're interested. SuperMechagodzilla posted:If this JJ Abrams Star trek film is too academic for general audiences, then the battle is already lost. The point s/he was making is that it's more like you're trying to talk about the complex interplay of historical circumstances and the academic theory of social stigma and the etymology and how it applies to hate speech and other people are really more concerned with how hate speech is used against them and their communities. Both are valid enterprises that reflect different priorities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
I would consider a person of white Spanish decent who lived in Florida or Pennsylvania to be a white Hispanic. I think the US government does too. The 2010 US census says that 26.7 million Hispanics consider themselves white. . . so. . . That is the understanding I have of the issue. I am going to guess white people who live in Spain probably consider themselves to be white as well. I do not see how "Hispanic" or "Latino" informs at all about race, which is why I asked you about your statement where you said "It's also not about nationality, it's about race". VVV Possibly but I am just trying to understand the arguments and distinctions being made. euphronius fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Quibbling about 'whiteness' and even the very notion of being 'white' in America was pretty much conceived as a bourgeoisie tool of class warfare.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:And that decision robs them of their agency. Perhaps that's an unavoidable consequence of exploration, perhaps its not - that's what the film is asking us to grapple with. Starfleet wants to observe, categorize, define, without reckoning with the ramifications of that decision by preaching non-interference. Is observation - especially the type we're talking about here - not its own interference? Since practicing non-interference and not exploring at all have the same effect on autonomous cultures, no, it's not its own type of interference. Just to be clear, I've been talking about Star Trek in general, not just STID. AbramsTrek is really its own beast.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
Danger posted:Quibbling about 'whiteness' and even the very notion of being 'white' in America was pretty much conceived as a bourgeoisie tool of class warfare. This is a simplistic view and is way too class-reductionist, but essentially right that whiteness was created to subjugate the other (and incentivize groups to "earn their whiteness" by being racist shock-troops against black Americans, for instance). euphronius posted:I would consider a person of white Spanish decent who lived in Florida or Pennsylvania to be a white Hispanic. I think the US government does too. The 2010 US census says that 26.7 million Hispanics consider themselves white. . . so. . . That is the understanding I have of the issue. I am going to guess white people who live in Spain probably consider themselves to be white as well. I'm phoneposting now, so forgive the abruptness, but "White Hispanic" and "white" are not the same thing. Please read the links I posted, which go into this. There is a reason the U.S Census is changing Hispanic to a racial category - it better reflects the operation of that identity in America. If you don't believe that Hispanics - even white Hispanics - are treated as racially distinct in America, you're mistaken.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
That made sense, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
Jesus Christ this race bullshit is STILL going on? I'm guessing you clowns scared away the rest of the posters who wanted to discuss a movie for what it actually is; a form of entertainment. I really enjoyed the movie overall; minus a few little quirks here and there. A lot of stuff was blatantly ripped off from past movies, but done in a somewhat unique fashion. All in all I enjoyed all of the characters and there doesn't seem to be a weak link in the cast. The ending felt extremely rushed, which was a bit disappointing. All in all I'm really hoping for a third movie, as I've been thoroughly entertained by both JJ Trek movies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
Auron posted:Jesus Christ this race bullshit is STILL going on? I'm guessing you clowns scared away the rest of the posters who wanted to discuss a movie for what it actually is; a form of entertainment. I for one am still reading the thread not because I care to read people's generic opinions on whether or not the plot was exciting, but because I find the racial discussion (and surrounding thematic discussions) pretty interesting! Star Trek was conceived as a theater for this sort of thinking - albeit one which has rarely if ever been perfect on screen. (Though Avery Brooks was a real force for good on his show.) Space Hamlet fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Jun 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
I'm all for more examination of the racial context of Cumberbatch's casting versus more nitpicking about trivia. I think this might be my favorite Star Trek film ever, but I'm pretty firmly in the ' gently caress whitewashing' camp here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 03:10
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:The point s/he was making is that it's more like you're trying to talk about the complex interplay of historical circumstances and the academic theory of social stigma and the etymology and how it applies to hate speech and other people are really more concerned with how hate speech is used against them and their communities. Both are valid enterprises that reflect different priorities. Yes, and the latter issue is symptomatic of the former. This is something that the film addresses directly in its not-very-subtle criticism of liberal ideology (which I've gone over in my analysis of it).
