I don't know if you've been paying attention the last 6-8 years but there aren't many "normal" people left in this country.TCTTS said:
And normal people don't give a sh*t about any of it.
I don't know if you've been paying attention the last 6-8 years but there aren't many "normal" people left in this country.TCTTS said:
And normal people don't give a sh*t about any of it.
Know Your Enemy said:I don't know if you've been paying attention the last 6-8 years but there aren't many "normal" people left in this country.TCTTS said:
And normal people don't give a sh*t about any of it.
There never were.Know Your Enemy said:I don't know if you've been paying attention the last 6-8 years but there aren't many "normal" people left in this country.TCTTS said:
And normal people don't give a sh*t about any of it.
Probably true. It just wasn't as out in the open.Quad Dog said:There never were.Know Your Enemy said:I don't know if you've been paying attention the last 6-8 years but there aren't many "normal" people left in this country.TCTTS said:
And normal people don't give a sh*t about any of it.
Says the dummy that just went to see Clerks 3 a couple nights ago.Know Your Enemy said:
Whether or not the race of actors is changed much of what Hollywood does these days is lazy AF. So many remakes, reboots, sequels, etc. It gets boring real quick for me.
I actually think it is spontaneous and will continue to believe it is.Hungry Ojos said:
Yeah, COMPLETELY spontaneous reaction. No coaching beforehand whatsoever.
Cruella had the unfortunate timing to be released post covid, unlike all the other flicks on that list.The Collective said:Quote:
$1.65B = The Lion King (2019)
$1.27B = Beauty and the Beast (2017)
$1.04B = Aladdin (2019)
$1.02B = Alice in Wonderland (2010)
$953M = The Jungle Book (2016)
$758M = Maleficent (2014)
$542M = Cinderella (2015)
$498M = Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019)
$353M = Dumbo (2019)
$276M = Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016)
$226M = Cruella (2021)
$197M = Christopher Robin (2018)
Damn shame - Cruella might have been my favorite of the listed movies. Perhaps I'm just intrigued by "crazy".
Staff, since he is breaking the rules yall established for us and calling me out specifically, permit me some leeway with my response.TCTTS said:
You and The Debt keep making points like this, as if it's some kind of clever trump card, when it really just shows your willful ignorance.
I can't believe I have to explain this, but whites and blacks don't share a 50-50 split of the population, haven't equally controlled/been equally represented in film for the past 100 years, and, not to mention, whites enslaved blacks for 300 years prior to that, while blacks earned equal rights to whites only 60 years ago.
In other words, the race that so suffocatingly eclipsed nearly every facet of life for so long, particularly when it comes to film/pop culture, doesn't have the same claim to otherwise moronic questions like, "wHy cAN't BLaCk paNtheR bE WhiTe!!!???"
Because *whites* weren't the repressed, underrepresented race for the past 100 years of film history.
Because there have been *countless* white superheroes depicted in film, and only a small handful of black superheroes depicted in film.
Because, since the 1920s, the vast majority of Disney characters have been white, not black.
Again, this isn't rocket science.
And this archaic idea that race representation in movies or music or entertainment in general should *only* equate to the exact racial makeup of our country is utter nonsense. Because, again... one of those races was actively held out of the spotlight for so long, disproportionate to their percentage makeup in terms of population.
So if Disney wants to make *one* of their previously white characters black, and doing so helps certain members of their community feel like they're finally getting their time in the sun, so to speak - especially when white people have enjoyed seeing themselves represented in Disney movies for 100 years now - I say go for it.
How can that *possibly* annoy you, given the context and circumstances?
I definitely agree with the bolded part but not so much with the rest of your thoughts. Using a highly charged word like "tokenizing" doesn't help the discussion at all. If you watch the reaction videos and talk to anyone who has young black girls the fact that the main character in a major story is black is a huge deal. To suggest that anything in Hollywood is going to "make up for slavery" is insulting and disingenuous.The Debt said:
Go make good black stories. Give little black girls a sense of wonder and identity and belonging. Make it the best you can. But if you or Hollywood thinks tokenizing Ariel is healing any wounds, or bridging people together, there is a black hole in yalls brain cavity.
I don't care what color Ariel is, but this is the right answer.Quote:
Go make good black stories. Give little black girls a sense of wonder and identity and belonging. Make it the best you can.
Know Your Enemy said:I definitely agree with the bolded part but not so much with the rest of your thoughts. Using a highly charged word like "tokenizing" doesn't help the discussion at all. If you watch the reaction videos and talk to anyone who has young black girls the fact that the main character in a major story is black is a huge deal. To suggest that anything in Hollywood is going to "make up for slavery" is insulting and disingenuous.The Debt said:
Go make good black stories. Give little black girls a sense of wonder and identity and belonging. Make it the best you can. But if you or Hollywood thinks tokenizing Ariel is healing any wounds, or bridging people together, there is a black hole in yalls brain cavity.
This. 100%EclipseAg said:
"Normal people." LOL
There is a large cohort of Americans who:
1. Believe representation is important.
2. Also believe it is lazy -- and frankly, offensive to everyone -- to take an established story that originally featured white actors and simply change the race of the characters in the name of "diversity." That's the '70s-'80s response to representation. "I got an idea ... let's do a remake of 'The Jackie Gleason Show' but with black people!"
On a broader note, it is disingenuous for people in the entertainment industry to complain about pushback to their approach to issues such as diversity. People in that industry are always quick to shout that they want to shape perceptions and influence all spheres of public life, including politics. You can't do that in a vacuum.
