Is the alt-right ruining movies?

Post Reply New Topic

James Bond isn't a code name its his birth name.

White countries do use white actors to portray non whites just as non white countries use non white actors to portray white characters, this is because they want to appeal to their market.

When in western media they make make European cultural and historical Icons non white its an attempt to promote the idea that White people do not have a culture.

I'm sure you have evidence of this conspiracy.

Is that intended to be purely factual statement, or an endorsement of commercial practice? I agree that the movie industry plays fast and loose with history to do what they expect will appeal to their largest audience. The Office got an American remake. Apparently, producers thought an American audience couldn't identify enough with British characters. The movie U-571 pretended it was not the Royal Navy, but the US Navy which first got an Enigma machine off a German U-boat. But if you think that's all fine, you should also be fine with the movie industry discovering that movies like Black Panther, Wonder Woman or the reboot of Ghost Busters can sell, or that the Doctor could regenerate as a woman, and more people like it than whine about it.


What is your evidence that this is never a commercial decision, and that it is based in that very specific ideology you claim? I mean, I am bored with "straight white male with chiseled jaw rescues the world", and I am a straight white male. I like stories with perspectives other than mine. I pay for them.


Cultural icons change with the culture. Robin Hood has been reimagined to fit cultural changes, and so has King Arthur and his court. I think it's time for Bond to become less psychopathic (as described in the first Bond book) and less misogynistic. If a cultural icon is supposed to represent the best of a culture, then the classic Bond isn't it.

My guess is that for most people, it's a mere dislike of remakes and reboots, rather than the sex, race, et al of the cast members.

The only stipulation for James Bond, to my understanding, is that he must be British. People have been arguing about which Bond was better for decades, so Idris Elba would be no different than Roger Moore when he debuted as 007.

The fact that white countries are being forced to become multicultural and diverse and that non white countries are not.

I don't see what Black Panther and Wonder Woman have to do with it, it would be like them changing the race and sex of those characters people would rightfully be upset.

The current series of Doctor Who is incredibly unpopular, turning the doctor into a woman was not done for creative reasons but because the BBC wanted it for political reasons.

How can blockbusters appealing to a small minority be a commercial reason?

A cultural Icon is not meant to represent the best of a culture, changing Bonds race is about telling native Britons its not our culture any more we own nothing and that Immigrants are just as British as we are.

Forced? By whom exactly? Perceived economic necessity is the main reason.

Further, many "non-white" countries have long histories of immigration. While an anecdote doesn't prove a trend, my brother and his wife live in Cambodia.

I don't know if this has already been said, but am I the only one who notices an anti-SJW agenda in Zoo-Topia?

Seem to me that the Alt-right often blame movies being "bad" from a political agenda, while overlooking the real flaws of the movies.
The Last Jedi, while having some interesting idea, is a deeply flawed movie; but the causes are of mismanagements and lack of polish rather than of political agenda.

Moviemaking is a losing art in Hollywood, regardless of political agenda.
Cinematography has become dull, music is less melodic and memorable, badly edited actions scenes that are not entertaining (Speaking of which; why still no Itano Circus?), screenplay that are "paint by the numbers" and so on...

Do it never occurred to you that some movies may also have right wing slant?


Of course Britons don't own James Bond, he's copyrighted, and thus at the mercy of the whims of a bunch of capitalists; not that it matter, it's not like Britons have control over the use of Robin Hood or King Arthur either.
Also, someone that is black can be British; like being born in England and being raised in British culture: and if you go far back enough, it's not like British nobility were from the first inhabitants either; Guillaume the Conqueror was not of British descent after all.

Because this hereis an argument that having majority actors playing minority roles is a purely commercial decision. The success of movies with main protagonists from less powerful groups undermines that claim of purely economic causation. Perhaps whitewashing is as ideological as you claim a black Bond would be.


What is the evidence?


Perhaps the producers had reason to believe that audiences are less parochial than they had previously assumed, that movies with a more varied cast (either within or between movies) would attract enough new demographics that this more than compensates for what they may lose. The success of Black Panther is a possible example. If only those represented in the movie had gone to watch it, it should have made less money.


No? Then educate me. What is a cultural icon supposed to do? And what makes a character a cultural icon?


Would native Britons be the Celtic tribes who were there before the Romans (including their auxiliaries from all over the empire), Angles, Saxons, Danes and Normans immigrated? How many of those Celtic individuals are there, and how would you know? Or do you have a more inclusive definition of native Briton?


The history of Britain does look like one of immigration and amalgamation, so doing the same again would be upholding a proud, British tradition.

They wanted to change the female lead of Crazy Rich Asians to a white actress, but it did great at the box office with an all Asian cast. The domestic gross is a whopping 174 million Its production budget was just 30 million. Some people don't like it. But enough people watched it to make it very profitable.

At no point were British people asked if they wanted to become a multicultural country, the government forced it upon us.

Cambodia is still overwhelmingly Cambodian, I doubt they have immigrants calling native citizens Privileged.

A mixed race person can be British but the child of two Africans can not be British. If I was born in China I wouldn't be Chinese.

The Normans were Invaders and we need to take our land back from their descendants.

There are fewer non white actors in white countries, it not white washing in the same way Indian superman or Indian Jack Bauer isn't Brown washing its making use of domestic talent.

Its Public knowledge that the BBC wanted to change the sex of the Doctor.

A cultural Icon is just a legendary person essentially. Jack the Ripper and Vlad in impaler are cultural icons.

Most British DNA goes back to Ice aged tribes, these were the true Britons. Britain has a history of invasion not really immigration and these invaded mixed with the natives. I wouldn't call being invaded and women being raped a proud British tradition.

Actually, if you were born and raised in China you'd be Anglo-Chinese by ethnicity and Chinese by nationality.

By voting in governments that favoured immigration, yes actually they were asked. Repeatedly.

Largely because most "expats" in Cambodia don't have much reason to make that claim, it would also vary depending on context. Privilege was likely a factor in why the local cops didn't care when my brother was the victim of a hit and run there, but in many other contexts he would have no reason to suggest that it exists. When you look around an office and know half of the people in the room didn't grow up with toilet in the house or electricity it makes one a little slower to use that term.