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
Space Hamlet posted:(Though Avery Brooks was a real force for good on his show.) I like the episode where Sisko said "Actually black people weren't really welcome in the setting of this hologram program" and boycotted it. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Jun 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 03:42
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:I like the episode where Sisko said "Actually black people weren't really welcome in the setting of this hologram program" and boycotted it. Genuinely good moment
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 04:12
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Nor does my argument rely upon being privy to it. Results matter, this isn't the Rooney Rule. I realize you've decided that the actual events leading up to the casting decision don't matter at all, but that attitude is exactly what I take issue with. Maybe this is just me, but I think its better to understand a situation before judging it so harshly. You can repeat over and over that a decision to cast a white person in a role once played by a non-white person will always be unacceptable no matter what, period. But simply repeating that is not a convincing argument. quote:Should a character that on the page is not white be played by a white person when people of color are systemically marginalized by Hollywood? At all? If so, should Brad Pitt play Malcolm X? I would propose that, right now, given the institutional racism present in Hollywood, we should not be handing roles of color to white actors and further entrenching this problem. Malcolm X was a real person. Khan is new and very different take on a pre-existing fictional character. Malcolm X was black. How do you know this Khan was "not white" on the page? I would be having an easier time understanding this controversy if the casting decisions behind all the main roles were being equally questioned (excluding Uhura). Instead of this futile attempt to hoard the few "roles of color" "on the page" after the fact I think it would be better if a large amount of people started questioning why can't Kirk be played by someone "of color", and same goes for Batman or James Bond (Idris Elba please) or Lois Lane. People involved in the production of films often make decisions, including casting, from a place of creativity and moment-to-moment inspiration. Trying to cram a social engineering agenda to right systemic wrongs into that process is a bad fit, but if the people making these decisions realized their creative options only get bigger and better when they open up roles for any and all races/ethnicities/nationalities then everyone would be better off for it. For example, on his eponymous show Louis CK recently cast a black actress (Susan Kelechi Watson) in a key role as the mother of his children. He cast her because he liked her acting and he could see her working well in the role. In other words he cast her, not her race. I'd like to see more of that kind of thing, and if we saw more of that then your precious immutable "roles of color" would cease to matter so much. quote:If I'd said "primitives who'd 'barely invented the wheel,'" it'd have the same meaning and would actually literally be a quote from the film. That's how. That line was absolutely not presented neutrally in the film, as well. I mean, do you really think the film wasn't at least inviting the critique of paternalism with the Prime Directive? Which character says that in the film? Are we just talking about this one film or the concept of the Prime Directive in general? I'd say any episode or installment that deals with the Prime Directive is inviting criticism and reflects on real world concerns. However, your characterization still strikes me as completely topsy-turvy. Even if you disagree, can't you see why I'm having trouble with your paradoxical idea that not interfering is "playing God" and not thinking you always know what's best for other civilizations is paternalistic? quote:If the reason you're not doing that is because you think they're too stupid to handle it, then yes. The reason I don't do it is because I realize that sometimes my views are neither wanted or needed by others, and no matter how sure I am of my viewpoint it's subject to human error and not the last word on understanding the world. Which is one of the reasons that the Prime Directive is a sensible idea; maybe the Federation's presence and viewpoints are neither wanted or needed by other groups. Maybe you didn't see it because I edited it in, but I asked earlier whether you have considered that the Prime Directive could come about because the humans of Starfleet are judging humanity's own imperialistic tendencies and temptations, not because they're judging other species as "lowly savages"? Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Jun 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
On the topic of race, reminder of this scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjw6y4ClQwg Roddenberry knew what was up 40 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:So your suggestion is that Starfleet should contact planets to ask them if they want to be made aware of the existence of aliens? How does that make sense? And how is there an adverse effect in not doing so? It could make sense in a  Stargate kind of way.Like plenty of people think the President and other world leaders know about aliens but fear admitting it would create anarchy. Maybe an Andorian showed up in the 70's (after Quark in the 40's) and offered a chance to join their alliance, but UNSC turned him down. Starfleet could have a policy like that for post-atomic but pre-warp societies. (Nazi planet!)
