Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Am I missing something?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A bit late to this thread, but you aren't missing anything. Stuff like this is tokenism to placate a certain crowd.

    There also seems to be a certain segment in the entertainment industry that is based more on getting revenge for perceived injustices by taking older franchises and changing them to the ways they wanted them to be. The recent Masters of the Universe Revelation* seems to be in that group.
    Spoilers (click to see)
    , and then go on to mock the older show for having "unrealistic body types" while having their new designs look like they took all of the steroids(including the female characters).
    That last part is especially dumb since the original He-Man used rotoscoping, an animation technique that involved drawing over real people. Due to this the old show had characters who looked exactly like 2D representations of athletes and bodybuilders of the time(before the more recent trend of bodybuilders trying to add as much muscle mass as possible regardless of how it made them look or how it might damage their bodies). This means the new show is much more dangerous than the old show ever was in terms of body image.

    *The director of the new miniseries is on record saying he hated He-Man and only ever hate watched it. Now he's trying to say that anyone who doesn't like his show was never a fan of the series at all.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      Precisely the point I made on page one of this thread and with which Brian Cox appears to agree.

      I assume the "he" in your second comment is a reference to Russell T Davies and again I agree with you. How far is such a ludicrous idea to be taken? If Davies strictly advocates gay parts for gays only then he is removing from an already precarious career, insofar as paid work is concerned, the opportunity for gay actors to perform in just about any drama written prior to the 1950s.

      And do we take that ludicrous suggestion to its logically ridiculous conclusion? No white actors can play Othello. Only Danes may play Hamlet. Only Italians may play Romeo and Juliet or The Two Gentlemen of Verona, only a Jew for Shylock, and only an actor on the brink of losing his mind should play Lear. And that's only Shakespeare - extend such nonsense to all drama and we see how utterly stupid such a suggestion is.
      I actually amen'd this post on purpose.

      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        Well I never realised that acting was either eurocentric or was part of colonial imperialism. I have just found an interesting commentary by an actor. https://minnesotaplaylist.com/magazi...hentic-casting

        “If it is the craft that allows me to transform into any character, then I should be honored for my craft! I can become anything through my acting!”

        This ideal is so wrong and frankly, so eurocentric. It is this ideal that has allowed white performers to justify playing other racial identities in the past. It is this ideal that has allowed white supremacy to seep its way into our theatre culture and institutions in the form of entitlement. Most importantly, it is this ideal that lets theatre companies off the hook for misrepresentation in casting "
        Really?

        She later writes that "It is supremacy that also enables an actor to think that they have the right to perform any role because they indeed are an “actor”. This sense of entitlement is similar to the entitlement found in colonialism. To think one has the right to something simply because they feel they are “better” or “trained”. Excuse me? Surely the skill is the basic requirement. If an actor of colour can play the part with more skill they get the part and vice versa. I would also suggest that if she really considers that "identity is sacred " she might not be in the best suited profession. Acting is all about taking on the identify of others.

        I think it was Gary Oldman who summed up his job as Going to a particular venue, putting on different clothes, standing in a particular spot, speaking in a different voice, and then going home. It's called acting.

        She also writes that "I’m not saying that a Nigerian actress can’t play a Liberian person in a play or that a Korean actress can’t play a Japanese person"

        Oh dear in today's world she might find some who would argue otherwise. Only Liberians for Liberian characters and no Koreans to play Japanese characters [in part because of the historical abuse of the former by the latter].

        Where would it all end?
        The real disconnect is when Congress calls in Hollyweird ACTORS to testify on issues with which the ACTOR has ZERO experience or expertise, outside of a "passion".

        Somebody who, as you say, 'goes to a particular venue, puts on different clothes, stands in a particular spot, speaks in a different voice, and then goes home' is rarely the person who should be testifying before Congress.

        I would add to your summary of Oldman's description - "say words somebody else wrote".

        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

          The real disconnect is when Congress calls in Hollyweird ACTORS to testify on issues with which the ACTOR has ZERO experience or expertise, outside of a "passion".
          I have not heard of this, what issues were actors called upon to testify?

