Oppenheimer | 2024 Academy Award Winner for Best Picture and Best Director

[Ozymandias]

1 hour ago, Noctis said:

 

It was revolutionary for depicting the very first gay relationship in a major blockbuster.

 

Frodo the Homo and Samwise the Gaywise...tell me otherwise. I dare you.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, ChipDerby said:

 

But why though? It's not a documentary. I don't even think it's technically a biopic. So why is there this need to make everything "historically accurate" when we know the dialogue will all be fictional. It's just a very strange choice, to me, for him to make these decisions.

 

But as I also mentioned, this isn't specifically a Nolan problem. But he's a part of the problem.

 

You can put me in the camp that believes historical period pieces should be largely cast accurately to the time in which it takes, at least if you're trying to make a serious one and not just some popcorn movie.  I think thats a totally logical and reasonable position to take and I don't think its at all comparable to something like say the comical and obviously racist nerds mad about POC in Amazon's Lord of the Rings show(its got other real looking problems lol) because its a fantasy.  Same thing with CBMs, I don't care at all who you cast because its a fantasy.

 

But I know history and love history, and if you do it incorrectly it can be distracting.  Take Ridley Scott's Exodus for example(you can argue whether or not that story is a fantasy based on your personals beliefs but ancient Egypt was a real place), one of the biggest problems of that movie(among many) is that there was a lot of white people in it, especially the main characters.  Sorry, but white people dressed as ancient Egyptians looks so damn goofy and stupid that it comes off as cosplay because your brain already knows ancient Egyptians didn't look anything like Joel Edgerton, Batman, or Sygourney Weaver...they were either black or middle eastern looking.  Ridley Scott is currently shooting a massive Napoleon biopic right now, and if he cast everyone and the extras in it like its present day Los Angeles or New York, that would be kinda distracting because your brain already knows that France(and Europe in general) around 1795-1810ish was extremely white, probably around like 95% or more.

 

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by Ozymandias

[clockwork]

15 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

 

 But I know history and love history, and if you do it incorrectly it can be distracting.  Take Ridley Scott's Exodus for example(you can argue whether or not that story is a fantasy based on your personals beliefs but ancient Egypt was a real place), one of the biggest problems of that movie(among many) is that there was a lot of white people in it, especially the main characters.  Sorry, but white people dressed as ancient Egyptians looks so damn goofy and stupid that it comes off as cosplay because your brain already knows ancient Egyptians didn't look anything like Joel Edgerton, Batman, or Sygourney Weaver...they were either black or middle eastern looking.

Its funny that Hollywood repeated the same mistake again with the infamous Gods of Egypt movie that came out just a couple of years after Exodus Gods and Kings. A movie based on ancient egyptian mythology......featuring a predominantly white cast with a couple of brown people sprinkled in there in the background, including  the late and great Chadwick Boseman.

 

I mean look as this shit

Edited March 18, 2022 by clockwork

[Noctis]

43 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

 

 

 

 

You can put me in the camp that believes historical period pieces should be largely cast accurately to the time in which it takes, at least if you're trying to make a serious one and not just some popcorn movie.  I think thats a totally logical and reasonable position to take and I don't think its at all comparable to something like say the comical and obviously racist nerds mad about POC in Amazon's Lord of the Rings show(its got other real looking problems lol) because its a fantasy.  Same thing with CBMs, I don't care at all who you cast because its a fantasy.

 

But I know history and love history, and if you do it incorrectly it can be distracting.  Take Ridley Scott's Exodus for example(you can argue whether or not that story is a fantasy based on your personals beliefs but ancient Egypt was a real place), one of the biggest problems of that movie(among many) is that there was a lot of white people in it, especially the main characters.  Sorry, but white people dressed as ancient Egyptians looks so damn goofy and stupid that it comes off as cosplay because your brain already knows ancient Egyptians didn't look anything like Joel Edgerton, Batman, or Sygourney Weaver...they were either black or middle eastern looking.  Ridley Scott is currently shooting a massive Napoleon biopic right now, and if he cast everyone and the extras in it like its present day Los Angeles or New York, that would be kinda distracting because your brain already knows that France(and Europe in general) around 1795-1810ish was extremely white, probably around like 95% or more.

 

 

 

+1000 to this entire post

 

But to the bolded post, there are a ton of Middle Easterns who are white, and very light coloured. So the presence of light-coloured people makes sense, but all white? Ridiculous. Like you said.

[Borobudur]

2 hours ago, ChipDerby said:

 

But why though? It's not a documentary. I don't even think it's technically a biopic. So why is there this need to make everything "historically accurate" when we know the dialogue will all be fictional. It's just a very strange choice, to me, for him to make these decisions.

 

But as I also mentioned, this isn't specifically a Nolan problem. But he's a part of the problem.

Crazy rich Asian have the entire cast in yellow, yet people claim that it is a victory for diversity. Moonlight, a movie I didn't see the film but my friend told me Moonlight feature entire cast in Black, yet everybody come in and throwing praise. Why is it when it is the white doing the same thing, people suddenly freak out?

 

Diversity isn't everything about stuffing every type of colour in the big screen, but also about how every group of people or community, have the chance to have their own shining moment on big screen.    

[MrPink]

3 hours ago, Noctis said:

 

Well, when it comes to this film, historical accuracy should be adhered to when it comes to race. I don't get the title of the thread...like what?

 

 

 

I mean it's just messing around regarding the largely predominant white male cast + a few women + Rami Malek, and the fact there's a billion casting announcements for what is assuredly bit parts, it's not like legitimate outrage. It's not a serious thread title.

 

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by MrPink

[WittyUsername]

2 hours ago, Borobudur said:

Crazy rich Asian have the entire cast in yellow, yet people claim that it is a victory for diversity. Moonlight, a movie I didn't see the film but my friend told me Moonlight feature entire cast in Black, yet everybody come in and throwing praise. Why is it when it is the white doing the same thing, people suddenly freak out?

 

Diversity isn't everything about stuffing every type of colour in the big screen, but also about how every group of people or community, have the chance to have their own shining moment on big screen.    

People claim movies like CRA and Moonlight are victories for diversity because they give the spotlight to racial minorities who don’t get as much attention as white people, at least as far as Hollywood movies have historically been concerned. 

[Barnack]

5 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

Sorry, but white people dressed as ancient Egyptians looks so damn goofy and stupid that it comes off as cosplay because your brain already knows ancient Egyptians didn't look anything like Joel Edgerton, Batman, or Sygourney Weaver...they were either black or middle eastern looking.

I am not sure our brain have seen so much media about Ancient Egypt where they do not look black and apparently Ancient Egyptian were quite white no (modern Armenian being the closest equivalent today)

 

https://www.peopleofar.com/2017/06/05/ancient-egyptians-were-closer-to-armenians-than-to-africans-a-new-genetics-study-reveals/

 

The sub-Saharan African inflow of DNA has seemingly started after the Roman times, coinciding with the emergence of monotheism, particularly, in Islam. That could explain why modern Egyptians are genetically shifted more towards African populations compared to ancient Egyptians.

 

We found the ancient Egyptian samples falling distinct from modern Egyptians, and closer towards Near Eastern and European samples

 

For the study in Nature:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

 

Has for the subject, I thought it was almost a consensus that what mattered was a diversity of voice, that lead to a diversity on screen over an overall cultural output, not that every single art piece ought to be diverse (if Perry make all black movies that obviously not an issue, same for Wes Anderson making all white movies, the moment that diverse director exist with a diverse array of project that remove that issues) and something like the Manhattan Project will have I imagine a rich international array of character including Jewish/Eastern Europe people and so on and not just WASP, starting from the title character.

[Borobudur]

2 hours ago, WittyUsername said:

People claim movies like CRA and Moonlight are victories for diversity because they give the spotlight to racial minorities who don’t get as much attention as white people, at least as far as Hollywood movies have historically been concerned. 

As a Asian, I am not offended by all white-cast. All white-cast look old-fashioned, but they certainly doesn't mean racism by default. 

[Tarintino]

14 hours ago, ban1o said:

They took DAYS to surrender? God forbid lol. 

 

Like, even Dwight Eisenhower thought Japan was already defeated and that the bomb was not necessary.  Russia was also about to invade. They would have surrendered. Even before the bomb was dropped Japanese leaders were trying to  negotiate on a conditional surrender but Americans were hostile to the idea of conditional surrender. Funny enough the term of the conditional surrender were extremely similar to the terms of the unconditional surrender after the bombs anyway lmao. 

 

They could have easily carried out a naval blockade or used the bomb in an unpopulated area if they wanted force an unconditional surrender so bad. 

 

I'm not even a Japanese apologist because they have a lot they still haven't atoned for in WW2. And like I said before there were some benefits to the use of the bomb, namely preventing future large scale war, but America was shitty to do what they did and it was mostly just a power move lol. 

You know they actually did do this right? It also has more brutal consequences than a nuke as it leads to the starvation of millions of people. They still didn't give up

 

Everyone knew Japan was defeated before the bomb but that still didnt lead to a surrender. Instead they were telling their citizens to commit suicide should you fail to win. They had women and kid from 12 years old fighting too and started training young adults to die for the emperor by way of Kamikazi. 

 

They wanted Americans to pay fot every inch of ground they got with blood so instead of sending 2m troops in, they dropped 2 bombs instead. It was the right decision, unless you wanted more bloodshed

Edited March 18, 2022 by Tarintino

[Tarintino]

10 hours ago, ChipDerby said:

 

Ahh yes, criticizing a movie is now "cancelling". Great one. I'll take that into account next time I see you review a film.

 

Nobody is "cancelling" Nolan. But it is completely fair to point out that he has a habit, as do MOST directors, of hiring significantly white casts. Regardless of the subject of the film.

I dont think it's fare at all. Just like I wouldn't call Jordan Peele out for only hiring POC whilst saving the white roles for villains. These people have earned the right to make the films they want to make

 

I think people should focus more on the diversity behind the camera instead when it comes to period dramas

[ban1o]

4 hours ago, Tarintino said:

I dont think it's fare at all. Just like I wouldn't call Jordan Peele out for only hiring POC whilst saving the white roles for villains. These people have earned the right to make the films they want to make

 

I think people should focus more on the diversity behind the camera instead when it comes to period dramas

LMAO you've only seen Get Out right?? 

[grim22]

On 3/16/2022 at 11:39 AM, Eric Says Trans Rights said:

Eternals already did the "pin the atomic bomb on a POC" thing and that was a disaster. If Papa Feige can't pull this off, nobody can.

 

 

[Torontofan]

Eternals was just super boring 

[ChipDerby]

14 hours ago, Borobudur said:

Crazy rich Asian have the entire cast in yellow, yet people claim that it is a victory for diversity. Moonlight, a movie I didn't see the film but my friend told me Moonlight feature entire cast in Black, yet everybody come in and throwing praise. Why is it when it is the white doing the same thing, people suddenly freak out?

 

Diversity isn't everything about stuffing every type of colour in the big screen, but also about how every group of people or community, have the chance to have their own shining moment on big screen.    

 

Thank you for citing 2 movies out of millions that have an almost completely non-white cast. And inadvertently proving my point.

[Borobudur]

4 minutes ago, ChipDerby said:

 

Thank you for citing 2 movies out of millions that have an almost completely non-white cast. And inadvertently proving my point.

What point? A completely white cast film is now ok for you? 

[DAJK]

1 hour ago, grim22 said:

 

 

This is just a ridiculous take.

[lorddemaxus]

2 minutes ago, DAJK said:

This is just a ridiculous take.

Even I agree that that's a stupid tweet and I thought it was like the worst Marvel movie. 

[ChipDerby]

4 minutes ago, Borobudur said:

What point? A completely white cast film is now ok for you? 

 

The point is that no, an all white cast is not ok. Because an all white cast has literally been the norm for decades. In my eyes, if you're making a film with an all white cast now, you're embarrassing.  Unless it's like, Buried, and stars one white guy. (AND EVEN THEN! almost the entire voice cast is white! HOW do these directors keep doing this!)

[Borobudur]

Just now, ChipDerby said:

 

The point is that no, an all white cast is not ok. Because an all white cast has literally been the norm for decades. In my eyes, if you're making a film with an all white cast now, you're embarrassing.  Unless it's like, Buried, and stars one white guy. (AND EVEN THEN! almost the entire voice cast is white! HOW do these directors keep doing this!)

If all black cast isn't wrong, if all yellow cast isn't wrong, no way an all-white cast will suddenly become a wrong. That is not how the equation worked, they are boring at worst. Not to mention we are talking about a film highly based on historical event.  

 

Can't believe I am a yellow defending a so-called "white privilege" here. A disrespect invite disrespect, we want more PoC representation in Hollywood for sure. Box office number certainly tell you people wants more, but denying a all-white cast for no apparent solid reason is just a "revenge" for Hollywood long ignorance, and bring no benefit for all since this may stoke intensity of far right idealism.

 

      

[ChipDerby]

OK I'm done with arguing with you. Bye.