battlewraith

No, as I've said, I am criticizing people who reject such practices in principle. Lol. I did. I just read the whole thing on the academy's website. There are four standards. For a film to be considered for one type of award--Best Picture--it has to check a box in two of the standards. Each of the standards has several individual criteria that can be met. Two of those standards don't even involve actors or characters in the film, they're behind the scenes jobs, training opportunities, or marketing. The ones that do involve performances are trivially easy to satisfy. For example, "At least 30% of all actors in secondary and more minor roles are from at least two of the following underrepresented groups." One of the underrepresented groups is women--half the population of the planet! You have got to be shitting me. This is a concern for you? Most contemporary films are just going to fit within these guidelines. You would have to go out of your way to disqualify yourself by only involving straight white men. And the fallout would just be not getting a best picture award. That's it. Wait, is this intended to be some sort of rebuttal? Because that's exactly what I do. If something doesn't appeal to me, I do go watch something else. Disney princesses were all white. Then the company decided they could make money by changing the formula. I'm not the one crying about it. Right so Poitier says that he's the only black actor consistently getting work in the industry. But it's all good because he got an award. Sounds exactly like what someone on the Daily Wire would say. If you can't see that, maybe take a step back. You can go back and read what I said from the beginning. It's already all been spelled out. You just keep circling back to financial success--which it not the point. And you just gloss over counter examples. Pornographic films make a lot of money. Does this mean that they are well written and well produced? I'm not asking you if they are financially successful, that's already assumed. Can I say that they are poor quality films, despite the fact that they make a lot of money? Or are we simply stuck with "the facts"?

I already have. I quoted him. The standard of inclusiveness on the part of the industry back in his day was NOT to include minorities. People like him were trailblazers. They were struggling to get representations of minorities on the big screen. And even someone like Poitier who was immensely talented and successful, admitted to being severely constrained by what types of characterizations they could present to the white audience for fear of how those characterization would impact other black performers. Did you even read it? Here in 2024, you have your panties in a wad over progressives in the entertainment industry lecturing to you--so you wipe away the actual significance of Poitier's achievements and say "See! Talented black actors were getting awards and didn't need these politics!" Utterly reductive. Utterly wrong. My previous post addresses (again) your conflation of commerce with quality. If you don't get it by now I can't help you.

Maybe I wouldn't care. What is the rationale for it? You're desperately trying to paint this as an either or situation. It's not. I could be be in favor of some legal drug use--maybe alcohol or marijuana. That doesn't mean I'm committed to supporting legal use of all drugs. It also doesn't mean that I approve of every casting choice done for some the sake of something of like inclusivity to the exclusion of all other reasons. I never said that. Stop getting disgusted over the strawman you keep knocking over. And these inclusivity requirements that you keep complaining about--you know they aren't actual requirements. It's just people that don't agree with you that you don't support. You have other options. Maybe check out the content being developed by the Daily Wire. I'm sure you won't get any of that inclusiveness nonsense there. No. Amazingly you don't get it, at all. Any assessment of quality is going to be based on opinion. You think that an objective metric--how many things were sold--can serve that function. Well I've given you a bunch of examples how ridiculous that standard is in application. The porn industry is undeniably a financial success. Show me someone that argues, based on those financial numbers, that this content is "quality film making." The point is not that McDonald's isn't a financial success because of the existence of Michelin restaurants. The point is that no intelligent person is going to seriously argue that fast food is comparable to a Michelin restaurant because McDonald's sells more food. The irony is that your blanket dismissal of opinion is utterly self-defeating. The facts are these: People in the segments of film industry are progressive and applying their standards to the writing and casting of movies. You can't offer any convincing reason for why this is a bad thing because.....well that's just your opinion man.

That response wasn't addressing you, that's why. You just don't like being preached to. Ok fine, but don't assume that everyone agree with you about what constitutes preaching or where it is appropriate in movies.

Millions huh? I know Putin and Xi are pretty against this sort of thing.

