CelticsStrong
Other Discussions => Entertainment => Off Topic => Movies => Topic started by: Neurotic Guy on March 04, 2018, 07:11:21 PM
-
Not a thread started for debate about opinions of this year's best movies or performances, but OK if it devolves into that.
I have come to be indifferent about the Oscars -- or any of the myriad awards that the entertainment industry bestows mostly upon its already famed and well-rewarded talent. I enjoyed it as a kid and looked forward to it (60's and 70's), but I doubt I'll watch a minute of it tonight. Hours of pomp, "who are you wearing", usually with some faux-feeling political / social statements that I usually agree with but am yet nauseated by.
I do have some thoughts about the latest issue having to do with the historic paucity of roles/films that feature people of color -- and thus, a corresponding lack of Oscar nominations for people of color. Cautiously putting this out there. I think, like any capitalist industry, the film industry is driven by money -- and is driven to fund movies that give the movie studio its best shot for a lucrative box office.
Is it the studios' thoughtful calculation that "White movies" stand a better chance at the box office than "African-American movies"?
Is this discrimination by the movie industry? Or is this a response to the true (perhaps subconscious) bias/discrimination that occurs in society that makes movies featuring white movie stars, or white-person-based stories, more interesting to white (majority) audiences... I understand the advocates for increasing opportunities for people of color in the industry -- but it sure presents an interesting and important reflection for our country. I won't call ANY of this "racism", but there is little doubt in my mind that there remains a bias about race that continues to permeate the subconscious and impacts our decision-making -- effecting equality and access. This year's Oscars apparently feature two highly acclaimed movies that feature predominently African-American casts. Perhaps this is a trend? But interesting how movies, despite token roles, still tend to have casts that are predominently one race or the other (I am aware that there are exceptions). Could it be that art is immitating life -- if so, what is "art" saying about life in America.
Just wondering whether others here have thoughts about this.
-
The thing that kinda bothers me is when you have a great story and kinda put unnecessary stuff in it and take out other stuff.
Like for example....Wind Talkers. Great idea. Totally overdue. Why is Nicholas Cage in it? No reason whatsoever. There was never such a person as his character "protecting" them. Just bad history and disrespectful.
Glory.....I LOVE Glory and think it's totally underrated and think they did a good job reading Gould Shaw's letters.....but he's basically the only historical character in the film. People don't realize there was a Medal of Honor winner in there.
Also....we have great films about every Euro hero ever. TV series. Even when we don't know much about them. Like we don't really know that much about Marco Polo but the guy has had two TV series now I think.
Where is the movie about Shakka Zulu? Montezuma? Emmit Till? Etc?
I stiiilllll don't know much about various leaders of the civil rights movement.
I liked what they did with 12 Years a Slave. They tried to be accurate and complex. That's why the next time they remake Roots I hope Kunta Kinte is a slave owner himself.
-
I liked what they did with 12 Years a Slave. They tried to be accurate and complex. That's why the next time they remake Roots I hope Kunta Kinte is a slave owner himself.
Storytellers get to tell the story they want to tell. If Alex Haley set out to write the story of Kunta Kinte as an African warrior, perhaps accuracy with regard to his life prior to slavery would matter more. Haley chose to tell the story of the inhumanity of capture and slavery without too much detail of life prior to capture. Not sure why you are certain that Kunta Kinte (some say a fictionalized composite character; some say a real Haley ancestor) owned slaves; but if he did, I still think the storyteller gets to make the point he/she wants to make. The movies are fantasy. History in the movies always portrays life over time and magically condenses it into 120 minutes. The storyteller owns how he/she writes the history and the viewer should be an aware participant in the snapshot fantasies and liberties that the storyteller provides. Accuracy or entertainment -- hopefully you get some of both, but given the choice of one or the other I think I'd usually opt for entertainment (that is, if I am paying for a seat).
-
Good post.
I hear your view that it is not the film industry itself that is racist, but more likely American society and that's who the film industry must cater to for profits. Though I do think that part of what society feels is based on what we see... and film plays a big part in that. So while I understand that what they produce is based on the way Americans are, I think they have the ability to change the way Americans are.
I think movies that normalize mixed race relations are much better for the advancement of racial perceptions in our country than movies with casts that are predominantly people of color. Before Get Out and The Big Sick came out this year, I cannot recall a single movie that featured a mixed-race couple. (The Bodyguard now comes to mind.) Hopefully this trend continues.
-
I liked what they did with 12 Years a Slave. They tried to be accurate and complex. That's why the next time they remake Roots I hope Kunta Kinte is a slave owner himself.
Storytellers get to tell the story they want to tell. If Alex Haley set out to write the story of Kunta Kinte as an African warrior, perhaps accuracy with regard to his life prior to slavery would matter more. Haley chose to tell the story of the inhumanity of capture and slavery without too much detail of life prior to capture. Not sure why you are certain that Kunta Kinte (some say a fictionalized composite character; some say a real Haley ancestor) owned slaves; but if he did, I still think the storyteller gets to make the point he/she wants to make. The movies are fantasy. History in the movies always portrays life over time and magically condenses it into 120 minutes. The storyteller owns how he/she writes the history and the viewer should be an aware participant in the snapshot fantasies and liberties that the storyteller provides. Accuracy or entertainment -- hopefully you get some of both, but given the choice of one or the other I think I'd usually opt for entertainment (that is, if I am paying for a seat).
Some people say story teller. Some say lie teller.
Hollywood doesn't get to have it both ways. They don't get to tell us that they're responsible and respectful and then when they get called out suddenly say "But I'm a story teller!" Pick one.
-
I liked what they did with 12 Years a Slave. They tried to be accurate and complex. That's why the next time they remake Roots I hope Kunta Kinte is a slave owner himself.
Storytellers get to tell the story they want to tell. If Alex Haley set out to write the story of Kunta Kinte as an African warrior, perhaps accuracy with regard to his life prior to slavery would matter more. Haley chose to tell the story of the inhumanity of capture and slavery without too much detail of life prior to capture. Not sure why you are certain that Kunta Kinte (some say a fictionalized composite character; some say a real Haley ancestor) owned slaves; but if he did, I still think the storyteller gets to make the point he/she wants to make. The movies are fantasy. History in the movies always portrays life over time and magically condenses it into 120 minutes. The storyteller owns how he/she writes the history and the viewer should be an aware participant in the snapshot fantasies and liberties that the storyteller provides. Accuracy or entertainment -- hopefully you get some of both, but given the choice of one or the other I think I'd usually opt for entertainment (that is, if I am paying for a seat).
Some people say story teller. Some say lie teller.
Hollywood doesn't get to have it both ways. They don't get to tell us that they're responsible and respectful and then when they get called out suddenly say "But I'm a story teller!" Pick one.
Well, I pick story-teller with the understanding that stories are just that. I tend not to get my "news" from the movies.
But those that give me what I think of as "news" may be telling stories too. But that's for another thread.
-
Just want to say that Black Panther pretty much proved you can have an almost completely black cast, telling a story about empowerment of black people around the world and how they can lead this world into a better place and have it be wildly successful both at the box office and from critics worldwide.
I hope the Academy recognizes the greatness of this film next year.
-
Is it the studios' thoughtful calculation that "White movies" stand a better chance at the box office than "African-American movies"?
Up until recently I would say the answer to this question is Yes. Is it accurate thinking? I don't think so.
As in politics, the majority of power brokers have been white and middle aged or older. I think that they have been out of touch with the movie going audience (younger demo for the most part) in that they are far less jaded in their views on race than middle aged or older (talking in generalities of course).
I recall an interview hearing Michael B Jordan talking about how there just weren't that many roles available for black actors and it was really interesting to hear him talk on the subject. And I think that is starting to change which is a good thing.
Whether that trend continues or not, it will be interesting to see. It can be as PC as it wants but the entertainment ultimately is a bottom line business so if that begins to suffer then hollywood will go right back to the formula it thinks will work and diversity will take a back seat to generating profits.
-
If it's a good movie and the story interests me, I'll watch it.
The Big Sick and Get Out interested me and I watched them.
Roman J. Israel, Esq. isn't something I care about and I like Denzel.. .so I will skip it.
-
Op raises a good point about Hollywood being largely market driven in it's decisions, and that’s why many movies feature white actors. But that’s just one of many variables to consider. AnOther variable could be, population size - African Americans make up only 13% of the US population. Much smaller pool to draw talent from, so good old fashion competition comes into play. Should actors who read lines better be passed over because they are not a POC? Seems to be where we are headed.
Inequality of outcome does not always mean inequality of opportunity.
-
IQ/intelligence is a factor too. Jewish people, specifically Ashkenazi Jews, dominate Hollywood and media outlets. There’s good reason for this, their verbal acuity is through the roof.
-
Op raises a good point about Hollywood being largely market driven in it's decisions, and that’s why many movies feature white actors. But that’s just one of many variables to consider. AnOther variable could be, population size - African Americans make up only 13% of the US population. Much smaller pool to draw talent from, so good old fashion competition comes into play. Should actors who read lines better be passed over because they are not a POC? Seems to be where we are headed.
Inequality of outcome does not always mean inequality of opportunity.
Fair point, but since African Americans make up 13% of the population and about 65% whites it may be anticipated that the roles/nominees would be generally in that ballpark. See nominees from the 2016 awards (couldn't link pic, but I'll try later).
Yes, much to my chagrin I have to counter your statement a bit. If one of the variables is actually discrimination and resulting lack of access, even if driven by profit rather than racism, there should be a conscious correction. Meaning that films and roles featuring POC should be thoughtfully increased. A society that values diversity and values fair access does at times have to face down the "market". If it is true that the market always tells the story, this story is telling something about society's lingering bias toward white actors and white films which has self-perpetuated and will continue without conscious change.
-
IQ/intelligence is a factor too. Jewish people, specifically Ashkenazi Jews, dominate Hollywood and media outlets. There’s good reason for this, their verbal acuity is through the roof.
You can explain disproportionality in a number of ways.
Cultural focus on football, along with genetic propensity to size and strength have afforded a disproportionate number of American Samoans the opportunity to play in the NFL. However, not all disproportionality is explained by talent or a particular cultural or genetic emphasis. Sometimes, it's about discrimination and racial bias. When bias, or nepotism, cronyism,... become the most likely explanation for disproportionaliy, something needs to be done that the market will not take care of on its own.
-
When bias, or nepotism, cronyism,... become the most likely explanation for disproportionaliy, something needs to be done that the market will not take care of on its own.
Sure, if you’re a leftist that relies solely on the government to fix all of your problems. Instead of running to the government, run to fair markets. In a fair market, if there is discrimination, that entity will not survive in the long run because a competitor will snatch up the disenfranchised individuals.
As far as society’s bias towards white actors, if it’s true, it means that black actors have to work harder or make movies that aren’t just about “black life” (any Tyler perry movie). I like Denzel and DiCaprio fairly equally (a lot). But there are far fewer Denzel’s in Hollywood and far more Anthony Anderson’s. Also subject matter for the targeted audience matters. If you’re making a movie where blacks make jokes about “white boys”, you’re expected to put off a fairly large segment of American population (your audience). Instead of focusing on changing why whites (or any customers) aren’t watching the movies, focus on making racially neutral movies targeting as many people as possible. I mean this isn’t rocket science. A movie is a product, and you have to position your product to attract as many customers as you can. Movies like inception, Shawshank redemption are racially neutral so they will target 100% of the market. Movies like Tyler perry will target 13% of the market, because they’re solely about black culture which seems to be very uninteresting to someone who has little experience with it (a white person). An all black cast means nothing to me because I’m not a racist. If they’re good and the story is good I’ll watch it. If the dialogue is 80% Ebonics that I’ll barely understand, I’ll pass. You don’t change customers you change the product.
-
End the “Jews in Hollywood” conversation now, please.
-
It’s a multi-fold answer.
“Identity marketing”. I’m sure marketing to a largely white audience plays a role.
Cultural stereotypes. Our culture seems to have defined “beautiful” and “white” as synonymous. Scarlet Johannson and Jennifer Lawrence get roles not only because of talent, but because they conform to society’s view of what beauty is.
Movies that are majority-black cast tend to only target “black” audiences, and a subset of black audiences at that. There are very few Black Panthers or The Cosby Shows, despite many movies and TV shows that are majority black casts.
Oscars have a “type”. Many Oscar contenders are fairly nichey. They fall outside the mainstream. Take Black Panther: awesome movie, but not necessarily the type of movie that would typically be nominated.
Source material. A lot of books, historical accounts, etc., are from an era when blacks were marginalized much moreso. In adapting screen plays, changing the race of a character creates instant controversy about not being “true” to the source material.
Lots of others, but I’ve got to get my kids ready for school, haha.
-
I hate all this PC nonsense. Just gives ammunition to white supremacist crowd. Not only is the current US population still predominantly white but US history and modern world history has been predominantly driven by white European males. Since movies are often historical there are going to be a lot of actors with white skin color in them.
Labeling movies as "white movies" because they have a largely white cast is rather racist in my mind. Cary Grant and Sidney Poitier were both great actors and two of my all-time favorites who just happen to have different skin coloring. To separate them into being a "white actor" and a "black actor" is nonsense.
The population that has much more of a complaint in Hollywood, and society in general, is women regardless of their race. If I ask you to name top black actors, it is easy to start rattling them off: Denzel, Morgan Freeman, Samuel Jackson, Idris Elba, ... Now name top black actresses: ... Older actors are still able to get good roles. Older actresses not named Meryl Streep: ... Don't wait by the phone.
-
I think that Hollywood has been guilty in this regard for many years. I think they have improved a great deal.
Here is a census of America by race:
White alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 76.9%
Black or African American alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 13.3%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 1.3%
Asian alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 5.7%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 0.2%
Hispanic or Latino, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(b) 17.8%
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045216
If we use this census then 77% of role ought to go to whites, 13 to African Americans, Etc. I am not certain that would be fair, but statistically it would be correct.
I think a lot of this is Hollywood trying to make up for their shady past in this regard. I mean they did discriminate heavily in the past with stuff like folks not getting roles and using black face which was a bad thing. A good actor is a good actor, and race really does not play a factor for me in that regard. I know Will Smith was upset a few years away but let's get real he is not the best actor or of the caliber of Morgan Freeman, or Denzel Washington in terms of acting chops.
I think the fanboys have punished movies that changed the races of major characters. Gunslinger is a good example as the latest Fantastic Four. Comic book guys are loyal movie goers but no one wants to see a beloved character changed to please others. These movies bombed. Marvel Disney has done this best and not paid a price. Nick Fury is a great example of a change that was embraced but we are talking Samuel L . Jackson who exudes cool.
-
I think films are more diverse than they were. For example look at Last Jedi vs a New Hope.
But we watch a certain number of foreign films that are even whiter in some circumstances and maybe it gives us a whiter impression of things.
For example, the original Harry Potter films had an all-English actor rule. It got a little more diverse when they came to America in the Fantastic Beast films.
All the Lord of the Rings/Hobbit stuff....of course it will be pretty white.
Then of course you get XMen with blue people. Blue people are very rare in Hollywood.
-
I think the fanboys have punished movies that changed the races of major characters. Gunslinger is a good example as the latest Fantastic Four.
Idris Elba is a good actor. However, (book spoilers) Roland is white. Susannah is black. A huge part of their mythology is the interaction between Susannah’s racist alter-ego and Roland, along with the Odetta / Detta split. Race isn’t interchangeable, particularly in this instance; it is essential to the characters.
But, the Dark Tower sucked because it was a terrible script, was underbudgeted, and focused more on Jake than Roland.
-
Internet searches and social media mentions for "inclusion rider" spiked late Sunday night after Frances McDormand urged other actors to ask for them in contracts as a way to ensure gender and racial diversity in films.
"I have two words to leave with you tonight, ladies and gentlemen: inclusion rider," McDormand said, concluding her powerful acceptance speech for winning the best actress Oscar.
She expounded on the meaning of the term while speaking with reporters backstage, saying the clause allows actors to "demand at least 50 percent diversity in not only the casting, but also the crew."
Lol. Quotas. That should make for better movies. Who cares about most qualified, let’s straight up discriminate.
-
Hollywood sure loves patting itself on the back feels like there is an award show every other weekend.
People legit watch these things huh?
-
I watch movies or shows that are captivating and entertaining. I don't care what the demographic of the cast looks like.
But it'd be awfully weird to watch a movie about Larry Bird played by a Hispanic woman. I don't think that would likely be very captivating, nor entertaining.
-
Last night's Oscars was very Non-Political, and not even that much was said about the me too movement. It did a great job focusing on the people who craft films.
Hollywood sure loves patting itself on the back feels like there is an award show every other weekend.
People legit watch these things huh?
Every single industry in this country gives awards. Every State gives out a "teacher of the year" award, a lot of workplaces give out monthly awards for best employee. Any kind of artistic industry has awards. Awards are given to the vast majority of professions.
So this isnt just a Hollywood thing.
I love that the Oscars spend the Majority of the evening highlighting the work of people behind the camera. There are only 4 actor awards, the rest of the night is for the people who get little to no recognition for what they do.
-
Last night's Oscars was very Non-Political, and not even that much was said about the me too movement. It did a great job focusing on the people who craft films.
Hollywood sure loves patting itself on the back feels like there is an award show every other weekend.
People legit watch these things huh?
Every single industry in this country gives awards. Every State gives out a "teacher of the year" award, a lot of workplaces give out monthly awards for best employee. Any kind of artistic industry has awards. Awards are given to the vast majority of professions.
So this isnt just a Hollywood thing.
I love that the Oscars spend the Majority of the evening highlighting the work of people behind the camera. There are only 4 actor awards, the rest of the night is for the people who get little to no recognition for what they do.
I've never once seen Microsoft's award show or West Compton High teacher of the year award show. But 6 times a year we see Hollywood do it. It's cool you enjoy it and it's also cool that I don't.
-
Last night's Oscars was very Non-Political, and not even that much was said about the me too movement. It did a great job focusing on the people who craft films.
Hollywood sure loves patting itself on the back feels like there is an award show every other weekend.
People legit watch these things huh?
Every single industry in this country gives awards. Every State gives out a "teacher of the year" award, a lot of workplaces give out monthly awards for best employee. Any kind of artistic industry has awards. Awards are given to the vast majority of professions.
So this isnt just a Hollywood thing.
I love that the Oscars spend the Majority of the evening highlighting the work of people behind the camera. There are only 4 actor awards, the rest of the night is for the people who get little to no recognition for what they do.
I've never once seen Microsoft's award show or West Compton High teacher of the year award show. But 6 times a year we see Hollywood do it. It's cool you enjoy it and it's also cool that I don't.
lol if you can't figure out why that's the case idk what to tell you. The whole world must be very confusing. Every single Grammy, Oscar, Golden Globe, DICE award, SAG, must be perplexing.
-
Last night's Oscars was very Non-Political, and not even that much was said about the me too movement. It did a great job focusing on the people who craft films.
Hollywood sure loves patting itself on the back feels like there is an award show every other weekend.
People legit watch these things huh?
Every single industry in this country gives awards. Every State gives out a "teacher of the year" award, a lot of workplaces give out monthly awards for best employee. Any kind of artistic industry has awards. Awards are given to the vast majority of professions.
So this isnt just a Hollywood thing.
I love that the Oscars spend the Majority of the evening highlighting the work of people behind the camera. There are only 4 actor awards, the rest of the night is for the people who get little to no recognition for what they do.
I've never once seen Microsoft's award show or West Compton High teacher of the year award show. But 6 times a year we see Hollywood do it. It's cool you enjoy it and it's also cool that I don't.
lol if you can't figure out why that's the case idk what to tell you. The whole world must be very confusing. Every single Grammy, Oscar, Golden Globe, DICE award, SAG, must be perplexing.
Obviously lots of people care about these kinds of awards, or at least find it entertaining to watch. If no one cared it would be aired.
But that doesn't mean that everyone has to care, or should.
Personally, I don't think I've ever once watched an award show. Seems rather uninteresting to me. Not to mention, I don't care what someone else says was a good movie, song, TV show, etc. I'll form my own opinion on that, because it's the only one that matters to me, when it comes to what I find entertaining.
-
I watched the Oscars because I watched the nominated movies, and had an opinion on which ones were the best. My wife and I created our own ballot (just for the 6 major categories) and compared results. Thus, it was a source of entertainment for us. Not everyone likes basketball, football, or movies. No one is forcing anyone to watch the Oscars or the Super Bowl. Like anything else in this world, it is your choice to participate or not.
The inclusion rider is similar to affirmative action. I'm ok with that. Many of my white friends are not. My take is that they feel threatened by people that are not white men. In addition, I think that they fear change. Without fear/anger, why do they have such strong emotions on a topic that doesn't change their life at all (don't like the movie, don't go pay to see it).
Please, someone convince me how their life will be worse by an inclusion rider in motion pictures.
-
But it'd be awfully weird to watch a movie about Larry Bird played by a Hispanic woman. I don't think that would likely be very captivating, nor entertaining.
I would unironically watch the hell out of this.
-
But it'd be awfully weird to watch a movie about Larry Bird played by a Hispanic woman. I don't think that would likely be very captivating, nor entertaining.
I would unironically watch the hell out of this.
My mind immediately slipped over to noting that original Shakespeare was performed by all-male casts.
It would take a hell of a good Hispanic actress to pull it (portraying Larry Bird) off. But if she's that good of an actress then yes, definitely worth watching.
-
But it'd be awfully weird to watch a movie about Larry Bird played by a Hispanic woman. I don't think that would likely be very captivating, nor entertaining.
I would unironically watch the hell out of this.
My mind immediately slipped over to noting that original Shakespeare was performed by all-male casts.
It would take a hell of a good Hispanic actress to pull it (portraying Larry Bird) off. But if she's that good of an actress then yes, definitely worth watching.
Well, someone did say this on the Internet...
(https://pics.me.me/rt-whathelookslike-larry-bird-looks-like-an-old-ukrainian-lady-14931119.png)
-
I watched the Oscars because I watched the nominated movies, and had an opinion on which ones were the best. My wife and I created our own ballot (just for the 6 major categories) and compared results. Thus, it was a source of entertainment for us. Not everyone likes basketball, football, or movies. No one is forcing anyone to watch the Oscars or the Super Bowl. Like anything else in this world, it is your choice to participate or not.
The inclusion rider is similar to affirmative action. I'm ok with that. Many of my white friends are not. My take is that they feel threatened by people that are not white men. In addition, I think that they fear change. Without fear/anger, why do they have such strong emotions on a topic that doesn't change their life at all (don't like the movie, don't go pay to see it).
Please, someone convince me how their life will be worse by an inclusion rider in motion pictures.
I don't have a huge problem with the rider if that's what they want, but if followed through all the way it could get a tad whacky and I think it's also sorta a feel good thing du jour.
Like for example....let's say you're making a movie about special people. Will you use actors with disabilities? Or will you give an Oscar to a movie star to pretend they have one?
What if you make a movie taking place in Minneapolis (or Vermont)? Do you have to have just any minorities? Or should you really take pains to accurately depict the Islamic Somali community of that area?
What if you're making a movie about the NHL or pro tennis in the 1950s?
Who makes these rules?
-
But it'd be awfully weird to watch a movie about Larry Bird played by a Hispanic woman. I don't think that would likely be very captivating, nor entertaining.
I would unironically watch the hell out of this.
My mind immediately slipped over to noting that original Shakespeare was performed by all-male casts.
It would take a hell of a good Hispanic actress to pull it (portraying Larry Bird) off. But if she's that good of an actress then yes, definitely worth watching.
Well, someone did say this on the Internet...
(https://pics.me.me/rt-whathelookslike-larry-bird-looks-like-an-old-ukrainian-lady-14931119.png)
What a terribly racist thing to say about Ukrainian people!
#Wherestheoutrage
-
But it'd be awfully weird to watch a movie about Larry Bird played by a Hispanic woman. I don't think that would likely be very captivating, nor entertaining.
I would unironically watch the hell out of this.
My mind immediately slipped over to noting that original Shakespeare was performed by all-male casts.
It would take a hell of a good Hispanic actress to pull it (portraying Larry Bird) off. But if she's that good of an actress then yes, definitely worth watching.
I think Sophia Vergara could definitely pull it off. 😉😂
-
But it'd be awfully weird to watch a movie about Larry Bird played by a Hispanic woman. I don't think that would likely be very captivating, nor entertaining.
I would unironically watch the hell out of this.
My mind immediately slipped over to noting that original Shakespeare was performed by all-male casts.
It would take a hell of a good Hispanic actress to pull it (portraying Larry Bird) off. But if she's that good of an actress then yes, definitely worth watching.
I think Sophia Vergara could definitely pull it off. 😉😂
Lots and lots of slow-motion shots of clutch jumpers. Throw in Magic Johnson played by like William H Macy and Jordan as a hologram Air Bud and I'll camp out for tickets.
-
But it'd be awfully weird to watch a movie about Larry Bird played by a Hispanic woman. I don't think that would likely be very captivating, nor entertaining.
I would unironically watch the hell out of this.
My mind immediately slipped over to noting that original Shakespeare was performed by all-male casts.
It would take a hell of a good Hispanic actress to pull it (portraying Larry Bird) off. But if she's that good of an actress then yes, definitely worth watching.
I think Sophia Vergara could definitely pull it off. 😉😂
Lots and lots of slow-motion shots of clutch jumpers. Throw in Magic Johnson played by like William H Macy and Jordan as a hologram Air Bud and I'll camp out for tickets.
Lol...TP
-
Idris Elba is a good actor. However, (book spoilers) Roland is white. Susannah is black. A huge part of their mythology is the interaction between Susannah’s racist alter-ego and Roland, along with the Odetta / Detta split. Race isn’t interchangeable, particularly in this instance; it is essential to the characters.
I agree he is a superb actor. But I know some guys who would not go see it because they liked the book and it says he looks like Clint Eastwood. I know it sounds silly. I have never read the book so I have no idea. I plan to read it someday.
-
Oscar viewership down 20% from last year....cause people are sick to death of Hypocrite,Whiny,Self absorbed Celebrities. HA.
-
I hate all this PC nonsense. Just gives ammunition to white supremacist crowd. Not only is the current US population still predominantly white but US history and modern world history has been predominantly driven by white European males. Since movies are often historical there are going to be a lot of actors with white skin color in them.
Labeling movies as "white movies" because they have a largely white cast is rather racist in my mind. Cary Grant and Sidney Poitier were both great actors and two of my all-time favorites who just happen to have different skin coloring. To separate them into being a "white actor" and a "black actor" is nonsense.
The population that has much more of a complaint in Hollywood, and society in general, is women regardless of their race. If I ask you to name top black actors, it is easy to start rattling them off: Denzel, Morgan Freeman, Samuel Jackson, Idris Elba, ... Now name top black actresses: ... Older actors are still able to get good roles. Older actresses not named Meryl Streep: ... Don't wait by the phone.
Confused about what exactly is the "PC nonsense". You made your point about not wanting to separate "black" and "white" as if, in reality, people don't actually do this. The frustration of discussing issues with those who like to dismiss other views as PC nonsense, is that it inhibits a straight discussion of what is (or isn't) actually happening in society (which we could probably agree on) and what we wish for or hope to be happening in society (which we also may agree on). To deny that we label movies as having a predominantly white or black cast is just to deny reality. We notice. It is not racist to notice. And it is not nonsense to identify a possible societal issue and talk about how to (whether to) address it (which does include the option of letting it evolve without influence).
-
When bias, or nepotism, cronyism,... become the most likely explanation for disproportionaliy, something needs to be done that the market will not take care of on its own.
Sure, if you’re a leftist that relies solely on the government to fix all of your problems. Instead of running to the government, run to fair markets. In a fair market, if there is discrimination, that entity will not survive in the long run because a competitor will snatch up the disenfranchised individuals.
As far as society’s bias towards white actors, if it’s true, it means that black actors have to work harder or make movies that aren’t just about “black life” (any Tyler perry movie). I like Denzel and DiCaprio fairly equally (a lot). But there are far fewer Denzel’s in Hollywood and far more Anthony Anderson’s. Also subject matter for the targeted audience matters. If you’re making a movie where blacks make jokes about “white boys”, you’re expected to put off a fairly large segment of American population (your audience). Instead of focusing on changing why whites (or any customers) aren’t watching the movies, focus on making racially neutral movies targeting as many people as possible. I mean this isn’t rocket science. A movie is a product, and you have to position your product to attract as many customers as you can. Movies like inception, Shawshank redemption are racially neutral so they will target 100% of the market. Movies like Tyler perry will target 13% of the market, because they’re solely about black culture which seems to be very uninteresting to someone who has little experience with it (a white person). An all black cast means nothing to me because I’m not a racist. If they’re good and the story is good I’ll watch it. If the dialogue is 80% Ebonics that I’ll barely understand, I’ll pass. You don’t change customers you change the product.
Kind of harsh to call "leftist" and to claim that anyone has suggested anything at all about government solving this.
I promise you that it is possible to have conversations with people who have different perspectives without name-calling or marginalizing by claiming extremism. As far as I am concerned, I think the issue is a good one to discuss because I think disproportionality tells us something about society -- not always sure exactly what and not always the same thing -- but that's the point of the discussion. There are far fewer people that you think who actually want the government to solve everything. And with regard to the issue that I raised here (only for discussion and not asserting firm conclusions), I never said, nor did I even suggest, anything having to do with government intervention. Actually I find the idea of government involvement in racially-balancing movies an absurd idea. How about that -- you agree with a "leftist"!
-
But it'd be awfully weird to watch a movie about Larry Bird played by a Hispanic woman. I don't think that would likely be very captivating, nor entertaining.
I would unironically watch the hell out of this.
My mind immediately slipped over to noting that original Shakespeare was performed by all-male casts.
It would take a hell of a good Hispanic actress to pull it (portraying Larry Bird) off. But if she's that good of an actress then yes, definitely worth watching.
I think Sophia Vergara could definitely pull it off. 😉😂
Lots and lots of slow-motion shots of clutch jumpers. Throw in Magic Johnson played by like William H Macy and Jordan as a hologram Air Bud and I'll camp out for tickets.
Lol...TP
You guys are too cute :o
But seriously, ain't nobody rushing out see to a movie about Larry bird portrayed by Sophia Vergara any more than they are a movie about Lisa Leslie portrayed by Tommy Lee Jones. It's absurd, and no one in their right mind would make such a movie, other than maybe as some extreme parody.
But that's not really the point. The point is, the outcome isn't that important, the process is what is important.
Take for example, the show "The Punisher". John Bernthal is fantastic in the role of Frank Castle. But it's seemingly a role that was written rather race neutral, and that an actor of any race could have been cast in that role. I would have been just as captivated regardless of what race the actor playing the role was.
Bu the important question is, why was a white actor chosen over an actor of another race?
Was it because the producer/writer hates minorities and views them as inferior actors? That would be disgustingly wrong, and furthermore, illegal.
Was it because the producer/writer thought a white actor would sell better to the public? Well, this is maybe a gray area, but personally, I see no issue with that line of thinking most of the time. The market dictates what the market dictates, and in truth, the market will probably dictate that a representative number of minority actors are given roles if studios are truly doing what is in their financial best interest.
Or, was it because of all the actors that auditioned for the part, John Bernthal was simply the most qualified? Obviously no one should have any issue if this is in fact the answer. And this is critical, because it has relevance to the following statements.
If we use this census then 77% of role ought to go to whites, 13 to African Americans, Etc. I am not certain that would be fair, but statistically it would be correct.
Internet searches and social media mentions for "inclusion rider" spiked late Sunday night after Frances McDormand urged other actors to ask for them in contracts as a way to ensure gender and racial diversity in films.
"I have two words to leave with you tonight, ladies and gentlemen: inclusion rider," McDormand said, concluding her powerful acceptance speech for winning the best actress Oscar.
She expounded on the meaning of the term while speaking with reporters backstage, saying the clause allows actors to "demand at least 50 percent diversity in not only the casting, but also the crew."
Both of these statements fall flat, for the reasons I've outlined above.
In a society that truly treats all people as equal, and in which employment, among other things, is based on a non-bias system of meritocracy, it stands to reason given a large enough population any subset of the population should be approximately equally distributed. Now, this doesn't inherently mean that it has to be, but given an equal interest in pursuit, and free from any biases, it most likely will be.
Any claims that a subset of the entire population that represents a minority of the overall population should inherently be entitled to a greater representation than their population share, are discriminatory, and should never be allowed.
Quite literally, the only thing that should matter is whether or not the most qualified person for the job actually got the job. And if not, why?
-
Oscar viewership down 20% from last year....cause people are sick to death of Hypocrite,Whiny,Self absorbed Celebrities. HA.
More likely, folks just haven't seen any of the nominated movies and thus had no emotional investment in any of the candidates.
Folks are far more likely to tune into the Oscars if they have seen one or more of the nominees.
But this years nominees, while probably all deserving, nevertheless came from a cadre of films that resulted in only minimal box-office returns. I'm pretty sure each of Wonder Woman or Thor:Ragnarok sold more tickets in their first couple of weeks than all of the best picture nominees combined for the whole year. But those sort of films aren't nominated.
-
You guys are talking about the market taking care of everything. Why interfere with top actors installing an inclusion rider in their contracts? This isn't gov't intervention. It is the top talent (labor force) demanding a new working standard. Agree/disagree with the idea of such a rider, but it doesn't have anything to do with government interference.
If Gronk demands an inclusion rider in his blockbuster debut, the government doesn't need to intervene. If the production company violates one of his terms, he can sue and/or never work with said company again. That company will get a reputation for violating contract terms, whatever they may be.
-
Oscar viewership down 20% from last year....cause people are sick to death of Hypocrite,Whiny,Self absorbed Celebrities. HA.
More likely, folks just haven't seen any of the nominated movies and thus had no emotional investment in any of the candidates.
Folks are far more likely to tune into the Oscars if they have seen one or more of the nominees.
But this years nominees, while probably all deserving, nevertheless came from a cadre of films that resulted in only minimal box-office returns. I'm pretty sure each of Wonder Woman or Thor:Ragnarok sold more tickets in their first couple of weeks than all of the best picture nominees combined for the whole year. But those sort of films aren't nominated.
