Super Social Analysis: Gender, Race, Ethnicity, and LGBT in Movies

[starri]

I wonder if the smashing success of Hidden Figures will open up more opportunities for biopics about women generally.  I think there's probably a great movie in the life of Rear Admiral "Amazing" Grace Hopper.  She was one of the Navy's first computer scientists (not female, computer scientists period), is one of the few women to have a ship named for her, it was recently announced that Yale's racist-ass John C Calhoun College would be renamed Grace Murray Hopper College.  She was kind of awesome.

[DarkRaichu]

I still live with the horrible scar Dragonball: Evolution left on my brain...

I got why the producers would cast Scarlett Johansson in GitS, most boys in the world know who she is and would like to see her in a tight suit.  Meaning major potential $$$$$ as supposed to casting some unknown Asian actress.  I'd respect them more had they just come out and say it.  The "entire world" BS reason is very condescending

[xaxat]

1 hour ago, topanga said:

It's like when people said it didn't matter that the movie version Katniss Everd

I only watched the first Hunger Games movie. But I thought it was hilarious that in a future where everyone is poor and oppressed, black people still live in a separate ghetto.

56 minutes ago, topanga said:

Do the people who say these things really believe it, or they just trying to bullshit us? 

 

3 minutes ago, DarkRaichu said:

 I'd respect them more had they just come out and say it.  The "entire world" BS reason is very condescending

Ridley Scott was totally honest about all of the white people he cast for the BCE Egypt of Exodus: Gods And Kings.

Quote

Much of the outcry online stemmed from his decision to cast white American, European and Australian actors in most of the key roles, no matter that the same could be said of “The Passion of the Christ,” “Noah,” “The Ten Commandments” and virtually any other big-budget Bible movies. “I can’t mount a film of this budget, where I have to rely on tax rebates in Spain, and say that my lead actor is Mohammad so-and-so from such-and-such,” Scott says. “I’m just not going to get it financed. So the question doesn’t even come up.”

And he got slammed. (Rightfully so.) So (without any evidence whatsoever) I suspect that studios have developed a strategy to deal with accusations of whitewashing. It would not surprise me at all if some PR flack coached Johansson about framing the role as a strong female protagonist instead of strong Japanese female protagonist.

(I also like how the author of the Ridley Scott article was all "Hey, other directors did the same thing! So it must be OK!)

[topanga]

44 minutes ago, DarkRaichu said:

I got why the producers would cast Scarlett Johansson in GitS, most boys in the world know who she is and would like to see her in a tight suit.  Meaning major potential $$$$$ as supposed to casting some unknown Asian actress.  I'd respect them more had they just come out and say it.  The "entire world" BS reason is very condescending

But why do people know who Johansson is? She's a good actress, and more importantly, she's had the opportunity to star in several action films and comic book adaptations. When she first came out, she also was an unknown.

But actors of color usually don't have the same casting opportunities. Zoe Saldana, for example, was excellent in the action movie Columbiana. But the movie didn't do well, probably because most people outside the black and Latino communities had no idea who she was. But now that she's done a Mission Impossible movie, Avatar, and Star Trek, Zoe Saldana has achieved a moderate level of recognizably. I'd love for her to have another stab at an action movie. Whether or not she will have the opportunity remains to be seen. 

Bottom line, Hollywood can't keep perpetuating the status quo and use a circular argument to justify its whitewashing and disproportionate white casting. If you never cast people other than white actors in big movies, then black, Asian, Latino, and Native American actors will remain unknown to American and global audiences. 

Edited March 2, 2017 by topanga

[DarkRaichu]

2 hours ago, xaxat said:

I only watched the first Hunger Games movie. But I thought it was hilarious that in a future where everyone is poor and oppressed, black people still live in a separate ghetto.

 

Ridley Scott was totally honest about all of the white people he cast for the BCE Egypt of Exodus: Gods And Kings.

And he got slammed. (Rightfully so.) So (without any evidence whatsoever) I suspect that studios have developed a strategy to deal with accusations of whitewashing. It would not surprise me at all if some PR flack coached Johansson about framing the role as a strong female protagonist instead of strong Japanese female protagonist.

(I also like how the author of the Ridley Scott article was all "Hey, other directors did the same thing! So it must be OK!)

 

1 hour ago, topanga said:

But why do people know who Johansson is? She's a good actress, and more importantly, she's had the opportunity to star in several action films and comic book adaptations. When she first came out, she also was an unknown.

But actors of colors usually don't have the same casting opportunities. Zoe Saldana was excellent in the action movie Columbiana. But the movie didn't do well, probably because most people outside the black and Latino communities had no idea who she was. But now that she's done a Mission Impossible movie, Avatar, and Star Trek, Zoe Saldana has achieved a moderate level of recognizably. I'd love for her to have another stab at an action movie. Whether or not she will have the opportunity remains to be seen. 

Bottom line, Hollywood can't keep perpetuating the status quo and use a circular argument to justify its whitewashing and disproportionate white casting. If you never cast people other than white actors in big movies, then black, Asian, Latino, and Native American actors will remain unknown to American and global audiences. 

It comes back to what Hollywood is all about: money.  Anything else like race, gender, sexual preference, age, lead actors' fame, target audience, etc are just means to achieve that end.  I would not be surprised if there are teams of business analysts putting all of those factors into a business model that spits out maximum projected profit for each movie.  Nobody wants to be like Sony with their John Carter movie. 

I am not saying race did not play any role in the casting process, but sadly it most likely took a backseat to things like worldwide name recognition of the lead.  The business model must have concluded that potential money Johansson could pull in superhero action movies vastly outweigh whatever backslash they would receive for casting a white female in the role.  If it was just about race, why didn't they cast some lesser known white female in the role??  It is money first, other things second (sadly).

Maybe I am just a jaded corporate drone.  The way I look at it each movie is just like any multimillion dollar projects.  Whoever running the projects would want to stack as much factors in their favors.  Ridley Scott said it plainly that he could not even get funding for his multimillion project / movie had he cast some unknown racially correct actors.

Edited March 2, 2017 by DarkRaichu

[callie lee 29]

6 hours ago, DarkRaichu said:

 

It comes back to what Hollywood is all about: money.  Anything else like race, gender, sexual preference, age, lead actors' fame, target audience, etc are just means to achieve that end.  I would not be surprised if there are teams of business analysts putting all of those factors into a business model that spits out maximum projected profit for each movie.  Nobody wants to be like Sony with their John Carter movie. 

