4 ms·

>>>do you mind if there were simply no big budget movies or TV shows to ever be centered around black American characters, or portray black American culture in

>>>do you mind if there were simply no big budget movies or TV shows to ever be centered around black American characters, or portray black American culture in any way? I think those are strange questions, because they aren't the situation we have in America. We have plenty of entertainment content focused on the black experience. Friday franchise, Shaft franchise, Undercover Brother, Black Dynamite, all those terrible Tyler Perry movies, even some of the classic blaxploitation films such as Coffy (Pam Grier in her prime, 1973) are solid entertainment. So I wouldn't prefer that this stuff not exist. >>>Do you feel it's okay to have a large ethnic population and continue to exclusively produce content with only white people and historically white culture in them? Why deprive all the non-white people of their agency? If a non-white culture wants content that better communicates their lived experience, they should produce it themselves. Japan does it. India does it. Those cultures rightly recognize that they don't need some goofy Americans with gender studies degrees to write their stories for them. Stop outsourcing your culture to people who hate you ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt9MKUsKqHk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt9MKUsKqHk ). The amazing thing we are seeing lately is the decentralization of content production; people are realizing that they don't have to rely on the weirdos in Hollywood to produce culture for them. This means the content created by independents needs to stand on its own merits though, it can't coast to success on established star power or well-refined CGI content mills: it needs genuinely good storytelling, compelling characters, innovative but affordable visuals, etc.... And this is where a TON of the current-generation BIPOC/LGBT/whatever content falls flat on its face: it fucking sucks. You have mediocre creators trying to separate the buying public from their money by brow-beating people with "if you don't buy my product you're a racist!". The backlash to such tactics was predictable and IMO well-deserved. We might be better off looking at African storytellers to write uniquely-"black" scifi: http://theblerdgurl.com/comics/the-rise-of-african-comics/ http://theblerdgurl.com/comics/the-rise-of-african-comics/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrofuturism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrofuturism

didibus 4y ago
> Why deprive all the non-white people of their agency? If a non-white culture wants content that better communicates their lived experience, they should produce it themselves Historically, in the US, they were not allowed to produce it themselves. So many decades went by where they were in fact deprived of their agency. Not only that, but they were deprived of political, financial and economic agency as well, which means today, they are generally less wealthy, since they missed on decades of opportunities for wealth accumulation. So in order to produce it themselves today, capital is required, especially if we're talking about big budget production. The woke argument is that, it seems that some effort from white investors should be made to invest some of their capital to non-white artists, as retribution for all those years where they had their agency taken away. That's different than the corporatist take, which is simply to appear progressive by checking some diversity boxes in order to get more sales, or protect their brand from backlash or bad press. I reckon that, and it's possible LOTR is of this kind of attempt. So my question is, do you feel this retribution maybe actually comes with a hidden price? White capital somehow can compromise the work and have clauses that hurt the creative output and maybe ends up making the content worse. Do you feel it isn't necessary? Or do you feel it's a good thing that should help support and kickstart better quality non-white content? By the way, as I understand, this capital doesn't need to come straight up as budget for a movie production, though it can, but I think it can also be as scholarship, financial aid, talent programs, etc. which can all focus more on non-white artists. It can also be done simply by opening up more roles for non-white artists, which does imply that some characters which maybe were meant to be white or which had non-specified gender/race needs to be made non-white, in order to create more job opportunities for non-white actors for example. > And this is where a TON of the current-generation BIPOC/LGBT/whatever content falls flat on its face: it fucking sucks. Does it suck any more/less than similar non BIPOC/LGBT content though? I personally don't feel like it does. I feel there's a similar likelihood of content sucking, no matter if it's trying for diversity, is promoting or made by BIPOC/LGBT or if it isn't. The only difference is there's simply more non-BIPOC/LGBT content being made, so it ends up there's more good content that make it past all the crap. If for any 10 movies, only 1 is actually good, you'd need a lot more attempt at BIPOC/LGPT movies to get some good ones no?
- CapricornNoble 4y ago
  >>>So my question is, do you feel this retribution maybe actually comes with a hidden price? White capital somehow can compromise the work and have clauses that hurt the creative output and maybe ends up making the content worse. Do you feel it isn't necessary? Or do you feel it's a good thing that should help support and kickstart better quality non-white content? Currently white capital availability is gatekept by socio-political ideology. If you aren't toeing the party line, your endeavors will not be subsidized. So definitely the type of content produced/amplified will be compromised as a consequence. >>>but I think it can also be as scholarship, financial aid, talent programs, etc. which can all focus more on non-white artists. The reality is that this subsidizes mediocrity, and we all suffer as a consequence. Blind meritocracy is preferred, IMO. I'll admit this is much harder to get correct with a subjective field such as creative works/art, compared to something like the military or engineering. >>> in order to create more job opportunities for non-white actors for example To what end? Is the objective for the labor ratio of content creators to match the demographic breakdown (i.e. black people should be 15% of comic writers and movie creators)? Why aren't we putting as much effort into balancing other career fields, for example, addressing the massive gender disparity in coal mining (~96% males)? We're not equalizing the parts of the economy that are unpleasant, only the prestigious ones (cultural and economic influence). Why? >>>Does it suck any more/less than similar non BIPOC/LGBT content though? I personally don't feel like it does. "90% of everything is crap". IMO the difference is that garbage-tier content from straight white men doesn't get signal-boosted the same way. Perfect example, Bruce Willis movies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd1eNS9HtXo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd1eNS9HtXo . This crap gets shipped overseas for a profit, but almost nobody in the US knows or cares about this low-budget trash, despite the formerly A-List star involved. https://bleedingcool.com/comics/how-do-you-do-fellow-kids-meet-marvels-gen-z-new-warriors-snowflake-screentime-safespace-more/ https://bleedingcool.com/comics/how-do-you-do-fellow-kids-me... https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/11/30/dc-comics-introduces-gay-and-overweight-daughter-of-starfire/ https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/11/30/dc-comics-introduc... ^If these were crowdfunded from the LGBT community, that might make some sense. But they are showcased content from titans in their industry. Why are businesses greenlighting content like this and expecting a positive ROI? Who is doing their market analysis, because this content doesn't move units. And if they aren't expecting to make money on these product lines, then what is their real goal? >>>If for any 10 movies, only 1 is actually good, you'd need a lot more attempt at BIPOC/LGPT movies to get some good ones no? I mean....sure. All I'm saying is that it should grow organically, from within the relevant community, with no external subsidy, funding, handouts, or signal-boosting. The 2nd and 3rd order effects of such are worse than doing nothing, IMO. Good discussion and valid thought-provoking questions, I'm gonna peace out.

didibus 4y ago

> Why deprive all the non-white people of their agency? If a non-white culture wants content that better communicates their lived experience, they should produce it themselves Historically, in the US, they were not allowed to produce it themselves. So many decades went by where they were in fact deprived of their agency. Not only that, but they were deprived of political, financial and economic agency as well, which means today, they are generally less wealthy, since they missed on decades of opportunities for wealth accumulation. So in order to produce it themselves today, capital is required, especially if we're talking about big budget production. The woke argument is that, it seems that some effort from white investors should be made to invest some of their capital to non-white artists, as retribution for all those years where they had their agency taken away. That's different than the corporatist take, which is simply to appear progressive by checking some diversity boxes in order to get more sales, or protect their brand from backlash or bad press. I reckon that, and it's possible LOTR is of this kind of attempt. So my question is, do you feel this retribution maybe actually comes with a hidden price? White capital somehow can compromise the work and have clauses that hurt the creative output and maybe ends up making the content worse. Do you feel it isn't necessary? Or do you feel it's a good thing that should help support and kickstart better quality non-white content? By the way, as I understand, this capital doesn't need to come straight up as budget for a movie production, though it can, but I think it can also be as scholarship, financial aid, talent programs, etc. which can all focus more on non-white artists. It can also be done simply by opening up more roles for non-white artists, which does imply that some characters which maybe were meant to be white or which had non-specified gender/race needs to be made non-white, in order to create more job opportunities for non-white actors for example. > And this is where a TON of the current-generation BIPOC/LGBT/whatever content falls flat on its face: it fucking sucks. Does it suck any more/less than similar non BIPOC/LGBT content though? I personally don't feel like it does. I feel there's a similar likelihood of content sucking, no matter if it's trying for diversity, is promoting or made by BIPOC/LGBT or if it isn't. The only difference is there's simply more non-BIPOC/LGBT content being made, so it ends up there's more good content that make it past all the crap. If for any 10 movies, only 1 is actually good, you'd need a lot more attempt at BIPOC/LGPT movies to get some good ones no?

CapricornNoble 4y ago
>>>So my question is, do you feel this retribution maybe actually comes with a hidden price? White capital somehow can compromise the work and have clauses that hurt the creative output and maybe ends up making the content worse. Do you feel it isn't necessary? Or do you feel it's a good thing that should help support and kickstart better quality non-white content? Currently white capital availability is gatekept by socio-political ideology. If you aren't toeing the party line, your endeavors will not be subsidized. So definitely the type of content produced/amplified will be compromised as a consequence. >>>but I think it can also be as scholarship, financial aid, talent programs, etc. which can all focus more on non-white artists. The reality is that this subsidizes mediocrity, and we all suffer as a consequence. Blind meritocracy is preferred, IMO. I'll admit this is much harder to get correct with a subjective field such as creative works/art, compared to something like the military or engineering. >>> in order to create more job opportunities for non-white actors for example To what end? Is the objective for the labor ratio of content creators to match the demographic breakdown (i.e. black people should be 15% of comic writers and movie creators)? Why aren't we putting as much effort into balancing other career fields, for example, addressing the massive gender disparity in coal mining (~96% males)? We're not equalizing the parts of the economy that are unpleasant, only the prestigious ones (cultural and economic influence). Why? >>>Does it suck any more/less than similar non BIPOC/LGBT content though? I personally don't feel like it does. "90% of everything is crap". IMO the difference is that garbage-tier content from straight white men doesn't get signal-boosted the same way. Perfect example, Bruce Willis movies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd1eNS9HtXo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd1eNS9HtXo . This crap gets shipped overseas for a profit, but almost nobody in the US knows or cares about this low-budget trash, despite the formerly A-List star involved. https://bleedingcool.com/comics/how-do-you-do-fellow-kids-meet-marvels-gen-z-new-warriors-snowflake-screentime-safespace-more/ https://bleedingcool.com/comics/how-do-you-do-fellow-kids-me... https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/11/30/dc-comics-introduces-gay-and-overweight-daughter-of-starfire/ https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/11/30/dc-comics-introduc... ^If these were crowdfunded from the LGBT community, that might make some sense. But they are showcased content from titans in their industry. Why are businesses greenlighting content like this and expecting a positive ROI? Who is doing their market analysis, because this content doesn't move units. And if they aren't expecting to make money on these product lines, then what is their real goal? >>>If for any 10 movies, only 1 is actually good, you'd need a lot more attempt at BIPOC/LGPT movies to get some good ones no? I mean....sure. All I'm saying is that it should grow organically, from within the relevant community, with no external subsidy, funding, handouts, or signal-boosting. The 2nd and 3rd order effects of such are worse than doing nothing, IMO. Good discussion and valid thought-provoking questions, I'm gonna peace out.