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

[BetterButter]

Disney defends darkening ‘Aladdin’ actors’ skin so they could ‘blend in’ for crowd scenes

[methodwriter85]

On 1/8/2018 at 8:56 PM, aradia22 said:

When I saw Rita Moreno in the Race and Ethnicity thread I thought it was going to be something about her playing Tuptim in The King and I. No, I'm still not over it. 

Here is my final, very cynical thought about the "woke" 2018 Golden Globes:

"I sure am glad that Lady Bird's and therefore Greta Gerwig's win showed that there's still a place in Hollywood for beautiful blonde women! I am so tired of them being overlooked!"

And I'm totally saying this as someone who really liked the movie and I'm glad that Greta is getting her due...but there's something incredibly tone-deaf about this awards show patting themselves on the back for being socially aware while the theme of the night should have been "Blondes Really Do Have More Fun!"

Edited January 10, 2018 by methodwriter85

[aradia22]

Quote

Disney defends darkening ‘Aladdin’ actors’ skin so they could ‘blend in’ for crowd scenes

Well, shit. This is whole can of worms. My random thoughts...

1. It's kind of shitty for that extra to have talked to the newspaper and framed things that way

2. It's really hard to justify blackface, brownface, yellowface, etc.

3. I get where they're coming from when they say "where it was a matter of specialty skills and safety/control, so for things like special effects rigs, stunt performers and animal handlers" and it's a little disingenuous for someone like Kal Penn to be like 'well, they obviously didn't look hard enough for qualified people of the right ethnicity'. Like it or not, the majority of those background jobs (especially from companies with connections in the film industry and not just like a random circus) are staffed by white and usually male people. Also, a film has to be financially profitable. I don't know where they filmed their crowd or stunt scenes but if they expect to recoup they can't be flying around too many people to location shoots.

4. There seems to be some confusion over whether it's 100 people or 20

5. Personally, I would vote to keep the white background extras in just as they are instead of painting their faces. Just me.

6. But I also get that people are angry about Billy Magnussen even though I'm guessing he's the character who is on screen for 7 minutes. And I'm also still guessing that he's going to play a prince that Jasmine rejects so it won't matter that he doesn't look like everyone else in Agrabah because he'll be from another kingdom.

7. The face paint or self-tanner or whatever... bad call. But I think just declaring that white people cannot be onscreen in Aladdin is weird. They're clearly going for a diverse approach instead of trying to cast all actors of some kind of ambiguous Middle Eastern or Persian descent. Heck, even Hamilton employs white actors.

8. I feel like these conversations sometimes get into that weird shitty territory where they sound like the old racist "drop of blood" distinctions and you get into passing and who looks like they accurately represent an ethnicity

[Ms Blue Jay]

17 hours ago, BetterButter said:

Disney defends darkening ‘Aladdin’ actors’ skin so they could ‘blend in’ for crowd scenes

This is disgusting, and I'm convinced, and at least desperately hoping, that this movie will flop.  It's never okay, and there's never any excuse.  

Edited January 10, 2018 by Ms Blue Jay

[Spartan Girl]

On January 9, 2018 at 4:10 PM, BetterButter said:

Disney defends darkening ‘Aladdin’ actors’ skin so they could ‘blend in’ for crowd scenes

I don't care if they're "just a few extras", this is not okay. It's 2017 not 1956! What the hell are they thinking?

I hope the backlash will knock some sense into them.

[aradia22]

Granted, seeing someone far away on stage is different from seeing them up close on camera but they're extras. There are ways to largely obscure their faces and minimize exposed skin if they're not playing a pivotal/speaking role. I don't understand why someone had the genius idea to spray tan them or whatever it was instead of just giving them more obscuring clothing and minimizing their screen time. For instance, if you're there to handle a lion, surely the focus of that shot... is the lion? 