I am not saying race did not play any role in the casting process, but sadly it most likely took a backseat to things like worldwide name recognition of the lead.  The business model must have concluded that potential money Johansson could pull in superhero action movies vastly outweigh whatever backslash they would receive for casting a white female in the role.  If it was just about race, why didn't they cast some lesser known white female in the role??  It is money first, other things second (sadly).

Maybe I am just a jaded corporate drone.  The way I look at it each movie is just like any multimillion dollar projects.  Whoever running the projects would want to stack as much factors in their favors.  Ridley Scott said it plainly that he could not even get funding for his multimillion project / movie had he cast some unknown racially correct actors.

Very much agree, especially with what I highlighted. To the actors, director, writer, cinematographer, etc it may be art. It may reflect whatever profound truth they are trying to make about society. To the studio it's a numbers game. Maybe they're screwing themselves in the long game (bad press, negative feeling from audience that translates to negativity about future products) but it's still about the money. While I know crap about Ghost in the Shell and what little I read on Wikipedia  does make ScarJo seem like an... odd choice to represent Japan (truthfully I got to anime and gaming and part of my brain shut down), from a "she's a name, she's hot, she's done action/adventure" stand point, I get it, especially if the studio is focused on domestic gross. 

[Zuleikha]

Also, Hedy Lamarr, actress and inventor. She invented the spread spectrum. She wanted to work as an inventor during the war but was instead made to use her fame as an actress and sell kisses to raise money.

[Zuleikha]

It's like when people said it didn't matter that the movie version Katniss Everdeen was white and didn't have the olive skin the Hunger Games book described, but some of these same people went bat-shit crazy when Rue was black in the movie, even though she was described as having dark brown skin in the novel.

Olive skin and white are not at all contradictory. Olive is just an undertone. Having olive skin doesn't clearly signal anything about race, but Katniss lived in future Appalachia, which is an overwhelmingly white region. 

The outcry over Rue was random people on Twitter whose tweets got collected into a blog post that went viral. It was an important early window into casual racism, but it wasn't like there was some kind of mass outcry. If we didn't live in this social media era, no one would ever have known that some people cared less about Rue when they realized she was Black.

[aradia22]

Quote

Maybe I am just a jaded corporate drone.  The way I look at it each movie is just like any multimillion dollar projects.  Whoever running the projects would want to stack as much factors in their favors.  Ridley Scott said it plainly that he could not even get funding for his multimillion project / movie had he cast some unknown racially correct actors.

So he cast box office titans Joel Edgerton, John Turturro, Aaron Paul, and Ben Mendelsohn. Even Christian Bale was a little bit of a risk given the budget and his box office numbers outside of the Dark Knight movies. Outside of those movies, recently Bale averages somewhere around $100 million if you take out the low performers (Flowers of War). Which is still $40 million short of the budget, and as I said, those other guys aren't really known for their ability to make up that difference. 

Quote

Olive skin and white are not at all contradictory. Olive is just an undertone. Having olive skin doesn't clearly signal anything about race, but Katniss lived in future Appalachia, which is an overwhelmingly white region. 

Sure, but olive is more like Sophia Loren or Nicole Scherzinger... not Jennifer Lawrence. 

[raezen]

4 hours ago, aradia22 said:

 

Sure, but olive is more like Sophia Loren or Nicole Scherzinger... not Jennifer Lawrence. 

Not only that but pretty much all the actresses being considered looked like Jennifer Lawrence and none like the description of Katniss Everdeen. Olive skin might not be exclusive to white people but you don't seem to get it when your casting call asks for caucasians.

[dusang]

I had forgotten the "olive skin" description (honestly since District 12 is so clearly modeled on the Appalachian coal-mining towns JLaw seemed appropriate considering her big break was Winter's Bone), I just remember that it's referenced that most people in District 12 look alike because there has been so much intermarriage that they are all distantly related to each other.

Sidebar: Zoe Saldana has not done a Mission: Impossible movie.  Thandie Newton and Paula Patton have.

ETA: Oops, I just Googled it and Winter's Bone is in the Ozarks not Appalachia.  My bad.

Edited March 3, 2017 by dusang

[adhoc]

Okay, back-tracked and watched The Falls: Testament of Love and The Falls (the first movie in the trilogy).  Maybe it's because I saw movies 2 and 3 first, and they had a better (though I would say not a lot better) budget, but I found The Falls kind of so-so.  Though, still an impressive story for $7,000 and 2 weeks of shooting.  

Testament of Love was a mixed bag for me. Overall I liked it (I posted my review on IMDB), but it had its flaws. Editing was hit or miss, IMHO. Sometimes I felt that Jon Garcia must be a playwright, not a movie script  writer, because the dialogue sometimes sounded to me more like what I might hear in a play. I did not feel the script always served the actors well. And finally, there was no logical reason given, that I could see, for:

Spoiler

RJ leaving at the end of the movie, just when Chris admits to loving him.  At least I'd have liked to see Chris and RJ have a convo where Chris says "I''m not ready to take the next step. I still have to sort out my daughter, my marriage, my family's disapproval," etc. That would have given RJ a reason to leave in frustration.

I think by the time Covenant of Grace was filmed, the actors had improved, and I was very impressed by the tenderness they displayed--something in short supply in the previous movies. Real love is not just about sex, it's about caring and tenderness.  That's why Covenant of Grace worked so well for me--it was a love story first and foremost, and one with a "happily ever after" (more or less) ending. And that's my favorite kind of movie. 

[DarkRaichu]

On 3/3/2017 at 2:10 AM, aradia22 said:

So he cast box office titans Joel Edgerton, John Turturro, Aaron Paul, and Ben Mendelsohn. Even Christian Bale was a little bit of a risk given the budget and his box office numbers outside of the Dark Knight movies. Outside of those movies, recently Bale averages somewhere around $100 million if you take out the low performers (Flowers of War). Which is still $40 million short of the budget, and as I said, those other guys aren't really known for their ability to make up that difference. 

Why should anyone take Dark Knight movies out of the equation? That was a major part of Bale's name recognition / box office draw.  The Dark Knight trilogy proved Bale had great track record as lead in big budgeted movies.  Having Bale in the cast would make it an easier sell when the director goes around the studios begging for money to finance his/her project/movie.

[aradia22]

Quote

Why should anyone take Dark Knight movies out of the equation? That was a major part of Bale's name recognition / box office draw.  The Dark Knight trilogy proved Bale had great track record as lead in big budgeted movies.  Having Bale in the cast would make it an easier sell when the director goes around the studios begging for money to finance his/her project/movie.

You take it out because he can't guarantee those numbers outside of the franchise. As a contrast, Christopher Nolan's numbers outside of the Dark Knight trilogy weren't on par with those movies but he had locked in a solid fanbase if you look at Inception and Interstellar. Interstellar was a drop off but that could be placed on the reception to that movie (reviews, word of mouth, etc.). You always have to be careful when looking at franchise numbers, or else studios should be when they're signing paycheck contracts. For example, Jennifer Lawrence (speaking of someone else we've been discussing) brings in pretty solid numbers outside of Hunger Games and X Men (not counting Serena). But it would be stupid to expect her to bring in numbers as high as she did in those franchise movies that have the benefit of being established properties (meaning those fans + regular moviegoers + the audience that gets drawn in around the name/event), usually having some other actors who are draws, and usually have the benefit of some blockbuster spectacle. Passengers proved people would pay to see Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt but not in the kinds of numbers that matched their best selling franchises. 

I didn't say it didn't make sense to cast Bale. But based on his box office track record, it wasn't even enough to make up the budget. So the rest of the casting choices become more egregious because none of those guys can bring people into the theater in big numbers either. So you lose the justification for whitewashing (not that it was a great excuse to begin with). 

[DarkRaichu]

53 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

You take it out because he can't guarantee those numbers outside of the franchise. As a contrast, Christopher Nolan's numbers outside of the Dark Knight trilogy weren't on par with those movies but he had locked in a solid fanbase if you look at Inception and Interstellar. Interstellar was a drop off but that could be placed on the reception to that movie (reviews, word of mouth, etc.). You always have to be careful when looking at franchise numbers, or else studios should be when they're signing paycheck contracts. For example, Jennifer Lawrence (speaking of someone else we've been discussing) brings in pretty solid numbers outside of Hunger Games and X Men (not counting Serena). But it would be stupid to expect her to bring in numbers as high as she did in those franchise movies that have the benefit of being established properties (meaning those fans + regular moviegoers + the audience that gets drawn in around the name/event), usually having some other actors who are draws, and usually have the benefit of some blockbuster spectacle. Passengers proved people would pay to see Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt but not in the kinds of numbers that matched their best selling franchises. 

I didn't say it didn't make sense to cast Bale. But based on his box office track record, it wasn't even enough to make up the budget. So the rest of the casting choices become more egregious because none of those guys can bring people into the theater in big numbers either. So you lose the justification for whitewashing (not that it was a great excuse to begin with). 

Just purely on how one should create a forecasting / business model, removing a money making element from calculation like that is not a wise thing to do. IMHO.  The potential draw could be reduced by some percentage when factoring  franchise, but it should not be taken out entirely.  

Then again, what do I know? I admit I do not work in the industry.  I just see and treat the whole movie making process as a business enterprise.  It just does not make sense how money was not the primary drive behind the decisions made in making most movies, everything else (including race) is secondary.

[kili]

Quote

But now that she's done a Mission Impossible movie, Avatar, and Star Trek, Zoe Saldana has achieved a moderate level of recognizably. I'd love for her to have another stab at an action movie. Whether or not she will have the opportunity remains to be seen. 

Zoe Saldana plays Gamora in "Guardians of the Galaxy" part of the Marvel franchise. Gamora starts off as an assassin and has lots of action scenes. There is a second "Guardians of the Galaxy" film coming out and the characters in that movie will be in the next Avengers movie as well. 

So, she has had the opportunity to be in an action movie and she's done very, very well. It was the top earning movie in the US in 2014.

[slf]

Here's a question: if you "can't" make a movie starring poc because they aren't considered bankable then why make a movie that's...about poc? Like, don't make a movie about Egypt, don't remake a Japanese film, etc. What is the point? 

I don't buy the "it's all about money" reasoning. Tons of white actors with crappy box office track records get movie after movie, and shots at their own franchises (hey, Ryan Reynolds!), all the time. Especially when studies have shown that films (and tv shows) with more racially diverse casts tend to do better financially. "White audiences won't watch movies starring poc" isn't a good excuse either because analysis has shown that minority audiences have been responsible for buying up to 65% of tickets for blockbusters (Fast and Furious 7 and the last Transformers movie, for example). The Fast and the Furious franchise has always done very well and it has a racially diverse cast. Pacific Rim did well with an 'unknown' Asian female lead (Charlie Hunnam is not recognizable to the average American so I refuse any argument that he was a draw). Hidden Figures kicked ass and took names, so did Straight Outta Compton. Neither Creed nor Star Wars suffered from having black men in leading roles (The Force Awakens did better than any of the prequel films). Get Out hasn't even been open a month and it's already made over $75 million (on a $4.5 million budget). 

[Trini]

I remember everyone being so surprised the The Best Man Holiday did so well at the box office .

[JBC344]

53 minutes ago, Trini said:

I remember everyone being so surprised the The Best Man Holiday did so well at the box office .

I know right.  I think I uncovered their magic formula.  It was a good sequel to good movie that happened to have an African American cast.  PURE FLUKE!!!!!!

We hear these same arguments every time we get a Best Man Holiday or a Sex and the City/Bridesmaids, only to have the stats dismissed and back to the status quo. 

Maybe Hidden Figures all around huge success will be the straw that may finally break the camel's back.  Or at least make a significant dent.

[dusang]

5 hours ago, JBC344 said:

I know right.  I think I uncovered their magic formula.  It was a good sequel to good movie that happened to have an African American cast.  PURE FLUKE!!!!!!

We hear these same arguments every time we get a Best Man Holiday or a Sex and the City/Bridesmaids, only to have the stats dismissed and back to the status quo. 

Maybe Hidden Figures all around huge success will be the straw that may finally break the camel's back.  Or at least make a significant dent.

The Fast & Furious franchise (and/or the most recent XXX (Xander Cage) film) should be the camel-injuring straws -- They both have diverse casts & make HUGE international money. I heard (although do not entirely vouch for accuracy) that XXX3 basically hired the most famous person from each continent to make up X's "crew". 

I mean, not terribly helpful to people who actually want to act in or watch good films but if money is the issue...

[ChelseaNH]

On 3/4/2017 at 9:11 AM, kili said:

she has had the opportunity to be in an action movie and she's done very, very well

I thought about that, but I think the original point was that she hasn't had the opportunity to carry an action movie since Columbiana.  Like Angelina Jolie in Salt.

[DarkRaichu]

23 hours ago, slf said:

Here's a question: if you "can't" make a movie starring poc because they aren't considered bankable then why make a movie that's...about poc? Like, don't make a movie about Egypt, don't remake a Japanese film, etc. What is the point? 

I don't buy the "it's all about money" reasoning. Tons of white actors with crappy box office track records get movie after movie, and shots at their own franchises (hey, Ryan Reynolds!), all the time. Especially when studies have shown that films (and tv shows) with more racially diverse casts tend to do better financially. "White audiences won't watch movies starring poc" isn't a good excuse either because analysis has shown that minority audiences have been responsible for buying up to 65% of tickets for blockbusters (Fast and Furious 7 and the last Transformers movie, for example). The Fast and the Furious franchise has always done very well and it has a racially diverse cast. Pacific Rim did well with an 'unknown' Asian female lead (Charlie Hunnam is not recognizable to the average American so I refuse any argument that he was a draw). Hidden Figures kicked ass and took names, so did Straight Outta Compton. Neither Creed nor Star Wars suffered from having black men in leading roles (The Force Awakens did better than any of the prequel films). Get Out hasn't even been open a month and it's already made over $75 million (on a $4.5 million budget). 

Hmm, I thought franchise movies are excluded when talking about money due to the built in fan base ???

Also, the stars of Fast & Furious are the cars & the driving, the drivers are almost irrelevant.  Similarly, the stars of Transformers and Pacific Rim are the robots and monsters.

I am more than thrilled that Straight Outta Compton, Creed, and Get Out are making tons of money.  When face with $$$, it is very hard for Hollywood not to try to copy and paste the success.  If these financial successes do not give birth to more racially diverse movies than I will eat my words in regard to "all about money".

[slf]

1 hour ago, DarkRaichu said:

Hmm, I thought franchise movies are excluded when talking about money due to the built in fan base ???

According to what?

1 hour ago, DarkRaichu said:

Also, the stars of Fast & Furious are the cars & the driving, the drivers are almost irrelevant.  Similarly, the stars of Transformers and Pacific Rim are the robots and monsters.

Then why doesn't Hollywood simply cast more poc in movies starring cars and robots if it's all about money and those movies will make money regardless of the cast?

[Silver Raven]

I just read that there is a plan underfoot to turn Hidden Figures into a Broadway musical.

[greenbean]

On 05/03/2017 at 8:01 PM, Trini said:

I remember everyone being so surprised the The Best Man Holiday did so well at the box office .

I was about to post this. I remember the outright hostility to the film's success. One reviewer in a mainstream publication dismissed it as a "race movie". The displeasure was palpable. That's why the myth that Hollywood is only motivated by money is absolute nonsense to me. That myth has been debunked several times over. Time and time again it is shown that movies with diverse casts, can and do make money, yet POC still struggle for roles. Where is the next Best Man Holiday since 2013? Wouldn't a money motivated industry want to capitalise on its success? Same with The Fast and the Furious. One of the most successful franchises of all time, and an original script not a marvel/dc/book adaption. Yet in all the years during its run, where are all the major blockbusters with diverse casts. NOWHERE. Shouldn't it be used as a blueprint for future movies? That's what they're trying to do with the whitewashed movies The Wall and Ghost in the Shell. Truth is, The Fast and the Furious will come and go, and Hollywood will still use the money myth as an excuse to exclude POC from roles. Because it is absolutely a choice that people in the industry are making, that is the truth. Hollywood is not at all as liberal or benign as it makes out.

[DarkRaichu]

1 hour ago, slf said:

According to what?

 

On 3/4/2017 at 5:35 AM, aradia22 said:

You take it out because he can't guarantee those numbers outside of the franchise.

 

1 hour ago, slf said:

Then why doesn't Hollywood simply cast more poc in movies starring cars and robots if it's all about money and those movies will make money regardless of the cast?

Perhaps their business/forecast model said that was the correct mix of races to bang out the most bucks??

 

4 minutes ago, greenbean said:

Hollywood is not at all as liberal or benign as it makes out.

I actually agree with this.  

So most on this forum seem to agree that there was a more sinister motivation than money.  If that is the case, why wouldn't the producers of these successful movies (ie. Best Man Holiday) finance more movies like this? Why depend on money from racially insensitive studios?  That seems to be the next logical thing to do.

[JBC344]

2 hours ago, DarkRaichu said:

Hmm, I thought franchise movies are excluded when talking about money due to the built in fan base ???

Also, the stars of Fast & Furious are the cars & the driving, the drivers are almost irrelevant.  Similarly, the stars of Transformers and Pacific Rim are the robots and monsters.

I am more than thrilled that Straight Outta Compton, Creed, and Get Out are making tons of money.  When face with $$$, it is very hard for Hollywood not to try to copy and paste the success.  If these financial successes do not give birth to more racially diverse movies than I will eat my words in regard to "all about money".

I agree with you on Transformers and Pacific Rim, but what holds the F&F franchise together is all about the "family" of characters.  It actually is the connected thread between all the movies.  It's also the reason that every other knock off to F&F has bombed at the box office.  It's also why the franchise went through a metamorphosis a few years ago so that they could keep making movies with this cast without the basic premise getting old after 8 movies.

I agree with your overall point that franchises are mostly in a category by themselves but F&F is the exception in that the success is based on the actors.

[JBC344]

6 minutes ago, DarkRaichu said:

 

 

Perhaps their business/forecast model said that was the correct mix of races to bang out the most bucks??

 

I actually agree with this.  

So most on this forum seem to agree that there was a more sinister motivation than money.  If that is the case, why wouldn't the producers of these successful movies (ie. Best Man Holiday) finance more movies like this? Why depend on money from racially insensitive studios?  That seems to be the next logical thing to do.

Very simple.  Financing and distribution seem to be the two big tenants to getting your project not only made but also seen.  As it has become slightly more easier to get films financed it certainly has never in the history of moviemaking been an easy task.  Also if you are successful in getting financed you have the huge hurdle of getting your film distributed and all the necessary costs of Marketing, which has become a much bigger and bigger cost over the years.

With a studio backing those two areas are covered.  The studio is still very much needed, even in today's market of a la carte viewing.  Now with that said there is more options available now then have ever been in terms of studios, cable, streaming, broadcast, etc.  But that still doesn't make it an easy thing to do.

[DarkRaichu]

13 minutes ago, JBC344 said:

Very simple.  Financing and distribution seem to be the two big tenants to getting your project not only made but also seen.  As it has become slightly more easier to get films financed it certainly has never in the history of moviemaking been an easy task.  Also if you are successful in getting financed you have the huge hurdle of getting your film distributed and all the necessary costs of Marketing, which has become a much bigger and bigger cost over the years.

With a studio backing those two areas are covered.  The studio is still very much needed, even in today's market of a la carte viewing.  Now with that said there is more options available now then have ever been in terms of studios, cable, streaming, broadcast, etc.  But that still doesn't make it an easy thing to do.

Not trying to be flippant here, but why not create a competing distribution channels for movies with racially correct cast?  If the movies quoted above made so much money, it looks like there is enough profit on the table for new distribution channel.  Or putting money aside, the financial success of those movies indicate audience for the said movies.  How come there is no entity to cater to that built in audience?

Edited March 6, 2017 by DarkRaichu

[JBC344]

6 minutes ago, DarkRaichu said:

Not trying to be flippant here, but why not create a competing distribution channels for movies with racially correct cast?  If the movies quoted above made so much money, it looks like there is enough profit on the table for new distribution channel.  Or putting money aside, the financial success of those movies indicate audience for the said movies.  How come there is no entity to cater to that build in audience?

Honestly in it's most simplest relatable terms.  It would be like trying to fill an Olympic style swimming pool when all you have is a measuring cup, versus trying to fill the pool with a fire hose.  It can be done with a measuring cup but your time is probably better served searching for someone who has a hose.

Truth be told when it comes to studio systems, executives and gatekeepers are always on thin ice.  They have to keep producing winners in order to hold on to their jobs, as well as ensure their studios reputation and placement.  One example recently is that Brad Grey who has run Paramount for many years was just fired, not because he is a bad studio head, but because he didn't have enough winners and Paramount has gone down in ranking between all the studios.  Now Brad Grey is a hugely talented, hugely successful producer/studio head who will be just fine and may even go on to better things.  My point with all this is that it isn't always identifiable bigotry/racism that rules decision making. A lot of times it is fear from the studios.  It is definitely a factor though.

Speaking to the box office, as much as the movies listed above make most of that money goes to the studio since they "own" the movie.  Unless your a mega-producer or mega star you don't own a piece of the film.  The studio puts up all the money and takes most of the profit.  Now what the success of those movies can produce is a "track record" for the studio to start taking more movies with POC seriously and start investing in more projects.

Not to say that people who are interested in diverse storytelling aren't out there doing things and working on projects and actually making progress because they are.  Certainly every positive step moves the needle a little bit further.

[aradia22]

I don't think putting the onus entirely on marginalized groups to change the system is either the most effective strategy or the most reasonable argument. 

[DarkRaichu]

12 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

I don't think putting the onus entirely on marginalized groups to change the system is either the most effective strategy or the most reasonable argument. 

What would be the more / most effective solution(s) ?

[slf]

14 hours ago, aradia22 said:

I don't think putting the onus entirely on marginalized groups to change the system is either the most effective strategy or the most reasonable argument. 

Seriously. How exactly is that supposed to work? 

15 hours ago, DarkRaichu said:

Perhaps their business/forecast model said that was the correct mix of races to bang out the most bucks??

...I'm not sure what you mean. Hollywood studio heads and producers have repeatedly said that they cast based on what audiences wants even though we have proof enough that isn't true; there's no forecast model being used to determine which races should get cast. Racism is determining which races should get cast.

Also, you quoted me (asking 'according to what') but there was no reply beneath?

15 hours ago, DarkRaichu said:

If that is the case, why wouldn't the producers of these successful movies (ie. Best Man Holiday) finance more movies like this? Why depend on money from racially insensitive studios?  That seems to be the next logical thing to do.

Because it's not that easy to get together the money to finance a movie, much less to do it over and over again? I don't like being financially dependent on sexist industries for my employment but as a woman I'm shit out of luck. Just starting up your own business sounds nice but most fail. We're all dependent on the larger systems and industries and when those are run by bigots, minorities lose.

[DarkRaichu]

1 hour ago, slf said:

Also, you quoted me (asking 'according to what') but there was no reply beneath?

I quoted part of Aradia22's post: 

 

1 hour ago, slf said:

...I'm not sure what you mean. Hollywood studio heads and producers have repeatedly said that they cast based on what audiences wants even though we have proof enough that isn't true; there's no forecast model being used to determine which races should get cast. Racism is determining which races should get cast.

Because it's not that easy to get together the money to finance a movie, much less to do it over and over again? I don't like being financially dependent on sexist industries for my employment but as a woman I'm shit out of luck. Just starting up your own business sounds nice but most fail. We're all dependent on the larger systems and industries and when those are run by bigots, minorities lose.

So in summary, it is a sexist/racist system but every poc is stuck in it because it is way too hard and costly to branch away from it.  Even when it is 2017 and the advancement in innovation and technology leaped beyond whatever it was 20-30 years ago, everyone is just going to stay under the table accepting whatever scraps that fall down.  Well, maybe yell and complain here and there in the hope that TPTB changes its racist mind and drops a little more scraps as the years go by.

[slf]

8 hours ago, DarkRaichu said:

I quoted part of Aradia22's post: 

 

Maybe I'm not getting your argument but how does that refute my point?

8 hours ago, DarkRaichu said:

So in summary, it is a sexist/racist system but every poc is stuck in it because it is way too hard and costly to branch away from it.  Even when it is 2017 and the advancement in innovation and technology leaped beyond whatever it was 20-30 years ago, everyone is just going to stay under the table accepting whatever scraps that fall down.  Well, maybe yell and complain here and there in the hope that TPTB changes its racist mind and drops a little more scraps as the years go by.