          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          Somebody who, as you say, 'goes to a particular venue, puts on different clothes, stands in a particular spot, speaks in a different voice, and then goes home' is rarely the person who should be testifying before Congress.

          I would add to your summary of Oldman's description - "say words somebody else wrote".
          The only caveat to your addition would be if it was improv!
          "It ain't necessarily so
          The things that you're liable
          To read in the Bible
          It ain't necessarily so
          ."

          Sportin' Life
          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            I have not heard of this, what issues were actors called upon to testify?
            Global Warming, Alar... trying to remember who the silliest was.... Meryl Streep!

            Celebrities get attention of Congress

            The only caveat to your addition would be if it was improv!
            Agreed. Even then, the comedian or actor often has "writers", in which case, again, he/she is saying things other people wrote.

            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
              A bit late to this thread, but you aren't missing anything. Stuff like this is tokenism to placate a certain crowd.
              The example I gave of the new version of The Darling Buds of May has been corrected by eider who pointed out that the storyline has been updated to the present - therefore having an accountant of colour would not be out of place. However, as I pointed out, that updating removes the charm of the original which is set in a bucolic idyll somewhere in Kent in the 1950s.

              I have no idea why an actor of colour was chosen to play a white English woman - Ann Boleyn - and as Gondwanaland agreed - were a white actor given the part of a well known person of colour then the outcry would be deafening.

              And as several of us have agreed acting is artifice.

              Playing Devil's Advocate I can turn my own comments against myself by contending that as I have noted all acting is artifice anyway, does the actor's ethnicity and/or skin colour really matter? It is all pretence so who cares? However, I still hold that there is a potentially paternalistic undercurrent to slotting in actors of colour [for no apparent reason] into dramas and it puts me in mind of South Park's Token Black.

              I also feel that when depicting real historical characters the casting should at least attempt a degree of verisimilitude, otherwise there is a danger that the less informed will come away from a film or drama series really believing that the dramatic portrayal reflects the known historical facts.

              An example of such historical nonsense was the 2018 film Mary Queen of Scots which I recently tried to watch. The American actress playing Mary spoke with a [generic/Hollywood] Scottish accent! I managed to endure 45 minutes or so but it was such a travesty of the known history that I turned it off! However, I can imagine some people coming away thinking that she did speak with a Scottish accent and that she and Elizabeth did actually meet and that the film was an accurate depiction of the history.

              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
              There also seems to be a certain segment in the entertainment industry that is based more on getting revenge for perceived injustices by taking older franchises and changing them to the ways they wanted them to be. The recent Masters of the Universe Revelation* seems to be in that group.
              Spoilers (click to see)
              , and then go on to mock the older show for having "unrealistic body types" while having their new designs look like they took all of the steroids(including the female characters).
              That last part is especially dumb since the original He-Man used rotoscoping, an animation technique that involved drawing over real people. Due to this the old show had characters who looked exactly like 2D representations of athletes and bodybuilders of the time(before the more recent trend of bodybuilders trying to add as much muscle mass as possible regardless of how it made them look or how it might damage their bodies). This means the new show is much more dangerous than the old show ever was in terms of body image.

              *The director of the new miniseries is on record saying he hated He-Man and only ever hate watched it. Now he's trying to say that anyone who doesn't like his show was never a fan of the series at all.
              I must pass on all that as I am entirely unfamiliar with superhero fantasy magazines.
              "It ain't necessarily so
              The things that you're liable
              To read in the Bible
              It ain't necessarily so
              ."

              Sportin' Life
              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                Global Warming, Alar... trying to remember who the silliest was.... Meryl Streep!
                I am not against people being permitted to air their views on matters of concern. Dennis Quaid testified before Congress in 2008 on the topic of medical errors after his young children nearly died from an overdose of Heparin. Likewise Nicole Kidman spoke out condemning violence against women [although much good that did]. So while I can appreciate that those in the public eye who feel strongly about an issue have a perfect right to express their views and even testify before Congress, I do not think that those individuals should be held up as experts on those topics but merely as concerned citizens and/or activists.

