Does that mean that in movies about people who were beheaded in history, the roles must now only be played by those who were also beheaded IRL?My point was about the new word being lobbed around: "Appropriation"According to this agenda (because it is), an actor simply cannot appropriate the reality/life experience of someone else; this reality/life experience has to be acted by the person living(as in now or in the past) that said experience. Not really a stretch for an actor (or anyone in that profession)! Same with others crying about an actor/actress in fat suit; should it be only played by an overweight person? Bankable star is what it's all about...period. It's a business to make profit.
Historically, Anne Boleyn is a white person...why do you want to change History? Let's make a movie about Rosa Parks portrayed by someone other than a black woman and let's see the "Offended" crowd baying for their head!
Series have, lately, employed actors/actresses who don't fit the "Hollywood norms"(Orange is the new black or This is Us for example) and I'm fine with it; it's well written; there's no token character put in there to please a small segment of a very specific viewership and it's very popular with a wide audience.
Does today's generation "see/understand" TV and movies differently?
- Thread starter blewis17
- Start date
- Status
joberg
Legendary Member
The distinction is simply: History. When you cast someone (anyone for that matter) to represent an historical figure; you'll have to stick to the historical facts! Casting: Anne Boleyn; white actress, between 25 and 40 capable of speaking with an English accent (if not already from the U.K.).
That's it, that's all.
Picard102
Sr Member
I mean you don't really. It's entertainment not a documentary.
The facts are rarely represented truthfully because the goal is entertainment, not accuracy.
Most of the movies about the bible or the middle east, Argo, The Social Network, 21, World Trade Center. All cast people of the wrong race to portray historical figures. Just seems a bit weird to require adherence of actor to roles on one hand, and be against it on the other. That's all.
ScourgiousJinx
Master Member
If the goal is just entertainment then things like race, color, age, gender or sexual orientation should not matter in the slightest. What would be important are the performances themselves not whose playing the roles. Tell that to the Entertainment Industry and see what their response is.
Last edited:
Picard102
Sr Member
What's the argument here? That's it's not about race, or any of those other things?
You're right, it shouldn't matter, but since the dawn of the industry it's been about casting for race, age, color, gender, and sexual orientation.
This isn't new, the only thing that is, is that it's not white people taking the roles of other races etc.
Studios aren't in the business of making entertainment. Their business is making money. The push for diversity is an effort to make a buck, whether it's effective in practice or not.
As a studio bigwig, how do you quantify "good quality work"? How do you make specific demands that produce it? How do you measure the progress?
Even if you do succeed is getting good quality from your hired creators, how do you guarantee that it will make money in a reasonable timeframe? (The archives are full of good movies that under-performed and crappy movies that made millions.)
Quality defies measurement. It defies specific rules. It's a PITA to deal with.
Diversity is easy. "We need _____ percent of the cast from ______ minority groups." A studio boss can work with concepts like that.
As a studio bigwig, how do you quantify "good quality work"? How do you make specific demands that produce it? How do you measure the progress?
Even if you do succeed is getting good quality from your hired creators, how do you guarantee that it will make money in a reasonable timeframe? (The archives are full of good movies that under-performed and crappy movies that made millions.)
Quality defies measurement. It defies specific rules. It's a PITA to deal with.
Diversity is easy. "We need _____ percent of the cast from ______ minority groups." A studio boss can work with concepts like that.
Picard102
Sr Member
Agreed for the most part. The active exclusion of diversity was also seen as a way to guarantee income.
We're just now seeing the other side of the coin where there is an active push to include others.
Whether inclusion makes money or not vs exclusion, is a little harder to quantify. But I'd argue we haven't seen any studio "going broke" because of it yet, and movies like Black Panther being such a huge success show there is a desire for it in the market.
We're just now seeing the other side of the coin where there is an active push to include others.
Whether inclusion makes money or not vs exclusion, is a little harder to quantify. But I'd argue we haven't seen any studio "going broke" because of it yet, and movies like Black Panther being such a huge success show there is a desire for it in the market.
bwayne64
Master Member
Axlotl
Master Member
Really? We're just now including others?
So the '60s, '70s, '80s, and '90s never happened?
There has been diversity in cinema for DECADES. You think Black Panther was the first movie with black people?
Picard102
Sr Member
I'm not sure if you're being intentionally disingenuous, or just unaware at how much hollywood refused to cast roles to people of colour or non heterosexuals. Obviously there will be exceptions, but it's well known that actors hid their sexuality going so far as to marry someone. The first Anne Boleyn of colour, Merle Oberon, went to great lengths to hide her ancestors.
I think the reason why movies seem to keep falling back on the same themes of social grievance in race/gender over and over again is simple. It is because the new breed of writers are coming straight out of college. Their writing and interests will naturally reflect their own life experiences and interests that were prevalent in their formative years in college. Presently the social and political atmosphere in colleges and universities is dominated by issues of race/gender diversity/inclusion. Writers forged in this setting will naturally tend to infuse their creative output with this same sensibility.
On the other hand, great writers and directors of the past often didn't even attend college. They were vaudeville entertainers, gamblers, ranch hands, alcoholics, war veterans etc. They were immigrants or came from broken homes and lived through hard times. Somehow they managed to find their way to the bizarre world of the early film industry. Their movies and writing reflected deep, unique and diverse perspectives fueled by degrees of personal angst. It should come as no surprise that this setting would give rise to great writing and great stories.
On the other hand, great writers and directors of the past often didn't even attend college. They were vaudeville entertainers, gamblers, ranch hands, alcoholics, war veterans etc. They were immigrants or came from broken homes and lived through hard times. Somehow they managed to find their way to the bizarre world of the early film industry. Their movies and writing reflected deep, unique and diverse perspectives fueled by degrees of personal angst. It should come as no surprise that this setting would give rise to great writing and great stories.
Last edited:
Cephus
Master Member
I was thinking today, when I saw a truck plastered in Transformers stickers, what a real shame it is that geek culture went mainstream. Way back in the day, if you found someone who was into Star Trek or Star Wars or anime or whatever, at least you knew something about them. Everyone wasn't identical but at least you knew that you shared something in common with them. They could probably at least hold a decent conversation on the subject and show some understanding.
All of that is gone today. Tons of people you run into today, they know very little about their "fandom" because it's not a fandom anymore. It's just a movie they saw or a TV show they consumed and they know nothing about it beyond that. The guy in the Transformers truck probably wouldn't know what the hell G1 was. He's probably never seen anything beyond the Bay movies. Whereas I, who am hardly a huge fan of the franchise, have still seen tons of the original Japanese series, everything from Headmasters, Masterforce, all of the Beast Wars, right up to when it started getting stupid in the late 2000s.
Could I have an intelligent conversation with the driver of that truck? Probably not. Could we have intelligent conversations with people whose only exposure to Star Trek started with Discovery? No. Or Star Wars with people who started with TFA. Definitely not.
I really wish we could go back to when being geeky wasn't mainstream. At least you had a pretty good idea what you were getting when you met another fan. At least they were likely to actually be a fan of the franchise, not just hanging onto the latest dismal garbage to get dropped on a streaming service for a buck.
All of that is gone today. Tons of people you run into today, they know very little about their "fandom" because it's not a fandom anymore. It's just a movie they saw or a TV show they consumed and they know nothing about it beyond that. The guy in the Transformers truck probably wouldn't know what the hell G1 was. He's probably never seen anything beyond the Bay movies. Whereas I, who am hardly a huge fan of the franchise, have still seen tons of the original Japanese series, everything from Headmasters, Masterforce, all of the Beast Wars, right up to when it started getting stupid in the late 2000s.
Could I have an intelligent conversation with the driver of that truck? Probably not. Could we have intelligent conversations with people whose only exposure to Star Trek started with Discovery? No. Or Star Wars with people who started with TFA. Definitely not.
I really wish we could go back to when being geeky wasn't mainstream. At least you had a pretty good idea what you were getting when you met another fan. At least they were likely to actually be a fan of the franchise, not just hanging onto the latest dismal garbage to get dropped on a streaming service for a buck.
Cephus
Master Member
They actually had life experience, unlike anyone who is writing for TV today, most of them have never had a real job in their lives.
Picard102
Sr Member
Of course. If they don’t agree with you, they aren’t a real fan.
G1... well, I think I could define that:
So do I... many days, it just feels like a barren ocean inhabited mostly by snarks.
ROFL! Talk about "posting"!
On that note: I think the Headless Horseman needs to weigh in on all these people with heads playing him in the Sleepy Hollow movies!
joberg
Legendary Member
Well, if it's under the guise of "Entertainment" then, according to you, anything goes and nothing matters...right
Picard102
Sr Member
It's certainly not under the "guise" of "historical accuracy".Well, if it's under the guise of "Entertainment" then, according to you, anything goes and nothing matters...right
So, I mentioned I watched the Bay Transformers recently. I stuck around to watch the credits to see who did the voice work and surprise, surprise, lookie whose names popped up...
I actually laughed when I saw this. As if I couldn't have guessed these hacks were the perpetrators behind this movie.
- Status
