webdiplomacy.net

JECE wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 6:02 pm

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 4:38 pm

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?

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.

And no, by the way, it won't be once in a lifetime. The old Disney version of the Little Mermaid still exists. Other non-Disney versions still exist. And there will be new versions in the future.

You keep referring to Little Mermaid...but when did I say I cared about it?

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 4:48 pm

JECE wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 4:30 pm

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 4:14 pm

Another example - there was an outcry when Emma Stone played a part-
Asian character in the movie Aloha. Was that outrage OK...or was it racist?

https://www.theguardian.com/film/shortc ... oha-hawaii

I agree with the criticism in this case, yes. Incidentally, the director/writer and Emma Stone both agree that they made a mistake:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_(20 ... ontroversy

Seriously, it was an all-white cast acting out a supposedly serious movie about cultural diversity?

They agreed it was a mistake only BECAUSE of the backlash.

You are saying right here that it is now OK to criticize the racial casting in a movie when it doesn't match the movie/book. If you are accepting this, I don't know how you can complain about others doing the same thing.

Who cares whether it was only because of the backlash? Somebody had to tell them that an all-white cast cannot effectively be the message-bearer of cultural diversity in a serious movie. So what?

Do you really think that what you're doing is similar? I mean seriously, look back at this exchange and reflect:

JECE wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 1:57 am

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 12:41 am

Fluminator wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 12:19 am

I didn't hear too much backlash when they did a film on Abaraham Lincoln and made him into a vampire slayer which was probably not quite historically accurate.

The movie about Abraham Lincoln the vampire slayer was never meant to be taken seriously so I am not sure how that is relevant.

How on Earth is a children's movie about a mermaid meant to be taken seriously?

JECE wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 6:20 pm

They agreed it was a mistake only BECAUSE of the backlash.

You are saying right here that it is now OK to criticize the racial casting in a movie when it doesn't match the movie/book. If you are accepting this, I don't know how you can complain about others doing the same thing.

Who cares whether it was only because of the backlash? Somebody had to tell them that an all-white cast cannot effectively be the message-bearer of cultural diversity in a serious movie. So what?

So why is it wrong for people to complain about casting for "Rings Of Power" which gets Tolkein wrong and makes no sense?

Do you really think that what you're doing is similar? I mean seriously, look back at this exchange and reflect:

JECE wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 1:57 am

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 12:41 am

The movie about Abraham Lincoln the vampire slayer was never meant to be taken seriously so I am not sure how that is relevant.

How on Earth is a children's movie about a mermaid meant to be taken seriously?

Again, when did I say I cared about Little Mermaid? Stop straw manning me!

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 6:07 pm

JECE wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 6:02 pm

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 4:38 pm

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?

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.

And no, by the way, it won't be once in a lifetime. The old Disney version of the Little Mermaid still exists. Other non-Disney versions still exist. And there will be new versions in the future.

You keep referring to Little Mermaid...but when did I say I cared about it?

None of us care about the Little Mermaid

But you appeared to intervene here on that subject:
viewtopic.php?p=317452#p317452

If your argument is that black people shouldn't show up in historical dramas about medieval and Renaissance Europe or something like that, whatever. Look up people like Sir Morien of Arthurian legend, Samuel Pallache, Juan de Pareja and Juan Latino, who even became a university professor. People travel even when there aren't large empires like Rome and Persia.

JECE wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 6:46 pm

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 6:07 pm

JECE wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 6:02 pm

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.

And no, by the way, it won't be once in a lifetime. The old Disney version of the Little Mermaid still exists. Other non-Disney versions still exist. And there will be new versions in the future.

You keep referring to Little Mermaid...but when did I say I cared about it?

None of us care about the Little Mermaid

But you appeared to intervene here on that subject:
viewtopic.php?p=317452#p317452

If your argument is that black people shouldn't show up in historical dramas about medieval and Renaissance Europe or something like that, whatever. Look up people like Sir Morien of Arthurian legend, Samuel Pallache, Juan de Pareja and Juan Latino, who even became a university professor. People travel even when there aren't large empires like Rome and Persia.

I specifically was commenting on Fluminator's question "why is diversity for diversity's sake a bad thing?" That's it.

You keep straw manning me. I am NOT arguing that non-white people shouldn't show up in historical dramas. I am arguing that if you do it has to make sense...otherwise it can detract from the story.

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 6:26 pm

JECE wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 6:20 pm

They agreed it was a mistake only BECAUSE of the backlash.

You are saying right here that it is now OK to criticize the racial casting in a movie when it doesn't match the movie/book. If you are accepting this, I don't know how you can complain about others doing the same thing.

Who cares whether it was only because of the backlash? Somebody had to tell them that an all-white cast cannot effectively be the message-bearer of cultural diversity in a serious movie. So what?

So why is it wrong for people to complain about casting for "Rings Of Power" which gets Tolkein wrong and makes no sense?

I don't want to get into that debate. Movies often change plot points from the book version. Historical dramas often merge historical figures into composite characters. In fact, I was just reading an article the other day about how Glorfindel was cut from even the extended version of The Fellowship of the Ring, and how merging his role into other elven characters (that did make the final cut) served to elevate a female character to a leading role when Tolkien's original work had few female protagonist roles.

JECE wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 7:01 pm

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 6:26 pm

JECE wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 6:20 pm

Who cares whether it was only because of the backlash? Somebody had to tell them that an all-white cast cannot effectively be the message-bearer of cultural diversity in a serious movie. So what?

So why is it wrong for people to complain about casting for "Rings Of Power" which gets Tolkein wrong and makes no sense?

I don't want to get into that debate. Movies often change plot points from the book version. Historical dramas often merge historical figures into composite characters. In fact, I was just reading an article the other day about how Glorfindel was cut from even the extended version of The Fellowship of the Ring, and how merging his role into other elven characters (that did make the final cut) served to elevate a female character to a leading role when Tolkien's original work had few female protagonist roles.

And people are allowed to have opinions on the merits of those decisions...even if you disagree with them.

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 7:02 pm

And people are allowed to have opinions on the merits of those decisions...even if you disagree with them.

That is far from where you started:

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 6:59 pm

I specifically was commenting on Fluminator's question "why is diversity for diversity's sake a bad thing?" That's it.

Yet you now seem to be OK with diversity for diversity's sake, at least when it comes to Shakespeare productions from the past two centuries. That's enough, I guess. At least you have a somewhat open mind about diversity for diversity's sake being a good thing.

Everyone go touch grass

JECE wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 8:27 pm

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 7:02 pm

And people are allowed to have opinions on the merits of those decisions...even if you disagree with them.

That is far from where you started:

I don't see any change. The idea being pushed was that if you didn't like "diversity for diversity sake" choices it was automatically wrong/racist. That was the nonsense I was arguing against. There are legitimate reasons why some people may get upset with some of these casting choices.

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 6:59 pm

I specifically was commenting on Fluminator's question "why is diversity for diversity's sake a bad thing?" That's it.

Yet you now seem to be OK with diversity for diversity's sake, at least when it comes to Shakespeare productions from the past two centuries. That's enough, I guess. At least you have a somewhat open mind about diversity for diversity's sake being a good thing.

The way you are wording it here by saying this is a case of "diversity for diversity's sake" suggests that Ira Aldridge didn't get his roles by merit but only because he was black to drive an agenda. If that isn't what you meant then it wasn't "diversity for diversity's sake".

There are legitimate reasons why some people may get upset with some of these casting choices.

What might qualify as a legitimate reason exactly? Black actors have every right to have their talent demonstrated (same with other crew members, writers, directors etc.) What legitimate reason is there to deny this fact, without being racist?

orathaic wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 18, 2022 12:42 am

There are legitimate reasons why some people may get upset with some of these casting choices.

What might qualify as a legitimate reason exactly? Black actors have every right to have their talent demonstrated (same with other crew members, writers, directors etc.) What legitimate reason is there to deny this fact, without being racist?

If you can skip the straw manning, didn't I just make that case over the past couple of pages?

You seemed to try and make the case that you don't know what suspension of disbelief is:

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 16, 2022 11:29 pm

Fluminator wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 16, 2022 9:58 pm

Xerxes Worldweaver wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 16, 2022 9:26 pm

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.

There's so much to comment on here and on so many other posts here, but I just have to quickly ask, why is diversity for diversity's sake a bad thing?

So you would be OK with a film on Abraham Lincoln with Lincoln played by Idris Elba, a film on MLK where MLK is played by Chow Yun Fat and a film on Queen Elizabeth the First played by Penelope Cruz? That would be more diverse so that would be good, right?

Diversity like we have now in the USA is a very, very recent thing. Historically this was not the case. What you looked like could often determine where you came from. When you try to inject diversity into historical or pseudo-historical films (which fantasy films often are) without **any** logical reason how this could have happened it detracts from the story.

Here is a recent article from Newsweek complaining how the haphazard diversity added in House Of The Dragon was clumsy and made little sense:

https://www.newsweek.com/house-dragons- ... on-1742022

Just so there is no confusion the author is Angie Paccione, an African American.

There is this thing called suspension of disbelief. Like people watch star wars and don't it detects from the story that magic and space flight are a thing.

House of the Dragon may do whatever it wants regarding racial diversity exactly because it is fantasy not any specific historical era. They can arbitration make a setting where the internal logic makes sense and suspension of disbelief keeps the audience with the plot (like having fire breathing Dragons, which are not historically accurate).

To make a historical film with 'what is Abraham Lincoln had been a vampire hunter?' or 'what if Lincoln had been Black' does require you to create a narrative where they premise makes some sense and has some internal logic.

But that's it. Internal logic, can you sit down and enjoy the story for itself?

orathaic wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 18, 2022 5:00 pm

You seemed to try and make the case that you don't know what suspension of disbelief is:

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 16, 2022 11:29 pm

Fluminator wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 16, 2022 9:58 pm

There's so much to comment on here and on so many other posts here, but I just have to quickly ask, why is diversity for diversity's sake a bad thing?

So you would be OK with a film on Abraham Lincoln with Lincoln played by Idris Elba, a film on MLK where MLK is played by Chow Yun Fat and a film on Queen Elizabeth the First played by Penelope Cruz? That would be more diverse so that would be good, right?

Diversity like we have now in the USA is a very, very recent thing. Historically this was not the case. What you looked like could often determine where you came from. When you try to inject diversity into historical or pseudo-historical films (which fantasy films often are) without **any** logical reason how this could have happened it detracts from the story.

Here is a recent article from Newsweek complaining how the haphazard diversity added in House Of The Dragon was clumsy and made little sense:

https://www.newsweek.com/house-dragons- ... on-1742022

Just so there is no confusion the author is Angie Paccione, an African American.

There is this thing called suspension of disbelief. Like people watch star wars and don't it detects from the story that magic and space flight are a thing.

House of the Dragon may do whatever it wants regarding racial diversity exactly because it is fantasy not any specific historical era. They can arbitration make a setting where the internal logic makes sense and suspension of disbelief keeps the audience with the plot (like having fire breathing Dragons, which are not historically accurate).

To make a historical film with 'what is Abraham Lincoln had been a vampire hunter?' or 'what if Lincoln had been Black' does require you to create a narrative where they premise makes some sense and has some internal logic.

But that's it. Internal logic, can you sit down and enjoy the story for itself?

I was assuming this argument would come out eventually - "since it is fantasy or science fiction, then internal consistency shouldn't matter at all and you are wrong to complain". I would disagree with that - internal consistency matters A LOT. If you look at reviews/commentary on fantasy/science fiction movies, inconsistency is one of the biggest complaints. Tolkein especially was not a one off book, it was a world building exercise that he had gone through over decades. It is not your right to tell another person what is allowed to be important to them and what is not.

People have always complained when characters do not match books too. For example Jack Reacher was supposed to be a big, tall person but for the movie they shot a midget, Tom Cruise. I thought the movie was OK but I won't deny people the right to be upset that the character didn't match the book.

And there are many, many examples of complaints about white characters playing non-white characters in fiction/non-fiction/fantasy movies (I mentioned two above in response to JECE - one fantasy and one just fiction). There are complaints about non-gay/non-transgender actors playing gay/transgender roles too. If these complaints are OK, I don't see why it is then wrong to complain about non-white actors in roles which people believe don't make sense or don't match the source material.

