Movies should be casting more black/asian/native american/gay/trans actors. It’s in the media constantly these days and I’m not sure I understand why, other than “because we said so.”
It’s a business just like any other business, and if they knew of a way to make money off of it then they would. I think it’s conceptually awesome to feature smaller authentic stories, etc but if it’s not profitable to do so then why would they be expected to do it?
Trump is a true outsider, and threatens the globalists who want America to stick with its Uniparty, masquerading as “Republicans” and “Democrats”, which has long been a faux-dichotomy. If they rally enough of the sheeple behind minority advocacy, and movies are a big part of this effort, they can channel that momentum into blind declarations of F- Trump (or F- whoever is an outsider), by simply claiming, without proof, that he or she threatens all of these minority groups, and lambaste the outsider and any supporter of the outsider as misogynist, homophobic, racist, or whatever adjective.
No, the entertainment industry is the most amoral industry in the country.
The entertainment producers have the primary duty of increasing value to their stockholders/backers. If the consumers want greater diversity in casting, their most effective tool is where they spend their money. If media reporters and commentators want to give their opinion on how things should be, bully for them and their audience. As long as the government doesn’t get involved, I’m good.
No.
Hollywood is clueless to the culture and beliefs of the country. They certainly don’t reflect the reality of the nation, so they have no authority to tell everyone how things ought to be.
I wonder how many people base their movie-going choices on the ethnic/racial/sex/sexual identity/religion/politics/whatever of the performers or the stories. If those were big enough factors, the industry would accommodate them. But as **amaguri **said, it’s a business, and I expect most decisions are based on the bottom line. If it happens to dovetail with a worthy cause, so be it, but I can’t imagine it’s a driving force.
No, it totally is wealthy elites spending their money to try to herd the sheeple as I mentioned in my first reply. Take the related industry of mainstream news media. Even snopes admits (but they do try to spin it away) that the Trump bashers are taking more of a hit in viewership than the most Trump friendly mainstream news outlet, Fox:
They are going outside their usual business model by essentially “spending money” (taking a viewership hit) to try to sway voters.
Hollywood has ignored reality for years. Family and Christian films do better than PC offerings, yet Hollywood resists “clean and wholesome” and goes with edgy as much as possible.
“Businesses should only be about profits, and the people owning them and working within them should respect that and never have an agenda” is one way to look at the world, but it’s not the only one.
Just as you “think it’s conceptually awesome to feature smaller authentic stories”, business owners, creators and decision makers in the movie industry have ideas and desires beyond “what’s the most profitable”.
It’s one thing to have your ideas and act on them; it’s another to use your platform to defame anyone who doesn’t hold the same opinion and attempt to punish them.
The Financial Industry would like to thank you for your willful blindness.
They don’t have any legal responsibility, but IMO they have the same responsibility everyone has to try and help make society better, and avoid making society worse. That responsibility ramps up the more influence and power one has, IMO, which means Hollywood has a great deal of this responsibility. There are tons of ways to do this, and tons of ways to fail to do this, and no hard and fast rules. In general, IMO, striving for more positive portrayals of minorities and disadvantaged groups that have been less likely to get these positive portrayals in the fast is a good goal, as is giving jobs to those groups who have historically had less opportunities.
One of the things people are calling for is casting people for an ethnic role who are actually of that ethnicity, or casting a disabled actor for a role as a disabled person. Is asking for that social change?
“Family” and “Christian” films certainly do better with those who consider themselves “Christian Family” people.
But I’m a Christian, I have a family, and I have to say I prefer movies that are good movies, regardless of their supposed status.
Why would you not understand why? It’s because they would like it better that way. Simple.
To the degree that having a “name” actor in a role to sell a picture to theater-goers, yes.
“hey come see this movie about a disabled guy that you never heard of!”
vs
“hey come see this movie about a disabled guy played by Tom Hanks!”
If the goal is to make money, then presumably most movie execs will go with the latter of the two options. Not saying it’s right or wrong.
So you’d be unhappy about putting a black person in a white role? Say a black Romeo and white Juliet or vice versa? Or a non-black in a black role, say a Hispanic Othello with the rest of the cast black Tamils?
The argument is that there are few enough roles written for minority actors, so they should get those roles. Many roles are either explicitly written for white actors, or really aren’t specific in the casting.
The movie industry prduces art. All art is political…even profit-driven stuff. And thus, it is fair game for all kinds of criticism. Including social criticism.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk