User Tag List

First 678

Results 71 to 72 of 72

  1. #71
    Senior Member Passacaglia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    647

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    I promise you, I'm a whole hell of a lot less "butt hurt" than I may otherwise appear.
    I suspected as much, which is why I originally replied to you rather than one of the others who also appear to be jumping up and down, thanks to the filter of the internet. You seem like you might be more reasonable than most.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Of course this is ignoring another part of the problem is which is that we're in a democracy. If people didn't like the movies then they wouldn't go. If Hollywood's a list wasn't full of white guys then you'd get more variety. If the majority support the current setup then why, on a democracy, are we looking at altering it? Unless of course we're saying that an absolute democracy isn't the best idea, which would be interesting but certainly not surprising. Also how many "non white" people want to be in films? Is it proportional or are we responding in some knee jerk fashion to a guilty complex handed down from our forebears?
    I think that thinking of Hollywood as a democracy, and that the current A list reflects a natural equilibrium, are inaccurate assumptions. Hollywood is a sprawling culture of performers and businessmen, driven in part by the cultural inertia of the past, as much of the world is. (Unfortunately, IMO. If we weren't so inertia-driven, Hollywood wouldn't have such a monopoly on filmmaking.) Like other cultures, Hollywood doesn't instantly reform itself according to our ever-progressing understanding of people and cultural problems. Which is why people make a fuss about active diversification.

    And I think that asking "How many non-white people want to be in films?" is like asking "How many non-white people want happiness, success, spiritual fulfillment, money, etc.?" My reply is "Do we really need extensive studies to answer this question, when our history has shown time and time again that people are basically people, whatever their color is?" I'm sure you lack ulterior motive when you ask these questions, but they do sound like the questions that bigots throw out to cast doubt on progress. "Well maybe the slaves don't want to be freed...maybe the blacks and women don't want to vote. They are different from us, after all. How can we really know?"

    I'm not trying to paint you as a bigot, or to say that I don't have mixed opinions about active diversification when it comes to enforcing it with laws. We do [nominally] live in a meritocracy. But [temporarily] giving a traditionally white role to a minority actor to give fans of that minority a little psychological/cultural boost? Maybe not the best way to diversify the film industry, but not worth fussing over either, IMO.

  2. #72
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Passacaglia View Post
    I suspected as much, which is why I originally replied to you rather than one of the others who also appear to be jumping up and down, thanks to the filter of the internet. You seem like you might be more reasonable than most.
    Thanks. One does try.

    U could make some jokes in reference to your parentage or your upbringing if you'd like though. I can go either way :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Passacaglia View Post
    I think that thinking of Hollywood as a democracy, and that the current A list reflects a natural equilibrium, are inaccurate assumptions. Hollywood is a sprawling culture of performers and businessmen, driven in part by the cultural inertia of the past, as much of the world is. (Unfortunately, IMO. If we weren't so inertia-driven, Hollywood wouldn't have such a monopoly on filmmaking.) Like other cultures, Hollywood doesn't instantly reform itself according to our ever-progressing understanding of people and cultural problems. Which is why people make a fuss about active diversification.

    And I think that asking "How many non-white people want to be in films?" is like asking "How many non-white people want happiness, success, spiritual fulfillment, money, etc.?" My reply is "Do we really need extensive studies to answer this question, when our history has shown time and time again that people are basically people, whatever their color is?" I'm sure you lack ulterior motive when you ask these questions, but they do sound like the questions that bigots throw out to cast doubt on progress. "Well maybe the slaves don't want to be freed...maybe the blacks and women don't want to vote. They are different from us, after all. How can we really know?"

    I'm not trying to paint you as a bigot, or to say that I don't have mixed opinions about active diversification when it comes to enforcing it with laws. We do [nominally] live in a meritocracy. But [temporarily] giving a traditionally white role to a minority actor to give fans of that minority a little psychological/cultural boost? Maybe not the best way to diversify the film industry, but not worth fussing over either, IMO.
    Oh I'm sure the business model I'd complicated and the reality of the situation to beyond the grasp of this discussion. I'm also sure that the number of people making money in entertainment of all backgrounds is more of a rebellion than the establishment. Having said that I'm also sure that many decide that this character or that should be changed for the largest shock and awe value which is not really the best approach in my eyes. It does seem that once an idea for "forced" (don't like the word but I can't think of anything better right now) evolution comes along there's far too many who jump on the bandwagon instead of actively engaging in the ideas put forth. Their motivations are likely as complex as the industry they are addressing but I am never comfortable with the whole mob rule idea. It just never seems to produce good results. Mind you I never watched the new battlestar almost purely in the grounds that I didn't like the whole "let's change the womaniser into a woman" concept. I much preferred Space: Above & Beyond because it had roles for females without trying so hard to be pc.

    And I do get how I might come across but this will never get anywhere unless people are honest. I'm sure many ists and isms are levelled at me but that just tends to be people who don't want to discuss the subject for whatever reason. I'm glad there's still some who value finding out an opinion rather than assuming it.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?
    Likes Passacaglia liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. How is attacking welfare and government going to change anything?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 05-24-2012, 01:14 PM
  2. Extroverts and Introverts and how much they enjoy/enjoyed the bar/club scene?
    By Venom in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 10-23-2008, 09:54 PM
  3. How literally should the Bible be interpreted?
    By Kiddo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 130
    Last Post: 02-02-2008, 07:32 PM
  4. How literally should the constitution be taken?
    By Nocapszy in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 12-19-2007, 10:41 PM
  5. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-08-2007, 08:30 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO