MovieChat Forums > Politics > Is the notion that "diversity is a stren...

Is the notion that "diversity is a strength" actually bigoted?

posted 5 years ago by krl97a (5619)
69 replies | jump to latest

I'm talking about racial diversity, as the phrase is unfortunately usually used. I'm all for something becoming racially diverse if it just happens as a natural result, like ending past discrimination for example.

But is it fair to artificially push "diversity" through racial discrimination of your own, based on the rationale that a racially diverse group is superior to a racially homogeneous one?

Isn't it racially bigoted to judge people by the color of their skin and deem one group "inferior" because it's not as "diverse"? Are Japan and Sweden racially inferior to more racially diverse countries like the US or Brazil? Is a group of 10 white people.....or Asian people.........or black people....automatically inferior to a mixed group of 10 people?

Race is a dead end. People should stop obsessing over it and move on to things that actually matter. No one should have his skin color used against him as a weapon, no matter what that color is.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I work in a very diverse group within my company and all I can say it is one of the nicest groups of people I have ever met. Last night I went to a movie with 3 of them, one of which was Asian and another which was Spanish and the topic of our different races came up exactly zero times. Generally we're all just nice to each other and like sharing our different life experiences. Whether it's a strength or not, I don't know....but it's absolutely not a weakness and I feel better off for knowing these people and am glad to call them my friends.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Have you never had a positive experience with a racially homogeneous group or a negative experience with a racially diverse group? I ask because you're so certain, seemingly based on that one example, that racial diversity is not a weakness (I agree), yet you leave it "unknown" whether racial homogeneity is inferior.

I think most people have had good and bad experiences with both racially homogeneous and diverse groups. What matters are the individuals involved, not their skin color. My concern is that the increasing emphasis on race in recent years has necessarily resulted in people being judged by their skin color when the focus should be on character, talent, personality, etc..

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

In answer to your first question, yes I've had many positive experiences with groups lacking diversity. I grew up in a very white city so until college I interacted with almost entirely white groups at school and work. During these years I made friends who I'm still in touch with today so there's no way I can say this wasn't positive. The same goes for my first job after college, mostly white people (with some but not a lot of diversity), most of whom I respected greatly. Although most of the people I interacted with during this time were at their core good, I think the lack of diversity made them feel at home with casual racism. I can honestly say I was never one to use the N-word, and I would always feel kinda pissed when people would drop it in casual conversation. But if I'm honest my anger was less feeling offended for the minority being slurred and more about the person's presumption that I was fine with racist language. The same goes for slurs for Hispanic and Asian people. I dont change my opinion that these people were good at heart, but for me it was always disheartening that hear someone I otherwise liked and respected to say something so outwardly racist. I do think a lack of diversity in my hometown made it easier to foster views like this. To my own discredit, I rarely if ever had the guts to speak up then against language like that, and usually just did my best to avoid confrontation.

In answer to your second question, also yes I've had negative experiences with diverse groups. I went to a state college that had a large black population and was there during the OJ verdict. It was uncomfortable for many, myself included and was involved in more than one heated discussion regarding his guilt or innocence (and yeah of course he did it). When I think back to college, even though there was a diverse student population, it was common to see tables of entirely white students and entirely black students.

(Continued in next post)

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Now, if someone is hired SOLELY for skin color while being otherwise unqualified, yes that is of course wrong and just plain tokenism. Does it ever happen? I'm sure. Does someone ever get a job because they're white? Also sadly I imagine so. But speaking from personal experiences, the group of people I work with are incredibly talented and more than qualified for their positions and I'm sure there are countless qualified people of color elsewhere as well.

To me, the coolest thing about being with such a diverse group is that it has taught me the very cliche lesson that we really are way more alike than not. If someone had told me even 5 years ago that I'd be routinely discussing Marvel movies with a gay black man after just about every opening weekend, I'd have thought them crazy (that guy by the way saved me over the past two weeks because he has a mastery of one of our systems that I can't seem to navigate to save my life). But like clockwork we have those movie conversations. If you had told me I'd have a woman from Kenya and a lesbian of Indian decent nearly in tears from laughing so hard as I recounted my anger at my experiences helping a friend out scooping slush the previous weekend (don't get me started) I would've thought it just as unlikely. But there the three of us were laughing our asses off. If someone had told me I'd be on a 3 person group text with a Latino girl and a black girl to discuss Handmaids Tale every week, I'd have had no idea what you were talking about since I had never heard of Handmaids tale back then. But those group texts are a blast. Of course I'm speaking of just my own experiences, sorry if that was too much of a tangent lol

