I’m torn on some of this. I like the idea, in theory, of giving Hollywood an incentive to cast more people that aren’t cast enough, and tell stories about people whose stories don’t get told enough.
But will the beneficiaries of these adjustments want to see these films? Will other people not want to? I guess we shall see.
I don’t see many current movies, and I’m not really the target audience of most that are made. Will this change that? I’m skeptical that new types of movies will be made. It seems more likely that they’ll try to make the same kinds of movies but with these adjustments. It will be nonwhite actors and women actors dispensing the scattergun wisecracks and blowing bad guys (bad gals) away. Or the trite romcoms will be less white. Or the people in ridiculous suits against CGI backdrops would be less white and less male.
All of that would be to the good, but I still wouldn’t be seeing these movies.
Or, they may often make the exact same movies and figure “we aren’t making an Oscar-winning picture here. We are selling tickets.”
The overriding question for me is: do movies that don’t do all the things these new rules say they ought to do make those creative decisions because the filmmakers have a racist/sexist agenda, or because the audience wants to see what it wants to see? If there are really is an agenda behind the movies that don’t satisfy equity demands, then these solutions may fix a real problem. But I wonder.
It’s hard for me to believe that corporate attempts to do the right thing will continue even if it appears that revenue is lost as a result. If it turns out that better movies are made, and the public is happy about the change, that will be a nice thing. I’m just skeptical.
I like the idea of diversity and equity. But I suspect that forcing it on artists will sometimes lead to perversity and kitsch, just as the racist and sexist restrictive policies of old did.
I would add one comment about whether such projects are commercially viable. I don't know if you recall, when the film "Warrior Queen" was released (and tanked), Viola Davis on a red carpet admonishing potential ticket buyers that if they don't come and see her film they're "supporting the narrative that women of color can't rule at the box office." And the gay romance flick, "Bros," when it too tanked at the box office, the star of it said people who don't go see it are promoting homophobia. We can't guilt people into buying a product. And this is central to the issue of Equity--these minority groups are STILL MINORITIES. Straight folks who don't want to see guys getting it on with each other aren't homophobic. People can choose what they want to see. Thus my point about how Top Gun was #1. Money talks.
Yes, agreed. Ultimately, the people who support these new rules need to come out and pay money to see these movies. And if those movies aren’t entertaining, even supporters probably won’t pay to see them.
I feel for the people trying to break down those doors by making those movies. It’s good for them to do this. But they’re doing to have to deal with the same challenges every creative person faces, even if they are continuing the tradition of oppression. Your movie has to be a good story that’s fun to watch.
“Dirty Harry” isn’t a movie I watch over and over because I want cops to be like that character. I want to watch that character in a well-directed movie, because it’s entertaining. A lame movie with the same message isn’t going to sell tickets.
And I don’t love rom coms, even if there are no “guys getting it on.” But when this kind of story was made by Ernst Lubitsch, or Leo McCarey with Cary Grant, etc., I’m in. Make a really funny rom com with two guys, and I’ll go see it. But I’m going to go because it’s funny, not because I like paying money to be pandered to.
If really excellent movies are made that follow these new rules, that could actually make our society a little better. Maybe some homophobes and racists and sexists will see them and think “I really like that character. Maybe Asians aren’t so bad.” Or whatever. But make a good movie, or nothing good will come of these good intentions.
Boom. Exactly. You don't persuade people without moving them, entertaining them, allowing them to see themselves in people and stories that are unfamiliar to them.
The thing is: all the examples you give of what kinds of movies will get made are already getting made. We already have shoot 'em up movies with women wielding the weapons--see: "Gunpowder Milkshake." We already have trite romcoms with people of color. This is the problem with the SJWs--they have to make rules and enforce them. Because the movement is about POWER and MAKING PEOPLE DO SH*T. Never mind that they're already doing it.
I can comment on one specfic issue with the Academy's DEI requirements. They allow people to self-identify as "indigenous," and don't require that somebody be an officially-recognized tribal member. In other words, there are quite a few Elizabeth Warren-esque pretend Indians roaming in Hollywood.
I wasn’t aware of the full extent of the academy awards representation criteria. Has anybody done a full list of all of the past award winners that wouldn’t have won? For example, I’m guessing Parasite would have been disqualified.
Ultimately it is going to come down to the quality of the story, and the quality of the acting -- does it resonate with the audience?
I am sorry that Queen Cleo did not work as well as it should have done. I suspect the theme was unclear and the audience were unable to fully connect. It is that connection with the universality of human emotion which transcends time and space which people are looking for.
I suppose the question is why does Maverick: Top Gun work? Why was so popular all over the globe? What is it about the story which people connect with?
I’m torn on some of this. I like the idea, in theory, of giving Hollywood an incentive to cast more people that aren’t cast enough, and tell stories about people whose stories don’t get told enough.
But will the beneficiaries of these adjustments want to see these films? Will other people not want to? I guess we shall see.
I don’t see many current movies, and I’m not really the target audience of most that are made. Will this change that? I’m skeptical that new types of movies will be made. It seems more likely that they’ll try to make the same kinds of movies but with these adjustments. It will be nonwhite actors and women actors dispensing the scattergun wisecracks and blowing bad guys (bad gals) away. Or the trite romcoms will be less white. Or the people in ridiculous suits against CGI backdrops would be less white and less male.
All of that would be to the good, but I still wouldn’t be seeing these movies.
Or, they may often make the exact same movies and figure “we aren’t making an Oscar-winning picture here. We are selling tickets.”
The overriding question for me is: do movies that don’t do all the things these new rules say they ought to do make those creative decisions because the filmmakers have a racist/sexist agenda, or because the audience wants to see what it wants to see? If there are really is an agenda behind the movies that don’t satisfy equity demands, then these solutions may fix a real problem. But I wonder.
It’s hard for me to believe that corporate attempts to do the right thing will continue even if it appears that revenue is lost as a result. If it turns out that better movies are made, and the public is happy about the change, that will be a nice thing. I’m just skeptical.
I like the idea of diversity and equity. But I suspect that forcing it on artists will sometimes lead to perversity and kitsch, just as the racist and sexist restrictive policies of old did.
I would add one comment about whether such projects are commercially viable. I don't know if you recall, when the film "Warrior Queen" was released (and tanked), Viola Davis on a red carpet admonishing potential ticket buyers that if they don't come and see her film they're "supporting the narrative that women of color can't rule at the box office." And the gay romance flick, "Bros," when it too tanked at the box office, the star of it said people who don't go see it are promoting homophobia. We can't guilt people into buying a product. And this is central to the issue of Equity--these minority groups are STILL MINORITIES. Straight folks who don't want to see guys getting it on with each other aren't homophobic. People can choose what they want to see. Thus my point about how Top Gun was #1. Money talks.
Yes, agreed. Ultimately, the people who support these new rules need to come out and pay money to see these movies. And if those movies aren’t entertaining, even supporters probably won’t pay to see them.
I feel for the people trying to break down those doors by making those movies. It’s good for them to do this. But they’re doing to have to deal with the same challenges every creative person faces, even if they are continuing the tradition of oppression. Your movie has to be a good story that’s fun to watch.
“Dirty Harry” isn’t a movie I watch over and over because I want cops to be like that character. I want to watch that character in a well-directed movie, because it’s entertaining. A lame movie with the same message isn’t going to sell tickets.
And I don’t love rom coms, even if there are no “guys getting it on.” But when this kind of story was made by Ernst Lubitsch, or Leo McCarey with Cary Grant, etc., I’m in. Make a really funny rom com with two guys, and I’ll go see it. But I’m going to go because it’s funny, not because I like paying money to be pandered to.
If really excellent movies are made that follow these new rules, that could actually make our society a little better. Maybe some homophobes and racists and sexists will see them and think “I really like that character. Maybe Asians aren’t so bad.” Or whatever. But make a good movie, or nothing good will come of these good intentions.
Boom. Exactly. You don't persuade people without moving them, entertaining them, allowing them to see themselves in people and stories that are unfamiliar to them.
Correction: the Viola Davis film was "The Woman King."
The thing is: all the examples you give of what kinds of movies will get made are already getting made. We already have shoot 'em up movies with women wielding the weapons--see: "Gunpowder Milkshake." We already have trite romcoms with people of color. This is the problem with the SJWs--they have to make rules and enforce them. Because the movement is about POWER and MAKING PEOPLE DO SH*T. Never mind that they're already doing it.
Yes, that’s been my impression too.
I can comment on one specfic issue with the Academy's DEI requirements. They allow people to self-identify as "indigenous," and don't require that somebody be an officially-recognized tribal member. In other words, there are quite a few Elizabeth Warren-esque pretend Indians roaming in Hollywood.
I wasn’t aware of the full extent of the academy awards representation criteria. Has anybody done a full list of all of the past award winners that wouldn’t have won? For example, I’m guessing Parasite would have been disqualified.
Ultimately it is going to come down to the quality of the story, and the quality of the acting -- does it resonate with the audience?
I am sorry that Queen Cleo did not work as well as it should have done. I suspect the theme was unclear and the audience were unable to fully connect. It is that connection with the universality of human emotion which transcends time and space which people are looking for.
I suppose the question is why does Maverick: Top Gun work? Why was so popular all over the globe? What is it about the story which people connect with?