Hollywood started this; they need to grow up and learn from criticism of their ham-handedness.
Know Your Enemy said:
I think it's ridiculous to believe that Disney execs are sitting in a room and saying "Hey, let's make a black Ariel to make up for all that slavery stuff."
Quote:
So if Disney wants to make *one* of their previously white characters black...I say go for it.
ATM9000 said:
Slapping blackface on Ariel? So… you don't even know what blackface is.
And tokenization… no, I don't think that's the right word because:
A. It's a lead role in a feature film. Seems kind of a big old waste of money to cast somebody of color just for perceptions to a lead role. In fact, I thought the actress was a kind of a known entity in that whole Disney kids space already? That's not perfunctory. Now… the black guy in Frozen 2… yes… laughable tokenization.
B. You haven't even seen the actress in the role to say if she is deserving or not
C. You are probably a male between 25-60 years old (like me). Neither of us are probably ever going to watch this so you'll never be able to claim with a straight face that this is tokenization.
The Debt said:ATM9000 said:
Slapping blackface on Ariel? So… you don't even know what blackface is.
And tokenization… no, I don't think that's the right word because:
A. It's a lead role in a feature film. Seems kind of a big old waste of money to cast somebody of color just for perceptions to a lead role. In fact, I thought the actress was a kind of a known entity in that whole Disney kids space already? That's not perfunctory. Now… the black guy in Frozen 2… yes… laughable tokenization.
B. You haven't even seen the actress in the role to say if she is deserving or not
C. You are probably a male between 25-60 years old (like me). Neither of us are probably ever going to watch this so you'll never be able to claim with a straight face that this is tokenization.
Blackface is where white actors would apply black makeup on their face to portray a character as black, often but not always, in a disparaging light.
Originally, the canvas was a white actor. Now the canvas is an established white character. The fact that you sniff your farts and say "it's a black actress" tells us that you do little abstract thinking.
And if you are a male 25-60, I suppose you do not have children or grandchildren. Yea...men 25-60 never see children's movies.
You apparently aren't over it. I'll grant you there is plenty of idiocy on F16 and other forums including this one (on BOTH sides). You just need to learn to ignore it if you don't want to get into a back and forth discussion (I've ignored replying to plenty of your posts I disagree with fwiw). Resist that temptation to espouse your worldview and move on to something else. Or just ignore the responses you get. Opinions are like *******s - everybody has one, including you AND me. Not a criticism...just some friendly advice to not blow a gasket at a time this country is tearing itself apart.TCTTS said:
They insert a four second scene between a same-sex alien couple made of rocks and it results in post after post of people losing their minds.
They subtly nod to a third lead/teenage character being bisexual and we have to listen to endless rants about Hollywood's groomer agenda.
A suspect rumor leaks that they're not going to show the American flag being planted on the moon, gullible posters take it as gospel, then we have to listen to weeks of griping about how anti-American Hollywood is. The movie hits theaters, turns out the rumor wasn't even remotely true, and not a single poster who b*tched about it admits they were duped. All the while moving on to the next rage-inducing issue.
It's an endless airing of political grievances around here, over the smallest, dumbest stuff.
And normal people don't give a sh*t about any of it.
Normal people want to be able to talk about these movies without having to wade through irrational take after irrational take about why a two-second gay kiss ruined a movie for you.
Normal people are capable of ignoring it. Normal people aren't bothered by it in the first place.
You guys constantly tell me that I need thicker skin, and to just ignore it all, but whenever Hollywood does these minuscule, innocuous things you don't agree with, your skin proves to be so thin it might as well be translucent, and you couldn't not post about it if your life depended on it.
Once again, *you're* allowed to gripe endlessly, but I'm not allowed to gripe about the griping. Always a double standard, and it's always the exact same people complaining about the exact same crap. Over and over and over again.
For some reason, that I will never fully understand, one board (F16) isn't enough. All of these political grievances can't just be aired there. No, the endless b*tching *must* make its way here too, in every last thread, as if these complaints are so important, and so crucial that the masses hear them, that nothing short of two boards will suffice. And if anyone dare speak up or challenge this? They're ridiculed, gaslit, and labeled as personally "attacking" said posters.
It's so incredibly stupid, and I'm so incredibly over it.
Ghost of Bisbee said:
Being white at the bottom of the ocean would not be practical. Too easy for fish predators to spot you leading to natural extinction of white mermaids.
Black mermaids are much more practical and make much more sense.
Ghost of Bisbee said:
Being white at the bottom of the ocean would not be practical. Too easy for fish predators to spot you leading to natural extinction of white mermaids.
Black mermaids are much more practical and make much more sense.
Technically you'd want to be red. Red wavelength of light is the longest and therefore the weakest. It penetrates water the least out of all colors. So anything red would appear black below ~100 meters because there is no red light to reflect back.Ghost of Bisbee said:
Being white at the bottom of the ocean would not be practical. Too easy for fish predators to spot you leading to natural extinction of white mermaids.
Black mermaids are much more practical and make much more sense.
Duncan Idaho said:Ghost of Bisbee said:
Being white at the bottom of the ocean would not be practical. Too easy for fish predators to spot you leading to natural extinction of white mermaids.
Black mermaids are much more practical and make much more sense.
Ackshually, it's depends on the perspective. Most fish within the euphotic zone are light on the bottom so they blend into the lighter colored sky and dark from the top, so they blend into the deep/sand.
So really she should look like those guys from star trek tos