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

I'm glad to hear that, though I think racial discrimination shouldn't occur at all in hiring unless skin color is pertinent to the task (e.g. undercover police work, a certain acting role). As your own experiences indicate, as do examples from the Balkans to Mediterranean "refugee" camps to Washington's Evergreen College (nasty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cMYfxOFBBM), forcing "diversity" isn't necessarily a cure for racial bigotry or strife. The reduction in bigotry in the US had more to do with moral arguments changing hearts over time, arguments that gained traction because they were based on core founding principles like "All men are Created equal" and shared Christian values.

A population might have a soft form of "casual" prejudice about a group they haven't interacted much with, but altering the group to include members of the other group isn't necessarily the only solution when that problem does exist. Japan is still homogeneous but nowhere near as xenophobic as it once was. I'd suggest the possibility that one reason a group of white (or any other color) Americans might be "comfortable with casual racism" isn't just the homogeneous nature of the group, but the fact that race is such a societal obsession that it was on their minds to begin with.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

My concern isn't just the internal dynamics of a group but how it's judged by others. Some publicly verifiable examples include France's Le Monde criticizing the US women's soccer team for being too "white", the Covington Baptist kids who were wrongly demonized as villains by almost the entire media mostly for standing there being (too?) white, or the "too Asian" Maclean's controversy in Canada. A tangential issue is the open fostering of anti-white bigotry (e.g. people conditioned to use "white" as a negative epithet even in non-racial situations, like media pundits dismissing the Senators questioning the Kavanaugh accuser as "a bunch of white men" when the accuser was white too), but that topic could consume its own thread.

This also impacts entertainment. Old movies are increasingly attacked and dismissed for being “too white”. Take the original Star Wars, a legitimate classic. It does have an overwhelmingly white cast, in contrast to the more “diverse” later films and recent Disney movies. It’s also light years better than the prequels or the garbage Disney is churning out. Lucas didn’t set out to cast white people in Star Wars to keep minorities down. Most of the actors were white (James Earl Jones voice playing Darth Vader being a notable exception, along with Lando in the sequels) simply because the US is supermajority white. That’s true now, and was even more true back then. That’s why Chinese movies almost always cast Chinese actors, and so on.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

The problem with going out of your way to make fiction “diverse” is that is that if the focus is on pushing a political agenda the priority isn’t on quality plot and character development. And the “diversity” in such SJW entertainment is often skin deep. Feminist superhero/action characters in particular have been justifiably described as cookie cutter (especially in comics), and ranging from annoying to boring, turning off even most female readers. It’s easy to contrast the shallow Mary Sue Ray who can somehow instantly defeat the primary villain with the force despite being untrained, with the thoughtful hero’s journey Luke had to go on to earn his status and develop as a character (along with countless other flaws in Disney Star Wars).

The truth is that Star Wars and lots of those other old “mostly white” classic movies feature characters with more interesting personalities and nuances than recent fare typically does. They’re more diverse where it counts, in part because they weren’t obsessing over race. The more the current push to view everything through a racial lens continues without adequate check, the more truly worthwhile things will be overlooked by a generation so brainwashed it can no longer see past the color of people’s skin.

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 5 years ago

You're just blinded by your own agenda. You want entertainment to be more white. Thats why you refuse to see the simple reality that the entertainment industry diversifies to make more money. When you widen the demographic to be more inclusive, you sell more tickets. As I explained to you before, they realized this with Black Panther which reached $700 million domestically, $1.3 billion worldwide.

Star Trek of the 1960s employed the same "forced diversity" that you are complaining about today. However, the difference is Gene Roddenberry did it because it was part of his vision of the future, entertainment today are doing it because it increases profits. I can give you countless examples of franchises gaining increased profits by branching out its diversity, and all you can come back with is Dunkirk. By the way, Ant-Man had similar profits to Dunkirk. What did Disney do to spice up those profits? They turned the sequel into a male/female duo. Boom... the sequel brought in an extra $100 million worldwide.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

You want entertainment to be more white.

