MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > why is it wrong to make race/people spec...

why is it wrong to make race/people specific movies?

posted 3 years ago by 123Guy (7308)
116 replies | jump to latest

let's have a level headed, thought provoking discussion on this.

why is it wrong to make race specific movies?

for simple example:
- white dudes (too many to mention) make movies staring many white dudes forever, aimed at white audiences
- blacks, like Jordan Peele and Tyler Perry, make movies with many black actors for black audiences
- women make movies staring, about, and for women
- Indian people make movies featuring all Indian actors for Indian peoples
- gays make movies staring gays for gay audiences
- Asians make movies staring Asians for Asian audiences

and many more. those are not absolutes, just some obvious examples, where statistics, and even stereo types are factual.

along comes IMDB comments in most films that say:
"Why aren't there MORE blacks/asians/indians/gay/trans/women/etc in the film? We are under represented and too much white"

I'm summarizing and paraphrasing with that, to present my question,
"Why is it so wrong for specific groups or races to make films that mostly or only include people of that group?" Why? What is WRONG with that? Why is diversity required?

One goes to watch a baseball game and doesn't yell, "Why aren't there more football players or golfers or basketball players in this?"
One doesn't drink an orange soda pop and wonder, "Why isn't there more grape and vanilla and root beer and alcohol and tea flavor in this?"
One does not buy a pick up truck and think, "Why doesn't this float on the water better or cling tighter on the race track or mow the lawn better?"
Where's that diversity?

Jordan Peele literally says, "I don’t see myself casting a white dude as the lead" and I get that, and I am fine with that - I encourage that and love his work - but, people will take it wrong, and sensationalize that. Why? He's seen that movie with the white leads and gets to make films with black leads. I'm great with that, have no problem with that, encourage that, and also have no problem with all white movies. Films are made for specific audiences.

I've never gone to an action sci-fi film and thought, "Why isn't there more touching, female drama in this?" Or watched a RomCom and thought, "Why isn't there more action and robots and explosions in this?"

Trying to wrap my head around specifics as to why it is wrong for race or groups to make films aimed at their audiences... why is there always a mixed race couple shoe horned in, why a gay, an Asian, etc... all the characters have to be diverse.
Where does this make sense?

Blacks, women, Indian, gay, Asian, etc can make race/group specific, but whites can not?

[–] Otter (24464) 3 years ago

"Blacks, women, Indian, gay, Asian, etc can make race/group specific, but whites can not?"

Well, so much for a a level headed, thought provoking discussion. This is a racist talking point.

[–] 123Guy (7308) 3 years ago

you are proving my point.

WHY is is wrong to point out the obvious? i will mention many races - impossible to mention all - everyone knows whites are currently being called out for not allowing diversification... thus my entire point:

Why isn't it okay to make race/gender whatever specific films staring the like for said audiences, which is exactly what is already happening today? Why is it wrong? White films don't have enough diversity, need to add more.... why? What is wrong with making films with whites for a white audience?

Like I said, I'm totally cool with any group making whatever they want, even specifically, tailor made for any specific group.

Far as a racist talking point, even mentioning any race in 2021 is auto deemed "racist" yet using race names is paramount to this discussion.

And I am asking a valid question, and not hearing any discussion or answers. Other than, "That's racist". mentioning other races in a discussion is not racist. how can you talk about other races with out talking about them? That's nonsense.

May racist point stands: why are white guy films not diverse enough? that's like me watching a gay film, filled with gay actors, doing a gay story, made for gay people, and asking, "Why are there not more straight people in this?" The answer would be quite obvious, unless I was a brain dead moron. :D

[–] NitroHangover (1142) 3 years ago

This Otter person was not calling your point racist because you mentioned other races in your post.

It's because you asked why white men aren't allowed the same leeway to make non-diverse films aimed at their niche demographic that every other group is afforded. Even asking that question in 2021 is deemed racist because apparently "equality" is no longer a thing. The word is now equity, which basically means that certain groups need to be openly oppressed and discriminated against, namely straight white men, and others openly privileged and favored, in order to make things even, or something.

In other words, calling for equality is now racist. Calling for overt racism and discrimination is now equitable, and thus ok, as long as it's aimed at the right group.

[–] 123Guy (7308) 3 years ago

wow, yes, agreed, and it is kinda crazy talk. anyone can admit that the past was less than perfect but trying to unrightfully so correct the past by altering the current or future doesn't actually change the past. that is just a never ending insanity that would involve every human that ever walked the Earth and hunting down trangressions to repair. lets look at the egyptians, the greeks, the vikings.... heck we're pretty sure cavemen raped their women... so lets castorate all men nowdays for that! hahahahah insane, silly, stupid and pointless

I think asking why white films cant simply be made for white folks, is very fair and not racist, regardless of what people choose to feel about it. and I dont care if someone chooses to see it as racist, their feelings are not my problem and have no bearing on my actual question about why cant races make films for their own race.

[–] tcrum (31534) 3 years ago

I've been watching a lot of old movies lately and my thoughts are that old white guys suppressed most people including, me/women for so long that most people are just sick of it at this point.

[–] 123Guy (7308) 3 years ago

I understand your point here, thank you for talking about it.

If you were just sick of it at this point, why did you watch those old movies? For entertainment, yes? By your choice on purpose, even though they were made by suppressing old white guys?

No one can alter the past, and of course we can change the future, but what is the point or need to do so? Old white guy movies now must be more diverse? But, movies by the rest (I'm not allowed to mention races I guess, or this becomes RACIST - but it is an important part of the point) are not pushed to have all the other races and sexual orientation in them?

I actually enjoy many Indian productions, filled with Indian actors, storylines, locations etc...and I feel their art would be diminished and not representative of what they want to show, if I started whining about there not being enough blacks, whites, asians, gays, trans, mexicans, women, etc whatever in their Indian productions.

Why is it so wrong to make productions for your own specific race? I love much "black" cinema (not being racist, I see the word black used all the time in media, and my black friends also never had any problem with that term, just getting to the point shorthand) but I'm white and if I made movies, I would never dream of making a film for a black audience because I'd have no freaking clue how to do that right. But I'd never call out Peele or Perry and say their films need more white/asian/gay/etc etc people in them or they are being repressive to those groups.

I just don't get the point of skewering art for political correctness. Feels like that is kind of anti-art.

[–] sslssg (34245) 3 years ago

I'm not even sure it's just a point of being sick of it, I think that it's because historically, and honestly up until very recently, it was really difficult for many of those groups to make those movies which you mention in Hollywood. Now I say Hollywood because Asian cinema has done well for many years. But....those types of movies have not been made in the west. It's why films like Black Panther, or Crazy Rich Asians were a big deal. That's not saying that Black movies hadn't been made before, there just weren't black blockbusters. From 1928, the year of the first Academy Awards, to 2019, there have were 455 nominations for Best Director. Of those, 18 of them went to non-white men. Only 5 of them were women. I don't think that tipping the scales a little bit means that anyone is being oppressed as some people have mentioned.

I understand that one can argue that why do Bollywood, or Chinese, Japanese, or South Korean films not have more diverse casts? I think one can answer that by just looking at those societies.

I do agree that when it feels like boxes are ticked it does seem forced, but I also think that often if one looks around, it can actually be reflective of society.

[–] 123Guy (7308) 3 years ago

here's the thing about true equality: it's completely unrealistic.

examples (and this relates to who makes films for who and why) are easy and obvious things like: why aren't there more women being mechanics? simple. because this does not interest them as much as it does guys. facts of life. is just is.

I'm not into sports at all, but what I notice as a white guy, is it looks like blacks are much better at football, basketball, running, maybe others... that's not racist, that's quantifyable numbers. stats. facts. you'll pick the best of the best for your multimillion dollar winning teams, not force diversification. I'm white and easily side with blacks are better. again, life. fact. statistics. reality.

So, in movies (cant change the past) even now, groups make films for their audiences: blacks, whites, asians, female, gay, whathave you. I just can't see anything wrong with that. So if whites make films for average white dudes, and not shoe horn in diversity check mark, there is nothing wrong with that. Until someone can prove there is without saying, "In the past blah blah blah"

I LOVE Jordan Peele's movies, and his comedy also. Tyler Perry, though I suspect are very good at their deliverable, never appealed to me once. I started watching a couple of his films, nothing appealed to me, and stopped. there's probably many whites that enjoy them. yet I suspect the black audience are in larger numbers. just guessing I really havent looked into it. but, I will never whine to Tyler about needing more of this or that in his art, aimed at that audience.

This all just seems so silly. Lets writers directors actors do their thing. no one gets a free lunch out of deserving it because of the past blah blah blah

I better stop, cuz that one guy gonna think I sound like Im pissed off. Im not. just talking about it. :)

[–] sslssg (34245) 3 years ago

I agree with a lot of what you have said. Forced diversity doesn't help as far as I'm concerned. But I also don't think that diverse casting is always forced.

