|
Will Smith's biggest branding mistake was Jadan Smith.
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
Even Denzel has had issues as movies like The Pelican Brief has the romance removed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Pillow Hat posted:Right so the problem isn't actually white supremacy, it's white supremacy. But that's not exactly white supremacy, more the consequences of white supremacy. When your advisers tell you that audiences might not pay as much to see actor 1 as they will for actor 2, it makes a lot of sense to go with actor 2 regardless of your personal feelings. And when you're talking about millions of dollars and possibly a lot of people's jobs and livelihoods, it becomes a lot harder to take risks based on your principles, and its not just a personal decision anymore. Not that there isn't racism in Hollywood, but there's definitely an entrenched system there that makes it harder for other races to get roles that goes far beyond how any individual person feels about black people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
xcore posted:It's pretty incredible how Morgan Freeman, Denzel Washington and Will Smith became the megastars that they are in such a climate. I think black actors are on a separate tier than Asian, Indian, Middle-Eastern actors. Idris Elba for imported god-emperor of Hollywood.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:But that's not exactly white supremacy, more the consequences of white supremacy. When your advisers tell you that audiences might not pay as much to see actor 1 as they will for actor 2, it makes a lot of sense to go with actor 2 regardless of your personal feelings. And when you're talking about millions of dollars and possibly a lot of people's jobs and livelihoods, it becomes a lot harder to take risks based on your principles, and its not just a personal decision anymore. Not that there isn't racism in Hollywood, but there's definitely an entrenched system there that makes it harder for other races to get roles that goes far beyond how any individual person feels about black people. You have an industry where people have no choice but to lean towards racism for the sake of profit, you end up with people who are genuinely racist assholes. The Sony hack also revealed that Ben Affleck strongarmed Henry Louis Gates into covering up his slave-owning ancestors in that PBS genealogy show.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't find the "for the sake of profit" argument compelling. So, you're not racist, but you're just only casting white actors because that's the only way you can continue to make obscene amounts of money? Please, tell me more about how hard this is for you. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Like I said, there's certainly racism there, but the way the system works makes it difficult, regardless of your personal feelings. You could be the most racially sensitive person in the world, but your money guy and all your advisors are showing you charts of how movies with black actors underperform. Choose a black actor anyway, and you now have to explain to your boss why you're going with a guy that won't make as much money as the whitebread actor that was next in line, according to all the projections from the brightest advisors he could find. I imagine this is going to be a difficult ask for most people, even the most tolerant among us, unless they were already invested in this issue. Sure, it might be the right thing to do, but I doubt the average person would be able to risk their career taking a stand like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 12:27
|
|
|
I think that positive counterexamples are slowly amassing. I mean, The Force Awakens had Rey and Finn, and you can't really say that bombed. Fast and Furious 7 was diverse, too, wasn't it? And the coming slate of Marvel will be? Not really Oscar material here, I know, but certainly on the money argument side. Although the outcome where Hollywood splits into representatively diverse blockbusters and white-only Oscar bait would be pretty funny, too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
meristem posted:I think that positive counterexamples are slowly amassing. I mean, The Force Awakens had Rey and Finn, and you can't really say that bombed. Fast and Furious 7 was diverse, too, wasn't it? And the coming slate of Marvel will be? Change will be occurring when those exceptions to the rule don't result in significant uproar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:Like I said, there's certainly racism there, but the way the system works makes it difficult, regardless of your personal feelings. It's guys not wanting to take chances (and based on technically flawed information*). They should. The only difference in the conversation is that people shouldn't be asking director Ridley Scott why he didn't have non-white actors, but instead asking his producers/the studio. The people at the top of the chain. *Supergirl (1984), the Halle Berry Catwoman and Elektra are pointed to as examples of why there aren't any female-led superhero movies. Yes, they were unsuccessful but do we really think the primary factor for that was the fact they had female leads?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Ryan Reynolds has shown repeatedly to be box office poison but they gave him a second chance. And then a third chance. And a fourth chance. And a fifth... And after a dozen chances, he finally gets his hit. Hollywood grooms people; it's not a meritocracy. He's like an anti-movie star who keeps getting leading roles. Nothing against the guy; I never found him off-putting, but Hollywood can shove whoever they want down people's throats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Ryan Reynolds has shown repeatedly to be box office poison but they gave him a second chance. And then a third chance. And a fourth chance. And a fifth... Ryan Reynolds career is basically a golden age Hollywood career in the modern day. He did a few successful movies and a ok TV show plus he's done a few small movies where he's very well regarded by people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
VagueRant posted:*Supergirl (1984), the Halle Berry Catwoman and Elektra are pointed to as examples of why there aren't any female-led superhero movies. Yes, they were unsuccessful but do we really think the primary factor for that was the fact they had female leads?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:Yeah, that's the thing. A very large percentage of movies are just bombs. But the bombs that have minority or female leads are pointed to as examples for why minority and female lead movies aren't profitable in general, while the bombs starring white male actors are never pointed to as examples of why movies with white male leads aren't profitable. Everyone basically just agrees that this confirmation bias is reality. Yes, great point. I wonder what you would find if you compared box office average (or RT average or some other criterion) for movies with white male leads to movies with women or poc in lead roles. Regardless, I would reiterate that capitalism is not an excuse for anyone in Hollywood to give tacit (or explicit) support to existing systems of oppression.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:Yeah, that's the thing. A very large percentage of movies are just bombs. But the bombs that have minority or female leads are pointed to as examples for why minority and female lead movies aren't profitable in general, while the bombs starring white male actors are never pointed to as examples of why movies with white male leads aren't profitable. Everyone basically just agrees that this confirmation bias is reality. Again, this just comes back to white males being considered the default option for a lead - they don't use them as examples because white male leads are the "we didn't care" option. It's like choosing digital recording over film - the latter is a deliberate choice, the former is just the established standard, and generally won't be remarked upon whether the movie is good or bad. I've been getting a weird feeling about the discussion in this thread on this issue - I agree with most of what people are saying, but at the same time I feel like we're looking at it from the wrong direction. It's all fine to say "Hollywood is racist", but unless some of us are Hollywood producers, there isn't really anything we can do directly about that. So what CAN we do, from the bottom up? How can we be better consumers, rather than how can they be better creators? I'm asking this as a genuine question; I honestly don't know the answer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I've been getting a weird feeling about the discussion in this thread on this issue - I agree with most of what people are saying, but at the same time I feel like we're looking at it from the wrong direction. It's all fine to say "Hollywood is racist", but unless some of us are Hollywood producers, there isn't really anything we can do directly about that. So what CAN we do, from the bottom up? How can we be better consumers, rather than how can they be better creators? I'm asking this as a genuine question; I honestly don't know the answer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I've been getting a weird feeling about the discussion in this thread on this issue - I agree with most of what people are saying, but at the same time I feel like we're looking at it from the wrong direction. It's all fine to say "Hollywood is racist", but unless some of us are Hollywood producers, there isn't really anything we can do directly about that. So what CAN we do, from the bottom up? How can we be better consumers, rather than how can they be better creators? I'm asking this as a genuine question; I honestly don't know the answer. As has been noted, we vote with our wallets. It's the capitalist version of affirmative action: we have to eschew more movies with white male leads and financially support movies with minority and/or female leads. When the dollars start flowing that way, trust me, Hollywood will notice. It is literally the one thing they truly understand. That's why comic book movies, satirical remakes of 1970s/80s TV shows, remakes/reboots, and anything directed by Michael Bay have been so annoyingly popular lately: people pay money to see them regardless of originality and quality. So they'll keep farting it out until we all collectively decide to pay for something else. If you want to join this crusade, then you can be part of the solution. And I really hope you like Tyler Perry, because that's probably most of what you're going to get for a while. A Tyler Perry Production of a Tyler Perry film A Tyler Perry is A Tyler Perry in Tyler Perry: the Kanye West Story
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:As has been noted, we vote with our wallets. It's the capitalist version of affirmative action: we have to eschew more movies with white male leads and financially support movies with minority and/or female leads. When the dollars start flowing that way, trust me, Hollywood will notice. It is literally the one thing they truly understand. That's why comic book movies, satirical remakes of 1970s/80s TV shows, remakes/reboots, and anything directed by Michael Bay have been so annoyingly popular lately: people pay money to see them regardless of originality and quality. So they'll keep farting it out until we all collectively decide to pay for something else. Hollywood surprisingly is aware that Perry productions don't have a crossover audience beyond maybe to the evangelical Christian market. So no, you won't be getting a push for them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Before the boondocks was an adult swim cartoon in one of the first comics I ever read by them, he goes and buys a ticket to tyler perry's movie and then walks into lord of the rings or whatever. The money goes to a black movie as a protest vote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
I think the thing about "vote with your wallet" that bugs me is a) I basically already don't care about most popular movies anyway so deliberately not seeing them because of racial politics works out pretty much the same as what I'm already doing, and b) I don't feel like negative reinforcement is going to make much of a difference on the individual level since it's not going to make people who don't care not see them. Plus I'm not going to see a lovely movie just for the sake of supporting minority artists, because it's still a lovely movie I guess the main thing that gets me is we're in kind of a golden age for amateur filmmakers - you don't need to go through a studio to get access to an audience anymore. That's what YouTube is for. So it shouldn't be hard to actually find good content being made by minority filmmakers - sure they might not have Hollywood level budgets but that's never been necessary to tell a good story, and even then people can do some pretty amazing effects now with relatively affordable software. I feel like it would be a lot more constructive to give attention to people who are making good stuff outside the system, giving them the exposure they need to keep making more stuff, rather than just complain about how lovely the politics are for popular movies. I say this and then can't really think of any good examples though, which is why it bugs me. I'm sure they exist; I just don't know about them, and it makes me feel like kind of a hypocrite.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I say this and then can't really think of any good examples though, which is why it bugs me. I'm sure they exist; I just don't know about them, and it makes me feel like kind of a hypocrite. The emergence of minority film makers and performers has been a big focus for the guys that do the Filmspotting podcast. It was mostly in regards to Women as opposed to non-whites, but they have definitely been kicking goals lately both in front of and behind the camera.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I think the thing about "vote with your wallet" that bugs me is a) I basically already don't care about most popular movies anyway so deliberately not seeing them because of racial politics works out pretty much the same as what I'm already doing, and b) I don't feel like negative reinforcement is going to make much of a difference on the individual level since it's not going to make people who don't care not see them. Plus I'm not going to see a lovely movie just for the sake of supporting minority artists, because it's still a lovely movie I think I read somewhere that streaming services and TV are more diverse than movies. So you can just keep doing what you do? And conversely, maybe try to go out of your way slightly and find good minority stuff among the genres you like? I'm a fantasy fan, and I'd love to read/experience more non-European belief-based fantasy, especially African. So, I'm searching for that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
meristem posted:I think I read somewhere that streaming services and TV are more diverse than movies. So you can just keep doing what you do? There's an Aussie scifi/fantasy series called Cleverman based on indigenous mythology coming out soon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Didn't see last week's episode, but judging by the discussion here, at least now someone is talking about Hollywood's systemic problems beyond the lack of diversity in a stupid vanity awards show spearheaded by hashtag activism, so I just might fire up HBO Go and give it a chance. Here's possible fodder for this coming Sunday: this charming man accused of human rights abuses looks like the favorite to replace Sepp Blatter as head of FIFA. He's currently head of the Asian soccer confederation, and not surprisingly, he used less-than-honest means to ensure victory. Perhaps a main story on that and the second round of arrests that happened a couple of months ago is in order. Hopefully Loretta Lynch is sharpening her axe again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
There's nothing funnier in that segment on Hollywood whitewashing than the noting that Asian man Glenn from The Walking Dead was played by a white person in the TWD porno parody.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
I liked using the Fisher Stevens in brown-up as bookends to the piece without saying why. A lot of people probably think it's just a bad representation of Indians in pop culture rather than the truth. The Aziz piece about it earlier was a good read, thanks for that link. I've loved using this bit of movie trivia to blow people's minds for the last 15 years or so. Works best when they've seen Hackers too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Apoplexy posted:There's nothing funnier in that segment on Hollywood whitewashing than the noting that Asian man Glenn from The Walking Dead was played by a white person in the TWD porno parody. Yeah, I had no idea that was coming and laughed from the belly. Just a great episode all-around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
If nothing else about that segment was noteworthy, that Donald Drumph reveal and the way it bookended Trump bagging on Jon Stewart for changing his name was fuckin' art.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Watching the Trump segment now; so glad Oliver's saying this, because it needs to be said. Trump is really bad at business and not being thin-skinned.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Watching the Trump segment now; so glad Oliver's saying this, because it needs to be said. Trump is really bad at business and not being thin-skinned. Yeah! Finally, someone has the courage to take Donald Trump down a peg!
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Dr. Scheme posted:Yeah! Finally, someone has the courage to take Donald Trump down a peg! Right, because it really hurts to do it some more and he definitely doesn't deserve it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
Donald Drumpf. Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
SHOTS FIRED. God that was good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
If John Oliver is the one who takes down Donald Drumpf I might as well go buy lottery tickets because we live in a magical world
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 10:40
|
|
|
I can't tell what mental image is funnier. That Drumpf central is on red alert, lockdown, crisis mode all night long on this Drumpf scandal, or that nobody saw the show or cared, and donald is going to get asked this tomorrow until november every time someone shoves a mic in his face and he is going to go "huh? wha? what are you talking about?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 11:03
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:If John Oliver is the one who takes down Donald Drumpf I might as well go buy lottery tickets because we live in a magical world 
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 12:06
|
|
|
I don't think this was the slam dunk they were hoping it'd be considering how they were holding back on Trump until now. It's not even cathartic enough for people who already hate Trump. There's a lot of different angles that people can go after Trump for, and others have tried most of them. His supporters know "Trump" is brand; they don't care that it is. To his supporters, Trump provides an alternative vision (which is ambiguous considering his flip flops, so his supporters con project what they want) from all the baggage of of the Bush/Cheney era without having to accept the narrative provided by The Enemy (progressives, liberals, multiculturalism, and blue staters) in the culture wars. His brand of fascism validates his supporters for being the Real, Loyal Americans. I really don't have a good answer to how to undermine that narrative. The Bush/Cheney brand of Republicanism deserves to die, which was part of the appeal of Donald. And the most reprehensible aspect of his campaign is his white nationalism, not his failed business deals or his flip flops. Reaganomics hosed over many Republican voters, and they see Trump as a way of keep drinking the Kool-Aid without admitting what the real route causes of their problems are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
I had a black friend from college post positively on my Facebook about trickle down economics the other day. He had no appreciation for the irony.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
That Trump segment was so bad and lazy, I was really surprised Oliver phoned it in like that. I think it's just a testament to how amazing this show is really, that even with a weak unfunny segment Oliver himself seemed to know was shaky and whose punchline is someone's name is dumb still is being talked about and spread all over the internet like no other news show ever. This show is really getting a serious following when even your bad eps land on the public consciousness like this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 16:52
|
|