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
McDowell posted:It could make sense in a That's basically what Starfleet does per first contact procedures. The TNG ep First Contact showed them first making contact with an individual open minded scientist on the verge of discovering Warp propulsion, followed by the world's government (a single world government I'm pretty sure is one of the preconditions for first contact), but said government decided not to spread knowledge to the general populace so Starfleet left them alone for the time being.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 14:41
|
|
|
A Doomed Purloiner posted:(a single world government I'm pretty sure is one of the preconditions for first contact) I wonder what this means for competing nations developing warp tech from the same planet ala US-USSR.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I wonder what this means for competing nations developing warp tech from the same planet ala US-USSR. Yeah, thinking about it, a single world government was a precondition for Federation membership, not first contact.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 15:11
|
|
|
I enjoyed this movie, particularly the first half which was just a riot. However, there are a lot of plot holes and crazy stretches of plausibility and logic, and they're not the kind that only occur to you later on after the movie's over, they hit you as soon as they happen. This was a problem in the previous film, and but it's worse in this one and it drags the second half down. In the first half I was thinking "omg, this poo poo is the best Trek has ever been!" whereas in the second half I was "yeah, whatever".
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:I realize you've decided that the actual events leading up to the casting decision don't matter at all, but that attitude is exactly what I take issue with. Maybe this is just me, but I think its better to understand a situation before judging it so harshly. I followed the casting and I understand the situation - and I understand it enough to recognize its tangential relevance to the issue of "was there a whitewashing fuckup". What do you think I don't understand and why is it relevant? quote:You can repeat over and over that a decision to cast a white person in a role once played by a non-white person will always be unacceptable no matter what, period. But simply repeating that is not a convincing argument. Do you acknowledge the real, systemic marginalization of people of color in Hollywood? Once we actually secure full equality and equity for people of color, we can maybe get flexible about this, but until then I am always, always going to opt to protect gains we've made from backsliding. quote:Malcolm X was a real person. Khan is new and very different take on a pre-existing fictional character. Malcolm X was black. How do you know this Khan was "not white" on the page? Okay, how about Django from Django Unchained? Kunta Kinte from Roots? Pre-existing fictional characters, so by your logic a white guy (or girl) could play both of them. Benedict Cumberbatch should start practicing his quickdraw. What about Don Draper?* There are contextual reasons why having an advertising executive in the 1960s be on-the-page white makes sense. *This is an intentionally bad example, because if Mad Men's "deep dark secret" about Don Draper was that he was a black man passing for white in the 1960s advertising world, it would be a much more interesting show than it's become. But really, "this" Khan? Smoking nacelle theories aside, the idea that "this" Khan is not the Khan of TOS and WOK is pretty much unfounded. Or are we just assuming that a character is white until proven "conclusively" otherwise? And even if they decide to make "this" Khan white on the page when he was a person of color on the page before, that is a political choice. But this Khan - the same Khan we've always dealt with - is not only given a name that identifies him, but is specifically situated as a Sikh North Indian. quote:I would be having an easier time understanding this controversy if the casting decisions behind all the main roles were being equally questioned (excluding Uhura). Instead of this futile attempt to hoard the few "roles of color" "on the page" after the fact I think it would be better if a large amount of people started questioning why can't Kirk be played by someone "of color", and same goes for Batman or James Bond (Idris Elba please) or Lois Lane. See, you're doing the 7thBattalion thing where you say "if you support X, you cannot support Y." I can support both - for example, I can support a comprehensive reform to how we structure education and university admissions that would radically transform affirmative action, but recognizing the absence of political will for such a sweeping transformation, I can support not cutting affirmative action as it is in the name of not losing what gains have been made. Also, if you think nonwhite Kirk (hell, or even nonwhite Bones, for whom being black makes so much goddamn sense) was actually on the table, I don't think you get how pervasively hosed Hollywood (and America) is on race. See, e.g., "why did Denzel have to be crooked before he took it?"; Donald Glover-as-Spiderman (an interview with him, where he talks about getting called a "friend of the family for taking Peter Parker away from [white comic book fans]" and told "there are no black kids like Peter Parker," was posted in this very thread); recorded history. Yes, as we've even discussed in this very thread, there is nothing mandating that certain characters be white. And yet, they are. The problem with "colorblind" casting is that when it occurs against the backdrop of institutional racism, it skews way towards "colorblind" meaning "blind to color," as in "can't see actors of color." quote:People involved in the production of films often make decisions, including casting, from a place of creativity and moment-to-moment inspiration. Trying to cram a social engineering agenda to right systemic wrongs into that process is a bad fit, but if the people making these decisions realized their creative options only get bigger and better when they open up roles for any and all races/ethnicities/nationalities then everyone would be better off for it. For example, on his eponymous show Louis CK recently cast a black actress (Susan Kelechi Watson) in a key role as the mother of his children. He cast her because he liked her acting and he could see her working well in the role. In other words he cast her, not her race. I'd like to see more of that kind of thing, and if we saw more of that then your precious immutable "roles of color" would cease to matter so much. Do you think "creativity" and "moment-to-moment inspiration" is divorced from social context? Does the angel of arts come down from the heavens to slip Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy into J.J. Abrams's Netflix queue? Surely you recognize how culturally inculcated racism skews these subjective evaluations against people of color, even though there are extremely limited exceptions (that, themselves, aren't necessarily exceptions, as C.K. talks about hiring Watson in part because of her race). See: Louis C.K. posted:To C.K., it’s all about line delivery. “When a black woman tells you to get a job, it’s just more … ” he explained with a laugh. http://www.racialicious.com/2012/06/29/louis-c-k-bucks-casting-trends-with-susan-kelechi-watson/ Like, let's get into what the gently caress that means. It just goes to show that even good outcomes show the pervasive influence of racism. quote:Which character says that in the film? Are we just talking about this one film or the concept of the Prime Directive in general? Pike. I'm mostly talking about the Prime Directive as its presented in STID, but with Q-chat I can see how that gets confusing. quote:I'd say any episode or installment that deals with the Prime Directive is inviting criticism and reflects on real world concerns. However, your characterization still strikes me as completely topsy-turvy. Even if you disagree, can't you see why I'm having trouble with your paradoxical idea that not interfering is "playing God" and not thinking you always know what's best for other civilizations is paternalistic? Think about it this way: in this case, "not interfering" involves bombarding the civilization with radiation from the ship's sensors. Ex ante the Enterprise cannot know how that will affect them, because to know they have to scan. The decision to observe can therefore be argued to be a decision to interfere - even to fundamentally alter. quote:The reason I don't do it is because I realize that sometimes my views are neither wanted or needed by others, and no matter how sure I am of my viewpoint it's subject to human error and not the last word on understanding the world. Which is one of the reasons that the Prime Directive is a sensible idea; maybe the Federation's presence and viewpoints are neither wanted or needed by other groups. Only this isn't how they justify the Prime Directive, because that would create a uniform statement on all non-Federation civilizations regardless of whether they had warp technology. Let's say you actually knew there was no God. Would this change your conduct? quote:Maybe you didn't see it because I edited it in, but I asked earlier whether you have considered that the Prime Directive could come about because the humans of Starfleet are judging humanity's own imperialistic tendencies and temptations, not because they're judging other species as "lowly savages"? I didn't, thanks - I don't think that alters the fundamental paternalism, and I don't think that's supported by subsequent generations' interpretation of the Prime Directive (Pike's derisive "wheel" comment). Think of it like this - the first guy to take a cultural artifact from Machu Picchu and give it to Yale probably intended it in the "preserve and protect" sense (may not be true, of course, but take it as a hypothetical), but that doesn't actually change that it was an imperialist act of theft. SuperMechagodzilla posted:Yes, and the latter issue is symptomatic of the former. This is something that the film addresses directly in its not-very-subtle criticism of liberal ideology (which I've gone over in my analysis of it). No, not really. They're both ways of looking at the same phenomenon - one is concerned with explaining it and the other is concerned with stopping it. They can feed into each other, but accomplishing the former doesn't accomplish the latter. I don't agree with what I'm reading you to be saying, which is that we (either we society or we, specifically me and other people of color) should be more concerned with theoretical explanations (or, worse, to embrace manifestations of the problem as "criticism" of the problem) than in actually eliminating the problem. Also, whether whitewashing Khan does or does not say these things, it further excludes people of color from the very conversation about ideology and impact. If you actually think people of color should be part of leftism or even have a voice in the direction of art and society, you should be opposed to excluding them. As I see it, our two options are either to agitate for a seat at the table at which to make our critiques (as opposed to silently lining up behind white critiques, which may very well not represent our interests and our perspectives) or to storm the gates of Paramount and start scalping fuckers. For reasons both moral and practical, I support the former. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Jun 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
Hey, can anybody link me to/tell me what the "Smoking Nacelle" thing refers to? I can't find it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Hey, can anybody link me to/tell me what the "Smoking Nacelle" thing refers to? I can't find it. As I understand it, the smoking nacelle is just a cute way to refer to arguments about "canon" wrt what has happened previously in shows/movies, and how arguments from that area have been used to justify whitewashing (in this instance) but also to just plain nitpick for reasons why Abram's movies are sub-par Star Trek (it's all tits and explosions, etc.) See also: Not MY Trek Edit: the literal reference is to how the nacelles on the new enterprise are "wrong" and how the design of the Kelvin in ST09 with its single nacelle is "wrong" Error 404 fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Jun 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:Edit: the literal reference is to how the nacelles on the new enterprise are "wrong" and how the design of the Kelvin in ST09 with its single nacelle is "wrong" What was wrong with it? If it's that there was only one nacelle, there's plenty of precedent for that (Hermes, Saladin and Freedom class ships).