[–] 123Guy (7308) 3 years ago

I wish I could branch into another whole topic related to forced diversity....

"Sellable stereo types" and why those are not wrong either. i guess that relates to making films for your audience also. do blacks enjoy seeing the dumb white guy character, or white enjoy seeing the dumb black guy character? but that is a discussion for another day. :)

Does the race or sex of characters really matter? I believe it does. I can't get behind a frail wafer thin girl kicking 5 big guys asses, but I can get behind a large guy doing that.

[–] sslssg (34245) 3 years ago

I think that the race and sex of some characters matter. I don't like when existing properties are remade with a forced diversified lead or leads. But I think for a lot of movies it doesn't matter. A group of friends don't all have to be the same race or sexuality. My experiences would say that a homogenous group of friends would be strange. That being said, in film it should feel authentic, not forced.

[–] 123Guy (7308) 3 years ago

while I absolutely agree there is nothing wrong with it, what I am wondering is, does diversifying the grouping reduce the interest, and thus the size of the target audience?

In Perry's "Madea's big happy family", the 1st 13 leads are black people. if half of those were traded for white, asian, mexican, italian, russian, gay, trans, would the black audience kind of be less interested in watching the movie? would it in the back if the id, when viewing a trailer, be sort of, "Meh.... not for me"?

By doing this, do the producers think it is a chance to get even more eyes on it, but does the data show that is actually working? As everyone notes, it really all comes down to money - as it should in a business.

I think I am talking about bean counting here. Surely there are unprejudiced accountant/planners that look at the financials, and say, "ok, here is proof from these last 10 films that diversity pays off. we must continue down this path" or "This makes headlines and twitter happy but is coming up shorter of estimated expected box office receipts. We need to go back to the older layout now."

[–] sslssg (34245) 3 years ago

In my opinion, and I reserve the right to change my opinion in the future if I learn something new, but right now, I don't think a movie like Madea would work if they diversified the cast. It would be forced diversity. When it feels like they are checking boxes with the cast, and the casting doesn't make sense, it will drive people away. I get what you are saying that producers would like to get more butts in the seats. I think that movies which naturally have diverse casts would get more butts in the seats.

The problem with Hollywood diversity is that the Jordan Peele type movies are still not the norm. I know there will never be true equality, we are humans, and we are just not capable of that. As a female, I like female lead action movies. Even if they are a little far fetched. I think that a lot of male led action moves are just as far fetched, but they are still enjoyable. What I don't like, is for Hollywood to be diverse, they use an existing entity, and recast it to be diverse. That is so frustrating.

Hollywood producers will eventually figure out what is selling and what isn't. I think that if they really want to be diverse, they need to let people tell their own stories. Tossing in certain characters just to tick a box...NO.

[–] 123Guy (7308) 3 years ago

very good, thoughtful, respectful discussion and I thank you for this.

"Jordan Peele type movies are still not the norm" Could/should it ever be a norm? I mean, looking at race percentages - like a bean counter - blacks are around 12% race coverage in the USA, so, should their percentage representation ever be more than 12%? I guess saying it outloud sounds funny, but in the end, I don't care what race makes or stars in movies, as long as it is a GOOD MOVIE. I love Peele's films because they are written to be interesting and entertaining, not to appeal to his or any particular race.

I do find the female led action movie a curiosity. Do you enjoy those when they are clones of male action films, or when they do their own unique female thing? As a male, I'm not as ATTRACTED to female led action films (although I almost always give them a try) as I am male led, perhaps because I relate to wishing to be a kick ass, muscular Arnold Schwarzenegger type over a waifish thin, sexy super model who fights like a ninja. It just doesn't work FOR ME, the same if they would cast a thin, weak, super nerdy short kid as some major action hero - just doesn't work for me, unless its full on comedy. This is my personal opinion and I am not anti-power women or anything remotely, just talking about movies (gotta post so many disclaimers these days just to try to have a normal conversation)
Also, please name some women action movies that you liked.
I'm not a super hero fan, but enjoyed the first WonderWoman film a lot, but the 2nd one was just horrible TO ME. Do you mean those kind of action women films? Or other?

[–] sslssg (34245) 3 years ago

When I say that Jordan Peele movies should be the norm, I mean that having a different voices telling different stories should be the norm. Not just black voices. I have absolutely no issues with white male centric movies. I really don't, but I would love to see variety.

When I talk about female led action films, I am referring to films like Wonder Woman, also movies like Gun Powder Milkshake. Sure they are not physical like Arnie. There are very few people who are, and yet he's not the only action star. I mean so we really believe Bruce Willis can still kick ass? I think that Michelle Yeoh is totally believable as an action star still.

I think that there does have to be some believability, but when action films are over the top, it doesn't matter to me who is in the lead, it's over the top and if it's fun I'll go with it. I just really want to see films where women are not just the romantic lead's side piece. If women are going to be there for eye candy, I like to see them kicking some ass as well.

[–] 123Guy (7308) 3 years ago

ah, I get your meaning of norm now. yes, variety is great!

I have not seen GUNPOWDER MILKSHAKE, but just took in the trailer. To me, the action looks very well done, and mostly realistic (not thin model wipes out 10 guys at a time) a bit like the action in KINGSMAN... is that level of violence appealing to general women population? Genuinely curious since violence, blood spray, guns blazin, and splosions is very basic guy stuff, like John Wick. Not saying women don't enjoy it, or the revenge story or whatever, but I feel like these style action films are mostly crafted towards men.
I would say this movie attracts me and I would watch it if I can get to it but I think it is netflix only or something.
But yeah, centers on women as leads, and most back ground support peeps are female. I hope it does well.

[–] SabrinaOwens (9) 3 years ago

I agree with you, release the first WonderWoman and later redo all her journey, when I watched the first one I thought what a great background story, as male screenwriters they misunderstood the meaning of feminism, and then they write a hot, tough girl, that born killing machines

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

Nothing. But making Macbeth black set in 11th century Scotland is just stupidly moronic. All things must eventually be remade but with black actors. That's their idea of 'diversity'. They can't just use the basic story in Macbeth and move it to another time and place, where having a black leader would make sense. No, they need to make it in ultra-white Scotland at a time when no person of color would ever be king for more than a minute.

White people invented film in mostly white countries. So why would anyone be surprised most of the movies were made by and made for and starring white people? Only a complete fool (aka liberal) would not be aware of this.

If black people had done the same, most of the films would be starring black people. But they didn't. They were way behind technologically.

But, today, they act like all the films all along should have had black people starring in every film. They are offended by how black people are depicted in most every film, the most shocking being Gone with the Wind for which a black actress won an Oscar! And for which most of the black people are depicted with more decency than the white! It's almost as if most of the people whining about this stuff never took the time to watch it.

It's like with superhero films. Most of the superheros were created by white people at a time when white people were the consumers. So it only makes sense they were mostly white.

Instead of creating black superheroes most 'progressives' want to make the established white ones black. As if they are owed all this. I find that lazy but we are talking liberals here. Anything white they want to turn black. Pandering to black people is what they are trained to do from birth.

They will freely say something like 'I won't cast white people in my film'. And largely get away with it.

Go to Asia and you will notice their tv/movies feature very few white or black people. I can't remember them ever being criticized for their lack of diversity.

[–] 123Guy (7308) 3 years ago

exactly, exactly, exactly.

super heroes is a perfect example of this. like you said, made my white people and other groups are now coat tailing. Not being a super hero follower or big fan, I did see Black Panther in the theater, and thought it was okay, and happy it existed, but i wondered, could it have ever come out if the multi billion grossing avengers didnt fly well?

seems like many here are on my side for the query. but i was hoping others would step up and provide interesting alternative perspectives, other than "well, the system in the past was setup by old white guys" but that doesn't really explain why new movies have to all be multi cultural now. I'm not in NY or LA, so my sight is limited but I never, NEVER see groups of friends so multiculturally diverse as I see in all ads and movies now. I see whites hanging with whites, blacks with blacks, asian at the asian haunts, and sometimes local friends that cross race with friendships - not against or for or anything, just saying what I see. and there is nothing wrong with that. it simply is what it is.

[–] Keelai (34875) 3 years ago

The ancient Egyptians were an Afro-Asiatic people, basically black and brown, before they were invaded by Europeans. Movies depict them with white actors. "Gods of Egypt" was lambasted for its racism.

One third of cowboys were Black or Mexican. Westerns are almost always white only or more recently a token Black person.

Does the obvious racism to depict a false narrative bother you? There's a big difference in diversifying a modern movie to reflect today's society and hiding the truth to continue a lie about black and brown people's contribution to history.

