Wokeism of the day *Revised Mod Note in OP and threadbanned users*

COVID

kildare lad wrote: »

Good point , how about Bill Burr ??

Well no, not with that high-pitched Bostonian whine.

Ash.J.Williams

Watching Rocky 3 now , I’d cast clubber Lang as Michael Collins any day

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I’m really not that progressive, there are many simpletons in this thread , like your good self which may make an average person appear overly progressive

You’ve convinced me of your brilliance with your ad hominem(s). Always the sign of a true intellect.

Omackeral

The Simpsons famously replaced Hank Azaria from doing Apu. White man doing an Indian dude is no good apparently. Do you know what's a conundrum though, Cheif Wiggum's sergeant Lou is a black character but his voice is based on Sylvester Stallone. How does that one work?

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Let me explain it in simple terms , you have a drama class of 100 students graduating this year 2021 and when going for roles they’re told whites take these roles , blacks these ones , Asians over there etc , it literally makes no sense whatsoever to students growing up these days, it’s old school

Ok. So, you have 100 students going to this class. Due to the demographic makeup of the country, White people are predominately the largest group, with other racial groups being of similar size. Now, pure logic would suggest that it makes perfect sense that the majority of acting jobs would go to White people, because as the largest population group, the audience and screenwriters would be creating the largest amount of roles for them. Meeting the demands of the marketplace, but also meeting the supply of scripts written with white actors in mind.

Since, there are differences in culture and behavior between white, black or Hispanic people. There are expectations that when we see certain characters in a particular environment, then we will see a particular race play that role. Writers do that when they create the role, and it meshes with the overall story/plot within the story.

And since white people are the largest demographic group, and produce the most amount of actors, when you take away roles from White people, giving them to Black people based on their race.. you're actually affecting more people. More actors who are disqualified from auditioning and competing for that role, because the role has been assigned to a smaller demographic.

Like seriously.. you don't see the unfairness of such a system? That you would deny the largest group the opportunity to compete for roles, just so the smaller group can, what? Feel equal? That's not equality.

Rodney Bathgate

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Welcome to boards and what a weird debut you made

He nailed it, in my humble opinion.

Ash.J.Williams

Omackeral wrote: »

The Simpsons famously replaced Hank Azaria from doing Apu. White man doing an Indian dude is no good apparently. Do you know what's a conundrum though, Cheif Wiggum's sergeant Lou is a black character but his voice is based on Sylvester Stallone. How does that one work?

I think Hank had a part in that decision

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

A job isn’t a benefit

Did i say that it was?

Ash.J.Williams

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok. So, you have 100 students going to this class. Due to the demographic makeup of the country, White people are predominately the largest group, with other racial groups being of similar size. Now, pure logic would suggest that it makes perfect sense that the majority of acting jobs would go to White people, because as the largest population group, the audience and screenwriters would be creating the largest amount of roles for them. Meeting the demands of the marketplace, but also meeting the supply of scripts written with white actors in mind.

Since, there are differences in culture and behavior between white, black or Hispanic people. There are expectations that when we see certain characters in a particular environment, then we will see a particular race play that role. Writers do that when they create the role, and it meshes with the overall story/plot within the story.

And since white people are the largest demographic group, and produce the most amount of actors, when you take away roles from White people, giving them to Black people based on their race.. you're actually affecting more people. More actors who are disqualified from auditioning and competing for that role, because the role has been assigned to a smaller demographic.

Like seriously.. you don't see the unfairness of such a system? That you would deny the largest group the opportunity to compete for roles, just so the smaller group can, what? Feel equal? That's not equality.

I said best person for the job and I’m not bothered about the race

Rodney Bathgate

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Watching Rocky 3 now , I’d cast clubber Lang as Michael Collins any day

With Ruby Rose taking on the role of Apollo Creed?

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I said best person for the job and I’m not bothered about the race

Not in any of the posts I quoted, and responded to. Did this come later in response to someone else?

Ash.J.Williams

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

With Ruby Rose taking on the role of Apollo Creed?

Graham Norton without a doubt

1800_Ladladlad

Rothko wrote: »

Don't really see anything woke about that tbh.

Wibbs wrote: »

Black men may be seen as a threatening, or fetishised as exotic or seen as more manly, but Black women are far less visible, it seems they're less attractive to advertisers and majority White audiences in majority White countries. Or that's what advertisers think. Black women commentators have long noted this. Black women also have a tendency to have their skin colour lightened in photos and very rarely will you see a Black woman in the media with her natural curly hair.

I couldn't of put it better myself. Wibbs has explained this perfectly in the Multiculturalism thread before. IMO It's the sudden use of all the mixed-race couples in the likes of advertising and TV shows which consist of a black man with a white woman but never the other way around. The representation of black women in the media/tv/ads is nowhere the level black men receive. A white man with a black woman doesn't sell......

MisterAnarchy

Barna77 wrote: »

In The Three Musketeers and the series about Sherlock Holmes the dogs were all from different breeds.

God, they started the woke movement ...

Strangely enough it seems The Muskehounds is getting a reboot this year.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1058560844562857

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2019/10/01/why-the-asian-american-students-lost-their-case-against-harvard-but-should-have-won/

Sadly they lost.

Edit: read the judgement, holy moly.
The judge said that because Asians are discriminated against due to their race that proves they weren’t in this case because otherwise the university would have given them a leg up!
So basically the judge ruled that Harvard are not racist because they are woke. What a judge!

I can't wrap my head around that judgment. No matter how hard I try I still don't understand it.

1800_Ladladlad

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

I couldn't of put it better myself. Wibbs has explained this perfectly in the Multiculturalism thread before. IMO It's the sudden use of all the mixed-race couples in the likes of advertising and TV shows which consist of a black man with a white woman but never the other way around. The representation of black women in the media/tv/ads is nowhere the level black men receive. A white man with a black woman doesn't sell......

Why is that the case I wonder?

stefanovich

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

The established bond audience is dead

Well I’m not dead and I like old Bond movies.

Rodney Bathgate

stefanovich wrote: »

Well I’m not dead and I like old Bond movies.

Shush. Your opinions don’t matter in this brave new world.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

Well I’m not dead and I like old Bond movies.

Ditto... but the Bond franchise was dropping in popularity anyway before this whole idea of casting a female lead ever came along.

The last great Bond was Connery. Daniel Craig is decent, and while at times, he carries the right impression, he just doesn't show "class"/"smooth" in the right quantities. They decided to move away from the Bond we loved from the older movies. They sought to match their expectation of what people wanted (American audiences, I expect)... the thug. A well groomed thug, but still a thug.

If they reverted back to the older style of Bond, with a good actor, I'd imagine we'd see a lot of the older audience return. As it is, the bond movies, are just another braindead action movie, with little depth or fun to the scripts, lacking the charisma of older plots and actors. All the bad guys are pretty crap too.

I still watch the Bond movies. Have them all on my shelf. However, while I'll watch the new one, I think they've finally killed the franchise for me.

Hande hoche!

Deleted User wrote: »

Ditto... but the Bond franchise was dropping in popularity anyway before this whole idea of casting a female lead ever came along.

The last great Bond was Connery. Daniel Craig is decent, and while at times, he carries the right impression, he just doesn't show "class"/"smooth" in the right quantities. They decided to move away from the Bond we loved from the older movies. They sought to match their expectation of what people wanted (American audiences, I expect)... the thug. A well groomed thug, but still a thug.

If they reverted back to the older style of Bond, with a good actor, I'd imagine we'd see a lot of the older audience return. As it is, the bond movies, are just another braindead action movie, with little depth or fun to the scripts, lacking the charisma of older plots and actors. All the bad guys are pretty crap too.

I still watch the Bond movies. Have them all on my shelf. However, while I'll watch the new one, I think they've finally killed the franchise for me.

The Bourne series had a definite impact on the Craig era Bonds.

RandRuns

Deleted User wrote: »

Ditto... but the Bond franchise was dropping in popularity anyway before this whole idea of casting a female lead ever came along.

The last great Bond was Connery. Daniel Craig is decent, and while at times, he carries the right impression, he just doesn't show "class"/"smooth" in the right quantities. They decided to move away from the Bond we loved from the older movies. They sought to match their expectation of what people wanted (American audiences, I expect)... the thug. A well groomed thug, but still a thug.

If they reverted back to the older style of Bond, with a good actor, I'd imagine we'd see a lot of the older audience return. As it is, the bond movies, are just another braindead action movie, with little depth or fun to the scripts, lacking the charisma of older plots and actors. All the bad guys are pretty crap too.

I still watch the Bond movies. Have them all on my shelf. However, while I'll watch the new one, I think they've finally killed the franchise for me.

I think they might try to do that with Craig's replacement. All the "black female bond" stuff is pure marketing bluff to build up interest. The favorites to get it are James Norton and Sam Heughan - both tend towards the suave, sophisticated end of the spectrum, and neither are black women. Heughan in particular has a Cannery-esqu vibe about him.
All the talk is just that - Broccoli and Wilson know they've a golden goose and I doubt they'll follow the go woke go broke path.

WrenBoy

Hande hoche! wrote: »

The Bourne series had a definite impact on the Craig era Bonds.

They are too similar. Takes the shine off "Bond" if he's just Bourne with an accent. I know Bond was here first but he's moved away from gadgets, suits and charm to sex and fighting. The character Cavill played in The Man from UNCLE was more Bond than the recent Bonds imo.
Thats just my opinion, others will disagree. Im still going to go see the next one in the cinemas though, whenever that will be.

Just a quick reminder to you all of what real racial discrimination looks like.



Nearly everything else that has been discussed here, is in reality insignificant.

Barna77

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Strangely enough it seems The Muskehounds is getting a reboot this year.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1058560844562857

I just saw the trailer in Spanish. They have ruined the song.

Cordell

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just a quick reminder to you all of what real racial discrimination looks like.



Nearly everything else that has been discussed here, is in reality insignificant.

And today, under the guise of reversing that discrimination, we have new shiny virtual coloured entrances in schools, universities and companies.

Cordell

Cordell wrote: »

And today, under the guise of reversing that discrimination, we have new shiny virtual coloured entrances in schools, universities and companies.

It's hardly anything new. Women/feminism sought the end of male only clubs/organisations based on grounds of sexism, only to create female only clubs/organisations that exclude men. Justifications and excuses abound as to why women should be allowed such women only zones, but it's a reinforcement of double standards being fine for one group over another.

The same thing is happening with regards to race. We've now got music concerts or other organisations, with colored only sections, or white people being excluded entirely.

Because these movements don't want equality based on gender or race. They want more rights than their chosen opponent. For feminism, that means women having rights to things that men can't do.. and for Black people, that means excluding others based on race, but white people won't be allowed to do similar.

Ash.J.Williams

stefanovich wrote: »

Well I’m not dead and I like old Bond movies.

me too

Ash.J.Williams

Deleted User wrote: »

Just a quick reminder to you all of what real racial discrimination looks like.



Nearly everything else that has been discussed here, is in reality insignificant.

so we all go in the same door now and there's no discrimination

RandRuns

Deleted User wrote: »

Just a quick reminder to you all of what real racial discrimination looks like.



Nearly everything else that has been discussed here, is in reality insignificant.

What's happening at the moment may seem insignificant, but brought to it's logical conclusion, it will end up the same as the above (or possibly worse) just in reverse.
Identity politics is the shiny new face of racism.

storker

Wibbs wrote: »

True enough. You rarely saw a Middle Eastern actor or even someone who looks Middle Eastern in such roles, though that has changed somewhat in latter years. In the fifties they were either White Americans or White English people with plummy accents. Same for Romans and that hasn't changed much. They're rarely portrayed by Italians and Latins. The cast of the Sopranos would be a far better bet in a Roman setting. Cleopatra is one that tends to divide. Black Americans and others seem to think she was Black or at least Brown, but she was the last of the Ptolemy dynasty, a Greek(with some Syrian in her line). Not some blonde Swede I grant you, but Liz Taylor in the role wasn't so much a stretch.

Except if I remember correctly she wasn't even all that beautiful, but had incredible charisma (Cleo, not Liz). I can't remember where I read that, though.

There can be the hint of some daft "revenge" swinging of the pendulum the other way and too far. "Feminist" casting does similar. The things is; two wrongs don't make a right and two idiocies don't make a wisdom.

Such double-wrongs and idiocies are central tenets of woke-ism, surely.

*John Wayne being Ghengis Khan? oh jayyysus.

Comedy gold, though. On the other hand, you had Alec Guinness and Anthony Quinn playing arabs in Lawrence of Arabia, and both did a great job (IMO) although such casting choices would be slammed these days. You can watch Prince Faisal without being reminded of Obi Wan or Major Nicholson.

To go off on a tangent, the Islam portrayed in LoA seems to be a much more gentle and understanding flavour than we tend to hear about today:
"Recite [The Koran] only as much as shall be easy to you..."
"They will be lucky for you! Allah favours the compassionate."

(Even more tangentially, the best quote in the movie goes to Faisal:
"With major Lawrence, mercy is a passion, for me it is simply good manners. I leave it to you to decide which motive is the more reliable.")