The PokéCommunity Forums Off-Topic Discussions Deep Discussion
Debate Minority representation in media

Deep Discussion Have a seat at Deep Discussion for in-depth discussions, extended or serious conversations, and current events. From world news to talks on life, growing up, relationships, and issues in society, this is the place to be. Come be a knight.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #51    
Old 3 Weeks Ago (3:48 PM). Edited 3 Weeks Ago by 777ID777.
777ID777's Avatar
777ID777 777ID777 is offline
     
    Join Date: Jun 2018
    Location: AZ
    Posts: 37
    Neo-marxism is an evil beast.

    Any time the media tries to blame or portray an arbitrary "group" as something, immediately consider that bullmuk. "women think" "asians do" "white Christian males do" it's all nonsense. Actually, it's straight up racist/sexist/anti-religious while claiming to be "tolerant." A lot of the people nowadays calling out "RACISM!!!" are trying generalize entire races themselves (ie: "mass murderers are always white males" or "a black person can't be a Republican without being an uncle tom!" or "the Jews are secretly running America")

    I hope it's a trend that'll die out... I can't imagine so many people buying into this neo-racism for too long.
    __________________
    Reply With Quote

    Relevant Advertising!

      #52    
    Old 3 Weeks Ago (9:24 PM).
    Seliph's Avatar
    Seliph Seliph is offline
    Lord
     
    Join Date: Feb 2013
    Gender: Male
    Posts: 2,608
    Meh. To be honest I'm not too much of a movies guy. As a result I only rarely watch something that comes from Hollywood and the likes. I happened to have watched the Dark Tower movie last year, though, and I still remember how confused I was the whole time.
    The confusion was caused from the main character Roland who up to this point was never portrayed as black. In the books there was never mentioned such a thing and the comics I had also only portrayed him as a white guy.
    Even after doing some research the only thing I could come up with was the directory thinking that he'd imagine him to be black and Stephen King only being ok with it (from a Wikipedia page, too lazy to look it up).

    I suppose it's one of these situations where people like to blame the media for being the cause of unnecessary diversity quota whereas it's more likely that it is nothing but a consequence of (what they, Hollywood, assume to be) the large majority of their consumers, who really want a lot of color (not restricted to race, mind you) in their movies.
    Afterall Hollywood largely consists of unimaginative copycats who want to cater to even more unimaginative people in order to rake in the money.
    __________________

    Reply With Quote
      #53    
    Old 3 Weeks Ago (8:19 PM). Edited 3 Weeks Ago by Trev.
    Trev's Avatar
    Trev Trev is online now
     
    Join Date: May 2012
    Age: 21
    Nature: Sassy
    Posts: 1,311
    This is all probably out of order. Oh well.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Vragon2.0 View Post
    These are the sections I believe you got it from and let me explain.
    1: "Sooo many attributes and other things need to be considered before really going into fine polishing or hell even added adjustments"

    As in other things like personality. This isn't a comment regarding LGBT or anything like that more than hetero or skin tone. This is writing the deep details of the character and where you want them to go.
    I think gimme's argument was that feeling the need to write deep backstories for LGBT+ characters is one of the causes of tokenism because writers unfamiliar with LGBT+ experiences will attempt to cram in researched experiences into their character(s) to make them "believable." And he's got a point on multiple levels. If it doesn't lead to tokenism, it usually leads to very similar characters with the one "dark backstory" where they've suffered through trauma. I love these characters, of course, but at some point I just want casual LGBT+ characters who don't need to suffer. They're just as realistic.

    Quote:
    2: "You can't just expect to have some characters be LGBT and poof a character is born."
    As in...LGBT doesn't make a character alone. Same for hetero. Sure they can have an attraction, but that's not everything to the character.
    You're actually agreeing with gimme here. He's saying the exact same thing: you can make a character LGBT+ without making LGBT+ the whole character.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LDSman View Post
    Another thing that should be mentioned is that the goal posts always move. If the minority representation doesn’t fit whatever criteria, people complain. Bad guy is gay, or black or whatevr? People get outraged and complain. People complained that the Black Panther movie didn’t have transgender or same sex relationships shown on screen. If you’re a white author people complain if you have or don’t have minority people in the book. Either they are “tokens” or they are “stereotypes” or that you didn’t play up the ethnicity enough. “How will people know they are (x) if you don’t have that character mention it?” Then there are the “cultural appropriation “ complaints.
    People will, in general, find anything to complain about, and even people within a seemingly-unified movement or mindset will have individual disagreements. Take it all with a grain of salt.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by twocows View Post
    Wait, what? In what world does more qualified mean more white or more male? More qualified means more qualified. Someone with ten years of reputable experience in a given field is more qualified than someone fresh out of college. An actor who is able to accurately and effectively convey a writer's intended sentiments in their acting is more qualified than someone who can't do that.