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:As I understand it, the smoking nacelle is just a cute way to refer to arguments about "canon" wrt what has happened previously in shows/movies, and how arguments from that area have been used to justify whitewashing (in this instance) but also to just plain nitpick for reasons why Abram's movies are sub-par Star Trek (it's all tits and explosions, etc.) And, additionally, that the presence of a single nacelle on the Kelvin in ST09 justifies Khan being white because of "timeline divergence," and therefore it is totally not subject to the politics, because Roddenberry said ships had two nacelles (even though one-nacelle ships appeared in WOK and STIII, so it's not even right). It's more a cute way to refer to the idea that it's okay to handwave away hosed up implications with "canon," which is further bankrupted by being wrong. It's part of an exchange, but here's the core of it. jivjov posted:I'm not asking for circumstantial evidence. Where in Into Darkness itself is Khan established as Indian in origin? The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Jun 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:Edit: the literal reference is to how the nacelles on the new enterprise are "wrong" and how the design of the Kelvin in ST09 with its single nacelle is "wrong" e: As did the star TREK technical manual! Nessus fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Jun 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Poppycock! The original Star Wars Technical Manual clearly showed several classes of starship with only one nacelle. Exactly, but Warszawa put it better than I could just above.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:No, not really. They're both ways of looking at the same phenomenon - one is concerned with explaining it and the other is concerned with stopping it. They can feed into each other, but accomplishing the former doesn't accomplish the latter. I don't agree with what I'm reading you to be saying, which is that we (either we society or we, specifically me and other people of color) should be more concerned with theoretical explanations (or, worse, to embrace manifestations of the problem as "criticism" of the problem) than in actually eliminating the problem. Quite the opposite. Let's say Benicio Del Toro is cast, as was originally planned. The only immediate effect is that world-famous celebrity Benicio Del Toro is now a couple million dollars richer. Now, you're not inaccurate to say that this would generate visibility, 'put a foot in the door' and subtly increase the likelihood of Latino actors being cast in other films, etc. etc. You might recall that I've been down with that from the beginning, though I find this alternate casting fascinating for its metatextual implications. Multiculturalism is not in-itself bad. But as has been pointed out, this multiculturalism does not in any way restructure or change the functioning of, say, Gulf+Western's Paramount Pictures A Viacom Company. They can even now point to the multiculturalism as proof that 'the system works', which is a logic that culminates in black president Obama ordering drone strikes on Pakistan. (Maybe the solution is to hire a Pakistani actor to appear in the next Star Wars?) I actually find it rather surprising that an avowed anti-racist, quoting MLK, would dismiss economic and class warfare as 'theorhetical' compared to the 'actual' issue of (effectively) seeing more nonwhite baristas in Starbucks. And it cant be reiterated enough that the head of Starfleet in this series is Tyler motherfucking Perry, and that this very Tyler Perry is now at least tacitly approving the Space Drone strikes against Space Pakistan. Like hell he doesn't know about it, and like hell this whole specific criticism that forms the core of the film was accidental. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Jun 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:this very Tyler Perry is now at least tacitly approving the Space Drone strikes against Space Pakistan. Like hell he doesn't know about it, and like hell this whole specific criticism that forms the core of the film was accidental. I'm not American so I may not 'get' the finer nuances of any of this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:You're saying ... the movie is saying Obama is a lot like Tyler Perry (for better or worse)? He is like Tyler Perry in that some people say he's ruining the institution (of America/Starfleet) even if he only shows up for five minutes in a ceremony.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Quite the opposite. Let's say Benicio Del Toro is cast, as was originally planned. The only immediate effect is that world-famous celebrity Benicio Del Toro is now a couple million dollars richer. I'm Phoneposting but I want to briefly engage with this - I'm NOT dismissing it at all, I am instead arguing that it is best done in conjunction with (not to the exclusion of) racial justice, and that economic justice without racial justice is fundamentally incomplete. It is especially true in the collaborative mediums of film of television that the best way to accomplish this is for nonwhites to secure a voice. I am saying that both parts are important but one part does not negate the need for the other, where I'm reading you as saying that being good on critiquing liberal ideology supplants the need for racial justice critiques. I am however saying that the critique being made - correct or not - does not cure the flaw of excluding nonwhite voices (especially because nonwhite actors are better situated to become nonwhite directors and producers, which is not just the patronizing "more nonwhite baristas" but actually, yes, reorienting the means of cultural expression towards racial justice). I am not sure why we should let our interests take a back seat to white critiques - to let white critiques set the terms of our liberation. Now, "Obama orders drone strikes" should also recognize that "Obama strengthens enforcement of protections for minority voters" - again incomplete justice but BETTER for our interests. Obviously the extremely reductionist tack of "just multiculturalism" isn't going to be sufficient, but representation of nonwhites is essential for justice and should not be dismissed callously as "more nonwhite baristas". I guess my concern with your emphasis is not on the economic justice aspect but on your fascination with metatextual implications to te extent that they excuse exclusion. I think we're in fundamental agreement that both halves are necessary, but I don't believe that just one half means we should stop agitating for the other. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Jun 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:It doesn't matter what took place, because there's no real justification - Cumberbatch should not have been on the table for the role of Khan, just like Mickey Rooney shouldn't have been on the table for the role of Mr. Yunioshi. When you make ridiculous comparisons such as this you are basically becoming the limpwristed "EVERYTHING is offensive!" liberal strawman that makes it easy for social conservatives to brush aside progressive arguments. Edit: Like how can you even begin to equate a horrifying racial caricature with the casting of a white person in an ethnically neutral role that was once played by a Mexican. Tender Bender fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jun 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I followed the casting and I understand the situation - and I understand it enough to recognize its tangential relevance to the issue of "was there a whitewashing fuckup". What do you think I don't understand and why is it relevant? You don't seem to understand how creative decisions are made. It's not a rational process, and it often can come down to split second gut decisions made while multitasking. Your expectations are totally alien to the way creative decisions are actually made, as described in this short interview with the casting directors on this film: quote:The first time I met J.J.,” recalls Alyssa Weisberg (left), “he carried on a very detailed conversation while sketching something with one hand and composing music at the same time. I just thought, ‘Wow, this guy’s a Renaissance man.’” I'd like to point out that these two, as part of Bad Robot, have had a relatively good track record when it comes to diverse casting. quote:Do you acknowledge the real, systemic marginalization of people of color in Hollywood? Once we actually secure full equality and equity for people of color, we can maybe get flexible about this, but until then I am always, always going to opt to protect gains we've made from backsliding. I'm not trying to argue that Hollywood, collectively, has anything approaching a good attitude or good track record towards race. That said, your solutions are still useless and counter-productive since you want to approach the issue as a divisive zero-sum game. Good luck using that lovely attitude to protect the Khan role from going to Benedict Cumberbatch, though. Oh what's that, the film is already finished and released? Well drat. quote:Okay, how about Django from Django Unchained? Kunta Kinte from Roots? Pre-existing fictional characters, so by your logic a white guy (or girl) could play both of them. These comparisons are silly and I think you should know why. I didn't argue that race never matters to a character at all, and obviously if the entire story revolves around the character's color nobody is going to cast a white dude in the role. The difference is that Django has to be played by someone black to serve the story, but this new Khan doesn't have to be played by a Mexican Sikh for any in-story reason. quote:But really, "this" Khan? Smoking nacelle theories aside, the idea that "this" Khan is not the Khan of TOS and WOK is pretty much unfounded. Or are we just assuming that a character is white until proven "conclusively" otherwise? And even if they decide to make "this" Khan white on the page when he was a person of color on the page before, that is a political choice. But this Khan - the same Khan we've always dealt with - is not only given a name that identifies him, but is specifically situated as a Sikh North Indian. I don't give even the tiniest poo poo about that kind of continuity between this reboot of Star Trek and the old . Like I said, they could have cast a black man or whatever as Kirk or Spock and should have considered doing so. As far as I'm concerned this Star Trek series is clearly a reboot/remake and all the stuff with old Spock in ST09 was just a fun nod to the old continuity, no matter how many fans seem to misunderstand that. So yes, it is a different Khan. And the new Khan can be written or cast or costumed or acted however they want, just like when they rebooted Battlestar Galactica they made the new Starbuck a woman (a decision not without its own share of controversy). Obviously that's different in important ways, but the point is that reboots have no obligation to stick to the source material, even if the use the same character names. quote:Also, if you think nonwhite Kirk (hell, or even nonwhite Bones, for whom being black makes so much goddamn sense) was actually on the table, I don't think you get how pervasively hosed Hollywood (and America) is on race. See, e.g., "why did Denzel have to be crooked before he took it?"; Donald Glover-as-Spiderman (an interview with him, where he talks about getting called a "friend of the family for taking Peter Parker away from [white comic book fans]" and told "there are no black kids like Peter Parker," was posted in this very thread); recorded history. I know that those options probably were not ever on the table, which is why I brought it up. That