I disagree that fantasy is not tied to historical periods - a lot of fantasy is based on a middle ages time period with historical mythology built in (e.g. like dragons).

orathaic wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 18, 2022 5:00 pm

To make a historical film with 'what is Abraham Lincoln had been a vampire hunter?' or 'what if Lincoln had been Black' does require you to create a narrative where they premise makes some sense and has some internal logic.

This is what I was arguing - if you are going to do it it has to make sense. It cannot be "I will cast Lincoln to be black" for "diversity for diversity's" sake.

I take everything on a case by case basis, and in the case of the mermaid, I think it's stupid at best to be upset about it.

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 18, 2022 5:43 pm

orathaic wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 18, 2022 5:00 pm

To make a historical film with 'what is Abraham Lincoln had been a vampire hunter?' or 'what if Lincoln had been Black' does require you to create a narrative where they premise makes some sense and has some internal logic.

This is what I was arguing - if you are going to do it it has to make sense. It cannot be "I will cast Lincoln to be black" for "diversity for diversity's" sake.

I literally said only internal consistency matters, the corrollary is that if your fantasy series is inspired by history, it doesn't matter what differences you add, so long as you are internally consistent.

That said, it IS entirely possibly to create art where the point is to break expectations and thus not require internal consistency (i don't know that it makes good storytelling, but it can still be art).

What it comes down to is, if you don't want to talk about it, you are free to ignore it. There is no onus on you to engage with the latest Disney film, nor for you to give Disney free advertising and brain space by complaining about it (kind the opposite of what Kestas said). And if you do want to engage, but don't like what they have produced, you are free to go out and create your own works of art (ie put your money where your mouth is).

orathaic wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 19, 2022 8:14 am

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 18, 2022 5:43 pm

orathaic wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 18, 2022 5:00 pm

To make a historical film with 'what is Abraham Lincoln had been a vampire hunter?' or 'what if Lincoln had been Black' does require you to create a narrative where they premise makes some sense and has some internal logic.

This is what I was arguing - if you are going to do it it has to make sense. It cannot be "I will cast Lincoln to be black" for "diversity for diversity's" sake.

I literally said only internal consistency matters, the corrollary is that if your fantasy series is inspired by history, it doesn't matter what differences you add, so long as you are internally consistent.

That said, it IS entirely possibly to create art where the point is to break expectations and thus not require internal consistency (i don't know that it makes good storytelling, but it can still be art).

Sure, but the corollary to this is if you do make these decisions you can't expect people to agree with them. And it is wrong to try and stifle criticism by claiming "anyone that doesn't like my my artistic decisions is a BAD person".

"Matrix Resurrection" tried to break expectations. I shouldn't be a bad person for saying the film was terrible.

Netflix recently did a new spin on "Persuasion" (adding in a token American actress to appeal to American audiences). I enjoyed the film (I never read the book) but many people did not like the changes from the Jane Austen novel with the Spectator saying "everyone involved should be in prison".

What it comes down to is, if you don't want to talk about it, you are free to ignore it. There is no onus on you to engage with the latest Disney film, nor for you to give Disney free advertising and brain space by complaining about it (kind the opposite of what Kestas said). And if you do want to engage, but don't like what they have produced, you are free to go out and create your own works of art (ie put your money where your mouth is).

I will say for the thousandth time now - I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LITTLE MERMAID CASTING! I never saw the original movie and I will likely not see this one either.

I am not sure where you are going with "if you don't like it, create your own movie". People should be allowed to criticize "art" they don't like without having to create their own.

First, my "the latest Disney" could be a reference to Thor: Love and Thunder, Star Wars: the spinoffs continues, or Animated Movie: no with real cgi'd actors. I'm not specifically talking about today's contraversy.

Second, nobody is saying 'anyone who doesn't like my artistic decisions is a BAD person', that is a strawman.

There may in fact be ppl saying "bad people who complain disingenuously should be ignored", and "Disney is makeing lots of free advertising by annoying had people".

I haven't seen the Rings of Power series, but it is an adaptation based on very little source material, and Tolkien can certainly be read as being pretty racist, so i don't care if 'not being true to the original source' or 'true to Tolkien' criticism, if it is disabled nternalky consistent then it's is fine to make elves whatever colour you want.