ST Diversity in the Sequel Trilogy (see warning on page 11)

Tanto was a side kick to the Lone Ranger. That is in the classification of well intentioned yet not quite as capable--but that was the 30s - 50s. Speaking of the Lone Ranger look up Bass Reeves.

It's not about using anything as a crutch. Wanting diversity in Star Wars isn't about some kind of hostile takeover, it's about inclusion because many people from many places love the story. Simply adding a list of make believe aliens to enrich the population isn't the answer.

 

It's basically conservatism. Deviation from the status quo is perceived as a political statement, whereas the status quo itself just is. Of course, this is completely flawed thinking. And besides, in the case of Star Wars, it's always been a progressive film series even while it looked to the past for inspiration.

 

Change is not considered wrong/scary/bad if its done in a really good way.

However, sometimes change is not needed. If it aint broke, why fix it? Your perception of broke may not be the same perception as others have about it.

 

The battle cry of the privileged since time immemorial.

 

And "privileged" is the modern battle cry.

 

What's wrong? Do you feel threatened by diversity or something? We should go back to the good old days where PoC would be the sidekick and the white man saves the day, right? Why fix it?

 

I don't feel threatened by diversity, that's a silly assumption which people like to make when someone does not agree with their opinions 100%.

Thing is that, when people talk about representation they usually like to refer to the movies that make the most money. Basically, they want the big blockbusters to have more PoC as heroes. But if you look at every movie being made, there's plenty of representation in that sense. There's a reason why some make more money than others. In my first post, I said this sentence: "Change is not considered wrong/scary/bad if its done in a really good way." So basically in order to make audiences accept diversity more you need to make the movies extremely well-done. This is why "Spawn", the first black superhero film, was a critical and commercial failure, and why "Black Panther" will hopefully be a critical and commercial success.

Another problem that arises from this is the question about financing and creative talent. Some may argue that we should simply force money and creative talent to certain projects because of representation. Why? I say let the studios and creators do what they want. It's not up to certain groups of people to decide what kind of movies they should make.

People seem to like to bring up Gods of Egypt. So what? That film was a critical and commercial failure. Nobody liked it. It's ****. Who cares about a ****** movie?

I'd like to rewrite my statement: If it aint broke, why fix it, build a better one yourself instead.

 

this is totally flawed thinking, of course we need representation in movies that are commercial successfully, but it shouldnt be a issue, women and Poc need to be given roles and stories that are not even thought about as being a huge deal because there is a woman or a poc as the lead it just need to become the norm, and poc need to see themselves being represented in all aspects of films. And no if you look at every movie being made there is not representation in that sense, there are still movies that don't even pass the bechel test, this is still a serious problem. Hollywood also has a huge double standard with women directors they need to have already found success to direct blockbusters, like they should have a women instead of the director who's directing episode 9. i

 

But Rey being called that has nothing to do with her gender. It just became associated with her gender because the people who took offense made it all about her gender instead of focusing on the fact that it is simply a term used to describe a certain character trope, and that same trope has terms for both genders. Sadly everything has become about race and gender and I find that both sides of the argument have become too defensive and ready to pounce at the first sign of disagreement because no one wants to be considered wrong.

I agree. I expect good writing, acting, directing et al from any movie and just throwing poc and women in it is not going to get me on board if everything else fails. I admit I get worried whenever I see a studio going out of their way to pat themselves on the back and show off how many poc and women they have in their production. Just look at how Star Wars carted out Lupita, Oscar, John, and Gwendoline. Meanwhile, Lupita is an unrecognizable alien that could have been played by any professional motion capture artist, Gwen was barely in the movie and was there to be a woman in armor, Finn was pretty much the jar Jar binks of this generations Star Wars, and Oscar's character was handled in such a convoluted fashion, he might as well had died. Yet the studio wants to convince me that the movie had three leads (One woman and two men of color) when Adam was more of a lead than Oscar.

