Oh boy, can’t wait to hear your vision of what you want a woman to be— I mean what a woman is meant to be.. Women; gather around and be seated, you’re about to be told how you were meant to be, I’m sure you can’t wait.Xerxes Worldweaver wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 12:31 pmA reply to Kestas, and a more concrete vision of what a woman is meant to be, is to follow.
Interesting you bring up Peter Pan. In 2015 Rooney Mara was cast as Tiger Lily in Peter Pan. There was internet OUTRAGE over a white actor playing a native American role:JECE wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 4:20 amHonestly, this debate is so absurdly ridiculous.
Just think of the number of times that Peter Pan, a boy, has been cast by a woman. Here are just the most famous versions:
1904: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_Wendy
1924: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pan_(1924_film)
1950: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pan_(1950_musical)
1954: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pan_(1954_musical)
1976: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pan_(1976_musical)
1988: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pan_(1988_film)
1989: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pan ... ted_Series
2004: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finding_Neverland_(film)
2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finding_N ... _(musical)
2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pan_Live!
I'm sure that most can think of a theater production with Peter Pan cast by a woman or girl that they themselves saw at some point without raising an eyebrow.
And for the record, at least two black boys have been cast as Peter Pan too, and the internet (I hope) didn't explode:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_(film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come_Away
But... why? I mean you clearly think massacres, beatings, torture, etc.. is bad. If you are somehow able to make such a utopia that women are never massacred beaten, or tortured, why not just make a utopia that applies to everyone? Because, after all, women are still massacred and beaten during war- the only question is if you personally think they should be allowed to beat others. Hell, those things happen even outside of war to all sexes.Xerxes Worldweaver wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 12:31 pm
I appreciate the tone of semi-friendly sarcasm as an alternative to ad hominems.
To answer your direct questions straightaway,
- No, I don't think making a movie where women are beating the crap out of exclusively other women really fixes the problem. It almost makes it worse - again, it is my position that women were not meant to be soldiers, for the express reason that they were not meant to be massacred, beaten, tortured, traumatized, or any such thing which fighting and war induce.
Blah-blah epistemological questions blah. While I'm sure we have different basic premises, you can't state that everything is impossible before you've even done the first step- defining patriarchy.Xerxes Worldweaver wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 12:31 pm
- No, you cannot prove that the patriarchy is unnatural simply by disbelieving in the patriarchy, just as a desert child cannot prove that snow is unnatural simply by disbelieving in snow. It is because so many people nowadays disbelieve in the patriarchy and outright assault the patriarchy that I think it requires a defence.
- I admit, my appeal to my premises as being 'something everybody knows' was partly laziness on my part. It'd be better said to be 'something I hope everybody knows'. Were I trying to convince someone that genocide is wrong, I would hope that I didn't have to convince him that murder is also wrong. Similarly, if I were to convince you that women shouldn't be soldiers, it is something to go off of if you can agree that the fight scenes which they are a part of in movies are somewhat ridiculous. No such luck, but that's fine. But we do need some kind of common ground if we're not going to argue about literally everything there is to be argued about. Perhaps I should begin by asking if you believe in objective truth? That's not something everyone believes in, but it's absolutely essential if we are to engage in a debate and have it mean something.
1. The feminist critique of patriarchal control is that patriarchy constructs a world wherein women are forced to stay at home, often with violence. If women don't go along with your plans for them, what would you do to stop them?Xerxes Worldweaver wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 12:31 pm
And to answer some of the other things I think I see in your reply:
- If a man has to keep his wife at home by the use of violent force, it was folly for them to marry at all.
- The objectivization of women as sex objects is an abomination, and I want porn abolished so that the men of the world will stop seeing women as toys to be used as they see fit. I would have no one subjected to such a fate as 'breeding sow'.
- "But that's exactly what the patriarchy is, men forcing women to do things they don't want to do." Okay, but might I ask what the government is then? A group of people forcing others to do things they don't want to do, is it not? But a real anarchist is rare. Most of us want some kind of government to protect us from criminals and other countries and so forth. If you want to proceed with a slightly more nuanced line of argument, go ahead - I am putting words in your mouth.
- Believing in the patriarchy does not mean that I believe women are property, just as believing in government does not mean that I believe tyrants should be allowed to do whatever the heck they want.
As the kind of person most likely to get banned, I appreciate your lenience.kestasjk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 9:43 amIve always been more on the site that people should be able to say whatever they want within reason, more than almost all other mods were comfortable with. I always thought it was a waste of mod time getting involved in moderating forums and that people should silence/mute whoever they don’t want to interact with.
Rural Canada, actually. As for being more than a wife/mother... I'll let God correct anything I've said in error. Proverbs 31:10-31, KJV -Lol .. are you posting from rural Afghanistan or something?.. You really don’t know of any women who were successful at more than being a wife/mother? Quite stunning ignorance..Xerxes Worldweaver wrote: ↑Sun Oct 16, 2022 9:26 pmA world of lies... that's what feminism is. A complete refutation of it and a proper defence of the patriarchy is beyond the scope of this post (though it shall be given if requested), but suffice it to say that it is a complete and utter lie that women as a whole were meant to be anything other than wives and mothers. Women were not meant to be soldiers - they are those whom soldiers fight to protect. Their lives are too valuable to be wasted on the battlefield. When we are shown in FSMs that a woman can beat the crap out of a man, we know it's a lie. Whenever a woman orders a man about, we know something's off.
Modern society has done its best to make childrearing and homemaking a detestable thing. It has said and still says that if a woman stays at home and takes care of her husband and children, that it's slavery. On the contrary, it declares that working, slaving night and day for a faceless corporation that gives her money, is freedom. Because in the one she is dependent, and in the other she is independent. Well, I don't deny the dependence and independence. I don't deny that it is in some way 'liberating' for a woman to be able to subsist upon her own income. I just don't think it makes her happier. Married life certainly has the capacity to be miserable if you marry a jerk, and there is no such thing as a perfect marriage, but the woman who does not marry soon ages, and dies. What are you going to die surrounded by? Not your gold. Not your many lovers. Maybe your friends, if you have friends that actually care about you. But not your children, for you had none.Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.
She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar. She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens. She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms. She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night. She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.
She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy. She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet. She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple. Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land. She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.
Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come. She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.
Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.
Some can't bear to have their opinions challenged. I welcome all the challenge this forum can throw at me. If I'm wrong, I want to be corrected. The only way to test the solidity of one's echo chamber is to step out of it.By the way your post was reported but I don’t think it makes any sense to block stuff like this. ... If you block these sorts of opinions they’ll only get posted to places where they’ll be agreed with.
I'm also a Christian in rural Canada. If you're prominent in Saskatchewan circles I probably know your family.Xerxes Worldweaver wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 1:55 pmRural Canada, actually. As for being more than a wife/mother... I'll let God correct anything I've said in error. Proverbs 31:10-31, KJV --snip
Modern society has done its best to make childrearing and homemaking a detestable thing. It has said and still says that if a woman stays at home and takes care of her husband and children, that it's slavery. On the contrary, it declares that working, slaving night and day for a faceless corporation that gives her money, is freedom. Because in the one she is dependent, and in the other she is independent. Well, I don't deny the dependence and independence. I don't deny that it is in some way 'liberating' for a woman to be able to subsist upon her own income. I just don't think it makes her happier. Married life certainly has the capacity to be miserable if you marry a jerk, and there is no such thing as a perfect marriage, but the woman who does not marry soon ages, and dies. What are you going to die surrounded by? Not your gold. Not your many lovers. Maybe your friends, if you have friends that actually care about you. But not your children, for you had none.Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.
She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar. She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens. She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms. She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night. She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.
She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy. She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet. She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple. Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land. She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.
Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come. She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.
Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.
I am not trying to lock the woman in the house; I am merely trying to keep her from locking herself out of the house. For it is in the house that she belongs: without her, the house is simply a house, and not a home. It is in the house that she does the one thing that men quite literally cannot do: bear and raise children. (My one grandmother bore seven children and my other grandmother bore fifteen.)
I have heard of successful female professionals. I do not grudge them their success. But I don't want their hearts to crust over like a dragon's when they grow old, and their sole comfort is the number of possessions that they have. I could say the same thing to men. What are you working for? If you work solely for yourself, I will mock when terror strikes you, when economic collapse and thieves and illness come and take away everything you strove for. For goodness sake, atheists, have some children to whom you can give your possessions, or at least your stories and wisdom. If you believe in no afterlife, that will be your greatest comfort in the face of death.
Yes, women can have both careers and children, but one must take precedence, and I certainly hope for the children's sake that it isn't the career.
I could say more, but I think I've said enough for the present. I await the next barrage of ridicule intermixed with questions.
Dear member,Xerxes Worldweaver wrote: ↑Sun Oct 16, 2022 9:26 pmIf you want a greater mix of views in this forum, I may be able to be of some assistance... provided that I don't get myself banned for my extreme (though hopefully civil) political incorrectness. Perhaps I'll demonstrate what I mean by that in giving my own three cents in answer to the original topic of this discussion.Octavious wrote: ↑Sun Oct 16, 2022 1:22 pmOh? Do you think that the views expressed on the forum reflect the views of the American people, which make up the largest chunk of membership? Do you think the views reflect the typical views of the populations of the wider global community from which we have members? Not at all. What webDip reflects more than anything else is CNN, with a handful of invited guests to give the illusion that a mix of views is represented.
(Reading back through this giant post, I feel as though I bit off more than I could chew. Kindly let me know where my opinions could be improved.)
Before I begin, I feel obliged to inform my audience, such as it is, that I rarely watch movies at all, let alone superhero movies, let alone female superhero movies. That being said I am somewhat familiar with the nature of the stories that underpin them - and it is the stories of the movies which inspire so much hatred. I mean, you can dislike a movie because it's a visual disaster, but to give credit where credit is due, have Marvel or Disney or any other big movie company made a movie in recent memory that's a literal eyesore? Not as far as I'm aware. I hear more often that the actors are terrible or that the script is terrible or, such as with the new Little Mermaid, that the producers are pushing diversity solely for diversity's sake. All three of those faults are, in their own way, the faults of story.
And what makes a story a bad story? I say that there are only two faults that a story can have - it can be boring, and it can be filled with lies. The latter offence is far worse than the first, but female superhero movies are guilty of both. Aye. But allow me to attempt to give this accusation some depth.
Proving that female superhero movies (hereafter referred to as FSMs) are boring is difficult for me since I haven't watched any and consequently cannot be concrete, but here is the synopsis for an imaginary FSM which I hope isn't too much of a strawman:
Hopefully you'll agree with me that this story which I've summarized is rather boring. If you're not quite convinced, imagine that it took me an hour and a half to tell it to you, and perhaps you will be. This generic FSM is good at conveying one thing and one thing only, and that is feminism.Fictitious movie reviewer wrote:Mary Heroine was always bullied in school by straight white men and oppressed by her totalitarian government. Then she got struck by lightning and gained superpowers! Joining the Resistance, an organization headed by a sage old woman who cusses a lot, Mary soon becomes an important figure for her insanely adept use of her powers. Everyone begins doing everything that Mary Heroine says they should do, or if they don't, really bad stuff happens because of it. Mary Heroine is never wrong about anything. Eventually she comes face to face with the villain, another straight white man who has trained for 10,000 years and mastered every type of combat. He says something like 'A woman's place is in the kitchen, go make me a sandwich, Mary,' and Mary shouts in response 'I'll make you a sandwich, alright!' and suffocates him to death with two slices of bread, thus proving the superiority of women over the patriarchy. She then falls in love with a hot [insert diverse race of your choice here] guy, sleeps with him but doesn't marry him, becomes the queen of the universe, and lives happily ever after.
Mary Heroine is never presented with an obstacle which she can't overcome by blasting it harder with her superpower juice, Mary Heroine is never seriously forced to question the morality of her actions, Mary Heroine never treats anyone with any respect at all (especially not her lover), Mary Heroine never has to actually sacrifice anything of her own for the greater good, Mary Heroine never gets beaten by a man that she doesn't get back at in the end.
The story which feminism tells - well, I think it's a blatant lie, but I haven't gotten to that part of the argument yet - but I think it's also the epitome of boring. Feminism tells you (if you're a woman) that you're perfect just as you are, that your only flaw is that you don't believe in yourself hard enough. This comes through clearly in every feminist movie, I should think, and it leads to zero character development (since you can't improve on perfect). Every heroine has to be without flaw, and her only weakness is her lack of complete power at the beginning of the movie. The most notorious, and dare I say defining aspect of FSMs is the ability for the heroine to kick the butts of fully grown, fully armed, and fully armoured men, generally three or four times her size. This always has to happen. Women can't lose a fight, because that would be demeaning...
Et cetera.
Few men in the modern world can bear to admit that they hold erroneous opinions. Acknowledging one's failings is a mark of maturity. Feminists rarely possess such maturity, and the movies they make reflect their lack of maturity. That lack of maturity is what makes their movies boring. They don't want to grow up, because to grow up means that they were somehow imperfect, and their imperfections cannot be admitted. Better to live in a world of lies than to admit the truth.
A world of lies... that's what feminism is. A complete refutation of it and a proper defence of the patriarchy is beyond the scope of this post (though it shall be given if requested), but suffice it to say that it is a complete and utter lie that women as a whole were meant to be anything other than wives and mothers. Women were not meant to be soldiers - they are those whom soldiers fight to protect. Their lives are too valuable to be wasted on the battlefield. When we are shown in FSMs that a woman can beat the crap out of a man, we know it's a lie. Whenever a woman orders a man about, we know something's off.
FSMs try to empower women by making them into, basically, better men. This does not reflect real life, and the subconscious of the masses knows this. Hence the low popularity of such movies.
TL;DR: Female superhero movies are feminist. Feminism refuses to acknowledge that women are imperfect and consequently cannot develop their characters. Feminism is also a big fat lie and to some degree every non-feminist knows it and is repelled by it.
I spent quite a lot of time on this small essay, trying to be convincing, but towards the end I said 'screw it' and let fly my political incorrectness. I doubt anyone has agreed with everything I've said - hopefully I don't get banned from the forum and can reply to the reply which you're probably already typing. I enjoy a good debate; I welcome your disagreement with open arms.
I'll assume that is the entire motive.kestasjk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 9:43 amI realize posting this is a mistake in that it’s an unpopular opinion and it openly invites accusations of racism, but my first instinct was that it was a cynical marketing ploy, on seeing all the debate and people calling any criticism of the trailer racist I still think it’s a cynical marketing ploy, and having had some very smart, logical people give me their best arguments in this thread I still think it’s a cynical marketing ploy.Fluminator wrote: ↑Sun Oct 16, 2022 10:38 pmKestas, just try to take a step back bro. I love playing devil's advocate (to the point half the forum thinks I'm a far-right troll) but this is not it.
Even if everything you said about Disney doing this as some Machiavellian plot to generate controversy to make more money or publicly is true, what does that really change? It shouldn't be controversial in the first place?
JECE and Meme kind of already said all the main points very succinctly.
I think in a few years, you might look back on this and be embarrassed how you bent over backwards trying to justify the backlash against a black mermaid.
I actually think the opposite is true; I think over time as Disney and other studios use this trick and the novelty wears off the criticism and accusations of racism will swing the other way.
When Songs of the South was released by Disney “Zip-a-Dee-doo-dah” got an academy award; it was probably seen as progressive at the time, it’s only with time and hindsight that people started to see it for what it is.
When there was backlash against Captain Marvel, Ghostbusters, or any other woke move, I was with you. There were legitimate other reasons to be upset at the movies. This time it's different because there is literally nothing known about the movie outside of the one trailer yet people are already roasting it, and it revealed to me the true motive behind a lot of these critics.kestasjk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 9:43 amIt changes everything! Intentionally casting a black person in a role that you wouldn’t expect a black person to be cast to generate controversy and get media attention is super cringe. If you looked up tokenism in an illustrated dictionary the illustration should be a Little Mermaid remake poster.Even if everything you said about Disney doing this as some Machiavellian plot to generate controversy to make more money or publicly is true, what does that really change? It shouldn't be controversial in the first place?
Sorry if it disappoints you I’m not of the same opinion here, I’m sure we share the same opinion on lots of things, but until someone points out something I didn’t consider / wasn’t aware of I can’t see how I will change my view on this.
If I went to see the Little Mermaid remake (and I really wouldn’t want to because it would signal Disney to do it again) and somehow the trailer gave a totally wrong impression and it was actually a substantially different movie that you could understand why she was cast for it, say it had some social commentary or made some kind of interesting point, *that* would have to be the main thing I could see changing my mind.
Part of me still finds it hard to believe they made a live-action remake where the *only change* is someone’s skin colour, I think in another timeline Disney would be lampooned for exploitation and racism, so I feel like the trailer has to be an inaccurate representation of the movie being an exact remake.
That’s the only real thing I think could put egg on my face; if it’s not actually an exact remake and they did something clever and interesting, and I say “aaah, that’s why they did this.. okay that makes sense”. But based on Disney’s recent live-action remakes being exactly the same and panned for being a total waste of time, and the only thing that got anyone’s attention from the trailer being someone’s skin colour, I think the cynical marketing ploy explanation is a lot more likely.
First off, that is a no-win situation because the original portrayal of the Indians was racist. Second off, give a real source for your claim that people were outraged. Third off, there is a big difference between changing the ethnicity of a character (which is no big deal) and having an actress of one ethnicity impersonate somebody of another ethnicity (something more delicate to pull off).flash2015 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 12:51 pmInteresting you bring up Peter Pan. In 2015 Rooney Mara was cast as Tiger Lily in Peter Pan. There was internet OUTRAGE over a white actor playing a native American role:JECE wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 4:20 amHonestly, this debate is so absurdly ridiculous.
Just think of the number of times that Peter Pan, a boy, has been cast by a woman. Here are just the most famous versions:
1904: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_Wendy
1924: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pan_(1924_film)
1950: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pan_(1950_musical)
1954: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pan_(1954_musical)
1976: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pan_(1976_musical)
1988: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pan_(1988_film)
1989: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pan ... ted_Series
2004: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finding_Neverland_(film)
2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finding_N ... _(musical)
2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pan_Live!
I'm sure that most can think of a theater production with Peter Pan cast by a woman or girl that they themselves saw at some point without raising an eyebrow.
And for the record, at least two black boys have been cast as Peter Pan too, and the internet (I hope) didn't explode:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_(film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come_Away
https://www.christianpost.com/news/roon ... sy-116113/
Are the people that complained about this casting racist?
You love to ignore facts that you don't like, don't you? If you want more links here you go:JECE wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 3:46 pmFirst off, that is a no-win situation because the original portrayal of the Indians was racist. Second off, give a real source for your claim that people were outraged. Third off, there is a big difference between changing the ethnicity of a character (which is no big deal) and having an actress of one ethnicity impersonate somebody of another ethnicity (something more delicate to pull off).flash2015 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 12:51 pmInteresting you bring up Peter Pan. In 2015 Rooney Mara was cast as Tiger Lily in Peter Pan. There was internet OUTRAGE over a white actor playing a native American role:
https://www.christianpost.com/news/roon ... sy-116113/
Are the people that complained about this casting racist?
Another example - there was an outcry when Emma Stone played a part-JECE wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 3:46 pm
First off, that is a no-win situation because the original portrayal of the Indians was racist. Second off, give a real source for your claim that people were outraged. Third off, there is a big difference between changing the ethnicity of a character (which is no big deal) and having an actress of one ethnicity impersonate somebody of another ethnicity (something more delicate to pull off).
I agree with the criticism in this case, yes. Incidentally, the director/writer and Emma Stone both agree that they made a mistake:flash2015 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 4:14 pmAnother example - there was an outcry when Emma Stone played a part-JECE wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 3:46 pm
First off, that is a no-win situation because the original portrayal of the Indians was racist. Second off, give a real source for your claim that people were outraged. Third off, there is a big difference between changing the ethnicity of a character (which is no big deal) and having an actress of one ethnicity impersonate somebody of another ethnicity (something more delicate to pull off).
Asian character in the movie Aloha. Was that outrage OK...or was it racist?
https://www.theguardian.com/film/shortc ... oha-hawaii
Shakespeare has been interpreted thousands upon thousands of times. Interpretations have been done in many languages too (e.g. Ram-Leela is Romeo And Juliet in Hindi, Haider is Hamlet in Hindi). You do not see that as different to a potentially once in a lifetime movie/series based on a book?JECE wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 4:20 pmNo, you are not understanding me correctly. Are you for real, now? I pointed you above to Ira Aldridge, who was doing just that two centuries ago to critical acclaim. Speaking of ignoring facts, sheesh! (In any case, the Cuban actress that you mention is white. As a Hispanic person myself, I'm pretty insulted that you can't see that.)
They agreed it was a mistake only BECAUSE of the backlash.JECE wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 4:30 pmI agree with the criticism in this case, yes. Incidentally, the director/writer and Emma Stone both agree that they made a mistake:flash2015 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 4:14 pmAnother example - there was an outcry when Emma Stone played a part-JECE wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 3:46 pm
First off, that is a no-win situation because the original portrayal of the Indians was racist. Second off, give a real source for your claim that people were outraged. Third off, there is a big difference between changing the ethnicity of a character (which is no big deal) and having an actress of one ethnicity impersonate somebody of another ethnicity (something more delicate to pull off).
Asian character in the movie Aloha. Was that outrage OK...or was it racist?
https://www.theguardian.com/film/shortc ... oha-hawaii
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_(20 ... ontroversy
Seriously, it was an all-white cast acting out a supposedly serious movie about cultural diversity?
No, I don't see a difference. It's just art. I prefer hyperrealism myself, but I'm not going to go out of my way to condemn impressionist painting as somehow improper. And in this case we're talking about who gets to play a mythical creature, not even a human character.flash2015 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 4:38 pmShakespeare has been interpreted thousands upon thousands of times. Interpretations have been done in many languages too (e.g. Ram-Leela is Romeo And Juliet in Hindi, Haider is Hamlet in Hindi). You do not see that as different to a potentially once in a lifetime movie/series based on a book?
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]
