Diversity and Gender Representation in Movies

[terrestrial]

2 hours ago, Jessie said:

how would it not? so if you're telling me 10 people applied to be a critic and all were white it proves nothing? or if 9 out of 10 of the applicants were of an ethnic minority and they didn't get the job it still proves nothing? really?

To apply for a critics job (full-time, paid,...) you have to have credentials better than to have been a blogger.

 

The problem is, to get some credentials that might persuade 'them'.

examples (not the only possibilities by far)

like having worked as an assistant to xxx, or having studied at a certain university certain lectures and having done lots of (way too often underpaid or unpaid) internships and so on as a starting point, with that still not getting that kind of job - you need costly preparation time.

To risk as someone out of the poorer groups that, knowing how poor your chances are later on to get the job beside being either female, a PoC (again female PoC having even less chances), or of another minority is ... risky.

Usually having gained experience enough to get considered as a critic even a white the person is already a bit older. To have reached the same credentials the minority person needed longer for the blocking of minorities/females even there, never knowing if there is even a real chance later on.

Means the time before (depending on how to get the credentials) risky not only for the person who applies as a minority, but also his/her family (in average poorer)

= the % of ppl who will apply for that kind of profession is not an indicator for them not willing to be committed, able or whatever, it's problems way deeper on the career ladder that will influence the applying %.

 

In the UK for the really high positions they expect long internships. Without pay. An average person (incl the average white worker / non-high society or however you'll call that) can not do that.

Same principle to systematically hold certain positions in the 'right' hands in a way.

 

= Only one example how to reach a potential successful applying situation, there are others as well.

Picked for the similarities to certain UK jobs, as it might help per the familiarity.

 

[Jessie]

13 hours ago, terrestrial said:

To apply for a critics job (full-time, paid,...) you have to have credentials better than to have been a blogger.

 

The problem is, to get some credentials that might persuade 'them'.

examples (not the only possibilities by far)

like having worked as an assistant to xxx, or having studied at a certain university certain lectures and having done lots of (way too often underpaid or unpaid) internships and so on as a starting point, with that still not getting that kind of job - you need costly preparation time.

To risk as someone out of the poorer groups that, knowing how poor your chances are later on to get the job beside being either female, a PoC (again female PoC having even less chances), or of another minority is ... risky.

Usually having gained experience enough to get considered as a critic even a white the person is already a bit older. To have reached the same credentials the minority person needed longer for the blocking of minorities/females even there, never knowing if there is even a real chance later on.

Means the time before (depending on how to get the credentials) risky not only for the person who applies as a minority, but also his/her family (in average poorer)

= the % of ppl who will apply for that kind of profession is not an indicator for them not willing to be committed, able or whatever, it's problems way deeper on the career ladder that will influence the applying %.

 

In the UK for the really high positions they expect long internships. Without pay. An average person (incl the average white worker / non-high society or however you'll call that) can not do that.

Same principle to systematically hold certain positions in the 'right' hands in a way.

 

= Only one example how to reach a potential successful applying situation, there are others as well.

Picked for the similarities to certain UK jobs, as it might help per the familiarity.

 

Basically what you're saying is you need money as a cushion so you can do the internships without pay and still be able to live but in the UK everyone has the same opportunity to do well in life from birth. These outlets obviously expect a high standard of education which anyone in life can achieve if they work hard from a young age and put their mind to it. I see people all the time work for a couple of years, save the majority of their money so they can go off travelling for a year or 2, if people can manage that then if people really wanted that critic job they can do the same here. This template however would make it very hard for someone if they were to say, have a child would you agree? As we all know children will take a huge bulk of your pay

 

There are like 40 top critics that make up RT and who are probably getting paid a very good wage, it's only natural that to get to that standard it's going to be a tough climb. This to me doesn't seem like a discrimination issue, they've just made the job very hard to get for literally anyone. Anyone who managed to get the job has worked hard to do it, whether they are white, black or female.

[terrestrial]

23 hours ago, Jessie said:

Basically what you're saying is you need money as a cushion so you can do the internships without pay and still be able to live but in the UK everyone has the same opportunity to do well in life from birth.

That is wrong for the real high positions as clearly stated was my example about and that you do know about, as 1. you live in the UK where that detail is and was discussed in the press.... (remember, I read daily the news of several countries, not all the news but wide-spread, as such I am aware about the articles discussing that 'excluding-the-normals-praxis') and 2. it was already brought up here at BOT some time back. Might be even in this thread.

And as such you ignored/watered down/twisted the detail I tried to find that you are familiar with, to maybe help you to understand but you still didn't (want to?) understand.

What has to do well to do with the try to reach explicit positions? Plus the same opportunities for all? Really? I am pretty sure the most UK citizens will not agree to that, like single parents, minority.... persons who get raised in e.g. Margate,..... or a worse place like West Wales, Outer London North, and North East

 

Its not the only reason by far anyway, as said earlier, I tried to give you an example out of the UK reality

= no, its not like you think.

You didn't were able/willing/????? to see why your presumption of 'if someone really wants, he/she will reach....' is wrong if assumed it counts generally also for minorities or females.

And to plan as a youth to become a critic and start accordingly to saving money for internships, when the money isn't enough to feed siblings....? Very realistic thinking - sarcastic.

 

It feels to me like you have a very narrow or cemented view on certain things and try to pick surface-only details to further your POV, as such it seems to make no sense to even try to help you to understand.

 

For the moment it gets too boring, wasting my time.... for my taste.

[The Panda]

On 12/6/2018 at 1:06 PM, Barnack said:

Or not, it is a really well directed solid script movie (that won film festival audience price and A+ cinemascore for reason), specially in a post diversity obtain world where it would not be a sensitive issue anymore, take the french mega success The Intouchables, it is the exact same movie than Green Book and was really well received.

 

The HFPA is one of the most diverse group has a jury out there:

https://www.vulture.com/2015/01/who-exactly-picks-the-golden-globes-winners.html

 

The small memberships is from Brazil, Columbia, Mexico, Canada, Spain, Malaysia, Germany, Italy, Dominican Republic, France, Denmark, Portugal, New-Zealand, Japan, Poland, Ireland, Greece, India, UK, Egypt, South Africa,  etc... and it got 5 nominations there.

 

 

 

 

None of that changes the fact it’s a white savior complex movie that harkens back to an age where you could only talk about racism through a “Both sides have something to learn!” lens.

 

HFPA is the foreign press, thus they’re a little detached from race relations in the US.  Not a great example.

 

Green Book of course is going to play well with old people who grew up feeling good with those kind of messages (which were somewhat progressive, in their time) but it’s not that time anymore.  The whole “white man teaches black man the power friendship, learns black people have feelings and teaches black man to eat fried chicken lol!” is a simplistic message that may have worked in the 60s but movies about racism don’t need to be told through the lens of white lead’s character arc anymore.  That’s backwards.

 

I guarantee the newer academy voters that voted Moonlight as BP arent voting for Green Book.  The older, more racially tone-dead academy members though that caused the OscarsSoWhite controversy?  Yeah, this movie is up their ally.

[Barnack]

2 hours ago, PANDA said:

None of that changes the fact it’s a white savior complex movie that harkens back to an age where you could only talk about racism through a “Both sides have something to learn!” lens.

 

Not sure how much it is of the white savior trope (does one character really save one more than the other here ?), the element for who the white guys help here about being street wise, social skill and having family/friend, not really elements that are white people stereotypical strength or stereotypical black people weakness, it is a white people going helping the military, industrial, banking/capital access, schooling, medicine, scientific, etc... capability of an other race type of thing..

 

Maybe white man teach black man the power of friendship is an actual trope, but that surprise me.

 

For me it played very much like the both fish get out of water because of class difference trope, what is the difference between Green Book and the Intouchables ?

 

The main trope here is the rich ultra cultivate out of touch with the working class get a working class servant, both learn from each other, we will have the same movie with Cranston/Hart coming up (if it ever get released), I doubt it will face the same backlash.

 

2 hours ago, PANDA said:

movies about racism don’t need to be told through the lens of white lead’s character arc anymore.  That’s backwards.

They certainly does not need to, but when the movie is written in part by the son of the white lead character (and white writers) that is bound to happen. It does not need too, but it can still obviously be told through the lens of the less eccentric character that hold audience hands and is the audience voice, in the high end rich musical world we do not know about.

 

2 hours ago, PANDA said:

HFPA is the foreign press, thus they’re a little detached from race relations in the US.  Not a great example.

 

That what a really diverse worldwide voiced critics would probably be, most of them being detached from most thing around the world.

 

 

[Barnack]

On 12/7/2018 at 5:15 AM, Jessie said:

but in the UK everyone has the same opportunity to do well in life from birth.

This sound like something impossible for someone to actually believe.

 

That mean to believe,

-) genetics have nothing to do with the opportunity to do well in life, David Beckham was not born with an edge over someone with a IQ of 76 to do well in life.