automatic exclusion and the unfortunate Spider-Man thing are real problems, whereas your precious immutable "roles of color" exist only in your mind. You can be upset about both simultaneously if you want, but you're going to have a hard time convincing many others to give a poo poo about your pet cause that really doesn't matter at all in the grand scheme of things. quote:Yes, as we've even discussed in this very thread, there is nothing mandating that certain characters be white. And yet, they are. The problem with "colorblind" casting is that when it occurs against the backdrop of institutional racism, it skews way towards "colorblind" meaning "blind to color," as in "can't see actors of color." I didn't use the term "colorblind". I said creative people should realize their creative options can only be expanded when they consider "people of color" for any and all roles. Sure, that's a pipe dream but no more than you expecting Bad Robot's gut decisions to have taken your pet social justice cause into account when making their films. quote:Do you think "creativity" and "moment-to-moment inspiration" is divorced from social context? JJ Abrams' gut hasn't read any of your links to essays about systemic racism in Hollywood. Guts can't read, and they don't make intellectual decisions. So in that sense, yes. Imagine JJ Abrams is sitting at home watching television, and in the back of his mind he's wondering who they can cast as Khan now that Benicio Del Toro isn't taking the role. The show Sherlock comes on, and he has a eureka moment where he can imagine how Cumberbatch would play the role. He get's excited imagining the film with Cumberbatch, so he calls his casting directors to get in touch with Cumberbatch's agent. Does he stop and second guess that moment of inspiration because somebody on the internet might later see his decision as setting back social progress for people of color in some abstract way? I don't think that's a reasonable expectation. Of course, I don't have any way of knowing how it actually happened. Because again, neither of us were privy to the decision. quote:C.K. talks about hiring Watson in part because of her race). See: I saw that same quote yesterday, but it has another half to it. In context I think it means the opposite of what you're thinking, but of course its hard to interpret the shades of meaning in text. quote:Pike. I'm mostly talking about the Prime Directive as its presented in STID, but with Q-chat I can see how that gets confusing. Ok, that's why I was getting confused. I also don't remember that line. quote:Think about it this way: in this case, "not interfering" involves bombarding the civilization with radiation from the ship's sensors. Ex ante the Enterprise cannot know how that will affect them, because to know they have to scan. The decision to observe can therefore be argued to be a decision to interfere - even to fundamentally alter. Except that technological issue is not part of the fictional scenario in question as far as I know, and if it was that would be a reason to expand the scope of the Prime Directive. That would have made a good episode, though. That's also not really an answer to the part of my last post that you quoted. quote:Only this isn't how they justify the Prime Directive, because that would create a uniform statement on all non-Federation civilizations regardless of whether they had warp technology. I see the warp technology requirement as analogous to the specific age of consent- it is somewhat arbitrary but still necessary to draw a clear line. A group coming to posses the technology for interstellar travel means they're on the threshold of some form of "first contact" anyway, so it might as well be done right. quote:Let's say you actually knew there was no God. Would this change your conduct? Not really, that knowledge, along with my presence or whatever methods I might choose to spread what I know, still may not be wanted or needed by others at any given moment. quote:I didn't, thanks - I don't think that alters the fundamental paternalism, and I don't think that's supported by subsequent generations' interpretation of the Prime Directive (Pike's derisive "wheel" comment). Think of it like this - the first guy to take a cultural artifact from Machu Picchu and give it to Yale probably intended it in the "preserve and protect" sense (may not be true, of course, but take it as a hypothetical), but that doesn't actually change that it was an imperialist act of theft. Ok whatever, the point was the Prime Directive can make sense as a principle without necessarily looking down on the groups it covers. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Jun 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
I haven't read the 100+ pages of posts on this movie, but I thought I'd chip in my two cents on the bright side of one failed plot device. Bringing Kirk back from the dead was lovely, poorly executed, and even more nonsense than normal Star Trek crap, but look at this way: at least the next movie isn't going to be a remake of The Search for Spock, since they wrapped up Kirk in about 5 minutes. Now the next movie can be a remake of Insurrection and we can all swear off the entire series for eternity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
GoonTony posted:I haven't read the 100+ pages of posts on this movie, but I thought I'd chip in my two cents on the bright side of one failed plot device. Bringing Kirk back from the dead was lovely, poorly executed, and even more nonsense than normal Star Trek crap, but look at this way: at least the next movie isn't going to be a remake of The Search for Spock, since they wrapped up Kirk in about 5 minutes. Now the next movie can be a remake of Insurrection and we can all swear off the entire series for eternity. It made perfect sense from the perspective of "Kirk learned his lesson and the whole movie wasn't pointless".