    What you're saying is the exact opposite of what I'm saying. "Qualified" isn't some kind of weird racism code, it's a word with a clear and well-defined meaning.

    I actually said that in my original version of the post, but I took it out because I felt it was obvious and somewhat patronizing. Yes, of course you can be a minority and talented. Does that really even need to be said? I guess it does. When I say "the most qualified person deserves the job," what I mean is "the most qualified person deserves the job." That person may be black, white, male, female, Jewish, Muslim, Democrat, Republican, or whatever. Those things are usually not relevant to a job's qualifications, and when they are, they're part of the job's qualifications. So in either situation, the most qualified person should get the job. Factors that aren't related to the job requirements shouldn't matter (notwithstanding things like pay).

    I didn't say this, I didn't imply this, and it is in fact incompatible with my stated belief that "the most qualified person should get the job" because it would be removing a large pool of potentially qualified people as candidates for a large number of roles.

    "The most qualified person" can be anyone, so long as they are the person best suited to fulfill the job requirements. I don't think any reasonable person would suggest something like what you said because it's obviously ridiculous. There may be some unreasonable people who believe that, but they're not the kind of people I tend to pay much heed to.

    Yes, if someone actually believed the first thing, they would probably also believe something like this.

    Again, what I said was that the most qualified person should get the job and that sometimes that isn't what happens. That does not imply anything other than the exact words comprising that statement.

    Again, I was going to bring this up but it seemed kind of obvious so I cut it out of my original post: in most cases you probably won't know the exact circumstances behind why someone was hired, so I don't think it's really fair to assume things about any given actor. That's part of why I talked about hiring practices rather than individual actors.

    Even if you did know every single actor's exact hiring circumstances, it wouldn't help because this is a hiring problem, not an actor problem. The solution has nothing to do with actors and everything to do with convincing employers that this is an unethical practice. Hounding actors over it accomplishes nothing other than fostering divisiveness.

    Hiring based on diversity over merit is something that does actually happen and I think when it does happen, it's a bad thing. That's all I said, it's all I meant to say, and I did not intend to say anything with my initial post that wasn't explicitly stated in it.
    twocows, I know what you're trying to say, and I understand why you feel that way. But I'm going to gently remind you that a lot of the people who say exactly what you're saying are the same people who believe that a minority won't be in a movie unless the directors/producers were trying to fill a diversity quota. Whether you believe the latter portion isn't the issue, because it's clear you don't, but it would help to be aware of what you may accidentally imply when you say that. It's simply a matter of knowing what one thing you think might say when spoken.

    You'd actually be tremendously shocked at how often the "most qualified" person for a role can be a person with little/no acting experience. To say that someone is "most qualified" based on the amount of experience they have is generalizing to the extreme. Any and all factors can lead to someone getting a role, appearance included. Hell, a lot of people with tons of experience don't get hired because they have bad attitudes, and people with no acting experience can beat out people who have acted for decades because they look the part, they have a raw vulnerability, had a better audition, or literally any number of reasons. Someone who's acted for several years can have a bad audition that costs them a role that goes to someone whose audition was good despite their minimal experience. A chance at getting a role isn't quantifiable because endless factors play into casting. Experience is merely one of them.

    In terms of diversity quotas... they really don't exist. Now, granted, a director/producer may choose or ask for a POC (for example) for an influential/important role because of an artistic message they're trying to send, or a director/producer might be the type of person to conscious check any bias that would lead them to casting an all-majority cast, but rarely, edging on never, do people have a checklist for which demographics to include in their movie. This is why we have movies that have all-majority casts and also have movies with mixed-demographic casts at the same time. Remember that theatre, cinema, etc. are all highly subjective mediums at the whim of highly subjective people.