                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                Agreed. Even then, the comedian or actor often has "writers", in which case, again, he/she is saying things other people wrote.
                Agreed, unless it is "off the cuff" improv or ad-libbing.

                "It ain't necessarily so
                The things that you're liable
                To read in the Bible
                It ain't necessarily so
                ."

                Sportin' Life
                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  The example I gave of the new version of The Darling Buds of May has been corrected by eider who pointed out that the storyline has been updated to the present - therefore having an accountant of colour would not be out of place. However, as I pointed out, that updating removes the charm of the original which is set in a bucolic idyll somewhere in Kent in the 1950s.

                  I have no idea why an actor of colour was chosen to play a white English woman - Ann Boleyn - and as Gondwanaland agreed - were a white actor given the part of a well known person of colour then the outcry would be deafening.

                  And as several of us have agreed acting is artifice.

                  Playing Devil's Advocate I can turn my own comments against myself by contending that as I have noted all acting is artifice anyway, does the actor's ethnicity and/or skin colour really matter? It is all pretence so who cares? However, I still hold that there is a potentially paternalistic undercurrent to slotting in actors of colour [for no apparent reason] into dramas and it puts me in mind of South Park's Token Black.

                  I also feel that when depicting real historical characters the casting should at least attempt a degree of verisimilitude, otherwise there is a danger that the less informed will come away from a film or drama series really believing that the dramatic portrayal reflects the known historical facts.

                  An example of such historical nonsense was the 2018 film Mary Queen of Scots which I recently tried to watch. The American actress playing Mary spoke with a [generic/Hollywood] Scottish accent! I managed to endure 45 minutes or so but it was such a travesty of the known history that I turned it off! However, I can imagine some people coming away thinking that she did speak with a Scottish accent and that she and Elizabeth did actually meet and that the film was an accurate depiction of the history.
                  Even if the original example you cite has an explanation that makes sense, there are plenty of other movies, shows, and other entertainment that don't.

                  As far as your own question being turned on itself, I'd say it goes down to intent and context. If you are a small play being performed in an area with limited casting options then you pick your best person available. This is often not the case in more recent movies and such.

                  I must pass on all that as I am entirely unfamiliar with superhero fantasy magazines.
                  It had magazines yes, but there are multiple tv shows and there is even a movie. I bring it up because of the trend of using older franchises for the purpose of revenge against perceived oppressors and transgressions. It is far from the only show to have such things happen.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    I am not against people being permitted to air their views on matters of concern.
                    Sure, but as "expert witnesses" before CONGRESS?

                    Dennis Quaid testified before Congress in 2008 on the topic of medical errors after his young children nearly died from an overdose of Heparin. Likewise Nicole Kidman spoke out condemning violence against women [although much good that did]. So while I can appreciate that those in the public eye who feel strongly about an issue have a perfect right to express their views and even testify before Congress, I do not think that those individuals should be held up as experts on those topics but merely as concerned citizens and/or activists.
                    Ah, you've done some GOOGLING after admitting....

                    I have not heard of this, what issues were actors called upon to testify?
                    Fact is, Congress is foolish to have hearings where they can bask in the celebrity of the Hollywood left.

                    It's like when professional musicians or professional athletes or ACTORS use their platform to advance political views --- SHUT UP AND PLAY!!! (Or sing, or ACT or whatever)

                    Nobody buys a ticket to a football game to hear the players' political views.

                    Agreed, unless it is "off the cuff" improv or ad-libbing.
                    Many of us have abandoned professional sports altogether because it has become so political - that's not why we support those teams.
                    Same thing with the Dixie Chicks --- keep your political crap to yourselves.

                    Sure, they're free to blab, but I'm free to tune them out.

                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                      Global Warming, Alar... trying to remember who the silliest was.... Meryl Streep!

                      Celebrities get attention of Congress



                      Agreed. Even then, the comedian or actor often has "writers", in which case, again, he/she is saying things other people wrote.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                        Sure, but as "expert witnesses" before CONGRESS?
                        I agree. They are not expert witnesses unless they have qualifications in the relevant disciplines [and some comedians and actors do have hidden pasts].

                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                        Ah, you've done some GOOGLING after admitting....
                        As I had previously acknowledged I knew nothing about this, what did you expect?


                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        Fact is, Congress is foolish to have hearings where they can bask in the celebrity of the Hollywood left.
                        I do not know if that is actually the precise reason but celebrities have fans and a celebrity's ideas can affect those fans and their thinking. This is not an ideal situation - sheep-like mentalities are not to be encouraged, but that does seem to be the way some people think and react, Hence the "If Kim Kardashian endorses it so will I" response from some.

                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        It's like when professional musicians or professional athletes or ACTORS use their platform to advance political views --- SHUT UP AND PLAY!!! (Or sing, or ACT or whatever) Nobody buys a ticket to a football game to hear the players' political views
                        I think with some music you may be mistaken, given that the political position of the performer is often part of their appeal to their like-minded audience. I also recall reading that back in 2015, the actor Benedict Cumberbatch made an impassioned speech for Syrian refugees every night after his performance of Hamlet at the Barbican. I will not condemn him for that. Nor of course was the audience obliged to stay and listen.

                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                        Many of us have abandoned professional sports altogether because it has become so political - that's not why we support those teams.
                        Same thing with the Dixie Chicks --- keep your political crap to yourselves.

                        Sure, they're free to blab, but I'm free to tune them out.
                        And that is the situation. They are free to offer their views and you are free to switch off or ignore them.

                        "It ain't necessarily so
                        The things that you're liable
                        To read in the Bible
                        It ain't necessarily so
                        ."

                        Sportin' Life
                        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

                          Even if the original example you cite has an explanation that makes sense, there are plenty of other movies, shows, and other entertainment that don't.
                          I do tend to agree

                          Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                          As far as your own question being turned on itself, I'd say it goes down to intent and context. If you are a small play being performed in an area with limited casting options then you pick your best person available. This is often not the case in more recent movies and such.
                          In my opinion when casting a part you choose the actor who is best able to present and reveal that character. You should not cast because of some nebulous and unwritten rule, or to ensure that you do not offend a vocal minority.


                          Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                          It had magazines yes, but there are multiple tv shows and there is even a movie. I bring it up because of the trend of using older franchises for the purpose of revenge against perceived oppressors and transgressions. It is far from the only show to have such things happen.
                          I must defer to your self-evidently superior knowledge of these things.

                          "It ain't necessarily so
                          The things that you're liable
                          To read in the Bible
                          It ain't necessarily so
                          ."

                          Sportin' Life
                          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                            And that is the situation. They are free to offer their views and you are free to switch off or ignore them.
                            And the NFL is free to be as woke as they want to be, but many of us are choosing no longer to support their politics.

                            Professional sports - particularly baseball, USED to be a place where we could get away from the worries of life, including politics, and enjoy "America's Favorite Pastime".



                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                              And the NFL is free to be as woke as they want to be, but many of us are choosing no longer to support their politics.

                              Professional sports - particularly baseball, USED to be a place where we could get away from the worries of life, including politics, and enjoy "America's Favorite Pastime".


                              Your initial reply was not solely about the NFL and professional sports generally.
                              "It ain't necessarily so
                              The things that you're liable
                              To read in the Bible
                              It ain't necessarily so
                              ."

                              Sportin' Life
                              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                                Your initial reply was not solely about the NFL and professional sports generally.
                                Yes.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Cow Poke, Today, 07:29 AM
                                4 responses
                                15 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by firstfloor, Today, 03:49 AM
                                29 responses
                                98 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Gondwanaland  
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, Yesterday, 01:18 PM
                                3 responses
                                26 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 10:44 AM
                                2 responses
                                49 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by NorrinRadd, Yesterday, 01:15 AM
                                13 responses
                                106 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post NorrinRadd  
                                Working...
                                X