"There are countless other examples of women, people of color and L.G.B.T.Q. people being erased or sidelined from historically based films. The 2008 film “21,” about a team of mostly Asian-American blackjack players, was cast with mostly white actors. Jennifer Connelly played Alicia Nash, the Salvadoran-American wife of John Forbes Nash Jr., in “A Beautiful Mind.” Roland Emmerich’s “Stonewall” put a fictional, white cis gay man at the center of the famous riots where trans people of color like Marsha P. Johnson — who is given a supporting role in the film — were among those at the forefront."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/opinion/sunday/oscars-movies-diversity.html

[–] 123Guy (7308) 3 years ago

"obvious racism to depict a false narrative bother you"

to be clear, and I guess I should have specified early on, I was thinking of, and discussing only fictional movies, not real life documentaries. Also, largely, not films depicting real events or time. Obviously, a movie showing a real life event needs to stick to completely proper casting to recreate that reality - almost like a docmentary... so long way around to answer your question, no, I don't care at all who gets cast in what, because I don't watch films, EVER, as race accurate presentions, but simply, movies for entertainment to enjoy for a couple hours. race doesn't enter my mind watching movies, unless it is a plot based around the knowledge of it or something. I tend to want writers to do whatever they like.

As happens in the internet, we are splintering out to many many many side discussions, off topic, I get that, it's life online. It's why I feel all discussions on a topic should STOP after 2 days of talks. :)

My initial thing here was about the feeling the races should not be allowed to make movies for their particular race (albeit, mostly from a white guy perspective of "others are allowed, why aren't we?")

Far as ERASURE goes, you need to talk to the accountants. Most of the time (I would gamble ALL of the time) casting decisions are very much thought through on a business level for profitability and nothing more. You see "OMG they didn't use a trans actor" the bean counters see "If we use Jennifer Connelly, the numbers state we will profit around 19% more than if not"

[–] Keelai (34875) 3 years ago

"Instead of creating black superheroes most 'progressives' want to make the established white ones black."

My comment was a reply to your agreement with this statement.

You have no problem when white actors replace POC in movies which happens all the time. For instance, an all white Western movie should not exist even when the characters are fictionized since the environment was diverse. A third of the main characters should have been Black or Mexican. "Friends" was racist because the actors in the background were all white in multicultural New York City.

You choose to ignore racism against POC and other bigotry because you're not victimized by it. That doesn't make you an innocent. It makes you complicit and part of the problem.

To complain about attempts to correct past and ongoing bigotry by suggesting ongoing bigotry should continue with all white movies because you believe whites are victimized is ridiculous. POC are 40% of the population, but only receive a small number of the lead roles in movies and TV series.

BTW, movies make more money when they are diversified.

[–] 123Guy (7308) 3 years ago

Seeing as I wasn't alive when old westerns were made, and they also didn't ask me about how to cast them, I really am innocent of promoting that racism and bigotry you mention. Simply because twitter now makes everything a problem, doesn't mean it is real. I've live my entire life, raised right, treating everyone respectfully... wait why am I bothering? I will always be the bad guy, so I don't care to waste my time with this.

BACK ON POINT, feel free to read in as much nonsense into everything I write, or make up stuff that I never remotely came close to saying (good ol' internet) - I won't try to stop you, because I know it is a pointless time waste, you kinda went off rail from the original question, inserting your own agenda to attempt to correct things a tiny ignored forum can do nothing about.

If you see my question of "why can't white guys make movies with white cast, same as blacks, asians, gays, mexicans, italians, trans, etc etc" as only ignoring racism and bigotry, I can't really discuss anything with you.

[–] Keelai (34875) 3 years ago

You started this topic by desiring white only movies. Your question is odd because you're failing to acknowledge that the norm has been white only movies. Presently, the majority of main characters in movies and TV are white men.

You're also not acknowledging the white only male movies like The Irishmen, 1917, Ford v Ferrari, etc..

You sound very entitled and want to take away the very small gains which POC spent years fighting for. It's too late for you to disassociate yourself from ongoing racism.

I actually answered your question by stating that movies with diversity make more money. Movies which star POC make the most money.

[–] 123Guy (7308) 3 years ago

"You started this topic by desiring white only movies."

This wasn't remotely close to what I said at all, whilst using my entire post to explain my position. Ask most other people here - they somehow understood it completely. I feel like you missed everything, and are wanting to start a fight where there is nothing worth fighting about. Because I AM white, I am automatically a "racist" to you, so we really can't discuss as rational adults.

This common definition may help you out. No where does it say "White people are racist"

rac·ist adjective
prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

[–] Keelai (34875) 3 years ago

"Blacks, women, Indian, gay, Asian, etc can make race/group specific, but whites can not?"

It sounds like you're about to leave which is unfortunate. You're bringing up two different things.