Nope. I grew up watching The Cosby Show (*cough*), A Different World, In Living Color, etc.. Most of my favorite shows have at least mixed casts and many of my favorite characters are non-white. Your premise is simply false.

But when a show transparently goes out of its way to feature characters of a certain race/sex/orientation/etc. just for the sake of having such characters stand around and check those identity politics boxes, that's what can turn people off. Not only do most of us viewers not like PC politics being preached at us, but it seems forced and artificial...shallow...and typically results in a lower quality product as explained above. The SJW agenda is usually clear just from watching and often the makers explicitly tout it in interviews.

Thinking like yours really takes the wrong lessons from the movies you cherry-pick as examples, lol. I can list countless examples of films getting woke and going broke: MIB Int. (how's that for your male/female duo?), A Wrinkle in Time, "woke"Busters, new Robin Hood film, Terminator: Genisys, etc., along with countless games, comics, and series (e.g. Agent Carter, lol) . Note that most of these involve SJW changes to tried and true templates, turning success into failure. That doesn't apply to Black Panther, a long established character and not that "woke" of a movie. Just citing movies that include non-white or female (lol) characters but aren't SJW completely misses the point (you gonna claim the original Lethal Weapon movie as an example next, lol?).

Like Dunkirk, Ant-Man was a surprise success. The sequel just continued the story. Hope was in the first one too. Sequels commonly make more than the original. Adding "Wasp" to the title isn't what made the difference, lol. A few in the PC brigade even attacked the movie for not being feminist and making the Wasp a bigger hero.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Star Trek did have some intentional racial diversity, but that was a secondary goal and not the main focus, and it flowed naturally from the premise of Star Fleet drawing from an international talent pool (so not really “forced” ). Roddenberry was a great writer (his Have Gun Will Travel episodes are usually strong too) and plot and character development were the priority. He wanted to make a western in space. He often had some larger moral or philosophical message but it wasn’t the shallow, dumbed down SJW box checking of today. The characters were fleshed out enough to be beloved for decades by a politically diverse fanbase.

Uhura even had a great anti-PC scene when “Abraham Lincoln” thought he had accidentally insulted her and tried to apologize.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjw6y4ClQwg

“But why should I object to that term, sir? You see in our century, we’ve learned not to fear words.”

In fact the original series minimized the importance of skin color. Contrast that with today’s uber “woke” ST Discovery series, garbage that’s mostly about pushing leftist political agendas, that ironically has a much narrower fanbase than the original Star Trek did. Or that cringe worthy thing in fake ST where they made Sulu, who's clearly straight in the original show, gay just because the original actor became a gay activist, having Kirk watch him from a distance greet his boyfriend as Kirk nods approvingly, a scene that exists only to say "Look! Sulu's gay and Kirk approves!"

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

I’m not stridently categorical about these things. Like most people I can target a little PC stuff if it’s not too over the top and the quality is there. When it’s bad our typical response isn’t outrage but eye rolls. The strident absolutists are people like you who cry “racism! Nazi! EEYAAGH!!” whenever anyone pushes back some against an SJW crusade. Plus there’s a huge difference between the 1960s, a few years removed from the CRA, and now. These younger SJWs like to imagine that they’re struggling against Adolf Hitler or Jim Crow because it makes them feel important. They’re delusional.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Another quick example, if you can grasp nuance. My second favorite Walking Dead character has always been Morgan. He happens to be black though I don’t recall race ever coming up regarding him. He’s a popular character because he’s interesting, likeable, complex in a compelling way, and goes back to the first episode.

TWD became a popular show based on strong writing and had little to no SJW stuff early on. That’s changed. The cast was always racially “diverse” with lots of female characters, and no one had a problem with that. But in recent years the show has visibly been going SJW (and the new writers have boasted about it interviews), doing the thing where they focus on characters who are there just to check boxes. Plot quality has declined, the show has become stupider (e.g. having a clumsy, somehow overweight guy stumble into town years into the apocalypse when food is scarce and clumsy people are dead, though in fairness he did have several badass women, some of whom were lesbians, with him to take care of him!), and most of the fighting is now done by women. Big, burly men are still seen milling around in the background but it’s the women physically saving the day. It’s cheesy. Asinine. They even apparently killed off Rick’s son Carl to make room for Judith, his toddler daughter, to replace him after a time jump and show improbably dominant skills, while wearing Carl’s iconic hat. About 20% of the main characters are somehow gay (in real life the CDC says it’s about 3%, and in an apocalyptic survivalist situation that number would likely shrink as urban gay meccas would be the first to be wiped out).

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

In one scene the camera goes out of its way to zoom in on a portly looking woman in obvious Muslim dress (again, years into the apocalypse), the only visible Muslim in the crowd. I don’t think she had been introduced yet. The extended shot was the introduction, and yet she wasn’t saying or doing anything. She was just standing there. She later went on to save the day (of course), but the only reason for singling her out at the time in that way was to show that she was standing there being a portly Muslim woman.

One could write pages about the dumb stuff happening in the show now, and it’s no coincidence that its ratings have tanked.

The tragedy of the SJW push is that it’s unnecessary. Americans generally aren’t bigots, nor do they hate women. There’s no need to remake Ghostbusters with an all female cast to make some moronic point. Most of the bigotry is coming from people like the SJW brigade who obsessively view and judge everything through an identity politics prism, making them blind to so many more important things.

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 5 years ago

Social media is what has you perplexed. Its not the "liberal elites" that are pushing the agenda of diversity. Diversity is a result of the entire world communicating with each other with clarity on platforms that social media provides.

The problem for the right-wing is that corporations side with social media because agreeing with all cultures increases the customer base and increases profits. This is what pundits on Fox News are learning the hard way.

But right-wing pundits need someone to blame for corporations siding with social justice. And so they blame leftist elites. It does nothing for the right-wing cause, but it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

No, I'm not "perplexed". The trends being discussed predate and transcend social media, though they are amplified by Twitter, which, contrary to your hilarious description, is extremely skewed and isn't representative of the general population or diverse "cultures", lol.

A recent study found only 10% of Twitter users (a skewed group to begin with) are responsible for 80% of tweets. It's just fringe noise.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-twitter-content-dominated-by-10-percent-of-users-20190424-p4jjwi7qgzee5hkermxhs2dqji-story.html

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 5 years ago

It doesn't matter what the percentages are. Capitalism understands that diversity increases profits. Thats the pickle you right-wingers are currently in.

Since a pro-diversity attitude is increasing profits for corporations (especially companies like Disney, like holy crap), its not going anywhere. For example, Papa John's owner is out. Why? Because he threatened to reduce their profits. How? By saying things that social media did not like.

So how do you go about changing the rules so everyone gets to say what they want without affect profits? You don't. lol. You're stuck in a world where capitalism feeds diversity. Sorry bruh.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

LOL. Disney makes huge money on kids cartoons, which parents drag their kids to see because they think that's what parents are supposed to do. Its money losers are ventures like ESPN and Marvel comics (and their fake Star Wars theme park). In fact Disney led the way in ushering the inane SJW era into comics and now the industry is completely wrecked. The successful movies so far have mostly depicted classic versions of the beloved, iconic characters. Now that they're increasingly following the comics off the SJW cliff they'll gradually start going downhill too.

TV ratings are collectively dying. Movies often bomb, the occasional blockbuster misleadingly skewing total figures up. It's not just about technological changes either, as even Netflix is struggling mightily now in the wake of its leftist lurches and silencing users' voices. Non-leftist Roseanne killed the competition and was taken out by scared leftists, not the market.

Papa John's was stupid to push its founder out. That was backroom bubble driven. It wasn't what their customers wanted. It also wasn't about "diversity". You're just conflating all leftist PC BS politics now.

Gillette lost 8 billion dollars after their moronic ad attacking men, their own customer base, in a misguided attempt to virtue signal to feminists on twitter. Its brand is garbage and may have to be retired at some point, with millions vowing never to buy its products again. https://pjmedia.com/trending/gillette-loses-billions-by-shaming-men/

Get Woke Go Broke is closer to the truth.

Meanwhile companies attacked by the leftist Twitter brigade that actually show some backbone, like Chick Filet, tend to soar with record profits, as have those Trump donors recently doxed by the creepy Orwellian scumbag Congressman Joaquin Castro.

So you're wrong. Companies can do very stupid things, and sometimes go through eras where most generally operate on a miscalculation. Hopefully we're on the verge of emerging from such an era.

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 5 years ago

Capitalism makes money off of diversity. Look at the Black Panther domestic box office. Look at the Wonder Woman domestic box office. Look at the Captain Marvel domestic box office.

Look at how quickly corporations acquiesce to boycotts on social media platforms. They will do everything they can to keep profits up.

You can bitch and moan up and and down the street about how such and such examples of mine don't meet your criteria. But can you provide an example of companies making more profits by rejecting diversity and keeping it white and male? I'd sure like to see one example that you have yet to provide.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

LOL! Talk about a straw man argument. My position is opposing bigoted attacks on people based on skin color. Neither I or anyone I know has a problem with characters who happen to be black or women (though it's always funny when a liberal calls an individual "diverse"). People, including lots of conservatives, go to see movies like Wonder Woman if they think it'll be a good movie (in fact Gal Gadot caught flack from the leftist PC brigade for being "too feminine" and not anti-male). What's more, Wonder Woman and Black Panther have been established characters for decades, the former going back to the 1940s. It's not the same garbage as the hype about supposedly replacing James Bond with a black female, for example ("oooooo how woke! Take that patriarchal Nazi scum! You go girl!"). Or doing a remake of the classic Ghostbusters with an all female cast in what's openly a political agenda stunt.

Look at how quickly corporations acquiesce to boycotts on social media platforms. They will do everything they can to keep profits up.

Them mindlessly rolling over is what I'm talking about, and why so many are in such trouble. They didn't realize that Twitter was just fringe noise until the recent Pew study I cited above came out. I'm not sure there are enough in the entertainment realm at least who even care more about the bottom line than pushing a political agenda.

If there were then we'd have at least one late night talk show and/or network evening news program catering to the conservative half of the country instead of the far left, and they'd be killing all competitors like Fox News did in the Roger Ailes era (even the current watered down FNC still easily beats them), or like Rosanne did before the left whacked her with that manufactured scandal.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

But can you provide an example of companies making more profits by rejecting diversity and keeping it white and male?

Again, a strawman argument. Female characters have always been important in entertainment and no one wants to keep “it white”, though there’s absolutely nothing wrong with a movie featuring an all white male cast either.
An example of a recent success? Dunkirk. And Christopher Nolan was criticized by the leftist brigades for featuring a white, mostly male cast, the type of stupidity that motivated this thread.

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 5 years ago

Dunkirk!? Is this a joke? $190.1 million domestically on a $150 million budget? Come on guy. Surely you can show better numbers than that. Black Panther made over $700 million domestically.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

LOL! Dunkirk made over half a billion worldwide despite being a violent war movie while Black Panther was kid-friendly superhero popcorn fare.

http://modernmediamix.com/dunkirk-success-amidst-movie-drought/

Worldwide: $526,940,665
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=chrisnolan2017.htm

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 5 years ago

Worldwide markets are a whole different animal. Basically impossible to analyze. But $500 million on a $190 million budget is kinda crappy. For example, the current Hobbs and Shaw, $200 million budget, is estimated to require $600 million worldwide to break even, meaning it loses money until it makes that amount. This is because studios typically only get 25% of the foreign box office take.

The reason I was looking at domestic opinions is because this conversation is more about American attitudes toward diversity. Trust me. You really don't want to go around saying America cares about diversity but the world doesn't. When you include the whole world, it only gets more diverse :)

But anyway, back to our US diversity conversation:

Action films:

Dunkirk, white lead, white cast: $190.1 million.

AntMan 2, white male lead, white FEMALE costar: $216.6 million.
SpiderManHC, white male lead, DIVERSE cast: $334.2 million.
SpiderManFFH, white male lead, DIVERSE cast: $376.6 million
Wonder Woman, white FEMALE lead, white male costar: $412.6 million
Captain Marvel, white FEMALE lead, BLACK male co-star: $426 million.
Black Panther, BLACK lead, BLACK cast (primary): $700 million.
Infinity War, which grossed over $2 billion, and was a far superior movie, didn't even make $700 million domestically.

Diversity be bringing in them profits, yo.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

$500 million on a $190 budget was awesome, as the article I linked to (and countless others touting its "success") made clear, especially for a violent war movie most people wouldn't take their kids to see, and made it one of the highest grossing movies of the year.

The huge global box office number underscores that it's not just "white males" willing to watch movies with white male casts. Most people care about the quality of the product, not the race of the cast.

I love how you assume the only difference between those movies is the race/sex of the lead. You perfectly illustrate the bigoted, race obsessed mind set I'm talking about. That you close with a line of cringe worthy ebonics adds the perfect touch, LOL.

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 5 years ago

$500 million on a $190 million budget is never awesome. Sorry kid, you just don't know how box office works. Studios generally get 40% of the domestic take, and 25% of the foreign take. Different studios have different deals, but basically $500 on a $190 budget means they have to get their profits from the ancillary market (PPV, DVDs, rentals, etc).

Also, it doesn't really matter what Dunkirk was about. The two most important things about Dunkirk were A) How good of a movie was it?, B) how faithful are Chris Nolan fans? Either his stock is falling, or Dunkirk wasn't that great.

TDK crossed a billion worldwide.
Inception made $828.3 million worldwide.
Interstellar made $677.5 million worldwide.
Dunkirk made $526.9 million worldwide.

ruh roh

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Again, people who actually know what they're talking about, unlike you, disagree.

“Dunkirk’s” success is proof a movie with no spandex-wearing heroes can still fill cinemas"

https://qz.com/1037018/dunkirk-the-christopher-nolan-epics-box-office-success-is-proof-an-original-movie-can-still-find-an-audience/

LOL!

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Gee, American Sniper, which was rated R, amazingly made even more money on a $58.8 million dollar budget.

Worldwide: $547,426,372

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=americansniper.htm

Though Dunkirk is the highest grossing WW2 movie of all time, which is pretty good. Here's how it performed against some other films out around the same time:

Box office (Budget) US, Worldwide
Dunkirk ($100 million) $188 million, $527 million (criticized for all white, mostly male cast)

Detroit ($34 million) $17 million, NA (pushing Black Lives Matter, anti-police agenda)
The Dark Tower ($60 million) $51 million, $113 million (black good guy, white villain)
Kidnap ($21 million) $31 million, NA (starring Halle Berry)
Free State of Jones ($50 million), $21 million, $25 million (slavery, racial theme with diverse cast)

Space precludes me from listing many more. I'm not saying these movies bombed because they featured "diverse" casts, though some did bomb because they pushed SJW politics. I'm just illustrating the stupidity of your argument. It also highlights how rare mostly or all white casts are these days.

What matters is the quality of the movie, not the racial mix of the cast.

[–] Keelai (32188) 5 years ago

"Why the lack of Indian and African faces in Dunkirk matters

It (movie) erases the Royal Indian Army Services Corp companies, which were not only on the beach, but tasked with transporting supplies over terrain that was inaccessible for the British Expeditionary Force’s motorised transport companies. It also ignores the fact that by 1938, lascars – mostly from South Asia and East Africa – counted for one of four crewmen on British merchant vessels, and thus participated in large numbers in the evacuation.

But Nolan’s erasures are not limited to the British. The French army deployed at Dunkirk included soldiers from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and other colonies, and in substantial numbers.

Perhaps Nolan chose to follow the example of the original allies in the second world war who staged a white-only liberation of Paris even though 65% of the Free French Army troops were from West Africa.

Knowingly or not, Nolan walks in the footsteps of both film directors and politicians who have chosen to whitewash the past."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/01/indian-african-dunkirk-history-whitewash-attitudes

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

While I think those criticisms are largely ideology-driven garbage, Keelai (the movie mostly just followed an example or two from each phase of the operation, and they were overwhelmingly white males in every phase in real life), I appreciate you running up and saving me the trouble of posting an example of the type of SJW criticism I mentioned the movie receiving earlier.

[–] Keelai (32188) 5 years ago

I would expect you to support white supremacy in movies and TV shows to reflect your bigotry. If Nolan wishes to have an all-white production, then he shouldn't claim to recreate a historical event.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

I'm sure you would expect that, Keelai. You curse the night sky as "racist" for featuring pretty white things surrounded by an ominous black expanse, you bigoted lunatic.

[–] Keelai (32188) 5 years ago

"Race is a dead end. People should stop obsessing over it and move on to things that actually matter."

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Exactly. It's a shame you disagree.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

"whitewash"

And I'm sure the Guardian was equally outraged by the recent movie Overlord, whose black main character is laughably in an integrated 101st Airborne unit on D-Day (along with other minorities), or the plethora of movies and tv shows this century that cast historical and/or legendary white figures as non-white (e.g. black Guinevere in Merlin, making Gallic Oenomaus black in Spartacus, black Little John in Robin Hood series). I'm sure they have a whole series of feature articles criticizing that, and aren't mindless hypocrites at all, lol.

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 5 years ago

Again, diversity brings in profits. Will Smith as the Genie in Aladdin. Or Will Smith as Deadshot in Suicide Squad. Both films changed the race of characters (albeit one was animated) and profited from it.

Yet Ghost in the Shell replaced the main Asian lead with ScarJo.

GITS budget: $110 million
GITS worldwide BO: $169.8 million

whoopsie

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Wait, both movies were made more diverse by the casting changes, so you're not really pro diversity. You're anti-white. And still wrong. How do you explain the failure The Dark Tower, which changed Stephen King's heroic character from white to black, and drew even fewer people than Ghost in the Shell?

GITS - $170 million
The Dark Tower - $113 million

Whoops!

PS - I watched Suicide Squad but not Ghost in the Shell. I had no idea it was because they made Dead Shot black and whatever her name is white. I thought it was because I'm generally a fan of DC, the most recognizable, prestigious superhero company in the world, while I'm not a huge fan of cyberpunk or Scarlett Johansson and had never heard of Ghost in the Shell.

BTW, doesn't this hurt the badass female lead crusade? Leftist narratives always end up collapsing under their own contradictions, lol.

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 5 years ago

First of all, GITS is more easily converted into film. GITS was primarily known as an anime, here converted into live action. The Dark Tower is a Stephen King novel. And we all know the trials and tribulations of converting novels into live action that satisfies both the readers and moviegoers. OH BOY the stuff they had to cut from the books to make this movie. LOL

Secondly..

Dark Tower budget: $66 million
GITS budget: $110 million

For some reason you have this problem of ignoring budgets. THE BUDGET AND MARKETING COSTS ARE WHAT DRIVES THE FILM. How can you not know this in 2019? :)

"You're anti-white."

Really. Name-calling? My whole point from the very beginning is that diversity is here to stay because it increases profits for companies. I never gave my personal opinion of the "morality" of it.

If you want it, here it is. When a movie changes the race of a fictional character to increase profits, I understand its not an agenda to "keep the white man down." lol. I understand its done to increase profits. As I have explained to you many many many times in this thread.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

You struggle with logic and reading. I just pointed out that GITS was made more "diverse" by the movie casting, multiracial instead of all Asian. Yet you celebrate its relative failure because the star was white. I don't care about the movie either way. I'm just observing that your real position is that white stars hurt sales, regardless of diversity.

That's as incorrect as your earlier claim. Your argument style of cherry-picking two movies and comparing them as though that proves anything is insipid. The list I posted of the movies with the highest return on investment (dominated by white casts) blows away either of your positions. Bang for the buck. Taking your fixation on "net profits" to its logical conclusion, since that eliminates the special effects/high production value elements and isolates the racial variable.

Or maybe just the variable of movie quality, for those of us who don't obsessively view everything through a racial prism. Those movies' success wasn't due to them having white casts, but they do show that having white casts doesn't hurt business.

[–] Keelai (32188) 5 years ago

You're stupidly complaining about realism in a zombie movie? Really?

People traded with each other and immigrated throughout the world since antiquity. Empires had a diverse population especially in their cosmopolitan centers. I don't expect an ignorant racist to know that though.

If women and minorities offend you so much, just watch antenna TV.

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 5 years ago

I've been running circles around this chump all day. Shit is hilarious.

[–] Keelai (32188) 5 years ago

His quote:
"Race is a dead end. People should stop obsessing over it and move on to things that actually matter."

He needs to take his own advice. What a loon, he is!

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

You've been running in circles, doofus, but not around anyone else. Please tell me more about how the highest grossing WW2 movie in history wasn't a success, lol.

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 5 years ago

"Please tell me more about how the highest grossing WW2 movie in history wasn't a success, lol."

Sure bud. Its because of budget/marketing costs and box office take.

Dunkirk:
Production Budget: $150 million (estimated)
Marketing Budget: $50 million? Marketing for big-budget films these days generally goes up to $100 million. BUT... it is separate from the production budget... and visible only to the studio.