-) Parents / friend doing up effort are completely useless, do not take care of your kids has a parent your childs will have the exact same opportunity to do well in life anyway.

-) A school effort to be better than other school is completely useless, stop making any effort people running school you have absolutely 0 impact on the opportunity to do well in life on people.

 

I get the idea that it is a nice message to send the everyone is born equal, but it is not scientific.

[shayhiri]

2 hours ago, Harley said:

Between this film and Captain Marvel it’s going to be a trying year on social media.

 

Why, is CM gonna be a lesbian too? Boy, that would be SO appropriate...

 

Elsa - no chance.

 

PS: Just saw HTTYD3 a second time: Gobber has at least FOUR gay innuendo scenes with younger Eret! (It was only very vaguely suggested in HTTYD2 and most people thought it was a joke theory - well, not anymore!) So if someone likes this stuff in an animated movie - look no further.

 

Edited February 15, 2019 by shayhiri

[Harley]

28 minutes ago, shayhiri said:

 

Why, is CM gonna be a lesbian too? Boy, that would be SO appropriate...

 

Elsa - no chance.

 

PS: Just saw HTTYD3 a second time: Gobber has at least FOUR gay innuendo scenes with younger Eret! (It was only very vaguely suggested in HTTYD2 and most people thought it was a joke theory - well, not anymore!) So if someone likes this stuff in an animated movie - look no further.

 

I didn’t say anything about anyone being a lesbian. I was referring to strong female character but thank you for proving my point.  

[shayhiri]

3 hours ago, Harley said:

I didn’t say anything about anyone being a lesbian. I was referring to strong female character but thank you for proving my point.  

 

There's absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with "strong female characters". See Alita, a perfect example. No one would have anything against it. On the contrary - they will be better liked by the viewers as a whole.

 

But they have to be likable. Strong means nothing, if you're also a b!tch - just like with male characters. (Lesbian is also nothing wrong - but only if it makes sense in the context of the story.)

 

Good thing is, so far such characters like Elsa and WW have been pretty likable. I've got bad news for anyone who tries to go the other way.

Edited February 15, 2019 by shayhiri

[Goffe]

3 hours ago, AndyLL said:

 This allowed many different groups to identify with her . By making her gay you restrict that.

1

Actually, it doesn't? Gays identify with straight people in movies all the time since we are all humans and we go through, more or less, the same life obstacles and stuff. Why the reverse wouldn't be also true?

 

It might alienate homophobes, tho. 

Edited February 15, 2019 by Goffe

[rihrey]

2 hours ago, shayhiri said:

 

There's absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with "strong female characters". See Alita, a perfect example. No one would have anything against it. On the contrary - they will be better liked by the viewers as a whole.

 

But they have to be likable. Strong means nothing, if you're also a b!tch - just like with male characters. (Lesbian is also nothing wrong - but only of it makes sense in the context of the story.)

 

Good thing is, so far such characters like Elsa and WW have been pretty likable. I've got bad news for anyone who tries to go the other way.

i've seen this "being gay only if it makes sense" argument quite a lot lately. but i've never seen it regarding straight characters and their sexuality. straight characters are straight and that's it, there's no explanation as to why they are straight. so, why would it need to be particularly related to something or completely relevant to the story, and "make sense"? why can't a character just be gay? and we've had enough straight characters literally everywhere, i'm tired lol, i just want gays.

[shayhiri]

59 minutes ago, rihrey said:

i've seen this "being gay only if it makes sense" argument quite a lot lately. but i've never seen it regarding straight characters and their sexuality. straight characters are straight and that's it, there's no explanation as to why they are straight. so, why would it need to be particularly related to something or completely relevant to the story, and "make sense"? why can't a character just be gay? and we've had enough straight characters literally everywhere, i'm tired lol, i just want gays.

 

Then read gay fiction, there's more than enough.

 

Gay people are 10% on average, that's the max % that should be in stories.

 

Much more important is - most of them are not OPEN gays, even nowadays. And in most historical settings they just wouldn't be alive, if they didn't hide. So an open gay Elsa in a historical medieval setting wouldn't work.

 

A sci-fi story - you can have a whole planet of gays. It can even be a high concept: how and why they got this way and how do they procreate. But it doesn't sound very appealing even with a high concept, right?

 

Edited February 15, 2019 by shayhiri

[BadAtGender]

4 hours ago, shayhiri said:

 

There's absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with "strong female characters". See Alita, a perfect example. No one would have anything against it. On the contrary - they will be better liked by the viewers as a whole.

 

But they have to be likable. Strong means nothing, if you're also a b!tch - just like with male characters. (Lesbian is also nothing wrong - but only if it makes sense in the context of the story.)

 

Good thing is, so far such characters like Elsa and WW have been pretty likable. I've got bad news for anyone who tries to go the other way.

 

Uh, that's not what "strong female character" means.

[expensiveho]

1 hour ago, shayhiri said:

 

Then read gay fiction, there's more than enough.

 

Gay people are 10% on average, that's the max % that should be in stories.

 

Much more important is - most of them are not OPEN gays, even nowadays. And in most historical settings they just wouldn't be alive, if they didn't hide. So an open gay Elsa in a historical medieval setting wouldn't work.

 

A sci-fi story - you can have a whole planet of gays. It can even be a high concept: how and why they got this way and how do they procreate. But it doesn't sound very appealing even with a high concept, right?

 

How many Disney princesses are lesbians?  Is it 10%?

 

Or are you basically saying that we need more lesbian princesses to represent better the world we live in and fill that 10% quota you speak of? So you basically agreed with that poster and actually asked for more lesbian princesses? 

-

I couldn't care less about Elsa being gay or not, it'd be nice at most for me, but I'm sure it'll mean a lot for a lot of people so I at least hope they don't give her a random male love interest.

[FantasticBeasts]

Honestly, I would love to see Elsa being a lesbian just for the chaos of it (the fuming will be legendary), but I would give slightly more than just 0% it happens.

I think Elsa's story and especially her expression through Let it go, is an allegory about gay people and that's very obvious. But that's the thing about being allegoric, you convey your message symbolicly.

So for me there is no reason for Elsa to be gay. Let it go still remains a powerful LGBT anthem for anyone with a basic understanding. So.... I don't see any reason for such a choice and combined with the fact it would be super risky even if it did... yeah good luck with it.

Afterall, why people expect kids tales to put everything in your face. Symbolism makes a beautiful story and it works just as well putting the message across even unconciously.

[Valonqar]

Elsa's gonna be gay like Valkyre in Thor Ragnarok, Dumbledore in HP books, and pansexual Lando in Solo. not in the movie but film-makers will boast about it on social media.

[AN9815]

Reading all these coments about how people will boycott the movie if they "make" Elsa gay is disgusting. They are usually followed by "I'm not homophobic but..." and seriously I don't know if people realize what they are saying, why no one complains about 99% of movies with straight relationships but they do when there is a possibility that one could be gay? Stupid. 

 

Seriously i highly doubt Disney will give Elsa a girlfriend, first of all because they will loose a lot of their audience (unfortunately) and second of all because they will not know how to handle it (Le Fou in BATB was a joke) . I would love Elsa to be gay, but if their original plan was to not give Elsa a romantic interest then go ahead and continue with that, you don't have to give her a girlfriend to please part of the audience. 

 

If Disney/Pixar wants to be the first one to have a lead animated LGBT character then plan a proper original movie and treat the character right from the beginning, who knows maybe the movie will do amazing business (I would for sure go watch it), we are seeing lately that if a movie has good diversity and representation and treats it with respect the numbers can be amazing. 

[LouisianaArkansasGeorgia]

12 hours ago, shayhiri said:

 

Then read gay fiction, there's more than enough.

 

Gay people are 10% on average, that's the max % that should be in stories.

 

Much more important is - most of them are not OPEN gays, even nowadays. And in most historical settings they just wouldn't be alive, if they didn't hide. So an open gay Elsa in a historical medieval setting wouldn't work.

 

A sci-fi story - you can have a whole planet of gays. It can even be a high concept: how and why they got this way and how do they procreate. But it doesn't sound very appealing even with a high concept, right?

 

Wow.

You are a major piece of work, based on your various racist, mysogynistic, and homophobic rants all over these boards///

[Royce]

What if it happens organically? There was no indication in the first movie that she was straight

She was locked up in her room with no time to even meet people

 

Idk why people are threatened by the idea

We already have a straight couple (who even kiss, not just a peck but an actual smooch) yet if Elsa is gay then suddenly it's "sexual and not appropriate for kids" ??

Just say you're homophobic and go...

[shayhiri]

4 hours ago, LouisianaArkansasGeorgia said:

Wow.

You are a major piece of work, based on your various racist, mysogynistic, and homophobic rants all over these boards///

 

Well, in that case, you must be a black lesbian woman. Glad to meet you.