I agree. I also think people aren't taking into account how much more absorbed the world has become with social media and how people like things to happen fast, most people don't want to sit and watch 10 minute videos much less the Oscars for 3-4 hours. Then add on the fact that people aren't watching tv as much. Times are changing, there is just too much access to so much stuff and at the tip of your finger, viewers are going to be lost. I imagine in about 10-15 years The Oscars will be on a small network if people are even watching much of tv at all by that then ( ;D I may be exaggerating on how tv is going down in flames).
-
Oscar viewership down 20% from last year....cause people are sick to death of Hypocrite,Whiny,Self absorbed Celebrities. HA.
TP.
I think a lot of folk on both sides of the political spectrum are turned off hard by the politicization of so many events that used to be fun and entertaining.
Crap, if you want a political rally to be part of, turn on CNN or Fox, whatever your predilection, and listen to the one side that you favor so that your opinion can be "validated" by all the confirmation bias that you need.
Then everyone will only have to listen to and converse with people that believe the same thing that they do and never to have to hear a differing opinion.
Wait, isn't that what's already happening??
People better start listening to each other.
-
The thing that would really help Hollywood would be if they actually made good movies again. If an inclusion rider could change that then I'd be all for it.
-
You guys are talking about the market taking care of everything. Why interfere with top actors installing an inclusion rider in their contracts? This isn't gov't intervention. It is the top talent (labor force) demanding a new working standard. Agree/disagree with the idea of such a rider, but it doesn't have anything to do with government interference.
If Gronk demands an inclusion rider in his blockbuster debut, the government doesn't need to intervene. If the production company violates one of his terms, he can sue and/or never work with said company again. That company will get a reputation for violating contract terms, whatever they may be.
What if Samuel Jackson insisted on an “exclusion” rider, where no whites are allowed on set?
What if an actor asked for no gays? No blacks? No Hispanics?
Not cool, right? A film studio contracting to be racist / sexist / homophobic is setting itself up for a lawsuit.
An “inclusion” contract that demands 50% minority representation would be discriminatory on its face. Racial quotas exclude certain classes solely on the basis of race, and are illegal. While “diversity” can be seen as an added benefit, any hard line (i.e., “50%”) is discriminatory.
-
6.5% of the population represents something like 80% of the NBA. The NBA is 100% male. Is there discrimination going on in the NBA right now? I don’t think so. As a society we have become too quick to say “Racist! Sexist!” to explain inequality of outcome. It sort of makes me think of the Google Memo and James Damore. The “honest conversation” is not happening. Plenty of brilliant actors of all colors, but the lack of diversity in Hollywood probably has more to do with population size and acting skills.
-
You guys are talking about the market taking care of everything. Why interfere with top actors installing an inclusion rider in their contracts? This isn't gov't intervention. It is the top talent (labor force) demanding a new working standard. Agree/disagree with the idea of such a rider, but it doesn't have anything to do with government interference.
If Gronk demands an inclusion rider in his blockbuster debut, the government doesn't need to intervene. If the production company violates one of his terms, he can sue and/or never work with said company again. That company will get a reputation for violating contract terms, whatever they may be.
What if Samuel Jackson insisted on an “exclusion” rider, where no whites are allowed on set?
What if an actor asked for no gays? No blacks? No Hispanics?
Not cool, right? A film studio contracting to be racist / sexist / homophobic is setting itself up for a lawsuit.
An “inclusion” contract that demands 50% minority representation would be discriminatory on its face. Racial quotas exclude certain classes solely on the basis of race, and are illegal. While “diversity” can be seen as an added benefit, any hard line (i.e., “50%”) is discriminatory.
I doubt this happens (the "inclusion" contract). It's just talk. Baseball requires minority interviews. Not sure what's right; but I don't have a problem with discussing the issue, determining what's at the heart of the issue, and if a problem is identified, offering ideas to address it.
-
You guys are talking about the market taking care of everything. Why interfere with top actors installing an inclusion rider in their contracts? This isn't gov't intervention. It is the top talent (labor force) demanding a new working standard. Agree/disagree with the idea of such a rider, but it doesn't have anything to do with government interference.
If Gronk demands an inclusion rider in his blockbuster debut, the government doesn't need to intervene. If the production company violates one of his terms, he can sue and/or never work with said company again. That company will get a reputation for violating contract terms, whatever they may be.
What if Samuel Jackson insisted on an “exclusion” rider, where no whites are allowed on set?
What if an actor asked for no gays? No blacks? No Hispanics?
Not cool, right? A film studio contracting to be racist / sexist / homophobic is setting itself up for a lawsuit.
An “inclusion” contract that demands 50% minority representation would be discriminatory on its face. Racial quotas exclude certain classes solely on the basis of race, and are illegal. While “diversity” can be seen as an added benefit, any hard line (i.e., “50%”) is discriminatory.
I mean, I think I give you abot 100 TPs a year, but have another one. Spot on. We need to stop looking at each other as a member of a group, but as individuals.
-
Oscar viewership down 20% from last year....cause people are sick to death of Hypocrite,Whiny,Self absorbed Celebrities. HA.
People are tired of getting lectured to by these idiots.
-
6.5% of the population represents something like 80% of the NBA. The NBA is 100% male. Is there discrimination going on in the NBA right now? I don’t think so. As a society we have become too quick to say “Racist! Sexist!” to explain inequality of outcome. It sort of makes me think of the Google Memo and James Damore. The “honest conversation” is not happening. Plenty of brilliant actors of all colors, but the lack of diversity in Hollywood probably has more to do with population size and acting skills.
Not sure, but I don't think anyone here said the words racist or sexist to describe the issue being discussed. A look back to the original post will show that I was clear to say that I don't consider it racism. Not sure why you went there when there was no need to.
It could be that you are correct that the lack of diversity has more to do with population and talent differentials, but it's also possible (probable) that neither you nor I actually know all the precise reasons for the disproportionality. I am open to your point of view accounting for some of the difference, but I think that it is probably more complex than solely the result of population -- and I really hesitate to think that it rests with white people being inherently more talented than African-Americans.
It is possible, certainly not definite, that bias (perhaps only subconsciously), racial power differentials, and perhaps racial preferences in the market itself have played varying roles in the disproportional representation of people of color in the movies. Not sure I understand why you would blanketly rule out these possibilities. But thanks for the discussion.
-
You know, if an author of a book, comic, screenplay, poem, whatever makes a character a certain color, race, sex, whatever, just cast that character that way. If the character's color, race, sex, whatever isn't specified, cast it any way you want. I really don't care other than try to cast the best possible actor as that is what is going to make the story most believable and enjoyable.
Like in Godfather 3. Michael Corleone's daughter's actress has to be female, white and Italian looking. She doesn't have to be the worst actress in the world, Sophia Coppola. Give the part to the best actress. Not the director's daughter
-
You guys are talking about the market taking care of everything. Why interfere with top actors installing an inclusion rider in their contracts? This isn't gov't intervention. It is the top talent (labor force) demanding a new working standard. Agree/disagree with the idea of such a rider, but it doesn't have anything to do with government interference.
If Gronk demands an inclusion rider in his blockbuster debut, the government doesn't need to intervene. If the production company violates one of his terms, he can sue and/or never work with said company again. That company will get a reputation for violating contract terms, whatever they may be.
What if Samuel Jackson insisted on an “exclusion” rider, where no whites are allowed on set?
What if an actor asked for no gays? No blacks? No Hispanics?
Not cool, right? A film studio contracting to be racist / sexist / homophobic is setting itself up for a lawsuit.
An “inclusion” contract that demands 50% minority representation would be discriminatory on its face. Racial quotas exclude certain classes solely on the basis of race, and are illegal. While “diversity” can be seen as an added benefit, any hard line (i.e., “50%”) is discriminatory.
Those comparisons are crazy. No one is saying that there shouldn't be any white men. They're saying that there should be more women & minorities. You can choose to take it as a slight against white men, but I don't believe that is the intention. Much like in professional coaching/general management, there's no need for such an imbalance. McDormand was using this as an example of how women (majority of people on earth) could rise in prominence by challenging the power brokers. For some reason, this threatens white men.
I don't think anyone is pushing for a hard quota. I think they're looking for improvement. In a year that so many powerful men were busted for sexual assault, I don't see this as a crazy idea.
-
I hate all this PC nonsense. Just gives ammunition to white supremacist crowd. Not only is the current US population still predominantly white but US history and modern world history has been predominantly driven by white European males. Since movies are often historical there are going to be a lot of actors with white skin color in them.
Labeling movies as "white movies" because they have a largely white cast is rather racist in my mind. Cary Grant and Sidney Poitier were both great actors and two of my all-time favorites who just happen to have different skin coloring. To separate them into being a "white actor" and a "black actor" is nonsense.
The population that has much more of a complaint in Hollywood, and society in general, is women regardless of their race. If I ask you to name top black actors, it is easy to start rattling them off: Denzel, Morgan Freeman, Samuel Jackson, Idris Elba, ... Now name top black actresses: ... Older actors are still able to get good roles. Older actresses not named Meryl Streep: ... Don't wait by the phone.
Oh yes, because while white European males were making history the rest of the world was twiddling their thumbs. If Hollywood started letting people of color tell their stories and history white European males likely wouldn't like their place in it. It's pretty clear that Hollywood has a racial bias and your kidding yourself if you think non-white actors/actresses have the same level of opportunities
-
You know, if an author of a book, comic, screenplay, poem, whatever makes a character a certain color, race, sex, whatever, just cast that character that way. If the character's color, race, sex, whatever isn't specified, cast it any way you want. I really don't care other than try to cast the best possible actor as that is what is going to make the story most believable and enjoyable.
Like in Godfather 3. Michael Corleone's daughter's actress has to be female, white and Italian looking. She doesn't have to be the worst actress in the world, Sophia Coppola. Give the part to the best actress. Not the director's daughter
And if they could not give roles to Will Smith's kid that would be good too
-
You guys are talking about the market taking care of everything. Why interfere with top actors installing an inclusion rider in their contracts? This isn't gov't intervention. It is the top talent (labor force) demanding a new working standard. Agree/disagree with the idea of such a rider, but it doesn't have anything to do with government interference.
If Gronk demands an inclusion rider in his blockbuster debut, the government doesn't need to intervene. If the production company violates one of his terms, he can sue and/or never work with said company again. That company will get a reputation for violating contract terms, whatever they may be.
What if Samuel Jackson insisted on an “exclusion” rider, where no whites are allowed on set?
What if an actor asked for no gays? No blacks? No Hispanics?
Not cool, right? A film studio contracting to be racist / sexist / homophobic is setting itself up for a lawsuit.
An “inclusion” contract that demands 50% minority representation would be discriminatory on its face. Racial quotas exclude certain classes solely on the basis of race, and are illegal. While “diversity” can be seen as an added benefit, any hard line (i.e., “50%”) is discriminatory.
Those comparisons are crazy. No one is saying that there shouldn't be any white men. They're saying that there should be more women & minorities. You can choose to take it as a slight against white men, but I don't believe that is the intention. Much like in professional coaching/general management, there's no need for such an imbalance. McDormand was using this as an example of how women (majority of people on earth) could rise in prominence by challenging the power brokers. For some reason, this threatens white men.
I don't think anyone is pushing for a hard quota. I think they're looking for improvement. In a year that so many powerful men were busted for sexual assault, I don't see this as a crazy idea.
A contractual provision that requires 50% of a cast and crew to be minority is a hard quota, is illegal, and is unenforceable. That’s how McDormand described it. Now, maybe she’s an idiot, but I’m going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she made an informed choice to advocate for illegal discrimination.
-
You know, if an author of a book, comic, screenplay, poem, whatever makes a character a certain color, race, sex, whatever, just cast that character that way. If the character's color, race, sex, whatever isn't specified, cast it any way you want. I really don't care other than try to cast the best possible actor as that is what is going to make the story most believable and enjoyable.
Like in Godfather 3. Michael Corleone's daughter's actress has to be female, white and Italian looking. She doesn't have to be the worst actress in the world, Sophia Coppola. Give the part to the best actress. Not the director's daughter
And if they could not give roles to Will Smith's kid that would be good too
I think people should be able to give any role to any person at any time. I like how Adam Sandler hooks his buddies up with roles. People like to work with people that they like.
I feel like the forest is lost through the trees on this one. Nobody is trying to punish white men. They're trying to help segments of society that could use help. One can agree/disagree that certain segments need or are deserving of help. I just don't get the cynicism that people have when they hear people wanting to help others. This isn't a zero-sum world. Just b/c McDormand mentioned that more women should be prominent in the movie business does not mean that white men have to lose jobs. Movie sets are fluid- they don't just hire 50 people for every movie regardless of the scope of work. Wealthy production companies can do more to be inclusive- it's not all that controversial.
-
You know, if an author of a book, comic, screenplay, poem, whatever makes a character a certain color, race, sex, whatever, just cast that character that way. If the character's color, race, sex, whatever isn't specified, cast it any way you want. I really don't care other than try to cast the best possible actor as that is what is going to make the story most believable and enjoyable.
Like in Godfather 3. Michael Corleone's daughter's actress has to be female, white and Italian looking. She doesn't have to be the worst actress in the world, Sophia Coppola. Give the part to the best actress. Not the director's daughter
And if they could not give roles to Will Smith's kid that would be good too
I think people should be able to give any role to any person at any time. I like how Adam Sandler hooks his buddies up with roles. People like to work with people that they like.
I feel like the forest is lost through the trees on this one. Nobody is trying to punish white men. They're trying to help segments of society that could use help. One can agree/disagree that certain segments need or are deserving of help. I just don't get the cynicism that people have when they hear people wanting to help others. This isn't a zero-sum world. Just b/c McDormand mentioned that more women should be prominent in the movie business does not mean that white men have to lose jobs. Movie sets are fluid- they don't just hire 50 people for every movie regardless of the scope of work. Wealthy production companies can do more to be inclusive- it's not all that controversial.
I think the cynicism is that last night she basically said "Since we do a terrible job of following our own stated beliefs, why don't we put it into our contracts to follow our own beliefs."
-
You guys are talking about the market taking care of everything. Why interfere with top actors installing an inclusion rider in their contracts? This isn't gov't intervention. It is the top talent (labor force) demanding a new working standard. Agree/disagree with the idea of such a rider, but it doesn't have anything to do with government interference.
If Gronk demands an inclusion rider in his blockbuster debut, the government doesn't need to intervene. If the production company violates one of his terms, he can sue and/or never work with said company again. That company will get a reputation for violating contract terms, whatever they may be.
What if Samuel Jackson insisted on an “exclusion” rider, where no whites are allowed on set?
What if an actor asked for no gays? No blacks? No Hispanics?
Not cool, right? A film studio contracting to be racist / sexist / homophobic is setting itself up for a lawsuit.
An “inclusion” contract that demands 50% minority representation would be discriminatory on its face. Racial quotas exclude certain classes solely on the basis of race, and are illegal. While “diversity” can be seen as an added benefit, any hard line (i.e., “50%”) is discriminatory.
Those comparisons are crazy. No one is saying that there shouldn't be any white men. They're saying that there should be more women & minorities. You can choose to take it as a slight against white men, but I don't believe that is the intention. Much like in professional coaching/general management, there's no need for such an imbalance. McDormand was using this as an example of how women (majority of people on earth) could rise in prominence by challenging the power brokers. For some reason, this threatens white men.
I don't think anyone is pushing for a hard quota. I think they're looking for improvement. In a year that so many powerful men were busted for sexual assault, I don't see this as a crazy idea.
A contractual provision that requires 50% of a cast and crew to be minority is a hard quota, is illegal, and is unenforceable. That’s how McDormand described it. Now, maybe she’s an idiot, but I’m going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she made an informed choice to advocate for illegal discrimination.
I'm assuming you're an attorney. My wife is an attorney. She takes everything that I say literally. She has told me that she has been trained to do so.
McDormand is not an attorney. She's an actress- an eccentric, prob loony Hollywood type. I'm not sure she is qualified to discuss the "contractual provision that requires 50% of a cast to be minority" (nor do I believe she said this, as women are not in the minority). Therefore, I don't think that we need to put much thought into the legal ramifications of her Oscar speech.
She got up on stage to make a point. You can pick it apart as you'd like. I choose to think that she was trying to create positive social change.
-
You guys are talking about the market taking care of everything. Why interfere with top actors installing an inclusion rider in their contracts? This isn't gov't intervention. It is the top talent (labor force) demanding a new working standard. Agree/disagree with the idea of such a rider, but it doesn't have anything to do with government interference.
If Gronk demands an inclusion rider in his blockbuster debut, the government doesn't need to intervene. If the production company violates one of his terms, he can sue and/or never work with said company again. That company will get a reputation for violating contract terms, whatever they may be.
What if Samuel Jackson insisted on an “exclusion” rider, where no whites are allowed on set?
What if an actor asked for no gays? No blacks? No Hispanics?
Not cool, right? A film studio contracting to be racist / sexist / homophobic is setting itself up for a lawsuit.
An “inclusion” contract that demands 50% minority representation would be discriminatory on its face. Racial quotas exclude certain classes solely on the basis of race, and are illegal. While “diversity” can be seen as an added benefit, any hard line (i.e., “50%”) is discriminatory.
Those comparisons are crazy. No one is saying that there shouldn't be any white men. They're saying that there should be more women & minorities. You can choose to take it as a slight against white men, but I don't believe that is the intention. Much like in professional coaching/general management, there's no need for such an imbalance. McDormand was using this as an example of how women (majority of people on earth) could rise in prominence by challenging the power brokers. For some reason, this threatens white men.
I don't think anyone is pushing for a hard quota. I think they're looking for improvement. In a year that so many powerful men were busted for sexual assault, I don't see this as a crazy idea.
A contractual provision that requires 50% of a cast and crew to be minority is a hard quota, is illegal, and is unenforceable. That’s how McDormand described it. Now, maybe she’s an idiot, but I’m going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she made an informed choice to advocate for illegal discrimination.
I'm assuming you're an attorney. My wife is an attorney. She takes everything that I say literally. She has told me that she has been trained to do so.
McDormand is not an attorney. She's an actress- an eccentric, prob loony Hollywood type. I'm not sure she is qualified to discuss the "contractual provision that requires 50% of a cast to be minority" (nor do I believe she said this, as women are not in the minority). Therefore, I don't think that we need to put much thought into the legal ramifications of her Oscar speech.
She got up on stage to make a point. You can pick it apart as you'd like. I choose to think that she was trying to create positive social change.
bolded is my takeaway from the night.
-
You guys are talking about the market taking care of everything. Why interfere with top actors installing an inclusion rider in their contracts? This isn't gov't intervention. It is the top talent (labor force) demanding a new working standard. Agree/disagree with the idea of such a rider, but it doesn't have anything to do with government interference.
If Gronk demands an inclusion rider in his blockbuster debut, the government doesn't need to intervene. If the production company violates one of his terms, he can sue and/or never work with said company again. That company will get a reputation for violating contract terms, whatever they may be.
What if Samuel Jackson insisted on an “exclusion” rider, where no whites are allowed on set?
What if an actor asked for no gays? No blacks? No Hispanics?
Not cool, right? A film studio contracting to be racist / sexist / homophobic is setting itself up for a lawsuit.
An “inclusion” contract that demands 50% minority representation would be discriminatory on its face. Racial quotas exclude certain classes solely on the basis of race, and are illegal. While “diversity” can be seen as an added benefit, any hard line (i.e., “50%”) is discriminatory.
Those comparisons are crazy. No one is saying that there shouldn't be any white men. They're saying that there should be more women & minorities. You can choose to take it as a slight against white men, but I don't believe that is the intention. Much like in professional coaching/general management, there's no need for such an imbalance. McDormand was using this as an example of how women (majority of people on earth) could rise in prominence by challenging the power brokers. For some reason, this threatens white men.
I don't think anyone is pushing for a hard quota. I think they're looking for improvement. In a year that so many powerful men were busted for sexual assault, I don't see this as a crazy idea.
A contractual provision that requires 50% of a cast and crew to be minority is a hard quota, is illegal, and is unenforceable. That’s how McDormand described it. Now, maybe she’s an idiot, but I’m going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she made an informed choice to advocate for illegal discrimination.
I'm assuming you're an attorney. My wife is an attorney. She takes everything that I say literally. She has told me that she has been trained to do so.
McDormand is not an attorney. She's an actress- an eccentric, prob loony Hollywood type. I'm not sure she is qualified to discuss the "contractual provision that requires 50% of a cast to be minority" (nor do I believe she said this, as women are not in the minority). Therefore, I don't think that we need to put much thought into the legal ramifications of her Oscar speech.
She got up on stage to make a point. You can pick it apart as you'd like. I choose to think that she was trying to create positive social change.
bolded is my takeaway from the night.
Yeah, she's tapped. She's also one of the most respected actresses, and crushed it in Fargo & 3 Billboards. Also good in Almost Famous and Moonrise Kingdom.
-
You guys are talking about the market taking care of everything. Why interfere with top actors installing an inclusion rider in their contracts? This isn't gov't intervention. It is the top talent (labor force) demanding a new working standard. Agree/disagree with the idea of such a rider, but it doesn't have anything to do with government interference.
If Gronk demands an inclusion rider in his blockbuster debut, the government doesn't need to intervene. If the production company violates one of his terms, he can sue and/or never work with said company again. That company will get a reputation for violating contract terms, whatever they may be.
What if Samuel Jackson insisted on an “exclusion” rider, where no whites are allowed on set?
What if an actor asked for no gays? No blacks? No Hispanics?
Not cool, right? A film studio contracting to be racist / sexist / homophobic is setting itself up for a lawsuit.
An “inclusion” contract that demands 50% minority representation would be discriminatory on its face. Racial quotas exclude certain classes solely on the basis of race, and are illegal. While “diversity” can be seen as an added benefit, any hard line (i.e., “50%”) is discriminatory.
Those comparisons are crazy. No one is saying that there shouldn't be any white men. They're saying that there should be more women & minorities. You can choose to take it as a slight against white men, but I don't believe that is the intention. Much like in professional coaching/general management, there's no need for such an imbalance. McDormand was using this as an example of how women (majority of people on earth) could rise in prominence by challenging the power brokers. For some reason, this threatens white men.
I don't think anyone is pushing for a hard quota. I think they're looking for improvement. In a year that so many powerful men were busted for sexual assault, I don't see this as a crazy idea.
A contractual provision that requires 50% of a cast and crew to be minority is a hard quota, is illegal, and is unenforceable. That’s how McDormand described it. Now, maybe she’s an idiot, but I’m going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she made an informed choice to advocate for illegal discrimination.
I'm assuming you're an attorney. My wife is an attorney. She takes everything that I say literally. She has told me that she has been trained to do so.
McDormand is not an attorney. She's an actress- an eccentric, prob loony Hollywood type. I'm not sure she is qualified to discuss the "contractual provision that requires 50% of a cast to be minority" (nor do I believe she said this, as women are not in the minority). Therefore, I don't think that we need to put much thought into the legal ramifications of her Oscar speech.
She got up on stage to make a point. You can pick it apart as you'd like. I choose to think that she was trying to create positive social change.
bolded is my takeaway from the night.
Yeah, she's tapped. She's also one of the most respected actresses, and crushed it in Fargo & 3 Billboards. Also good in Almost Famous and Moonrise Kingdom.
Oh I know, she's an unbelievable actress. Wanted her to win last night.
-
6.5% of the population represents something like 80% of the NBA. The NBA is 100% male. Is there discrimination going on in the NBA right now? I don’t think so. As a society we have become too quick to say “Racist! Sexist!” to explain inequality of outcome. It sort of makes me think of the Google Memo and James Damore. The “honest conversation” is not happening. Plenty of brilliant actors of all colors, but the lack of diversity in Hollywood probably has more to do with population size and acting skills.
Not sure, but I don't think anyone here said the words racist or sexist to describe the issue being discussed. A look back to the original post will show that I was clear to say that I don't consider it racism. Not sure why you went there when there was no need to.
It could be that you are correct that the lack of diversity has more to do with population and talent differentials, but it's also possible (probable) that neither you nor I actually know all the precise reasons for the disproportionality. I am open to your point of view accounting for some of the difference, but I think that it is probably more complex than solely the result of population -- and I really hesitate to think that it rests with white people being inherently more talented than African-Americans.
It is possible, certainly not definite, that bias (perhaps only subconsciously), racial power differentials, and perhaps racial preferences in the market itself have played varying roles in the disproportional representation of people of color in the movies. Not sure I understand why you would blanketly rule out these possibilities. But thanks for the discussion.
I was speaking generally about the overall tone of these award events and the standard SJW narratives, I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying. I'm not ruling out the possibilities you are suggesting - sure, racism may play a role. I'm trying to make the case that there are multiple variables at play. I wonder how much of the "blame pie" racism actually gets when considering the broader context of what some perceive as a problem in Hollywood.
Also, TP for a respectful discussion.
-
6.5% of the population represents something like 80% of the NBA. The NBA is 100% male. Is there discrimination going on in the NBA right now? I don’t think so. As a society we have become too quick to say “Racist! Sexist!” to explain inequality of outcome. It sort of makes me think of the Google Memo and James Damore. The “honest conversation” is not happening. Plenty of brilliant actors of all colors, but the lack of diversity in Hollywood probably has more to do with population size and acting skills.
People would have been outraged if Gordon Hayward had demanded an inclusion rider when he signed with the Celtics that stated 50% of Celtics players must be white, all in the name of diversity.
-
6.5% of the population represents something like 80% of the NBA. The NBA is 100% male. Is there discrimination going on in the NBA right now? I don’t think so. As a society we have become too quick to say “Racist! Sexist!” to explain inequality of outcome. It sort of makes me think of the Google Memo and James Damore. The “honest conversation” is not happening. Plenty of brilliant actors of all colors, but the lack of diversity in Hollywood probably has more to do with population size and acting skills.
People would have been outraged if Gordon Hayward had demanded an inclusion rider when he signed with the Celtics that stated 50% of Celtics players must be white, all in the name of diversity.
I mean, in terms of proportion, it is a totally fair comparison.
-
Oscar viewership down 20% from last year....cause people are sick to death of Hypocrite,Whiny,Self absorbed Celebrities. HA.
It was still 26.5 million viewers though, which means it will end up as one of the top 5 watched events all year. And that has been the trend in tv, I mean the Superbowl (which was a great game) was way off from last year as well.
-
You know, if an author of a book, comic, screenplay, poem, whatever makes a character a certain color, race, sex, whatever, just cast that character that way. If the character's color, race, sex, whatever isn't specified, cast it any way you want. I really don't care other than try to cast the best possible actor as that is what is going to make the story most believable and enjoyable.
Like in Godfather 3. Michael Corleone's daughter's actress has to be female, white and Italian looking. She doesn't have to be the worst actress in the world, Sophia Coppola. Give the part to the best actress. Not the director's daughter
And if they could not give roles to Will Smith's kid that would be good too
I think people should be able to give any role to any person at any time. I like how Adam Sandler hooks his buddies up with roles. People like to work with people that they like.
I feel like the forest is lost through the trees on this one. Nobody is trying to punish white men. They're trying to help segments of society that could use help. One can agree/disagree that certain segments need or are deserving of help. I just don't get the cynicism that people have when they hear people wanting to help others. This isn't a zero-sum world. Just b/c McDormand mentioned that more women should be prominent in the movie business does not mean that white men have to lose jobs. Movie sets are fluid- they don't just hire 50 people for every movie regardless of the scope of work. Wealthy production companies can do more to be inclusive- it's not all that controversial.
I think I agree with you (if I am understanding you correctly). I think the vast majority of people favor merit-based decision making, and also favor the idea that in business (as opposed to government) people should have the right to hire their family, friends and people that they think they'll most like to work with. This is well and good until society realizes that underlying the "people they think they most like to work with" is solely based on gender, skin color, or ethnicity. In other words, left unfettered, an economic and social system CAN become one that significantly favors the appearance of one person over another in lieu of merit. When this happens, it can push the various values of a system (or a person) into conflict: meritocracy; business-owner rights; equal opportunity; anti-discrimination; diversity... these values battle it out, reflected pretty well in the discussions that go on here. Speaking only for myself, the values that I have against discrimination and in favor of equal opportunity need to be pretty clearly violated to me for me to favor something that would threaten meritocracy or the right of a business owner to make autonomous business decisions. But there is definitely a line where internal values come into conflict with one another.
On another note (related), my wife and I were browsing a few weeks ago in a store in Concord and I came across a book titled: "Public Officials of Massachusetts 1933-34". This interested me because I knew my grandfather was a state rep around that time. He only served one term -- a uneducated newspaper delivery man who won one term as a state rep. Remarkably, he was there, picture, bio and all. After the purchase, I was intrigued by the pictures. I counted 242 state reps; 2 woman; 0 people of color (disclaimer: I am, of course, concluding this based on their pictures which do no always tell the whole story). 42 state senators; 0 women; 0 POC. Of nearly 300 people representing the interests of the people of Massachusetts 99% were white men. Of course, not all white men agree on everything, nor do they reflect the interests of only white males, but I think it is interesting to see, in black and white, just how significantly decision-making was dominated by white men for the majority of our nation's history. Eventually, the social and political climate has evolved, but in the meantime, women endured 150 years without the right to vote; without true governmental representation. People of color, of course, went even longer without equal rights with regard to voting, education, workplace equality, etc. I understand the ideal of merit-based decision-making and I agree with that value, but sometimes looking in the mirror allows us to see what we really are, and affords us the opportunity to ask whether or not we are OK with what is looking back at us. It may be fine for us to say that we'll continue to evolve (we definitely have evolved) -- let it take it's course. I suppose that's fine unless you've experienced days, weeks, years, decades, generations of powerlessness. We don't come by out current challenges by accident. It's probably a strong agreement here (me included) that quotas "inclusion-contracts", requirements for minority interviews... are not desired policies and reflect inadequate solutions. What we mostly want is a cultural change in which bias based on race, gender, etc. is in the past and individuals are judged based on character and qualifications. But when we're faced with a mirror that reflects something that just looks wrong, I think most of us are compelled to at least ask the question, what (if anything) can we do about it? Frances McDormand offered what I think is a daft solution, but I respect the notion that she sees a problem and offers an idea. It's only from respectful open dialogue and the desire to hear and understand other's perspectives that mutually satisfying solutions can occur. That's why 282 white men and 2 white women should not be making all the policy decisions for a diverse population. Unfortunately, it took 200 years to change that power differential.
-
If people refused to watch movies that are obviously disrespectful Hollywood wouldn't make them. For example Matt Damon recently played an Asian in Great Wall or something. Nobody called for boycotts or anything. It's up to consumers just as much as Hollywood.
-
Asking for an inclusion rider isn’t racist. I fail to see this point of view. White males have all the power and obviously have so much power they feel completely safe sexually harassing women in Hollywood. Let’s take some of that power away by giving jobs to other races and genders so white men don’t have complete control in Hollywood because clearly that hasn’t been working well since the inception of movies.
-
If people refused to watch movies that are obviously disrespectful Hollywood wouldn't make them. For example Matt Damon recently played an Asian in Great Wall or something. Nobody called for boycotts or anything. It's up to consumers just as much as Hollywood.
That actually happened? Did it do well at the box office? That's kind of embarrassing, if so.
Like, what kind of idiot would think it makes any sense to have Matt Damon pretend to be an Asian character? Are people actually captivated by watching a white guy pretend to be Asian?
No wonder I've never heard of this movie. Or maybe I have and just completely wiped it from my mind due to the lunacy of it. IDK...but I'm not even going to bother to look it up on google now that I have heard about it.
-
Asking for an inclusion rider isn’t racist. I fail to see this point of view. White males have all the power and obviously have so much power they feel completely safe sexually harassing women in Hollywood. Let’s take some of that power away by giving jobs to other races and genders so white men don’t have complete control in Hollywood because clearly that hasn’t been working well since the inception of movies.
Denying someone employment based on their race is by definition discriminatory. Attempting to right one type of discrimination with another is every bit as bad as the original discrimination and will lead nowhere good.
I get that we should strive to create a world where there is equality, I want that too. But come on folks, use your brain a little and take the time to actually think about what you're saying.
-
If people refused to watch movies that are obviously disrespectful Hollywood wouldn't make them. For example Matt Damon recently played an Asian in Great Wall or something. Nobody called for boycotts or anything. It's up to consumers just as much as Hollywood.
That actually happened? Did it do well at the box office? That's kind of embarrassing, if so.
Like, what kind of idiot would think it makes any sense to have Matt Damon pretend to be an Asian character? Are people actually captivated by watching a white guy pretend to be Asian?
No wonder I've never heard of this movie. Or maybe I have and just completely wiped it from my mind due to the lunacy of it. IDK...but I'm not even going to bother to look it up on google now that I have heard about it.
Of course it didn't. Sure, there was a Chinese movie about the Great Wall starring Matt Damon. Except he played some dude named William Garin, a European mercenary that got stuck on the wall or something.
-
If people refused to watch movies that are obviously disrespectful Hollywood wouldn't make them. For example Matt Damon recently played an Asian in Great Wall or something. Nobody called for boycotts or anything. It's up to consumers just as much as Hollywood.
Um, there were massive protests about The Great Wall being a whitewashed movie (of course Damon wasn't playing an Asian).
http://ew.com/article/2016/08/04/great-wall-director-addresses-whitewashing-controversy-matt-damon/
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/dec/07/matt-damon-on-great-wall-whitewashing-i-didnt-take-role-from-chinese-actor
http://www.vulture.com/2016/12/matt-damon-great-wall-whitewashing-response.html
-
If people refused to watch movies that are obviously disrespectful Hollywood wouldn't make them. For example Matt Damon recently played an Asian in Great Wall or something. Nobody called for boycotts or anything. It's up to consumers just as much as Hollywood.
That actually happened? Did it do well at the box office? That's kind of embarrassing, if so.
Like, what kind of idiot would think it makes any sense to have Matt Damon pretend to be an Asian character? Are people actually captivated by watching a white guy pretend to be Asian?
No wonder I've never heard of this movie. Or maybe I have and just completely wiped it from my mind due to the lunacy of it. IDK...but I'm not even going to bother to look it up on google now that I have heard about it.
Of course it didn't. Sure, there was a Chinese movie about the Great Wall starring Matt Damon. Except he played some dude named William Garin, a European mercenary that got stuck on the wall or something.
Well that makes a lot more sense.
-
If people refused to watch movies that are obviously disrespectful Hollywood wouldn't make them. For example Matt Damon recently played an Asian in Great Wall or something. Nobody called for boycotts or anything. It's up to consumers just as much as Hollywood.
Anybody remember "Mooney on movies" from Chappelle's Show, first thing I thought of when reading this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trtyzv00Kos
-
When bias, or nepotism, cronyism,... become the most likely explanation for disproportionaliy, something needs to be done that the market will not take care of on its own.
Sure, if you’re a leftist that relies solely on the government to fix all of your problems. Instead of running to the government, run to fair markets. In a fair market, if there is discrimination, that entity will not survive in the long run because a competitor will snatch up the disenfranchised individuals.
As far as society’s bias towards white actors, if it’s true, it means that black actors have to work harder or make movies that aren’t just about “black life” (any Tyler perry movie). I like Denzel and DiCaprio fairly equally (a lot). But there are far fewer Denzel’s in Hollywood and far more Anthony Anderson’s. Also subject matter for the targeted audience matters. If you’re making a movie where blacks make jokes about “white boys”, you’re expected to put off a fairly large segment of American population (your audience). Instead of focusing on changing why whites (or any customers) aren’t watching the movies, focus on making racially neutral movies targeting as many people as possible. I mean this isn’t rocket science. A movie is a product, and you have to position your product to attract as many customers as you can. Movies like inception, Shawshank redemption are racially neutral so they will target 100% of the market. Movies like Tyler perry will target 13% of the market, because they’re solely about black culture which seems to be very uninteresting to someone who has little experience with it (a white person). An all black cast means nothing to me because I’m not a racist. If they’re good and the story is good I’ll watch it. If the dialogue is 80% Ebonics that I’ll barely understand, I’ll pass. You don’t change customers you change the product.
Kind of harsh to call "leftist" and to claim that anyone has suggested anything at all about government solving this.
I promise you that it is possible to have conversations with people who have different perspectives without name-calling or marginalizing by claiming extremism. As far as I am concerned, I think the issue is a good one to discuss because I think disproportionality tells us something about society -- not always sure exactly what and not always the same thing -- but that's the point of the discussion. There are far fewer people that you think who actually want the government to solve everything. And with regard to the issue that I raised here (only for discussion and not asserting firm conclusions), I never said, nor did I even suggest, anything having to do with government intervention. Actually I find the idea of government involvement in racially-balancing movies an absurd idea. How about that -- you agree with a "leftist"!
While you haven't explicitly stated government involvement, "something needs to be done that the market will not take care of on its own" is leftist anti-capitalistic rhetoric. You're about to propose either government intervention or regulations placed by event leadership to give disproportional votes to designated disenfranchised people. In a fair capitalistic market, the only relevant color is green. It sees no other color, lifestyle choice, or pronoun. If you are an ideologue, you must either find a very specific niche targeting other similar ideologues, or you will go out of business. Therefore to run away from the market is to impose biases. You want to pick the winners. Two questions: "Who would pick?" and "How would that ever be fair?" For example (and not to go too far off topic, but it's related): I hear it all the time that Obama saved the car industry and the banks. No he didn't. He picked a winner. Was it fair that GM got 40 million more than Chrysler? What about smaller business that felt the effects of the recession but got nothing? You can't just have the government hand companies a bunch of money whenever they screw up. For a period in time, these companies had to answer to the government. That's very similar to communism.
My suggestion: If you want the Oscars to be more fair, run TOWARDS the fair market: open up the voting to the public. That way maybe it doesn't take DiCaprio 20 years to win an Oscar.
-
When bias, or nepotism, cronyism,... become the most likely explanation for disproportionaliy, something needs to be done that the market will not take care of on its own.
Sure, if you’re a leftist that relies solely on the government to fix all of your problems. Instead of running to the government, run to fair markets. In a fair market, if there is discrimination, that entity will not survive in the long run because a competitor will snatch up the disenfranchised individuals.
As far as society’s bias towards white actors, if it’s true, it means that black actors have to work harder or make movies that aren’t just about “black life” (any Tyler perry movie). I like Denzel and DiCaprio fairly equally (a lot). But there are far fewer Denzel’s in Hollywood and far more Anthony Anderson’s. Also subject matter for the targeted audience matters. If you’re making a movie where blacks make jokes about “white boys”, you’re expected to put off a fairly large segment of American population (your audience). Instead of focusing on changing why whites (or any customers) aren’t watching the movies, focus on making racially neutral movies targeting as many people as possible. I mean this isn’t rocket science. A movie is a product, and you have to position your product to attract as many customers as you can. Movies like inception, Shawshank redemption are racially neutral so they will target 100% of the market. Movies like Tyler perry will target 13% of the market, because they’re solely about black culture which seems to be very uninteresting to someone who has little experience with it (a white person). An all black cast means nothing to me because I’m not a racist. If they’re good and the story is good I’ll watch it. If the dialogue is 80% Ebonics that I’ll barely understand, I’ll pass. You don’t change customers you change the product.
Kind of harsh to call "leftist" and to claim that anyone has suggested anything at all about government solving this.
I promise you that it is possible to have conversations with people who have different perspectives without name-calling or marginalizing by claiming extremism. As far as I am concerned, I think the issue is a good one to discuss because I think disproportionality tells us something about society -- not always sure exactly what and not always the same thing -- but that's the point of the discussion. There are far fewer people that you think who actually want the government to solve everything. And with regard to the issue that I raised here (only for discussion and not asserting firm conclusions), I never said, nor did I even suggest, anything having to do with government intervention. Actually I find the idea of government involvement in racially-balancing movies an absurd idea. How about that -- you agree with a "leftist"!
While you haven't explicitly stated government involvement, "something needs to be done that the market will not take care of on its own" is leftist anti-capitalistic rhetoric. You're about to propose either government intervention or regulations placed by event leadership to give disproportional votes to designated disenfranchised people. In a fair capitalistic market, the only relevant color is green. It sees no other color, lifestyle choice, or pronoun. If you are an ideologue, you must either find a very specific niche targeting other similar ideologues, or you will go out of business. Therefore to run away from the market is to impose biases. You want to pick the winners. Two questions: "Who would pick?" and "How would that ever be fair?" For example (and not to go too far off topic, but it's related): I hear it all the time that Obama saved the car industry and the banks. No he didn't. He picked a winner. Was it fair that GM got 40 million more than Chrysler? What about smaller business that felt the effects of the recession but got nothing? You can't just have the government hand companies a bunch of money whenever they screw up. For a period in time, these companies had to answer to the government. That's very similar to communism.
My suggestion: If you want the Oscars to be more fair, run TOWARDS the fair market: open up the voting to the public. That way maybe it doesn't take DiCaprio 20 years to win an Oscar.
Sounds like you know more about pure capitalism than I do, so I won't argue the point other than to wonder whether there is something in between pure capitalism and "leftist" that still contain tenets of capitalism and doesn't require pure capitalists to shut-down the discussion. I may be wrong, but I don't see myself as leftist or anti-capitalist. But I do accept that there is role for some central governing in my ideal world and that there is a role in a capitalistic (not capitalist) society for decisions made based on values other than money.
And in the case that I am wrong about there being leeway for impurity in capitalism without being anti-capitalist, I'll just say -- can't we have a conversation without calling out different views with extremist labels? Probably helps no one to do that -- and it's likely we do live in a society in which most of us rest comfortably somewhere in between the extremes.
-
When bias, or nepotism, cronyism,... become the most likely explanation for disproportionaliy, something needs to be done that the market will not take care of on its own.
Sure, if you’re a leftist that relies solely on the government to fix all of your problems. Instead of running to the government, run to fair markets. In a fair market, if there is discrimination, that entity will not survive in the long run because a competitor will snatch up the disenfranchised individuals.
As far as society’s bias towards white actors, if it’s true, it means that black actors have to work harder or make movies that aren’t just about “black life” (any Tyler perry movie). I like Denzel and DiCaprio fairly equally (a lot). But there are far fewer Denzel’s in Hollywood and far more Anthony Anderson’s. Also subject matter for the targeted audience matters. If you’re making a movie where blacks make jokes about “white boys”, you’re expected to put off a fairly large segment of American population (your audience). Instead of focusing on changing why whites (or any customers) aren’t watching the movies, focus on making racially neutral movies targeting as many people as possible. I mean this isn’t rocket science. A movie is a product, and you have to position your product to attract as many customers as you can. Movies like inception, Shawshank redemption are racially neutral so they will target 100% of the market. Movies like Tyler perry will target 13% of the market, because they’re solely about black culture which seems to be very uninteresting to someone who has little experience with it (a white person). An all black cast means nothing to me because I’m not a racist. If they’re good and the story is good I’ll watch it. If the dialogue is 80% Ebonics that I’ll barely understand, I’ll pass. You don’t change customers you change the product.
Kind of harsh to call "leftist" and to claim that anyone has suggested anything at all about government solving this.
I promise you that it is possible to have conversations with people who have different perspectives without name-calling or marginalizing by claiming extremism. As far as I am concerned, I think the issue is a good one to discuss because I think disproportionality tells us something about society -- not always sure exactly what and not always the same thing -- but that's the point of the discussion. There are far fewer people that you think who actually want the government to solve everything. And with regard to the issue that I raised here (only for discussion and not asserting firm conclusions), I never said, nor did I even suggest, anything having to do with government intervention. Actually I find the idea of government involvement in racially-balancing movies an absurd idea. How about that -- you agree with a "leftist"!
While you haven't explicitly stated government involvement, "something needs to be done that the market will not take care of on its own" is leftist anti-capitalistic rhetoric. You're about to propose either government intervention or regulations placed by event leadership to give disproportional votes to designated disenfranchised people. In a fair capitalistic market, the only relevant color is green. It sees no other color, lifestyle choice, or pronoun. If you are an ideologue, you must either find a very specific niche targeting other similar ideologues, or you will go out of business. Therefore to run away from the market is to impose biases. You want to pick the winners. Two questions: "Who would pick?" and "How would that ever be fair?" For example (and not to go too far off topic, but it's related): I hear it all the time that Obama saved the car industry and the banks. No he didn't. He picked a winner. Was it fair that GM got 40 million more than Chrysler? What about smaller business that felt the effects of the recession but got nothing? You can't just have the government hand companies a bunch of money whenever they screw up. For a period in time, these companies had to answer to the government. That's very similar to communism.
My suggestion: If you want the Oscars to be more fair, run TOWARDS the fair market: open up the voting to the public. That way maybe it doesn't take DiCaprio 20 years to win an Oscar.
Sounds like you know more about pure capitalism than I do, so I won't argue the point other than to wonder whether there is something in between pure capitalism and "leftist" that still contain tenets of capitalism and doesn't require pure capitalists to shut-down the discussion. I may be wrong, but I don't see myself as leftist or anti-capitalist. But I do accept that there is role for some central governing in my ideal world and that there is a role in a capitalistic (not capitalist) society for decisions made based on values other than money.
And in the case that I am wrong about there being leeway for impurity in capitalism without being anti-capitalist, I'll just say -- can't we have a conversation without calling out different views with extremist labels? Probably helps no one to do that -- and it's likely we do live in a society in which most of us rest comfortably somewhere in between the extremes.
My apologies if I sounded like I was trying to shut you down. It's hard to have an argument online without sounding like an ass or using emojis because letters don't have vocal tone.
There certainly is such a thing between a pure capitalist and leftist. The vast majority live there. I live there. A pure capitalist, which is probably best defined as an anarcho capitalist, is someone that believes that aside from a small local government to handle criminals, there should be no government. Think wild west with a sheriff and jail in each zip code, and crapping in a hole in your backyard because "Who owns the pipes?" These are basically nut jobs, in my opinion. Just as nutty to me are pure leftists such as Socialists and their much more evil cousin Communists that believe that a national government should handle almost everything. They decide how much you are paid, they decide how much you can spend on a car. If your furniture costs more than what everyone else has, you can be fined or jailed. An American Liberal is actually a pretty globally centrist position (think Bill Clinton, Al Gore, etc). I used to be a liberal until the word liberal took about 80 steps to the left with the Bernie Sanders crowd. I left that crowd about halfway into Obama's first term.
The great debate of all time has been how much involvement does the government need to have? The answer should, in my opinion, ALWAYS be "as little as possible." I don't think the Oscars should be regulated. It already IS regulated because only a select group of individuals are allowed to vote. If you open up the voting to paying customers who spend money to watch the movies, you're much more likely to get accurate winners based on merit, not skin color or agenda. That's why when you go on Rotten Tomatoes, the user review is much better than the critic. I don't really want to know the PhD review of a movie. Was it fun to watch or not?
-
Asking for an inclusion rider isn’t racist. I fail to see this point of view. White males have all the power and obviously have so much power they feel completely safe sexually harassing women in Hollywood. Let’s take some of that power away by giving jobs to other races and genders so white men don’t have complete control in Hollywood because clearly that hasn’t been working well since the inception of movies.
Denying someone employment based on their race is by definition discriminatory. Attempting to right one type of discrimination with another is every bit as bad as the original discrimination and will lead nowhere good.
I get that we should strive to create a world where there is equality, I want that too. But come on folks, use your brain a little and take the time to actually think about what you're saying.
This doesn't make sense. How does a complex history of power struggles by women and minorities compare to any potential loss that a white guy might have in 2018. This is assuming that the demand for labor in the movie business is static. Good money will go to finance good projects, regardless of how many other movies are out there. A young black kid and a woman getting hired for some small role in a big production is barely a rounding error in a massive budget.
The Mark Wahlberg/Michelle Williams story gave us insight into how production companies are making decisions. I love Wahlberg, but that guy isn't worth more than a lot of actors out there. I'd be shocked if the amazing thespian Gronk isn't offered big time money. And good for him. He deserves what the market gives him. That doesn't mean that companies can't work to be better at including more job entrants from all groups of people. All sorts of companies tailor their services to select groups. I'm not mad that the hat manufacturer came up with the idea to sell a pink Red Sox hat.
They don't need to make quotas. McDormand didn't say they needed quotas. Stacy Smith is a proponent of an inclusion rider (something I did not know about 48 hours ago). She says: "tertiary speaking characters should match the gender distribution of the setting for the film, as long as it's sensible for the plot," (https://annenberg.usc.edu/faculty/communication/stacy-smith)
I think it is interesting to see the fear that such words strike in people. It's almost like some are making stuff up about quotas and the scary government taking our rights when valid concerns about equal representation are addressed.
Besides, why do people want to see more guys than women on screen?
-
Asking for an inclusion rider isn’t racist. I fail to see this point of view. White males have all the power and obviously have so much power they feel completely safe sexually harassing women in Hollywood. Let’s take some of that power away by giving jobs to other races and genders so white men don’t have complete control in Hollywood because clearly that hasn’t been working well since the inception of movies.
Denying someone employment based on their race is by definition discriminatory. Attempting to right one type of discrimination with another is every bit as bad as the original discrimination and will lead nowhere good.
I get that we should strive to create a world where there is equality, I want that too. But come on folks, use your brain a little and take the time to actually think about what you're saying.
This doesn't make sense. How does a complex history of power struggles by women and minorities compare to any potential loss that a white guy might have in 2018. This is assuming that the demand for labor in the movie business is static. Good money will go to finance good projects, regardless of how many other movies are out there. A young black kid and a woman getting hired for some small role in a big production is barely a rounding error.
They don't need to make quotas. McDormand didn't say they needed quotas. Stacy Smith is a proponent of an inclusion rider (something I did not know about 48 hours ago). She says: "tertiary speaking characters should match the gender distribution of the setting for the film, as long as it's sensible for the plot," (https://annenberg.usc.edu/faculty/communication/stacy-smith)
I think it is interesting to see the fear that such words strike in people. It's almost like some are making stuff up about quotas and the scary government taking our rights when valid concerns about equal representation are addressed.
Besides, why do people want to see more guys than women on screen?
Right, more diversity that makes sense for the setting and plot makes sense.
Shoe-horning in “diversity” characters, miscasting actors / actresses, and hiring less qualified cast and crew to meet quotas — which is the implication of McDermond’s post-Oscars comments — doesn’t do anybody any good.
-
Asking for an inclusion rider isn’t racist. I fail to see this point of view. White males have all the power and obviously have so much power they feel completely safe sexually harassing women in Hollywood. Let’s take some of that power away by giving jobs to other races and genders so white men don’t have complete control in Hollywood because clearly that hasn’t been working well since the inception of movies.
Denying someone employment based on their race is by definition discriminatory. Attempting to right one type of discrimination with another is every bit as bad as the original discrimination and will lead nowhere good.
I get that we should strive to create a world where there is equality, I want that too. But come on folks, use your brain a little and take the time to actually think about what you're saying.
This doesn't make sense. How does a complex history of power struggles by women and minorities compare to any potential loss that a white guy might have in 2018. This is assuming that the demand for labor in the movie business is static. Good money will go to finance good projects, regardless of how many other movies are out there. A young black kid and a woman getting hired for some small role in a big production is barely a rounding error.
They don't need to make quotas. McDormand didn't say they needed quotas. Stacy Smith is a proponent of an inclusion rider (something I did not know about 48 hours ago). She says: "tertiary speaking characters should match the gender distribution of the setting for the film, as long as it's sensible for the plot," (https://annenberg.usc.edu/faculty/communication/stacy-smith)
I think it is interesting to see the fear that such words strike in people. It's almost like some are making stuff up about quotas and the scary government taking our rights when valid concerns about equal representation are addressed.
Besides, why do people want to see more guys than women on screen?
Right, more diversity that makes sense for the setting and plot makes sense.
Shoe-horning in “diversity” characters, miscasting actors / actresses, and hiring less qualified cast and crew to meet quotas — which is the implication of McDermond’s post-Oscars comments — doesn’t do anybody any good.
You mean, beyond the women and minorities (probably 75% +/- of the population)?
Also, did she use the term "less qualified"? That was not my interpretation.
Whether you liked it or not, a lot of young people were inspired by the Obama presidency. The idea is that kids should have role models. I don't mind watching women and minorities if there can be some type of social gain.
-
Asking for an inclusion rider isn’t racist. I fail to see this point of view. White males have all the power and obviously have so much power they feel completely safe sexually harassing women in Hollywood. Let’s take some of that power away by giving jobs to other races and genders so white men don’t have complete control in Hollywood because clearly that hasn’t been working well since the inception of movies.
Denying someone employment based on their race is by definition discriminatory. Attempting to right one type of discrimination with another is every bit as bad as the original discrimination and will lead nowhere good.
I get that we should strive to create a world where there is equality, I want that too. But come on folks, use your brain a little and take the time to actually think about what you're saying.
This doesn't make sense. How does a complex history of power struggles by women and minorities compare to any potential loss that a white guy might have in 2018. This is assuming that the demand for labor in the movie business is static. Good money will go to finance good projects, regardless of how many other movies are out there. A young black kid and a woman getting hired for some small role in a big production is barely a rounding error.
They don't need to make quotas. McDormand didn't say they needed quotas. Stacy Smith is a proponent of an inclusion rider (something I did not know about 48 hours ago). She says: "tertiary speaking characters should match the gender distribution of the setting for the film, as long as it's sensible for the plot," (https://annenberg.usc.edu/faculty/communication/stacy-smith)
I think it is interesting to see the fear that such words strike in people. It's almost like some are making stuff up about quotas and the scary government taking our rights when valid concerns about equal representation are addressed.
Besides, why do people want to see more guys than women on screen?
Right, more diversity that makes sense for the setting and plot makes sense.
Shoe-horning in “diversity” characters, miscasting actors / actresses, and hiring less qualified cast and crew to meet quotas — which is the implication of McDermond’s post-Oscars comments — doesn’t do anybody any good.
You mean, beyond the women and minorities (probably 75% +/- of the population)?
Also, did she use the term "less qualified"? That was not my interpretation.
Whether you liked it or not, a lot of young people were inspired by the Obama presidency. The idea is that kids should have role models. I don't mind watching women and minorities if there can be some type of social gain.
A quota system means that at some point you put skin color or gender above level of qualification.
-
Asking for an inclusion rider isn’t racist. I fail to see this point of view. White males have all the power and obviously have so much power they feel completely safe sexually harassing women in Hollywood. Let’s take some of that power away by giving jobs to other races and genders so white men don’t have complete control in Hollywood because clearly that hasn’t been working well since the inception of movies.
Denying someone employment based on their race is by definition discriminatory. Attempting to right one type of discrimination with another is every bit as bad as the original discrimination and will lead nowhere good.
I get that we should strive to create a world where there is equality, I want that too. But come on folks, use your brain a little and take the time to actually think about what you're saying.
This doesn't make sense. How does a complex history of power struggles by women and minorities compare to any potential loss that a white guy might have in 2018. This is assuming that the demand for labor in the movie business is static. Good money will go to finance good projects, regardless of how many other movies are out there. A young black kid and a woman getting hired for some small role in a big production is barely a rounding error.
They don't need to make quotas. McDormand didn't say they needed quotas. Stacy Smith is a proponent of an inclusion rider (something I did not know about 48 hours ago). She says: "tertiary speaking characters should match the gender distribution of the setting for the film, as long as it's sensible for the plot," (https://annenberg.usc.edu/faculty/communication/stacy-smith)
I think it is interesting to see the fear that such words strike in people. It's almost like some are making stuff up about quotas and the scary government taking our rights when valid concerns about equal representation are addressed.
Besides, why do people want to see more guys than women on screen?
Right, more diversity that makes sense for the setting and plot makes sense.
Shoe-horning in “diversity” characters, miscasting actors / actresses, and hiring less qualified cast and crew to meet quotas — which is the implication of McDermond’s post-Oscars comments — doesn’t do anybody any good.
You mean, beyond the women and minorities (probably 75% +/- of the population)?
Also, did she use the term "less qualified"? That was not my interpretation.
Whether you liked it or not, a lot of young people were inspired by the Obama presidency. The idea is that kids should have role models. I don't mind watching women and minorities if there can be some type of social gain.
A quota system means that at some point you put skin color or gender above level of qualification.
Maybe I'm wrong, so please inform me as I feel like I'm taking crazy pills: I don't know where the quota system came from. I haven't seen any reference to "inclusion rider" and "quota system" from anything coming close to a neutral website.
People are creating this notion of a quota system as a last line of defense against initiatives that are trying to expand the available qualified labor pool in the movie business.
What is the source of the fear?
-
Asking for an inclusion rider isn’t racist. I fail to see this point of view. White males have all the power and obviously have so much power they feel completely safe sexually harassing women in Hollywood. Let’s take some of that power away by giving jobs to other races and genders so white men don’t have complete control in Hollywood because clearly that hasn’t been working well since the inception of movies.
Denying someone employment based on their race is by definition discriminatory. Attempting to right one type of discrimination with another is every bit as bad as the original discrimination and will lead nowhere good.
I get that we should strive to create a world where there is equality, I want that too. But come on folks, use your brain a little and take the time to actually think about what you're saying.
This doesn't make sense. How does a complex history of power struggles by women and minorities compare to any potential loss that a white guy might have in 2018. This is assuming that the demand for labor in the movie business is static. Good money will go to finance good projects, regardless of how many other movies are out there. A young black kid and a woman getting hired for some small role in a big production is barely a rounding error.
They don't need to make quotas. McDormand didn't say they needed quotas. Stacy Smith is a proponent of an inclusion rider (something I did not know about 48 hours ago). She says: "tertiary speaking characters should match the gender distribution of the setting for the film, as long as it's sensible for the plot," (https://annenberg.usc.edu/faculty/communication/stacy-smith)
I think it is interesting to see the fear that such words strike in people. It's almost like some are making stuff up about quotas and the scary government taking our rights when valid concerns about equal representation are addressed.
Besides, why do people want to see more guys than women on screen?
Right, more diversity that makes sense for the setting and plot makes sense.
Shoe-horning in “diversity” characters, miscasting actors / actresses, and hiring less qualified cast and crew to meet quotas — which is the implication of McDermond’s post-Oscars comments — doesn’t do anybody any good.
You mean, beyond the women and minorities (probably 75% +/- of the population)?
Also, did she use the term "less qualified"? That was not my interpretation.
Whether you liked it or not, a lot of young people were inspired by the Obama presidency. The idea is that kids should have role models. I don't mind watching women and minorities if there can be some type of social gain.
A quota system means that at some point you put skin color or gender above level of qualification.
Maybe I'm wrong, so please inform me as I feel like I'm taking crazy pills: I don't know where the quota system came from. I haven't seen any reference to "inclusion rider" and "quota system" from anything coming close to a neutral website.
People are creating this notion of a quota system as a last line of defense against initiatives that are trying to expand the available qualified labor pool in the movie business.
What is the source of the fear?
Did you ever bother to read McDormand's statement, or are you just going to pretend it never happened? She literally said the words "demand 50% diversity". That is by definition a quota.
Also, I don't fear diversity. I embrace it.
What do I detest, is this concept that there must always be an equal outcome. If there are 10 jobs available and 8 of the best 10 applicants were of a particular race/gender, it is not discriminatory if the end outcome is that 80% of the workforce is of a singular race/gender. That's just common sense.
-
Shoe-horning in “diversity” characters, miscasting actors / actresses, and hiring less qualified cast and crew to meet quotas — which is the implication of McDermond’s post-Oscars comments — doesn’t do anybody any good.
You mean, beyond the women and minorities (probably 75% +/- of the population)?
Does it do women and minorities good to guarantee them slots even if they don’t deserve them? Some would argue that that creates a stigma that all beneficiaries of racism / sexism are undeserving (Clarence Thomas has talked and written about this extensively).
And we’re not talking about 75% of the population (or 60% - 62% of the population, minus whatever percentage of “White Hispanics” there are.). Rather, we’re talking about the less than 1% of the “diversity” population working in Hollywood. What about those movie-goers of all races and genders who want to see the best actors cast in the best roles with the best supporting cast and crew? Do they benefit when “best” becomes “best minority / woman we could find”?
Should this system also apply to the military? First responders? Engineers? Professional athletes?
Quotas are illegal. That’s settled. Now, let’s get rid of all the race- and gender-based discrimination that is contrary to the plain text of the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection).
-
Asking for an inclusion rider isn’t racist. I fail to see this point of view. White males have all the power and obviously have so much power they feel completely safe sexually harassing women in Hollywood. Let’s take some of that power away by giving jobs to other races and genders so white men don’t have complete control in Hollywood because clearly that hasn’t been working well since the inception of movies.
Denying someone employment based on their race is by definition discriminatory. Attempting to right one type of discrimination with another is every bit as bad as the original discrimination and will lead nowhere good.
I get that we should strive to create a world where there is equality, I want that too. But come on folks, use your brain a little and take the time to actually think about what you're saying.
This doesn't make sense. How does a complex history of power struggles by women and minorities compare to any potential loss that a white guy might have in 2018. This is assuming that the demand for labor in the movie business is static. Good money will go to finance good projects, regardless of how many other movies are out there. A young black kid and a woman getting hired for some small role in a big production is barely a rounding error.
They don't need to make quotas. McDormand didn't say they needed quotas. Stacy Smith is a proponent of an inclusion rider (something I did not know about 48 hours ago). She says: "tertiary speaking characters should match the gender distribution of the setting for the film, as long as it's sensible for the plot," (https://annenberg.usc.edu/faculty/communication/stacy-smith)
I think it is interesting to see the fear that such words strike in people. It's almost like some are making stuff up about quotas and the scary government taking our rights when valid concerns about equal representation are addressed.
Besides, why do people want to see more guys than women on screen?
Right, more diversity that makes sense for the setting and plot makes sense.
Shoe-horning in “diversity” characters, miscasting actors / actresses, and hiring less qualified cast and crew to meet quotas — which is the implication of McDermond’s post-Oscars comments — doesn’t do anybody any good.
You mean, beyond the women and minorities (probably 75% +/- of the population)?
Also, did she use the term "less qualified"? That was not my interpretation.
Whether you liked it or not, a lot of young people were inspired by the Obama presidency. The idea is that kids should have role models. I don't mind watching women and minorities if there can be some type of social gain.
A quota system means that at some point you put skin color or gender above level of qualification.
Maybe I'm wrong, so please inform me as I feel like I'm taking crazy pills: I don't know where the quota system came from. I haven't seen any reference to "inclusion rider" and "quota system" from anything coming close to a neutral website.
People are creating this notion of a quota system as a last line of defense against initiatives that are trying to expand the available qualified labor pool in the movie business.
What is the source of the fear?
Did you ever bother to read McDormand's statement, or are you just going to pretend it never happened? She literally said the words "demand 50% diversity". That is by definition a quota.
Also, I don't fear diversity. I embrace it.
What do I detest, is this concept that there must always be an equal outcome. If there are 10 jobs available and 8 of the best 10 applicants were of a particular race/gender, it is not discriminatory if the end outcome is that 80% of the workforce is of a singular race/gender. That's just common sense.
I just found the transcript for her Oscar's statement: http://www.macleans.ca/culture/movies/transcript-frances-mcdormand-delivers-the-2018-oscars-speech-of-the-night/
No mention of a quota system.
I then saw her comment after the event: “I just found out about this last week,” she shared. “There has always been available, to everybody that does a negotiation on a film, an inclusion rider, which means that you can ask for and/or demand at least 50 percent diversity in not only the casting but also the crew. And so the fact that I just learned that after 35 years of being in the film business… we’re not going back. So the whole idea of women trending? No. No trending. African Americans trending? No, no trending. It changes now. And I think the inclusion rider will have something to do with that.”
Is this what you think a quota system is?
She's saying that there's a negotiating tool available for actors to demand for diversity. There's no governmental enforcement mechanism to say that the production company has to hire some cool guy actor because he has an inclusion rider. They can choose to ignore his contract demand, or accept it. It is the actors (laborers) themselves, not the government, that is looking to create change. It is a market-based approach. There's no legislation or punishment levied.
-
Shoe-horning in “diversity” characters, miscasting actors / actresses, and hiring less qualified cast and crew to meet quotas — which is the implication of McDermond’s post-Oscars comments — doesn’t do anybody any good.
You mean, beyond the women and minorities (probably 75% +/- of the population)?
Does it do women and minorities good to guarantee them slots even if they don’t deserve them? Some would argue that that creates a stigma that all beneficiaries of racism / sexism are undeserving (Clarence Thomas has talked and written about this extensively).
And we’re not talking about 75% of the population (or 60% - 62% of the population, minus whatever percentage of “White Hispanics” there are.). Rather, we’re talking about the less than 1% of the “diversity” population working in Hollywood. What about those movie-goers of all races and genders who want to see the best actors cast in the best roles with the best supporting cast and crew? Do they benefit when “best” becomes “best minority / woman we could find”?
Should this system also apply to the military? First responders? Engineers? Professional athletes?
Quotas are illegal. That’s settled. Now, let’s get rid of all the race- and gender-based discrimination that is contrary to the plain text of the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection).
I still don't get this argument. People like to run to the example where a major production company cannot find a qualified woman or minority to fill a role. Most most qualified? I don't know if companies today are monitoring whether they hired the best available actor in the acting universe. If Daniel Day Lewis is busy, we might not get the most qualified actor. There have been several castings that make people scratch their head.
-
Asking for an inclusion rider isn’t racist. I fail to see this point of view. White males have all the power and obviously have so much power they feel completely safe sexually harassing women in Hollywood. Let’s take some of that power away by giving jobs to other races and genders so white men don’t have complete control in Hollywood because clearly that hasn’t been working well since the inception of movies.
Denying someone employment based on their race is by definition discriminatory. Attempting to right one type of discrimination with another is every bit as bad as the original discrimination and will lead nowhere good.
I get that we should strive to create a world where there is equality, I want that too. But come on folks, use your brain a little and take the time to actually think about what you're saying.
This doesn't make sense. How does a complex history of power struggles by women and minorities compare to any potential loss that a white guy might have in 2018. This is assuming that the demand for labor in the movie business is static. Good money will go to finance good projects, regardless of how many other movies are out there. A young black kid and a woman getting hired for some small role in a big production is barely a rounding error.
They don't need to make quotas. McDormand didn't say they needed quotas. Stacy Smith is a proponent of an inclusion rider (something I did not know about 48 hours ago). She says: "tertiary speaking characters should match the gender distribution of the setting for the film, as long as it's sensible for the plot," (https://annenberg.usc.edu/faculty/communication/stacy-smith)
I think it is interesting to see the fear that such words strike in people. It's almost like some are making stuff up about quotas and the scary government taking our rights when valid concerns about equal representation are addressed.
Besides, why do people want to see more guys than women on screen?
Right, more diversity that makes sense for the setting and plot makes sense.
Shoe-horning in “diversity” characters, miscasting actors / actresses, and hiring less qualified cast and crew to meet quotas — which is the implication of McDermond’s post-Oscars comments — doesn’t do anybody any good.
You mean, beyond the women and minorities (probably 75% +/- of the population)?
Also, did she use the term "less qualified"? That was not my interpretation.
Whether you liked it or not, a lot of young people were inspired by the Obama presidency. The idea is that kids should have role models. I don't mind watching women and minorities if there can be some type of social gain.
A quota system means that at some point you put skin color or gender above level of qualification.
Maybe I'm wrong, so please inform me as I feel like I'm taking crazy pills: I don't know where the quota system came from. I haven't seen any reference to "inclusion rider" and "quota system" from anything coming close to a neutral website.
People are creating this notion of a quota system as a last line of defense against initiatives that are trying to expand the available qualified labor pool in the movie business.
What is the source of the fear?
Did you ever bother to read McDormand's statement, or are you just going to pretend it never happened? She literally said the words "demand 50% diversity". That is by definition a quota.
Also, I don't fear diversity. I embrace it.
What do I detest, is this concept that there must always be an equal outcome. If there are 10 jobs available and 8 of the best 10 applicants were of a particular race/gender, it is not discriminatory if the end outcome is that 80% of the workforce is of a singular race/gender. That's just common sense.
I just found the transcript for her Oscar's statement: http://www.macleans.ca/culture/movies/transcript-frances-mcdormand-delivers-the-2018-oscars-speech-of-the-night/
No mention of a quota system.