Also the 2017 thing made me think of opera. https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/music/how-do-african-american-singers-feel-about-blackface-in-opera/2015/10/16/fbbaa318-7176-11e5-9cbb-790369643cf9_story.html?utm_term=.47aa66b18bd7

[HunterHunted]

Some people on Twitter are up in arms and talking about boycotting Black Panther because Michael B. Jordan has a non-black girlfriend, which is some of the dumbest shit I've ever heard. I don't think he's ever said anything about "never dating Black women" or "hating Black women." This is literally because some folks are sour because their internet bae found someone.  Boycotting the film over this petty mess literally harms the careers of the rest of majority Black cast and the Black director.

http://www.ajc.com/news/world/black-twitter-boycotting-black-panther-because-michael-jordan-isn-dating-black-women/Tl3BMXI3tOHVqyPF6a7djM/

[aradia22]

From that article

Quote

Several noted they saw lots of people saying black women were boycotting “Black Panther,” but they weren’t actually hearing about the protest from black women.

I'm hoping it's just an internet joke thing that people are blowing out of proportion like people being "mad" that Oscar Isaac has a fiance or whatever that was. Because otherwise... so dumb. For one thing, why would anyone not want to support all the other amazing actors in that movie? 

Edited January 15, 2018 by aradia22

[topanga]

1 hour ago, aradia22 said:

From that article

I'm hoping it's just an internet joke thing that people are blowing out of proportion like people being "mad" that Oscar has a fiance or whatever that was. Because otherwise... so dumb. For one thing, why would anyone not want to support all the other amazing actors in that movie? 

What I’ve heard is that black men actually started this rumor 

[Epeolatrix]

It started with a troll Instagram page, according to this article on the BET website.

[xaxat]

22 minutes ago, Violet Impulse said:

It started with a troll Instagram page, according to this article on the BET website.

Good corrective by BET. The original report was like those articles that cite random ass change.org petitions as evidence of support for something. 

[Zuleikha]

Quote

This is disgusting, and I'm convinced, and at least desperately hoping, that this movie will flop.  It's never okay, and there's never any excuse.

I don't want the movie to flop. It's a live action Middle Eastern story with an almost exclusively PoC cast. I don't think it should be defined by one bad call about how to handle extras.

That said, I also agree with this

Quote

But I think just declaring that white people cannot be onscreen in Aladdin is weird.

. There was a lot of travel and back-and-forth between Europe and the MENA region. There are also many light-skinned Arabs. A cosmopolitan city like Agrabah would certainly have had some Europeans in it, but also since we're apparently just talking about crowd scenes, I don't know why the occasional glimpse of pale skin wouldn't simply be presumed to be a light-skinned Arab

Edited January 16, 2018 by Zuleikha

[starri]

Love, Simon dropped another trailer.

I am glad the movie has an openly gay director, but it bums me out that, like CMBYN and BBM before it, we have an adaptation of another gay story written by a straight person.  And Colton Haynes has a small part, and Keiynan Lonsdale is openly bisexual, so at least there are two openly queer people in the cast.  So, progress, maybe?

[aradia22]

Quote

I have seen an obsession by some gay writers/critics over the lack of dick. 

I kind of get that in general. It's like the use and backlash over the Bechdel test. On the one hand, you don't want to be obsessing over this one strict rule or piece of physical evidence (unless you're writing some kind of academic paper) but on the other hand, how else are you supposed to quantify a vague feeling for the person reading what you're writing. You can say a movie poorly represents women and they can argue back unless you invoke the Bechdel test. You can say a movie or show doesn't represent its gay characters as well and people can argue back unless you do things like count how many times the gay characters kiss on Glee or the amount of nudity or whatever. I do think it's weird to get hung up on full frontal (pun not intended) but then I'm not that bothered about onscreen nudity. 

Quote

It's a fairly small part of the movie, which is less about Cathleen's desire for same-sex female intimacy than about her desire for intimacy in general. But it was still a pivotal moment in the story. The movie as a whole could sometimes veer towards being a bit... over the top lmao, but overall I really liked it. 

This whole discussion of sex vs. intimacy reminds me of the movie Afternoon Delight. I was struck by how Jill Soloway seemed to be the most fascinated by Rachel's (Kathryn Hahn) need for connection/intimacy/true feeling. While the movie is flawed and ultimately not that interesting, I really loved those moments with Rachel and McKenna that weren't sexual (the movie never even really flirts with that idea) but achieved an intimacy that movies rarely seem to do even when the characters are engaging in sexytimes. A lot of the way sex scenes are shot in Hollywood movies feels more voyeuristic. 

[topanga]

Is the movie “Hostiles” going to be about hostile Native Americans who try to defend their own friggin land against the benevolent white cowboys and their manifest destiny campaign? I’ll admit that I haven’t watched the trailers too closely. I could be way off.  

[afterbite]

On 12/1/2017 at 2:51 AM, Zuleikha said:

That they've had three movies with a man named Chris playing the lead

I think it's 6, actually - 3 Thor movies and 3 Captain America movies.

On a different note, something I've been increasingly irritated with recently is pointless female nudity in films. I'm not talking sex scenes. Why are there so many scenes in strip clubs? There was a fight between 3 different groups in a strip club in Bright, and of course there's a naked woman staged quite obviously as our protags enter the joint. They've just said they're in a strip club (iirc). That totally naked woman isn't really necessary in any way nor was it especially necessary that all the action take place in a strip club instead of a bar. Likewise, just saw I, Tonya and there's a scene where the two lead guys were having a meeting in a strip club. It's possible it happened in real life, but it wasn't as if it was a litchpin part of the plot so they probably could have dropped the strippers and kept the bar. I cite these movies because they're fresh in my mind, having watched them recently, but there's probably enough footage of strippers dancing listlessly in the background to run 24/7 somewhere. I'm tired of movies that feel the need to decorate themselves with naked women when they don't really advance the narrative. And this is coming from someone who really likes looking at naked women...

[starri]

14 minutes ago, afterbite said:

I think it's 6, actually - 3 Thor movies and 3 Captain America movies.

Eight.  Two GotG as well.

[methodwriter85]

Okay, honestly, as a guy who loved the short film version of Dare and absolutely hated the feature film, this made me excited:

What 30-something gay guy DOESN'T have the fantasy of reconnecting with a still-hot high school crush? I know I do.

I just remember catching Dare sometime around 2006 or 2007. I either caught it on a bootleg YouTube version, or when Logo used to run NewNowNext gay short films. It really resonated with me so much, especially because I was basically obsessed with straight jock guys like Johnny when I was in that late teens/early 20's stage, and I came from a drama background. Totally used to fantasize that something like that would happen.

[Luckylyn]

15 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

Okay, honestly, as a guy who loved the short film version of Dare and absolutely hated the feature film, this made me excited:

What 30-something gay guy DOESN'T have the fantasy of reconnecting with a still-hot high school crush? I know I do.

I just remember catching Dare sometime around 2006 or 2007. I either caught it on a bootleg YouTube version, or when Logo used to run NewNowNext gay short films. It really resonated with me so much, especially because I was basically obsessed with straight jock guys like Johnny when I was in that late teens/early 20's stage, and I came from a drama background. Totally used to fantasize that something like that would happen.

I loved the short film Dare and was disappointed by the feature length version.  The casting and characterization didn’t work as well.  I liked Johnny in that version but that was the only thing that worked. The original was so much better.

[Unusual Suspect]

2 hours ago, Luckylyn said:

I loved the short film Dare and was disappointed by the feature length version.  The casting and characterization didn’t work as well.  I liked Johnny in that version but that was the only thing that worked. The original was so much better.

I don't even think I finished the full length version. Admittedly, I was just unimpressed with the feature cast.

[methodwriter85]

2 hours ago, Unusual Suspect said:

I don't even think I finished the full length version. Admittedly, I was just unimpressed with the feature cast.

Why they basically made Emmy Rossum the main character still makes absolutely no sense to me. Also, why they cast Ben/Light Boy with a super-creepy guy. Zach Gilford was fine, but he seemed far more fragile than the cocky Johnny in the short film

[memememe76]

I remember the short film but never realized that a feature length film exists. Exciting!

[xaxat]

Another black British actor's Hollywood success is raising hard questions in the UK.

Quote

(Daniel) Kaluuya’s nationality—British—has come as a surprise to some people in the US, since he skillfully portrayed an African American in the movie. But for supporters back home, it highlights a growing, albeit uncomfortable pattern for the British film industry: Black British actors are migrating to the US to find their career-defining roles.

[topanga]

35 minutes ago, xaxat said:

Another black British actor's Hollywood success is raising hard questions in the UK.

While I understand the concern because that there are far too few (good) movie roles for actors of color, this is a practice that affects other races as well. Actors from Great Britain, Australia, Canada, Spain, Mexico, and Ireland, just to name a few countries, come to the US in hopes of landing a plum movie role and making it big. It’s the Hollywood dream. If you just want to limit it to white actors, you've got Hugh Jackman, Kate Winslet, Emily Blunt, Keira Knightley, Nicole Kidman, Christian Bale, Colin Farrell, Jude Law, and Minnie Driver who have all played Americans in various movies. 

Jordan Peele addressed this head-on when Samuel L. Jackson criticized the fact that another Brit was being cast over a black American actor. Peele said that when he started auditioning actors for Get Out, he did plan to cast an American. But Daniel's audition blew him away, and he couldn't imagine the role of Chris being played by anyone else. 

[aradia22]

I mean technically Hugh Jackman's most famous role is a Canadian. Kate Winslet keeps her accent a lot, as does Keira Knightley. I haven't watched a lot of Colin Farrell movies but I don't think he plays American a lot, at least recently. I'm not sure about Jude Law. 

I do think it's relevant to critique how much non-white actors (deny is a strong word so) do not own their British (or other national) identity in making a career in the US compared to white actors. I'm going to put Gal Gadot and Priyanka Chopra as points on the board.

[Silver Raven]

The stars of Hostiles are British actors Christian Bale and Rosamund Pike, and one of the main Native American actors, Adam Beach, is Canadian

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, Silver Raven said:

one of the main Native American actors, Adam Beach, is Canadian

True, but he is a member of the Salteaux Tribe. 

[Silver Raven]

Dumbledore's sexuality will be ignored in the Fantastic Beasts sequel.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dumbledore-gay-fantastic-beasts-sequel_us_5a71fc3de4b05253b275038c

[aradia22]

Yeah, this is why I'm 100% in the "J.K. Rowling made it up after the books were written" camp. Visibility isn't a secret sexual orientation no one is aware of. You don't get points for that.

[Spartan Girl]

5 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

Dumbledore's sexuality will be ignored in the Fantastic Beasts sequel.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dumbledore-gay-fantastic-beasts-sequel_us_5a71fc3de4b05253b275038c

Technically, the quote said it wouldn't be "explicitly discussed", that's not exactly saying it will be ignored. I mean, the books never explicitly discussed it either; the hints were there if you looked close enough. Anyway, they also said they left room for it to be in the other movies. That's how I read it, anyway.

And I'm annoyed that people are once again using something the director said as an excuse to troll JKR.

[janie jones]

I didn't see the first Fantastic Beasts, but I don't understand how Dumbledore's sexual orientation would even come up.  It's not like they're going to show him out on a date or something.

[Luckylyn]

43 minutes ago, janie jones said:

I didn't see the first Fantastic Beasts, but I don't understand how Dumbledore's sexual orientation would even come up.  It's not like they're going to show him out on a date or something.

Don’t Dumbledore and the villain have a romantic history ?  In the fight to defeat him that past would logically come up.

[starri]

This is also the second of a planned five-film series.  If they don't get there now, they've got plenty of time.

Plus, she said pretty specifically that she wouldn't be changing anything about Dumbledore and Grindlewald's backstory.

[HunterHunted]

On 1/29/2018 at 11:26 AM, topanga said:

While I understand the concern because that there are far too few (good) movie roles for actors of color, this is a practice that affects other races as well. Actors from Great Britain, Australia, Canada, Spain, Mexico, and Ireland, just to name a few countries, come to the US in hopes of landing a plum movie role and making it big. It’s the Hollywood dream. If you just want to limit it to white actors, you've got Hugh Jackman, Kate Winslet, Emily Blunt, Keira Knightley, Nicole Kidman, Christian Bale, Colin Farrell, Jude Law, and Minnie Driver who have all played Americans in various movies. 

Jordan Peele addressed this head-on when Samuel L. Jackson criticized the fact that another Brit was being cast over a black American actor. Peele said that when he started auditioning actors for Get Out, he did plan to cast an American. But Daniel's audition blew him away, and he couldn't imagine the role of Chris being played by anyone else. 

On 1/29/2018 at 12:34 PM, aradia22 said:

I mean technically Hugh Jackman's most famous role is a Canadian. Kate Winslet keeps her accent a lot, as does Keira Knightley. I haven't watched a lot of Colin Farrell movies but I don't think he plays American a lot, at least recently. I'm not sure about Jude Law. 

I do think it's relevant to critique how much non-white actors (deny is a strong word so) do not own their British (or other national) identity in making a career in the US compared to white actors. I'm going to put Gal Gadot and Priyanka Chopra as points on the board.

 

Jude Law plays American a lot. He's playing the first American pope on HBO's Young Pope. A ton of white foreign actors play Americans on tv. Hugh Laurie, Hugh Dancy, Kevin McKidd, Sullivan Stapelton, Matthew Goode, Luke Mitchell, Charlie Hunnam, Dominic Cooper, Stephen Moyer, Anna Paquin, and Dominic West. So it's absolutely happening with actors of all colors. There is just so much more work here.

[aradia22]

Quote

So it's absolutely happening with actors of all colors. There is just so much more work here.

Still, I think it's worthwhile to ask if they go back and forth or if they are exclusively playing Americans (or some other nationality). Hugh Laurie has played plenty of Brits. I've only watched Hugh Dancy in Ella Enchanted (where he keeps his accent) because his TV roles seem too dark and exhausting. Matthew Goode has definitely played British roles. Dominic Cooper has definitely played British roles.  

[xaxat]

On 1/29/2018 at 12:26 PM, topanga said:

While I understand the concern because that there are far too few (good) movie roles for actors of color, this is a practice that affects other races as well. Actors from Great Britain, Australia, Canada, Spain, Mexico, and Ireland, just to name a few countries, come to the US in hopes of landing a plum movie role and making it big. It’s the Hollywood dream. If you just want to limit it to white actors, you've got Hugh Jackman, Kate Winslet, Emily Blunt, Keira Knightley, Nicole Kidman, Christian Bale, Colin Farrell, Jude Law, and Minnie Driver who have all played Americans in various movies. 

This is an important point. In terms of award worthy performances, Actors of African (and other non-white) descent fight for a much smaller piece of the pie than white actors. Nicole Kidman can get roles that result in nominations for period pieces (Moulin Rouge/The Hours), suburban angst (Rabbit Hole) and for adopting a POC (Lion). That's not going to happen for a POC. 

Octavia Spencer got her nominations for playing a maid (The Help), a real life POC ( Hidden Figures) and another maid (Shape of Water). 

[scarynikki12]

6 hours ago, Luckylyn said:

Don’t Dumbledore and the villain have a romantic history ?  In the fight to defeat him that past would logically come up.

