battlewraith

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of plays, and such a history of such productions, that nobody takes a representation of a character as some sort of historical document that must be accurate to some standard.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.

Ok, so "the message" is things like multiculturalism, diversity, being supportive of lgbtq--stuff like that? It might seem clear to you, but it's kind of vague to me. Some douche snearing "the message" over this picture is not really that explanatory. But if I was trying to explain to the industry what they need to do in order to be more successful, it would be something like this: 1. Go back to stories and characterizations solely of straight white people. 2. The men do shit and the women look good and are supportive of the men. 3. Assume a white, north American (probably Christian) audience. Is that the strategy?

What do you mean by "the message"? What message?

I don't watch a lot of these shows but Legion from 2017 was really good, had three seasons, and I don't ever hear it brought up in these discussions.

Yes, but I think this is also part of the problem. There's such an impulse to have these films tell epic sagas and be taken seriously as dramas that they start to fall apart as actual comic book movies. I saw The Marvels and it was entertaining when it was the three main superhero characters goofing around together. But then you had to sit through this intrigue about the Kree empire and the skrulls and Carol having not returned to take care of Monica after the blip and blah blah blah. The first Captain Marvel movie was out 4 years ago. I barely remembered all that backstory. And they always seem to think that there needs to be this world ending threat for basically every superhero movie.

There might simply be a glut of too many superhero movies. It looks like The Marvels took in $197 million worldwide and was the lowest grossing MCU film. Blue Beetle took in $128 million and was the lowest grossing DCU film. We'll see how Aquaman does.

Thank you kind sir!