I then saw her comment after the event: “I just found out about this last week,” she shared. “There has always been available, to everybody that does a negotiation on a film, an inclusion rider, which means that you can ask for and/or demand at least 50 percent diversity in not only the casting but also the crew. And so the fact that I just learned that after 35 years of being in the film business… we’re not going back. So the whole idea of women trending? No. No trending. African Americans trending? No, no trending. It changes now. And I think the inclusion rider will have something to do with that.”
Is this what you think a quota system is?
She's saying that there's a negotiating tool available for actors to demand for diversity. There's no governmental enforcement mechanism to say that the production company has to hire some cool guy actor because he has an inclusion rider. They can choose to ignore his contract demand, or accept it. It is the actors (laborers) themselves, not the government, that is looking to create change. It is a market-based approach. There's no legislation or punishment levied.
It’s a contractual quota that discriminates on the basis of race and gender.
Do you understand what a quota is?
-
Roy, I'm getting a tad confused. I get how maybe an employer can't say "We're gonna hire this many of this" but I'm not sure why an actor can't say in their contract "I won't be in the movie unless you hire this many". Does that make it an illegal contract because you're trying to force an illegal action?
-
Roy, I'm getting a tad confused. I get how maybe an employer can't say "We're gonna hire this many of this" but I'm not sure why an actor can't say in their contract "I won't be in the movie unless you hire this many". Does that make it an illegal contract because you're trying to force an illegal action?
Yes. Clauses that require unconstitutional discrimination are unenforceable.
-
Asking for an inclusion rider isn’t racist. I fail to see this point of view. White males have all the power and obviously have so much power they feel completely safe sexually harassing women in Hollywood. Let’s take some of that power away by giving jobs to other races and genders so white men don’t have complete control in Hollywood because clearly that hasn’t been working well since the inception of movies.
Denying someone employment based on their race is by definition discriminatory. Attempting to right one type of discrimination with another is every bit as bad as the original discrimination and will lead nowhere good.
I get that we should strive to create a world where there is equality, I want that too. But come on folks, use your brain a little and take the time to actually think about what you're saying.
This doesn't make sense. How does a complex history of power struggles by women and minorities compare to any potential loss that a white guy might have in 2018. This is assuming that the demand for labor in the movie business is static. Good money will go to finance good projects, regardless of how many other movies are out there. A young black kid and a woman getting hired for some small role in a big production is barely a rounding error.
They don't need to make quotas. McDormand didn't say they needed quotas. Stacy Smith is a proponent of an inclusion rider (something I did not know about 48 hours ago). She says: "tertiary speaking characters should match the gender distribution of the setting for the film, as long as it's sensible for the plot," (https://annenberg.usc.edu/faculty/communication/stacy-smith)
I think it is interesting to see the fear that such words strike in people. It's almost like some are making stuff up about quotas and the scary government taking our rights when valid concerns about equal representation are addressed.
Besides, why do people want to see more guys than women on screen?
Right, more diversity that makes sense for the setting and plot makes sense.
Shoe-horning in “diversity” characters, miscasting actors / actresses, and hiring less qualified cast and crew to meet quotas — which is the implication of McDermond’s post-Oscars comments — doesn’t do anybody any good.
You mean, beyond the women and minorities (probably 75% +/- of the population)?
Also, did she use the term "less qualified"? That was not my interpretation.
Whether you liked it or not, a lot of young people were inspired by the Obama presidency. The idea is that kids should have role models. I don't mind watching women and minorities if there can be some type of social gain.
A quota system means that at some point you put skin color or gender above level of qualification.
Maybe I'm wrong, so please inform me as I feel like I'm taking crazy pills: I don't know where the quota system came from. I haven't seen any reference to "inclusion rider" and "quota system" from anything coming close to a neutral website.
People are creating this notion of a quota system as a last line of defense against initiatives that are trying to expand the available qualified labor pool in the movie business.
What is the source of the fear?
Did you ever bother to read McDormand's statement, or are you just going to pretend it never happened? She literally said the words "demand 50% diversity". That is by definition a quota.
Also, I don't fear diversity. I embrace it.
What do I detest, is this concept that there must always be an equal outcome. If there are 10 jobs available and 8 of the best 10 applicants were of a particular race/gender, it is not discriminatory if the end outcome is that 80% of the workforce is of a singular race/gender. That's just common sense.
I just found the transcript for her Oscar's statement: http://www.macleans.ca/culture/movies/transcript-frances-mcdormand-delivers-the-2018-oscars-speech-of-the-night/
No mention of a quota system.
I then saw her comment after the event: “I just found out about this last week,” she shared. “There has always been available, to everybody that does a negotiation on a film, an inclusion rider, which means that you can ask for and/or demand at least 50 percent diversity in not only the casting but also the crew. And so the fact that I just learned that after 35 years of being in the film business… we’re not going back. So the whole idea of women trending? No. No trending. African Americans trending? No, no trending. It changes now. And I think the inclusion rider will have something to do with that.”
Is this what you think a quota system is?
She's saying that there's a negotiating tool available for actors to demand for diversity. There's no governmental enforcement mechanism to say that the production company has to hire some cool guy actor because he has an inclusion rider. They can choose to ignore his contract demand, or accept it. It is the actors (laborers) themselves, not the government, that is looking to create change. It is a market-based approach. There's no legislation or punishment levied.
It’s a contractual quota that discriminates on the basis of race and gender.
Do you understand what a quota is?
I probably don't. I am certainly not going to win a legal argument.
I still think it's interesting that people would like to align their opinions with the "let's maintain the status quo", especially as it pertains to the executive decision making in the movie business.
-
Having worked in Hollywood, I can say that this is a very tough area for equality because of the stakes of it all. There are only 8 major studios and thus 8 studio heads in all of Hollywood, and for the past 10 years it’s very possible to get fired for bombing once.
In a job where execs can’t make a single mistake, with a mistake meaning to make an unprofitable movie, talent isn’t even the most important thing. Making money is. Will Smith is black and was the top actor in Hollywood for years because after Leo made Body of Lies, he was the only actor to make his film budget back during opening weekend every single time, until he made I Am Legend. But you can see that since he bombed in I Am Legend, he isn’t appearing in much for unknown reasons.
All this is to say, Hollywood execs will cast whoever they think will make money. If top white actors make more money, they will likely be cast more. The studio heads’ career stakes are too high to take risks. Hollywood execs openly admit to passing on deals because they ‘aren’t in the business of taking risks’ (Paramount on passing on the Netflix Scorsese movie).
I also feel like with everything today being a franchise, sequel, reboot or based on source material, if the original characters were white, it can limit the choices. I for one would like more original screenplays and alternatives to a $30mm marketing budget. This would allow for more diversity.
-
Having worked in Hollywood, I can say that this is a very tough area for equality because of the stakes of it all. There are only 8 major studios and thus 8 studio heads in all of Hollywood, and for the past 10 years it’s very possible to get fired for bombing once.
In a job where execs can’t make a single mistake, with a mistake meaning to make an unprofitable movie, talent isn’t even the most important thing. Making money is. Will Smith is black and was the top actor in Hollywood for years because after Leo made Body of Lies, he was the only actor to make his film budget back during opening weekend every single time, until he made I Am Legend. But you can see that since he bombed in I Am Legend, he isn’t appearing in much for unknown reasons.
All this is to say, Hollywood execs will cast whoever they think will make money. If top white actors make more money, they will likely be cast more. The studio heads’ career stakes are too high to take risks. Hollywood execs openly admit to passing on deals because they ‘aren’t in the business of taking risks’ (Paramount on passing on the Netflix Scorsese movie).
I also feel like with everything today being a franchise, sequel, reboot or based on source material, if the original characters were white, it can limit the choices. I for one would like more original screenplays and alternatives to a $30mm marketing budget. This would allow for more diversity.
To further this point, the highest paid actor in Hollywood right now is The Rock.
-
Asking for an inclusion rider isn’t racist. I fail to see this point of view. White males have all the power and obviously have so much power they feel completely safe sexually harassing women in Hollywood. Let’s take some of that power away by giving jobs to other races and genders so white men don’t have complete control in Hollywood because clearly that hasn’t been working well since the inception of movies.
Denying someone employment based on their race is by definition discriminatory. Attempting to right one type of discrimination with another is every bit as bad as the original discrimination and will lead nowhere good.
I get that we should strive to create a world where there is equality, I want that too. But come on folks, use your brain a little and take the time to actually think about what you're saying.
This doesn't make sense. How does a complex history of power struggles by women and minorities compare to any potential loss that a white guy might have in 2018. This is assuming that the demand for labor in the movie business is static. Good money will go to finance good projects, regardless of how many other movies are out there. A young black kid and a woman getting hired for some small role in a big production is barely a rounding error.
They don't need to make quotas. McDormand didn't say they needed quotas. Stacy Smith is a proponent of an inclusion rider (something I did not know about 48 hours ago). She says: "tertiary speaking characters should match the gender distribution of the setting for the film, as long as it's sensible for the plot," (https://annenberg.usc.edu/faculty/communication/stacy-smith)
I think it is interesting to see the fear that such words strike in people. It's almost like some are making stuff up about quotas and the scary government taking our rights when valid concerns about equal representation are addressed.
Besides, why do people want to see more guys than women on screen?
Right, more diversity that makes sense for the setting and plot makes sense.
Shoe-horning in “diversity” characters, miscasting actors / actresses, and hiring less qualified cast and crew to meet quotas — which is the implication of McDermond’s post-Oscars comments — doesn’t do anybody any good.
You mean, beyond the women and minorities (probably 75% +/- of the population)?
Also, did she use the term "less qualified"? That was not my interpretation.
Whether you liked it or not, a lot of young people were inspired by the Obama presidency. The idea is that kids should have role models. I don't mind watching women and minorities if there can be some type of social gain.
A quota system means that at some point you put skin color or gender above level of qualification.
Maybe I'm wrong, so please inform me as I feel like I'm taking crazy pills: I don't know where the quota system came from. I haven't seen any reference to "inclusion rider" and "quota system" from anything coming close to a neutral website.
People are creating this notion of a quota system as a last line of defense against initiatives that are trying to expand the available qualified labor pool in the movie business.
What is the source of the fear?
Did you ever bother to read McDormand's statement, or are you just going to pretend it never happened? She literally said the words "demand 50% diversity". That is by definition a quota.
Also, I don't fear diversity. I embrace it.
What do I detest, is this concept that there must always be an equal outcome. If there are 10 jobs available and 8 of the best 10 applicants were of a particular race/gender, it is not discriminatory if the end outcome is that 80% of the workforce is of a singular race/gender. That's just common sense.
I just found the transcript for her Oscar's statement: http://www.macleans.ca/culture/movies/transcript-frances-mcdormand-delivers-the-2018-oscars-speech-of-the-night/
No mention of a quota system.
I then saw her comment after the event: “I just found out about this last week,” she shared. “There has always been available, to everybody that does a negotiation on a film, an inclusion rider, which means that you can ask for and/or demand at least 50 percent diversity in not only the casting but also the crew. And so the fact that I just learned that after 35 years of being in the film business… we’re not going back. So the whole idea of women trending? No. No trending. African Americans trending? No, no trending. It changes now. And I think the inclusion rider will have something to do with that.”
Is this what you think a quota system is?
She's saying that there's a negotiating tool available for actors to demand for diversity. There's no governmental enforcement mechanism to say that the production company has to hire some cool guy actor because he has an inclusion rider. They can choose to ignore his contract demand, or accept it. It is the actors (laborers) themselves, not the government, that is looking to create change. It is a market-based approach. There's no legislation or punishment levied.
It’s a contractual quota that discriminates on the basis of race and gender.
Do you understand what a quota is?
I probably don't. I am certainly not going to win a legal argument.
I still think it's interesting that people would like to align their opinions with the "let's maintain the status quo", especially as it pertains to the executive decision making in the movie business.
Who said this? I certainly didn't.
I said the best qualified applicant should get the job, regardless of race or gender. I don't even know what the status quo in Hollywood is. And I certainly don't know what qualifies as "best applicant for the job". But what ever that criteria is, that should be what is being used, again, irrespective of race or gender.
That's shouldn't be so difficult to understand.
-
Having worked in Hollywood, I can say that this is a very tough area for equality because of the stakes of it all. There are only 8 major studios and thus 8 studio heads in all of Hollywood, and for the past 10 years it’s very possible to get fired for bombing once.
In a job where execs can’t make a single mistake, with a mistake meaning to make an unprofitable movie, talent isn’t even the most important thing. Making money is. Will Smith is black and was the top actor in Hollywood for years because after Leo made Body of Lies, he was the only actor to make his film budget back during opening weekend every single time, until he made I Am Legend. But you can see that since he bombed in I Am Legend, he isn’t appearing in much for unknown reasons.
All this is to say, Hollywood execs will cast whoever they think will make money. If top white actors make more money, they will likely be cast more. The studio heads’ career stakes are too high to take risks. Hollywood execs openly admit to passing on deals because they ‘aren’t in the business of taking risks’ (Paramount on passing on the Netflix Scorsese movie).
I also feel like with everything today being a franchise, sequel, reboot or based on source material, if the original characters were white, it can limit the choices. I for one would like more original screenplays and alternatives to a $30mm marketing budget. This would allow for more diversity.
To further this point, the highest paid actor in Hollywood right now is The Rock.
Are we using the term "actor" sorta broadly on that one?
-
Having worked in Hollywood, I can say that this is a very tough area for equality because of the stakes of it all. There are only 8 major studios and thus 8 studio heads in all of Hollywood, and for the past 10 years it’s very possible to get fired for bombing once.
In a job where execs can’t make a single mistake, with a mistake meaning to make an unprofitable movie, talent isn’t even the most important thing. Making money is. Will Smith is black and was the top actor in Hollywood for years because after Leo made Body of Lies, he was the only actor to make his film budget back during opening weekend every single time, until he made I Am Legend. But you can see that since he bombed in I Am Legend, he isn’t appearing in much for unknown reasons.
All this is to say, Hollywood execs will cast whoever they think will make money. If top white actors make more money, they will likely be cast more. The studio heads’ career stakes are too high to take risks. Hollywood execs openly admit to passing on deals because they ‘aren’t in the business of taking risks’ (Paramount on passing on the Netflix Scorsese movie).
I also feel like with everything today being a franchise, sequel, reboot or based on source material, if the original characters were white, it can limit the choices. I for one would like more original screenplays and alternatives to a $30mm marketing budget. This would allow for more diversity.
To further this point, the highest paid actor in Hollywood right now is The Rock.
Are we using the term "actor" sorta broadly on that one?
Haha. I think The Rock is awesome. He probably won’t be winning too many Oscars, though.
Is there an Oscar for voice acting? Because he killed it as Maui.
-
Having worked in Hollywood, I can say that this is a very tough area for equality because of the stakes of it all. There are only 8 major studios and thus 8 studio heads in all of Hollywood, and for the past 10 years it’s very possible to get fired for bombing once.
In a job where execs can’t make a single mistake, with a mistake meaning to make an unprofitable movie, talent isn’t even the most important thing. Making money is. Will Smith is black and was the top actor in Hollywood for years because after Leo made Body of Lies, he was the only actor to make his film budget back during opening weekend every single time, until he made I Am Legend. But you can see that since he bombed in I Am Legend, he isn’t appearing in much for unknown reasons.
All this is to say, Hollywood execs will cast whoever they think will make money. If top white actors make more money, they will likely be cast more. The studio heads’ career stakes are too high to take risks. Hollywood execs openly admit to passing on deals because they ‘aren’t in the business of taking risks’ (Paramount on passing on the Netflix Scorsese movie).
I also feel like with everything today being a franchise, sequel, reboot or based on source material, if the original characters were white, it can limit the choices. I for one would like more original screenplays and alternatives to a $30mm marketing budget. This would allow for more diversity.
To further this point, the highest paid actor in Hollywood right now is The Rock.
Are we using the term "actor" sorta broadly on that one?
Haha. I think The Rock is awesome. He probably won’t be winning too many Oscars, though.
Is there an Oscar for voice acting? Because he killed it as Maui.
Being a huge wrestling fan, I love The Rock. He's the most charismatic guy in Hollywood and it shows in his movies. His movies might not win awards but I enjoy most of them.
And yes, he was awesome as Maui and he saved the Fast and Furious franchise.
-
Having worked in Hollywood, I can say that this is a very tough area for equality because of the stakes of it all. There are only 8 major studios and thus 8 studio heads in all of Hollywood, and for the past 10 years it’s very possible to get fired for bombing once.
In a job where execs can’t make a single mistake, with a mistake meaning to make an unprofitable movie, talent isn’t even the most important thing. Making money is. Will Smith is black and was the top actor in Hollywood for years because after Leo made Body of Lies, he was the only actor to make his film budget back during opening weekend every single time, until he made I Am Legend. But you can see that since he bombed in I Am Legend, he isn’t appearing in much for unknown reasons.
All this is to say, Hollywood execs will cast whoever they think will make money. If top white actors make more money, they will likely be cast more. The studio heads’ career stakes are too high to take risks. Hollywood execs openly admit to passing on deals because they ‘aren’t in the business of taking risks’ (Paramount on passing on the Netflix Scorsese movie).
I also feel like with everything today being a franchise, sequel, reboot or based on source material, if the original characters were white, it can limit the choices. I for one would like more original screenplays and alternatives to a $30mm marketing budget. This would allow for more diversity.
To further this point, the highest paid actor in Hollywood right now is The Rock.
Are we using the term "actor" sorta broadly on that one?
Haha. I think The Rock is awesome. He probably won’t be winning too many Oscars, though.
Is there an Oscar for voice acting? Because he killed it as Maui.
Being a huge wrestling fan, I love The Rock. He's the most charismatic guy in Hollywood and it shows in his movies. His movies might not win awards but I enjoy most of them.
And yes, he was awesome as Maui and he saved the Fast and Furious franchise.
I would have made fun of the Rock a couple of years ago. I think he's really good in Ballers and am now a fan.
-
I can just see The Rock as Shylock right now.
"Hey. Listen up. Don't a Jew have hands? Don't a Jew have organs and stuff? I mean we eat, right? You can hurt us with guns and knives. We get sick. If you cut us we bleed, right? Well then. What goes around comes around. Ok. Go Hurricanes."
-
Wait a second. If you make The Rock the Merchant of Venice....is that diversity or appropriation?
-
People are either willfully ignorant or naive to believe that people will pick the most qualified person or of two equally qualified people, the black person, if the other one is white. It's just not reality based!
Viola Davis said it much better than I ever could...
https://youtu.be/Sf0kDGVkVzQ (https://youtu.be/Sf0kDGVkVzQ)
-
People are either willfully ignorant or naive to believe that people will pick the most qualified person or of two equally qualified people, the black person, if the other one is white. It's just not reality based!
Viola Davis said it much better than I ever could...
https://youtu.be/Sf0kDGVkVzQ (https://youtu.be/Sf0kDGVkVzQ)
One either believes there is bias or discrimination based on skin color or one doesn't. If disbelief is rooted in denial or naivete it doesn't matter because if the mindset is to reject that there is a problem, then there would be no reparation needed. If one accepts race as an influencing variable in a problem labeled as disproportionality, the discussion is only beginning. Then the degree to which race is influential, and the impact of the bias become part of the equation. Even when we can agree that race is an influencing variable AND that the impact is sizable enough to be considered problematic, we are still left with perhaps the most challenging decision - what (if anything) should be done about it.
Sometimes I think we get so locked into responding to an ill-advised solution, that our points of agreement get lost. If the common denominator is an agreement regarding the problem (could be applied to unauthorized immigration, unwanted pregnancy, unfair trade...), then it is always possible re-set the discussion. The "quota" idea may be a misguided or daft "solution" but the suggestion of it shouldn't negate or cloud the point of agreement if such agreement exists. For those who agree that racial bias or discrimination has led to an inequity in jobs, roles, pay, recognition in the acting profession, what do you offer as a move in the right direction? And responding "no quotas" doesn't really move the needle. .
-
People are either willfully ignorant or naive to believe that people will pick the most qualified person or of two equally qualified people, the black person, if the other one is white. It's just not reality based!
Viola Davis said it much better than I ever could...
https://youtu.be/Sf0kDGVkVzQ (https://youtu.be/Sf0kDGVkVzQ)
That’s just silly. Millions of “people” / employers will pick the most qualified person for a job. You seem upset about prejudice, while lumping every single decision-maker into the same category.
I mean, if you’re right, how do you account for Dwayne Johnson, Denzel Washington, Vin Diesel, Will Smith, Samuel L Jackson and others being legitimate leading men?
That’s not to say there’s no racism. There is. The solution isn’t forced employment of minorities, however. It’s making great movies regardless of race. People who are great will be embraced in any profession, I think.
-
People are either willfully ignorant or naive to believe that people will pick the most qualified person or of two equally qualified people, the black person, if the other one is white. It's just not reality based!
Viola Davis said it much better than I ever could...
https://youtu.be/Sf0kDGVkVzQ (https://youtu.be/Sf0kDGVkVzQ)
If you’re talking about in general (not Hollywood) you couldn’t be further from the truth. Companies have hiring quotas and universities have separate sat scales for black and white candidates. If two candidates are truly equal, the black guy will always win with respect to employment and education. The black guy will even win if he’s less qualified. This is called racism and does blacks no justice because it makes society constantly wonder if they’re actually qualified on merit. Nowadays SJWs like to pin this wonder on white privilege. Yeah, it’s such a privilege to be docked 200 points on the SAT due to being white.
-
People are either willfully ignorant or naive to believe that people will pick the most qualified person or of two equally qualified people, the black person, if the other one is white. It's just not reality based!
Viola Davis said it much better than I ever could...
https://youtu.be/Sf0kDGVkVzQ (https://youtu.be/Sf0kDGVkVzQ)
If you’re talking about in general (not Hollywood) you couldn’t be further from the truth. Companies have hiring quotas and universities have separate sat scales for black and white candidates. If two candidates are truly equal, the black guy will always win with respect to employment and education. The black guy will even win if he’s less qualified. This is called racism and does blacks no justice because it makes society constantly wonder if they’re actually qualified on merit. Nowadays SJWs like to pin this wonder on white privilege. Yeah, it’s such a privilege to be docked 200 points on the SAT due to being white.
I don't know what the factual basis of these claims about hiring is, but controlled studies on hiring behavior consistently find precisely the opposite.
Here's a summary of a recently published meta-analysis covering 28 studies with 55000 job applicants over a quarter century. It finds persistent, severe discrimination against black applicants, and to a lesser degree Latino applicants.
https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/september/research-finds-entrenched-hiring-bias-against-african-americans/ (https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/september/research-finds-entrenched-hiring-bias-against-african-americans/)
Here's one where they just changed the names on otherwise identical resumes. Stereotypically white names received 50% more callbacks than stereotypically black names with the same qualifications. The gap in response to black- and white-associated names was equivalent to the effect of having 8 more years of experience for what were mostly entry-level jobs.
http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html (http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html)
This is one of my favorites because just to eliminate the racial disparity in callbacks and job offers, they had to give only the white applicants felony convictions for cocaine dealing with 18 months served.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915472/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915472/)
It's not a subtle trend. Control for qualifications but attach them to different races and the patterns jump out. Shak's characterization isn't true for each and every employer but in general it's spot on.
-
People are either willfully ignorant or naive to believe that people will pick the most qualified person or of two equally qualified people, the black person, if the other one is white. It's just not reality based!
Viola Davis said it much better than I ever could...
https://youtu.be/Sf0kDGVkVzQ (https://youtu.be/Sf0kDGVkVzQ)
If you’re talking about in general (not Hollywood) you couldn’t be further from the truth. Companies have hiring quotas and universities have separate sat scales for black and white candidates. If two candidates are truly equal, the black guy will always win with respect to employment and education. The black guy will even win if he’s less qualified. This is called racism and does blacks no justice because it makes society constantly wonder if they’re actually qualified on merit. Nowadays SJWs like to pin this wonder on white privilege. Yeah, it’s such a privilege to be docked 200 points on the SAT due to being white.
A) We're talking about Hollywood
B) "If two candidates are truly equal, the black guy will always win with respect to employment and education. The black guy will even win if he’s less qualified." Is this an opinion, or is there any data to back this up?
C) I am white and was not docked 200 pts. Is this a new initiative that I missed?
-
C) I am white and was not docked 200 pts. Is this a new initiative that I missed?
It’s from a Princeton study.
Lee's next slide shows three columns of numbers from a Princeton University study that tried to measure how race and ethnicity affect admissions by using SAT scores as a benchmark. It uses the term “bonus” to describe how many extra SAT points an applicant's race is worth. She points to the first column.
African Americans received a “bonus” of 230 points, Lee says.
She points to the second column.
“Hispanics received a bonus of 185 points.”
The last column draws gasps.
Asian Americans, Lee says, are penalized by 50 points — in other words, they had to do that much better to win admission.
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-adv-asian-race-tutoring-20150222-story.html
Asians need to score 280 points better than blacks to be on equal footing. Whites need to score 230 points. In what world is a 1550 SAT score the same as a 1270?
-
Double post.
-
Yes, we’re talking about Hollywood, where the top people can get up to $50-75mm for 6-9 months of work (this includes hitting the marketing trail), plus royalties for life, plus potential equity since most people that make that much these days want to get into producing (since getting old is bad for biz for actors, especially women).
Where one product is expected to make nine figures in 2-3 days. There aren’t many businesses where employees can make 50 million a year just in salary, without equity/stock options/endorsements. And most companies that expect to make 9 figures in 2-3 days from one product don’t rely primarily on 2-3 people to drive that, it usually takes a village in most businesses.
All this is to say, again, the stakes here are very high for the people making the decisions. This is not like an employee quota, where dozens, if not hundreds of employees are crucial to making the business profitable. In business the CEOs are paid a ton, but the CEO isn’t paid more than everyone else combined. That happens in Hollywood. The color of the star doesn’t matter if they make money and the execs look good.
If women and POC made the most money, they would get cast the most. The issue is the market where studio execs don’t take risks, and perhaps that white people are more interested in movies about white people, and they spend more money. But I’m not sure why that would be ‘bad’, when the whole argument here is around changing the status quo because POC are more interested in movies about POC.
To me, this bias is a byproduct of a unique market, but also consumer tastes that at best look to be tribal and at worst, racist. I would tackle this more by figuring out alternatives to a $30mm marketing budget, which is an industry change that would allow for more competition and IMO be good for the consumer, or trying hard to get black and female capital to fund great stories that wouldn’t otherwise get told.
To me, simply telling major studio execs who are afraid of losing their jobs not to make decisions based on the economic criteria that will keep their careers alive another day doesn’t seem like it’s going to work. Progress was definitely made in 2017-2018 toward righting some of the past wrongs, but it will take time to keep getting better.
-
C) I am white and was not docked 200 pts. Is this a new initiative that I missed?
It’s from a Princeton study.
Lee's next slide shows three columns of numbers from a Princeton University study that tried to measure how race and ethnicity affect admissions by using SAT scores as a benchmark. It uses the term “bonus” to describe how many extra SAT points an applicant's race is worth. She points to the first column.
African Americans received a “bonus” of 230 points, Lee says.
She points to the second column.
“Hispanics received a bonus of 185 points.”
The last column draws gasps.
Asian Americans, Lee says, are penalized by 50 points — in other words, they had to do that much better to win admission.
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-adv-asian-race-tutoring-20150222-story.html
Asians need to score 280 points better than blacks to be on equal footing. Whites need to score 230 points. In what world is a 1550 SAT score the same as a 1270?
1. SAT is not the only criteria for admission. Heck, SAT often isn't the main criteria for admission these days, or even a criteria at all.
2. This argument assumes that each point of SAT above the admission cutoff is is important, and that it is important at the same linear rate. Not necessarily true.
3. Dumb clickbait is dumb. Even if it comes from Princeton.
-
C) I am white and was not docked 200 pts. Is this a new initiative that I missed?
It’s from a Princeton study.
Lee's next slide shows three columns of numbers from a Princeton University study that tried to measure how race and ethnicity affect admissions by using SAT scores as a benchmark. It uses the term “bonus” to describe how many extra SAT points an applicant's race is worth. She points to the first column.
African Americans received a “bonus” of 230 points, Lee says.
She points to the second column.
“Hispanics received a bonus of 185 points.”
The last column draws gasps.
Asian Americans, Lee says, are penalized by 50 points — in other words, they had to do that much better to win admission.
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-adv-asian-race-tutoring-20150222-story.html
Asians need to score 280 points better than blacks to be on equal footing. Whites need to score 230 points. In what world is a 1550 SAT score the same as a 1270?
Im not a SJW at all, and they are mostly confusing race with economics IMO, but I kind of agree with this specifically about the SAT, and I got a 1520 and an 800 on the writing SAT2 about 15 years ago. The SAT is somewhat culturally biased and will certainly be biased depending on the quality of school systems, any tutoring, etc. Someone who was trained since age 7 to take the SAT and got a 1400 can have less potential than a black kid just trying to survive who pulls a 1200 with no one encouraging his education.
The only blatant issue to me here is it should be economics that determine this, not race. A black son of a cardiologist and lawyer in Wellesley is likely to do better than a poor white kid from Lynn, so if we’re giving that black kid a 200 point cushion and not the white kid, yeah, that’s backwards. There is nothing inherently worse about being black. Being poor with a broken home in a bad school is worse.
-
Im not a SJW at all, and they are mostly confusing race with economics IMO, but I kind of agree with this specifically about the SAT, and I got a 1520 and an 800 on the writing SAT2 about 15 years ago. The SAT is somewhat culturally biased and will certainly be biased depending on the quality of school systems, any tutoring, etc. Someone who was trained since age 7 to take the SAT and got a 1400 can have less potential than a black kid just trying to survive who pulls a 1200 with no one encouraging his education.
By and large, this is true. Also, it's one of the reasons why many top schools are stepping away from standardized tests as an admission criteria.
https://blog.prepscholar.com/the-complete-guide-to-sat-optional-colleges
-
Im not a SJW at all, and they are mostly confusing race with economics IMO, but I kind of agree with this specifically about the SAT, and I got a 1520 and an 800 on the writing SAT2 about 15 years ago. The SAT is somewhat culturally biased and will certainly be biased depending on the quality of school systems, any tutoring, etc. Someone who was trained since age 7 to take the SAT and got a 1400 can have less potential than a black kid just trying to survive who pulls a 1200 with no one encouraging his education.
By and large, this is true. Also, it's one of the reasons why many top schools are stepping away from standardized tests as an admission criteria.
https://blog.prepscholar.com/the-complete-guide-to-sat-optional-colleges
I'd rather they do IQ tests. At least that tells far more about a person's potential and aptitude than anything else. Someone who is poor and poorly educated (if at all) could have an IQ of 150, but essentially fail something like a SAT, while someone who is rich and over educated might have an IQ of 100, but score significantly better on the SAT then the poor and uneducated kid. Given the same opportunity in college though, the smarter kid would likely do better than the more educated kid.
-
Im not a SJW at all, and they are mostly confusing race with economics IMO, but I kind of agree with this specifically about the SAT, and I got a 1520 and an 800 on the writing SAT2 about 15 years ago. The SAT is somewhat culturally biased and will certainly be biased depending on the quality of school systems, any tutoring, etc. Someone who was trained since age 7 to take the SAT and got a 1400 can have less potential than a black kid just trying to survive who pulls a 1200 with no one encouraging his education.
By and large, this is true. Also, it's one of the reasons why many top schools are stepping away from standardized tests as an admission criteria.
https://blog.prepscholar.com/the-complete-guide-to-sat-optional-colleges
I'd rather they do IQ tests. At least that tells far more about a person's potential and aptitude than anything else. Someone who is poor and poorly educated (if at all) could have an IQ of 150, but essentially fail something like a SAT, while someone who is rich and over educated might have an IQ of 100, but score significantly better on the SAT then the poor and uneducated kid. Given the same opportunity in college though, the smarter kid would likely do better than the more educated kid.
It doesn't make much difference. IQ testing is standardized, too, and as such is sensitive to practice and preparation.
-
I don't know what the factual basis of these claims about hiring is, but controlled studies on hiring behavior consistently find precisely the opposite.
Here's a summary of a recently published meta-analysis covering 28 studies with 55000 job applicants over a quarter century. It finds persistent, severe discrimination against black applicants, and to a lesser degree Latino applicants.
https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/september/research-finds-entrenched-hiring-bias-against-african-americans/ (https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/september/research-finds-entrenched-hiring-bias-against-african-americans/)
Here's one where they just changed the names on otherwise identical resumes. Stereotypically white names received 50% more callbacks than stereotypically black names with the same qualifications. The gap in response to black- and white-associated names was equivalent to the effect of having 8 more years of experience for what were mostly entry-level jobs.
http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html (http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html)
This is one of my favorites because just to eliminate the racial disparity in callbacks and job offers, they had to give only the white applicants felony convictions for cocaine dealing with 18 months served.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915472/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915472/)
It's not a subtle trend. Control for qualifications but attach them to different races and the patterns jump out. Shak's characterization isn't true for each and every employer but in general it's spot on.
I would be very interested to see the methodology here. Are these mom and pop stores or major corporations? My point was to corporations because small businesses could have personal biases. I doubt that major corporations would risk having incredibly bad PR and lawsuits, however, if it is, I'd like to know which ones they are so that I can boycott them as I find it unacceptable.
Im not a SJW at all, and they are mostly confusing race with economics IMO, but I kind of agree with this specifically about the SAT, and I got a 1520 and an 800 on the writing SAT2 about 15 years ago. The SAT is somewhat culturally biased and will certainly be biased depending on the quality of school systems, any tutoring, etc. Someone who was trained since age 7 to take the SAT and got a 1400 can have less potential than a black kid just trying to survive who pulls a 1200 with no one encouraging his education.
The only blatant issue to me here is it should be economics that determine this, not race. A black son of a cardiologist and lawyer in Wellesley is likely to do better than a poor white kid from Lynn, so if we’re giving that black kid a 200 point cushion and not the white kid, yeah, that’s backwards. There is nothing inherently worse about being black. Being poor with a broken home in a bad school is worse.
Yes, the problem is confusing economics with race. I'm all for giving kids in broken homes some extra points, because if they're close enough, it's pretty [dang] impressive. But when you generalize additional merit based on skin color, that's basically the definition of racism.
The metric of highest correlation to a child's failure is single parent homes, NOT their DNA.
