Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015)

lanx_sl said:

Black guy looks too black, wtf ppl

Click to expand...

Be honest with yourself. Won't you feel cheated out of the admission cost of this movie if the Mos Eisley Cantina looks like something out of a blackstreet music video? Lying to yourself if you can't see how bad this would be for the franchise. It's a Disney film ffs.

Btw, here's the report Khorum's graphs came from (or a more recent version of it):http://www.bunchecenter.ucla.edu/wp-...rt-2-12-14.pdf

Their bottom line conclusion: Despite bringing in good money for those demographics, "minorities and women were nonetheless woefully underrepresented among the corps of directors, show creators, writers, and lead actors."

So, yeah, what a terrible thing to cite to try and bolster your case that minorities are overrepresented.

khorum_sl said:

We weren't talking about moviegoers AT ALL, so noone knew about that till you strawmanned it up. We're talking about roles in film and media.

That last graph was for LEAD ACTORS as in the Denzels and Wesley Snipeses enriching and diversifying our culture. Which proportion of that "minority" pie do you think go to Ensign Sulu or Cheech?

As far as black roles yeah, they REMAIN overrepresented in film relative to the 10% black population:

And it's more or less the same in broadcast and slightly more on the stage.

Click to expand...

First of all, I made two separate arguments. The first was in response to the lead actors and creators. It still stands. You said minority, the graph said minority, I showed that the minority population in the US is far bigger than the highest percentage of any of those graphs.

This is what YOU said: "minorities ARE historically over-represented in film." You showed graphs aggregating MINORITY roles. You're the one trying to reframe the argument that you yourself made.

You didn't say black. That's what I responded to showing you were completely wrong.

Also, it's super disingenuous to post the graph that shows blacks at 14% and say "more or less the same in broadcast" when for broadcast it's 10%. Pretty relevant when the black population is around 13.2%. So 0.8% over is overrepresented but somehow 3.2% under isn't underrepresentation? Cherry pick much?



The other argument was that because the viewing audience is more minority than country demographics, it makes sense film and media should be even more so. That's a separate thing, not a strawman response to your argument. Follow along. Do you think the viewing audience is unimportant to this discussion?

I will absolutely agree that blacks, out of all minorities, have it the closest to appropriate representation. But acting like it's always been like this, since vaudeville days, is ridiculous.

This isn't about representation. Disney doesn't care about the honkies or the darkies or the dudebroz or the womynz. They only care about their money. They know they already have the honky dudebro dollars in the bag with this one.

All this thread needs is some popsicledeath level of shitposting to be complete at this point. Maybe astr0 has some Game of Thrones-esque opinions he can chime in with too.

The trajectory of this thread is a likely indicator of just how bad this movie is going to be. Star Wars Episode VII The End of all Hope.

BHAHAHA Terrible or not, whywouldn'tI cite the African-Studies dept. of UCLA's own studies showing that yep, black and minority roles in theatrical films are much higher than their proportion of the population?



Why wouldn't I cite an cultural studies paper that had to struggle to lather the FEELS onto their own results so thick because the numbers just. wouldn't. fucking. change. Blacks get 14-15% of roles in US films for their 10% of the population, far more than 3% latino roles for THEIR chunk of the population.

No amount of self-flagellating feels can change that.

ohkcrlho_sl said:

Why wasn't siddar nominated to the asshat award?

And why are people still debating the race/vender issue? I really wonder the reaction in 1979 with Alien or in 1984 with Terminator. Maybe there was no crying about a female being the hero

Click to expand...

Thank you It kinda hurt not being nominated.

Siddar_sl said:

The trajectory of this thread is a likely indicator of just how bad this movie is going to be. Star Wars Episode VII The End of all Hope.

Click to expand...

The film could never be as bad as your posting, though.

Admit it, this is just you trying to get an early start on next years "shitty poster of the year" award. You should try switching to progressive attitudes - there's so many mediocre /pol/ rejects here that trying to shock them by posting more tired regressive bullshit won't get you anywhere.

khorum_sl said:

BHAHAHA Terrible or not, whywouldn'tI cite the African-Studies dept. of UCLA's own studies showing that yep, black and minority roles in theatrical films are much higher than their proportion of the population?

Why wouldn't I cite an cultural studies paper that had to struggle to lather the FEELS onto their own results so thick because the numbers just. wouldn't. fucking. change. Blacks get 14-15% of roles in US films for their 10% of the population, far more than 3% latino roles for THEIR chunk of the population.

No amount of self-flagellating feels can change that.

Click to expand...

Edit: Btw, I don't think that graph is as powerful as you think it is. Firstly, it says nothing about blacks vs anybody else. Again, it's minorities versus not.In a country with 36% minorities, only 12.2% of films had a cast that was at or above 30% minority. 51% had a cast with a minority share of less than 10%.How exactly is that a winning argument for you?

Makes bad arguments, repeatedly states wrong stats (blacks are 13%, not 10%), ignores (the whole saying minority when you meant black), and points elsewhere without rebutting with substance to actual points. Then attacks the study you cited once you realized where it came from (which you obviously didn't at the beginning) while still using it, but conveniently ignoring all the other important distinctions that show minority underrepresentation by large amounts (lead roles, writers, directors, show runners, business roles). Gee, minorities, you should be totally cool with getting that extra representation in extras roles! You're as bad as someone like Tanoomba.

