Is the alt-right ruining movies?

Post Reply New Topic

maybe
who watches movies for the politics, though? seriously. i ignore it



yunioshi?
he was pretty bad but i saw him as a minor enough character that he didn't ruin the movie for me. and i saw it when i was like, 19. hardly remember it, actually.

and sly, black people fought for the germans in WW2. people from all, over the world. honest.

That's true when discussing video entertainment set in those societies, but a significant portion of the video entertainment produced in both of those countries over the past several decades doesn't make use of settings where that argument is applicable.

Jesus and Achilles were both swarthy Mediterranean types, yet look who's been cast historically for roles of that sort.

If 'James Bond' is an assigned name (not the agent's real name, as has been used to justify his previous changes in appearance) why would it only ever be assigned to English/Scots/Welsh and not possibly ever a black Briton?

Why do western studios feel compelled to impose 'mighty wh***y' type characters into stories set outside of the west? Tom Cruise's character in The Last Samurai being a canon example. This isn't always an issue, like in the story of Lawrence of Arabia since there's a historical person who's being depicted. It's an issue when there's no historical basis for a character of that sort and when they're largely used to remove agency from whoever "the locals" are, essentially making the focus that individual's struggles and interests instead of focusing on the 'real' story it purports to be telling, and the interests and motivations and struggles associated with that.

For what it's worth, my understanding is that with some of the recent tactical shooters that have removed references to the NSDAP/Nazis/associated ideals has been done effectively to try to make the factions apolitical, essentially team jerseys. Ideally if this is the intention they should do it to the Soviets as well, using the red/white/blue flag - it's not as though the ideology of Lenin and Stalin was substantially morally better than that of the NSDAP.

I wonder how people feel about use of American, French and British symbolism. One could suggest that this amounts to sympathy, or at least condoning the imperialistic and colonial behaviours of those empires, not to mention violent and racist policies both at home but especially overseas. It's not like the main liberal powers of the early 20th century had significantly less blood on their hands than 'the bad guys', and I say that despite having no love for the USSR, Third Reich, Fascist Italy or Imperial Japan.

A pack of murderers rounded up young boys from their countrymen's homes and sent them to murder other young boys who had been subjected to the same, with everyone insisting it was ultimately defensive and they were the good guys - until finally some of the older criminals finally were stopped, forced to admit they caused all of it, killed and we all got distracted as the remaining criminals turned on each other and held humanity hostage with nuclear weapons.

Is it preferably to treat it basically like paintball where you're just picking a team jersey since you're already making light of an inherently tragic thing? Or is it better that even when we're just trying to relax and entertain ourselves we're forced to remember the reality of what we're pretending to do (and for fun or all reasons - i can imagine the ghosts of millions of historic war casualties shaking their heads in disbelief).

I like tactical shooters, I just think some of the arguments against depoliticizing the factions seem to think removing some of the historical details to discourage real life Nazis from congregating in those communities and hiding in plain-sight will result in the erasure of history fail to understand that one will be exposed to that context elsewhere and sound hypocritical whining about sterilizing one element when the whole thing has been sterilized by a whole greater order of magnitude yet they've never once voiced a criticism beyond this one pet issue.

There's nothing wrong with actively working to ensure white supremacists don't openly associate with your product or form communities that make other customers/potential customers less interested in using your product.

Bond is a British cultural Icon and changing his race changes his character, he is a member of the upper class part of the establishment born to a Scottish aristocratic father and a Swiss mother.

It wasn't that they were just considering Idris Elba for the role they were specifically looking for a black actor.

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.