I said it depends on the context. What is the reason for it? And what you're doing here is saying that the things that rankle you are on a par with making an all white The Color Purple. Some casting choices, some deviation from a formula and you act like the sky is falling. No you are just really confused. For example here's a write up of Sidney Poitier's career and what conditions were like: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-sidney-poitier-rewrote-the-script-for-black-actors-in-hollywood-180979333/ And a quote from the man himself: “If the fabric of the society were different, I would scream to high heaven to play villains and to deal with different images of Negro life that would be more dimensional,” said the actor in the interview. “But I’ll be damned if I do that at this stage of the game. Not when there is only one Negro actor working in films with any degree of consistency, when there are thousands of actors in films, you follow?” People like him paved the way for others. They opened the door for other types of portrayals. What the hell do you think inclusion means? You're the one who's insulting his talent and legacy, not me. Why? I've given you so many examples already and you just don't get it. Imagine I go to a quality restaurant to get a good meal. The ratings for this place are all 5 star and there's a waitlist to get a table but I finally get in. I ask the waiter for a recommendation and he says the steak is excellent. But then I say "the hell with that, way more hotdogs are sold than steaks! Numbers don't lie!" And then it occurs to me: I shouldn't even be in this place. McDonald's serves way more customers every day. That's a fact Jack. Who cares about what people think is good food. Those are just feeeeeelings. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that garbage doesn't sell. It's quaint.

No, it goes more like this: You have an industry that's dominated by one demographic throughout most of it's existence. Minorities are either not represented at all, relegated to minor often stereotyped portrayals, or are portrayed by white actors. The general audience is perfectly fine with this. Gradually attitudes change, demographics change, economics change and the industry slowly catches up. Then suddenly somebody from the original demographic discovers racism when (gasp) a role that they think should be cast a certain way simply isn't. My heart breaks at this injustice, truly. The wounded party is going to have to....watch something else. Or just get over the casting decision. Meanwhile, the actor that lost out in the casting is going to have to wander out into the desert of other similar mainstream roles that they would be a fit for.

Depends on the context. I'm not like the people here complaining about casting as if it's this binary good or bad thing. You're the one complaining about it in principle, not me. Colorblind casting is very common in theater. Part of the reason for this is that there are so many different productions of plays, and such a history of such productions, that nobody takes a representation of a character as some sort of historical document that must be accurate to some standard. Shakespeare nerds don't have a problem with it. Denzel Washington killed it as MacBeth. Lots of pop culture nerds are behind the curve in this regard sadly. The thing is these awards and opportunities you mention here are the result of activists in the industry setting standards for inclusiveness. The ability to do non-standard casting is the culmination of this effort, not some unrelated and unnecessary thing. Yeah it's understandable that people want the familiar. But that means we can't have anything else? Take the Little Mermaid. You have the original story and all the artistic depictions related to it. Then you have the original Disney version. Then you have the black version. If you don't like that version--don't watch it. You have all the other versions. All this pissing and moaning about companies selling a product boils down to people wanting that company to serve their interests in exactly the way they want, all the time. In other words, raw entitlement. Ok so those movies were trash. Now, you're probably thinking that numbers don't lie and that my subjective opinion doesn't matter. Here's the thing: the recent Little Mermaid film was a financial success. Numbers don't lie. So by your logic, all the complaints about the casting don't matter. You're sitting on a limb, furiously sawing away it's connection to the tree.

Sure, everyone Is going to look at the situation from their own perspectives and biases. And you can read into what writers are doing any way you like. I suspect that in response to your comment they would say that for most of film history there was only a couple boxes. And in instances where there was a narrative reason for another box--they filled it with a white actor. And the aging generation that is now outraged. or at least their parent's generation, was completely fine with that. They didn't see these distortions as antithetical to telling a good story.