And once again, do you really think these numbers hold throughout the history of cinema and TV? Really? You said it was like this since vaudeville. Jesus Christ.

But, in any case, it appears you completely agree than non-black minorities have valid reasons to complain. Yes?

Quaid_sl said:

This isn't about representation. Disney doesn't care about the honkies or the darkies or the dudebroz or the womynz. They only care about their money. They know they already have the honky dudebro dollars in the bag with this one.

All this thread needs is some popsicledeath level of shitposting to be complete at this point. Maybe astr0 has some Game of Thrones-esque opinions he can chime in with too.

Click to expand...

They don't like the gays tho no matter how much money

All these graphs are ignoring gender of movie goers, which is a huge component. They have actually been the slight majority share the past couple years.

Cybsled_sl said:

All these graphs are ignoring gender of movie goers, which is a huge component. They have actually been the slight majority share the past couple years.

Click to expand...

The full report I linked does address that. It shows that women are woefully underrepresented too, to an even greater degree.

DickTrickle_sl said:

The other argument was that because the viewing audience is more minority than country demographics, it makes sense film and media should be even more so. That's a separate thing, not a strawman response to your argument. Follow along. Do you think the viewing audience is unimportant to this discussion?

Click to expand...

Follow along? I was responding toChris' observationthat blacks were 30% of the US, an honest mistake if you watch only watch US films because they HAVE been over-represented. But by the Census information, African Americans are roughly 10% of the population, with black latinos and african immigrants (who strenously don't identify as african-american) another 2%.

You stumbled along with your unrelated butthurt about the viewing audience because those numbers were inconvenient to your existential injustice-crisis. That's EXACTLY a strawman response because there's nothing you can show that will diminish the facts that in film, broadcast, theater and music, blacks have historically been over-represented and not an excluded victim-class for your persecution dialectic.

Not even the bunche center's reports could show that. In fact, Amy Pascal's hacked sony emails and wikileaks showed the level of cheap cynicism in "diversifying" film roles way beyond actual representation for the sole purpose of leverage for lower salaries---and they cited the UCLA studies as cover for their "diversity initiative".

This is what happens when you drive out Tanoomba.

He was like a retard magnet, now these idiots don't know what to do with themselves so they are spreading their bullshit all over the forums.

GG

khorum_sl said:

Follow along? I was responding toChris' observationthat blacks were 30% of the US, an honest mistake if you watch only watch US films because they HAVE been over-represented. But by the Census information, African Americans are roughly 10% of the population, with black latinos and african immigrants (who strenously don't identify as african-american) another 2%.

You stumbled along with your unrelated butthurt about the viewing audience because those numbers were inconvenient to your existential injustice-crisis. That's EXACTLY a strawman response because there's nothing you can show that will diminish the facts that in film, broadcast, theater and music, blacks have historically been over-represented and not an excluded victim-class for your persecution dialectic.

Not even the bunche center's reports could show that. In fact, Amy Pascal's hacked sony emails and wikileaks showed the level of cheap cynicism in "diversifying" film roles way beyond actual representation for the sole purpose of leverage for lower salaries---and they cited the UCLA studies as cover for their "diversity initiative".

Click to expand...

USA QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

"Black or African American alone, percent, 2014 (a) 13.2%" Keep making up false numbers. I mean, you literally just lied since I'm linking to the actual Census web site that has the actual data.

According to the graphs that showed the racial breakdown, it was 14% for films and 10% for broadcast TV. Those are relevant and what I responded with. I called you out for being disingenuous for only posting the 14% graph and not the 10% one. For you, +0.8% is a sign of overrepresentation but -3.2% is to be ignored without comment. I then added anadditionalargument about viewing demographics which I think frames the argument in a more relevant light. Can you not follow along?

And, holy fuck, once again, I was responding to one of your posts in which you never mentioned blacks with your data but repeatedly said minorities and posted graphs about minorities. You were trying to pass off the 10% blacks number as a fact (it isn't) and then posted the minority graphs as proof of black overrepresentation (when in fact it was all minorities, not just blacks). If you really weren't trying to be disingenuous, you would have initially posted the 14% and 10% graphs as they were the only ones that showed specific racial breakdowns. You were purposefully misleading (or stupid). And, remember, this is roles, period. Lead roles for blacks are less (going back to the original four graphs you posted which didn't go above 15% for ALL minorities).

You also keep saying this black overrepresentation was throughout history. Care to back that up?

And yes, imagine that, white people display cynicism about race in film. Not anything you'd be familiar with.

And I thought I was just going to have to avoid this thread to escape spoilers close to release..

Btw, can't you just skip to the "Well blacks/minorities/women just aren't good enough to get these roles/positions" argument instead of debating the reality of underrepresentation for minorities and women?

Mist_sl said:

This thread has made me realize this forum is just a bunch of dumb people arguing about dumb shit, and I'm dumb for taking this long to figure it out.

Click to expand...

Why do you think they only get one-liners from me? They're all too fucking stupid to bother having a proper argument with.