    For those who may justify all-majority casts by saying, "it's not realistic based on this time period/history bit/etc." please just... try to remember that fiction isn't real and that bending the norms or reality of our world in a fictional story to open up job opportunities for minorities is way less problematic and harmful than keeping them rigidly the same and adding unnecessary obstacles to a group who already suffer from overwhelming obstacles.
    __________________






    Reply With Quote
      #54    
    Old 3 Weeks Ago (8:50 PM).
    Vragon2.0's Avatar
    Vragon2.0 Vragon2.0 is offline
       
      Join Date: Mar 2018
      Posts: 78
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Trev View Post
      Snippers
      I'm just gonna leave this here from my whale of a comment,
      Quote:
      If I'm mistaken somewhere, please show me where you got the impression; if I've resolved it, I'd would like to know that too...just so we're on the same page.
      Yeah, I answered to how I perceived the reply was and all, so yeah. I was more or less clarifying my comments there since I wasn't exactly sure if Gimmie's comment was to me or just being general with using mine as a lift off.

      So yeah, I can say I probably didn't get what he meant. I just wanted to clarify my position. If me and him are on the same page, cool.

      Thanks for perspective and thoughts Trev.

      I will say, that whatever an implication is left upon the reader of a comment, at least an inquiry of clarification would be ideal. This probably being a good example of "Hey Vragon you idiot, ask who he's talking to!" and all that stuff.
      __________________

      “I’ve been to places I wouldn’t have visited before. I get to see different things, which is important. It gives me new experiences to draw from.” ~Hidetaka Miyazaki [creator of Bloodborne]
      Reply With Quote
        #55    
      Old 2 Weeks Ago (1:19 PM).
      twocows's Avatar
      twocows twocows is offline
      Primary form of sustenance is cute images
       
      Join Date: Mar 2009
      Location: Michigan
      Age: 27
      Gender: Male
      Nature: Lax
      Posts: 4,231
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Trev View Post
      twocows, I know what you're trying to say, and I understand why you feel that way. But I'm going to gently remind you that a lot of the people who say exactly what you're saying are the same people who believe that a minority won't be in a movie unless the directors/producers were trying to fill a diversity quota. Whether you believe the latter portion isn't the issue, because it's clear you don't, but it would help to be aware of what you may accidentally imply when you say that. It's simply a matter of knowing what one thing you think might say when spoken.
      I won't deny that some people may say one thing and mean another, but I mean exactly what I say. Like I said, language is the standard by which we communicate ideas. If people can't agree on the standard, communication breaks down. I understand that there are certainly cases where people do abuse the language, but I think that we should generally presume good faith until there's a reason not to, and I don't think I've given any reason for people to assume things about my intent that I didn't explicitly state.

      Quote:
      You'd actually be tremendously shocked at how often the "most qualified" person for a role can be a person with little/no acting experience. To say that someone is "most qualified" based on the amount of experience they have is generalizing to the extreme. Any and all factors can lead to someone getting a role, appearance included. Hell, a lot of people with tons of experience don't get hired because they have bad attitudes, and people with no acting experience can beat out people who have acted for decades because they look the part, they have a raw vulnerability, had a better audition, or literally any number of reasons. Someone who's acted for several years can have a bad audition that costs them a role that goes to someone whose audition was good despite their minimal experience. A chance at getting a role isn't quantifiable because endless factors play into casting. Experience is merely one of them.
      You're 100% right. I mostly kept it to experience for brevity's sake, but I admit there are a lot of those I didn't think of (and some I did). But yeah, I understand it's not always all about experience. I would like to think that we can agree that hiring decisions should at least be made for reasons that actually pertain to the role and the job requirements, though. Unless it's role-relevant, other things just shouldn't matter. I dislike nepotism for the same reason; it's unfair to candidates who may be more qualified.

      Quote:
      In terms of diversity quotas... they really don't exist.
      I honestly have no idea if they exist in film or not, and if they don't, that's great.

      Quote:
      Now, granted, a director/producer may choose or ask for a POC (for example) for an influential/important role because of an artistic message they're trying to send,
      I think that's a perfectly valid reason to do so

      Quote:
      or a director/producer might be the type of person to conscious check any bias that would lead them to casting an all-majority cast,
      I think it's possible to end up in that situation without being biased, but I think trying to avoid bias that might lead to that situation inorganically is a good thing.

      Quote:
      but rarely, edging on never, do people have a checklist for which demographics to include in their movie. This is why we have movies that have all-majority casts and also have movies with mixed-demographic casts at the same time. Remember that theatre, cinema, etc. are all highly subjective mediums at the whim of highly subjective people.
      I can't speak to whether they do or don't, but at least at times I've suspected some do. What I will say is that in most cases where I've thought this, I've felt it "came from upstairs;" in other words, I suspect corporate leadership is leaning on the team putting the movie together to make sure the cast is "diverse" for one reason or another (I say "diverse" because this measure of diversity ignores many of the other ways people can be diverse in favor of ones that can be easily noticed). You can't really blame the filmmakers for that, but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

      Quote:
      For those who may justify all-majority casts by saying, "it's not realistic based on this time period/history bit/etc." please just... try to remember that fiction isn't real and that bending the norms or reality of our world in a fictional story to open up job opportunities for minorities is way less problematic and harmful than keeping them rigidly the same and adding unnecessary obstacles to a group who already suffer from overwhelming obstacles.
      I think it's fine to do that as long as they're transparent about it. Not everyone is historically aware and misrepresenting history can turn into a problem. If the filmmakers make it clear to the film audience that they're intentionally taking liberties and why, I don't have a problem with that.
      __________________
      8values
      Political Simulator
      Reply With Quote
        #56    
      Old 2 Weeks Ago (6:39 PM).
      Trev's Avatar
      Trev Trev is online now
       
      Join Date: May 2012
      Age: 21
      Nature: Sassy
      Posts: 1,311
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by twocows View Post
      I won't deny that some people may say one thing and mean another, but I mean exactly what I say. Like I said, language is the standard by which we communicate ideas. If people can't agree on the standard, communication breaks down. I understand that there are certainly cases where people do abuse the language, but I think that we should generally presume good faith until there's a reason not to, and I don't think I've given any reason for people to assume things about my intent that I didn't explicitly state.
      You... have just a teeny bit. Like I said, you cleared it up, obviously. I figured that you didn’t mean to say that, just wanted you to know what might come across with the way you said it. Trust me, I’ve been there. People misinterpret what i say all the time.

      Quote:
      You're 100% right. I mostly kept it to experience for brevity's sake, but I admit there are a lot of those I didn't think of (and some I did). But yeah, I understand it's not always all about experience. I would like to think that we can agree that hiring decisions should at least be made for reasons that actually pertain to the role and the job requirements, though. Unless it's role-relevant, other things just shouldn't matter. I dislike nepotism for the same reason; it's unfair to candidates who may be more qualified.
      Absolutely agree.

      Quote:
      I honestly have no idea if they exist in film or not, and if they don't, that's great.
      Yeah. Actor’s Equity actually prohibits hiring based solely on race. Hamilton got in trouble because they requested that only POC audition (Hamilton has an all-POC cast because the play subverts historical accuracy to make a statement). They had to let people of all races audition even if they had no intentions of casting anyone other than POC.

      Quote:
      I think that's a perfectly valid reason to do so. / I think it's possible to end up in that situation without being biased, but I think trying to avoid bias that might lead to that situation inorganically is a good thing.
      Yeah. You can usually tell by the production or film whether the directors and producers were attentative to that. In recent years, I’ve been hyper-aware of the diversity or lack of in media, and it’s informed me about who pays attention to biases and who doesn’t.


      Quote:
      I can't speak to whether they do or don't, but at least at times I've suspected some do. What I will say is that in most cases where I've thought this, I've felt it "came from upstairs;" in other words, I suspect corporate leadership is leaning on the team putting the movie together to make sure the cast is "diverse" for one reason or another (I say "diverse" because this measure of diversity ignores many of the other ways people can be diverse in favor of ones that can be easily noticed). You can't really blame the filmmakers for that, but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
      You are correct there. It usually comes in the form of “we should add a black actor so we don’t seem racist” (see literally any horror movie). I think a lot people who complain about diverse casts think it’s more, “we are WOKE SJWs and we want to eradicate white people to lift up these untalented minorities because DIVERSITY!!!” (which is both a huge dramatization as I find these people’s actual complaints ridiculous and uninformed, and also not applicable to you).

      Quote:
      I think it's fine to do that as long as they're transparent about it. Not everyone is historically aware and misrepresenting history can turn into a problem. If the filmmakers make it clear to the film audience that they're intentionally taking liberties and why, I don't have a problem with that.
      That’s actually a really good point. I think disclaimers like that at the beginning of history-altering movies would encourage viewers to do their own research.
      __________________






      Reply With Quote
      Reply

      Quick Reply

      Join the conversation!

      Create an account to post a reply in this thread, participate in other discussions, and more!

      Create a PokéCommunity Account

      Sponsored Links
      Thread Tools

      Posting Rules
      You may not post new threads
      You may not post replies
      You may not post attachments
      You may not edit your posts

      BB code is On
      Smilies are On
      [IMG] code is On
      HTML code is Off
      Minimum Characters Per Post: 25

      Forum Jump


      All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:18 PM.