Foreign box-office take: $337.2 million
25% of that: $84.3 million

Domestic box-office take: $190.1 million
40% of that: $76 million

Production plus marketing: $200 million
Domestic take plus Foreign take: $160.3 million

Net revenue from its theatrical run: $-39.7 million
Net revenue from the ancillary market: ????

Meanwhile...

Saving Private Ryan:
Worldwide: $482 million
Budget: $70 million

Now lets see YOUR estimation on Dunkirk's NET profits.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Since I've already cited two articles by actual experts calling it a huge success, I've got a better idea. Here's a rundown of the movies with the highest rate of return on investment in history.

1. PARANORMAL ACTIVITY (2007)
Budget: $450,000
Profit: $89,318,792

2. THE DEVIL INSIDE (2012)
Budget: $1,000,000
Profit: $37,316,634

3. PETER PAN (1953)
Budget: $4,000,000
Profit: $139,757,67

4. GREASE (1978)
Budget: $6,000,000
Profit: $184,126,016

5. GOD’S NOT DEAD (2014)
Budget: $1,150,000
Profit: $31,357,058

6. PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 (2010)
Budget: $3,000,000
Profit: $77,144,539

https://mentalfloss.com/article/68552/20-most-profitable-movies-all-time-based-return-investment

Gee, that's a lot of bang for the buck. I guess mostly white casts aren't a detriment after all.

Given the many examples of huge successes and bombs of casts with every category of racial mix, have you at least considered the possibility that success isn't about race?

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 5 years ago

"Since I've already cited two articles by actual experts calling it a huge success"

Care to show me what those experts say is Dunkirk's net profit? :) The big problem here is nobody seems to know what Dunkirk's budget is. Its floating somewhere between $100 million and $150 million. If the experts don't have that information then the experts can't make the assessment.

"Gee, that's a lot of bang for the buck. I guess mostly white casts aren't a detriment after all."

White casts are a detriment now? Can you show where I said anything like that?

I already showed positive box office numbers for Inception, Interstellar, etc. Those are white casts. Endgame just reached the highest box office of any movie.

Robert Downey Jr
Chris Evans
Chris Hemsworth
Scarlett Johanson
Mark Ruffalo
Don Cheadle
Paul Rudd
Jeremy Renner
Karen Gillan

Mostly male leads, pretty much all white cast except for Cheadle.

You really are up your own ass, aren't you?

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

White casts are a detriment now? Can you show where I said anything like that?

LOL! Then what have you been trying to argue with the "diversity" increases profits stuff, you idiot?

I almost made the Endgame point myself earlier but I had already buried you with other examples and arguments and space is limited.

You really are up your own ass, aren't you?

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you. At least I can maintain a logically coherent, consistent position through a discussion.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

And you dodged my question so I'll repeat it:

Given the many examples of huge successes and bombs of casts with every category of racial mix, have you at least considered the possibility that success isn't about race?

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

You're stupidly complaining about realism in a zombie movie? Really?

No, you bigoted moron. I'm laughing at your hypocrisy. You're the one crying about "whitewashing" because a movie about an historical event overwhelmingly involving white men mostly featured white men.

People traded with each other and immigrated throughout the world since antiquity. Empires had a diverse population especially in their cosmopolitan centers. I don't expect an ignorant racist to know that though.

LOL! Please expound on the racial diversity of ancient Gallic tribes (after you look up where Gaul is, you ignorant buffoon), Dark Age Britain, and Medieval England. Watching someone who can barely read pontificate on the nuances of world history should be entertaining.

[–] HarlemEagle42 (16350) 5 years ago

Only to bigots.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Only bigots oppose racial discrimination? That doesn't sound right.

[–] HarlemEagle42 (16350) 5 years ago

Wow you're a disingenuous cunt. I'll rephrase. Only bigots think that "diversity is a strength" is racial discrimination. Like you. Are we clear?

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

You still haven't supported your moronic comment with an argument. Look, I get that you've been conditioned and are replying in knee jerk fashion to an op that pushed a certain button. The op is meant to provocative, hopefully sparking some deeper thought.

Choosing or judging someone by skin color is racial discrimination, whether it's in the name of "diversity" or not. That's just factually true. And it's not necessarily harmless discrimination just because it's in the name of "diversity" either.