deebee said:

johnart said:

Aren't these movies supposed to be like groundbreaking in makeup and movie effects??

This is hobbits we're trynna cast right? Not Gabourey Sidibe in the title role of The Diary of Anne Frank.

[Edited 12/1/10 12:33pm]

I'd pay good money to see that adaptation.

They'd have to give her the Oscar then.

Middle Earth=Middle Ages of Europe, King Arthur and all that. There should be no black folk in these flicks.

As a black man, I would be offended if they went against the grain and cast say Pippin as a brother. Its unnecesary...we are all intelligent enough to understand why.

Lucas went thru this same crap with Star Wars, leading him to cast Billy Dee in Empire and Jedi.

On a side note, Lucas originally planned to cast the roles of Luke, Han, and Leia as Japanese (another ode to the Kurasawa films that inspired him).

There is a "browner of skin" race in the book called the Harfoots.

StonedImmaculate said:

Middle Earth=Middle Ages of Europe, King Arthur and all that. There should be no black folk in these flicks.

As a black man, I would be offended if they went against the grain and cast say Pippin as a brother. Its unnecesary...we are all intelligent enough to understand why.

Lucas went thru this same crap with Star Wars, leading him to cast Billy Dee in Empire and Jedi.

In a bit of irony, Lucas has been dating a sista, Mellody Hobson, for the

past several years.

^Wonder what she thought of Jar Jar?

lazycrockett said:

^Wonder what she thought of Jar Jar?

I really wanted to see if the comotion over Jar Jar was justified or a lot of hype but I slept through that entire movie. Haven't even felt like watching any of them (other than the 3 from my childhood) since.

DrRockdapuss said:

lust said:

Billy D Williams

Sam Jackson

Temuera Morrison all had main rolls in the Star Wars movies

Billy and Sam were not Empire.

And Temuera got painted green.

What do you mean Bill and Sam were not Empire? As in The Empire in the Star Wars series? If that's what you mean then your complaint is that Black actors were cast as goodies and not baddies? And if the were Empire and no Jedi's or whatever then the agrument would be that Black actors are only cast as villains. I apologise if I misundertood you, because your point is lost on me.

johnart said:

deebee said:

I'd pay good money to see that adaptation.

They'd have to give her the Oscar then.

Why's that?

lust said:

johnart said:

They'd have to give her the Oscar then.

Why's that?

This seriously needs an answer?

So, I ask again: What are legitimate claims of exclusion of blacks from casting for major motion pictures?

Is it (always) an overblown case of blacks and other minorities whining for The Man to include them?

Is it ever a valid claim that homogenous casting -- which predominates much of major Hollywood releasesyear after year -- is flawed casting?

Or is including nonwhite characters or changing white characters to nonwhite during production -- sometimes for the sake of having them -- progress?

(The staggering lack of studio support for most black-written vehicles is why I ask?)

johnart said:

lust said:

Why's that?

This seriously needs an answer?

It wasn't a rhetorical question.

What did you mean?

ThreadBare said:

So, I ask again: What are legitimate claims of exclusion of blacks from casting for major motion pictures?

Is it (always) an overblown case of blacks and other minorities whining for The Man to include them?

Is it ever a valid claim that homogenous casting -- which predominates much of major Hollywood releasesyear after year -- is flawed casting?

Or is including nonwhite characters or changing white characters to nonwhite during production -- sometimes for the sake of having them -- progress?

(The staggering lack of studio support for most black-written vehicles is why I ask?)

I have no argument against most your claims here as they're correct and true. It is a problem and it's been a problem for a very long time. But that doesn't mean that every film should be changed to include black, hispanic, asian, etc actors, either. If they fit the role any actor or actress should be given a fair chance play it, and they often aren't. I don't believe it's progress to force the changes, though. Particularly in the case of something like the movie(s) that started this thread. I would feel exactly the same way if Tolkien had written books full of black races that were re-written or cast as white.

However, a sad reality is that it's a bigger issue than casting. As you mentioned, it starts with the writing and is followed by the producers (the money) making clear what type of actors they want in their movies in order to make the most on their investment. Money is what it always comes down to. If the paying audience started only attended movies with actors and actress of color then producers would make more of those movies. But that's not the case. Producers only have to look at attendance and box office numbers to know where their meal ticket it. It's not a notion that I support, but it is how the machine works right now.

lazycrockett said:

^Wonder what she thought of Jar Jar?

Who the hell would relate any minority to Jar Jar?

paintedlady said:

lazycrockett said:

^Wonder what she thought of Jar Jar?

Who the hell would relate any minority to Jar Jar?

Ummm... wasn't that a huge issue when the first movie was released? I think it was.

Cerebus said:

paintedlady said:

Who the hell would relate any minority to Jar Jar?

Ummm... wasn't that a huge issue when the first movie was released? I think it was.

No black people I knew complained. Black people did not see Jar Jar and think "Yeah, I can relate to ol' Jar Jar" .

I think white folks that are overly PC made the fuss, but all that was over nothing since black folks I knew didn't think Jar Jar was blackish at all. I myself never thought of it until some bogus news story surfaced. I just laughed that one off.

The complaint about Jar Jar and the Gungans...I see where people were coming from, but dont understand why they were upset.

Lucas hasnt said so, but they were caricatures of Rastafarians in the eyes of many.

Their broken english was dead on the Honourable Robert Nesta, the other Gungans referred to Jar Jar as "Jah Jah", and their long ears had the appearance of dreadlocks tied into ponytails.

I for one thought it was awesome...not Jar Jar's annoying character, but the inclusion of them as the unlikely heroes of the Phantom Menace.

By the way...my sons and I recently spent a weekend watching the extended editions of LotR, which in turn led me to re-read the books for the umpteenth time.

Im just starting the Two Towers and there is a scene where the Orcs and Uruk-Hai refer to the horselords of Rohan as "the Whiteskins".

Hmmm...

StonedImmaculate said:

The complaint about Jar Jar and the Gungans...I see where people were coming from, but dont understand why they were upset.

Lucas hasnt said so, but they were caricatures of Rastafarians in the eyes of many.

Their broken english was dead on the Honourable Robert Nesta, the other Gungans referred to Jar Jar as "Jah Jah", and their long ears had the appearance of dreadlocks tied into ponytails.

I for one thought it was awesome...not Jar Jar's annoying character, but the inclusion of them as the unlikely heroes of the Phantom Menace.

Ah, I see.... because African Americans I know didn't feel that way. Interesting, and I like that they were heroes too.

paintedlady said:

Cerebus said:

Ummm... wasn't that a huge issue when the first movie was released? I think it was.

No black people I knew complained. Black people did not see Jar Jar and think "Yeah, I can relate to ol' Jar Jar" .

I think white folks that are overly PC made the fuss, but all that was over nothing since black folks I knew didn't think Jar Jar was blackish at all. I myself never thought of it until some bogus news story surfaced. I just laughed that one off.

Well, I'm hesitant to "go there" with this. I'm certainly not trying to start any kind of angry debate. But I remember it being quite a big deal ESPECIALLY amongst many of my friends. I found this with very little effort, it's from 1999. Thankfully it covers many sides of the discussion.

http://jarjarbinks.home.insightbb.com/jar_jar.html

June 9, 1999
Web posted at: 1:45 p.m. EDT (1745 GMT)

From Michael Okwu
CNN Entertainment News Correspondent

NEW YORK (CNN) -- He's a wide-eyed, floppy-eared amphibian with a speech impediment. Jar Jar Binks, a member of the Gungan tribe from the planet Naboo, is the first breakout character from "The Phantom Menace." He's even made the cover of Rolling Stone magazine.

Some moviegoers say they think he's hysterical.

"I thought it was funny," says one man. "You know, a comedic aspect of the movie."

Another movie-goer agrees. "I mean, like the way he moved was really funny."

Others -- well, lots of people find him annoying.

"You know, he kind of got on my nerves, and you couldn't understand what he was saying," one person complains. "You missed whatever comedy points they were trying to make with him."

"His voice was annoying," adds another.

That appears to be an understatement. Internet sites have been set up just to complain about him. There's even a song calling for his demise with the lyrics: "Jar Jar Binks must die. Jar Jar Binks must die."

'A combination pimp and Barney'

Besides being annoying, other aspects of Jar Jar's character proved particularly bothersome for some people.

"There was something about his demeanor that suggested blackness and that suggested, more specifically, stereotypical blackness," says Michael Dyson, professor of African-American studies at Columbia University.

The notion that Jar Jar Binks is an offensive stereotype has spread quickly on the Internet. Deja.com has seen over 80,000 messages posted about Jar Jar, some from outraged viewers deriding him as a "classic coon stereotype," "a combination pimp and Barney" or "the star of 'Sambo Wars.'"

The issue has even been raised in newspaper reviews. From The Globe And Mail: "Jar Jar has a loose-jointed amble of a black drag queen." The Wall Street Journal called the character, "a Rastafarian Stepin Fetchit." (Fetchit was the actor who critics say personified negative black stereotypes in the 1920s and '30s.)

The stereotype was obvious to Dyson.

"I think that I immediately knew that there were some stereotypical elements to this character that suggested black culture -- the way he spoke, the way he walked," Dyson recalls. "Even when he said 'meesa'... taken very quickly, it could be like "massa, massa."

Not a case of racism, actor says

Lucasfilm issued a statement saying, "There is nothing in 'Star Wars' that is racially motivated. 'Star Wars' is a fantasy movie set in a galaxy far, far away. To dissect this movie as if it has some direct reference to the world we know today is absurd."

And actor Ahmed Best, who was the voice for Jar Jar, vehemently denies racist claims against the character.

"Not only do I think that has no validity, I think it's really stupid for anyone to put their own prejudices and their own homophobia on a complete fantasy movie," Best says.

The feeling persists among other observers -- and not just concerning Jar Jar. Some find the Gungan oddly suggestive of a primitive African tribe.

"The leader of Jar Jar's tribe is a fat, bumbling buffoon with a rumbling voice, and he seems to be a caricature of a stereotypical African tribal chieftain," Dyson says.

Other ethnicities take offense

There are more claims that it isn't just black culture Lucas is offending with his characters. In a recent article for the online magazine "Slate," Bruce Gottlieb discussed Watto, the hooked-nosed, winged creature who owns the young slave, Anakin Skywalker.

"Even in a galaxy far, far away," he writes, "the Jews are apparently behind the slave trade."

The article even provides a link to what they call Watto's Yiddish accent.

The Anti-Defamation League, however, disagrees. It issued a statement saying it doesn't find the Watto character anti-Semitic.

Yet there's more. Steve Murray, a film reviewer for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, writes: "It's questionable that Lucas has two of the shadier alien species sounding Chinese and Middle Eastern."

"(Jar Jar) seems to owe something to Disney characters. If you go back and look at cartoons from the '30s and the '40s and the '50s, they're full of racism. And it's deliberate. And Dumbo, the black crows, were meant to remind you of black people," Dyson says.

"Maybe this time around in reaching back to borrow from old movies, maybe Lucas or his people had trouble separating stereotypes from the sort of things that would help strengthen the movie."

Some people may look for trouble

Larry Elders, a conservative talk show host in Los Angeles, tackled the issue on his show.

"First of all, I haven't seen the film," Elder confesses. "However we did an entire show on it, and people liked it, didn't like it, thought it was good, thought it was bad. But nobody even suggested that the movie had racist characters in it... In short: get a life."

The people who find offense in the characters are nuts, according to Elder.

"These are people are, what I call 'victocrats,' people who go through life looking for slights... people who go through life with race-tinted glasses, looking for some sort of offensive statement, offensive image, offensive gesture. When in fact, maybe it's just a character," he says.

Just a cartoon?

Dyson warns there's a danger in saying "it's just a cartoon."

"It's a cultural phenomenon. So, saying it's a cartoon doesn't dismiss it, doesn't denigrate it, it even makes it more powerful. Because why? Now it's getting into the unconscious or the subconscious and the minds of our children."

Kirk Honeycutt, a film critic for The Hollywood Reporter, disagrees.

"I think that at a certain point in time, you have to put your tongue in your cheek a little bit when you're talking about this, because it's a little bit like worrying about violence in a 'Roadrunner' cartoon," he says.

Many fans support Honeycutt's argument.

"I think they're reading, too, much into it, you know, because I think characters are characters," one man says.

"It's all about me, me, me. I'm the critic. I want all the controversy," says another.

Dyson emphasizes he's not suggesting that George Lucas is a racist.

"What I am suggesting," he says, "is that George Lucas has tapped into unconsciously some racist and stereotypical conceptions of blackness that need to be identified. Hold on a minute, we find this problematic."

Again, George Lucas has responded only in a short press release insisting his film contains no racial slights. "Jar Jar," he says, "is just part of the imaginative fantasy that is 'Star Wars.'"

Cerebus said:

paintedlady said:

No black people I knew complained. Black people did not see Jar Jar and think "Yeah, I can relate to ol' Jar Jar" .

I think white folks that are overly PC made the fuss, but all that was over nothing since black folks I knew didn't think Jar Jar was blackish at all. I myself never thought of it until some bogus news story surfaced. I just laughed that one off.

Well, I'm hesitant to "go there" with this. I'm certainly not trying to start any kind of angry debate. But I remember it being quite a big deal ESPECIALLY amongst many of my friends. I found this with very little effort, it's from 1999. Thankfully it covers many sides of the discussion.

http://jarjarbinks.home.insightbb.com/jar_jar.html

June 9, 1999
Web posted at: 1:45 p.m. EDT (1745 GMT)

From Michael Okwu
CNN Entertainment News Correspondent

NEW YORK (CNN) -- He's a wide-eyed, floppy-eared amphibian with a speech impediment. Jar Jar Binks, a member of the Gungan tribe from the planet Naboo, is the first breakout character from "The Phantom Menace." He's even made the cover of Rolling Stone magazine.

Some moviegoers say they think he's hysterical.

"I thought it was funny," says one man. "You know, a comedic aspect of the movie."

Another movie-goer agrees. "I mean, like the way he moved was really funny."

Others -- well, lots of people find him annoying.

"You know, he kind of got on my nerves, and you couldn't understand what he was saying," one person complains. "You missed whatever comedy points they were trying to make with him."

"His voice was annoying," adds another.

That appears to be an understatement. Internet sites have been set up just to complain about him. There's even a song calling for his demise with the lyrics: "Jar Jar Binks must die. Jar Jar Binks must die."

'A combination pimp and Barney'

Besides being annoying, other aspects of Jar Jar's character proved particularly bothersome for some people.

"There was something about his demeanor that suggested blackness and that suggested, more specifically, stereotypical blackness," says Michael Dyson, professor of African-American studies at Columbia University.

The notion that Jar Jar Binks is an offensive stereotype has spread quickly on the Internet. Deja.com has seen over 80,000 messages posted about Jar Jar, some from outraged viewers deriding him as a "classic coon stereotype," "a combination pimp and Barney" or "the star of 'Sambo Wars.'"

The issue has even been raised in newspaper reviews. From The Globe And Mail: "Jar Jar has a loose-jointed amble of a black drag queen." The Wall Street Journal called the character, "a Rastafarian Stepin Fetchit." (Fetchit was the actor who critics say personified negative black stereotypes in the 1920s and '30s.)

The stereotype was obvious to Dyson.

"I think that I immediately knew that there were some stereotypical elements to this character that suggested black culture -- the way he spoke, the way he walked," Dyson recalls. "Even when he said 'meesa'... taken very quickly, it could be like "massa, massa."

Not a case of racism, actor says

Lucasfilm issued a statement saying, "There is nothing in 'Star Wars' that is racially motivated. 'Star Wars' is a fantasy movie set in a galaxy far, far away. To dissect this movie as if it has some direct reference to the world we know today is absurd."

And actor Ahmed Best, who was the voice for Jar Jar, vehemently denies racist claims against the character.

"Not only do I think that has no validity, I think it's really stupid for anyone to put their own prejudices and their own homophobia on a complete fantasy movie," Best says.

The feeling persists among other observers -- and not just concerning Jar Jar. Some find the Gungan oddly suggestive of a primitive African tribe.

"The leader of Jar Jar's tribe is a fat, bumbling buffoon with a rumbling voice, and he seems to be a caricature of a stereotypical African tribal chieftain," Dyson says.

Other ethnicities take offense

There are more claims that it isn't just black culture Lucas is offending with his characters. In a recent article for the online magazine "Slate," Bruce Gottlieb discussed Watto, the hooked-nosed, winged creature who owns the young slave, Anakin Skywalker.

"Even in a galaxy far, far away," he writes, "the Jews are apparently behind the slave trade."

The article even provides a link to what they call Watto's Yiddish accent.

The Anti-Defamation League, however, disagrees. It issued a statement saying it doesn't find the Watto character anti-Semitic.

Yet there's more. Steve Murray, a film reviewer for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, writes: "It's questionable that Lucas has two of the shadier alien species sounding Chinese and Middle Eastern."

"(Jar Jar) seems to owe something to Disney characters. If you go back and look at cartoons from the '30s and the '40s and the '50s, they're full of racism. And it's deliberate. And Dumbo, the black crows, were meant to remind you of black people," Dyson says.

"Maybe this time around in reaching back to borrow from old movies, maybe Lucas or his people had trouble separating stereotypes from the sort of things that would help strengthen the movie."

Some people may look for trouble

Larry Elders, a conservative talk show host in Los Angeles, tackled the issue on his show.

"First of all, I haven't seen the film," Elder confesses. "However we did an entire show on it, and people liked it, didn't like it, thought it was good, thought it was bad. But nobody even suggested that the movie had racist characters in it... In short: get a life."

The people who find offense in the characters are nuts, according to Elder.

"These are people are, what I call 'victocrats,' people who go through life looking for slights... people who go through life with race-tinted glasses, looking for some sort of offensive statement, offensive image, offensive gesture. When in fact, maybe it's just a character," he says.

Just a cartoon?

Dyson warns there's a danger in saying "it's just a cartoon."

"It's a cultural phenomenon. So, saying it's a cartoon doesn't dismiss it, doesn't denigrate it, it even makes it more powerful. Because why? Now it's getting into the unconscious or the subconscious and the minds of our children."

Kirk Honeycutt, a film critic for The Hollywood Reporter, disagrees.

"I think that at a certain point in time, you have to put your tongue in your cheek a little bit when you're talking about this, because it's a little bit like worrying about violence in a 'Roadrunner' cartoon," he says.

Many fans support Honeycutt's argument.

"I think they're reading, too, much into it, you know, because I think characters are characters," one man says.

"It's all about me, me, me. I'm the critic. I want all the controversy," says another.

Dyson emphasizes he's not suggesting that George Lucas is a racist.

"What I am suggesting," he says, "is that George Lucas has tapped into unconsciously some racist and stereotypical conceptions of blackness that need to be identified. Hold on a minute, we find this problematic."

Again, George Lucas has responded only in a short press release insisting his film contains no racial slights. "Jar Jar," he says, "is just part of the imaginative fantasy that is 'Star Wars.'"

I believe I saw this, but on my side on the world... no one I knew saw it that way. I just thought Mr. Lucas modeled Jar Jar after someone clumsy/goofy more so than black or any specific race.

Heck... I had more issues with Ernie on Sesame Street. (a lack of black muppets on SS that is)

Cerebus said:

Money is what it always comes down to. If the paying audience started only attended movies with actors and actress of color then producers would make more of those movies. But that's not the case. Producers only have to look at attendance and box office numbers to know where their meal ticket it. It's not a notion that I support, but it is how the machine works right now.

But the thing is this: Census figures are quite clear that America is not going to remain predominantly white for much longer. For the same reason that media companies have been stressing the importance of diverse staffing and sourcing for decades now, you would think entertainment companies would do more to green-light and fund diverse projects -- if only for the reason of cultivating diverse markets, building brand loyalty among them and boosting the bottom line over an extended period of time. That's just good business.

And, I'm not even talking about putting out films that are only about blacks, Latinos, Asians or Natives. I'm talking inclusion. But instead, in the "era of Obama," we see a studio dropping black actors from their overseas promotion of movies. vvv

"It's how the machine works right now" is hardly consolation. It sounds a lot like "wait your turn" (I'm not saying that's your point. I'm just explaining why that's hardly consolation).

So, we engage in discussions on the Org where blacks'/minorities' complaints about casting for a fantasy picture are dismissed as silly and overblown (and maybe for a hobbit movie, they are). But we never deal with the actual issue. Blacks, in particular, generate tons of influence socially. I still hear white people in the workplace use phrases like, "don't go there," "you go, girl," "sha nae nae," "you da man," "what up, dog" -- you name it. They don't even realize how antiquated those catchphrases are. They don't care. It's all about adopting something that originated from a black comedic context, initially with a nod to that context but over time making it their own.

But when it comes time for blacks to be accepted as equals -- dramatically, romantically, outside of some "Precious," "Boyz in Da Hood," "For Colored Girls" dysfunction, people get a bit uncomfortable. All of a sudden, blacks are asking for too much. And we certainly don't need European markets to think a black couple's equal to a white couple. And, we don't need to include black characters in the Hobbit. Messes up Tolkien's vision.

I've never seen Paris Hilton so serious as the time it was rumored that she'd gotten down with Cee-Lo. She's been strung out, naked as a jaybird, looking flat-out homeless, locked up in jail -- but she killed the interracial sex rumor quickly.

The Obamas have been in the White House nearly two full years, and Saturday Night Live still can't find a brown-skinned comedienne to cast to play Michelle Obama and other mid- to dark-skinned black female celebrities. They don't even get the insult to black women to continually have Keenan Thompson play women all the time. But they have an endless string of white actresses joining the cast, season after season. Priorities.

Hollywood's issue reflects an underlying issue in America that still believes blacks are inferior to whites. And the darker a person is by Hollywood -- and often America's -- standards, the less desirable and less equal they are to the white standard.

Until we get past that nonsense and accept everyone as equals, I say minorities should keep on inconveniencing folks with calls for inclusion. Until, at least, the machine changes.

lust said:

johnart said:

This seriously needs an answer?

It wasn't a rhetorical question.

What did you mean?

Fair.

It was just a facetious post...but actually, if any "large-framed" actor of color managed to convincingly play Anne Frank in a movie the Academy should not only just lay the Oscar down upon their feet but also kiss their ass for the next half-century or so.

Great post ThreadBare - thanks for taking the time. I want to continue the conversation but I need to let some of it soak in and sort out my thoughts before I reply. I will come back to this tomorrow.

Edit: I swear there is an org gremlin that comes around after you've posted and changes the spelling of small words in your posts. I'm going to catch that bastard someday.

[Edited 12/1/10 22:15pm]

ThreadBare said:

Cerebus said:

Money is what it always comes down to. If the paying audience started only attended movies with actors and actress of color then producers would make more of those movies. But that's not the case. Producers only have to look at attendance and box office numbers to know where their meal ticket it. It's not a notion that I support, but it is how the machine works right now.

But the thing is this: Census figures are quite clear that America is not going to remain predominantly white for much longer. For the same reason that media companies have been stressing the importance of diverse staffing and sourcing for decades now, you would think entertainment companies would do more to green-light and fund diverse projects -- if only for the reason of cultivating diverse markets, building brand loyalty among them and boosting the bottom line over an extended period of time. That's just good business.

And, I'm not even talking about putting out films that are only about blacks, Latinos, Asians or Natives. I'm talking inclusion. But instead, in the "era of Obama," we see a studio dropping black actors from their overseas promotion of movies. vvv

"It's how the machine works right now" is hardly consolation. It sounds a lot like "wait your turn" (I'm not saying that's your point. I'm just explaining why that's hardly consolation).

So, we engage in discussions on the Org where blacks'/minorities' complaints about casting for a fantasy picture are dismissed as silly and overblown (and maybe for a hobbit movie, they are). But we never deal with the actual issue. Blacks, in particular, generate tons of influence socially. I still hear white people in the workplace use phrases like, "don't go there," "you go, girl," "sha nae nae," "you da man," "what up, dog" -- you name it. They don't even realize how antiquated those catchphrases are. They don't care. It's all about adopting something that originated from a black comedic context, initially with a nod to that context but over time making it their own.

But when it comes time for blacks to be accepted as equals -- dramatically, romantically, outside of some "Precious," "Boyz in Da Hood," "For Colored Girls" dysfunction, people get a bit uncomfortable. All of a sudden, blacks are asking for too much. And we certainly don't need European markets to think a black couple's equal to a white couple. And, we don't need to include black characters in the Hobbit. Messes up Tolkien's vision.

I've never seen Paris Hilton so serious as the time it was rumored that she'd gotten down with Cee-Lo. She's been strung out, naked as a jaybird, looking flat-out homeless, locked up in jail -- but she killed the interracial sex rumor quickly.

The Obamas have been in the White House nearly two full years, and Saturday Night Live still can't find a brown-skinned comedienne to cast to play Michelle Obama and other mid- to dark-skinned black female celebrities. They don't even get the insult to black women to continually have Keenan Thompson play women all the time. But they have an endless string of white actresses joining the cast, season after season. Priorities.

Hollywood's issue reflects an underlying issue in America that still believes blacks are inferior to whites. And the darker a person is by Hollywood -- and often America's -- standards, the less desirable and less equal they are to the white standard.

Until we get past that nonsense and accept everyone as equals, I say minorities should keep on inconveniencing folks with calls for inclusion. Until, at least, the machine changes.

Nice. What an awesome post.

I'm shocked at the couples retreat

johnart said:

ThreadBare said:

But the thing is this: Census figures are quite clear that America is not going to remain predominantly white for much longer. For the same reason that media companies have been stressing the importance of diverse staffing and sourcing for decades now, you would think entertainment companies would do more to green-light and fund diverse projects -- if only for the reason of cultivating diverse markets, building brand loyalty among them and boosting the bottom line over an extended period of time. That's just good business.

And, I'm not even talking about putting out films that are only about blacks, Latinos, Asians or Natives. I'm talking inclusion. But instead, in the "era of Obama," we see a studio dropping black actors from their overseas promotion of movies. vvv

"It's how the machine works right now" is hardly consolation. It sounds a lot like "wait your turn" (I'm not saying that's your point. I'm just explaining why that's hardly consolation).

So, we engage in discussions on the Org where blacks'/minorities' complaints about casting for a fantasy picture are dismissed as silly and overblown (and maybe for a hobbit movie, they are). But we never deal with the actual issue. Blacks, in particular, generate tons of influence socially. I still hear white people in the workplace use phrases like, "don't go there," "you go, girl," "sha nae nae," "you da man," "what up, dog" -- you name it. They don't even realize how antiquated those catchphrases are. They don't care. It's all about adopting something that originated from a black comedic context, initially with a nod to that context but over time making it their own.

But when it comes time for blacks to be accepted as equals -- dramatically, romantically, outside of some "Precious," "Boyz in Da Hood," "For Colored Girls" dysfunction, people get a bit uncomfortable. All of a sudden, blacks are asking for too much. And we certainly don't need European markets to think a black couple's equal to a white couple. And, we don't need to include black characters in the Hobbit. Messes up Tolkien's vision.

I've never seen Paris Hilton so serious as the time it was rumored that she'd gotten down with Cee-Lo. She's been strung out, naked as a jaybird, looking flat-out homeless, locked up in jail -- but she killed the interracial sex rumor quickly.

The Obamas have been in the White House nearly two full years, and Saturday Night Live still can't find a brown-skinned comedienne to cast to play Michelle Obama and other mid- to dark-skinned black female celebrities. They don't even get the insult to black women to continually have Keenan Thompson play women all the time. But they have an endless string of white actresses joining the cast, season after season. Priorities.

Hollywood's issue reflects an underlying issue in America that still believes blacks are inferior to whites. And the darker a person is by Hollywood -- and often America's -- standards, the less desirable and less equal they are to the white standard.

Until we get past that nonsense and accept everyone as equals, I say minorities should keep on inconveniencing folks with calls for inclusion. Until, at least, the machine changes.

Nice. What an awesome post.

Very good post.

ZombieKitten said:

I'm shocked at the couple's retreat

ThreadBare said:

So, I ask again: What are legitimate claims of exclusion of blacks from casting for major motion pictures?

Is it (always) an overblown case of blacks and other minorities whining for The Man to include them?

Is it ever a valid claim that homogenous casting -- which predominates much of major Hollywood releasesyear after year -- is flawed casting?

Or is including nonwhite characters or changing white characters to nonwhite during production -- sometimes for the sake of having them -- progress?

(The staggering lack of studio support for most black-written vehicles is why I ask?)

Writers are afraid to write minority characters for fear of offending. If they just write them as they would white characters, or any arbitrary characters, then there will be complaints that the characters have been whitewashed, removed of racial identity. If they write the characters with their culture and race in mind, then there will be complaints of stereotyping.

PANDURITO said:

ZombieKitten said:

I'm shocked at the couple's retreat

ZombieKitten said:

PANDURITO said:

Retreat