WHOSE READY FOR AN ESSAY!!!!
Speaking as another writer, making a character gay is super easy because you just write the character the same as a heterosexual character but make them like the same sex instead. Anyone who claims that it's for some reason harder to write a LGBT+ character based on their sexual preference or gender is making excuses. If the struggles LGBT+ can face was a prominent theme in the story, then maybe I could see that being more difficult but that's why you research and have first-readers so you can create an accurate character even if not part of that group yourself... same as you would for any other story.
Where in my comment, that you quoted, did I say writing LGBT characters was harder?
My Sauce
Like....I'm sorry, but this honestly annoys me a little. I get the intention and I'm fine with the want for more rep with better characters, but there's a lot that goes into a story and movie. As a writer myself (an okay writer but work with me here) a lot goes into editing and thinking of how to pull off the story. Sooo many attributes and other things need to be considered before really going into fine polishing or hell even added adjustments. You can't just expect to have some characters be LGBT and poof a character is born. LGBTism (again with the made up words heh) frankly, is an attribute that right now is a hit or miss for many a movie writer. Some do well, others don't and unless a business like Hollywood thinks they can make a buck off of it, I don't see it changing.
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.
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.
3:
"LGBTism (again with the made up words heh) frankly, is an attribute that right now is a hit or miss for many a movie writer."
We've been talking about how LGBT characters have either gone well or not in the media so I fail to see how I'm wrong in saying this. Not to mention, this isn't even talking about the characters in general, just that Hollywood is doing a poor job with writing them or wants to play it safe. I'm not saying it's harder to write them, just that Hollywood can't seem to write them consistently well.
4:
"Some do well, others don't and unless a business like Hollywood thinks they can make a buck off of it, I don't see it changing"
This is merely talking about Hollywood as a business.
Essentially, I don't know where you got the idea where I was saying that and if I left that impression I apologize, that wasn't my intent. I was referring to how Hollywood isn't doing well writing them, not cause they're harder but like Trev said it's something they don't experience as well or know as deep or just sticking it safe with your classic hetero character. 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.
and now onto the other part of the show!
Though, before I begin I will say it was really hard to read it since I wasn't sure if you didn't do the quote fonts right or just throwing my sentences back at me. Just sayin.
Nope, he's making the general statement that "Hey, if you're the most qualified you should get the role unless something in the casting says you can't."
And there's no reason to believe that someone was chosen to fulfill a diversity quota over their own ability.
I'm sorry, but have you heard of quote filling? I'm not saying the actor isn't talented or every minority actor is due to this. Hell, I'm just disagreeing with Quote filling as a concept. You know, what TwoCows is saying right here.
I mean, all he said was he didn't like the idea of quota filling and you come driving your car of a point into it with a response that I honestly can't figure how you linked it to him unless you think by him saying "I don't like quota filling as a concept" means "A lot of minorities are quota filling".
I'm genuinely curious, can you like with detail tell me where in his comment does he say this assumption you are putting out there?
Also, where did he say that minorities should only play roles specifically made for them?
Here:
I think the most qualified person should get the position unless there's a plot-relevant reason why they shouldn't.
LGBT really only matters for a character and skin tone doesn't really matter for a character unless it's plot or setting required. Like the crew of star trek would make much more sense in having a black lady in the casting than Robin Hood.
Okay, so pet peeve of mine, if you're going to show us something, actually point it out instead of just slamming a comment we can just scroll up to look at and say "Here it is people". Bold it or something.
But onto your point regarding the quote,
Plot relevance makes sense if it's concerning you know the plot. This doesn't mean that most minorities are the ones doing the plot relevance, unless you can convince me somehow Ripcord being black was needed for his character in the stories of GI Joe. Hell, the reboot of Fantastic Four could have worked with Human Torch being black, they just failed in explaining it well.
Also, no one is saying all are when the issue of "quota" is brought up. Along with that, I'd like to point to something I made earlier (I think my last comment) regarding how the list of A-tier actors and actresses of minorities (the ones that are really selling points) is considerably less than before. Like back then you had Jackie Chan, Samuel L. Jackson, Laurence Fishburn, or hell, way back when you had Nichelle Nicholas.
Well I mean for starters, black people literally did exist in medieval europe so there's that.
CITATION F***ING NEEDED FOR MEDEVIAL BRITAIN!!!
Also, ignoring that blacks being in Britain would also be of a very low percentage. Probably enough that Robin's band of merry men wouldn't have a single one, unless you can show a resonable amount of such ethnicity in King John's Britain?
Like I guess??? But at the same time Robin Hood is about as real as Star Trek is.
On what planet do you say that a space oddessuy with alien species and phasing teleportation is as real as Medevial outlaws in Britain during a real time in history. Maybe not real characters, but a real setting in the past.
That's like saying Inception is as real as the Garfield Movie. Both have unreal characters, but one takes place in dreams with tech we don't have and the other takes place in some real townish place that reflects the world better.
So, I'm going to call bullsh** on using his comment as a leap into this "assumption" part. If you're just talking about concepts of a minority being chosen for fulfilling a quota and how farfetched it is to assume all are, fair enough, but I still can't really say that pivoting of twocows comment as if replying to him helped in the execution.
I don't even know if this part is mine or yours. I assume mine, in which case, Quote please. If not....what's this doing here?
Also, no one is saying all are when the issue of "quota" is brought up. Along with that, I'd like to point to something I made earlier (I think my last comment) regarding how the list of A-tier actors and actresses of minorities (the ones that are really selling points) is considerably less than before. Like back then you had Jackie Chan, Samuel L. Jackson, Laurence Fishburn, or hell, way back when you had Nichelle Nicholas.
I'm not sure where you're getting this from. It's not like minorities just dropped off the face of the planet. Just because you don't notice them doesn't mean they don't exist.
Course, I don't say this to landblast you, just saying...
As in, they were in everything if not movie sellers. There are some still yeah, but not as many and Hollywood right now is playing it safe with picking actors that are up there. Kinda like why Scarlet Johannsen is a lot and other famous ones as well. I'm not saying minorities don't star or help sell the movie, just that the list is considerably less than it was about a decade ago.
that's not what he said if you were replying to him.
It was implied. Because thats, uh, what the forced diversity argument implies. But,
Nope, Nope, shut up, you haven't shown where it's implied and explained how it is. I mean, maybe it's implied to you, but that's where asking for clarification comes in. I mean, I try to let peeps know if I got something wrong regarding their comment to let me know or hell, when they do apologize for the miscommunication.
If you weren't and just being general about it, why did you use his quote then?
You can respond to someone with a comment in general anyway. At this point you're just arguing semantics.
I was tackling the other case where you were just pointing it out
in general as to bring up the topic of assumptions from peeps
in general and then if you weren't directly replying
in general then why use his comment when it
in general wasn't even mentioning your little tidbit on people assuming.
Good grief, don't even test me with "semantics" since you have yet to even prove your interpretation as something actually related to what he said. I mean, you wanna argue semantics, okay, fine then!
I think the most qualified person should get the position unless there's a plot-relevant reason why they shouldn't.
Notice there's no mention of, males, minorities, whites, cis, always, talented, idea, justify, play, second rate.
And now let's address his comment bit by bit.
"I think the most qualified"
as in no specific group or attribute, just that one asshole that beat you in the acting role scouting.
"should get the position unless there's a plot-relevant reason why they shouldn't."
Emphasis on that the "best at it, should get the role" unless they don't qualify for the casting. You know, how scouting for stuff works in general. Hell, how contests works in general.
and now let's see your little tid-bit.
I don't get why there's always an assumption that a minority was chosen that for that over someone "more qualified" (meaning more white, more male, etc.). Like, you can be a minority and talented? The idea that minorities should only play roles that justify them being there is the idea that they're second rate to the "most qualified" straight white people.
You have all the words I mentioned above.
"I don't get why there's always an assumption"
Saying he's making an assumption on something
"That a minority was chosen that over (no second that or for) someone 'more qualified'"
He never mentioned a specific group, just a person that's "most qualified". That can be literally anyone that happens to do it, like come on.
"(meaning more white, more male, etc.)"
Freakin stop right there! That's your definition or use of "More Qualified" not his or what his intent behind it is. You wanna know, ask him, else I call Straw Man by you on his comment right here!
"Like, you can be a minority and talented?" No sh** sherlock. It's almost like his wording didn't even have anyone untalented just the "most qualified" aka: the winner!
"The idea that minorities should only play roles that justify them being there is the idea that they're second rate to the "most qualified" straight white people"
Cool, your thoughts, but guess who didn't even mention anything regarding justification of that idea. Two Cows. In fact, his comment also goes against this since "most qualified" means anyone that freakin wins it. Like, Hot damn, why did you insert your def for his and not even let him clarify?
Sigh...look, I know I've been acting kinda dickish in which case, I doubt we've met before heh, but I don't think you're stupid or whatnot for your comment. I understand miscommunications happen and I'd encourage clarification and all since someone saying something might not line up with how you're taking it.