Dumbledore was in love with Grindelwald when they first met (18/19 years old) but there's no indication that Grindy returned those feelings.  He may have but there's no subtext (and nothing on Pottermore other than they were childhood friends) and Rowling hasn't yet said (likely because at first she wasn't asked, as Grindy was a cameo in Book 7 and she tends to get asked about characters the readers already know, and then because she knew it would be relevant to this series and she doesn't like to reveal things that will unfold in the story itself).  In Book 7 a tabloid reporter wrote a Dumbledore tell-all that used a lot of the anti-LGBTQ language that has been used in real life, which is how attentive readers realized that Albus was gay, and Rowling's famous post-series interview merely confirmed it.  Truly obsessive fans were aware that she made him gay years before the series ended, thanks to an interview she gave to either Leaky Cauldron or Mugglenet that revealed it, but that was before some of the crazy "this series is about magic and therefore OF SATAN!" people had really started to pay attention.  Those same crazies latched on to that post-series interview as "proof" that the series and Rowling were "trying to corrupt THE CHILDREN and we need to ban these books because we need to protect THE CHILDREN".  I haven't read anything that confirms this but I'm pretty sure Samantha Morton's anti-magic character in Fantastic Beasts is, in part, based on that group of fools. 

As for the future movies, I would be surprised if the main focus isn't on the circumstances of Ariana's death and Grindy becoming a genocidal despot.  Ariana's death permanently fractured Albus' relationship with his brother, ended his relationship with Grindelwald, left him with a lifetime of guilt, and changed the course of his life (he became a teacher instead of joining the Ministry).  I do expect some focus to be on Dumbledore's youthful feelings, maybe not until the next movie, but I think it will be part of the larger picture.  I think their famous duel will also be in the final movie, so they have to lay the groundwork for this meeting, and there are so many elements that lead up to it. 

[HunterHunted]

7 hours ago, aradia22 said:

Still, I think it's worthwhile to ask if they go back and forth or if they are exclusively playing Americans (or some other nationality). Hugh Laurie has played plenty of Brits. I've only watched Hugh Dancy in Ella Enchanted (where he keeps his accent) because his TV roles seem too dark and exhausting. Matthew Goode has definitely played British roles. Dominic Cooper has definitely played British roles.  

But I don't think anyone is making the argument that Idris Elba, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and others are exclusively only playing Americans. Even folks like Lennie James and Eammon Walker who have been parked over in the states for decades still take roles where they have to use their original accents. The majority of Dancy's roles for the past 7 or 8 years have called for an American accent. Cooper plays Tony Stark's very American father in the Marvel films and tv shows. He's now playing an American preacher with supernatural powers on AMC's Preacher.

Being critical that foreign actors of color are "taking" parts from American actors attacks the wrong part of the problem, which is that there aren't enough parts written for PoC or cast openly. And because there is this perception that British actors have "better" training, I've gotten the sense that they sometimes cast foreign actors of color a little bit more colorblind because they want to work with the actor. I wonder if the part of Maeve would still be a woman of color if Thandie Newton had passed on it. Or if they would have just cast some random white actress in the Chronicles of Riddick if Thandie passed on that one too. In another example, The Martian changed a character from Indian to Indian and Black because Ridley Scott really wanted Chiwetel Ejiofor for the role. That's the kind of leg up that I think foreign actors of color get. 

[HunterHunted]

16 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

Dumbledore was in love with Grindelwald when they first met (18/19 years old) but there's no indication that Grindy returned those feelings.  He may have but there's no subtext (and nothing on Pottermore other than they were childhood friends) and Rowling hasn't yet said

I've always felt like Grindelwald being a manipulative narcissist knew about Dumbledore's feelings and encouraged his affections to get what he wanted. Seeing how he was with Credence in Fantastic Beasts sort of supports that view of how Grindelwald might have been with Dumbledore.

Edited February 4, 2018 by HunterHunted
To include the video

[aradia22]

Quote

Being critical that foreign actors of color are "taking" parts from American actors attacks the wrong part of the problem, which is that there aren't enough parts written for PoC or cast openly. 

To clarify, when I posed the question I was questioning whether (let's just simplify by saying British though this goes for other nationalities as well) non-white British actors not being asked to play British characters was reinforcing the idea that the British public is mainly white and you can't be of African descent, Indian, Muslim, Chinese, etc. and be British. Unless it's on something like Misfits or Skins. I do think that things have been getting better more recently (like in the last 20-30 years). While racial and ethnic identity is important, I don't want to discount the importance of national identity especially when Caucasian actors have a great fluidity. They can play every European nationality (regardless of whether their features or accents make sense), Russians, South Africans, and depending on your level of comfort with brownface/whitewashing a lot of other additional roles. 

And as @xaxat points out, actors of African descent are specifically limited in the US to struggle narratives, domestic servitude, crime stories, etc. 

[Trini]

So with Black Panther opening soon, and in the interest of comparisons, I decided to see what were the highest grossing films with a Black lead or a mostly Black cast. [I used this list from Box Office Mojo.]

(#47) Furious 7 (2015), Vin Diesel [$353,007,020]
(#44) Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017), Dwayne Johnson [$344,517,752 still in theaters]
(#56) Suicide Squad (2016), Will Smith,
(#68) Independence Day (1996), Will Smith,
(#106) I Am Legend (2007), Will Smith,
(#113) Men in Black (1997), Will Smith,
(#127) Fast & Furious 6 (2013), Vin Diesel
(#130) Beverly Hills Cop (1984), Eddie Murphy [$234,760,478]

A good start, but half of these have an ensemble cast. I really had to keep scrolling to find one with a mostly black cast; was iffy about Get Out (2017), but after that is

(#269) Hidden Figures (2016), Taraji P. Henson [$169,607,287]
(#285) The Pursuit of Happyness (2006), Will Smith [$163,566,459]

Thoughts? Correct me if you think I've missed something. I'm hoping Black Panther is a big enough hit that studios start looking outside the 'Will Smith' box.

[aradia22]

Quote

I decided to see what were the highest grossing films with a Black lead or a mostly Black cast. [...] A good start, but half of these have an ensemble cast. I really had to keep scrolling to find one with a mostly black cast; [...] Thoughts? Correct me if you think I've missed something. I'm hoping Black Panther is a big enough hit that studios start looking outside the 'Will Smith' box.

Yeah, that makes sense. Because when you go with highest grossing, these days you probably mean a blockbuster/action movie. And that's usually got an ensemble cast or a big production. You can argue about the relative importance of the other characters in a James Bond or Jason Bourne or Mission Impossible movie but there's a lot of people. It's not like one of those solo movies (Buried with Ryan Reynolds, Locke with Tom Hardy) is going to be high on the list. High grossing films with a black lead or mostly black cast tend to be comedies and those do well but they're mid-tier movies. They're lucky to gross in the $50-100 million range. Dramas and romance/comedies don't really pull in audiences that way anymore compared to the early days of movies when everyone would go see Gone with the Wind or The Wizard of Oz. People watch that stuff at home or they have other interests.

[starri]

14 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

In Book 7 a tabloid reporter wrote a Dumbledore tell-all that used a lot of the anti-LGBTQ language that has been used in real life, which is how attentive readers realized that Albus was gay, and Rowling's famous post-series interview merely confirmed it.

She had also given a script note on one of the movies (I believe that was released before the last book) that said "Dumbledore is gay" to some dialog about Dumbledore telling Harry about a romance when he was young.  There are also two other older men who are clearly supposed to be gay.

And she can insist otherwise til she's blue in the face, but so is Charlie Weasley.

[angora]

Hey now, let us asexuals claim Charlie Weasley!  He's more interested in dragons than romantic relationships - 'nuff said.

Here's my thing with Fantastic Beasts.  I'll agree that we don't know specifically what "not explicit" means, we haven't seen the movie yet, and there are still three additonal movies to go.  HOWEVER, if Grindelwald was a woman, all of the following would be true:

1)  Rowling wouldn't have made the post-DH announcement that Dumbledore had been in love with Grindelwald, because it would've been in the book.

2)  No one would be debating whether Dumbledore and Grindelwald dated, Dumbledore's feelings were unrequited, or Grindelwald manipulated Dumbledore's feelings, because the book would've SAID what happened.

