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

R1 certainly wasted everyone. Mendelsohn and Zombie Tarkin had most to do acting-wise out of the cast lol.Though Mendelsohn is the best so...

 

That's certainly not an opinion shared by everyone. Bodhi was my favorite character in the film and I don't think he was wasted. Would I love more stories about him? Sure. But I enjoyed his role enough in R1 that he became my favorite character.

 

My opinion, I think some may expect a white person to cast white people. Similar, to me expecting a black person to cast black people. If either side bends another way, some may think there's another reason. I think I've seen things where, I think black people, were talking about black men getting with white women for the clout.

Also, I think some may not think someone can benefit from casting white people, as far as being approved of by some crowds, so if they cast that way, they may think it's not seeking something.

 

I wasn't suggesting it was an accurate assumption. Personally, I wasn't very receptive to the idea. Just something I'd read, that I think was something, I think, some black people were suggesting.

It's more something I think some people may think. But I don't think it may be one of considering it default, maybe more that they think some may approve more of it.

 

Diversity and representation in TV and cinema isn't an either or thing i.e. there's not one route, and can often be complex. There is a moral imperative to make content more diverse, but at the same time, having it be a tick box exercise can be counterproductive. Inclusion MUST happen, and by the very definition, involves a modicum of 'positive discrimination' to force the matter. However, we must not be content with tokenism. As I've mentioned in other posts, the power in the industry is firmly in the hands of middle class, middle aged white men. Some of that power will be feely given, and some will have to be taken. We will only have true diversity once the power base is more representative of gender, class and ethnicity.

 

She’s been quite transparent for a long time...

As for the “black men get with white women for clout” thing debated above - that view has a name - “anti-miscegenation.”

 

I don't know if you've seen Black Klansman, but Spike Lee actually showed prejudice on both sides, especially from black people towards cops, and I salute him for that. Great film, as well!

I like diverse casting, I also like inter racial romantic relationships. But it's problematic because if you cast a black or Asian actor as a white character it's often hailed but if a white actor is cast a a character created as black or Asian - oh boy! Far better create more black and Asian characters. Taika Waititi cast African American Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie, who in the comics was a blue eyed blond Nordic looking character, and when questioned his response was:
"I wanted to diversify the cast."
Thing is....the Thor cast was already diverse, with Heimdall and Hogun played by black and Asian actors, and he actually had a canon version of a Valkyrie that was Native American - Danielle Moonstar from New Mutants. What would happen if they cast a white woman as Shuri in Black Panther. I think we all know!
Thing is, you can't have one rule for one section of society and another rule for the other. It's hypocritical. And I have to admit I'm still seething at how Kelly Tran was treated in TROS, she was great as Rose, and I really wanted to see more of her in TROS.

 

It's well worth checking out, both disturbing and very funny.
Off topic but so is the Amazon prime series Hunters.

 

Except when your movie costs north of 200M to make and about as much or more to market. Than no matter who you put in TPTB seat, their political and other preferences and/or biases go out of the window and survival instinct (return on investment) kicks in. Which means that they are going to make the most inoffensive, anyone 7 - 77 can enjoy anywhere in the world, easily understandable, generic movie without confusing cultural references and specifics that only one nation or group gets and no one else. That will never change. Lower budget movies can afford to be more this or that but big blockbusters will always be driven by what sells which means eliminate any potentially offensive content (see Hollywood's new fad of including brief gay content that can be easily removed from prints shown in countries that ban or disapprove of such content) and maximize what's proven to attract widest audience possible.

My point is that one shouldn't expect diversified blockbusters to be any different from current ones. No matter what gender/class/ethnicity, they all want to produce big hits and that means applying the same formula and listening to focus groups like anyone else. And if that means less of something that they would personally prefer to see more of, but there's a risk that the movie wouldn't break even because of it, there will be less of it. It's just the way it is. I'm under impression that people think there would be a radical change, but nope, count on it.

