Story for Wednesday, September 28, 2016

[Vorlonagent 442]

2 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

But, more specifically, it tends to be that writers and directors assume that producers and financier will assume that the audience is bigoted.

"Bigoted" is at least sometimes an overstatement.  People tend to go to movies where the cast "looks like me".  It's a factor among several.  I don't see it as any more bigoted for whites or straights to go to a film that "looks like them" than it would be for a black or gay to go to a film that "looks like them".  It's the same motivation in both cases so where it is in play I see no reason to call one case "bigotry" and the other not. 

So for the studio, it becomes a math game.  I make a film with a female or ethnic minority lead.  How many will come to see it?  Will the minorites attracted to a "looks like me" protagonist offset the whites which won't be hooked?

[The Old Hack 2,448]

1 hour ago, Vorlonagent said:

"Bigoted" is at least sometimes an overstatement.  People tend to go to movies where the cast "looks like me".  It's a factor among several.

That is not a factor. It is an assumption. There is an important difference. If it were a correct assumption, no women would ever go to movies only featuring men. Blacks, First Nationers, Latinos would scarcely watch movies at all. For that matter, I would not currently sit glued to Netflix's Luke Cage. Moreover, the actual assumption is "if we use women or coloured people or Latinos/whatever then our movies will bomb." I suppose that explains why The Force Awakens so utterly bombed that Disney lost a fortune on it.

No, wait, actually it was a huge box office success. My bad.

[Vorlonagent 442]

52 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

That is not a factor. It is an assumption. There is an important difference. If it were a correct assumption, no women would ever go to movies only featuring men. Blacks, First Nationers, Latinos would scarcely watch movies at all. For that matter, I would not currently sit glued to Netflix's Luke Cage. Moreover, the actual assumption is "if we use women or coloured people or Latinos/whatever then our movies will bomb." I suppose that explains why The Force Awakens so utterly bombed that Disney lost a fortune on it.

No, wait, actually it was a huge box office success. My bad.

I said "tend to", didn't I?  I know I also phrased it as "one factor out of several" since you answered it, moving on to negate something I didn't even say.

I have heard from multiple sources that minorities and women are hungry for protagonists that "look like them" and I am working off that.  If this isn't true, please correct me.  If it is, well then maybe consider the idea that race/gender/etc of the cast really does figure into why all people choose the movies they go see.  In a non-absolute way.  And therefore figures into what movies are made and demographics of the cast.

Please don't call this influence "bigotry" unless it's equally bigotry for all. 

For the record, I don't think "looks like me" is bigotry.  You are welcome to disagree or assert exceptions that make sense to you.

I'm sure genuine bigotry still exists and it does affect how some people choose their entertainment.  That's a whole other thing in my book and a much smaller influence to moviegoing in 2016 than, say, 1956.  By an order of magnitude, at least.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

12 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

I said "tend to", didn't I?  I know I also phrased it as "one factor out of several" since you answered it, moving on to negate something I didn't even say.

I have heard from multiple sources that minorities and women are hungry for protagonists that "look like them" and I am working off that.  If this isn't true, please correct me.  If it is, well then maybe consider the idea that race/gender/etc of the cast really does figure into why all people choose the movies they go see.  In a non-absolute way.  And therefore figures into what movies are made and demographics of the cast.

Please don't call this influence "bigotry" unless it's equally bigotry for all. 

For the record, I don't think "looks like me" is bigotry.  You are welcome to disagree or assert exceptions that make sense to you.

I'm sure genuine bigotry still exists and it does affect how some people choose their entertainment.  That's a whole other thing in my book and a much smaller influence to moviegoing in 2016 than, say, 1956.  By an order of magnitude, at least.

My apologies. I am tired and paid insufficient attention to what you intended to say. I should have addressed that point as an individual issue and simply explained that I take exception to it; I am sorry for my lapse in courtesy.

Genuine bigotry does exist but I do not count "I prefer to watch movies with people like me in it" as such. Before it qualifies, it needs to be vocal and active in pursuing the detriment or destruction of the object of its hate. I would count the vast wave of outrage from MRAs and similar people at the new Ghostbusters movie as misogyny, which is closely related, and the hate and insults aimed at John Boyega as bigotry and racism.

[hkmaly 490]

15 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

23 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Weeeeelll ... there is that kiss ... which had other problems as well ... wait, was that removed? When?

Oh dear. Do you really think a single kiss is any proof of orientation?

Not for real people. But with movie characters, you tend to have very limited data. (Alternatively, you can say that 100% of Luke's kisses was with woman.) Also, I didn't said it was proof: I answered that it might be used as reason for him to not be gay.

10 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

with pretty much every movie having at least one, and many movies having all but one main character fit that category.  You never see an action movie where the main characters are

... who is the straight cis white male in Kill Bill? I mean, Michael Madsen was Native American ... oh, right. David Carradine.

21 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

I have heard from multiple sources that minorities and women are hungry for protagonists that "look like them" and I am working off that.  If this isn't true, please correct me.  If it is, well then maybe consider the idea that race/gender/etc of the cast really does figure into why all people choose the movies they go see.  In a non-absolute way.  And therefore figures into what movies are made and demographics of the cast.

I think it's hard to prove bigotry in any specific case, but the issue is that the relative percentage of X in movies doesn't match the relative percentage of X in reality, for several pretty big groups of X. Obviously, if the ratio of straight cis while males in movies would go below the ratio of them in general populace, then the straight cis white males would protest or stop visiting movies.

5 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

5 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

But, more specifically, it tends to be that writers and directors assume that producers and financier will assume that the audience is bigoted.

*sigh* You may well be right, but for me it is six of one, half a dozen of the other. The racism and bigotry are deeply embedded in the system and will require a great deal of pruning to root them out. A good step is to show that there is indeed money in diversified movies.

Well most producers and financiers are automatically counting the buying power instead of people ...

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

I tend to prefer movies and shows with diverse casts.  I grew up on a university campus with a lot of international students, so I had classmates from India and China and Nigeria; growing up in that town, my childhood was similarly diverse.  I saw a bit of a TV show with a black private investigator and a Latina detective, and was quite enjoying the fact that they each showed their heritage in the way they spoke and acted, instead of just being completely assimilated into white-majority society.  I love accents, and love learning about how different cultures view the world differently.  Differences in how big a personal space is considered polite vs standoffish vs uncomfortably close, shoes on or off in the house, styles of furniture or lack thereof, all the little things that you discover are different.

On the other hand, there is a comedy show on late at night here which has a black host and four guest comics, and while they usually have diverse participants, every once in a while they'll announce the name of the show and append, "Hot Chocolate Edition!" to the name, signaling that they are having an all-black show that night.  The studio audience, when visible, is also all black for such shows.  On those nights, I tend to switch channels, because it seems clear to me that they are specifically *not* targeting me that night, they are deliberately choosing to exclude me and people who look like me, and therefore I will take the hint and go watch something else.

[Vorlonagent 442]

13 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

My apologies. I am tired and paid insufficient attention to what you intended to say. I should have addressed that point as an individual issue and simply explained that I take exception to it; I am sorry for my lapse in courtesy.

Genuine bigotry does exist but I do not count "I prefer to watch movies with people like me in it" as such. Before it qualifies, it needs to be vocal and active in pursuing the detriment or destruction of the object of its hate. I would count the vast wave of outrage from MRAs and similar people at the new Ghostbusters movie as misogyny, which is closely related, and the hate and insults aimed at John Boyega as bigotry and racism.

The full discussion of your examples goes too far into politics. 

Race in the US has gone completely bonkers since the election of Obama.  It's a tangled subject that does not reduce well to simple right/wrong judgements in my view.

Similar Ghostbusters.  The internet is often crass and lowest-denominator.  I have no doubt that the film took a lot of misogynist slurs hurled from behind the shield of anonymity.  But I'd contend that one need not *be* a misogynist to be repelled by the film or even the trailers for it.

I had no idea John Boyega was taking more flak than normal for someone in the public eye for starring in Star Wars.  I know Ep 7 was not received well in some quarters.  It's reboot nature didn't sit well with everybody.  Speaking honestly, I was briefly started when I saw the stormtrooper who wouldn't kill was black (they all sounded like white guys in eps 4 - 6) but Boyega made it easy to roll with.  He pulled off a great performance.  Why's there an especially big target on his back?  Is it just a side effect of dislike of Ep 7?

[Vorlonagent 442]

18 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

I think it's hard to prove bigotry in any specific case, but the issue is that the relative percentage of X in movies doesn't match the relative percentage of X in reality, for several pretty big groups of X. Obviously, if the ratio of straight cis while males in movies would go below the ratio of them in general populace, then the straight cis white males would protest or stop visiting movies.

I find protests hard to envision.  And as TOH has pointed out the actor demographics aren't an absolute indicator of success or failure.

I think it's just a money thing.  White, cis males are a proven market with money to spend which will give a proven return.

This is not to say that the current state of affairs is OK.  Obviously not.  The world of movies is a largely stagnant thing and could use some fresh ideas and shake-ups, including but not limited to departing a largely white, cisgender cast.

[hkmaly 490]

9 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

Speaking honestly, I was briefly started when I saw the stormtrooper who wouldn't kill was black (they all sounded like white guys in eps 4 - 6)

They all WERE a white guys in eps 2 and 3. Or, actually, a single white guy. But there is no reason why that couldn't change - and if you already have (at least) two different stormtroopers, then one (of those two) being black doesn't add any more continuity problems. So, not sure why he should take more flak either.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

9 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

Similar Ghostbusters.  The internet is often crass and lowest-denominator.  I have no doubt that the film took a lot of misogynist slurs hurled from behind the shield of anonymity.  But I'd contend that one need not *be* a misogynist to be repelled by the film or even the trailers for it.

 

I had no idea John Boyega was taking more flak than normal for someone in the public eye for starring in Star Wars.  I know Ep 7 was not received well in some quarters.  It's reboot nature didn't sit well with everybody.  Speaking honestly, I was briefly started when I saw the stormtrooper who wouldn't kill was black (they all sounded like white guys in eps 4 - 6) but Boyega made it easy to roll with.  He pulled off a great performance.  Why's there an especially big target on his back?  Is it just a side effect of dislike of Ep 7?

Of course you don't have to be a misogynist to be repelled by the film or its trailers, but when a group of detractors attack it specifically for its female representation and argues that women can't handle roles like that, it is hard not to consider the attackers misogynistic. *sigh*

John Boyega got hit by some pretty vicious hate mail and attacks. I think it is because he clearly had protagonist/main character status. I did not delve into the precise reasoning behind the attacks as I found them thoroughly repellent and disgusting.

21 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Not for real people. But with movie characters, you tend to have very limited data. (Alternatively, you can say that 100% of Luke's kisses was with woman.) Also, I didn't said it was proof: I answered that it might be used as reason for him to not be gay.

I have to confess, I'd find that reasoning equally puerile and laughable no matter what.

[Vorlonagent 442]

9 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Of course you don't have to be a misogynist to be repelled by the film or its trailers, but when a group of detractors attack it specifically for its female representation and argues that women can't handle roles like that, it is hard not to consider the attackers misogynistic. *sigh*

I'd argue they cast the wrong women to pull off a successful Ghostbusters film or perhaps simply produced the wrong trailers.  There's a fine line between saying that and hearing "women can't do this".  It's easy to mishear even before we get into the people who will throw the slur out there just to stir up trouble. 

This is also before the way the trailers presented themselves.  It was like being poked in the chest by someone getting in my face telling me I had to go see a film I did not want to see in order to prove I was not a misogynist.  I don't like being poked so I said "I'm not your demographic" and let it pass by.

[hkmaly 490]

20 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

46 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Not for real people. But with movie characters, you tend to have very limited data. (Alternatively, you can say that 100% of Luke's kisses was with woman.) Also, I didn't said it was proof: I answered that it might be used as reason for him to not be gay.

I have to confess, I'd find that reasoning equally puerile and laughable no matter what.

Well ... it's true that people who ship Kirk and Spock don't care about how many times Kirk kissed women. I find THAT laughable, but it also proves that such reason wouldn't convince lot of people ...

[The Old Hack 2,448]

47 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Well ... it's true that people who ship Kirk and Spock don't care about how many times Kirk kissed women. I find THAT laughable,

Not to worry. I am sure that the people who write those ships find you laughable, too.

50 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

I'd argue they cast the wrong women to pull off a successful Ghostbusters film or perhaps simply produced the wrong trailers.  There's a fine line between saying that and hearing "women can't do this".  It's easy to mishear even before we get into the people who will throw the slur out there just to stir up trouble. 

This is also before the way the trailers presented themselves.  It was like being poked in the chest by someone getting in my face telling me I had to go see a film I did not want to see in order to prove I was not a misogynist.  I don't like being poked so I said "I'm not your demographic" and let it pass by.

Eh. I may be a liberal but I am not blind to the fact that there's a bunch of idiots out there who WANT to be offended and look for any excuse to be just so they can look down their nose at people. You do not have anything whatsoever to prove, certainly not to me.

As to the misogyny, I am specifically talking about the attacks made because they were women. They might not have come from a very large group of people but they more than made up for it in volume and obnoxiousness. Personally I find my blood pressure rising whenever I come across threats of violence and rape, and both kinds were all too frequent. *sigh*

[hkmaly 490]

10 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

56 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Well ... it's true that people who ship Kirk and Spock don't care about how many times Kirk kissed women. I find THAT laughable,

Not to worry. I am sure that the people who write those ships find you laughable, too.

Don't worry. I'm sure we eventually find some group of people who find you laughable, too

11 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Personally I find my blood pressure rising whenever I come across threats of violence and rape

 ... I was going to say that my blood pressure won't be affected if someone would threat the writers (as opposed to actors), but considering it was written by woman (Katie Dippold) I'm not sure if it's funny enough ...

Anyway, I didn't saw that movie, so I can't really say if the acting and/or writing was as bad as "internet says". But sequels and rewrites often have this problem: on one hand, they are compared with the original, which is unfair if the original is that good as Ghostbusters, on second hand, lot of sequels are extremely bad even by itself (possibly caused by trying to make second movie without having any more good ideas than already shown in original).

[The Old Hack 2,448]

6 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Don't worry. I'm sure we eventually find some group of people who find you laughable, too

I already know of one. Me. I firmly believe that if one cannot laugh at oneself, one is missing out on some of the best humor life has to offer.

[ijuin 572]

The new Ghostbusters may not be "Best Picture Award" material, but I found it to be entertaining to watch.

[Vorlonagent 442]

17 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Not to worry. I am sure that the people who write those ships find you laughable, too.

Eh. I may be a liberal but I am not blind to the fact that there's a bunch of idiots out there who WANT to be offended and look for any excuse to be just so they can look down their nose at people. You do not have anything whatsoever to prove, certainly not to me.

As to the misogyny, I am specifically talking about the attacks made because they were women. They might not have come from a very large group of people but they more than made up for it in volume and obnoxiousness. Personally I find my blood pressure rising whenever I come across threats of violence and rape, and both kinds were all too frequent. *sigh*

I never felt pushed by you to prove myself to you or anybody else. 

That was how I experienced the Ghostbusters trailer.  I was handed characters I found unsympathetic in a bland reboot* and demanded that I go enthusiastically to the theaters.  I think that this aggressive quality contributed to the blowback against the film.

I cannot imagine who could have looked at the trailers for that film and actually thought "This is gonna be awesome!  I can't wait for this to hit the theaters!"  It was as if feminism hasn't "arrived" until a reboot* film built to repel men starring 4 relatively unknown pushy-broad comedians matches the success of the same film starring two original (male) Saturday Night Live cast members, and one of the (male) brains behind the success of SCTV.  It's hard not to think the only reason the project was greenlit was because the (male) movie execs were afraid to cancel it.

*Reboot...a mark of quality!  Filmmaker(s) seem to feel compelled to "reinterpret" the IP being rebooted "for the current audience", which often destroys the advantage of working with a previously proven concept.  I'm sure we all have our own favorite failures (and successes) to mention.  A determined few go further deciding to keep only the necessary set-dressings and make some kind of gimmick film.  These failures include Dark Shadows, Lone Ranger, and now Ghostbusters.  (Edit: How could I have forgotten Land of the Lost?)

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

Wow, you really got different trailers than I did!

[Matoyak 51]

21 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

I never felt pushed by you to prove myself to you or anybody else. 

That was how I experienced the Ghostbusters trailer.  I was handed characters I found unsympathetic in a bland reboot* and demanded that I go enthusiastically to the theaters.  I think that this aggressive quality contributed to the blowback against the film.

I cannot imagine who could have looked at the trailers for that film and actually thought "This is gonna be awesome!  I can't wait for this to hit the theaters!"  It was as if feminism hasn't "arrived" until a reboot* film built to repel men starring 4 relatively unknown pushy-broad comedians matches the success of the same film starring two original (male) Saturday Night Live cast members, and one of the (male) brains behind the success of SCTV.  It's hard not to think the only reason the project was greenlit was because the (male) movie execs were afraid to cancel it.

*Reboot...a mark of quality!  Filmmaker(s) seem to feel compelled to "reinterpret" the IP being rebooted "for the current audience", which often destroys the advantage of working with a previously proven concept.  I'm sure we all have our own favorite failures (and successes) to mention.  A determined few go further deciding to keep only the necessary set-dressings and make some kind of gimmick film.  These failures include Dark Shadows, Lone Ranger, and now Ghostbusters.  (Edit: How could I have forgotten Land of the Lost?)

That's interesting...the only Ghostbusters trailer that I saw had only one trait: It was aggressively unfunny. It no more demanded going to a theater than did any other trailer, enthusiastic or not. I thinks me you read a fair bit of your personal feelings into it.

Glad I went anyways, though, as I thought the movie was a fun one. Not the best thing ever, but it wasn't bad at all. A case where the trailer did significant harm to the movie unnecessarily.

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

3 hours ago, Matoyak said:

That's interesting...the only Ghostbusters trailer that I saw had only one trait: It was aggressively unfunny. It no more demanded going to a theater than did any other trailer, enthusiastic or not. I thinks me you read a fair bit of your personal feelings into it.

Glad I went anyways, though, as I thought the movie was a fun one. Not the best thing ever, but it wasn't bad at all. A case where the trailer did significant harm to the movie unnecessarily.

I saw one trailer that wasn't very funny, and one that was much more intriguing.  I never saw any trailers that said you had to go see this movie in any way that was any different from every other movie trailer.  And, like you, I thought it was a good movie.  Having gone back and watched the original shortly beforehand, I thought if anything it fixed a lot of the flaws in the original.  I wouldn't say it surpassed it, but it did it justice and updated the ideas and circumstances for the modern era.  (It was really weird and jarring to see the "good guys" smoking so much everywhere, for example, and the casual mysogyny was something you couldn't do and wouldn't want to do nowadays).

[Vorlonagent 442]

3 hours ago, Matoyak said:

That's interesting...the only Ghostbusters trailer that I saw had only one trait: It was aggressively unfunny. It no more demanded going to a theater than did any other trailer, enthusiastic or not. I thinks me you read a fair bit of your personal feelings into it.

Glad I went anyways, though, as I thought the movie was a fun one. Not the best thing ever, but it wasn't bad at all. A case where the trailer did significant harm to the movie unnecessarily.

You could be right.  "aggressively unfunny" is the best capsule description of the trailers I have ever read.  I fully intend to steal the phrase in the unlikely event I talk about Ghostbusters anywhere else.  The political nonsense was how I first became aware of the film (news reporting about the internet backlash and sanctimonious HuffPo articles on how men can't handle women in lead roles).  By the time I hit Youtube, any politics that might have gone into the making of the trailers (or perception thereof by me) would stand out.

I still think the internet mirrored, amplified and returned with interest the aggressive aspect of the trailers, opening the way for much more and worse unpleasantness aimed at the movie and cast than would otherwise have occurred.  Possibly a case of Geurilla marketing backfiring.

[ijuin 572]

Gorilla marketing? No wonder they went apeshit over it!