You're complaining about diversity which means you want white only movies. Those exists and are the norm: Wolf on Wall Street, 1917, The Irishmen, Ford and Ferrari, Nomadland

If you're asking why can't white maleness be explored in a movie, then that has been done since most movies are from a white male perspective.

BTW, that definition isn't correct.

[–] sokar (2098) 3 years ago

You're complaining about diversity

No he wasn't but you already knew this.

If you're asking why can't white maleness be explored in a movie, then that has been done since most movies are from a white male perspective.

That is not what he is asking.

How simply do you want it for your CRT brain.

If someone makes a movie with an all black cast. It is celebrated and praised and encouraged.

If someone makes a movie with an all white cast we get a hundred articles saying we need more diversity and to much whiteness so on and so on.

The question that was asked which you already knew but you just like to cause issues was. Why is it ok to make all black, all asian, all anything and that is fine but an all white cast gets derided.

Now you pointed to 5 examples which is cool but that doesn't mean his statement isn't true. Some of those films still had countless articles about them being "Too White".

I believe anyone should be able to make any movie they wish without worrying about anyones skin colour but because we can't have that due to supposedly needing "more diversity" we will never get it and only get continuous discussions about it.

In modern movies the rules only travel in one direction.

Now reply with your one and only answer of how racist I am and twist every word I have written to fit your CRT narrative.

BTW, that definition isn't correct.

Let me guess. Only white people can be racist. You are something else you really are.

[–] Keelai (34875) 3 years ago

Answer ALL of these questions to discover the answer you seek. It's in this format because I want you to think carefully and slowly about the answers.

Warning: the correct answers will make you extremely uncomfortable and you'll melt like a snowflake on a sunny day:

Which race controls the film industry presently and historically?

Why did that specific race refuse to have all other races & other marginalized groups in mainstream movies and refuse to distribute and show movies made by other races and marginalized groups for most of film history?

Why do you believe the rare movie made by a discriminated, marginalized group should not be celebrated if it's able to successfully maneuver pass all the discrimination it had to overcome to be released?

Why are you choosing to ignore the majority of movies and TV shows which still have disproportionately the race and gender of the group which controls the industry as main characters and even exclusively as the only characters?

Why are you refusing to acknowledge the long history of discrimination from the group which controls the film industry since that explains the reason there is a distinct difference between a movie which only have marginalized group members vs a movie which only have the race which controls the industry and discriminated against other marginalized groups for decades?

Why do you insist the group which controls the film industry and has a long history of discrimination should be treated as a victim?

[–] sokar (2098) 3 years ago

I'm not ignoring anything i was just replying to you completely missing the point of the op's question and twisting his words to fit your anti white narrative. Then compleyely moving the goalposts to your agenda which we all know on this site is a white hating agenda.

I just like replying to trolls so crack on.

[–] Keelai (34875) 3 years ago

I knew you would fear the answer! What a snowflake!

[–] Keelai (34875) 3 years ago

I'll play.

Define the following, if you dare:

1. prejudice
2. discrimination
3. racism

[–] sokar (2098) 3 years ago

Whats your point?

Let me guess only white people do it. Thats what you wanna hear isn't it.

News flash every colour, creed, race and religion do all 3 of those all ove the world.

[–] Keelai (34875) 3 years ago

Obviously, you can't define the terms! I suggest you stop using terms you don't know nor understand.

[–] sokar (2098) 3 years ago

My god you need help, you really do.

Prejudice = prejudice against people from different backgrounds

Discrimination = the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, sex, or disability

Racism = To discriminate against someone based on the colour of there skin.

I'll speed this up for you save everyone some time. You will now reply saying I don't understand or i'm racist or both. Enjoy

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

This thread is amazing. I have never seen the issue of race being discussed on Moviechat before.

[–] NitroHangover (1142) 3 years ago

Lol.

[–] 123Guy (7308) 3 years ago

Ghaha!!! I almost spit up my pop on your reply. Well played!!! :D

But I feel my question differs in thinking it should be ok to make films for your own race and it being no big deal to anyone

[–] Redsfan001 (6151) 3 years ago

It's not wrong.

Hollywood has become a group-think dynamo for left leaning thought. If you want to get work in that town, you better get in line. Hollywood wants diversity in everything, but they do not tolerate diversity in political thought.

🤔 besides the Clint Eastwood works,The last film that was made pretty much for right leaning probable Trump supporters was Ford vs. Ferrari....but the studio will never admit it.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 3 years ago

Matt Damon probably wouldn't want that.

[–] Redsfan001 (6151) 3 years ago

That's for sure.

[–] 123Guy (7308) 3 years ago

my odd question related to changing hollywood, is will it actually pay out? will it prove profitable in the end game? yes, everyone will be a little happier about their race being included, but what if all the check boxes are more important than the writing and it tanks?

What I saw happen with Bank's "Charlie's Angels" was:
- girl makes girl power action movie, action movie means male audience will pay out big here
- males are like "Who asked for this? and why did they make them unsexy". guess what, it simply didn't interest us. I didn't know one male that had any interest in ever seeing that film.
- film tanks (lower numbers than WISHED for) and Banks blame's men for now showing up.
- we men shrug. show up for what? You did nothing that intersted us. I aint paying for that.
- Banks: "Hollywood... male gaze.... patriarchy... yadda yadda yadda"
- sorry, babe, you simply didn't give us what we wanted to see. bottom line

more and more female films will be made and tank as they try to reach the male dollar, not understanding what we want, and they will blame us for lack of diverse interst.

Same with black films that may fail or not do as well as similar: "Not enough white guys showed up..." Ok, but sorry not sorry, it simply didn't interest us.

Same way not as many women are interested in becoming mechanics as men are. life. facts. reality. deal.

[–] Redsfan001 (6151) 3 years ago

The entire Charlie's Angels idea in the 1970's was BASED on having sexy women.

People who put their reputation on the line thinking it would be sellable without sex appeal are fools...pay their PC talking points no mind.

[–] 123Guy (7308) 3 years ago

I'm no producer, but can't fathom how they don't see all these recent failures over changing the IPs. i guess with "hollywood finances" everyone is still making some money off it, regardless if it flies or not.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 3 years ago

You said level headed discussion. So I won't assume that you have political agenda. Which your post seemed like, but I won't judge.

Now. Why is it wrong to make race/people specific movies?
I'd say. No, it is not.

So why it seemed like, painted by Hollywood, that it is wrong, at least lately?
Money.

You said it yourself, in the old times movies were basically (mostly) white technological product, created by (mostly) whites, made by (mostly) whites, and consumed by (mostly) whites.

But why was it so?

Because in the old times, (mostly) only white people have the disposable income to spend on theaters and movies. The same thing as why hypecars and ultra luxury vehicles' customers are (mostly) Middle Easterners. Because (mostly) only Middle Easterners have the money to buy those stuffs.

Along with increasing disposable income for non-whites, Hollywood starts to market movies to non-whites. Hence, black movies, and recently, Hollywood-made Chinese movies (Mulan, Raya, Shang-Chi, etc.)

That still won't answer why are white-only movies "wrong" then?

Drum rolls please...

Because they (Hollywood) have come to realisation that white people will still consume movies no matter what.

See what happens here?
Making white movies means you get white audience.
Adding non-white actors means you get white audience still, plus non-whites too.

Which one do you think Hollywood would like to have?

It was never about "right" or "wrong." It was about moolah, lots of moolah. As it always has been.

[–] 123Guy (7308) 3 years ago

good points, and true, money is the bottom line to every business - which this is, a business of movies.
I do not see anything wrong with putting whomever in their movies (sounds like I am countering myself, yet I am not, I watch whatever and don't care, where my initial question was about race making for race), but I do fear the art side of things losing their way, forced to rewrite in characters that make zero sense to the narrative.
If I am white, and write a story about a white family, surviving white things (because i am white and that material is what I would know best) I wouldn't want to be told, "you gotta write in a (token) black friend, or (token) asian friend, or token anything for that matter. It's my art, can't I do what I want? Now, the bean counters will stipulate I change that attitude to increase sales or they won't make my film.... still this detracts from the original story I wrote.