What is so fucking hard about this? I'm not disputing that these things are financial successes. What I'm disputing is this assertion that if something is a financial success that it means that film is well written and produced. And the inverse--that if something was not successful financial then it was NOT well written and produced. The point is this: some people here think that it's just a simple matter of doing well crafted stories with interesting characters. Peter Jackson's LOTR films are being held up as an example of this--instead of a lightning-in-a-bottle situation where things came together to make great films. Ok, well then be consistent. I don't give a crap whether Jackson wanted to do the Hobbit movies or not. He's a professional and according to your calculus he should have been able to replicate or exceed the success of the first trilogy with the second. That was not the case, and I think that most of Peter Jackson's output falls far short of the LOTR movies. Ok so when it's actual racists, etc. spreading their views, that's easy to ignore. But the whining of some industry execs or performers is...intolerable apparently? Well, I still had to look up "the message." I'm not clear on whether this is something that developed on reddit or 4chan or something. Or if this was coined and/or popularized by some influencer like the Critical Drinker. There doesn't seem a hard definition of what "the message" is. On one end of the spectrum, it seems to simply be complaining about preachiness/soapboxing about generally accepted values (which assumes that they are generally accepted). On the other end, it seems to be taken as a conspiracy by leftists to squeeze out conservative or libertarian values. I am ignorant of this nonsense. Thank god. I see a trailer for a movie and if it looks interesting I go see it. Then discuss with friends and family. The only opinions I care about are from the creatives involved. I give zero fucks about what studio execs or social media influencers have to say about it. My assumption is that people bothered by "the message" are reacting to both changing trends and online social media outrage peddlers that enflame and validate their anger. Honestly, the most hilarious/disturbing thing taken from this conversation is the FIGURES DON'T LIE view of art. But it makes sense. The global porn market made something like 100 billion dollars last year. People will pay for well produced, good stories with interesting characters!

So just casting a role as a different ethnicity is preaching to you? The reason they "shoehorn them in" is simply to give those actors more opportunities. We've been through eras where was not the case, and it's pretty clear what that is like in terms of the roles available. You can always say well just make up new characters with new stories. To a certain extent, yes. But overall, people want the familiar. Why is it when you go to the comic books store there's still so much Batman, Superman, Spiderman, Hulk, etc. People want the same sort of thing. That's the reality.

All it shows is that these films sold tickets. That's it. So by your logic, 50 Shades of Grey is a better produced, more well written film than Citizen Kane or The Thing. If we look at album sales, a quick google search says that Mozart and Beethoven have each sold about 5.5 million each. Britney Spears has sold 150 million. Best selling car: Toyota Corolla. If sales are your objective criteria for quality...knock yourself out dude. Part of the problem here is that you think a subjective opinion is worthless. All opinions are the same. They aren't. A plumber will give you an opinion. A doctor will give you an opinion. These opinions are more valuable because they are informed by knowledge of the field and experience. Same goes with the arts. There is a motion picture industry that encompasses actors, directors, critics, etc. There are general standards for things like acting, directing, writing, etc. None of these things simply default to what sold the best. Yeesh.

Ok, so you're not going to tell me how studios are going way overboard to appease certain groups? I know virtually nothing about this movie. I have no clue why it's bombing. I suspect more than anything else that superhero movies are just played out. I was just curious about the repeated assertion that studio failures are because they are pushing "the message" instead of simply crafting good stories with good characters and production values. It's unclear whether some people here think that these things are somehow antithetical--a good film needs to be apolitical and have no message (which isn't true even for comics)--or if said people just don't like "the message" and would hate any movie that expressed it regardless of how well executed the film was. Side note: I asked one person a question and got responses from three more. Somehow that's me "arguing with everything being said." If the conversation bothers you, don't engage.

No, that's not the point. Earlier you said that well written and produced films do well financially and that history shows this. Here's a list of well produced, well written flops (including Citizen Kane): https://www.indiewire.com/gallery/best-films-box-office-bombs/ Up to this point, we've been talking about financial successes (now you've added critical to the description). The point is that being well written and produced does not guarantee that a film will be a success at the box office. Conversely, a film being financially successful does not mean that it was well produced and/or well written. High grossing bad movies: https://www.cbr.com/worst-box-office-hits/#alice-in-wonderland-was-the-kind-of-movie-no-studio-would-make-anymore

That's exactly the opposite of what I'm doing. I speak only for myself. You and Ghost seem to be speaking for the general audience and making assumptions for why they didn't turn out to see a movie.

No. It doesn't. A well written and produced film will probably do well financially. Being well written and produced does not entail that a film is going to do well. The film may be marketed poorly. It may be ahead of it's time. It may be ignored because of other films that are out at the same time. It may be too niche for a general audience. etc. Likewise, a lot of high grossing blockbuster films are absolute shite.

Lol no everyone complains about shit all the time. But this notion of a company owing me something I think is relatively recent or worse than it was in the past.