Take Black Panther for example. It's a black cast blockbuster entirely made not to offend other demos. So of course that the hero is generic King Kumbaya who wants to protect whiteys and Asians from Killmonger's plan to blow up Hong Kong and Western shopping spree cities. Of course that there's a whitey who helps save the day. Of course that colonialism is bad but somehow CIA (the infamous war mongering and neo colonialist power) is represented by the said heroic whitey, which means in roundabout way that America is totally not colonialist, don't get your panties in a twist, audience, we good guys. Bucky is given an affectionate cowboys&Indians genre nick name White Wolf and local kids absolutely adore him. The story is Lion King remake where Killmonger is Simba who goes on a world domination spree because his uncle killed his dad and robbed Killmonger of his rightful throne, so standard Shakespearean melodrama understandable to audience from Iceland to Argentina to South Africa to Oz to Sri Lanka, nothing (currently political) to read into or confuse. There's some no1curr side plot about isolation vs joining (the corrupt and ineffective) United Nations but that's secondary to much more compelling game of thrones. Unfortunately, game ends too quickly and predictably (Rightful King N'Jadaka should have lived to appear in more movies). So all in all, this is as inoffensive as it gets. Primary target audience gets empowerment and positive representation while secondary, tertiary, etc audience is assured that there's nothing to fear from the said empowerment. They love White Wolf, Bilbo saves the day, King Kumbaya protects everyone, please see the movie xoxo Uncle Kevin. Replace Uncle Kevin with diversity uncle or an aunt and you'll get the same product. 200M budget and about the same P&A demand that everyone is aboard and no one is alienated. Mind you, it's a good movie but you can see there's plenty of compromises made to attract everyone. It isn't a Jordan Peele ultra-cheapie that can afford to be edgy by bashing certain demo and still has tenfold return on investment.

 

These two sentences are the crux of the matter. Far better to create more Black and Asian characters. Yes, absolutely true. But when after that happens the role STILL goes to the White actor?? That defeats the whole purpose. Creating more diverse characters is meaningless if the roles still go to White people. That is why replacing characters of color is not equivalent to replacing White characters. IMO, the rule of thumb should be: If changing a character's race or gender from the intended race decreases diversity, it shouldn't happen. Period.

 

As mentioned, these things aren't mutually exclusive... and I actually agree with some of your points. However, a generic action blockbuster can be both popular and diverse. Diversity needn't be a tick box exercise (although I acknowledge that currently often is), nor should it be limited to socio-political drama or 'urban' comedies. There's absolutly nothing stopping this, but the unwillingness of those in powerful positions to relinquish some of that power. As in most cases, writers, filmmakers etc. reflect themselves in the subject matter of films/television. The more BAME writers, filmmakers, producers there are, the more content they will produce... and it will, I'm sure, reflect themselves, their ideas, their thoughts and their culture. It's about normalising it. If parity in this area is achieved (which is where the struggle really is), there WILL be more 'substantial' inclusion on screen.

 

If it’s to try to correct centuries of injustice you absolutely can.

The privileged majority having obligations towards discriminated-against minorities is not a two-way street. Because they are not and have never been on an equal playing field.

 

Do you know what I wish?
That people stopped blaming people for what their ancestors did centuries ago.

 

That goes both ways... you can say the same for racism in the first place. They are both factors a person has no say over.

And besides, it is still happening today.

 

Man I didn't know racism ended. Good to know, guess black people won't be executed by police and all minorities have equal opportunities, particularly in realms like art given this is a film discussion thread.

 

I don’t see anyone here blaming anyone else for anything their ancestors did.

Lack of personal blame does not, however, mean lack of personal responsibility. See also - museums being called on to return artifacts looted ages ago from their native lands.

 

I just saw Finn as a character not a representation of anyone but maybe that's just me.

 

Characters are inherently representations. Especially characters who are the only major woman/PoC character in a story.

 

Fine.
I'm registered disabled. I live in a country that for the past ten years has repeatedly re elected a government that has targeted the mentally ill and disabled as "skivers and scroungers' because we can't work. Many have died because of their persecution. Physical assaults on disabled people have risen. I'm waiting for the day someone leaves an abusive note on my car because it bears a disability badge; doing this is quite popular at the moment.
When my brother was young he was repeatedly persecuted by the police for being gay. He and his mates avoided gay bars because the police often went in and beat up the occupant's for fun. He was actually one of the people who helped create LGSM during the 80s.
To this day he doesn't trust the police. At all.
What I'm saying is not all whites are 'privileged'. Before mass murdering Jews, gypsies and anyone else he disliked, Hitler practised his Final Solution on the disabled and the mentally ill. And many mentally ill people all over the world were abused and experimented on, given forced lobotomies, and sterilised.

We may be white, but we know the horrors of prejudice.