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I guess my concern with your emphasis is not on the economic justice aspect but on your fascination with metatextual implications to te extent that they excuse exclusion. I think we're in fundamental agreement that both halves are necessary, but I don't believe that just one half means we should stop agitating for the other. Well, that brings things back to the earlier point that racism is just a mask for class conflict. So what I'm talking about is simply a more focussed and effective approach. Also more effective: rather than lay judgment upon JJ Abrams, Paramount, the casting director or whoever, my approach leaves the film 'as it is' and attacks the ideological baggage an audience may bring to it. This denies the usual "Michael Bay/George Lucas/Damon Lindelof/X raped my childhood" bellyaching that creates a convenient 'out' from genuine introspection and obfuscates systemic issues by targeting convenient individual scapegoats. It also changes the conversation from "the film is racist and you're probably racist for liking the film" to "here's how the film can be better understood, and appropriated towards the cause of antiracism if you so choose." Into Darkness is, however effectively, a film that criticizes the racist ideology underlying both this star trek and Star Trek itself. And, however questionable it may be to make an anti-corporate film for Viacom, the film incorporates its own production in a truth-to-materials way (addressing the debate over the course of the series, the nuances of the casting process, and even the inherent contradiction of this 'post-capitalist' utopian vision being presented by a massive conglomerate). I think your approach is a baby-bathwater thing, when there are multiple babies in play. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Jun 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
On the topic of 'sensor scans revealing their presence to the civilization being observed,' I believe that could probably be considered a negligible risk in most cases. However, I do recall one of the better Trek novels (Prime Directive, I think?) having a huge complication that while the civilization being studied was circa-1960s technology levels, they had a couple of experimental particle sensors that could detect Starfleet's doubletalk particles. That novel would actually make a pretty good miniseries, if I remember it accurately.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 05:54
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:You don't seem to understand how creative decisions are made. It's not a rational process, and it often can come down to split second gut decisions made while multitasking. Your expectations are totally alien to the way creative decisions are actually made, as described in this short interview with the casting directors on this film: Those gut decisions are shaped and influenced by broader social forces. What actors are hot now? Who does the director or casting director know? What entirely unconscious biases do the people involved have? We call these things "systemic racism", or, when women are involved, "patriarchy" (kyriarchy). Specific people don't have to have malicious intent or even unconscious racist feelings for the results of their decisions to have problematic implications. I think what Warszawa would ask is that us white folks try to be a little more attentive to these issues when doing things like casting for a movie. In that light I find it especially troubling that they already recognized that there were reasons to get a latino actor but when push came to shove they went with a white guy. To my mind this shows that they didn't put enough thought into it and/or didn't care. At the very least I'm going to call that "insensitive" and whether I believe it to be deeply important that THIS part be played by THIS minority, the results of the creative process need to be questioned for how they interact with broader social trends. Also, "relatively good" is not the same as "good", and even the relatively part is debatable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 13:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 21:30 |
|
|
The Warszawa posted:(hell, or even nonwhite Bones, for whom being black makes so much goddamn sense) I'm curious about this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 15:50
|
|