"They've gone way overboard to appease certain groups." Ok, explain. How have they gone way overboard? "What we don't want is to be preached to or at." Who is we? Everyone that is in line with your opinions? Does it occur to you that maybe some people have different backgrounds and some of the things you think are preaching is just a reflection of reality for them? You mentioned Philadelphia--it's hard for me to view that movie as anything other than preaching, that was the point. Preaching that there was an AIDs crisis and that gay people were human beings that deserved compassion. And I have no doubt that there were a lot of people that resented that movie for its preaching. Even a lot of old comic books are trying to use the medium to teach some perspective on the social issues of the time.

LOL ok, you are remembering a different past concerning the auto industry. People who had bought American cars were chastised. And at least one Chinese-American was beaten to death over being mistaken for Japanese. Regarding Twelve Angry Men. Yeah twelve guys in a room talking. Gosh we had it so good, what happened. Tastes changed. It's that simple. When Twelve Angry Men was made, there was probably people who had grown up with Buster Keaton movies thinking "what the hell is this drab shit"? They aren't entitled to our money. But I'm old school--if something doesn't look good I just don't go see it. That's it. I don't use it as an occasion to air my grievances about the industry, politics, or the world at large.

Exactly. I think they would. But here's where we diverge. You assume that these studio bosses are idiots and that they are not successful, or at least on the road to ruin. I think they do make dumb decisions fairly frequently but they understand the overall business far better than you. And they probably have tried to do what made them successful in the past. In fact, probably that's what they've done more than anything else--rehash old successes. And audiences don't want the same shit over and over. So they do a balance of safe, genre pap for the masses and a sprinkling of experimentation. And this is something that outsiders will point at and rail about what garbage these execs produce--but those outsiders don't see past their own narrow perspectives.

That's nonsense. It's silly. A well crafted story with a talented cast and crew might be successful. A lot of them fail. Some may achieve a cult following and be regarded as classics long after their run. Others might be hot garbage but make a lot of money based on spectacle or some other reason. Some of these movies that are being trashed now might have been seen as amazing if they had been done a few years sooner, or in a media landscape that wasn't saturated with a certain kind of film. Some that are acclaimed now will probably be forgotten fairly quickly. The assumptions being made here are the opposite: that well made, quality films do well financially. Particularly low budget films. Okay, well maybe instead of Christopher Nolan and Oppenheimer we should be lauding Tyler Perry and Medea, hmmm?

Yeah complete disconnect with my point here. Aiming at a wider range of demographics as a strategy does not mean that ticket sales are going to be up. Audiences are down for a number of reasons, fallout from Covid, competition from streaming, etc. Also, box office numbers are starting to take a hit from the rise of Chinese filmmaking starting to take more of the Asian market.

Riiight and have you done this? Like what makes you think that the people making these movies don't see what they are doing as exactly that? I love this hindsight mentality that armchair critics have--"Hey, the LOTR movies were huge hits because it had a great story, great actors, and so on. So just do that again." As if Peter Jackson was able to continue that level of quality for the Hobbit movies, when he presumably had more control and more resources to work with. Not. Untalented actors huh? Ezra Miller is a lunatic. But I saw that Flash movie and his acting wasn't the problem. He was cast in the part because of his previous performances in other projects, they didn't just randomly select some weird guy. Yeah they're probably doing that to a certain extant. It certainly helps that there actually oodles of xenophobes, racists, misogynists and whatnot on social media pissing and moaning about movies and trying to tank them before they even open. Godzilla: Minus One is a Godzilla movie. How many other well crafted and acted foreign films are doing those kinds of numbers? You really think that speaks to the point you're making? And the thing about Hollywood budgets is this: it's an industry. It doesn't matter whether spending all that money on a film pays off with respect to profit. The money is spent to keep the machinery running--to keep all those creative teams employed. Flops are not only expected, they use creative bookkeeping to act like high grossing films performed poorly.

That might be the case. It could be that SJWs have infected everything and are just trashing cinema. But personally I think this is all about money and that the studio execs actually know what they're doing despite complaining about bombs. The marketing strategy where you make a lot of films, particularly action movies, aimed at white guys was gold in the past but doesn't work that well now. Movies are expensive and there is a ton more competition from video games, streaming sports, etc. You can't float the industry on them any more. So the bean counters are packing in more demographics as the target audience and I actually think this is more successful and/or necessary than pissy youtube critics think it is.