-
I don't know what the factual basis of these claims about hiring is, but controlled studies on hiring behavior consistently find precisely the opposite.
Here's a summary of a recently published meta-analysis covering 28 studies with 55000 job applicants over a quarter century. It finds persistent, severe discrimination against black applicants, and to a lesser degree Latino applicants.
https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/september/research-finds-entrenched-hiring-bias-against-african-americans/ (https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/september/research-finds-entrenched-hiring-bias-against-african-americans/)
Here's one where they just changed the names on otherwise identical resumes. Stereotypically white names received 50% more callbacks than stereotypically black names with the same qualifications. The gap in response to black- and white-associated names was equivalent to the effect of having 8 more years of experience for what were mostly entry-level jobs.
http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html (http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html)
This is one of my favorites because just to eliminate the racial disparity in callbacks and job offers, they had to give only the white applicants felony convictions for cocaine dealing with 18 months served.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915472/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915472/)
It's not a subtle trend. Control for qualifications but attach them to different races and the patterns jump out. Shak's characterization isn't true for each and every employer but in general it's spot on.
I would be very interested to see the methodology here. Are these mom and pop stores or major corporations? My point was to corporations because small businesses could have personal biases. I doubt that major corporations would risk having incredibly bad PR and lawsuits, however, if it is, I'd like to know which ones they are so that I can boycott them as I find it unacceptable.
Yes, "mom and pop stories" published by the NBER. Do bother to at least read the article abstract before asking questions that are already answered.
-
Im not a SJW at all, and they are mostly confusing race with economics IMO, but I kind of agree with this specifically about the SAT, and I got a 1520 and an 800 on the writing SAT2 about 15 years ago. The SAT is somewhat culturally biased and will certainly be biased depending on the quality of school systems, any tutoring, etc. Someone who was trained since age 7 to take the SAT and got a 1400 can have less potential than a black kid just trying to survive who pulls a 1200 with no one encouraging his education.
By and large, this is true. Also, it's one of the reasons why many top schools are stepping away from standardized tests as an admission criteria.
https://blog.prepscholar.com/the-complete-guide-to-sat-optional-colleges
I'd rather they do IQ tests. At least that tells far more about a person's potential and aptitude than anything else. Someone who is poor and poorly educated (if at all) could have an IQ of 150, but essentially fail something like a SAT, while someone who is rich and over educated might have an IQ of 100, but score significantly better on the SAT then the poor and uneducated kid. Given the same opportunity in college though, the smarter kid would likely do better than the more educated kid.
It doesn't make much difference. IQ testing is standardized, too, and as such is sensitive to practice and preparation.
Sure if you practice you can get better (and certainly less likely to be nervous), but there is only so much you can do since it really does measure your intelligence.
-
I don't know what the factual basis of these claims about hiring is, but controlled studies on hiring behavior consistently find precisely the opposite.
Here's a summary of a recently published meta-analysis covering 28 studies with 55000 job applicants over a quarter century. It finds persistent, severe discrimination against black applicants, and to a lesser degree Latino applicants.
https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/september/research-finds-entrenched-hiring-bias-against-african-americans/ (https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/september/research-finds-entrenched-hiring-bias-against-african-americans/)
Here's one where they just changed the names on otherwise identical resumes. Stereotypically white names received 50% more callbacks than stereotypically black names with the same qualifications. The gap in response to black- and white-associated names was equivalent to the effect of having 8 more years of experience for what were mostly entry-level jobs.
http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html (http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html)
This is one of my favorites because just to eliminate the racial disparity in callbacks and job offers, they had to give only the white applicants felony convictions for cocaine dealing with 18 months served.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915472/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915472/)
It's not a subtle trend. Control for qualifications but attach them to different races and the patterns jump out. Shak's characterization isn't true for each and every employer but in general it's spot on.
I would be very interested to see the methodology here. Are these mom and pop stores or major corporations? My point was to corporations because small businesses could have personal biases. I doubt that major corporations would risk having incredibly bad PR and lawsuits, however, if it is, I'd like to know which ones they are so that I can boycott them as I find it unacceptable.
Yes, "mom and pop stories" published by the NBER. Do bother to at least read the article abstract before asking questions that are already answered.
Says the guy who called a study shattering his societal view of white privilege "clickbait."
-
I don't know what the factual basis of these claims about hiring is, but controlled studies on hiring behavior consistently find precisely the opposite.
Here's a summary of a recently published meta-analysis covering 28 studies with 55000 job applicants over a quarter century. It finds persistent, severe discrimination against black applicants, and to a lesser degree Latino applicants.
https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/september/research-finds-entrenched-hiring-bias-against-african-americans/ (https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/september/research-finds-entrenched-hiring-bias-against-african-americans/)
Here's one where they just changed the names on otherwise identical resumes. Stereotypically white names received 50% more callbacks than stereotypically black names with the same qualifications. The gap in response to black- and white-associated names was equivalent to the effect of having 8 more years of experience for what were mostly entry-level jobs.
http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html (http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html)
This is one of my favorites because just to eliminate the racial disparity in callbacks and job offers, they had to give only the white applicants felony convictions for cocaine dealing with 18 months served.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915472/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915472/)
It's not a subtle trend. Control for qualifications but attach them to different races and the patterns jump out. Shak's characterization isn't true for each and every employer but in general it's spot on.
I would be very interested to see the methodology here. Are these mom and pop stores or major corporations? My point was to corporations because small businesses could have personal biases. I doubt that major corporations would risk having incredibly bad PR and lawsuits, however, if it is, I'd like to know which ones they are so that I can boycott them as I find it unacceptable.
Yes, "mom and pop stories" published by the NBER. Do bother to at least read the article abstract before asking questions that are already answered.
Says the guy who called a study shattering his societal view of white privilege "clickbait."
I think the popular progressive white privilege narratives are largely hogwash. Was that view "shattered" somewhere in that horrible clickbait article that took one particular aspect of college admissions completely out of context? I must have blinked.
-
Im not a SJW at all, and they are mostly confusing race with economics IMO, but I kind of agree with this specifically about the SAT, and I got a 1520 and an 800 on the writing SAT2 about 15 years ago. The SAT is somewhat culturally biased and will certainly be biased depending on the quality of school systems, any tutoring, etc. Someone who was trained since age 7 to take the SAT and got a 1400 can have less potential than a black kid just trying to survive who pulls a 1200 with no one encouraging his education.
By and large, this is true. Also, it's one of the reasons why many top schools are stepping away from standardized tests as an admission criteria.
https://blog.prepscholar.com/the-complete-guide-to-sat-optional-colleges
I'd rather they do IQ tests. At least that tells far more about a person's potential and aptitude than anything else. Someone who is poor and poorly educated (if at all) could have an IQ of 150, but essentially fail something like a SAT, while someone who is rich and over educated might have an IQ of 100, but score significantly better on the SAT then the poor and uneducated kid. Given the same opportunity in college though, the smarter kid would likely do better than the more educated kid.
It doesn't make much difference. IQ testing is standardized, too, and as such is sensitive to practice and preparation.
Sure if you practice you can get better (and certainly less likely to be nervous), but there is only so much you can do since it really does measure your intelligence.
Not certain these days, but many years ago when I was giving WISC (IQ) tests there undoubtedly was cultural bias in the testing intrument. Normed on tasks, vocab, etc that were more likely practiced, experienced in white middle class environments.
-
Shoe-horning in “diversity” characters, miscasting actors / actresses, and hiring less qualified cast and crew to meet quotas — which is the implication of McDermond’s post-Oscars comments — doesn’t do anybody any good.
You mean, beyond the women and minorities (probably 75% +/- of the population)?
Does it do women and minorities good to guarantee them slots even if they don’t deserve them?
Maybe this question should be posed to all the white men who, for generations, were guaranteed the slots even when they didn't deserve them? Did it do them good?
-
I don't know what the factual basis of these claims about hiring is, but controlled studies on hiring behavior consistently find precisely the opposite.
Here's a summary of a recently published meta-analysis covering 28 studies with 55000 job applicants over a quarter century. It finds persistent, severe discrimination against black applicants, and to a lesser degree Latino applicants.
https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/september/research-finds-entrenched-hiring-bias-against-african-americans/ (https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/september/research-finds-entrenched-hiring-bias-against-african-americans/)
Here's one where they just changed the names on otherwise identical resumes. Stereotypically white names received 50% more callbacks than stereotypically black names with the same qualifications. The gap in response to black- and white-associated names was equivalent to the effect of having 8 more years of experience for what were mostly entry-level jobs.
http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html (http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html)
This is one of my favorites because just to eliminate the racial disparity in callbacks and job offers, they had to give only the white applicants felony convictions for cocaine dealing with 18 months served.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915472/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915472/)
It's not a subtle trend. Control for qualifications but attach them to different races and the patterns jump out. Shak's characterization isn't true for each and every employer but in general it's spot on.
I would be very interested to see the methodology here. Are these mom and pop stores or major corporations? My point was to corporations because small businesses could have personal biases. I doubt that major corporations would risk having incredibly bad PR and lawsuits, however, if it is, I'd like to know which ones they are so that I can boycott them as I find it unacceptable.
The articles are either directly linked or linked within the summaries posted, so the info is available.
They're not going to list individual companies both for space and privacy issues, but generally most researchers are using publicly posted job listings, mostly in major cities, so it's likely a mix of all sorts of businesses that offer entry-level positions to broad audiences. The important point is that the studies collectively incorporate tens of thousands of listings over decades, so it's not a matter of handful of bad actors, it's systemic.
The kicker is, most probably genuinely don't believe they're deciding based on race. Bias is slippery that way.
-
Roy, I'm getting a tad confused. I get how maybe an employer can't say "We're gonna hire this many of this" but I'm not sure why an actor can't say in their contract "I won't be in the movie unless you hire this many". Does that make it an illegal contract because you're trying to force an illegal action?
Yes. Clauses that require unconstitutional discrimination are unenforceable.
The ice is starting to get pretty thin here. I'm not sure that a person can be forced to work in an job environment if he chooses not to because it has a racial/ethnic make-up he is not comfortable with.
Right to assembly comes into play here, as does freedom of expression. You are allowed to say, "I think your work environment does not have the kind of cultural, racial & ethnic make-up I would be comfortable working in. So I'm not going to work there."
The company can choose to not hire you. Or if they want you so bad, maybe they re-examine their diversity hiring practices.
This is not a federal or state program or expenditure we are talking about. So I don't believe this is really a constitutional/legal issue.
It is a market-driven issue. If a company wants to hire someone, the work environment is part of the cost of attracting and retaining some people. What the actors are talking about is making it explicit that this is a part of the cost of hiring them.
-
Im not a SJW at all, and they are mostly confusing race with economics IMO, but I kind of agree with this specifically about the SAT, and I got a 1520 and an 800 on the writing SAT2 about 15 years ago. The SAT is somewhat culturally biased and will certainly be biased depending on the quality of school systems, any tutoring, etc. Someone who was trained since age 7 to take the SAT and got a 1400 can have less potential than a black kid just trying to survive who pulls a 1200 with no one encouraging his education.
By and large, this is true. Also, it's one of the reasons why many top schools are stepping away from standardized tests as an admission criteria.
https://blog.prepscholar.com/the-complete-guide-to-sat-optional-colleges
I'd rather they do IQ tests. At least that tells far more about a person's potential and aptitude than anything else. Someone who is poor and poorly educated (if at all) could have an IQ of 150, but essentially fail something like a SAT, while someone who is rich and over educated might have an IQ of 100, but score significantly better on the SAT then the poor and uneducated kid. Given the same opportunity in college though, the smarter kid would likely do better than the more educated kid.
It doesn't make much difference. IQ testing is standardized, too, and as such is sensitive to practice and preparation.
Sure if you practice you can get better (and certainly less likely to be nervous), but there is only so much you can do since it really does measure your intelligence.
Intelligence is not something that exists in a vacuum. IQ testing is done in different ways, and different tests measure different abilities. For my MENSA testing, I took Raven's Advanced Matrices test, which is essentially pattern recognition. Other tests assess different types of analytical and deductive reasoning.
Either way, the common thread here is that these tests are standardized. This means they contain repetitive problem archetypes that you can learn to tackle better with preparation. This, in turn, means that someone familiar with the test will do better than someone that isn't (even if their intellectual ability is identical).
This is the same issue that undermines the credibility of SAT and GRE as a predictor of student ability.
-
Not certain these days, but many years ago when I was giving WISC (IQ) tests there undoubtedly was cultural bias in the testing intrument. Normed on tasks, vocab, etc that were more likely practiced, experienced in white middle class environments.
Raven's Progressive is a language-neutral instrument (it's essentially pattern recognition in pictograms), but the problem types are so predictable that if you spend one summer solving practice tests you're almost certain to do better than someone as smart as you that sees it for the first time.
-
People are either willfully ignorant or naive to believe that people will pick the most qualified person or of two equally qualified people, the black person, if the other one is white. It's just not reality based!
Viola Davis said it much better than I ever could...
https://youtu.be/Sf0kDGVkVzQ (https://youtu.be/Sf0kDGVkVzQ)
That’s just silly. Millions of “people” / employers will pick the most qualified person for a job. You seem upset about prejudice, while lumping every single decision-maker into the same category.
I mean, if you’re right, how do you account for Dwayne Johnson, Denzel Washington, Vin Diesel, Will Smith, Samuel L Jackson and others being legitimate leading men?
That’s not to say there’s no racism. There is. The solution isn’t forced employment of minorities, however. It’s making great movies regardless of race. People who are great will be embraced in any profession, I think.
Barack Obama was the first African American POTUS and he came from very humble beginnings, if all blacks just work as hard as he did then...
That's one example of what I think of when I read a lot your non-Celtics posts and I just don't think this is the place to debate you, for a number of reasons. Maybe I have the wrong impression of you, if that's the case, I'm sorry. I know you have a lot of power/sway and support here so I'm just going to let you have your say and move on.
-
Roy, I'm getting a tad confused. I get how maybe an employer can't say "We're gonna hire this many of this" but I'm not sure why an actor can't say in their contract "I won't be in the movie unless you hire this many". Does that make it an illegal contract because you're trying to force an illegal action?
Yes. Clauses that require unconstitutional discrimination are unenforceable.
The ice is starting to get pretty thin here. I'm not sure that a person can be forced to work in an job environment if he chooses not to because it has a racial/ethnic make-up he is not comfortable with.
Right to assembly comes into play here, as does freedom of expression. You are allowed to say, "I think your work environment does not have the kind of cultural, racial & ethnic make-up I would be comfortable working in. So I'm not going to work there."
The company can choose to not hire you. Or if they want you so bad, maybe they re-examine their diversity hiring practices.
This is not a federal or state program or expenditure we are talking about. So I don't believe this is really a constitutional/legal issue.
It is a market-driven issue. If a company wants to hire someone, the work environment is part of the cost of attracting and retaining some people. What the actors are talking about is making it explicit that this is a part of the cost of hiring them.
And, if it’s explicit in a contract, the clause is unenforceable, but it does open the studio up to reverse discrimination law suits.
Who said anything about forcing people to work? We’re comparing millionaire actors to indentured servants now?
Respectfully, from a legal perspective your post is almost complete nonsense.
-
People are either willfully ignorant or naive to believe that people will pick the most qualified person or of two equally qualified people, the black person, if the other one is white. It's just not reality based!
Viola Davis said it much better than I ever could...
https://youtu.be/Sf0kDGVkVzQ (https://youtu.be/Sf0kDGVkVzQ)
That’s just silly. Millions of “people” / employers will pick the most qualified person for a job. You seem upset about prejudice, while lumping every single decision-maker into the same category.
I mean, if you’re right, how do you account for Dwayne Johnson, Denzel Washington, Vin Diesel, Will Smith, Samuel L Jackson and others being legitimate leading men?
That’s not to say there’s no racism. There is. The solution isn’t forced employment of minorities, however. It’s making great movies regardless of race. People who are great will be embraced in any profession, I think.
Barack Obama was the first African American POTUS and he came from very humble beginnings, if all blacks just work as hard as he did then...
That's one example of what I think of when I read a lot your non-Celtics posts and I just don't think this is the place to debate you, for a number of reasons. Maybe I have the wrong impression of you, if that's the case, I'm sorry. I know you have a lot of power/sway and support here so I'm just going to let you have your say and move on.
I respect the right to not debate, but I don’t get your Obama example. Blacks aren’t held to a “you need to be Obama” standard. Nor are whites. Millions of blacks excel in all types of fields.
-
I think it's telling what gets people upset. There are people who argue passionately against the idea of a racial quota because that would be discrimination and that's true. But those same people don't seem to have the same passion to fight against the actual discrimination that is happening here in reality. That's how it seems to me, anyway.
Incidentally, I did pretty good this year. I went 7/8 on the big awards. I predicted Mcdonagh would win original screenplay but I don't begrudge Jordan Peele his win at all. This was kind of an easy year, except best picture was sort of a tossup so I felt pretty good about nailing that. My wife usually wins our Oscar pool and she predicted Get Out, so we split the pool.
-
People are either willfully ignorant or naive to believe that people will pick the most qualified person or of two equally qualified people, the black person, if the other one is white. It's just not reality based!
Viola Davis said it much better than I ever could...
https://youtu.be/Sf0kDGVkVzQ (https://youtu.be/Sf0kDGVkVzQ)
That’s just silly. Millions of “people” / employers will pick the most qualified person for a job. You seem upset about prejudice, while lumping every single decision-maker into the same category.
I mean, if you’re right, how do you account for Dwayne Johnson, Denzel Washington, Vin Diesel, Will Smith, Samuel L Jackson and others being legitimate leading men?
That’s not to say there’s no racism. There is. The solution isn’t forced employment of minorities, however. It’s making great movies regardless of race. People who are great will be embraced in any profession, I think.
Barack Obama was the first African American POTUS and he came from very humble beginnings, if all blacks just work as hard as he did then...
That's one example of what I think of when I read a lot your non-Celtics posts and I just don't think this is the place to debate you, for a number of reasons. Maybe I have the wrong impression of you, if that's the case, I'm sorry. I know you have a lot of power/sway and support here so I'm just going to let you have your say and move on.
I respect the right to not debate, but I don’t get your Obama example. Blacks aren’t held to a “you need to be Obama” standard. Nor are whites. Millions of blacks excel in all types of fields.
You missed the point. The point is, in any field I can give you a couple outliers of people of color being at the top of the field but in no way does throwing out those names show equality of opportunity!
In your own example you named 5 people of color and just made it seem like because they made it they had equal opportunity to get to where they are. You didn't name one woman of color BTW.
Of course it is SLOWLY getting better for people of color in Hollywood (men mainly) but it doesn't argue my point of saying that if you have 2 actors with the same background/resume that the black actor would not be chosen first. Of course Dwayne is now a known commodity so his name would be chosen over most white people for certain roles but I'm talking about the average actors in Hollywood. (S/N I really wish people would stop using Vin Diesel as if most people know he is mixed)
This isn't me just talking about something I don't know, I gave you an actual example of Viola Davis who has actually experienced this unlike you and me!
Budget is a huge factor in what movies fare well and movies with people of color are notoriously under funded. I don't feel like looking it up but Gabriel Union commented on how people always comment on how well black movies do in theaters but she implores that you don't look at how the movies do as a separate but how well they do in relation to the budgets of the films. Of course it's going to seem like they are just making the movies of what they think will sell but if you aren't funding movies with people of color how do you know those movies wont do equally as well or at the very least not lose money in relation to budget (actually a lot of big budget movies lose money)? There is no Black Panther without giving them the budget to match the ones of it's counterparts.
-
People are either willfully ignorant or naive to believe that people will pick the most qualified person or of two equally qualified people, the black person, if the other one is white. It's just not reality based!
Viola Davis said it much better than I ever could...
https://youtu.be/Sf0kDGVkVzQ (https://youtu.be/Sf0kDGVkVzQ)
That’s just silly. Millions of “people” / employers will pick the most qualified person for a job. You seem upset about prejudice, while lumping every single decision-maker into the same category.
I mean, if you’re right, how do you account for Dwayne Johnson, Denzel Washington, Vin Diesel, Will Smith, Samuel L Jackson and others being legitimate leading men?
That’s not to say there’s no racism. There is. The solution isn’t forced employment of minorities, however. It’s making great movies regardless of race. People who are great will be embraced in any profession, I think.
Barack Obama was the first African American POTUS and he came from very humble beginnings, if all blacks just work as hard as he did then...
That's one example of what I think of when I read a lot your non-Celtics posts and I just don't think this is the place to debate you, for a number of reasons. Maybe I have the wrong impression of you, if that's the case, I'm sorry. I know you have a lot of power/sway and support here so I'm just going to let you have your say and move on.
I respect the right to not debate, but I don’t get your Obama example. Blacks aren’t held to a “you need to be Obama” standard. Nor are whites. Millions of blacks excel in all types of fields.
I won't speak for ImShak as I am sure he can make his point better than me if he wants to, but I'll give a shot to at least something I think he is alluding to.
The naming of the 5 (sans Morgan Freeman) best known African-American actors may be proof that some have "made it" by surface standards (we see them as rich, powerful "stars"). However, there is so much we don't know about their journeys (generally) as compared to White counterparts. The video clip earlier in the thread from Viola Davis reveals some of the underbelly that may be unseen or less apparent but experienced nonetheless. The essence of Davis' statements is that the experience of becoming and remaining a star is generally different for the African-American than the White American. I don't think the point is that White stars are less talented or less hard-working, but the experience of getting to and sustaining the status is generally different. The other point is that there is a certain proof by token example that is used to dismiss or marginalize the voicing of oppression, bias, discrimination, or higher bars that have to be ascended. This marginalization occurs when those in the majority (or power) culture essentially point to people of color who have, by outward appearances had equal opportunity and succeeded, as adequate evidence that there is empirical and equal opportunity irrespective of race.
I think it may be both mistaken and disrespectful to not listen to (or knee-jerk ignore) those who share their experiences, and to avoid looking at the breadth of evidence that suggests that for every Barak Obama there may be 100 brilliant, talented, African-Americans who, for a host of reasons, have not been afforded opportunities or access to sustainable success that are comparable to equally competent White Americans. The leap of faith in this is to actually believe the ones who are experiencing and sharing rather than dismiss based on possibly inaccurate or under-informed assumptions.
Not sure what I got right in the above paragraphs -- I am an old, not too brilliant, not too talented White guy with an average work ethic who has had all sorts of opportunities to succeed in America.
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_wrinkle_in_time_2018#contentReviews
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/03/08/oprahs-ultra-pc-wrinkle-in-time-stung-with-bad-reviews-as-cringeworthy-100-million-dollar-disney-movie-could-bomb-experts-say.html
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_wrinkle_in_time_2018#contentReviews
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/03/08/oprahs-ultra-pc-wrinkle-in-time-stung-with-bad-reviews-as-cringeworthy-100-million-dollar-disney-movie-could-bomb-experts-say.html
They just did it poorly. Black Panther had a ton of political themes in it including social justice and did it right. I don't think just because you are pushing a social theme in a movie that that means its going to be bad, which is what you are hinting at here. It is possible to get out political opinions and social ideas and still create a great movie.
-
I haven't read through the whole thread so if any of this has been discussed my bad. But it's 2018 folks. Racism unfortunately still exists but if anyone thinks it's as bad as it was in the 50's and 60's I have beachfront property for you in Indiana. The biggest issue these days is that people on the left want to group everyone together and judge them off the lowest denominator of a group while people on the right want to focus on individual instances of racism and how to prevent it from happening again. The perfect example is leftists calling all Trump voters racist because a small % of idiots on the "Alt-Right" voted for him. And because of this, they call him racist also despite evidence to the contrary. But then the leftists completely ignore the fact that one of the biggest racists in the world, Louis Farrakhan, was pro-Obama. There's a ridiculous double standard because of the SJW "movement" and victimhood mentality running wild these days.
Another issue is when someone like Ben Shapiro uses facts, stats, numbers, logic, etc to show that white privilege is in fact a myth or that the reason the number of POC in prison isn't because of racism yet because POC commit more crimes, the Leftists start screaming and whining about him being a white supremacist (Even though he's Jewish and is the #1 most hated person in the world by the Alt-Right).
Also, this notion from white people of reverse racism is ridiculous. There's no such thing. There's just racism.
We could talk about affirmative action, sub-prime mortgage lending, college grants/scholarships, and other programs that exclude only white people to prove that the country isn't racist as a whole too.
Lastly, and this is my opinion, I believe everyone needs to treat others as individuals. Stop lumping everyone together. Just because you may have had a negative interaction with one POC doesn't mean every other POC you meet is the same way. If you're still using skin color as a reason to like or dislike someone in 2018 YOU are the problem. Skin color should be 100% irrelevant.
I look forward to any kind of civil discourse regarding this subject as I think open dialogue is the best way to find common ground moving forward.
-
I haven't read through the whole thread so if any of this has been discussed my bad. But it's 2018 folks. Racism unfortunately still exists but if anyone thinks it's as bad as it was in the 50's and 60's I have beachfront property for you in Indiana. The biggest issue these days is that people on the left want to group everyone together and judge them off the lowest denominator of a group while people on the right want to focus on individual instances of racism and how to prevent it from happening again. The perfect example is leftists calling all Trump voters racist because a small % of idiots on the "Alt-Right" voted for him. And because of this, they call him racist also despite evidence to the contrary. But then the leftists completely ignore the fact that one of the biggest racists in the world, Louis Farrakhan, was pro-Obama. There's a ridiculous double standard because of the SJW "movement" and victimhood mentality running wild these days.
Another issue is when someone like Ben Shapiro uses facts, stats, numbers, logic, etc to show that white privilege is in fact a myth or that the reason the number of POC in prison isn't because of racism yet because POC commit more crimes, the Leftists start screaming and whining about him being a white supremacist (Even though he's Jewish and is the #1 most hated person in the world by the Alt-Right).
Also, this notion from white people of reverse racism is ridiculous. There's no such thing. There's just racism.
We could talk about affirmative action, sub-prime mortgage lending, college grants/scholarships, and other programs that exclude only white people to prove that the country isn't racist as a whole too.
Lastly, and this is my opinion, I believe everyone needs to treat others as individuals. Stop lumping everyone together. Just because you may have had a negative interaction with one POC doesn't mean every other POC you meet is the same way. If you're still using skin color as a reason to like or dislike someone in 2018 YOU are the problem. Skin color should be 100% irrelevant.
I look forward to any kind of civil discourse regarding this subject as I think open dialogue is the best way to find common ground moving forward.
TP and a big Amen!!
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_wrinkle_in_time_2018#contentReviews
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/03/08/oprahs-ultra-pc-wrinkle-in-time-stung-with-bad-reviews-as-cringeworthy-100-million-dollar-disney-movie-could-bomb-experts-say.html
Are you trying to use one movie's bad reviews to prove that movie goers and critics don't like movies with social themes at the exact moment that Black Panther is on pace to become one of the 5 highest grossing movies in American history and Get Out capped its successful run with a Best Screenplay Oscar?
EDIT: I'll throw in that Shape of Water won Best Picture despite literally dripping with a social agenda.
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_wrinkle_in_time_2018#contentReviews
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/03/08/oprahs-ultra-pc-wrinkle-in-time-stung-with-bad-reviews-as-cringeworthy-100-million-dollar-disney-movie-could-bomb-experts-say.html
Are you trying to use one movie's bad reviews to prove that movie goers and critics don't like movies with social themes at the exact moment that Black Panther is on pace to become one of the 5 highest grossing movies in American history and Get Out capped its successful run with a Best Screenplay Oscar?
EDIT: I'll throw in that Shape of Water won Best Picture despite literally dripping with a social agenda.
Black Panther was a great movie because they made an entertaining movie with a good story. There’s a distinction between “predominantly black cast” and “putting social justice ahead of making a great movie”.
As for Get Out ... Either the other nominees were remarkably weak, or that was an “affirmative action” Oscar. It was entertaining enough, but it was about as Oscar-worthy as Cabin In The Woods.
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_wrinkle_in_time_2018#contentReviews
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/03/08/oprahs-ultra-pc-wrinkle-in-time-stung-with-bad-reviews-as-cringeworthy-100-million-dollar-disney-movie-could-bomb-experts-say.html
They just did it poorly. Black Panther had a ton of political themes in it including social justice and did it right. I don't think just because you are pushing a social theme in a movie that that means its going to be bad, which is what you are hinting at here. It is possible to get out political opinions and social ideas and still create a great movie.
It comes down to priorities: is the movie first, or is the social agenda?
Everything I’ve read about a Wrinkle In Time has been about Oprah and the director pushing the latter, without focusing on a great underlying story.
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
Easy answer: no. Disney have an extremely questionable record with their non-animation based, non-franchise based live action films. John Carter - massive flop. The Lone Ranger - massive flop. Tomorrowland - massive flop. The Finest Hours - flop. Pete's Dragon - so, so. BFG - flop.
Agenda or not, these films are rarely good and Disney don't seem to care as long as they can sell some merchandise off them.
-
On the Oscars, they might be one of the 5 most useless shows on TV. These Hollywood elites are there to be smug, pat themselves on the back, and virtue signal to a majority of people they don't relate to. They have the nerve to push yet another false narrative with their #MeToo or #Time'sUp garbage yet they'll give KOBE an award and a standing ovation? How many of them were 'Friends of Weinstein" when he was acting like a scumbag?
I digress....but another issue I had was the media making such a huge deal about Black Panther and the "first black superhero" nonsense. Did they forget about Wesley Snipes as Blade? Or Michael Jai-White as Spawn? Or Halle Berry as Catwoman? And what freaking difference does it make what color the actors are? Chadwick Bozeman was EXCELLENT as Black Panther because he's an EXCELLENT ACTOR. Tyler Perry is black and every one of his movies sucked. Denzel is a top 5 all-time actor. Eddie Murphy is a legend. And it has ZERO to do with being black. They were just better than everyone else.
The fact that so many people use Hollywood as their moral compass explains why there's so many issues in this country.
-
People are either willfully ignorant or naive to believe that people will pick the most qualified person or of two equally qualified people, the black person, if the other one is white. It's just not reality based!
Viola Davis said it much better than I ever could...
https://youtu.be/Sf0kDGVkVzQ (https://youtu.be/Sf0kDGVkVzQ)
That’s just silly. Millions of “people” / employers will pick the most qualified person for a job. You seem upset about prejudice, while lumping every single decision-maker into the same category.
I mean, if you’re right, how do you account for Dwayne Johnson, Denzel Washington, Vin Diesel, Will Smith, Samuel L Jackson and others being legitimate leading men?
That’s not to say there’s no racism. There is. The solution isn’t forced employment of minorities, however. It’s making great movies regardless of race. People who are great will be embraced in any profession, I think.
Barack Obama was the first African American POTUS and he came from very humble beginnings, if all blacks just work as hard as he did then...
That's one example of what I think of when I read a lot your non-Celtics posts and I just don't think this is the place to debate you, for a number of reasons. Maybe I have the wrong impression of you, if that's the case, I'm sorry. I know you have a lot of power/sway and support here so I'm just going to let you have your say and move on.
I respect the right to not debate, but I don’t get your Obama example. Blacks aren’t held to a “you need to be Obama” standard. Nor are whites. Millions of blacks excel in all types of fields.
I won't speak for ImShak as I am sure he can make his point better than me if he wants to, but I'll give a shot to at least something I think he is alluding to.
The naming of the 5 (sans Morgan Freeman) best known African-American actors may be proof that some have "made it" by surface standards (we see them as rich, powerful "stars"). However, there is so much we don't know about their journeys (generally) as compared to White counterparts. The video clip earlier in the thread from Viola Davis reveals some of the underbelly that may be unseen or less apparent but experienced nonetheless. The essence of Davis' statements is that the experience of becoming and remaining a star is generally different for the African-American than the White American. I don't think the point is that White stars are less talented or less hard-working, but the experience of getting to and sustaining the status is generally different. The other point is that there is a certain proof by token example that is used to dismiss or marginalize the voicing of oppression, bias, discrimination, or higher bars that have to be ascended. This marginalization occurs when those in the majority (or power) culture essentially point to people of color who have, by outward appearances had equal opportunity and succeeded, as adequate evidence that there is empirical and equal opportunity irrespective of race.
I think it may be both mistaken and disrespectful to not listen to (or knee-jerk ignore) those who share their experiences, and to avoid looking at the breadth of evidence that suggests that for every Barak Obama there may be 100 brilliant, talented, African-Americans who, for a host of reasons, have not been afforded opportunities or access to sustainable success that are comparable to equally competent White Americans. The leap of faith in this is to actually believe the ones who are experiencing and sharing rather than dismiss based on possibly inaccurate or under-informed assumptions.
Not sure what I got right in the above paragraphs -- I am an old, not too brilliant, not too talented White guy with an average work ethic who has had all sorts of opportunities to succeed in America.
I am a woman and yep, that is exactly what I was trying to express. You said it much better than I could. Thank you.
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
Easy answer: no. Disney have an extremely questionable record with their non-animation based, non-franchise based live action films. John Carter - massive flop. The Lone Ranger - massive flop. Tomorrowland - massive flop. The Finest Hours - flop. Pete's Dragon - so, so. BFG - flop.
Agenda or not, these films are rarely good and Disney don't seem to care as long as they can sell some merchandise off them.
many big budget films flop, it doesn't stop them from being made. if predominantly black movies (rarely a big budget) fail, it signals to some people that it was because audiences won't or don't want to go see those types of movies. you can't prove otherwise if they aren't going to fund movies with POC the way they do for other projects.
I have yet to see anyone argue that things aren't getting better but to pretend that it's close to equal IMO is hilarious.
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
Easy answer: no. Disney have an extremely questionable record with their non-animation based, non-franchise based live action films. John Carter - massive flop. The Lone Ranger - massive flop. Tomorrowland - massive flop. The Finest Hours - flop. Pete's Dragon - so, so. BFG - flop.
Agenda or not, these films are rarely good and Disney don't seem to care as long as they can sell some merchandise off them.
many big budget films flop, it doesn't stop them from being made. if predominantly black movies (rarely a big budget) fail, it signals to some people that it was because audiences won't or don't want to go see those types of movies. you can't prove otherwise if they aren't going to fund movies with POC the way they do for other projects.
