AccidentalVisitor

After reading the book I think they'll need every minute to do this half justice.

Goes to show how much these comic book films are a blur to much of the acting community who populates them. It feels all the same.

So in a time in which white actresses can be nudged aside from playing long established white female characters for the sake of diversity, its Scarlet who is tone deaf for not wanting restrictions? When people rush to the defense of Disney casting a black actress for Little Mermaid are they not also asking the same thing by wanting to do away with any preconceived restrictions on who could play what? Or is the selective outrage limited to only white folks who want to benefit from some race-bended casting as well? I'm African American and a progressive. I have been keeping up with the casting of black people in film and television for nearly 20 years. I even used to write articles at times for a black entertainment website. I say this only as a preemptive strike towards any who would dismiss my two cents by presuming I'm white or I'm a bigot or I'm hardcore right-wing or that I'm all of the above. I'm none of those things. I just can't abide by double standards. And I see such double standards when people cheer on Disney making a movie out of the old, popular novel A Wrinkle In Time and call anyone who question the casting for that film as racist or stuck in the past. When you point out to them how offended they may be if a white actor is chosen for a role meant for a person of color, like Scarlet in Ghost In the Shell, they claim that's different; they act as if appropriation, cultural or otherwise, can only be applied only if white people are doing it. Last year I was upset to see left-leaning people practically stalk all of Naomi Scott's tweets and Instagram posts because they were upset about her casting as Jasmine in Aladdin. They insulted her and claimed she should walk away from the role because she wasn 't ethnically or racially right for the role in their minds. She was half Indian and thus didn't meet the standards in their eyes. Some even denied that part of her heritage and emphasized how she was white (she is half white). A year later we have people on my side of the political aisle stressing how the casting of a black Ariel doesn't matter because mermaids don't exist and the story was just a piece of fiction written by some European man. Well, Aladdin is also a piece of fiction based upon work by a European man that takes place in a kingdom that doesn't exist. So tell me why the different reactions by the left on social media for these two separate casting decisions? And why is it that the media is doing pushback against those complaining about the casting for Little Mermaid but conveniently remained unaware of all the vitriol that was directed Scott's way when she got the role in Aladdin? Apparently Scarlet Johansson isn't the only who is tone deaf. We can't ever make up for all the lost time and lost chances of decades worth of Hollywood 's apartheid casting. All we can or should do is give everyone equal opportunities going forward. Equal opportunities means equal treatment too. Thinking it's okay for people of color to go after roles of established white characters because it makes up for past digressions while at the same time frowning on the idea of white people taking roles playing established non-white characters may be understandable. But it is still hypocritical.

In other words Feige and Co lifting so many elements from the Miles Morales comic book that made THAT particularly Spidey fresh and updated for the 21st century worked like a charm for you when applied to Peter Parker and the MCU. Because that is what essentially happened. The Tobey Maguire Spiderman movies were more true to the Peter Parker comics and were extremely popular without having to ride the coattails of Iron Man's international popularity and the domestic dominance of the MCU among the American public. But Holland 's version of this franchise probably needed all of that extra help (including great promotional pushes in CW and the last two Avengers flicks) because of fatigue setting in after moviegoers had gotten three versions of Peter Parker on screen within a span of about ten years. How else do you explain the slightly disappointing box office of Homecoming which was easily bested by the two following MCU films with less popular characters (Thor and Black Panther)? I'm sorry but Far Away From Home got the benefit of so much promotion by Infinity War and such an enviable sweet spot in the box office schedule by being the immediate follow-up to Endgame, that it's domestic take from this six day run doesn't wow me. I mean Black Panther made more than that in three days in freakin February without having the benefit of being a sequel. I'm gonna wait to see how Far From Home holds up domestically before assessing how big it's appeal is.

How about make NEW franchises instead?

As it should be.

I don't know about that. He's not that great of a director, not one who can elevate bad material (writing) at least. As soon as his name was announced I knew this was going to be a turkey unless a great script was there waiting. And honestly if there was a great script, the studio wouldn't have wasted it on Gray.

If you lived in the USA you could watch a marathon of the first Rocky motion pictures on Spike TV today. If you are only going to see one eventually check out the first Rocky film. It's a classic.

Didn't realize that Jordan himself had to be forgiven for how bad the recent FF ended up being. After all he was one actor of an ensemble superhero flick and it wasn't as if his performance had brought down the film. The negative reviews were never directed at him specifically....except the ones by (mostly white) fanboys who felt personally insulted Jordan was cast and made it their mission to burn him in effigy. Instead sensible people placed the onus on director/writer Trank who was clearly overwhelmed and clearly had some conflicts with the studio. Why don't you demand an apology from him instead because Jordan doesn't owe you a single thing.

But "The Butler" never had true Oscar-talk thunder once it RT score settled on roughly 72%. Most critics liked it but not many thought of it as great. If it has a chance at being nominated for best picture it is only becuase 1)It is a box office success and thus folks have actually seen it before screeners are sent out 2)Harvey Weinstein will push for it 3)the subject matter is important and timely considering the 50th anniversary of MLK's dream speech. Other than that the only chance it has at an Oscar is Oprah and that is mostly because 1)Oprah is a media whore 2)Harvey will push Oprah for a nom 3)the media will keep mentioning her name and therefore push her for a nom and 4)the actress categories (lead and supporting) are usually relatively weak and therefore there aren't many great options to choose from in the first place. Forest Whitaker may be more deserving but he has the misfortune of being in a far-more crowded field and thus is likely already out of contention. 12 Years' "thunder" is real. Three of the last five Oscar winners have come out of Telluride with the same type of buzz. Now from what I know about the film it may be such a hard watch that it is likely to win Best Picture (the Academy may be more comfortable with the safer Butler) but it will get a slew of nominations including likely in the Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actor categories. There's a good chance it can get Best Director, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematographer and Best Score nods as well. That's simply a reality. Other worthy films will come around but 12 Years is not going to be ignored come nominations time. Getting back to box office talk....amazing legs for The Millers and The Butler. And this Instructions Not Included flick? Wow. Wasn't even aware of it.