3)  An interviewer would've never asked Yates whether or not we'd see that aspect of Dumbledore's history in the movie, because there would've been no earthly reason to think it WOULDN'T be included.

4)  Even if someone HAD asked, there's no way in hell the answer would've been "not explicitly" with the shrugging remark that "all the fans are aware of that" anyway, so what on earth would be the point of needing to SHOW it?

I mean, the big bad is a woman Dumbledore had romantic feelings for in his youth and the movie (dare I say it, the series as a whole) deals with this confrontation between them years after the fact?  No way they'd EVER make a movie that made no "explicit" mention of that history.  It's cowardice, dismissiveness, or both.

[Scarlett45]

I saw this trailer yesterday, I have not read the novel but it looks like a good venue for Rachel McAdams who has not had any big projects lately. 

[starri]

33 minutes ago, angora said:

Hey now, let us asexuals claim Charlie Weasley!  He's more interested in dragons than romantic relationships - 'nuff said.

No, I think it's also fair to read that Charlie is ace.  Although considering how she tries to be pretty inclusive--talking about how students at Hogwarts represent most human faiths, for example--even if she stumbles, I'm surprised that's never come up in an interview.

Although Harry Potter and the Cursed Child is 100% about two teens who haven't figured out they're in love yet.

[scarynikki12]

10 hours ago, starri said:

Although Harry Potter and the Cursed Child is 100% about two teens who haven't figured out they're in love yet.

I think co-writing this play and agreeing to write the Fantastic screenplays are her way of trying to make up for some of her book choices regarding wizarding sexuality in general, and Albus’ in particular, being subtext rather than text. When they confirmed Dumbledore’s presence in the sequels it never occurred to me to doubt that she’d include it. Everyone else, sure, but not Rowling. She may have to team with Jude and the editor to make it happen but I think we’ll see it. 

 

On 2/3/2018 at 10:13 PM, HunterHunted said:

I've always felt like Grindelwald being a manipulative narcissist knew about Dumbledore's feelings and encouraged his affections to get what he wanted. Seeing how he was with Credence in Fantastic Beasts sort of supports that view of how Grindelwald might have been with Dumbledore.

 

 

I think this will likely be the route she goes with for Grindelwald. He’ll be manipulative and ultimately only interested in relation to his own quest for power and wizard dominance. He may even end up being like Voldemort and have no interest in developing personal connections at all. When I first saw the movie I thought Graves was attracted to Tina so I think manipulating everyone is second nature to him. 

I did think it was a shame that she’d already revealed that Newt had a wife on Pottermore because he and Jacob could have been a great couple (sorry Queenie!). 

[Silver Raven]

YouTuber Kian Lawley was cast as the boyfriend in the interracial love story The Hate U Give, starring Amandla Stenberg, until past racist comments he made surfaced.  Twentieth Century Fox says his part will be recast and the scenes which have been shot including him will be reshot.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/06/entertainment/kian-lawley-the-hate-u-give/index.html

[twoods]

I'm pretty impressed by his apology and don't know if he's "changed", but people need to realize that the internet is forever and stop saying and doing stupid shit on there. It's easy to apologize once you got caught for being a racist jerk, but why did he say that in the first place?

That storyline sounds interesting and may try to find that book. I'm a sucker for interracial romance.

[topanga]

7 hours ago, twoods said:

I'm pretty impressed by his apology and don't know if he's "changed", but people need to realize that the internet is forever and stop saying and doing stupid shit on there. It's easy to apologize once you got caught for being a racist jerk, but why did he say that in the first place?

That storyline sounds interesting and may try to find that book. I'm a sucker for interracial romance.

It’s a great novel. I’m reading it now. 

His apology seems sincere. Still, he had to rewatch and possibly edit that video before he posted it, so he heard his words more than once. If he nor anyone in his camp took pause at what he said, then he really shouldn’t be attached to this project. BTW, the novel/movie isn’t just about the romance. It’s also about racism and police-community relationships.