I have yet to see anyone argue that things aren't getting better but to pretend that it's close to equal IMO is hilarious.
I agree. As a white person, I don't have any guilt for slavery. Slave ownership is horrific, and I like to think that I'd do whatever I could to stop it. I also don't get offended when people tell me that I'm privileged for being white. I know this. It doesn't mean that I don't have to work hard- I do. If anything, it makes me feel grateful, and want to help people that could use help. I see no problem with more diversity for tertiary roles, and I'm not worried about a decline in talent. I don't believe that there should be a drop off between the best white actor and the best black actor. This is the implied fear when trying to prevent Hollywood from going all SJW Oprah.
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_wrinkle_in_time_2018#contentReviews
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/03/08/oprahs-ultra-pc-wrinkle-in-time-stung-with-bad-reviews-as-cringeworthy-100-million-dollar-disney-movie-could-bomb-experts-say.html
They just did it poorly. Black Panther had a ton of political themes in it including social justice and did it right. I don't think just because you are pushing a social theme in a movie that that means its going to be bad, which is what you are hinting at here. It is possible to get out political opinions and social ideas and still create a great movie.
It comes down to priorities: is the movie first, or is the social agenda?
Everything I’ve read about a Wrinkle In Time has been about Oprah and the director pushing the latter, without focusing on a great underlying story.
So you don't think its possible for a movie to concentratre on being the best movie it can be while also delivering a social message or political view?
I do and I think Black Panther is proof of that. I haven't seen a Wrinkle in Time but tend to hate Oprah Winfrey stuff because she goes way too overboard in dramaticizing the plight of black people to the detriment of the movie.
For instance, I think The Help was am immensely important and great film. They did it right with great actors and actresses without all the pomp and circumstance that usually happens with an Oprah film.
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
Easy answer: no. Disney have an extremely questionable record with their non-animation based, non-franchise based live action films. John Carter - massive flop. The Lone Ranger - massive flop. Tomorrowland - massive flop. The Finest Hours - flop. Pete's Dragon - so, so. BFG - flop.
Agenda or not, these films are rarely good and Disney don't seem to care as long as they can sell some merchandise off them.
many big budget films flop, it doesn't stop them from being made. if predominantly black movies (rarely a big budget) fail, it signals to some people that it was because audiences won't or don't want to go see those types of movies. you can't prove otherwise if they aren't going to fund movies with POC the way they do for other projects.
I have yet to see anyone argue that things aren't getting better but to pretend that it's close to equal IMO is hilarious.
I agree. As a white person, I don't have any guilt for slavery. Slave ownership is horrific, and I like to think that I'd do whatever I could to stop it. I also don't get offended when people tell me that I'm privileged for being white. I know this. It doesn't mean that I don't have to work hard- I do. If anything, it makes me feel grateful, and want to help people that could use help. I see no problem with more diversity for tertiary roles, and I'm not worried about a decline in talent. I don't believe that there should be a drop off between the best white actor and the best black actor. This is the implied fear when trying to prevent Hollywood from going all SJW Oprah.
To be blunt, white privilege is a complete myth in today's society. It's a Leftist term used to silence white people that don't agree with false narratives. It has been debunked numerous times by people much smarter than us.
-
1791L just put out a good video about diversity at Google.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_aE0OXY5o4
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
Easy answer: no. Disney have an extremely questionable record with their non-animation based, non-franchise based live action films. John Carter - massive flop. The Lone Ranger - massive flop. Tomorrowland - massive flop. The Finest Hours - flop. Pete's Dragon - so, so. BFG - flop.
Agenda or not, these films are rarely good and Disney don't seem to care as long as they can sell some merchandise off them.
many big budget films flop, it doesn't stop them from being made. if predominantly black movies (rarely a big budget) fail, it signals to some people that it was because audiences won't or don't want to go see those types of movies. you can't prove otherwise if they aren't going to fund movies with POC the way they do for other projects.
I have yet to see anyone argue that things aren't getting better but to pretend that it's close to equal IMO is hilarious.
I agree. As a white person, I don't have any guilt for slavery. Slave ownership is horrific, and I like to think that I'd do whatever I could to stop it. I also don't get offended when people tell me that I'm privileged for being white. I know this. It doesn't mean that I don't have to work hard- I do. If anything, it makes me feel grateful, and want to help people that could use help. I see no problem with more diversity for tertiary roles, and I'm not worried about a decline in talent. I don't believe that there should be a drop off between the best white actor and the best black actor. This is the implied fear when trying to prevent Hollywood from going all SJW Oprah.
To be blunt, white privilege is a complete myth in today's society. It's a Leftist term used to silence white people that don't agree with false narratives. It has been debunked numerous times by people much smarter than us.
There is also a ton of peer reviewed stuff that got people doctorates that show white priviledge exists. So, no, white priviledge has not been debunked and being a white in a most minority world most of my life, I would tend to agree with that.
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
Easy answer: no. Disney have an extremely questionable record with their non-animation based, non-franchise based live action films. John Carter - massive flop. The Lone Ranger - massive flop. Tomorrowland - massive flop. The Finest Hours - flop. Pete's Dragon - so, so. BFG - flop.
Agenda or not, these films are rarely good and Disney don't seem to care as long as they can sell some merchandise off them.
many big budget films flop, it doesn't stop them from being made. if predominantly black movies (rarely a big budget) fail, it signals to some people that it was because audiences won't or don't want to go see those types of movies. you can't prove otherwise if they aren't going to fund movies with POC the way they do for other projects.
I have yet to see anyone argue that things aren't getting better but to pretend that it's close to equal IMO is hilarious.
I agree. As a white person, I don't have any guilt for slavery. Slave ownership is horrific, and I like to think that I'd do whatever I could to stop it. I also don't get offended when people tell me that I'm privileged for being white. I know this. It doesn't mean that I don't have to work hard- I do. If anything, it makes me feel grateful, and want to help people that could use help. I see no problem with more diversity for tertiary roles, and I'm not worried about a decline in talent. I don't believe that there should be a drop off between the best white actor and the best black actor. This is the implied fear when trying to prevent Hollywood from going all SJW Oprah.
To be blunt, white privilege is a complete myth in today's society. It's a Leftist term used to silence white people that don't agree with false narratives. It has been debunked numerous times by people much smarter than us.
There is also a ton of peer reviewed stuff that got people doctorates that show white priviledge exists. So, no, white priviledge has not been debunked and being a white in a most minority world most of my life, I would tend to agree with that.
Again, I don't mind saying that it exists. The notion doesn't threaten me. I don't feel the urge to prove to people that I had a really tough upbringing to counter the idea that being white, male, and able to speak English will get you pretty far in this world.
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_wrinkle_in_time_2018#contentReviews
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/03/08/oprahs-ultra-pc-wrinkle-in-time-stung-with-bad-reviews-as-cringeworthy-100-million-dollar-disney-movie-could-bomb-experts-say.html
They just did it poorly. Black Panther had a ton of political themes in it including social justice and did it right. I don't think just because you are pushing a social theme in a movie that that means its going to be bad, which is what you are hinting at here. It is possible to get out political opinions and social ideas and still create a great movie.
It comes down to priorities: is the movie first, or is the social agenda?
Everything I’ve read about a Wrinkle In Time has been about Oprah and the director pushing the latter, without focusing on a great underlying story.
So you don't think its possible for a movie to concentratre on being the best movie it can be while also delivering a social message or political view?
I do and I think Black Panther is proof of that. I haven't seen a Wrinkle in Time but tend to hate Oprah Winfrey stuff because she goes way too overboard in dramaticizing the plight of black people to the detriment of the movie.
For instance, I think The Help was am immensely important and great film. They did it right with great actors and actresses without all the pomp and circumstance that usually happens with an Oprah film.
Movies can do both, but there are creative choices made that prioritize one over the other. Was Black Panther’s focus making a great superhero movie, or pushing social justice. It’s obviously the former.
A Wrinkle In Time is what happens when you give $100 million to somebody who is pushing her own agenda, rather than making a great movie.
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
Easy answer: no. Disney have an extremely questionable record with their non-animation based, non-franchise based live action films. John Carter - massive flop. The Lone Ranger - massive flop. Tomorrowland - massive flop. The Finest Hours - flop. Pete's Dragon - so, so. BFG - flop.
Agenda or not, these films are rarely good and Disney don't seem to care as long as they can sell some merchandise off them.
many big budget films flop, it doesn't stop them from being made. if predominantly black movies (rarely a big budget) fail, it signals to some people that it was because audiences won't or don't want to go see those types of movies. you can't prove otherwise if they aren't going to fund movies with POC the way they do for other projects.
I have yet to see anyone argue that things aren't getting better but to pretend that it's close to equal IMO is hilarious.
I agree. As a white person, I don't have any guilt for slavery. Slave ownership is horrific, and I like to think that I'd do whatever I could to stop it. I also don't get offended when people tell me that I'm privileged for being white. I know this. It doesn't mean that I don't have to work hard- I do. If anything, it makes me feel grateful, and want to help people that could use help. I see no problem with more diversity for tertiary roles, and I'm not worried about a decline in talent. I don't believe that there should be a drop off between the best white actor and the best black actor. This is the implied fear when trying to prevent Hollywood from going all SJW Oprah.
To be blunt, white privilege is a complete myth in today's society. It's a Leftist term used to silence white people that don't agree with false narratives. It has been debunked numerous times by people much smarter than us.
There is also a ton of peer reviewed stuff that got people doctorates that show white priviledge exists. So, no, white priviledge has not been debunked and being a white in a most minority world most of my life, I would tend to agree with that.
If you are accusing, or making assumptions about someone, based on the color of their skin, that's called "Racism". The concept of white privilege is not only wrong, but fundamentally racist.
-
... being white, male, and able to speak English will get you pretty far in this world.
You forgot “being raised outside of poverty”, which is way more important than anything you listed.
-
... being white, male, and able to speak English will get you pretty far in this world.
You forgot “being raised outside of poverty”, which is way more important than anything you listed.
Yeah, try telling all the white, middle-aged men I work with that can't do better than a $10/hr temp job with no benefits for a company that's closing it's doors in 10 months.
I bet they're wondering where the heck their white privilege is. And try telling that to these adults children. I can't even comprehend raising a child on that kind of wage and I make more than twice that, and wouldn't feel comfortable trying to raise a child.
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_wrinkle_in_time_2018#contentReviews
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/03/08/oprahs-ultra-pc-wrinkle-in-time-stung-with-bad-reviews-as-cringeworthy-100-million-dollar-disney-movie-could-bomb-experts-say.html
They just did it poorly. Black Panther had a ton of political themes in it including social justice and did it right. I don't think just because you are pushing a social theme in a movie that that means its going to be bad, which is what you are hinting at here. It is possible to get out political opinions and social ideas and still create a great movie.
It comes down to priorities: is the movie first, or is the social agenda?
Everything I’ve read about a Wrinkle In Time has been about Oprah and the director pushing the latter, without focusing on a great underlying story.
So you don't think its possible for a movie to concentratre on being the best movie it can be while also delivering a social message or political view?
I do and I think Black Panther is proof of that. I haven't seen a Wrinkle in Time but tend to hate Oprah Winfrey stuff because she goes way too overboard in dramaticizing the plight of black people to the detriment of the movie.
For instance, I think The Help was am immensely important and great film. They did it right with great actors and actresses without all the pomp and circumstance that usually happens with an Oprah film.
Movies can do both, but there are creative choices made that prioritize one over the other. Was Black Panther’s focus making a great superhero movie, or pushing social justice. It’s obviously the former.
A Wrinkle In Time is what happens when you give $100 million to somebody who is pushing her own agenda, rather than making a great movie.
And again, I come down to just do it better. You can make a great film while pushing a social agenda. You can also fail at it. I just don't think its exclusive if you're going to push a political agenda film that its doomed to fail. You can do both.
Black Panther is proof of this.
So is Schilnder's List
And Boyz in the Hood
And Gangs of New York
If Oprah wants to do a historically relevant of modern day prical story, she can do it. Just do it better than A Wrinkle in Time.
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_wrinkle_in_time_2018#contentReviews
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/03/08/oprahs-ultra-pc-wrinkle-in-time-stung-with-bad-reviews-as-cringeworthy-100-million-dollar-disney-movie-could-bomb-experts-say.html
They just did it poorly. Black Panther had a ton of political themes in it including social justice and did it right. I don't think just because you are pushing a social theme in a movie that that means its going to be bad, which is what you are hinting at here. It is possible to get out political opinions and social ideas and still create a great movie.
It comes down to priorities: is the movie first, or is the social agenda?
Everything I’ve read about a Wrinkle In Time has been about Oprah and the director pushing the latter, without focusing on a great underlying story.
So you don't think its possible for a movie to concentratre on being the best movie it can be while also delivering a social message or political view?
I do and I think Black Panther is proof of that. I haven't seen a Wrinkle in Time but tend to hate Oprah Winfrey stuff because she goes way too overboard in dramaticizing the plight of black people to the detriment of the movie.
For instance, I think The Help was am immensely important and great film. They did it right with great actors and actresses without all the pomp and circumstance that usually happens with an Oprah film.
Movies can do both, but there are creative choices made that prioritize one over the other. Was Black Panther’s focus making a great superhero movie, or pushing social justice. It’s obviously the former.
A Wrinkle In Time is what happens when you give $100 million to somebody who is pushing her own agenda, rather than making a great movie.
And again, I come down to just do it better. You can make a great film while pushing a social agenda. You can also fail at it. I just don't think its exclusive if you're going to push a political agenda film that its doomed to fail. You can do both.
Black Panther is proof of this.
So is Schilnder's List
And Boyz in the Hood
And Gangs of New York
If Oprah wants to do a historically relevant of modern day prical story, she can do it. Just do it better than A Wrinkle in Time.
what was the agenda of Gangs of New York?
-
... being white, male, and able to speak English will get you pretty far in this world.
You forgot “being raised outside of poverty”, which is way more important than anything you listed.
That and having a family(2 parents) and not having a kid before you reach some level of financial stability.
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_wrinkle_in_time_2018#contentReviews
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/03/08/oprahs-ultra-pc-wrinkle-in-time-stung-with-bad-reviews-as-cringeworthy-100-million-dollar-disney-movie-could-bomb-experts-say.html
They just did it poorly. Black Panther had a ton of political themes in it including social justice and did it right. I don't think just because you are pushing a social theme in a movie that that means its going to be bad, which is what you are hinting at here. It is possible to get out political opinions and social ideas and still create a great movie.
It comes down to priorities: is the movie first, or is the social agenda?
Everything I’ve read about a Wrinkle In Time has been about Oprah and the director pushing the latter, without focusing on a great underlying story.
So you don't think its possible for a movie to concentratre on being the best movie it can be while also delivering a social message or political view?
I do and I think Black Panther is proof of that. I haven't seen a Wrinkle in Time but tend to hate Oprah Winfrey stuff because she goes way too overboard in dramaticizing the plight of black people to the detriment of the movie.
For instance, I think The Help was am immensely important and great film. They did it right with great actors and actresses without all the pomp and circumstance that usually happens with an Oprah film.
Movies can do both, but there are creative choices made that prioritize one over the other. Was Black Panther’s focus making a great superhero movie, or pushing social justice. It’s obviously the former.
A Wrinkle In Time is what happens when you give $100 million to somebody who is pushing her own agenda, rather than making a great movie.
And again, I come down to just do it better. You can make a great film while pushing a social agenda. You can also fail at it. I just don't think its exclusive if you're going to push a political agenda film that its doomed to fail. You can do both.
Black Panther is proof of this.
So is Schilnder's List
And Boyz in the Hood
And Gangs of New York
If Oprah wants to do a historically relevant of modern day prical story, she can do it. Just do it better than A Wrinkle in Time.
what was the agenda of Gangs of New York?
The oppression of the Irish as they entered the country and were forced to be enscripted into the Civil War.
-
... being white, male, and able to speak English will get you pretty far in this world.
You forgot “being raised outside of poverty”, which is way more important than anything you listed.
That and having a family(2 parents) and not having a kid before you reach some level of financial stability.
And yet because of the population percentages there are more whites who live in poverty greenballers13.
10% of white children (4.2 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among white children range from 7% in Texas to 12% in Michigan.
27% of Latino children (4 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among Latino children range from 19% in Florida to 35% in Pennsylvania.
33% of black children (3.6 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among black children range from 29% in California and Florida to 47% in Ohio.
12% of Asian children (400,000) and 40% of American Indian (200,000) Comparable state comparisons are not possible due to small sample sizes.
“Poverty affects children of all colors, contrary to stereotypes. The notion held by many Americans that poverty is not a white problem is simply false,” says Jane Knitzer, EdD, director of NCCP, a research center at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. “The sooner all Americans realize these facts about poverty, the better chance we have of eradicating it.
http://www.nccp.org/media/releases/release_34.html
So a lesser percentage but a larger amount. I do think there is "white privelege" it exists but most folks like complain about it and use it as an excuse. There are people from all ethnicities that rise above poverty and don't let this stop them.
-
... being white, male, and able to speak English will get you pretty far in this world.
You forgot “being raised outside of poverty”, which is way more important than anything you listed.
That and having a family(2 parents) and not having a kid before you reach some level of financial stability.
And yet because of the population percentages there are more whites who live in poverty greenballers13.
10% of white children (4.2 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among white children range from 7% in Texas to 12% in Michigan.
27% of Latino children (4 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among Latino children range from 19% in Florida to 35% in Pennsylvania.
33% of black children (3.6 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among black children range from 29% in California and Florida to 47% in Ohio.
12% of Asian children (400,000) and 40% of American Indian (200,000) Comparable state comparisons are not possible due to small sample sizes.
“Poverty affects children of all colors, contrary to stereotypes. The notion held by many Americans that poverty is not a white problem is simply false,” says Jane Knitzer, EdD, director of NCCP, a research center at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. “The sooner all Americans realize these facts about poverty, the better chance we have of eradicating it.
http://www.nccp.org/media/releases/release_34.html
So a lesser percentage but a larger amount. I do think there is "white privelege" it exists but most folks like complain about it and use it as an excuse. There are people from all ethnicities that rise above poverty and don't let this stop them.
sure but based on society and the majority it is still easier if you are white than if you are black.
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
Easy answer: no. Disney have an extremely questionable record with their non-animation based, non-franchise based live action films. John Carter - massive flop. The Lone Ranger - massive flop. Tomorrowland - massive flop. The Finest Hours - flop. Pete's Dragon - so, so. BFG - flop.
Agenda or not, these films are rarely good and Disney don't seem to care as long as they can sell some merchandise off them.
many big budget films flop, it doesn't stop them from being made. if predominantly black movies (rarely a big budget) fail, it signals to some people that it was because audiences won't or don't want to go see those types of movies. you can't prove otherwise if they aren't going to fund movies with POC the way they do for other projects.
I have yet to see anyone argue that things aren't getting better but to pretend that it's close to equal IMO is hilarious.
I agree. Was purely remarking on the thought process that the the film's problems are predicated on its themes preceding iys quality. When it's more that Disney don't mind losses on unattached properties, that always do poorly even in advanced screenings, provided they can use them to expand their park attractions or product line, regardless.
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
Easy answer: no. Disney have an extremely questionable record with their non-animation based, non-franchise based live action films. John Carter - massive flop. The Lone Ranger - massive flop. Tomorrowland - massive flop. The Finest Hours - flop. Pete's Dragon - so, so. BFG - flop.
Agenda or not, these films are rarely good and Disney don't seem to care as long as they can sell some merchandise off them.
many big budget films flop, it doesn't stop them from being made. if predominantly black movies (rarely a big budget) fail, it signals to some people that it was because audiences won't or don't want to go see those types of movies. you can't prove otherwise if they aren't going to fund movies with POC the way they do for other projects.
I have yet to see anyone argue that things aren't getting better but to pretend that it's close to equal IMO is hilarious.
I agree. Was purely remarking on the thought process that the the film's problems are predicated on its themes preceding iys quality. When it's more that Disney don't mind losses on unattached properties, that always do poorly even in advanced screenings, provided they can use them to expand their park attractions or product line, regardless.
But if they sell so much merchandise that they end up profitable, then it was a good decision to make the movie. Some movies, like Tomorrowland do pretty well overseas also, which often isn't in the initial numbers.
-
... being white, male, and able to speak English will get you pretty far in this world.
You forgot “being raised outside of poverty”, which is way more important than anything you listed.
That and having a family(2 parents) and not having a kid before you reach some level of financial stability.
And yet because of the population percentages there are more whites who live in poverty greenballers13.
10% of white children (4.2 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among white children range from 7% in Texas to 12% in Michigan.
27% of Latino children (4 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among Latino children range from 19% in Florida to 35% in Pennsylvania.
33% of black children (3.6 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among black children range from 29% in California and Florida to 47% in Ohio.
12% of Asian children (400,000) and 40% of American Indian (200,000) Comparable state comparisons are not possible due to small sample sizes.
“Poverty affects children of all colors, contrary to stereotypes. The notion held by many Americans that poverty is not a white problem is simply false,” says Jane Knitzer, EdD, director of NCCP, a research center at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. “The sooner all Americans realize these facts about poverty, the better chance we have of eradicating it.
http://www.nccp.org/media/releases/release_34.html
So a lesser percentage but a larger amount. I do think there is "white privelege" it exists but most folks like complain about it and use it as an excuse. There are people from all ethnicities that rise above poverty and don't let this stop them.
sure but based on society and the majority it is still easier if you are white than if you are black.
Only if you paint with a broad brush.
But, when you pair race with other factors — primarily economic — that analysis changes.
People with economic means are advantaged over those who don’t, regardless of skin color.
-
I don't feel threatened by people telling me that I'm fortunate. I came to the conclusion before they told me. Everyone has the ability to think whatever they want- there's no right answer. You can tell me I should feel privileged or I should feel neglected. Either way, I know that I grew up as a middle class white guy in MA and have a college degree. I'm effectively doing better than 95% of the people on earth, from an economic and opportunity standpoint. Some people would take this as a criticism- "you should have done more with your privileged life". Maybe, maybe not. I think the important part is that people should be able to look around and acknowledge their blessings, whatever they may be.
-
... being white, male, and able to speak English will get you pretty far in this world.
You forgot “being raised outside of poverty”, which is way more important than anything you listed.
That and having a family(2 parents) and not having a kid before you reach some level of financial stability.
And yet because of the population percentages there are more whites who live in poverty greenballers13.
10% of white children (4.2 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among white children range from 7% in Texas to 12% in Michigan.
27% of Latino children (4 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among Latino children range from 19% in Florida to 35% in Pennsylvania.
33% of black children (3.6 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among black children range from 29% in California and Florida to 47% in Ohio.
12% of Asian children (400,000) and 40% of American Indian (200,000) Comparable state comparisons are not possible due to small sample sizes.
“Poverty affects children of all colors, contrary to stereotypes. The notion held by many Americans that poverty is not a white problem is simply false,” says Jane Knitzer, EdD, director of NCCP, a research center at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. “The sooner all Americans realize these facts about poverty, the better chance we have of eradicating it.
http://www.nccp.org/media/releases/release_34.html
So a lesser percentage but a larger amount. I do think there is "white privelege" it exists but most folks like complain about it and use it as an excuse. There are people from all ethnicities that rise above poverty and don't let this stop them.
10% of white children (4.2 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among white children range from 7% in Texas to 12% in Michigan.
33% of black children (3.6 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among black children range from 29% in California and Florida to 47% in Ohio.
These stats are alarming. Am I the only one that notices a difference between these groups? A black kid is 3.3x more likely to be impoverished than a white kid. Almost half of black kids in Ohio are impoverished? Yikes.
-
... being white, male, and able to speak English will get you pretty far in this world.
You forgot “being raised outside of poverty”, which is way more important than anything you listed.
That and having a family(2 parents) and not having a kid before you reach some level of financial stability.
And yet because of the population percentages there are more whites who live in poverty greenballers13.
10% of white children (4.2 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among white children range from 7% in Texas to 12% in Michigan.
27% of Latino children (4 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among Latino children range from 19% in Florida to 35% in Pennsylvania.
33% of black children (3.6 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among black children range from 29% in California and Florida to 47% in Ohio.
12% of Asian children (400,000) and 40% of American Indian (200,000) Comparable state comparisons are not possible due to small sample sizes.
“Poverty affects children of all colors, contrary to stereotypes. The notion held by many Americans that poverty is not a white problem is simply false,” says Jane Knitzer, EdD, director of NCCP, a research center at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. “The sooner all Americans realize these facts about poverty, the better chance we have of eradicating it.
http://www.nccp.org/media/releases/release_34.html
So a lesser percentage but a larger amount. I do think there is "white privelege" it exists but most folks like complain about it and use it as an excuse. There are people from all ethnicities that rise above poverty and don't let this stop them.
sure but based on society and the majority it is still easier if you are white than if you are black.
Only if you paint with a broad brush.
But, when you pair race with other factors — primarily economic — that analysis changes.
People with economic means are advantaged over those who don’t, regardless of skin color.
Sure economic factors weigh in heavily when looking at persons from different economic backgrounds, but would you rather be a rich white or a rich black or a poor white or a poor black. At the same economic levels when comparing whites to blacks, American society tells us it is far better to be white.
-
... being white, male, and able to speak English will get you pretty far in this world.
You forgot “being raised outside of poverty”, which is way more important than anything you listed.
That and having a family(2 parents) and not having a kid before you reach some level of financial stability.
And yet because of the population percentages there are more whites who live in poverty greenballers13.
10% of white children (4.2 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among white children range from 7% in Texas to 12% in Michigan.
27% of Latino children (4 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among Latino children range from 19% in Florida to 35% in Pennsylvania.
33% of black children (3.6 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among black children range from 29% in California and Florida to 47% in Ohio.
12% of Asian children (400,000) and 40% of American Indian (200,000) Comparable state comparisons are not possible due to small sample sizes.
“Poverty affects children of all colors, contrary to stereotypes. The notion held by many Americans that poverty is not a white problem is simply false,” says Jane Knitzer, EdD, director of NCCP, a research center at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. “The sooner all Americans realize these facts about poverty, the better chance we have of eradicating it.
http://www.nccp.org/media/releases/release_34.html
So a lesser percentage but a larger amount. I do think there is "white privelege" it exists but most folks like complain about it and use it as an excuse. There are people from all ethnicities that rise above poverty and don't let this stop them.
sure but based on society and the majority it is still easier if you are white than if you are black.
Only if you paint with a broad brush.
But, when you pair race with other factors — primarily economic — that analysis changes.
People with economic means are advantaged over those who don’t, regardless of skin color.
Sure economic factors weigh in heavily when looking at persons from different economic backgrounds, but would you rather be a rich white or a rich black or a poor white or a poor black. At the same economic levels when comparing whites to blacks, American society tells us it is far better to be white.
I don’t know, honestly. I’m confident that if everything else was equal in my life, but I was black, I’d probably have a better education and a better job. There’s no way to speak to other factors though.
-
... being white, male, and able to speak English will get you pretty far in this world.
You forgot “being raised outside of poverty”, which is way more important than anything you listed.
That and having a family(2 parents) and not having a kid before you reach some level of financial stability.
And yet because of the population percentages there are more whites who live in poverty greenballers13.
10% of white children (4.2 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among white children range from 7% in Texas to 12% in Michigan.
27% of Latino children (4 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among Latino children range from 19% in Florida to 35% in Pennsylvania.
33% of black children (3.6 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among black children range from 29% in California and Florida to 47% in Ohio.
12% of Asian children (400,000) and 40% of American Indian (200,000) Comparable state comparisons are not possible due to small sample sizes.
“Poverty affects children of all colors, contrary to stereotypes. The notion held by many Americans that poverty is not a white problem is simply false,” says Jane Knitzer, EdD, director of NCCP, a research center at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. “The sooner all Americans realize these facts about poverty, the better chance we have of eradicating it.
http://www.nccp.org/media/releases/release_34.html
So a lesser percentage but a larger amount. I do think there is "white privelege" it exists but most folks like complain about it and use it as an excuse. There are people from all ethnicities that rise above poverty and don't let this stop them.
sure but based on society and the majority it is still easier if you are white than if you are black.
Only if you paint with a broad brush.
But, when you pair race with other factors — primarily economic — that analysis changes.
People with economic means are advantaged over those who don’t, regardless of skin color.
Sure economic factors weigh in heavily when looking at persons from different economic backgrounds, but would you rather be a rich white or a rich black or a poor white or a poor black. At the same economic levels when comparing whites to blacks, American society tells us it is far better to be white.
I don’t know, honestly. I’m confident that if everything else was equal in my life, but I was black, I’d probably have a better education and a better job. There’s no way to speak to other factors though.
Big assumption. This is the whole idea of school busing, which was an initiative in Boston that received a lot of criticism. Similar initiatives are regarded by many to be merely socialist income redistribution schemes. If we assume that everyone has two parents, 3 healthy meals, and a nice community, then yes there should be no difference in achievement. Big assumption.
-
... being white, male, and able to speak English will get you pretty far in this world.
You forgot “being raised outside of poverty”, which is way more important than anything you listed.
That and having a family(2 parents) and not having a kid before you reach some level of financial stability.
And yet because of the population percentages there are more whites who live in poverty greenballers13.
10% of white children (4.2 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among white children range from 7% in Texas to 12% in Michigan.
27% of Latino children (4 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among Latino children range from 19% in Florida to 35% in Pennsylvania.
33% of black children (3.6 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among black children range from 29% in California and Florida to 47% in Ohio.
12% of Asian children (400,000) and 40% of American Indian (200,000) Comparable state comparisons are not possible due to small sample sizes.
“Poverty affects children of all colors, contrary to stereotypes. The notion held by many Americans that poverty is not a white problem is simply false,” says Jane Knitzer, EdD, director of NCCP, a research center at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. “The sooner all Americans realize these facts about poverty, the better chance we have of eradicating it.
http://www.nccp.org/media/releases/release_34.html
So a lesser percentage but a larger amount. I do think there is "white privelege" it exists but most folks like complain about it and use it as an excuse. There are people from all ethnicities that rise above poverty and don't let this stop them.
sure but based on society and the majority it is still easier if you are white than if you are black.
Only if you paint with a broad brush.
But, when you pair race with other factors — primarily economic — that analysis changes.
People with economic means are advantaged over those who don’t, regardless of skin color.
Sure economic factors weigh in heavily when looking at persons from different economic backgrounds, but would you rather be a rich white or a rich black or a poor white or a poor black. At the same economic levels when comparing whites to blacks, American society tells us it is far better to be white.
I don’t know, honestly. I’m confident that if everything else was equal in my life, but I was black, I’d probably have a better education and a better job. There’s no way to speak to other factors though.
Big assumption. This is the whole idea of school busing, which was an initiative in Boston that received a lot of criticism. Similar initiatives are regarded by many to be merely socialist income redistribution schemes. If we assume that everyone has two parents, 3 healthy meals, and a nice community, then yes there should be no difference in achievement. Big assumption.
Well, that’s the assumption Moranis posed. By controlling for income levels, I’d be a black kid firmly in the middle class, living in suburbia going to good high schools, with an intelligence level in the top 5% nationwide. I’m confident that, instead of Colby / BC Law, I’d be admitted (at worst) at my “slight reach” schools, Dartmouth / Duke Law, and probably better.
-
... being white, male, and able to speak English will get you pretty far in this world.
You forgot “being raised outside of poverty”, which is way more important than anything you listed.
That and having a family(2 parents) and not having a kid before you reach some level of financial stability.
And yet because of the population percentages there are more whites who live in poverty greenballers13.
10% of white children (4.2 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among white children range from 7% in Texas to 12% in Michigan.
27% of Latino children (4 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among Latino children range from 19% in Florida to 35% in Pennsylvania.
33% of black children (3.6 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among black children range from 29% in California and Florida to 47% in Ohio.
12% of Asian children (400,000) and 40% of American Indian (200,000) Comparable state comparisons are not possible due to small sample sizes.
“Poverty affects children of all colors, contrary to stereotypes. The notion held by many Americans that poverty is not a white problem is simply false,” says Jane Knitzer, EdD, director of NCCP, a research center at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. “The sooner all Americans realize these facts about poverty, the better chance we have of eradicating it.
http://www.nccp.org/media/releases/release_34.html
So a lesser percentage but a larger amount. I do think there is "white privelege" it exists but most folks like complain about it and use it as an excuse. There are people from all ethnicities that rise above poverty and don't let this stop them.
sure but based on society and the majority it is still easier if you are white than if you are black.
Only if you paint with a broad brush.
But, when you pair race with other factors — primarily economic — that analysis changes.
People with economic means are advantaged over those who don’t, regardless of skin color.
Sure economic factors weigh in heavily when looking at persons from different economic backgrounds, but would you rather be a rich white or a rich black or a poor white or a poor black. At the same economic levels when comparing whites to blacks, American society tells us it is far better to be white.
I don’t know, honestly. I’m confident that if everything else was equal in my life, but I was black, I’d probably have a better education and a better job. There’s no way to speak to other factors though.
You might have better education and a better job, or you more likely would not. You would also get pulled over for driving while black, have people always wondering if you earned what you have, would deal with overt and covert racism constantly. This idea that America isn't racist seems very strange to me. The country as a whole is still very racist, and this is coming from someone who is white grew up in a mostly white middle class neighborhood with both parents, who both have college degrees and both had well paying jobs. Those parents provided whatever emotional, financial, spiritual, etc. support that I needed. And I can tell you, if I was black with the same parental structure, it would have been much harder for me because I can see some of that because I'm Jewish. America is a country filled with hate, prejudice, and discrimination. We like to think it is not, but it absolutely is. I mean how many people can't even get legally married because they are gay. It is absolutely ridiculous yet it happens all over the country.
-
... being white, male, and able to speak English will get you pretty far in this world.
You forgot “being raised outside of poverty”, which is way more important than anything you listed.
That and having a family(2 parents) and not having a kid before you reach some level of financial stability.
And yet because of the population percentages there are more whites who live in poverty greenballers13.
10% of white children (4.2 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among white children range from 7% in Texas to 12% in Michigan.
27% of Latino children (4 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among Latino children range from 19% in Florida to 35% in Pennsylvania.
33% of black children (3.6 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among black children range from 29% in California and Florida to 47% in Ohio.
12% of Asian children (400,000) and 40% of American Indian (200,000) Comparable state comparisons are not possible due to small sample sizes.
“Poverty affects children of all colors, contrary to stereotypes. The notion held by many Americans that poverty is not a white problem is simply false,” says Jane Knitzer, EdD, director of NCCP, a research center at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. “The sooner all Americans realize these facts about poverty, the better chance we have of eradicating it.
http://www.nccp.org/media/releases/release_34.html
So a lesser percentage but a larger amount. I do think there is "white privelege" it exists but most folks like complain about it and use it as an excuse. There are people from all ethnicities that rise above poverty and don't let this stop them.
sure but based on society and the majority it is still easier if you are white than if you are black.
Only if you paint with a broad brush.
But, when you pair race with other factors — primarily economic — that analysis changes.
People with economic means are advantaged over those who don’t, regardless of skin color.
Sure economic factors weigh in heavily when looking at persons from different economic backgrounds, but would you rather be a rich white or a rich black or a poor white or a poor black. At the same economic levels when comparing whites to blacks, American society tells us it is far better to be white.
I don’t know, honestly. I’m confident that if everything else was equal in my life, but I was black, I’d probably have a better education and a better job. There’s no way to speak to other factors though.
Big assumption. This is the whole idea of school busing, which was an initiative in Boston that received a lot of criticism. Similar initiatives are regarded by many to be merely socialist income redistribution schemes. If we assume that everyone has two parents, 3 healthy meals, and a nice community, then yes there should be no difference in achievement. Big assumption.
Well, that’s the assumption Moranis posed. By controlling for income levels, I’d be a black kid firmly in the middle class, living in suburbia going to good high schools, with an intelligence level in the top 5% nationwide. I’m confident that, instead of Colby / BC Law, I’d be admitted (at worst) at my “slight reach” schools, Dartmouth / Duke Law, and probably better.
I'm sure that you're aware, but this is not a very likely outcome for a young black kid living in the U.S. I went to a suburban, middle class school in MA. We had one black family. Drive a couple towns over to a poorer community, and the % of black people rises exponentially. There are reasons for this, including economic levels and historic real estate steering. That high school, btw, sends much less kids (on a % basis) to college, let alone to the top programs that you're discussing.
Side note: Is there a big difference between BC and Duke Law, esp in the northeast?
-
... being white, male, and able to speak English will get you pretty far in this world.
You forgot “being raised outside of poverty”, which is way more important than anything you listed.
That and having a family(2 parents) and not having a kid before you reach some level of financial stability.
And yet because of the population percentages there are more whites who live in poverty greenballers13.
10% of white children (4.2 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among white children range from 7% in Texas to 12% in Michigan.
27% of Latino children (4 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among Latino children range from 19% in Florida to 35% in Pennsylvania.
33% of black children (3.6 million). In the 10 most populated states, rates of child poverty among black children range from 29% in California and Florida to 47% in Ohio.
12% of Asian children (400,000) and 40% of American Indian (200,000) Comparable state comparisons are not possible due to small sample sizes.
“Poverty affects children of all colors, contrary to stereotypes. The notion held by many Americans that poverty is not a white problem is simply false,” says Jane Knitzer, EdD, director of NCCP, a research center at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. “The sooner all Americans realize these facts about poverty, the better chance we have of eradicating it.
http://www.nccp.org/media/releases/release_34.html
So a lesser percentage but a larger amount. I do think there is "white privelege" it exists but most folks like complain about it and use it as an excuse. There are people from all ethnicities that rise above poverty and don't let this stop them.
sure but based on society and the majority it is still easier if you are white than if you are black.
Only if you paint with a broad brush.
But, when you pair race with other factors — primarily economic — that analysis changes.
People with economic means are advantaged over those who don’t, regardless of skin color.
Sure economic factors weigh in heavily when looking at persons from different economic backgrounds, but would you rather be a rich white or a rich black or a poor white or a poor black. At the same economic levels when comparing whites to blacks, American society tells us it is far better to be white.
I don’t know, honestly. I’m confident that if everything else was equal in my life, but I was black, I’d probably have a better education and a better job. There’s no way to speak to other factors though.
Big assumption. This is the whole idea of school busing, which was an initiative in Boston that received a lot of criticism. Similar initiatives are regarded by many to be merely socialist income redistribution schemes. If we assume that everyone has two parents, 3 healthy meals, and a nice community, then yes there should be no difference in achievement. Big assumption.
Well, that’s the assumption Moranis posed. By controlling for income levels, I’d be a black kid firmly in the middle class, living in suburbia going to good high schools, with an intelligence level in the top 5% nationwide. I’m confident that, instead of Colby / BC Law, I’d be admitted (at worst) at my “slight reach” schools, Dartmouth / Duke Law, and probably better.
But if you went to Duke for your law degree, you’d probably have loved Kyrie all along!
-
people on the left want
people on the right want
leftists calling all Trump voters racist
leftists completely ignore
the SJW "movement"
POC commit more crimes
Leftists start screaming and whining
this notion from white people
Lastly, and this is my opinion, I believe everyone needs to treat others as individuals. Stop lumping everyone together.
Respectfully, the last statement seems very inconsistent with the rest.
-
sure but based on society and the majority it is still easier if you are white than if you are black.
You may not have read all my post by I mentioned white privilege in it.
Definitely, easier to be white overall, not as much subtle discrimination but where they are few Afro-Americans the poor whites get just as much beef. Where do you think the term trailer trash comes from. I 've worked in social work and white poor get a lot of it, too sometimes. They have to live in low income housing with bed bugs. They have to use the same humiliating methods of support such as directional cards and government assistance. I have served both in rural areas and in the inner city.
The main difference I saw was that Afro-Americans have it a lot more dangerous and violence. The poor facing poverty face the same challenges, decent place to live, food on the table and limited social upward mobility. But the inner city there was a lot more violence and this is with the gang warfare, shootings and worrying about the police who treat them as more dangerous. Usually whites don't have to be overly careful about the police. Now I support the police for the most part but I do realize that some bad actors are on the force and abuse their power unfairly and in abusive fashion.
I still think folks focus more on blaming others than worrying about fixing their situation. We all know it's a problem but how do we fix it. Quotas are a mixed bag, I don't believe in reparations because my great great grandfather fought in the Union Army and I don't believe I owe anything because I have never held anyone back. What should we do?
-
sure but based on society and the majority it is still easier if you are white than if you are black.
You may not have read all my post by I mentioned white privilege in it.
Definitely, easier to be white overall, not as much subtle discrimination but where they are few Afro-Americans the poor whites get just as much beef. Where do you think the term trailer trash comes from. I 've worked in social work and white poor get a lot of it, too sometimes. They have to live in low income housing with bed bugs. They have to use the same humiliating methods of support such as directional cards and government assistance. I have served both in rural areas and in the inner city.
The main difference I saw was that Afro-Americans have it a lot more dangerous and violence. The poor facing poverty face the same challenges, decent place to live, food on the table and limited social upward mobility. But the inner city there was a lot more violence and this is with the gang warfare, shootings and worrying about the police who treat them as more dangerous. Usually whites don't have to be overly careful about the police. Now I support the police for the most part but I do realize that some bad actors are on the force and abuse their power unfairly and in abusive fashion.
I still think folks focus more on blaming others than worrying about fixing their situation. We all know it's a problem but how do we fix it. Quotas are a mixed bag, I don't believe in reparations because my great great grandfather fought in the Union Army and I don't believe I owe anything because I have never held anyone back. What should we do?
IMO: Education, tutoring, counseling, and mentorship. Basically, people getting involved and motivating young poor (black or white) kids while telling them that they're important.
The challenge is that this often requires money. Some politicians think that it is more important to build walls and expensive warcrafts than it is to help kids that need help.
-
I mean how many people can't even get legally married because they are gay.
Are we talking bigamists, etc.?
Because otherwise the answer is zero in the United States.
-
sure but based on society and the majority it is still easier if you are white than if you are black.
You may not have read all my post by I mentioned white privilege in it.
Definitely, easier to be white overall, not as much subtle discrimination but where they are few Afro-Americans the poor whites get just as much beef. Where do you think the term trailer trash comes from. I 've worked in social work and white poor get a lot of it, too sometimes. They have to live in low income housing with bed bugs. They have to use the same humiliating methods of support such as directional cards and government assistance. I have served both in rural areas and in the inner city.
The main difference I saw was that Afro-Americans have it a lot more dangerous and violence. The poor facing poverty face the same challenges, decent place to live, food on the table and limited social upward mobility. But the inner city there was a lot more violence and this is with the gang warfare, shootings and worrying about the police who treat them as more dangerous. Usually whites don't have to be overly careful about the police. Now I support the police for the most part but I do realize that some bad actors are on the force and abuse their power unfairly and in abusive fashion.
I still think folks focus more on blaming others than worrying about fixing their situation. We all know it's a problem but how do we fix it. Quotas are a mixed bag, I don't believe in reparations because my great great grandfather fought in the Union Army and I don't believe I owe anything because I have never held anyone back. What should we do?
IMO: Education, tutoring, counseling, and mentorship. Basically, people getting involved and motivating young poor (black or white) kids while telling them that they're important.
The challenge is that this often requires money. Some politicians think that it is more important to build walls and expensive warcrafts than it is to help kids that need help.
How many people who profess to care about disadvantaged populations join Big Brothers / Big Sisters? Volunteer to coach, lead a Scout troop, etc.? Volunteer to tutor? Take in a foster child?
The things you talked about aren’t really a bigger government / more spending problem. They’re more indicative of a society that is big on lip service, but not really big on getting its hands dirty. Certainly some folks do, but most of the potential tutors and mentors would rather be playing fantasy football.
-
I mean how many people can't even get legally married because they are gay.
Are we talking bigamists, etc.?
Because otherwise the answer is zero in the United States.
Yes, in 2015 a 5-4 Supreme Court decision. The case before the country's highest court focused on same-sex marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. "They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right," the majority wrote.
Still shocks me that this is a controversial thing. It really shows how different the coastal cities are from the rest of the country.
-
I mean how many people can't even get legally married because they are gay.
Are we talking bigamists, etc.?
Because otherwise the answer is zero in the United States.
Yes, in 2015 a 5-4 Supreme Court decision. The case before the country's highest court focused on same-sex marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. "They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right," the majority wrote.
Still shocks me that this is a controversial thing. It really shows how different the coastal cities are from the rest of the country.
It seems like ancient history now, but both Obama and McCain disavowed gay marriage.
-
sure but based on society and the majority it is still easier if you are white than if you are black.
You may not have read all my post by I mentioned white privilege in it.
Definitely, easier to be white overall, not as much subtle discrimination but where they are few Afro-Americans the poor whites get just as much beef. Where do you think the term trailer trash comes from. I 've worked in social work and white poor get a lot of it, too sometimes. They have to live in low income housing with bed bugs. They have to use the same humiliating methods of support such as directional cards and government assistance. I have served both in rural areas and in the inner city.
The main difference I saw was that Afro-Americans have it a lot more dangerous and violence. The poor facing poverty face the same challenges, decent place to live, food on the table and limited social upward mobility. But the inner city there was a lot more violence and this is with the gang warfare, shootings and worrying about the police who treat them as more dangerous. Usually whites don't have to be overly careful about the police. Now I support the police for the most part but I do realize that some bad actors are on the force and abuse their power unfairly and in abusive fashion.
I still think folks focus more on blaming others than worrying about fixing their situation. We all know it's a problem but how do we fix it. Quotas are a mixed bag, I don't believe in reparations because my great great grandfather fought in the Union Army and I don't believe I owe anything because I have never held anyone back. What should we do?
IMO: Education, tutoring, counseling, and mentorship. Basically, people getting involved and motivating young poor (black or white) kids while telling them that they're important.
The challenge is that this often requires money. Some politicians think that it is more important to build walls and expensive warcrafts than it is to help kids that need help.
How many people who profess to care about disadvantaged populations join Big Brothers / Big Sisters? Volunteer to coach, lead a Scout troop, etc.? Volunteer to tutor? Take in a foster child?
The things you talked about aren’t really a bigger government / more spending problem. They’re more indicative of a society that is big on lip service, but not really big on getting its hands dirty. Certainly some folks do, but most of the potential tutors and mentors would rather be playing fantasy football.
This is the current administration's take on Americorps: “Funding community service and subsidizing the operation of nonprofit organizations is outside the role of the Federal Government,” the budget states. “To the extent these activities have value, they should be supported by the nonprofit and private sectors and not with Federal subsidies provided through the complex Federal grant structure run by CNCS.”
One side of the aisle thinks that government can help, while the other doesn't think it can help.
We will pay for weapons, but don't think its right to support after-school tutoring. And we wonder why there's a unique gun violence issue in this country. And when we try to provide solutions for at-risk children, the government clearly states that this is not a priority.
-
Back to Hollywood...
This is from an article criticizing the lack of female directors in the Star Wars universe:
With the “Star Wars” properties threatening to continue as long as the Earth spins, Kennedy has yet to make good on her supposed desire to recruit a woman to call the shots. In 2016, Kennedy said “there are many” women who could direct a “Star Wars” movie ― and she’d “talked to most of them.” Just last month, J.J. Abrams, who is preparing the follow-up to “The Last Jedi,” told Metro that Kennedy is “actively working to do the right thing” with regard to the lack of female directors in Lucasfilm’s annals.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-star-wars-apos-fails-000600663.html
Why is it the “right thing” to hire a female director? Isn’t the “right thing” to hire the best director with the best vision?
-
Back to Hollywood...
This is from an article criticizing the lack of female directors in the Star Wars universe:
With the “Star Wars” properties threatening to continue as long as the Earth spins, Kennedy has yet to make good on her supposed desire to recruit a woman to call the shots. In 2016, Kennedy said “there are many” women who could direct a “Star Wars” movie ― and she’d “talked to most of them.” Just last month, J.J. Abrams, who is preparing the follow-up to “The Last Jedi,” told Metro that Kennedy is “actively working to do the right thing” with regard to the lack of female directors in Lucasfilm’s annals.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-star-wars-apos-fails-000600663.html
Why is it the “right thing” to hire a female director? Isn’t the “right thing” to hire the best director with the best vision?
Yes, the "best" or "right" hire shouldn't depend on any racial/gender specific basis. The most talented person should get the job. The challenge is that the best isn't always hired.
Are you assuming that the "right" or "best" person is always hired?
What happens when you have two candidates that are deemed to be of equal talent? Is it then ok to hire based on secondary factors?
-
Back to Hollywood...
This is from an article criticizing the lack of female directors in the Star Wars universe:
With the “Star Wars” properties threatening to continue as long as the Earth spins, Kennedy has yet to make good on her supposed desire to recruit a woman to call the shots. In 2016, Kennedy said “there are many” women who could direct a “Star Wars” movie ― and she’d “talked to most of them.” Just last month, J.J. Abrams, who is preparing the follow-up to “The Last Jedi,” told Metro that Kennedy is “actively working to do the right thing” with regard to the lack of female directors in Lucasfilm’s annals.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-star-wars-apos-fails-000600663.html
Why is it the “right thing” to hire a female director? Isn’t the “right thing” to hire the best director with the best vision?
If Kennedy wants to do "the right thing" she should immediately fire Abrams and hire ANYBODY else.
Dude is a hack and is worse than Michael Bay at making nonsensical CGI trash. I have no idea how he hustled his way this far into the industry.
Hollywood could use some new voices over all as well. These formulaic mindless blockbusters have become stale beyond belief, I could care less what the paid-off reviewers say, most of them aren't any good. If changing that means bringing in women then I'm all for it.
Half the population is female, so I'd be interested to see the numbers of how many women try to enter the field to becomes filmmakers in proportion to men.
If the numbers are relatively comparable, then it stands to reason Hollywood is hurting itself by not giving women more opportunities.
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_wrinkle_in_time_2018#contentReviews
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/03/08/oprahs-ultra-pc-wrinkle-in-time-stung-with-bad-reviews-as-cringeworthy-100-million-dollar-disney-movie-could-bomb-experts-say.html
Are you trying to use one movie's bad reviews to prove that movie goers and critics don't like movies with social themes at the exact moment that Black Panther is on pace to become one of the 5 highest grossing movies in American history and Get Out capped its successful run with a Best Screenplay Oscar?
EDIT: I'll throw in that Shape of Water won Best Picture despite literally dripping with a social agenda.
Black Panther was a great movie because they made an entertaining movie with a good story. There’s a distinction between “predominantly black cast” and “putting social justice ahead of making a great movie”.
As for Get Out ... Either the other nominees were remarkably weak, or that was an “affirmative action” Oscar. It was entertaining enough, but it was about as Oscar-worthy as Cabin In The Woods.
1. Get Out has a 99% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It was not only nominated by Academy voters (a group of thousands of filmmakers) for best picture but it won best screenplay and has over 300 nominations from various critics and filmmaker groups including major nominations from every respected group that gives out such awards, not just in America but internationally. This kind of thing is too subjective for me to say you're wrong, but you're in a pretty small camp.
2. What evidence is there that the filmmakers of A Wrinkle In Time prioritized "social justice" ahead of the filmmaking?
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_wrinkle_in_time_2018#contentReviews
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/03/08/oprahs-ultra-pc-wrinkle-in-time-stung-with-bad-reviews-as-cringeworthy-100-million-dollar-disney-movie-could-bomb-experts-say.html
Are you trying to use one movie's bad reviews to prove that movie goers and critics don't like movies with social themes at the exact moment that Black Panther is on pace to become one of the 5 highest grossing movies in American history and Get Out capped its successful run with a Best Screenplay Oscar?
EDIT: I'll throw in that Shape of Water won Best Picture despite literally dripping with a social agenda.
Black Panther was a great movie because they made an entertaining movie with a good story. There’s a distinction between “predominantly black cast” and “putting social justice ahead of making a great movie”.
As for Get Out ... Either the other nominees were remarkably weak, or that was an “affirmative action” Oscar. It was entertaining enough, but it was about as Oscar-worthy as Cabin In The Woods.
1. Get Out has a 99% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It was not only nominated by Academy voters (a group of thousands of filmmakers) for best picture but it won best screenplay and has over 300 nominations from various critics and filmmaker groups including major nominations from every respected group that gives out such awards, not just in America but internationally. This kind of thing is too subjective for me to say you're wrong, but you're in a pretty small camp.
2. What evidence is there that the filmmakers of A Wrinkle In Time prioritized "social justice" ahead of the filmmaking?
1. Rotten Tomatoes has Get Out as the 4th best movie of all-time, followed closely by Mad Max: Fury Road in 5th.
Browse here: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/bestofrt/
Look legit? Could it be that certain “social justice” leads to a bit of grade inflation?
2. Beyond changing races and genders to make the film more “diverse”? Read interviews with the director.
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
Easy answer: no. Disney have an extremely questionable record with their non-animation based, non-franchise based live action films. John Carter - massive flop. The Lone Ranger - massive flop. Tomorrowland - massive flop. The Finest Hours - flop. Pete's Dragon - so, so. BFG - flop.
Agenda or not, these films are rarely good and Disney don't seem to care as long as they can sell some merchandise off them.
many big budget films flop, it doesn't stop them from being made. if predominantly black movies (rarely a big budget) fail, it signals to some people that it was because audiences won't or don't want to go see those types of movies. you can't prove otherwise if they aren't going to fund movies with POC the way they do for other projects.
I have yet to see anyone argue that things aren't getting better but to pretend that it's close to equal IMO is hilarious.
I agree. As a white person, I don't have any guilt for slavery. Slave ownership is horrific, and I like to think that I'd do whatever I could to stop it. I also don't get offended when people tell me that I'm privileged for being white. I know this. It doesn't mean that I don't have to work hard- I do. If anything, it makes me feel grateful, and want to help people that could use help. I see no problem with more diversity for tertiary roles, and I'm not worried about a decline in talent. I don't believe that there should be a drop off between the best white actor and the best black actor. This is the implied fear when trying to prevent Hollywood from going all SJW Oprah.
To be blunt, white privilege is a complete myth in today's society. It's a Leftist term used to silence white people that don't agree with false narratives. It has been debunked numerous times by people much smarter than us.
There is also a ton of peer reviewed stuff that got people doctorates that show white priviledge exists. So, no, white priviledge has not been debunked and being a white in a most minority world most of my life, I would tend to agree with that.
If you are accusing, or making assumptions about someone, based on the color of their skin, that's called "Racism". The concept of white privilege is not only wrong, but fundamentally racist.
Making assumptions based on the color of ones skin is stereotyping. Using one's power to act on a stereotype to discriminate or oppress is racism. There is a lot of misguided thinking that folks in America do which others may classify as racism -- but these are often the building blocks of racism rather than racism itself. I think the distinction matters because most of us have the potential for racist behavior because we actually do have some measure of stereotypic assumptions based on race and ethnicity -- but our value systems hold us back from actions of conscious oppression. I don't think anyone would disagree that "white privilege is wrong", but I think many would disagree with the notion that it doesn't exist in America. Of course, in a country of 360 million people there are many POC who have privilege, and many whites who (based on other factors mentioned in this thread) don't. The question is whether, when taken as a whole, we can isolate race as being a factor, in and of itself (even though it is ALWAYS mixed in with other variables), that influences opportunity or privilege, or their polar opposites.
Equal opportunity based on skin color is as elusive as "full employment". We all know that it can't really happen -- people are influenced by physical appearance in various ways and we can't just take that out the equation. When I was in high school, I knew twin sisters who were both talented artists and musicians -- seeming remarkably equal in their skills. One happened to be beautiful; the other, not so much. Do you think their opportunities were equal? They weren't. One was always front and center, the other not so much. The front and center one was noticed and offered scholarships, jobs, and social opportunities while the other fell behind.
I think most of us would accept that equal opportunity is an imperfect ideal -- just as most accept that 4% unempoyment is pretty much considered full employment. I think most of us are OK that some people get more breaks than others, and that privilege happens. Where I think the big question rests isn't that inequalities exist, it's when inequality is so blatant and clear that something needs to be done to correct the injustice -- even if the solution sounds ugly or unfair. There are times when hiring a talented female over a talented male -- simply because she's female, may be acceptable. There are times when hiring an African-American who has potential, but is behind in skills compared to a white job competitor perhaps due to a culturally-deprived background, may be the right thing to do. I am not saying that a society, or an industry, should make these decisions lightly, or base them on anecdotal circumstances. But sometimes disparities tell us something ugly about ourselves and it's possible that we can become better as a people if we act as assertively to repair the injustice as we did to create it.
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_wrinkle_in_time_2018#contentReviews
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/03/08/oprahs-ultra-pc-wrinkle-in-time-stung-with-bad-reviews-as-cringeworthy-100-million-dollar-disney-movie-could-bomb-experts-say.html
Are you trying to use one movie's bad reviews to prove that movie goers and critics don't like movies with social themes at the exact moment that Black Panther is on pace to become one of the 5 highest grossing movies in American history and Get Out capped its successful run with a Best Screenplay Oscar?
EDIT: I'll throw in that Shape of Water won Best Picture despite literally dripping with a social agenda.
Black Panther was a great movie because they made an entertaining movie with a good story. There’s a distinction between “predominantly black cast” and “putting social justice ahead of making a great movie”.
As for Get Out ... Either the other nominees were remarkably weak, or that was an “affirmative action” Oscar. It was entertaining enough, but it was about as Oscar-worthy as Cabin In The Woods.
1. Get Out has a 99% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It was not only nominated by Academy voters (a group of thousands of filmmakers) for best picture but it won best screenplay and has over 300 nominations from various critics and filmmaker groups including major nominations from every respected group that gives out such awards, not just in America but internationally. This kind of thing is too subjective for me to say you're wrong, but you're in a pretty small camp.
2. What evidence is there that the filmmakers of A Wrinkle In Time prioritized "social justice" ahead of the filmmaking?
I thought "Get out" was truly spooky. Maybe the best film out of the nominees, though they were all very good.
And it was tense and well-crafted, in a Hitchcockian sort of way. I truly had no idea of where it was going.
And the name was perfect - the whole time you are just praying the main character can save himself. You see through his eyes and it is frightening.
And that to me is what is "progressive" about the film The racial component is obviously very potent and effective.
But the fact that they wrote a role for a black character at all that was not token or stereotyped but felt like an organic character - THAT is what is missing in Hollywood. Same for other minorities and for women. It should be okay to write quality roles for people who are not white men.
But for all its acclaim, its budget was only $4.5M. The studio wasn't exactly throwing money all over the place here, taking a chance.
Black Panther has been cited as an example of progressiveness, but it has the "Marvel" logo on it so it was a guaranteed success no matter how good it actually was. To me that's not as daring as some others think.
We have yet to see any high-budget black-centered original projects.
So time will tell if anything is gonna change here.
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_wrinkle_in_time_2018#contentReviews
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/03/08/oprahs-ultra-pc-wrinkle-in-time-stung-with-bad-reviews-as-cringeworthy-100-million-dollar-disney-movie-could-bomb-experts-say.html
Are you trying to use one movie's bad reviews to prove that movie goers and critics don't like movies with social themes at the exact moment that Black Panther is on pace to become one of the 5 highest grossing movies in American history and Get Out capped its successful run with a Best Screenplay Oscar?
EDIT: I'll throw in that Shape of Water won Best Picture despite literally dripping with a social agenda.
Err.... what was the "Shape of Water's" social agenda?
To me it was pretty much about compassion vs hatred... The sort of thing you might read in a fairly tale or a Disney animated film. I dunno if it was any sort of direct modern social commentary.
-
Making assumptions based on the color of ones skin is stereotyping. Using one's power to act on a stereotype to discriminate or oppress is racism. There is a lot of misguided thinking that folks in America do which others may classify as racism -- but these are often the building blocks of racism rather than racism itself. I think the distinction matters because most of us have the potential for racist behavior because we actually do have some measure of stereotypic assumptions based on race and ethnicity -- but our value systems hold us back from actions of conscious oppression. I don't think anyone would disagree that "white privilege is wrong", but I think many would disagree with the notion that it doesn't exist in America. Of course, in a country of 360 million people there are many POC who have privilege, and many whites who (based on other factors mentioned in this thread) don't. The question is whether, when taken as a whole, we can isolate race as being a factor, in and of itself (even though it is ALWAYS mixed in with other variables), that influences opportunity or privilege, or their polar opposites.
I don't make that distinction. To me, when you collectivize a group of people and cast aspersions on them, based on the color of their skin, that is inherently racist. Other groups, outside of the white population, have experienced great success in this country (Asian and Jewish People). So it is difficult for me to take the notion very seriously. In my summation, it is a term used to absolve one of personal responsibility. It's like, "Oh... Well that is why I didn't make it, this white privilege thing really kept me down". Well no, actually it's because you didn't graduate high school, or you had a kid before you were married, or you didn't get a job. Any job. In fact, The Brookings Institution has spent a great deal of effort studying this issue, and they whittled down a lot of analysis into three simple rules. You can avoid poverty by:
1. Graduating from high school.
2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.
3. Having a full-time job.
If you do all those three things, your chance of falling into poverty is just 2 percent. Meanwhile, you’ll have a 74 percent chance of being in the middle class. So the United States is a meritocracy.
Equal opportunity based on skin color is as elusive as "full employment". We all know that it can't really happen -- people are influenced by physical appearance in various ways and we can't just take that out the equation. When I was in high school, I knew twin sisters who were both talented artists and musicians -- seeming remarkably equal in their skills. One happened to be beautiful; the other, not so much. Do you think their opportunities were equal? They weren't. One was always front and center, the other not so much. The front and center one was noticed and offered scholarships, jobs, and social opportunities while the other fell behind.
Well, I don't know the different elements behind this anecdotal example, but I would imagine there is a little more to the story than attractiveness. I get your overall point though, it's tough to argue that there isn't a "Beauty", "Well Dressed" or "In Shape" privilege. But that benefit would apply to all races.
I think most of us would accept that equal opportunity is an imperfect ideal -- just as most accept that 4% unempoyment is pretty much considered full employment. I think most of us are OK that some people get more breaks than others, and that privilege happens. Where I think the big question rests isn't that inequalities exist, it's when inequality is so blatant and clear that something needs to be done to correct the injustice -- even if the solution sounds ugly or unfair. There are times when hiring a talented female over a talented male -- simply because she's female, may be acceptable. There are times when hiring an African-American who has potential, but is behind in skills compared to a white job competitor perhaps due to a culturally-deprived background, may be the right thing to do. I am not saying that a society, or an industry, should make these decisions lightly, or base them on anecdotal circumstances. But sometimes disparities tell us something ugly about ourselves and it's possible that we can become better as a people if we act as assertively to repair the injustice as we did to create it.
Would you care to unpack why the NBA, NFL, NCAA has such a disparity of players of African American heritage? Wouldn't the culturally-privileged have better facilities, coaches and well supported children in two parent households? Or why Asian Americans are the highest wage earners in the United States?
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_wrinkle_in_time_2018#contentReviews
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/03/08/oprahs-ultra-pc-wrinkle-in-time-stung-with-bad-reviews-as-cringeworthy-100-million-dollar-disney-movie-could-bomb-experts-say.html
Are you trying to use one movie's bad reviews to prove that movie goers and critics don't like movies with social themes at the exact moment that Black Panther is on pace to become one of the 5 highest grossing movies in American history and Get Out capped its successful run with a Best Screenplay Oscar?
EDIT: I'll throw in that Shape of Water won Best Picture despite literally dripping with a social agenda.
Black Panther was a great movie because they made an entertaining movie with a good story. There’s a distinction between “predominantly black cast” and “putting social justice ahead of making a great movie”.
As for Get Out ... Either the other nominees were remarkably weak, or that was an “affirmative action” Oscar. It was entertaining enough, but it was about as Oscar-worthy as Cabin In The Woods.
Tp
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_wrinkle_in_time_2018#contentReviews
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/03/08/oprahs-ultra-pc-wrinkle-in-time-stung-with-bad-reviews-as-cringeworthy-100-million-dollar-disney-movie-could-bomb-experts-say.html
Are you trying to use one movie's bad reviews to prove that movie goers and critics don't like movies with social themes at the exact moment that Black Panther is on pace to become one of the 5 highest grossing movies in American history and Get Out capped its successful run with a Best Screenplay Oscar?
EDIT: I'll throw in that Shape of Water won Best Picture despite literally dripping with a social agenda.
Err.... what was the "Shape of Water's" social agenda?
To me it was pretty much about compassion vs hatred... The sort of thing you might read in a fairly tale or a Disney animated film. I dunno if it was any sort of direct modern social commentary.
It was.
http://www.vulture.com/2017/11/guillermo-del-toro-on-the-shape-of-waters-politics.html
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_wrinkle_in_time_2018#contentReviews
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/03/08/oprahs-ultra-pc-wrinkle-in-time-stung-with-bad-reviews-as-cringeworthy-100-million-dollar-disney-movie-could-bomb-experts-say.html
Are you trying to use one movie's bad reviews to prove that movie goers and critics don't like movies with social themes at the exact moment that Black Panther is on pace to become one of the 5 highest grossing movies in American history and Get Out capped its successful run with a Best Screenplay Oscar?
EDIT: I'll throw in that Shape of Water won Best Picture despite literally dripping with a social agenda.
Black Panther was a great movie because they made an entertaining movie with a good story. There’s a distinction between “predominantly black cast” and “putting social justice ahead of making a great movie”.
As for Get Out ... Either the other nominees were remarkably weak, or that was an “affirmative action” Oscar. It was entertaining enough, but it was about as Oscar-worthy as Cabin In The Woods.
1. Get Out has a 99% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It was not only nominated by Academy voters (a group of thousands of filmmakers) for best picture but it won best screenplay and has over 300 nominations from various critics and filmmaker groups including major nominations from every respected group that gives out such awards, not just in America but internationally. This kind of thing is too subjective for me to say you're wrong, but you're in a pretty small camp.
2. What evidence is there that the filmmakers of A Wrinkle In Time prioritized "social justice" ahead of the filmmaking?
1. Rotten Tomatoes has Get Out as the 4th best movie of all-time, followed closely by Mad Max: Fury Road in 5th.
Browse here: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/bestofrt/
Look legit? Could it be that certain “social justice” leads to a bit of grade inflation?
2. Beyond changing races and genders to make the film more “diverse”? Read interviews with the director.
1. Rotten Tomatoes is not a ranker of films. It is an aggregator of reviews. The fact that 99% of all critics polled by the site gave it a fresh rating is notable and puts you in the minority opinion on its quality. You also ignored all of the other critic and film groups I mentioned. The fact that you think you can look into the hearts of all of these critics and filmmakers and know why they reviewed the movie the way they did, again, says more about you than it does about the movie.
2. I have. Ava Duvernay clearly cares about social justice. What is your evidence that she prioritized that ahead of the filmmaking?
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_wrinkle_in_time_2018#contentReviews
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/03/08/oprahs-ultra-pc-wrinkle-in-time-stung-with-bad-reviews-as-cringeworthy-100-million-dollar-disney-movie-could-bomb-experts-say.html
Are you trying to use one movie's bad reviews to prove that movie goers and critics don't like movies with social themes at the exact moment that Black Panther is on pace to become one of the 5 highest grossing movies in American history and Get Out capped its successful run with a Best Screenplay Oscar?
EDIT: I'll throw in that Shape of Water won Best Picture despite literally dripping with a social agenda.
Black Panther was a great movie because they made an entertaining movie with a good story. There’s a distinction between “predominantly black cast” and “putting social justice ahead of making a great movie”.
As for Get Out ... Either the other nominees were remarkably weak, or that was an “affirmative action” Oscar. It was entertaining enough, but it was about as Oscar-worthy as Cabin In The Woods.
1. Get Out has a 99% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It was not only nominated by Academy voters (a group of thousands of filmmakers) for best picture but it won best screenplay and has over 300 nominations from various critics and filmmaker groups including major nominations from every respected group that gives out such awards, not just in America but internationally. This kind of thing is too subjective for me to say you're wrong, but you're in a pretty small camp.
2. What evidence is there that the filmmakers of A Wrinkle In Time prioritized "social justice" ahead of the filmmaking?
1. Rotten Tomatoes has Get Out as the 4th best movie of all-time, followed closely by Mad Max: Fury Road in 5th.
Browse here: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/bestofrt/
Look legit? Could it be that certain “social justice” leads to a bit of grade inflation?