Wow. That's some wording. So, here's the thing: whites control the economy and the financial opportunities of everyone else. Men do the same to women. This massively sucks if you aren't a white man. Just running off to fund your own film, yeah, that's a nice idea. But it takes time and resources and bills have to get paid in the meantime. Like, there's a reason why white people, white men especially, tend to make up the majority of the indie filmmakers (and especially the ones who find success) in this country. Many poc and female filmmakers are out here making things happen for themselves but it's not as easy as all that.

[DarkRaichu]

4 hours ago, slf said:

Maybe I'm not getting your argument but how does that refute my point?

You asked what made me said franchise movies were excluded from discussion on money.  As Aradia22 pointed out, the franchise itself is a bigger draw than any individual in it

4 hours ago, slf said:

Wow. That's some wording. So, here's the thing: whites control the economy and the financial opportunities of everyone else. Men do the same to women. This massively sucks if you aren't a white man. Just running off to fund your own film, yeah, that's a nice idea. But it takes time and resources and bills have to get paid in the meantime. Like, there's a reason why white people, white men especially, tend to make up the majority of the indie filmmakers (and especially the ones who find success) in this country. Many poc and female filmmakers are out here making things happen for themselves but it's not as easy as all that.

Any new business venture is inherently time and resource consuming which I recognized in the post above

If that summary is incorrect, what should anyone infer from the posts on this thread?  As you and others pointed out, whitewashing still happens (I mean seriously, it is 2017 already) and despite the box office / money potential minorities bring to the table, minorities are still treated as 2nd class within the system.

Yet on the other hand, despite financial success and built in audience per numbers you quoted (65% ticket buyers, $75 million gross on $4 million budget), it is still considered unwise or too risky to finance the production and distribution racially correct movies outside of ol' Hollywood Studios.

 

So let me ask again the question that everyone politely refused to answer:
What would be the more / most effective solution(s) for this problem?

[slf]

7 hours ago, DarkRaichu said:

You asked what made me said franchise movies were excluded from discussion on money.  As Aradia22 pointed out, the franchise itself is a bigger draw than any individual in it

And therefore there is no excuse for Hollywood consistently refusing to cast poc in them (or only casting one or two). 

7 hours ago, DarkRaichu said:

So let me ask again the question that everyone politely refused to answer:
What would be the more / most effective solution(s) for this problem?

No one is politely refusing to answer, there just are no easy answers. Racists have a say in how they think and behave; it's not unreasonable to expect them to change, to apply pressure, to use buying power to try to change their minds. We may be seeing that happen, actually.

[topanga]

On 3/6/2017 at 5:30 PM, DarkRaichu said:

So most on this forum seem to agree that there was a more sinister motivation than money.  If that is the case, why wouldn't the producers of these successful movies (ie. Best Man Holiday) finance more movies like this? Why depend on money from racially insensitive studios?  That seems to be the next logical thing to do.

I totally agree. And this leads me to climb back onto my soapbox for Tyler Perry. Even if you aren't a fan of his movies (which I'm not), the man created his own movie empire when he couldn't get his movies financed. I'm a little fuzzy on the details, though. I think Tyler Perry Studios is his production company, but he still has to go through a movie studio (Lions Gate?) for distribution of his movies. 

What would it take for a coalition of POC in Hollywood to launch a movie studio?(e.g. Tyler Perry, Will and Jada Pinkett Smith's production company, Oprah, Juan Jose Alfonso).

In my research, I did run across information on Pantelion Films, the first major Latino movie studio. It still has to partner with larger studios for certain movies, but it's a start. 

From the Wikipedia article:

Quote

Pantelion's biggest success came in 2013 with Eugenio Derbez's Instructions Not Included and led to a first look deal with Derbez in 2014.[14] The film set a record for the highest grossing Spanish-language film to date, earning $44.4 million in the United States and surpassing $85 million worldwide.

[aradia22]

Quote

Wow. That's some wording. So, here's the thing: whites control the economy and the financial opportunities of everyone else. Men do the same to women. This massively sucks if you aren't a white man. Just running off to fund your own film, yeah, that's a nice idea. But it takes time and resources and bills have to get paid in the meantime. Like, there's a reason why white people, white men especially, tend to make up the majority of the indie filmmakers (and especially the ones who find success) in this country. Many poc and female filmmakers are out here making things happen for themselves but it's not as easy as all that.

So many points but off the top of my head...

1) There actually are more women capable of working behind the scenes than there once were. More women who have gone to school and trained to be directors, editors, etc. But they're still not being hired in great enough numbers. Women still make up a tiny percentage of the industry. It's such a small fraction that it can't possibly be because they're all not talented enough or as talented as their male counterparts. I don't think it's always blatant racism or sexism at fault but it is a more casual kind. Maybe the people doing the hiring are just comfortable with the status quo... they're used to seeing male grips and other male crew members. Maybe there's something overt or more ingrained in your mind when you're hiring someone for a job and you're predisposed to see a man or a white man specifically as being more capable or qualified. (There have been studies.) Many women and people of color are used to having to prove themselves and be even better than their counterparts, but that shouldn't be necessary.

2) For the women and people of color who haven't been trained, there is a barrier. This is the speech Barry Jenkins' said he wished he was able to give at the Oscars. I'm kind of glad he didn't end up giving it. I get where the speech is coming from, I do. But it also feeds into unhelpful narratives. People from less affluent and/or immigrant and nonwhite backgrounds are often taught to deny those dreams of working in the arts not because they wouldn't be capable but because there are very real material conditions that must be met before you can conceive of those kinds of ambitions. And that shouldn't be handwaved away. Safety, personal autonomy, food, shelter, rent, etc. This is part of what you're talking about when you're talking about privilege. It's kind of insulting to tell someone who is working as a domestic worker, for example, that she's placing those limitations on herself. If I tried to unpack the grand systematic network placing those limitations on her, we'd be here all day. 