[–] Ottoparts (5) 3 years ago

First the arguments from even a few years ago are no longer valid. Everything has flipped in Hollywood now. Black, Gay and especially Transgender roles are VERY overrepresented. Blacks are 13 percent of U.S. pop. New studies put Gay pop. actually below the 10 percent that was standard for years. And Transgender is less than 1 percent. I assume everyone here has seen a new film/tv show or two the last couple of years, think thats where the numbers for those groups are? However it seems to me Asians are still underrepresented. Hispanic is not a race so I can't stand that argument usually but I will say dark skinned Hispanics seem underrepresented a bit.
My opinion is that it's great if people want to make all black, all gay, all anything films. But it's not fair that everyone has been bullied into being afraid to not make largely white productions. Hell you can't read an article about a 20 year old show like Friends now without being lectured on how they were *gasp* white friends. Guess what, if you take any average group in the U.S. chances are they are going to be largely racially homogenous, so what. Pretty much only in films does every group of six people contain One interracial couple, one gay character, one Asian character and one trans/fluid/non something character, it's absurd and reads so phony it takes me out of it completely. We have no common sense anymore, let people make the films they want, no one needs to police this unless one group is criminally underrepresented.
Also I agree with above poster about this nonsense of casting say for example Denzel Washington as Scottish King Macbeth. It's stupid and wrong if a white guy plays a black character and it's equally stupid and offensive when it's the other way around. The modern woke take seems to be tell us all how awful whitewashing in Hollywood was, but since we can do this awful thing now in this new enlightened age by all means.

[–] 123Guy (7308) 3 years ago

I often wonder what gay people think about, say, an a straight action James Bond film that merely mentions a gay character for like 9 seconds... do gays want that? Is that impressive to them? is this "enough" representation for them to calm down and say, "Yes. FINALLY we are fully represented, we can all relax now".
I really don't believe that is the case. If I was gay, that would just belittle me more.

If they went full gay james bond? to me, that doesn't make any sense at all because that is no longer "JAMES BOND". Anything you change, is called "CHANGED", thus, no longer the same. Make your own gay spy if you want, but don't expect james bond fans to be clamoring over it - unless the story is just sooo good.

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 3 years ago

As you can see with one of the responses to your post there are people here that continue to feed the divide on the issue. They don't seem to understand much like actual racists they create a toxic atmosphere of hate when they cant legitimately argue or discuss something and simply default to calling people or their statements racist.

Oddly enough I have been watching older movies and tv shows, not real old but 70s and above and I am actually quite surprised at the level of representation. I never noticed much when I was younger because I wasn't raised to prefer content based on skin color or gender. I am 40+ years old and I have never had a point in my life where I couldn't find films/tv shows with non white actors and/or female leads. But listening to people today you would think it didn't exist until twitter came into being.

There is no question things have leaned heavily white and racial bias has existed. But white people are still the largest single population in the country, white males have made up the largest viewing demo in most film types since the beginning of films in the US and many other mature western film industries. I think if you were to sit down and follow the demo in the US of many popular films from theater to home sales it would likely still lean heavily white and male. So films even without any racial bias would have leaned this way regardless.

The problem today is you have people that over compensate and also mimic the same beliefs they say are wrong. For instance, group specific films. Its either ok or it isn't. Race or gender swapping characters, again it is either ok or it isn't.

Personally I believe a film should simply be cast to fit what you are making. If you are doing a film set on a reservation you should look for performers that fit the setting, either actual representatives or at least look correct with merit being the primary focus on hiring talent.

[–] Ottoparts (5) 3 years ago

Now it's hilarious and yet depressing people can view the same thing and not even remotely get the same thing from it. I totally agree the ONLY way a film or tv show should be cast is use the best people to make the most entertaining product. Now there is no way on earth anyone can not see that almost every single Hollywood production made today has as it's top mission to check all the WOKE boxes period. They still want to make money so thats still important as well of course but I don't think making the best work is nearly as important to them as making sure they are so inclusive as to take no heat whatsoever. One of the reasons racial divide is where its at now is people living in the past. Anyone should be allowed to cast whoever they want without any cancel crap or complaints. As far as the casting of different races to play established characters, I think thats crap but it's funny the same Woke jackasses that are all for say black actors playing white characters also don't even think a straight actor should be allowed to play a gay character. typical hypocritical idiocy from the fringe.

[–] 123Guy (7308) 3 years ago

never understood the part about actors not being allowed to play other people: strait gay trans etc.
this is so dumb.

so Scarlet was going to play a trans character.... "ACting", pretending... which is what all acting always is....
she's a huge name, was going to present the whole trans thing to a global audience, vasting helping their cause..... guess who shoots it down: trans. as if using a real trans actor would get the profits Scarlet would have brought in. That production is still nowhere and probably never will be. Great call there, team trans!! (sarcasm)

[–] 123Guy (7308) 3 years ago

"But listening to people today you would think it didn't exist until twitter came into being."

SOO MUCH this! I'm older also and watched many sitcoms, and films that featured blacks as lead characters. they were really great too! seemed like representation was fine back then too. granted, they kind of did some stereo types - not always, but sometimes.
the fun part is, there are many black productions today that also do stereo types, yet they are beloved, not slandered as "only doing stereo types"