I don't believe money and talent should be forced. However, I don't get why hiring a woman or poc would automatically be considered forced if done by a big hollywood studio (if that's what you meant). But I do agree that lower budget films have lots of representation and I often times find that people get way too hung up on big blockbusters than supporting the little guys. I personally love Indie films and would love to see the people who are already creating and hiring a diverse range of people gain support to keep making movies than everyone banging on the doors of Hollywood all the time.

But unfortunately, people would rather see an unoriginal gender bending Thor than to see an original female hero in a non blockbuster movie.

 

There's also a really unfair thing about the "written well" thing, which is this; films *can* be rubbish, and there is absolutely no valid reason to think that a film that is attempting to have a diverse cast of characters, or is directed by someone who isn't a white straight male, should need to achieve a standard of quality in order to justify its diversity. Unless one thinks that under-represented groups have something inherent about them that makes them more likely to make a film bad (a position that would be completely indefensible) then it follows that diversity in films should absolutely not come with an expectation that the material or the execution of the script etc should have to be held to a higher standard than a film without diversity.

To say that diverse films have to be good is by implication saying that non-diverse films can get away with not being good, isn't it?

 

and that is absolutely the case, non diverse films totally do get away without being good, and its never blamed by the cast or the director well usually its usually the result of the writing but when a movie with a poc or women of a lead fails its blamed on the cast or the female director.

 

"Written well" is subjective. But I think most people don't mean that the movie must be an Oscar winning masterpiece, it just has to be enjoyable for them. For me, "written well" means, everything I look for in every other movie that I think is good and also an added bonus of not making a big giant elephant in the room deal out of having poc and women in the movie to the point where the only purpose the character serves is to be a walking talking commentary on modern day race and gender relations. Especially if it doesn't even make sense for the world the characters are living in.

ie: Rey having to tell Finn multiple times to let go of her hand. Finn, who served under a female captain, suddenly doesn't think Rey can take care of herself.

Cassian staring in awe at Jyn fighting, like Star Wars doesn't already have a slew of strong women who can fight. I'm sure he's ran into plenty.

And the entirety of the new Ghostbusters movie.

No, it usually means that they don't care if poc or women are in it just as long as the movie itself is good to them.

That is totally not true at all. There are tons of crappy movies that get crapped on all the time. Critics are pretty much brutal with any movie that they think sucks. I've never once heard of any terrible movie getting a free pass because it has an all white cast or a white male director. Any actor who sucks have been the butt of jokes that have spanned decades. People laugh at Michael Bay and his never ending explosions and JJ Abrams lens flare fest. I have yet to come across any actor, writer, or director that have gotten a free pass for being terrible because they are white and/or male. There are entire award shows created to mocking bad movies and actors. ie The Razzies.

 

The joke is that he's trying to be "heroic", but reality isn't really the hero. It's very similar to Luke awkwardly rescuing Leia before she ends up being the one doing the rescuing.

Or to remove gender from the equation, it's also similar to Jack Burton thinking he's the hero in Big Trouble in Little China, when really, he's the sidekick.

 

Hazevamp

"There are tons of crappy movies that get crapped on all the time. Critics are pretty much brutal with any movie that they think sucks. I've never once heard of any terrible movie getting a free pass because it has an all white cast or a white male director."

You misunderstand me. My point is not that rubbish films with (say) an all-white cast, straight male lead etc don't get panned critically if they're bad;my point is that when a bad film like that exists, it gets reviewed, people don't like it, critics criticise what's bad about it, and the film then exists as a bad film; no one says "see? That's what happens when you have a straight white male lead, no black speaking roles, and a woman who only exists as eye candy"

But when diversity is even speculated about, as here, people bring the quality of the potential film into it, which does imply some kind of link in those people's minds whereby diverse films have to succeed, but if they don't, then diversity needs to take some of the blame.

Of course diverse films can be bad. But obviously that doesn't mean that diversity itself is bad.

 

I'm not a fan of diversity for diversity's sake. On the other hand, I am open to completely unbiased casting calls (to the extent that this is possible, given already established backgrounds for some characters). In other words, filmmakers should only cast the best...but at the same time should be completely open to everyone. That may not happen, except in a perfect world...but it is at least an ideal worth aiming for.

So, if we get some new heroes of different racial/ethic backgrounds, that's great. However, can we also expect some new villains from "diverse" backgrounds too? Or would that be viewed as possibly "racist" / "sexist" / etc.

 

if, by "diversity for diversity's sake" you mean something like this example:

"the guy hired as writer/director of a film within an existing franchise knows that the franchise has historically had all the main heroes and villains played by straight white guys. Going in, he resolves to make the setting more diverse, and decides that the male lead will be cast with a talented young black guy, and that when he writes the female lead, she will not simply be the love interest of the hero, but a character in her own right"

Then what would you take issue with?

Then what is wrong with that?

 

Comparing Finn to a sidekick or to say he isn't heroic seriously diminishes his role in the story, unless you would use the same language to describe Leia and Han in the OT (which I doubt).

I also don't see any evidence that Finn was trying to play the big strong man rescuing the damsel. Finn already saw Rey defending herself against a bunch of thugs - and was noticeably impressed - so I doubt he thought she needed a savior. He took Rey's hand to pull her away from danger, probably assuming that they didn't have much time to move and pulling her with him was faster than trying to explain what was happening and hoping she followed.

 

But no one does that either. What movie reviewer is saying "See, this is what happens when you cast women as leads and poc" while reviewing a bad film? Maybe at some nazi/kkk site or a troll getting under the skin of some hardcore SJWs but certainly not the average reviewer and not professionals.

Quality is brought up to usually say "I don't care about poc or women being cast or given leading roles, the only thing that matter is if the movie is good." That IMO, is a good thing, it's a more passive stance on the issue. It means the studio can put whomever they desire as the lead whether it's women or pocs, or a yeti, as long as they like the movie itself. Because everyone should only care if the movie is good, because it's entertainment and it should be good to us. In a perfect world, that would be the only thing everyone would care about. I'm not seeing the issue with bringing up the quality.

The thing that worries me is people who think that casting a poc or a woman as a villain somehow diminishes the entire race or perpetuates stereotypes. With this mindset in place poc and women will be cast in limited roles for a very long time.

ie. Before the black actor could only play comedic reliefs or thugs, now it's just the good guy.

It seems to be trading one limited role for another and I can't imagine any actor being completely happy with that, especially if their goal is to test their skill.

Because people want to be transported to the world of the popular franchise they know and love and visualize the characters they have been seeing for years, walking and talking and doing great things in the story that was created for them. Take any comic book or manga and go to an anime/manga/comic site and look for any thread title "If (insert book or show) became a live action movie who would you cast as which character?" you will see that people would try to look for actors and actresses that resemble the characters as much as possible.

Why do you think people were angry about "Ghost in the Shell" casting a white female lead to play a Japanese woman? Scarlet Johassen is just not who many people are picturing when they see the name Mokoto Kusanagi. However, the character looks white in the anime anyway so yeah.

It's the reason JK Rowlings put a clause that no American be cast as Harry Potter or why Anne Rice was initially angry when she heard Tom Cruise would be cast as her 6 foot plus tall Lestat. People want the characters they already know and love (because the character has been cemented as real to them) and would likely not view a black actor cast as Thor to be the real Thor. Why should it suddenly be okay to change the race and gender of characters in established franchises due to having good racial/gender intentions? Why not give some writer who is already writing a series with diverse heroes et al a chance? Create a new franchise with them with original heroes and villains?

Think of it like this: Rey walks up to Luke Skywalker at the end of TFA, Luke turns around and takes off his hood....the actor is Denzel Washington instead of Mark Hamil.

Note: I'm beyond sick of Marvel and DC right now.