So honest question, not even trying to bait but why does it matter if a film has "forced" minority roles?

So honest question, not even trying to bait but why does it matter if a film has "forced" minority roles?

There is no objective provable difference in acting skill between races so it doesn't matter if a role is played by a white, a black, or any other kind of person.

>they're pushing an agenda
And what is that agenda? That minorities exist in the real world?

>the minority actors are replacing white actors
The highest grossing actors are still mostly white. And most often minority characters are written as an addition to the white lead.

>SJWs/studios are forcing writers/directors/producers to change their artistic vision
They could always walk away from the movie and shoot the movie they want to shoot under a different studio or independently. If they care so much about the money that they compromise their OWN artistic vision, they are not making movies, they are making products. Plus don't you think it's possible the writer/director/producer all had a minority character envisioned without any pressure from society?

>they changed this established character into a minority for no reason
This is the only acceptable complaint but even then it's just your opinion. The creative staff made an artistic choice of changing an established character. From then on it's up to you whether you agree or disagree with the change.

Other urls found in this thread:

imdb.com/title/tt1823664/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Sup Forums becomes a lot easier to understand when you realize everything they whine about is projection. they complain about agendas because they push agendas. they complain about shills because they're shills. they complain about miscegenation because they secretly visit blacked.com. they assume that because they behave a certain way, everyone must behave the exact same way. it's how they attempt to understand the world.

Because it's forced

Suspension of disbelief is earned, not granted by default. If the character group becomes too implausible based on ethnic makeup or casting against type ( e.g. young black computer genius) it makes it hard for the audience to accept the story. Make the young black guy a rapper who deals a little pot and everyone is along for the ride, even though the filmmakers will get called out for doing it.

In what way is it forced? How do you distinguish between a "forced" minority and an "actual" minority? Can white actors be forced as well?

>not even trying to bait

>So honest question, not even trying to bait but why does it matter if a film has "forced" minority roles?
It upsets racists. That's the end of the discussion.

So characters like John McClane, John Rambo, Frank Martin, etc. are all bad as well? Because I've never seen a white guy who can massacre a ton of bad guys and save the day.

Basically, they're slow learners who have only just realized that casting involves choices, but haven't yet realized that most of what major film producers say about their work is promotional puff. So a producer congratulating themselves for casting black people enrages them, because they honestly think the producers' actions were changed by external influences, as if every big-budget producer isn't calculating like a candidate for public office 100% of the time, as if it had ever been different.

An example: Gone with the Wind's script includes only one use of the word "darkie", where that word and others appear constantly in the book; GWTW was made in 1939 at a time when miscegation was illegal, so the pandering has always happened. Producers want every last dollar they can get.

Also, /poltv/ don't understand art. They think it's the same thing as escapism, and going in with the recollection that real-world calculation was involved spoils it for them. Like I said, slow learners.

Because the character relationships become unidentifiable as authentic to the viewers. There is always racial awareness involved when interacting between races, even among nonracist people. To ignore those differences in explaining why a set of people are involved with each other is alienating, as is not providing a plausible reason for the race mixture.

not sure about pol, but creating roles for a minority / hiring specifically a minority just to fill a demographic rather than to create the best story and experience you can is completely fucking retarded, in my opinion. unless there's a reason for you to only look at one race of actors for a role, it shouldn't be done. especially not to fulfill a political agenda. there are plenty of reasons to hire for race, just like any other physical trait. race can play an important part in story: the wire, django unchained, period pieces all need specific races for the story

>And what is that agenda? That minorities exist in the real world?
You already know the agenda. Everyone on this board is capable of distinguishing roles of minority actors in the past versus the present except for you, apparently.
>The highest grossing actors are still mostly white
Okay? I don't give a shit about money distribution. And "still mostly" doesn't exactly inspire any confidence that that's not going to flip at any moment.
>they are not making movies, they are making products
Uhh yeah, which is what is happening. Minorities are being shoved in films to sell more tickets. So forced minorities are a sign the movie is a shitted out product. Good point.

