Should the motion picture industry be responsible for shepherding social change?

[naita]

@CelticKnot

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.

You must be psychic! How did you understand that was the secret message underneath what I wrote? (Psych! It actually wasn’t :rolleyes:)

[naita]

@Quartz

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?

While that is a valid criticism of the literal, contextless meaning of “White people shouldn’t take roles that are arguably originally a different ethnicity”, in the real world there is no lack of white representation, while there is of other ethnicities. There’s also a history of every role being played by a white person, sometimes in black/yellowface playing hard on ethnic stereotypes.

At least some casting of non-white actors in roles that for whatever reason could be considered inherently white is a deliberate choice which adds to the message of the play/movie. There are not many such opportunities to do the reverse that wouldn’t just be going back to “how things were”.

But you undoubtedly knew all that and just wanted to play Gotcha, which is understandable, but not particularly helpful to your image.

[Wolf333]

@drewder

No, the entertainment industry is the most amoral industry in the country.

I raise you one tobacco industry.

[What_Exit]

@CelticKnot

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.

Can you back this statement up with some stats? It doesn’t agree with my perception of the movies that make money for the studios.

[Gatopescado]

You mean “Propaganda”?

[Miller]

@amaguri

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?

Not sure how you got from “more diversity” to “smaller films.” Black Panther is commonly held up as an example of Hollywood moving to more diverse casting, and that film made over a billion dollars.

I don’t think that Hollywood is “shepherding social change,” though. I think they’re responding to social change. America is a lot less white than it used to be, and people really like seeing themselves represented in the media they consume. Hollywood is reacting to that demand, and it appears to be getting rewarded pretty handsomely for it, if BP’s box office is anything to go by.

[Jophiel]

@DavidwithanR

“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.

I’m looking forward to Noah, Paul, Samson, Mary Magdalene, Moses and Jesus finally coming together in one massive Biblical Cinematic Universe event.

[MrDibble]

@Quartz

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?

This kind of literalism would mean only people from the Veneto could play Romeo and Juliet, or only a Dane play Hamlet. Because that’s ethnicity.

Also, there are plenty of Black Hispanics, you might want to recalibrate your “non-black” meter, there.

[Voyager]

@Miller

Not sure how you got from “more diversity” to “smaller films.” Black Panther is commonly held up as an example of Hollywood moving to more diverse casting, and that film made over a billion dollars.

Get Out made $255 million on a $4 million budget. I’m also waiting for good white Christian movies that did as well.

[Der_Trihs]

Should the motion picture industry be responsible for shepherding social change?

It should be* everybody’s *job, and they are an “everybody”. So yes, technically speaking.

Not that I expect them to be very good at it, mind.

[Voyager]

@amaguri

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?

Most actors cast in movies are not going to affect the box office one way or another. The goal here is to cast a decent amount of underrepresented actors in roles, instead of going by default to white actors.
Shit, if Roddenberry could do it in 1966 it shouldn’t be that hard now. Not just the bridge crew - if you watch ST you’ll see lots of minority actors in the minor roles also. Not to mention the black Admiral and the black genius computer scientist, both of whom blew the minds of the bigots.

[Voyager]

@naita

While that is a valid criticism of the literal, contextless meaning of “White people shouldn’t take roles that are arguably originally a different ethnicity”, in the real world there is no lack of white representation, while there is of other ethnicities. There’s also a history of every role being played by a white person, sometimes in black/yellowface playing hard on ethnic stereotypes.

Anyone doubting this should watch Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany’s and get back to us. Cringeworthy in the extreme.

[Drunky_Smurf]

@amaguri

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?

My opion, hwh, (I like those word), (so I’m not going to correct them) the world would be better off instead of concerning itself with profit and cared more about people.

Never look back and say, it could have been me.

[Filbert]

@Miller

Not sure how you got from “more diversity” to “smaller films.” Black Panther is commonly held up as an example of Hollywood moving to more diverse casting, and that film made over a billion dollars.

I don’t think that Hollywood is “shepherding social change,” though. I think they’re responding to social change. America is a lot less white than it used to be, and people really like seeing themselves represented in the media they consume. Hollywood is reacting to that demand, and it appears to be getting rewarded pretty handsomely for it, if BP’s box office is anything to go by.

Also the market share of some non-US countries is growing- there are some films on that list Telemark posted that took less than 1/4 of the total domestically.

The US may actually not be the primary market for some Hollywood films, and different target markets mean different casting preferences.

[GuanoLad]

We get affected by pop culture a lot more deeply than perhaps we should, so it works. Responsible for change? No. But contributing will effect change just by osmosis.

More lead roles for women, people of colour, and from a range of genders and sexual orientation and disabilities, and not in roles defined by those aspects, are all that’s needed. It’s easy to cherry-pick and twist the statistics to show that it’s not profitable, but the truth is it has to be a long sustained and ongoing process before real results can be measured, and as that goes on we will become used to it as the new normal, and things should be better for everyone.

[Voyager]

BTW, Hollywood dealing with social change is not new. When 42nd Street was made it was promoed by a train going across the country ending in Washington timed with FDR’s Inauguration. And check out the last number in Gold Diggers of 1933, which was a cry to treat WW I veterans decently. Jack Warner was an FDR fan and the movies showed it.

[Red_Wiggler]

Film making is an art. Artists are going to express themselves in any number of ways, including advocacy for change or maintenance of the status quo, politically, socially or otherwise. I’m pretty ok with that.

[Eyebrows_0f_Doom]

@CelticKnot

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.

What are “PC offerings” and what “Family and Christian films” have done better than them?

The Top 20 films so far in 2018 are:
1 Black Panther
2 Avengers: Infinity War
3 Incredibles 2
4 Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom
5 Deadpool 2
6 Solo: A Star Wars Story
7 A Quiet Place
8 Ready Player One
9 Ocean’s 8
10 Peter Rabbit
11 A Wrinkle in Time
12 Fifty Shades Freed
13 Rampage (2018)
14 Ant-Man and the Wasp
15 I Can Only Imagine
16 Game Night
17 Insidious: The Last Key
18 Book Club
19 Blockers
20 Pacific Rim Uprising
I see one Christian film on that list (“I Can Only Imagine”). I see three “family” films, but those Family films *were *released by major Hollywood studios, so I fail to see how that means Hollywood is “ignoring” family films.

(Note also that the Christian film made $83 million while hard R edgy “Deadpool 2” made $315 million.)

Here’s the list of the top grossing films from 2017. You have to go alllllll the way down to #49 before you hit a Christian film (“The Shack,” and its paltry $57 million haul).

So yep, Christian films sure pull in the big bucks at the box office. It’s definitely in the best financial interests for Hollywood to make more of those! :rolleyes: