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

Invidious

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

If it's just any old action movie or thriller etc then anyone can play anyone. It would be decided by the script anyway.

I'm not all that sure about that. James Bond is embedded in our imaginations as a white British heterosexual male. Could we put a black lesbian in that role and have it work? It would take some doing.

Ash.J.Williams

Invidious wrote: »

I'm not all that sure about that. James Bond is embedded in our imaginations as a white British heterosexual male. Could we put a black lesbian in that role and have it work? It would take some doing.

If you’re over 44, I doubt teenagers give a ****

Ash.J.Williams

Nulson Mundala wrote: »

Same. Most people feel the same I think.

And if not, why not get a Chinese actor to play a pharaoh?

Instead of the usual non pharaoh looking people that usually plays pharaohs?

Tony EH

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

It really isn’t that big a deal who plays who as long as the best person gets the job , you can lag behind or get with the way things are going

No. Getting with "things the way they are going" is never something I have ever done. And when the going thing is just an effort at cheap publicity, I am even less inclined to get with it.

Look, the expansion of fictional roles that include everyone, regardless of sex and race is a good thing. It's something that most people, the vast majority indeed, will "get with", except for those who just hate the idea of black people, etc being in TV shows no matter what.

But when you set out to make an historical piece, there are certain constraints to observe and one of them SHOULD be an attempt to reproduce that history as best you can. And casting a black woman to play an historically white person just to look good and get the internet in a frenzy is not the way to do it.

As for "best person for the job", I just don't believe that there's any reasonable way that Jodie Turner-Smith (a person that has only very recently turned from being a model to being an actress and who's record has been largely bit parts) was the "best person for the job" out of the presumably large range of actresses that auditioned. I just don't buy that. The possibility of that is very remote indeed.

It just stinks, as Wibbs has said, of stunt casting to generate some cheap controversy and create interest in an upcoming program that, more than likely, wouldn't spike the interests of most TV viewers.

Ash.J.Williams

Tony EH wrote: »

No. Getting with "things the way they are going" is never something I have ever done. And when the going thing is just an effort at cheap publicity, I am even less inclined to get with it.

Look, the expansion of fictional roles that include everyone, regardless of sex and race is a good thing. It's something that most people, the vast majority indeed, will "get with", except for those who just hate the idea of black people, etc being in TV shows no matter what.

But when you set out to make an historical piece, there are certain constraints to observe and one of them SHOULD be an attempt to reproduce that history as best you can. And casting a black woman to play an historically white person just to look good and get the internet in a frenzy is not the way to do it.

As for "best person for the job", I just don't believe that there's any reasonable way that Jodie Turner-Smith (a person that has only very recently turned from being a model to being an actress and who's record has been largely bit parts) was the "best person for the job" out of the presumably large range of actresses that auditioned. I just don't buy that. The possibility of that is very remote indeed.

It just stinks, as Wibbs has said, of stunt casting to generate some cheap controversy and create interest in an upcoming program that, more than likely, wouldn't spike the interests of most TV viewers.

Wasn’t john Wayne chinese at one stage

Tony EH

Invidious wrote: »

I'm not all that sure about that. James Bond is embedded in our imaginations as a white British heterosexual male. Could we put a black lesbian in that role and have it work? It would take some doing.

This is part of the problem with stunt casting though. Why is it that firmly established characters or historical figures need to "targeted" for a colour/sex swap?

Why not simply write a new character. A spy who is a black lesbian in a new film series is perfectly fine, unless of course one hates black people and lesbians.

A black, lesbian, "Bond" would fail miserably, because that character has a look and feel that has been established over the course of decades. Arguably, that character gets rebooted with each movie, apart from the Daniel Craig ones. But it's still grounded in a particular fashion. Doing a colour/sex change on it just won't work.

But there is nothing stopping producers from creating new characters in any mould.

RandRuns

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Wasn’t john Wayne chinese at one stage

Nearly 70 years ago.

biko

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Wasn’t john Wayne chinese at one stage

If he identified as Chinese there is nothing anyone can do to stop him.

Wibbs

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Instead of the usual non pharaoh looking people that usually plays pharaohs?

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. Still someone Asian would look completely "wrong" as an ancient Egyptian and unless they were portraying particular periods like after the Kush takeover a West African would look a bit odd too. As a Pharaoh anyway. The Egyptian royal court was quite "diverse" at times, so you could have Black, Arab, European milling about. Asians no, though they were aware of Asians, as one tomb painting has them represented in the list of non Egyptian feckers we know of. Probably Silk road types. One Asian burial has been even found in Rome. But such examples would be rare, even in a huge empire like Rome.

My take on this such as it is would be that if such casting is setting out to make an actual dramatic and artistic point then game ball. And Whitewashing is bad and stupid and divisive*, but so is Blackwashing for the sake of it. 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.






*John Wayne being Ghengis Khan? oh jayyysus. A Roman soldier at the crucifixion was bad enough. Mickey Rooney as a hideous Asian stereotype. Fcuk me that was risible. Whitewashing of Asian folks was much more in play for longer, right up to today with it.

Ash.J.Williams

Tony EH wrote: »

This is part of the problem with stunt casting though. Why is it that firmly established characters or historical figures need to "targeted" for a colour/sex swap?

Why not simply write a new character. A spy who is a black lesbian in a new film series is perfectly fine, unless of course one hates black people and lesbians.

A black, lesbian, "Bond" would fail miserably, because that character has a look and feel that has been established over the course of decades. Arguably, that character gets rebooted with each movie, apart from the Daniel Craig ones. But it's still grounded in a particular fashion. Doing a colour/sex change on it just won't work.

But there is nothing stopping producers from creating new characters in any mould.

James Bond would be the colour/gender/sexuality that relates to the current audience I would say , which so far has been white but could be due a reboot


It’s about revenue , James Bond will be what the revenue dictates he his

Ash.J.Williams

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. Still someone Asian would look completely "wrong" as an ancient Egyptian and unless they were portraying particular periods like after the Kush takeover a West African would look a bit odd too. As a Pharaoh anyway. The Egyptian royal court was quite "diverse" at times, so you could have Black, Arab, European milling about. Asians no, though they were aware of Asians, as one tomb painting has them represented in the list of non Egyptian feckers we know of. Probably Silk road types. One Asian burial has been even found in Rome. But such examples would be rare, even in a huge empire like Rome.

My take on this such as it is would be that if such casting is setting out to make an actual dramatic and artistic point then game ball. And Whitewashing is bad and stupid and divisive*, but so is Blackwashing for the sake of it. 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.






*John Wayne being Ghengis Khan? oh jayyysus. A Roman soldier at the crucifixion was bad enough. Mickey Rooney as a hideous Asian stereotype. Fcuk me that was risible. Whitewashing of Asian folks was much more in play for longer, right up to today with it.

Ahh soh my name is fu Manchu:)

Tony EH

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Wasn’t john Wayne chinese at one stage

Well, he was a Mongol and a Roman soldier.

And look how well that turned out. :pac:

However, regarding about the cinematic wrongs of yesteryear, the repetition of those wrongs doesn't make things any better. You just end up with two sets of silly looking wrongs.

Thing is there is a much larger pool of actors/actresses to draw from in modern times. There's absolutely no reason to have a white guy play Genghis Kahn or Othello. Casting someone to fit those roles is more than possible.

As is casting a woman to play Anne Boleyn who resembles her historical counterpart.

I mean you can make certain allowances. Janette Goldstein did fine as Vasquez in 'Aliens'. But there's just no way you can look at Jodie Turner-Smith as Anne Boleyn and take it seriously, regardless of how good a shift she puts in.

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

If you’re over 44, I doubt teenagers give a ****

Teenagers are nowhere near as woke as you might think. Alt right attitudes were called that because they were alternative to the old right, and therefore younger. Woke movies tend to bomb.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

Well, he was a Mongol and a Roman soldier.

And look how well that turned out. :pac:

However, regarding about the cinematic wrongs of yesteryear, the repetition of those wrongs doesn't make things any better. You just end up with two sets of silly looking wrongs.

Thing is there is a much larger pool of actors/actresses to draw from in modern times. There's absolutely no reason to have a white guy play Genghis Kahn or Othello. Casting someone to fit those roles is more than possible.

As is casting a woman to play Anne Boleyn who resembles her historical counterpart.

I mean you can make certain allowances. Janette Goldstein did fine as Vasquez in 'Aliens'. But there's just no way you can look at Jodie Turner-Smith as Anne Boleyn and take it seriously, regardless of how good a shift she puts in.

Oh I don’t know. If the reason for this is because they want to give non white actors a chance, I’m fine with it. If it’s ideologically claiming that Boleyn wasn’t white then it’s clearly nonsense.

Tony EH

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

James Bond would be the colour/gender/sexuality that relates to the current audience I would say , which so far has been white but could be due a reboot

It’s about revenue , James Bond will be what the revenue dictates he his

Which the sensible option would be a white British man. Because anything else risks turning off the established Bond audience who expect certain things from a Bond film, as tiresome as that has become.

Ash.J.Williams

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Teenagers are nowhere near as woke as you might think. Alt right attitudes were called that because they were alternative to the old right, and therefore younger. Woke movies tend to bomb.

I’m not at all talking about wokeness, the thread was about pointing out wok ness but moved on to white peoples giving out about black people being on their telly

When I refer to teens I’m referring to how the teens around me tend not to give a sh1t about past prejudice, it simply doesn’t exist like it does for their backward uncles

Ash.J.Williams

Tony EH wrote: »

Which the sensible option would be a white British man. Because anything else risks turning off the established Bond audience who expect certain things from a Bond film, as tiresome as that has become.

The established bond audience is dead

Ash.J.Williams

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh I don’t know. If the reason for this is because they want to give non white actors a chance, I’m fine with it. If it’s ideologically claiming that Boleyn wasn’t white then it’s clearly nonsense.

That’s it in a nutshell

Tony EH

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

The established bond audience is dead

Jesus, the Corona Virus is worse than I thought.

Danzy

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I’m not at all talking about wokeness, the thread was about pointing out wok ness but moved on to white peoples giving out about black people being on their telly

When I refer to teens I’m referring to how the teens around me tend not to give a sh1t about past prejudice, it simply doesn’t exist like it does for their backward uncles

You don't see how you are the backward Uncle type obsessed with the past?

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

It really isn’t that big a deal who plays who as long as the best person gets the job , you can lag behind or get with the way things are going

Except when a white person takes the role traditionally played by a person of colour.

Is that what you mean about "get with the way things are"?

Ash.J.Williams

Danzy wrote: »

You don't see how you are the backward Uncle type obsessed with the past?

I’m as backward uncle as anyone yes , not quite obsessed with the past but I do enjoy the A team reruns and quaaludes

ExMachina1000

Invidious wrote: »

I'm not all that sure about that. James Bond is embedded in our imaginations as a white British heterosexual male. Could we put a black lesbian in that role and have it work? It would take some doing.

You could yeah. But would it be wise for the franchise?
Would a studio back such a risky venture?

Thankfully there is usually some sort of common sense in the background. Usually the people who have the money

Ash.J.Williams

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Except when a white person takes the role traditionally played by a person of colour.

Is that what you mean about "get with the way things are"?

I honestly don’t care who plays who as long as the actor gives it everything

I can see how some people can be offended either way though and in the case of black people it’s because of the well documented issues they’ve had with equality, hopefully that is behind us now and we can move on , however we are in the buffer period now so enjoy seeing people playing people for the next few years until balance is restored

Ash.J.Williams

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

You could yeah. But would it be wise for the franchise?
Would a studio back such a risky venture?

Thankfully there is usually some sort of common sense in the background. Usually the people who have the money

Right now no, but who knows what the future holds

RandRuns

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

The established bond audience is dead

LOL again.

You haven't a clue.

The last 2 bond movies made nearly $2 Billion. With a straight white male actor.

Ash.J.Williams

RandRuns wrote: »

LOL again.

You haven't a clue.

The last 2 bond movies made nearly $2 Billion. With a straight white male actor.

I would say they are more of an action audience than the traditional bond audience though

RandRuns

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I would say they are more of an action audience than the traditional bond audience though

I'd say you won't be getting any offers of a job as a movie producer any time soon.

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I would say they are more of an action audience than the traditional bond audience though

I’ll keep you posted

MisterAnarchy

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9261745/The-cry-laughing-emoji-dead.html

Gen Z ditch the 'crying with laughter' emoji because their parents use it: Youngsters declare the symbol 'dead' and adopt a SKULL instead

It is one of the most popular emojis on the internet, but Gen Z users have declared the 'crying with laughter' face 'dead'.

Instead Gen Z favour the 'skull' or 'coffin' symbol to express their amusement.

It also reflects how younger users want to distance themselves from the 'boring' and literal way millennials communicate online, according to experts.

Gen Z are real badasses

Barna77

I weep for the future

kildare lad

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

It really isn’t that big a deal who plays who as long as the best person gets the job , you can lag behind or get with the way things are going

It is a bit of a big deal because if it's a true story or historical film it should be as real to life as possible . Your telling me if jackie chan played Micheal Collins or if Jamie Foxx played William Wallace you don't think that'll look ridiculous ??? The woke community would be up in arms if Mr bean played Malcolm X. It's no wonder that all the woke films that gave been released recently have flopped .

Quantum Erasure

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9261745/The-cry-laughing-emoji-dead.html



Gen Z are real badasses

Literally dead

Ash.J.Williams

Al Lorenzo wrote: »

Whereas you're the creepy uncle who wants to show his niece and her friends how progressive he is

Welcome to boards and what a weird debut you made

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

When I refer to teens I’m referring to how the teens around me tend not to give a sh1t about past prejudice, it simply doesn’t exist like it does for their backward uncles

And that’s what I am doubting. It isn’t generation X that is the most right wing generation. In fact that’s the generation that brought in most liberalism. The first to oppose the Catholic Church.

Young people are polarised. Across Europe it’s right wing groups that dominate. In France for instance the presidential elections are always centre right and far right in the run offs.

Of course plenty are woke too.

Ash.J.Williams

kildare lad wrote: »

It is a bit of a big deal because if it's a true story or historical film it should be as real to life as possible . Your telling me if jackie chan played Micheal Collins or if Jamie Foxx played William Wallace you don't think that'll look ridiculous ??? The woke community would be up in arms if Mr bean played Malcolm X. It's no wonder that all the woke films that gave been released recently have flopped .

I don’t think Jackie chan could do Michael Collins justice , Jamie fox could though

ExMachina1000

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Right now no, but who knows what the future holds

I'd say we are approaching peak wokeism. It will start to die away in the next 5 years.

COVID

kildare lad wrote: »

It is a bit of a big deal because if it's a true story or historical film it should be as real to life as possible . Your telling me if jackie chan played Micheal Collins or if Jamie Foxx played William Wallace you don't think that'll look ridiculous ??? The woke community would be up in arms if Mr bean played Malcolm X. It's no wonder that all the woke films that gave been released recently have flopped .

Not great casting, as Malcolm X had a lot to say, and Mr Bean doesn't speak.

kildare lad

COVID wrote: »

Not great casting, as Malcolm X had a lot to say, and Mr Bean doesn't speak.

Good point , how about Bill Burr ??

Ash.J.Williams

kildare lad wrote: »

Good point , how about Bill Burr ??

I’d pay to see that no bother

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?