Not really. I don't expect my movies to preach right wing ideals to me. My favorite movies are pretty apolitical. Hollywood is much more liberal than the rest of the country, so they produce movies with liberal agendas, on purpose or not. Now more so than ever. Forced minority presence is a symptom of this. I don't want to be preached to when I see a movie, and a movie crawling with minorities is typically a good sign that I'm going to be preached to, and I feel more insulted the more the preaching seems to be hidden.

>( e.g. young black computer genius)

Back when Hollywood movies were for adults, it was understood that this kind of thing is aspirational casting. It's as statistically unlikely as all the lawyers Sidney Poitier played, but it's worth encouraging people rather than pushing their noses into the dirt.

>as is not providing a plausible reason for the race mixture.

This is how you think when you never leave the house.

Casting choices where a minority wouldn't be expected are socio-politically motivated.

>There is always racial awareness involved when interacting between races, even among nonracist people

Or, you know, maybe it's just you?

t. brainlet

it's not just him

>If they care so much about the money that they compromise their OWN artistic vision, they are not making movies, they are making products.

>Also, /poltv/ don't understand art. They think it's the same thing as escapism, and going in with the recollection that real-world calculation was involved spoils it for them. Like I said, slow learners.

You two are contradicting each other.

Yeah it's almost like people are allowed to have contrasting opinions.

Basically, they're willing to accept stereotypes, and that's it.

Answers from them in this thread are all saying "it irritates me that Hollywood doesn't pander to my outright white supremacism, even though Hollywood didn't do that even when segregation was in force".

I just think it's weird that you didn't address that discrepancy. Unless you expect those of us who don't like the trend to argue against two contradicting arguments at once?

Because you're sacrificing artistic integrity for politcal statements. I'm mixed myself and think this is absolutely ridiculous. No, I don't sit in the cinema and go ''omg I can insert myself with this character lol''. It's just cringe. Watching Spider-Man: Homecoming was cringe.

Another dick just came through the hole in the wall. Get back to work.

i personally like a film that's consistent before vaguely helping a bunch of people but that's just me. also i am a minority so i can't be racist

>Or, you know, maybe it's just you?

saying "i don't don't see color" is just #whitepeoplethings you closeted racist

Two different people. I'm the second one, and I'd say that producers make products even if those products happen to be great art. You have to have a sense of context, even the most patrician movies had producers who thought in terms of business, or else we'd never have heard of them.

I find it hilarious that all you people do is reply to each other and jerk each other off, rather than arguing with people in the thread. Literally every single time you guys crop up you do this more than anyone else.

>You already know the agenda.
I don't. I've seen some people trying to claim conspiratory shit like Hollywood wants to erase white men from existence but no actual agenda.
>And "still mostly" doesn't exactly inspire any confidence that that's not going to flip at any moment.
And if it did flip? Why would that matter to you?
>and a movie crawling with minorities is typically a good sign that I'm going to be preached to
Would you be just as upset if the movie was preaching ideals that align with yours? The only reason you don't like hollywood movies is because you are unable to upset the other side's point of view.

>create the best story and experience you can
But, say you've got a movie, how do you tell if it's the best movie you can make? Do you have to make a second movie to compare it to? Well no, the judgment is done with your imagination, but that's tricky: the counterfactual is always better because you don't have to confront all the details. And anyway, since a completed work is a unity of its parts, you'd never be able to cleanly say whether it would've been better if the casting were done differently.

Agoraphobia confirmed, thanks for playing.

>They could always walk away from the movie and shoot the movie they want to shoot under a different studio or independently. If they care so much about the money that they compromise their OWN artistic vision, they are not making movies, they are making products. Plus don't you think it's possible the writer/director/producer all had a minority character envisioned without any pressure from society?

Most media where this is scrutinized is rarely art but hollywood blockbusters.

Let me address it then.

If the creator of the movie was forced to change their vision to include minorities, their work is no longer art. It's a product.

If the creater chose on his own volition to include minorities, the movie could still be considered art, in which case the other poster is correct.

Why would I want to argue with /poltv/ racists? The question OP asked isn't going to be answered honestly by a bunch of people who don't even know why they think what they think, but it's interesting to talk about as an observer.