2. Beyond changing races and genders to make the film more “diverse”? Read interviews with the director.
1. Rotten Tomatoes is not a ranker of films. It is an aggregator of reviews. The fact that 99% of all critics polled by the site gave it a fresh rating is notable and puts you in the minority opinion on its quality. You also ignored all of the other critic and film groups I mentioned. The fact that you think you can look into the hearts of all of these critics and filmmakers and know why they reviewed the movie the way they did, again, says more about you than it does about the movie.
2. I have. Ava Duvernay clearly cares about social justice. What is your evidence that she prioritized that ahead of the filmmaking?
1. They used weighted scores to make the ranking list I provided.
Strangely, three of their top-10 most favorably reviewed films of all time are social justice films made this decade. Five of the top 21. “Get Out” is ahead of every movie in the history of film except The Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane and The Third Man. That’s not even a little bit suspicious to you? Would you rank Get Out in the top four movies ever?
2. Please stop being intentionally obtuse. As I said earlier, she changed races and genders to push a diversity message. She’s acknowledged this. One place to start:
Her choices — in casting, tone and vision — have been as groundbreaking as the fact that she was directing it in the first place, the first woman of color at the helm of a $100 million studio tentpole. To hear her tell it, though, that milestone meant less to her than the opportunity to plant seeds, as she called it: cultivating, as she always has, a new way of looking at the world. She set out to “feminize” the movie, about a headstrong middle schooler — in this case, a biracial girl — who searches for her missing scientist father and saves the universe from encroaching evil.
.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/movies/a-wrinkle-in-time-ava-duvernay-disney.amp.html
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_wrinkle_in_time_2018#contentReviews
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/03/08/oprahs-ultra-pc-wrinkle-in-time-stung-with-bad-reviews-as-cringeworthy-100-million-dollar-disney-movie-could-bomb-experts-say.html
Are you trying to use one movie's bad reviews to prove that movie goers and critics don't like movies with social themes at the exact moment that Black Panther is on pace to become one of the 5 highest grossing movies in American history and Get Out capped its successful run with a Best Screenplay Oscar?
EDIT: I'll throw in that Shape of Water won Best Picture despite literally dripping with a social agenda.
Black Panther was a great movie because they made an entertaining movie with a good story. There’s a distinction between “predominantly black cast” and “putting social justice ahead of making a great movie”.
As for Get Out ... Either the other nominees were remarkably weak, or that was an “affirmative action” Oscar. It was entertaining enough, but it was about as Oscar-worthy as Cabin In The Woods.
1. Get Out has a 99% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It was not only nominated by Academy voters (a group of thousands of filmmakers) for best picture but it won best screenplay and has over 300 nominations from various critics and filmmaker groups including major nominations from every respected group that gives out such awards, not just in America but internationally. This kind of thing is too subjective for me to say you're wrong, but you're in a pretty small camp.
2. What evidence is there that the filmmakers of A Wrinkle In Time prioritized "social justice" ahead of the filmmaking?
1. Rotten Tomatoes has Get Out as the 4th best movie of all-time, followed closely by Mad Max: Fury Road in 5th.
Browse here: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/bestofrt/
Look legit? Could it be that certain “social justice” leads to a bit of grade inflation?
2. Beyond changing races and genders to make the film more “diverse”? Read interviews with the director.
1. Rotten Tomatoes is not a ranker of films. It is an aggregator of reviews. The fact that 99% of all critics polled by the site gave it a fresh rating is notable and puts you in the minority opinion on its quality. You also ignored all of the other critic and film groups I mentioned. The fact that you think you can look into the hearts of all of these critics and filmmakers and know why they reviewed the movie the way they did, again, says more about you than it does about the movie.
2. I have. Ava Duvernay clearly cares about social justice. What is your evidence that she prioritized that ahead of the filmmaking?
1. They used weighted scores to make the ranking list I provided.
Strangely, three of their top-10 most favorably reviewed films of all time are social justice films made this decade. Five of the top 21. “Get Out” is ahead of every movie in the history of film except The Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane and The Third Man. That’s not even a little bit suspicious to you? Would you rank Get Out in the top four movies ever?
2. Please stop being intentionally obtuse. As I said earlier, she changed races and genders to push a diversity message. She’s acknowledged this. One place to start:
Her choices — in casting, tone and vision — have been as groundbreaking as the fact that she was directing it in the first place, the first woman of color at the helm of a $100 million studio tentpole. To hear her tell it, though, that milestone meant less to her than the opportunity to plant seeds, as she called it: cultivating, as she always has, a new way of looking at the world. She set out to “feminize” the movie, about a headstrong middle schooler — in this case, a biracial girl — who searches for her missing scientist father and saves the universe from encroaching evil.
.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/movies/a-wrinkle-in-time-ava-duvernay-disney.amp.html
1. I'm confused about what point you're trying to make. You sound like you're trying to say Rotten Tomatoes has some kind of bias but RT just aggregates critics' reviews. The movie is almost universally liked. This is one example of many I gave that showcases just how highly people think of the movie. You don't think it's "Oscar worthy" and that's fine but most other people clearly did. Not just the Academy, but critics, and just about every organization who deals with this sort of thing.
2. How is asking for you to provide supporting evidence being obtuse? You once again showed that Duvernay cares about social justice but have still not given any evidence that she prioritized it over craft.
-
But the fact that they wrote a role for a black character at all that was not token or stereotyped but felt like an organic character - THAT is what is missing in Hollywood. Same for other minorities and for women. It should be okay to write quality roles for people who are not white men.
Of course it should be okay to write quality roles for minorities and women. Whether or not it's the best business practice is determined by the market, or should be. What I think many people have an issue with it is this concept being forced on studios against what may or may not be in their best financial interest.
If people want more of the good roles in Hollywood to go to minorities and women they need to speak up with their spending power.
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_wrinkle_in_time_2018#contentReviews
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/03/08/oprahs-ultra-pc-wrinkle-in-time-stung-with-bad-reviews-as-cringeworthy-100-million-dollar-disney-movie-could-bomb-experts-say.html
Are you trying to use one movie's bad reviews to prove that movie goers and critics don't like movies with social themes at the exact moment that Black Panther is on pace to become one of the 5 highest grossing movies in American history and Get Out capped its successful run with a Best Screenplay Oscar?
EDIT: I'll throw in that Shape of Water won Best Picture despite literally dripping with a social agenda.
Black Panther was a great movie because they made an entertaining movie with a good story. There’s a distinction between “predominantly black cast” and “putting social justice ahead of making a great movie”.
As for Get Out ... Either the other nominees were remarkably weak, or that was an “affirmative action” Oscar. It was entertaining enough, but it was about as Oscar-worthy as Cabin In The Woods.
1. Get Out has a 99% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It was not only nominated by Academy voters (a group of thousands of filmmakers) for best picture but it won best screenplay and has over 300 nominations from various critics and filmmaker groups including major nominations from every respected group that gives out such awards, not just in America but internationally. This kind of thing is too subjective for me to say you're wrong, but you're in a pretty small camp.
2. What evidence is there that the filmmakers of A Wrinkle In Time prioritized "social justice" ahead of the filmmaking?
1. Rotten Tomatoes has Get Out as the 4th best movie of all-time, followed closely by Mad Max: Fury Road in 5th.
Browse here: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/bestofrt/
Look legit? Could it be that certain “social justice” leads to a bit of grade inflation?
2. Beyond changing races and genders to make the film more “diverse”? Read interviews with the director.
1. Rotten Tomatoes is not a ranker of films. It is an aggregator of reviews. The fact that 99% of all critics polled by the site gave it a fresh rating is notable and puts you in the minority opinion on its quality. You also ignored all of the other critic and film groups I mentioned. The fact that you think you can look into the hearts of all of these critics and filmmakers and know why they reviewed the movie the way they did, again, says more about you than it does about the movie.
2. I have. Ava Duvernay clearly cares about social justice. What is your evidence that she prioritized that ahead of the filmmaking?
1. They used weighted scores to make the ranking list I provided.
Strangely, three of their top-10 most favorably reviewed films of all time are social justice films made this decade. Five of the top 21. “Get Out” is ahead of every movie in the history of film except The Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane and The Third Man. That’s not even a little bit suspicious to you? Would you rank Get Out in the top four movies ever?
2. Please stop being intentionally obtuse. As I said earlier, she changed races and genders to push a diversity message. She’s acknowledged this. One place to start:
Her choices — in casting, tone and vision — have been as groundbreaking as the fact that she was directing it in the first place, the first woman of color at the helm of a $100 million studio tentpole. To hear her tell it, though, that milestone meant less to her than the opportunity to plant seeds, as she called it: cultivating, as she always has, a new way of looking at the world. She set out to “feminize” the movie, about a headstrong middle schooler — in this case, a biracial girl — who searches for her missing scientist father and saves the universe from encroaching evil.
.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/movies/a-wrinkle-in-time-ava-duvernay-disney.amp.html
1. I'm confused about what point you're trying to make. You sound like you're trying to say Rotten Tomatoes has some kind of bias but RT just aggregates critics' reviews. The movie is almost universally liked. This is one example of many I gave that showcases just how highly people think of the movie. You don't think it's "Oscar worthy" and that's fine but most other people clearly did. Not just the Academy, but critics, and just about every organization who deals with this sort of thing.
2. How is asking for you to provide supporting evidence being obtuse? You once again showed that Duvernay cares about social justice but have still not given any evidence that she prioritized it over craft.
1. The point is that critics as a whole have inflated social justice movies this decade. Three of the top nine best-reviewed movies *ever* just happen to have come out of this decade and deal with SJ issues? Odd. It’s almost like there’s a bias there.
2. She took a classic novel and decided to “plant seeds” by diversifying it and radically “feminizing” it. She’s pushing an agenda, rather than sticking to the source material.
Is she a hack, or did she handcuff herself by putting agenda over story?
-
Making assumptions based on the color of ones skin is stereotyping. Using one's power to act on a stereotype to discriminate or oppress is racism. There is a lot of misguided thinking that folks in America do which others may classify as racism -- but these are often the building blocks of racism rather than racism itself. I think the distinction matters because most of us have the potential for racist behavior because we actually do have some measure of stereotypic assumptions based on race and ethnicity -- but our value systems hold us back from actions of conscious oppression. I don't think anyone would disagree that "white privilege is wrong", but I think many would disagree with the notion that it doesn't exist in America. Of course, in a country of 360 million people there are many POC who have privilege, and many whites who (based on other factors mentioned in this thread) don't. The question is whether, when taken as a whole, we can isolate race as being a factor, in and of itself (even though it is ALWAYS mixed in with other variables), that influences opportunity or privilege, or their polar opposites.
I don't make that distinction. To me, when you collectivize a group of people and cast aspersions on them, based on the color of their skin, that is inherently racist. Other groups, outside of the white population, have experienced great success in this country (Asian and Jewish People). So it is difficult for me to take the notion very seriously. In my summation, it is a term used to absolve one of personal responsibility. It's like, "Oh... Well that is why I didn't make it, this white privilege thing really kept me down". Well no, actually it's because you didn't graduate high school, or you had a kid before you were married, or you didn't get a job. Any job. In fact, The Brookings Institution has spent a great deal of effort studying this issue, and they whittled down a lot of analysis into three simple rules. You can avoid poverty by:
1. Graduating from high school.
2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.
3. Having a full-time job.
If you do all those three things, your chance of falling into poverty is just 2 percent. Meanwhile, you’ll have a 74 percent chance of being in the middle class. So the United States is a meritocracy.
Equal opportunity based on skin color is as elusive as "full employment". We all know that it can't really happen -- people are influenced by physical appearance in various ways and we can't just take that out the equation. When I was in high school, I knew twin sisters who were both talented artists and musicians -- seeming remarkably equal in their skills. One happened to be beautiful; the other, not so much. Do you think their opportunities were equal? They weren't. One was always front and center, the other not so much. The front and center one was noticed and offered scholarships, jobs, and social opportunities while the other fell behind.
Well, I don't know the different elements behind this anecdotal example, but I would imagine there is a little more to the story than attractiveness. I get your overall point though, it's tough to argue that there isn't a "Beauty", "Well Dressed" or "In Shape" privilege. But that benefit would apply to all races.
I think most of us would accept that equal opportunity is an imperfect ideal -- just as most accept that 4% unempoyment is pretty much considered full employment. I think most of us are OK that some people get more breaks than others, and that privilege happens. Where I think the big question rests isn't that inequalities exist, it's when inequality is so blatant and clear that something needs to be done to correct the injustice -- even if the solution sounds ugly or unfair. There are times when hiring a talented female over a talented male -- simply because she's female, may be acceptable. There are times when hiring an African-American who has potential, but is behind in skills compared to a white job competitor perhaps due to a culturally-deprived background, may be the right thing to do. I am not saying that a society, or an industry, should make these decisions lightly, or base them on anecdotal circumstances. But sometimes disparities tell us something ugly about ourselves and it's possible that we can become better as a people if we act as assertively to repair the injustice as we did to create it.
Would you care to unpack why the NBA, NFL, NCAA has such a disparity of players of African American heritage? Wouldn't the culturally-privileged have better facilities, coaches and well supported children in two parent households? Or why Asian Americans are the highest wage earners in the United States?
JSD -- I won't try to explain why racial bias exists in one arena even in the face of apparent racial parity in another. Suffice it to say that I believe racial bias exists in America, that it impacts opportunities in some arenas, and that it has existed since the days of slavery and continues to have some impact on the upward mobility of African-Americans. Poor children who are raised in unsafe neighborhoods, in homes with young single parents who aren't well-educated, go to poorly funded schools taught by the bottom of the crop of educators, who experience discrimination at the hands of police officers and judicial systems, and who are shown by their neighbors and family that the only feasible way out of empty pockets is through crime -- or perhaps if you are a mega-gifted athlete, are struggling human beings and have been harmed in their development as people. These are the children we hope will wake up one morning and suddenly start acting like adults and take personal responsibility. Sadly, it is more likely that before this epiphany occurs, they become the young parent, the HS dropout, the struggling next generation of workers and/or recipients of government support. Note: the description above is a generalization and should not be taken to mean that I think this is the plight of all African-American families.
I also do not believe I am an extremist in my views on racial equality and am not happily pulled into arguing a "side" of an issue that I believe has multiple sides. Personal responsibility is an enormous piece of the puzzle -- maybe the most important piece when it comes to reducing stereotypes and equalizing the playing field. I also think that MOST Americans hold to the ideal that we should judge others on their merits and character and not skin color or ethnicity. I agree with this and I hope America continues to evolve as a meritocracy. I think most of us are aware that the American foundation that was built upon its first two centuries was hardly a meritocracy; good jobs were kept safe for privileged friends and families (predominantly for white males), immigrants were favored by like races/ethnicities -- taken into family businesses; civil service jobs were handed to those with "pull" usually based on being a friend, family-member, or from a specific country of origin. America's "meritocracy" is evolving, it is in the making, and I think most of us (including me) value this direction.
I will not apologize for, or minimize the value of, compassion, listening and seeking to understand. There are trauma histories in many of today's struggling families that have been multi-generational and have devastating impact. Arrival to our country for some was a journey to find freedom, a job in a cousin's business, a place for political or religious refuge, a place where one could promote valued ideals like knowledge, education and hard work. For many African-American families, arrival was forced entry into slavery and servitude with family members abused, raped, sold off. These families were cultured into believe that they had an inability to be educated -- and they were assured that hard work would not pay off for anyone other than the master. Through much of the 20th century blacks were systematically segregated, denied voting rights, denied equal education opportunities, equal job opportunity, equal pay for equal work, etc. It took 100 years post-slavery to get the constitution to acknowledge that it was not OK to discriminate on the basis of race or country of origin.
The historical realities that traumatized generation after generation of African-Americans as well as present realities that traumatize children today, do not absolve ANYONE of personal responsibility. They do however, provide a backdrop for understanding the plight of many current African-American families. Opportunity exists, but children are still children, and when they are brought into a world with multiple factors pushing against them (including racial bias), they often give up -- as mistreated children often do.
The beauty of freedom is that it allows us to listen or not, to believe what we are told or not, to have compassion or not. Compassion should not imply a desire for absolution of personal responsibility, providing easy ways out, giving unfettered handouts, or a belief in quota systems. Compassion is just a state of understanding and caring which does at the very least tend to take blaming and shaming out of the equation, and can lead to open thinking about how best to empower and how to most effectively lend a helping hand.
I appreciate the civil discussion, but I am spent on it. I can tell you are a good person, and a responsible American. I am too -- we just see things differently. Go Celtics.
-
Could this be what happens when you care more about pushing social justice rather than making great movies?
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_wrinkle_in_time_2018#contentReviews
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/03/08/oprahs-ultra-pc-wrinkle-in-time-stung-with-bad-reviews-as-cringeworthy-100-million-dollar-disney-movie-could-bomb-experts-say.html
Are you trying to use one movie's bad reviews to prove that movie goers and critics don't like movies with social themes at the exact moment that Black Panther is on pace to become one of the 5 highest grossing movies in American history and Get Out capped its successful run with a Best Screenplay Oscar?
EDIT: I'll throw in that Shape of Water won Best Picture despite literally dripping with a social agenda.
Black Panther was a great movie because they made an entertaining movie with a good story. There’s a distinction between “predominantly black cast” and “putting social justice ahead of making a great movie”.
As for Get Out ... Either the other nominees were remarkably weak, or that was an “affirmative action” Oscar. It was entertaining enough, but it was about as Oscar-worthy as Cabin In The Woods.
1. Get Out has a 99% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It was not only nominated by Academy voters (a group of thousands of filmmakers) for best picture but it won best screenplay and has over 300 nominations from various critics and filmmaker groups including major nominations from every respected group that gives out such awards, not just in America but internationally. This kind of thing is too subjective for me to say you're wrong, but you're in a pretty small camp.
2. What evidence is there that the filmmakers of A Wrinkle In Time prioritized "social justice" ahead of the filmmaking?
1. Rotten Tomatoes has Get Out as the 4th best movie of all-time, followed closely by Mad Max: Fury Road in 5th.
Browse here: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/bestofrt/
Look legit? Could it be that certain “social justice” leads to a bit of grade inflation?
2. Beyond changing races and genders to make the film more “diverse”? Read interviews with the director.
1. Rotten Tomatoes is not a ranker of films. It is an aggregator of reviews. The fact that 99% of all critics polled by the site gave it a fresh rating is notable and puts you in the minority opinion on its quality. You also ignored all of the other critic and film groups I mentioned. The fact that you think you can look into the hearts of all of these critics and filmmakers and know why they reviewed the movie the way they did, again, says more about you than it does about the movie.
2. I have. Ava Duvernay clearly cares about social justice. What is your evidence that she prioritized that ahead of the filmmaking?
1. They used weighted scores to make the ranking list I provided.
Strangely, three of their top-10 most favorably reviewed films of all time are social justice films made this decade. Five of the top 21. “Get Out” is ahead of every movie in the history of film except The Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane and The Third Man. That’s not even a little bit suspicious to you? Would you rank Get Out in the top four movies ever?
2. Please stop being intentionally obtuse. As I said earlier, she changed races and genders to push a diversity message. She’s acknowledged this. One place to start:
Her choices — in casting, tone and vision — have been as groundbreaking as the fact that she was directing it in the first place, the first woman of color at the helm of a $100 million studio tentpole. To hear her tell it, though, that milestone meant less to her than the opportunity to plant seeds, as she called it: cultivating, as she always has, a new way of looking at the world. She set out to “feminize” the movie, about a headstrong middle schooler — in this case, a biracial girl — who searches for her missing scientist father and saves the universe from encroaching evil.
.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/movies/a-wrinkle-in-time-ava-duvernay-disney.amp.html
1. I'm confused about what point you're trying to make. You sound like you're trying to say Rotten Tomatoes has some kind of bias but RT just aggregates critics' reviews. The movie is almost universally liked. This is one example of many I gave that showcases just how highly people think of the movie. You don't think it's "Oscar worthy" and that's fine but most other people clearly did. Not just the Academy, but critics, and just about every organization who deals with this sort of thing.
2. How is asking for you to provide supporting evidence being obtuse? You once again showed that Duvernay cares about social justice but have still not given any evidence that she prioritized it over craft.
1. The point is that critics as a whole have inflated social justice movies this decade. Three of the top nine best-reviewed movies *ever* just happen to have come out of this decade and deal with SJ issues? Odd. It’s almost like there’s a bias there.
2. She took a classic novel and decided to “plant seeds” by diversifying it and radically “feminizing” it. She’s pushing an agenda, rather than sticking to the source material.
Is she a hack, or did she handcuff herself by putting agenda over story?
1. So you're saying that movies with social messages are reviewed better by critics but A Wrinkle in Time is being poorly reviewed because it focused too much on its social message? It looks more to me like critics like movies with a social message when it's a good movie and don't like movies with a social message when they aren't good movies. You don't have to like Get Out but you can't just dismiss the consensus opinion of the movie because it doesn't align with your own.
2. How does changing the race of a character in a story where the race is irrelevant handcuff her? Duvernay herself told PBS, "It’s the same story. Just has different skin."
She also said, "Asserting my presence in a film is not anything that requires any thought. It just is, because it must be if I’m working on it." Which is basically in line with what other filmmakers say (Duncan Jones just told Marc Maron the exact same thing recently about himself). What you call pushing an agenda is really just the result of having a different perspective behind the camera and that in no way means that Duvernay ever sacrificed craft to push a message.
-
1. I'm confused about what point you're trying to make. You sound like you're trying to say Rotten Tomatoes has some kind of bias but RT just aggregates critics' reviews. The movie is almost universally liked. This is one example of many I gave that showcases just how highly people think of the movie. You don't think it's "Oscar worthy" and that's fine but most other people clearly did. Not just the Academy, but critics, and just about every organization who deals with this sort of thing.
I'm assuming he doesn't understand how Rotten Tomatoes works. Their review aggregation is
binary based - either the critic liked it or they didn't. They do not standardize the actual reviews conclusive number. A film's RT score is only useful in a vacuum - it provides no context outside of the film itself. As such, "grade inflation" doesn't really mean anything within the confines of such a reductionist system.
Metacritic does the opposite. It actually collates and weights a film's numerical review scores. Coincidentally, Get Out was the 48th rated movie of 2017 by this measure.
-
I’d be really interested in seeing some hypotheses on why Asian-Americans have risen to the top of American society in terms of education and economics. We’ve fought wars against Vietnam and Korea in the past 70 years, Chinese were essentially slaves in the railroad area, etc. Affirmative action programs actually discriminate against Asians. Physically, Asians don’t “blend in” like people talk about as a factor in European assimilation.
Is there a leading theory for why this is?
-
1. I'm confused about what point you're trying to make. You sound like you're trying to say Rotten Tomatoes has some kind of bias but RT just aggregates critics' reviews. The movie is almost universally liked. This is one example of many I gave that showcases just how highly people think of the movie. You don't think it's "Oscar worthy" and that's fine but most other people clearly did. Not just the Academy, but critics, and just about every organization who deals with this sort of thing.
I'm assuming he doesn't understand how Rotten Tomatoes works. Their review aggregation is
binary based - either the critic liked it or they didn't. They do not standardize the actual reviews conclusive number. A film's RT score is only useful in a vacuum - it provides no context outside of the film itself. As such, "grade inflation" doesn't really mean anything within the confines of such a reductionist system.
Metacritic does the opposite. It actually collates and weights a film's numerical review scores. Coincidentally, Get Out was the 48th rated movie of 2017 by this measure.
I understand how a “positive / negative” review aggregator works. I also provided a link to what Rotten Tomatoes calls the “Top 100 movies of all time”, based upon adjusted score. There sits Get Out at #4 of “all time”. Their words, not mine.
And, I’m not the one using Rotten Tomatoes system inappropriately:
This is one example of many I gave that showcases just how highly people think of the movie. You don't think it's "Oscar worthy" and that's fine but most other people clearly did.
99% fresh in no way implies “Oscar worthy”. A 99% score for a good-but-not-great movie may imply a certain bias among critics, however, particularly looking at the freshness of new SJ movies compared to acclaimed movies of the past.
-
I’d be really interested in seeing some hypotheses on why Asian-Americans have risen to the top of American society in terms of education and economics. We’ve fought wars against Vietnam and Korea in the past 70 years, Chinese were essentially slaves in the railroad area, etc. Affirmative action programs actually discriminate against Asians. Physically, Asians don’t “blend in” like people talk about as a factor in European assimilation.
Is there a leading theory for why this is?
Aside from the two popular explanations (genetics and socio-demography), here is an interesting 3rd one which hasn't been thoroughly studied yet:
–15).
The third explanation attributes Asian Americans’ educational advantage to their greater work ethic and motivation. A growing body of evidence now confirms that academic success is not determined by cognitive ability alone but also by a multidimensional set of capabilities that are referred to as “noncognitive skills” by economists (16⇓–18) and “self-control” and “motivation processes” by psychologists (19⇓–21). These studies show that qualities such as attentiveness, self-control, motivation, and persistence may be as important as cognitive abilities in positively affecting academic performance. Asian-American parents may engage in parenting practices that better cultivate these qualities that, in turn, enable their children’s academic success. It is widely documented that Asian-American parents hold higher educational expectations for their children than white native-born parents (2, 3, 22). Asian and Asian-American parents are also more authoritarian and less permissive than white American families (23, 24). Also in contrast to white American parenting, some scholars argue that Asian-American parenting fosters greater interdependence and collectivism within the family, which helps Asian-American parents to more easily inculcate values such as high educational expectations and strong work ethic in their children (25). The proposed explanation that increased academic effort explains Asian-American youth’s academic advantage is consistent with popular perceptions of Asian-American youth being studious, hard-working, narrowly focused on academic matters, and highly motivated in the classroom. However, little empirical evidence is yet available pertaining to the validity of this explanation relative to the two other competing explanations./quote]
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/23/8416
-
My 6 year old dragged me to A Wrinkle In Time.
It was incoherent. We got quotes from OutKast and Kevin Hart, but not a workable storyline. We got a lot of exposition, but no emotional resonance.
The two lead child actors were good. The visuals were largely outstanding. Everything else sucked. It had no cohesive narrative, there was a lot of sitting around and talking (without adequately explaining plot points), the key conflict was treated tritely, Oprah and Mindy K were miscast, Charles wasn’t a good actor, etc.
What a mess. I stand by my earlier comment: Those involved took the time to make an inclusive movie, but not a good one.
-
My 6 year old dragged me to A Wrinkle In Time.
It was incoherent. We got quotes from OutKast and Kevin Hart, but not a workable storyline. We got a lot of exposition, but no emotional resonance.
The two lead child actors were good. The visuals were largely outstanding. Everything else sucked. It had no cohesive narrative, there was a lot of sitting around and talking (without adequately explaining plot points), the key conflict was treated tritely, Oprah and Mindy K were miscast, Charles wasn’t a good actor, etc.
What a mess. I stand by my earlier comment: Those involved took the time to make an inclusive movie, but not a good one.
Saw the commercial for this and had zero interest. Just assumed it wss going to be a bad movie.Hollywood may be creaming themselves over this movie but it looked awful.
I remember when I was young going to see Chariots of Fire after the Academy just drueled over it and gave it tons of awards. God that movie sucked. I tend to hate what the Academy loves. Very few movies I loved actually won best picture. Rocky, Gladiator, Braveheart and Return of the King were about the only ones I can remember off the top of my head.
-
My 6 year old dragged me to A Wrinkle In Time.
It was incoherent. We got quotes from OutKast and Kevin Hart, but not a workable storyline. We got a lot of exposition, but no emotional resonance.
The two lead child actors were good. The visuals were largely outstanding. Everything else sucked. It had no cohesive narrative, there was a lot of sitting around and talking (without adequately explaining plot points), the key conflict was treated tritely, Oprah and Mindy K were miscast, Charles wasn’t a good actor, etc.
What a mess. I stand by my earlier comment: Those involved took the time to make an inclusive movie, but not a good one.
Saw the commercial for this and had zero interest. Just assumed it wss going to be a bad movie.Hollywood may be creaming themselves over this movie but it looked awful.
I remember when I was young going to see Chariots of Fire after the Academy just drueled over it and gave it tons of awards. God that movie sucked. I tend to hate what the Academy loves. Very few movies I loved actually won best picture. Rocky, Gladiator, Braveheart and Return of the King were about the only ones I can remember off the top of my head.
I think the worst Academy winner I can think of is The English Patient. It wasn’t a train wreck. Rather, it’s like watching paint dry. From your hospital bed.
The early Eighties were terrible for Oscars.
-
My 6 year old dragged me to A Wrinkle In Time.
It was incoherent. We got quotes from OutKast and Kevin Hart, but not a workable storyline. We got a lot of exposition, but no emotional resonance.
The two lead child actors were good. The visuals were largely outstanding. Everything else sucked. It had no cohesive narrative, there was a lot of sitting around and talking (without adequately explaining plot points), the key conflict was treated tritely, Oprah and Mindy K were miscast, Charles wasn’t a good actor, etc.
What a mess. I stand by my earlier comment: Those involved took the time to make an inclusive movie, but not a good one.
Saw the commercial for this and had zero interest. Just assumed it wss going to be a bad movie.Hollywood may be creaming themselves over this movie but it looked awful.
I remember when I was young going to see Chariots of Fire after the Academy just drueled over it and gave it tons of awards. God that movie sucked. I tend to hate what the Academy loves. Very few movies I loved actually won best picture. Rocky, Gladiator, Braveheart and Return of the King were about the only ones I can remember off the top of my head.
I'll stand up for Moonlight, No Country For Old Men, Forrest Gump, Silence of the Lambs, Annie Hall, One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, The French Connection, The Godfathers, and you know what? Titanic is actually quite good. There are others farther back as well.
The Oscars have done some pretty stupid things over the years but the list of winners is actually pretty eclectic and mostly strong.
-
My 6 year old dragged me to A Wrinkle In Time.
It was incoherent. We got quotes from OutKast and Kevin Hart, but not a workable storyline. We got a lot of exposition, but no emotional resonance.
The two lead child actors were good. The visuals were largely outstanding. Everything else sucked. It had no cohesive narrative, there was a lot of sitting around and talking (without adequately explaining plot points), the key conflict was treated tritely, Oprah and Mindy K were miscast, Charles wasn’t a good actor, etc.
What a mess. I stand by my earlier comment: Those involved took the time to make an inclusive movie, but not a good one.
Saw the commercial for this and had zero interest. Just assumed it wss going to be a bad movie.Hollywood may be creaming themselves over this movie but it looked awful.
I remember when I was young going to see Chariots of Fire after the Academy just drueled over it and gave it tons of awards. God that movie sucked. I tend to hate what the Academy loves. Very few movies I loved actually won best picture. Rocky, Gladiator, Braveheart and Return of the King were about the only ones I can remember off the top of my head.
I think the worst Academy winner I can think of is The English Patient. It wasn’t a train wreck. Rather, it’s like watching paint dry. From your hospital bed.
The early Eighties were terrible for Oscars.
I really dislike Titanic over Good Will Hunting and Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan. Also I don't mind Beautiful Mind, but I don't think it beats Fellowship of the Ring.
Dark Knight not even being nominated.....yeah right
-
My 6 year old dragged me to A Wrinkle In Time.
It was incoherent. We got quotes from OutKast and Kevin Hart, but not a workable storyline. We got a lot of exposition, but no emotional resonance.
The two lead child actors were good. The visuals were largely outstanding. Everything else sucked. It had no cohesive narrative, there was a lot of sitting around and talking (without adequately explaining plot points), the key conflict was treated tritely, Oprah and Mindy K were miscast, Charles wasn’t a good actor, etc.
What a mess. I stand by my earlier comment: Those involved took the time to make an inclusive movie, but not a good one.
Saw the commercial for this and had zero interest. Just assumed it wss going to be a bad movie.Hollywood may be creaming themselves over this movie but it looked awful.
I remember when I was young going to see Chariots of Fire after the Academy just drueled over it and gave it tons of awards. God that movie sucked. I tend to hate what the Academy loves. Very few movies I loved actually won best picture. Rocky, Gladiator, Braveheart and Return of the King were about the only ones I can remember off the top of my head.
I think the worst Academy winner I can think of is The English Patient. It wasn’t a train wreck. Rather, it’s like watching paint dry. From your hospital bed.
The early Eighties were terrible for Oscars.
I really dislike Titanic over Good Will Hunting and Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan. Also I don't mind Beautiful Mind, but I don't think it beats Fellowship of the Ring.
Dark Knight not even being nominated.....yeah right
Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction and Shawshank is a decision that has not aged well.
-
My 6 year old dragged me to A Wrinkle In Time.
It was incoherent. We got quotes from OutKast and Kevin Hart, but not a workable storyline. We got a lot of exposition, but no emotional resonance.
The two lead child actors were good. The visuals were largely outstanding. Everything else sucked. It had no cohesive narrative, there was a lot of sitting around and talking (without adequately explaining plot points), the key conflict was treated tritely, Oprah and Mindy K were miscast, Charles wasn’t a good actor, etc.
What a mess. I stand by my earlier comment: Those involved took the time to make an inclusive movie, but not a good one.
Saw the commercial for this and had zero interest. Just assumed it wss going to be a bad movie.Hollywood may be creaming themselves over this movie but it looked awful.
I remember when I was young going to see Chariots of Fire after the Academy just drueled over it and gave it tons of awards. God that movie sucked. I tend to hate what the Academy loves. Very few movies I loved actually won best picture. Rocky, Gladiator, Braveheart and Return of the King were about the only ones I can remember off the top of my head.
I think the worst Academy winner I can think of is The English Patient. It wasn’t a train wreck. Rather, it’s like watching paint dry. From your hospital bed.
The early Eighties were terrible for Oscars.
I really dislike Titanic over Good Will Hunting and Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan. Also I don't mind Beautiful Mind, but I don't think it beats Fellowship of the Ring.
Dark Knight not even being nominated.....yeah right
Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction and Shawshank is a decision that has not aged well.
Yeah, Pulp Fiction should've won but I think Forrest Gump has become underrated at this point. I understand the criticism but I think its a better movie than Shawshank, which is terrific too.
Shakespeare In Love is the most searing indictment of the Academy, probably.