Quote

Tarell [Alvin McCraney] and I are Chiron. We are that boy. And when you watch Moonlight, you don't assume a boy who grew up how and where we did would grow up and make a piece of art that wins an Academy Award. I've said that a lot, and what I've had to admit is that I placed those limitations on myself, I denied myself that dream. Not you, not anyone else — me. And so, to anyone watching this who sees themselves in us, let this be a symbol, a reflection that leads you to love yourself. Because doing so may be the difference between dreaming at all and, somehow through the Academy's grace, realizing dreams you never allowed yourself to have. Much love

3) There are people who go through nontraditional routes and make things happen for themselves. The prime example would be someone like Tyler Perry who came up with his plays through the modern equivalent of the "chitlin' circuit" and then was able to use that success to finance lower budget movies and use that profit to further pursue a relatively successful movie career. But A) that's not a path available to everyone. That took an incredible amount of luck and hard work. And even supposing it would be possible to replicate, how would you do that if you came from a different ethnic background that was more of a minority in the United States? B) Tyler Perry, in spite of a few movie roles outside of his own films, is still struggling to be taken seriously by the rest of the industry. He's mostly a self-contained, one man operation. OK, maybe that's due to the pandering nature of his work and the quality of his writing, directing, acting, etc. but that's not the point at the moment. The point is he's one of the most successful and prominent examples of someone from a marginalized group doing it for himself and despite all of that, he still hasn't quite broken into mainstream success. How often do you see him writing or directing anyone else's movies? 

4) Let's imagine an even lower barrier to entry. Youtuber. It still entails a lot of privilege but sure, a decent camera, a small crew, and a platform to post it on. You could get a movie out there that way, right? No. The leap to making anything looking close to professional or anything that would even approach being mainstream would involve the participation of someone with A LOT more money than just the film student with a camera would have. The youtubers who have had film projects spent years investing in building up their fan bases and then still needed outside involvement to finance and produce their movies.

5) Imagine there is a giant hill made of sand. And on one side is a person who just has their hands. And on the other side is a person with a bulldozer. And the person without any tools asks the person with the bulldozer for help. But he just tells her that she needs to work harder and she'll make it to the other side someday if she's talented and hardworking enough. It sounds ridiculous, right? It would be so easy for him to just help her... to make the effort to make a different decision. 

[xaxat]

Samuel L Jackson criticises casting of black British actors in American films

[topanga]

3 minutes ago, xaxat said:

Samuel L Jackson criticises casting of black British actors in American films

In the past, he also criticized the casting of rappers in movies and on TV. 

Sam Jackson needs to sit down somewhere. I understand his point, that there are a lot of capable American black actors who deserve opportunities to act. But things aren't easy for any actor of color, British or not.

Does he think he's the only actor who deserves roles? Someone could argue that by doing Capital One commercials, he's taking away jobs from working actors who make their livings doing commercials.  

[vibeology]

I get his point but also feel that he's lacking a full understanding on the Black British experience and is too flippant about that. He's certainly right in saying that an African-American actor probably has a different relationship/awareness/understanding of MLK than someone from another country. He's wrong to suggest that interracial dating has been no big in the UK for 100 years. He discounts too much the racism that someone like  David Oyelowo faces both at home and in America when they travel for work. But he's not wrong that some experiences are more specifically cultural than just race alone and that when you cast a Brit to play an American or an American to play a Brit you risk losing some of the unique interpretation someone who has lived in that culture can bring. (And that's true outside of race) 

[TigerLynx]

I like Spock and Uhura.

I like Michonne, Rick annoys me, and I think Michonne deserves way better.  Michonne is still a badass warrior, but if they turn her into a helpless female that has to be saved by Rick, then I will dislike the pairing of Michonne and Rick.

I do believe it comes down to money.  For decades Hollywood made billions with movies with white male leads, and they are continuing to make billions with movies with white male leads.  There may have been people who didn't like JL as Katniss, but all the Hunger movies were blockbusters.  Why would Hollywood change a formula that makes money for them?

Not only can TPTB in Hollywood not be bothered with diversity, but they don't care about originality either.  They will do millions of remakes and sequels, and pass on a new different script because it hasn't been proven to be a money maker for them.

[Neurochick]

6 hours ago, vibeology said:

I get his point but also feel that he's lacking a full understanding on the Black British experience and is too flippant about that. He's certainly right in saying that an African-American actor probably has a different relationship/awareness/understanding of MLK than someone from another country. He's wrong to suggest that interracial dating has been no big in the UK for 100 years. He discounts too much the racism that someone like  David Oyelowo faces both at home and in America when they travel for work. But he's not wrong that some experiences are more specifically cultural than just race alone and that when you cast a Brit to play an American or an American to play a Brit you risk losing some of the unique interpretation someone who has lived in that culture can bring. (And that's true outside of race) 

How would Brits feel if an American actor played James Bond.

The Black American experience is totally different from racism that black British people experience.  Racism in the US is an institution thing.  My issue is what is so wrong with having a conversation about it?  That's what Jackson is saying.  Look at 12 Years a Slave?  Couldn't they find an African American actor to play the lead?  John Boyega called it a "stupid ass conflict" on Twitter.  Would he have made that same comment to a white, American actor?  To me, that's just disrespect, and that's what bugs me about Boyega's comment.  

It seems that when black people want to have certain conversations, we get shut down.  Boyega needs to STFU until he has the resume of Samuel L. Jackson.

[Kel Varnsen]

7 hours ago, vibeology said:

I get his point but also feel that he's lacking a full understanding on the Black British experience and is too flippant about that. He's certainly right in saying that an African-American actor probably has a different relationship/awareness/understanding of MLK than someone from another country. He's wrong to suggest that interracial dating has been no big in the UK for 100 years. He discounts too much the racism that someone like  David Oyelowo faces both at home and in America when they travel for work. But he's not wrong that some experiences are more specifically cultural than just race alone and that when you cast a Brit to play an American or an American to play a Brit you risk losing some of the unique interpretation someone who has lived in that culture can bring. (And that's true outside of race) 

Not to mention Samuel L Jackson has played a British character in a British movie at least once with Formula 51.

[xaxat]

32 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Not to mention Samuel L Jackson has played a British character in a British movie at least once with Formula 51.

The action takes place in Britain, but his character is from LA.

That movie was awful. 

[Neurochick]

9 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Not to mention Samuel L Jackson has played a British character in a British movie at least once with Formula 51.

That movie was made a while ago.  I think all Jackson is doing is saying, "let's have a conversation about this."  I'm sorry but it does feel like black American actors are being replaced in movies.  I mean, a black American actor couldn't be found to play the lead in "12 Years a Slave?"  SMH.

[vibeology]

11 hours ago, Neurochick said:

How would Brits feel if an American actor played James Bond.

The Black American experience is totally different from racism that black British people experience.  Racism in the US is an institution thing.  My issue is what is so wrong with having a conversation about it?  That's what Jackson is saying.  Look at 12 Years a Slave?  Couldn't they find an African American actor to play the lead?  John Boyega called it a "stupid ass conflict" on Twitter.  Would he have made that same comment to a white, American actor?  To me, that's just disrespect, and that's what bugs me about Boyega's comment.  

It seems that when black people want to have certain conversations, we get shut down.  Boyega needs to STFU until he has the resume of Samuel L. Jackson.

I agree with this. My only point was Sam could have said this without also dismissing that Black Brits also experience a different type of racism. I don't imagine John Boyega has gone through life blissfully unimpacted because he grew up in the UK and dismissing someone else's experience isn't the way to go here. The people who need to be challenged are the white studio heads making the casting decisions, not the Black actors coming to Hollywood looking for a big break.

[Silver Raven]

The latest addition to the Internet Movie Database is the F rating that will be added to 21,800 films and counting. The F is designed to signpost feminist films, movies that have been directed by a woman, written by a woman, or features significant women on screen in their own right.

http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/imdb/262687/imdb-adding-f-rating-to-champion-women-in-film?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=themarysue&utm_campaign=swap

[DarkRaichu]

On 3/8/2017 at 7:41 AM, slf said:

No one is politely refusing to answer, there just are no easy answers. Racists have a say in how they think and behave; it's not unreasonable to expect them to change, to apply pressure, to use buying power to try to change their minds. We may be seeing that happen, actually.

Hmm, that is hard to achieve when money is not the main motivation behind their casting decisions

 

On 3/8/2017 at 8:46 AM, aradia22 said:

1) There actually are more women capable of working behind the scenes than there once were. More women who have gone to school and trained to be directors, editors, etc. But they're still not being hired in great enough numbers. Women still make up a tiny percentage of the industry. It's such a small fraction that it can't possibly be because they're all not talented enough or as talented as their male counterparts. I don't think it's always blatant racism or sexism at fault but it is a more casual kind. Maybe the people doing the hiring are just comfortable with the status quo... they're used to seeing male grips and other male crew members. Maybe there's something overt or more ingrained in your mind when you're hiring someone for a job and you're predisposed to see a man or a white man specifically as being more capable or qualified. (There have been studies.) Many women and people of color are used to having to prove themselves and be even better than their counterparts, but that shouldn't be necessary.

point

On 3/8/2017 at 8:46 AM, aradia22 said:

2) For the women and people of color who haven't been trained, there is a barrier. This is the speech Barry Jenkins' said he wished he was able to give at the Oscars. I'm kind of glad he didn't end up giving it. I get where the speech is coming from, I do. But it also feeds into unhelpful narratives. People from less affluent and/or immigrant and nonwhite backgrounds are often taught to deny those dreams of working in the arts not because they wouldn't be capable but because there are very real material conditions that must be met before you can conceive of those kinds of ambitions. And that shouldn't be handwaved away. Safety, personal autonomy, food, shelter, rent, etc. This is part of what you're talking about when you're talking about privilege. It's kind of insulting to tell someone who is working as a domestic worker, for example, that she's placing those limitations on herself. If I tried to unpack the grand systematic network placing those limitations on her, we'd be here all day. 

point

On 3/8/2017 at 8:46 AM, aradia22 said:

3) There are people who go through nontraditional routes and make things happen for themselves. The prime example would be someone like Tyler Perry who came up with his plays through the modern equivalent of the "chitlin' circuit" and then was able to use that success to finance lower budget movies and use that profit to further pursue a relatively successful movie career. But A) that's not a path available to everyone. That took an incredible amount of luck and hard work. And even supposing it would be possible to replicate, how would you do that if you came from a different ethnic background that was more of a minority in the United States? B) Tyler Perry, in spite of a few movie roles outside of his own films, is still struggling to be taken seriously by the rest of the industry. He's mostly a self-contained, one man operation. OK, maybe that's due to the pandering nature of his work and the quality of his writing, directing, acting, etc. but that's not the point at the moment. The point is he's one of the most successful and prominent examples of someone from a marginalized group doing it for himself and despite all of that, he still hasn't quite broken into mainstream success. How often do you see him writing or directing anyone else's movies? 

In theory, Tyler Perry and people in his position can help more poc in point 1 & 2 out of their situation by mentoring and financial support.  Maybe it would be easier to be taken seriously as group of movie makers when there are 10-100 poc doing what Tyler Perry is doing

 

On 3/8/2017 at 8:46 AM, aradia22 said:

4) Let's imagine an even lower barrier to entry. Youtuber. It still entails a lot of privilege but sure, a decent camera, a small crew, and a platform to post it on. You could get a movie out there that way, right? No. The leap to making anything looking close to professional or anything that would even approach being mainstream would involve the participation of someone with A LOT more money than just the film student with a camera would have. The youtubers who have had film projects spent years investing in building up their fan bases and then still needed outside involvement to finance and produce their movies.

Sorry, but this makes it sound like it is ok to spend years / decades asking the big studios to change their ways but it is not ok for poc to spend time and money pursuing alternative routes to success.   Even the studio systems took time and effort to create and mature so it makes sense for any alternate way to take a lot of time and resources to create as well.

 

On 3/8/2017 at 8:46 AM, aradia22 said:

5) Imagine there is a giant hill made of sand. And on one side is a person who just has their hands. And on the other side is a person with a bulldozer. And the person without any tools asks the person with the bulldozer for help. But he just tells her that she needs to work harder and she'll make it to the other side someday if she's talented and hardworking enough. It sounds ridiculous, right? It would be so easy for him to just help her... to make the effort to make a different decision. 

To be honest, after a few decades of asking and being ignored, I would either:
a. find a different person (preferably with shovel) to help me or
b. build my own shovel / other kind of tool for digging
Yes either option is still slower than a bulldozer, but it is still faster than mere bare hands.