>And what is that agenda? That minorities exist in the real world
Whites are actually the minority in the world. Minorities is a complete misnomer, and many major western cities have so called "minority majorities."

>conspiratory shit like Hollywood wants to erase white men from existence
Is it really that conspiratorial? If you take that to mean producers are meeting in dark rooms, rubbing their hands together with goat heads and child's blood, prepping some doomsday ray to erase the color white from existence, then it's conspiratorial. But you can check tons of big name's twitters bemoaning the prevalence of white males in various aspects of society. To think none of that comes out through their work is naive.
>And if it did flip? Why would that matter to you?
And if movies were 100% white? Why would that matter to you? We both know it would.
>Would you be just as upset if the movie was preaching ideals that align with yours?
Read my post, I answered your question. But would I be just as upset? No. Would a liberal be just as upset at a liberal movie in a right wing Hollywood? No. That's just a matter of proportion.

> we need to insert 1 black guy for awards
> he's been here for already 15 minutes, kill him
> we need to make a black guy the hero of an entire movie, of course for awards
> put him in entirely not black role, they'll eat it anyway
Just don't try if you can't do it properly.

>Is it really that conspiratorial?
Stopped reading. Go clean your tinfoil hat and take your chemtrail antidote.

>If the creator of the movie was forced to change their vision to include minorities, their work is no longer art. It's a product.

I disagree. By the same token, every classical Hollywood movie where the casting had to include a woman the producer was fucking could no longer be called art. Excluding those movies would leave the canon pretty impoverished.

No movie with enough big money behind it to get the attention of the people who post on Sup Forums has ever been made without some degree of calculation. Very few movies are, and most art never has been. No Renaissance painter was free to make Christ look however he pleased, he had to observe certain limits.

That's the same as what's in the OP. It doesn't clear up the discrepancy between you two posters at all. Of course you two aren't going to have the exact same opinion, but if I'm going to argue one way I can hardly do that against two arguments which can't exist together at the same time.

Not an argument.

>the casting had to include a woman the producer was fucking

Depends, was the producer fucking the woman who then used sex as blackmail to be in the movie, or did he offer the woman a role in the movie in exchange for sex?

The latter is the producer's own choice.

Mixed races work well in Star Trek because it's acknowledged in the story that we are in an advanced future where race is not an issue. It works in The Wire because it's expected from the story. Casting against type can be an interesting effect in theater but can also just be cheap shock tactics. Films do it for SJW pr points in many cases. If they don't write the race of the characters into the story like Star Trek did it leaves questions about the story that can sink its ultimate story goals for viewers.

When they complain about muslims raping children is that projection?
When they complain about minorities committing more crime is that projection?
When they complain bout black romans and black vikings in media is that projections?

The jews in hollywood are subverting and demoralising us and useful idiots like you are why they can do it

You yourself are protecting

>To think none of that comes out through their work is naive.

No... to think that they really give a shit is naive. They're excited by a sense of their own righteousness, and they feel like they're making a difference, but then they go do something else, and the reasons for anything that gets into a big-budget movie are entirely financial.

The real issue is that people who spend all day on the internet are looking at people who are just keeping their hands in during a busy professional life, and overreacting.

Because pol is not a monolith and engagement with people you don't agree with can be productive for society?

>>The jews in hollywood are subverting and demoralising us
>I'm sad because a movie has black guys

Grow a pair you fucking manbaby.

>why does it matter if a film has "forced" minority roles?
because its forced and even offensive at times. It takes away from reality and only exists to attract a wider audience, its no different than a film purposely being cutting scenes to get a PG-13 rating. There are only two reasons to do it, and both of them involve jews.

Producers aren't artists. All producer influence is the same kind of compromise.

I'm Hispanic. When a studio makes a character brown for no other discernible reason than because they think the film needs more browns, then that tells me that they think I'm so stupid that I'll say "He has the same skin color as I do! Now I can clap! The character may not be well written or the actor playing him may suck, but at least I can say he's not white! The rich studio executives truly understand my life, and what I want to see in fiction, God bless them!"

Shit like that is incredibly insulting.

Sup Forums is an ideology. I'm not going to waste time on people who literally rant about "the Jews".

swetie that's sexist

If we're going to limit it to these huge films, then these films are nothing more than a product. If you're the user I think you are from this thread, that's what you've been saying. But in that case forced minorities can just be seen as an omen of a shitty, mass appeal movie. Whether you work them out to be a cause or an effect, the result doesn't reflect positively on the trend either way and I feel that justifies the "Sup Forums" opinion, either for the right or wrong reasons. Direct or indirect.

>entirely not black role
Such as?

>How do you distinguish between a "forced" minority and an "actual" minority?

The worst offender--Human Torch in Fan4stic is a forced "minority" role because they literally made the Johnny Storm black. At least write a new fucking character if you're going to change the race of an established character.

They wanted to make a black Spiderman so they made wrote a black kid into the story who takes the role as the new Spiderman. That's an actual minority.

>So honest question, not even trying to bait but why does it matter if a film has "forced" minority roles?

It's like detox. Body takes lots of drugs and then it stops. You can't expect the body to just "okay, this is the way it works now". The body will fight, "I want more, where are my drugs!". Withdrawal.

Same with movies. White people got 100 years of white male dominated films. Now when that's beginning to change, they don't wanna accept that. "Where are white males in MY films? Why there are so many niggers, women, trannies, in MY films?"

They can whine, bitch all they want. But this is the future of entertainment. Whatever they like it or not. In the future they will accept that. 5 years. 10 years. 20 years. But they will accept that. Adapt or die.

>instead of trying to convince people that I'm right I'll just ignore them and scream about how much I hate them
wew lad

>Adapt or die.
or just don't go see a movie

ever hear "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link"? that's why I can't stand the forced diversity, nor female soldiers, or other silly tropes that are worst than forced memes.

What about Terminator 2? Black computer genius. Maybe only based Jim can pull it off.

>reddit spacing
you must go back.

You're starting to realizes that "forced minorities" is just a dogwhistle. They hold the perception that you have to provide a reason for a character not being a white male.

I haven't screamed about hating anyone. The people I'm not bothering with literally do that. I wouldn't seek to convince people not to believe in their religion, and anti-Semitism is the religion of /poltv/, so enjoy.

I'm sure black people would be thrilled if Tyler Perry movies or Madea Goes to Hell III were "artistically chosen" by some new rightwing producer to have a new, primarily white cast. Everyone gets to look out for their own interests and openly push for their own people except whites.

>primarily white cast

When was an all-white film franchise ever turned to a primarily black cast? Minorities still only play minor roles in most movies.

It’s all about economics at the end of the day. Back when the film industry didn’t make a billion dollars per movie, no one gave a shit if it’s only white actors. When Star Wars came out, it was just a tiny space opera. Now that there’s tons of money, everyone wants easy money. I bet you, if you made a modest indie movie today, no one would bitch about equality or social justice because you didn’t hire minorities.

Rocky with Creed, bet you didn't think I could pull one out of my hat
>Minorities still only play minor roles in most movies.
It should be less. Why? Well why should it be more?

>brings up an example that's a great movie regardless of the changes

Man you sure disproved my point!

Don't be upset because I got one when you were sure I couldn't. The crux of my point doesn't rely on one existing or not existing. Unless you thought it would be bad for a white film franchise to have its cast replaced by minority actors? I'm going to hazard a guess to say you did not until you got caught in a little logical trap.

What do white people have that's exclusively "theirs" anymore?
Without some isolation, individual cultures do not develop.

Except you were saying black people would be outraged if a primarily black movie was whitewashed. I also read an implication from your post that this whitewashing would lower the quality of the movie causing fan outrage.

I wanted you to mention an example where the blackwashing of a movie lowered its quality and caused fan outrage. Creed is not an example of this.

>why does it matter if a film has "forced" minority roles?
It just straight up doesn't make sense to have middle ages english kinds being played by black guys. Would you support if white actors were playing ancient african kings? No of course not. Its fucking ridiculous.

>Would you support if white actors were playing ancient african kings? No of course not. Its fucking ridiculous.

Any movie that adapts the Bible especially the old testament.

This, the odds of a brilliant scientist or computer genius or whatever being black are astronomically low in real life but this type of character is being pushed HARD in movies. It's a subtle form of brainwashing that makes people more tolerant of things like affirmative action which is forced diversity in real life with real consequences. Lowering the standards for black doctors and surgeons for example is utter insanity. The people pushing this bullshit value forced diversity over human life.

>Except you were saying black people would be outraged if a primarily black movie was whitewashed.
I was.
>I also read an implication from your post that this whitewashing would lower the quality of the movie
I was not implying that. What I also did not imply was that black people would be wrong in getting upset by this, because I don't think they would be. They'd be justified in their anger, whether it was a complete whitewash or even just too much white inclusion for their taste. However, I extend that principle to my own race as well unlike self-flagellating whites with guilty consciences. Individual cultures can interact civilly, but I see no good coming from diluting everyone's cultures into one big slop.

imdb.com/title/tt1823664/
less "fan outrage", more "it's shit and forgettable"

The thing that gets me is the vast majority of the time when Hollywood wants a minority they're either going for a black man or a white woman, while hispanics, asians, indians with the feather, etc. all have to fight for the scraps.

Hell WB even turned Deadshot in the Suicide Squad movie black when he's always been hispanic.

Personally if a movie is being written about an established character its better to leave their shit as in tact as possible (IE no fat female asian batman).
If a movie is entirely OC territory go fuck wild with it doing what ever
If a movie is a historical piece or based in a certain time period in a certain area of the planet, just try to keep the shit right (don't need blacks fighting cowboys on the Great Wall of China while mexican vikings are charging)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy

>why does it matter if a film has "forced" minority roles
Because the reasoning for it is flimsy.
Why is it necessary that it does?

If anything, this is the worst possible time to do social experiments with theaters losing more and more money and closing down.

>Hell WB even turned Deadshot in the Suicide Squad movie black when he's always been hispanic.

>Floyd Lawton
>hispanic

Huh.

good thing its fiction


and also, at least be honest. Your suspension of disbelief was never hurt by any of this before the extreme state of current identity politics. You can see a black hacker character in the 80s and not blow a fucking gasket

if suspension if disbelief at the most fundamental level is this much of a problem, then you cant watch anything in the genre of science fiction, let alone see a black guy use a computer

See the director/studio or whatever would just hire a jewish actor and push the "JEWISH" big time.
>youre arguing why Seth Rogan is playing a african KANG!!!???
>YOU'RE ANTISEMITIC

out of all the racial groups in hollywood, jews get to double dip when it suits them
>white when you need to
>jewish when you need to

looks like you got me

but i guess star wars episode 5 is just complete bullshit because ive never seen a white guy lift anything with his mind

do you see how this shit doesnt get you very far? you're looking for an excuse to project your views of the world onto fiction and even if it were true that no black person can be heroic or understand a math equation, this doesnt extend to fiction because this falls apart once you step into the realm of white guys who have done impossible shit in movies

it
is
fiction

who fucking cares

Identity politics are in such an extreme state they're apparently only reflected by a certain portion of the white male audience yet not at all by Hollywood itself, which leans towards one side on the issue harder than anywhere else in the country. Amazing that none of that could come through in the film making and could turn people off. Funny how that works.

It matters because I'm insecure about myself and I see other races as a threat to my virginity. I feel as if that I am surrounded by people who only consist of my own race, the rate at which I may be able to reproduce would be higher, but the deep truth is I'm an ugly fucker who will never be laid.

I think maybe if I stopped being a virgin, I'd stop being a racist.

>I feel as if that I am surrounded by people who only consist of my own race, the rate at which I may be able to reproduce would be higher
But we all know the reverse to be true. Hey, I think you may have accidentally stumbled on to something.

This stuff is the tip of the iceberg for SJWs
It starts with things like the Bechdel Test, the SJWs say "there's not enough women or POC or whatever" and then it just seems to keep going and going. And I don't think I've ever seen them ask for things that directly improve the movie like better writing, acting, cinematography, vfx, etc. It's kind of proved by how people will stick up for the new Star Wars despite all it's plot holes.
I'm not clued into the SJW point of view but I shudder to think what they'll demand to have crammed into movies next.

male2female trans playing female characters.

