The next round of Marvel films is going to have Natalie Portman as Thor, Goddess of Thunder; a gay superhero; a deaf superhero; a Chinese superhero; etc. etc. It's going to be diverse, in short.
I'm not posting this to moan about that. I'm posting this pre-emptively to moan about all the moaning. It's coming, you can tell. People can't just shut up and watch their fucking kid's films about aliens and magic, whatever gender or colour the people in them happen to be.
With Lady Thor in the comics the people who couldn't shut up most about Thor being a lady now was the comic writers themselves. Every week she would fight the same shape shifting villain called 'straw man' who's power was to just point out Thor shouldn't be a women before getting the shit kicked out of them, it got real old real fast.
People on the internet complain about most things and doubly so if they're popular. I'm not sure why this case in particular is so upsetting for you.
>a deaf superhero
That sounds like an interesting and ambitious idea. I greatly dislike superhero movies but it could be something I'd pay to watch if the execution plays to perspective. It could be like that episode of Bojack where he is in fish-people land.
I mean it is going to be the same generic story so they have to do something to stop people noticing.
I agree. Indeed there have been recent rumblings from the more skeptical that some of the kick-back against ladies and brown folk being cast in remakes is being amplified because the pissing and moaning gets more articles written and angry Tweets tweeted. I just wish this whole era of cinematic universes would end, I'm so, so bored of it. At least Blade Runner 2047 felt like it was for grown ups, even if it was just about an android trying to shit out a tear.
As for the casting and the backlash, it's all the Yanks fault, they have some kind of racial autism that permiates their whole society. They're still arsed about their civil war; that was the best part of 200 years ago for Christ's sake. That, and they've allowed Disney to buy every IP in existence. Actually, it's also our fault a bit for pissing away our film industry, but that's another story.
For the sake of balance Guardians of the Galaxy 2 was really good.
>>28787 >I greatly dislike superhero movies but it could be something I'd pay to watch if the execution plays to perspective
If it's Marvel then the villain will also be deaf because they're almost always mirror images of the protagonist. Besides, there's only one film you need to watch about being deaf.
>>28788 >For the sake of balance Guardians of the Galaxy 2 was really good.
I've nothing against womenfolk, darkies and cripples being in films, obviously.
But it does seem pretty obvious they're only doing it to cynically exploit a self-congratulatory liberal audience, and the free publicity a bit of internet controversy creates. Anyone who thinks the Disney corporation actually cares about furthering the interests of minorities is a hopelessly naive cunt.
Nobody thinks corporations are diverse for ethical reasons, but the fact that the market now supports and incentivises corporations to be diverse is A Good Thing, and leads to equality in the long run.
To me it shows that society is progressing, so much so that even these lethargic moneyed monoliths have to change and adapt. To me it's irrelevant if a CEO of a company actually likes hiring women or not, so long as he feels he has to, and does.
I'm not sure 12 Years A Slave belongs in the self-congratulatory category. If anything it seemed designed to make people uncomfortable with a very prolonged and focused gaze on a bleak point of history.
>>28801 Mate, you're confusing Twitter and thonkpieces with the real world. Ghosterbusters 2016 did mediocre numbers at the box office and a tentitive plan for related films was killed so quickly that no one's sure if it was ever alive to begin with.
As for 12 Years a Slave I don't see your point. Unless you're one of those that thinks films have to make you feel "happy" and not "actually a bit ill". 12 Years a Slave is basically a Disney Princess tale compared to something like Benny's Video.
I think you missed where I said 'Hollywood believes will happen'? Because I feel you were retorting a point I didnt make.
12 years a slave fits nearly into 'it is your moral duty to do/ watch x' self flagelation was my point. The same way passion of the Christ was torture porn for the spiritually righteous.
>>28805 Look, I'll carry on this conversation when you sart capitalising the names of films. You rightly capitalised "Christ" so you know how nouns work. No excuse.
At the point where you are picking at details like that over contuining the conversation you probably don't have a point worth making so I won't indulge you.
>>28801 >That is literally a thing that happens.
In your imagination, maybe.
>It is the only reason projects like 12 years a slave exist.
12 Years a Slave is based on the autobiography of a black northerner who was illegally kidnapped and forced into slavery. Since he was literate, it's one of the few detailed firsthand accounts we have. It's not just a story someone in Hollywood just made up one day.
>12 Years a Slave is based on the autobiography of a black northerner who was illegally kidnapped and forced into slavery. Since he was literate, it's one of the few detailed firsthand accounts we have. It's not just a story someone in Hollywood just made up one day.
Irrelevant.
The most naïve part here is that you think Hollywood makes anything up nowadays.
The next is not understanding why Hollywood makes films, It is a business.
The person who wrote the screen play might very well have been sincere, but at some point they would have come across a gatekeeper producer who has a pile of hundreds of projects in front of them and they have to make a judgement on which ones will make a return and which won't they decided to make this film because thought they could market it and make a profit.
There was no nobility to it, they didn't care if it was a story that needed to be told (although saying something is, is good Oscar bait, and good marketing). Make no mistake any sincerity you think there was in this piece is either blind luck it got through or because the focus group showed people like to feel something is sincere. you don't throw 22 million dollars at a project unless you expect to get more back then the other 22 million dollar projects sitting on your desk. Nobody is willing to spend that money on something that enriches the culture and asks us to reflect back on our history, but doesn't make a penny.
>>28811 >I don't care that Shell is only planting trees to improve their image, the result is still the same.
Greenwashing gives people the impression that enough is being done when it isn't and discourages them for demanding what's actually needed.
Are piss poor myopic interpretations of the situation. If you think for a second Disney and Dreamworks et al wouldn't immediately swivel around and start making white supremacist propaganda if the wind ever started blowing the other way and a bit of market research showed there was demand for it, I have a bridge to sell you.
If anything, if I were a gentleman of African descent, I'd find it fucking offensive that films like that made so much money for white people. I'd venture as far as to call it opportunistic, exploitative even.
> I'd venture as far as to call it opportunistic, exploitative even.
I've been calling the current trend Femsplotation for about 5 years.
The ethical issue I have is that when you make something to appeal to a market you really don't care about what you are saying and what it means. Obviously there is no harm in having a deaf super hero, but I'm not sure all of these movements are that innert.
It might be a bit over analising but the take away message a lot of people got from 'The last Jedi' was "men know your place!" mind you fisherperson film theory has been coming to the exact same conclusion only about women for everything for the last 40 years so I don't think it is that absurd for people to reach that conclusion on that one film.
>>28813 We now have a confirmed case where someone was paid compo for getting diddled by saville when in fact no such diddling occurred. He only got caught because he could not stop lying about countless other people having diddled him. How many other cases were made up?
>>28810 Obviously the production companies don't care about the films they're making beyond "is it a profit turner?", but I think it's fair to assume the director, Steve McQueen, did. He also directed 2008's misery marathon Hunger, which had nothing to do with Hollywood and made very little money, relatively speaking, and there a plenty of smaller productions still being made, even in the cinematic multiverse-cum-hellscape within which we find ourselves. As such I don't find your statement that "Nobody is willing to spend that money on something that enriches the culture... but doesn't make a penny." to hold much water. Making films is expensive, time consuming and difficult and all companies in all industries are wary of losing money, I don't see this as being some They Live like revalation the same way you seem to. As for comparing Hollywood to the fossil fuel industry, I find that silly and melodramitic. How do you compare the harms of one to another?
>>28814>>28815 But you're just thinking of the financing. Numbers don't make films, people do. I know that sounds trite, but you're all acting as if any film that makes money is morally bankrupt. Even in the most seemingly hollow example of this, Ghostbusters 2016, I'm sure some people working on it, both behind and in front of the camera though "this is a good thing for women in the sciences". I've no doubt Sony Pictures weren't arsed, but they're just stumping up the cash. Artists have been given patronage since forever, are you going to toss the contents of the Louvre in the Seine River now too?
But the executive who decides they want a gay deaf superhero is not the same person who writes the film. They hire a creative who will actually try and make a good job of it, won't they?
The problem with Ghostbusters 2016 as an example is that it's pretty difficult to argue that the political agenda didn't get in the way of it being a good film. That film was fucking shit, and it wasn't shit because it had women instead of men. It was fucking shit because they were clearly more bothered about subverting expectations and forecasting shipping than they were about writing a good script or hiring actresses who could actually carry a joke.
At best it made no impact at all and everyone has just forgotten about it, but at worst it's had a negative impact for the people it was trying to help.
>>28820 I wasn't addressing why it was shit, but I still think you're wrong in your reasoning on that matter. I can't be arsed going through it though, you'll just have to imagine me being all smart and long-winded.
Too hot to talk about Ghostbusters 2016. Too bloody hot.