On the plus side the acting quality is bound to go up

How am I going to know what female characters are safe to jerk off to then?

trigger warnings will start playing before movies start

>inb4 little sound proof boxes that you can't see out of called mini safe spaces you will bring with you into theaters that you can put on your head anytime something triggers a viewer

Are you an Asian male?

>Adapt or die.
Yes, that's what's gonna happen to Hollywood

Die Hard has a black computer specialist too. Go suck Cameron's dick soemwhere else.

I can't recall a single Star Wars fan actually complaining about diversity in TLJ though. Sure, there were retards even during TFA times but literally nobody is bashing TLJ for diversity reasons. A GOOD movie is great regardless of the characters ethnicity. People don't love Fresh Prince or Cosby Show due to the black actors but because the shows were well written. The only people who can't shut the fuck up about diversity are racists and SJWs whom I see as equally retarded

Get a fucking life and like good shows/movies while hating on bad shows/movies

>but because the shows were well writte

Why were the Cosbys different shades of brown?

They try to re wire your assumptions about other races
>the father like and wise black figure of authority
>the unquestionably intelligent Asian
>the foolhardy and naive whitey
>the hypocritical and aggressive Christian
>the relatable normal guy Jew
Etc

you know damn well that ma cosby fucked some whitebois

Here's why: The National Basketball League (NBA) doesn't have "forced" minority roles. The black people playing for the NBA just happen to be the best guys for the job. They're not "diversity hires." Black people tend to grow up playing basketball (also American Football) and they become skilled at these sports, they are highly sought after as professional sportsmen, and are paid salaries that signal an obvious demand.
This is not how it works in Hollywood. They aren't picking the most talented people and it shows in the work. People are invested in certain intellectual properties and it pisses them off to see low quality products in the name of naked pandering.

Yup creeds son should have been white

Entertaining the very concept of "representation" as worth considering illustrates little respect for the project or the audience. If you need to have a character resemble you more/have experiences that match your own to empathize, the problem is YOU. As an artist, you either have little interesting to say, or as the audience, you watch movies for the wrong reasons. If someone said they couldn't care about the characters in, say, Memoirs of a Geisha, we'd say they were racist or sexist because they couldn't empathize with Asian females. By the same measure, if you infer that a minority audience cannot identify with Superman because he's a white male, you demonstrate a lack of respect for that audience. If it turns out it's TRUE, then those audience members don't deserve to have products tailored to them, regardless of race. Movies are not tracts on how to behave, nor are they supposed to make us feel better about ideas we already have. If these are your intentions, your movie has failed before it has been filmed, and an audience member has a right to be angry at you for deciding you have the right to tell me how to live.

>>IF YOU REALLY WANT TO COMMUNICATE SOMETHING;EMOTION, ATTITUDE, LET ALONE IDEA, THE LEAST EFFECTIVE, LEAST ENJOYABLE WAY IS DIRECTLY. GET TO THE POINT WHERE PEOPLE HAVE TO THINK A MOMENT WHAT IT IS YOU’RE GETTING AT, THEN DISCOVER IT; THE THRILL OF DISCOVERY GOES THROUGH TO THE HEART.

Kubrick

>>FILMS THAT GIVE SIMPLE ANSWERS ARE ULTIMATELY MORE CYNICAL, AS THEY DENY THE VIEWER ROOM TO THINK.

Haneke

>>NEVER TRY TO CONVEY YOUR IDEA TO THE AUDIENCE–IT IS A THANKLESS AND SENSELESS TASK. SHOW THEM LIFE, AND THEY’LL FIND WITHIN THEMSELVES THE MEANS TO ASSESS AND APPRECIATE IT.

Tarkovsky

>>IT'S NOT THE JOB OF THE ARTIST TO GIVE THE AUDIENCE WHAT THE AUDIENCE WANTS. IF THE AUDIENCE KNEW WHAT THEY NEEDED, THEN THEY WOULDN'T BE THE AUDIENCE. THEY WOULD BE THE ARTISTS. IT IS THE JOB OF ARTISTS TO GIVE THE AUDIENCE WHAT THEY NEED.

Nolan