Inclusivity and diversity in movies

[PumperKrickel]

That's moving goal posts no? The literal meaning of diversity in this context is to have more races / skin tones represented on screen. This superficial form of diversity does little to contribute to the film, and overall has an extremely limited positive cultural impact, if at all. The representation people are calling for in a Jurassic movie can inherently be shallow at best given the direction the franchise has taken.

It's not moving goal posts in the slightest. We're talking about Hollywood movies, which still predominately feature white actors. So, having white actors playing characters that should be poc, doesn't add any diversity. White people are already well represented in western cinema.
Why does diversity need to contribute anything to the film and have a large, positive cultural impact? Owen Grady could've easily been played by someone like Steven Yeun or Idris Elba without affecting the films in any way, so why not do it? What's the downside, even if it's just shallow, as you say?

[Flaffy]

That's moving goal posts no? The literal meaning of diversity in this context is to have more races / skin tones represented on screen. This superficial form of diversity does little to contribute to the film, and overall has an extremely limited positive cultural impact, if at all. The representation people are calling for in a Jurassic movie can inherently be shallow at best given the direction the franchise has taken.

It's not moving goal posts in the slightest. We're talking about Hollywood movies, which still predominately feature white actors. So, having white actors playing characters that should be poc, doesn't add any diversity. White people are already well represented in western cinema.

From my outsider perspective at least Hollywood productions originate from a country with a predominantly white populus, therefore it's no surprise that movies coming out of America mainly feature white people. Likewise I'd expect movies coming out of Bollywood to feature primarily indian leads, Chinese films to feature chinese leads, Japanese films to feature japanese leads etc.

I didn't get the sense that what was strictly being discussed was Hollywood and Hollywood movies only.

Why does diversity need to contribute anything to the film and have a large, positive cultural impact? Owen Grady could've easily been played by someone like Steven Yeun or Idris Elba without affecting the films in any way, so why not do it? What's the downside, even if it's just shallow, as you say?

It's moreso how oftentimes skin tone being the sole metric for what constitutes as diversity that puzzles me. Again, I couldn't care less if I saw a person of my race on screen if it didn't matter to the plot. It's neither postitive nor negative, just total apathy.

The downsides are mainly from the studio's perspective, which I've already discussed in previous posts. Money talks.

[stargatedalek]

That's moving goal posts no? The literal meaning of diversity in this context is to have more races / skin tones represented on screen. This superficial form of diversity does little to contribute to the film, and overall has an extremely limited positive cultural impact, if at all. The representation people are calling for in a Jurassic movie can inherently be shallow at best given the direction the franchise has taken.

It's not moving goal posts in the slightest. We're talking about Hollywood movies, which still predominately feature white actors. So, having white actors playing characters that should be poc, doesn't add any diversity. White people are already well represented in western cinema.

From my outsider perspective at least Hollywood productions originate from a country with a predominantly white populus, therefore it's no surprise that movies coming out of America mainly feature white people. Likewise I'd expect movies coming out of Bollywood to feature primarily indian leads, Chinese films to feature chinese leads, Japanese films to feature japanese leads etc.

I didn't get the sense that what was strictly being discussed was Hollywood and Hollywood movies only.

America is ~61% white not counting mixed race people (~71% counting mixed race people). Far more than 60% of Hollywood film leads are white. It's a disproportionate amount driven by cultural biases against "entrusting" productions to non-white leads. Even if you assume every mixed race person in that figure was white passing, the amount is probably well over 70% of Hollywood leads appearing white.

Audiences being biased in favour of white (cishet male) leads is all the more reason that it's important to cast minority leads when given the chance. As it pressures audiences to challenge their biases.

A passive positive is still a positive, even if not enough to save a bad production on its own.

[suspsy]

And why, pray tell, can we not have all of those things, plus a diverse cast? There's nothing whatsoever in the JW franchise which dictates that the lead actors should always remain white.

Who said we couldn't? I certainly didn't.

Well, you have been struggling rather vainly to come up with arguments against increasing the diversity of the JW main cast, which has always been almost entirely white as I noted before.

I said we should scrutinise the franchise for poor writing first and foremost.

Yeah, and you never bothered to answer my question about why we can't have that as well as a more diverse cast. They are not mutually exclusive goals. Nor should they be.

The skin colour of characters in the JW franchise are a literal afterthought to me as it is not integral to the story.

This is a straw man given that no one here has made the argument that a more diverse cast is integral to the story itself. It's about making more people in the audience feel represented. Not just children, but adults as well.

Like E @Eatmycar said, this is a franchise about dinosaurs eating people. Pretty sure we all taste the same underneath.

Also irrelevant.

Secondly, lack of "controversial subjects" sells.

Diversity is only controversial to those who fear or resent it.

 

It's no secret by now that Chinese posters for The Last Jedi basically scrubbed out John Boyega (a black actor). It's also no secret that Disney and many other studios cut out scenes of inclusivity (e.g. LGBT representation) for markets with... less progressive values. Blockbusters with immensely high budgets have to recoup that AND make a profit. Studios thus use every single dirty trick in the book to optimise profits globally. There absolutely is an incentive for studio executives to exclude POC and LGBT people from media, however despicable that may be. And by not supporting representation when they appear, it further re-enforces the to these higher-ups that diversity is not profitable.

If anything, this only further drives home the need for increased diversity in blockbuster films. And the last time I checked, no effort was ever made by any studio to scrub out the cast of say, the Black Panther or The Fast and the Furious franchises for international audiences.

I think E @Eatmycar hit the nail right on the head earlier.

[Eatmycar]

Like E @Eatmycar said, this is a franchise about dinosaurs eating people. Pretty sure we all taste the same underneath.

Please don't take my statement out of context and argue that we all taste the same.

The whole point of my post was that calling for diversity in the human cast is absolutely welcome. For six movies now, most of the leads have been very Caucasian.

Why? Why can't this be changed?

People don't bat an eye at cries for new dinosaurs, and it seems everybody has a laundry list of species they want to see in the film for... diversity's sake. Huh.

But when we apply that to human characters it's an issue?

Look I'll be frank, how the Chinese market responded to John Boyega is reprehensible. The response to that isn't to shut out people of color and LGBTQ people from Hollywood. We belong here as much as anyone else.

[Flaffy]

And why, pray tell, can we not have all of those things, plus a diverse cast? There's nothing whatsoever in the JW franchise which dictates that the lead actors should always remain white.

Who said we couldn't? I certainly didn't.

Well, you have been struggling rather vainly to come up with arguments against increasing the diversity of the JW main cast, which has always been almost entirely white as I noted before.

I have never said that. Please do not put words in my mouth. Just because I don't think increasing diversity is a priority to me personally does not mean I am against increasing cast diversity in films such as JW.

I said we should scrutinise the franchise for poor writing first and foremost.

Yeah, and you never bothered to answer my question about why we can't have that as well as a more diverse cast. They are not mutually exclusive goals. Nor should they be.

I have. The reason why Hollywood is hesitant on increasing diversity is purely for financial reasons. You still have not addressed my point on how people advocate for diversity but not put where their money's worth when it really counts. What's the best way to tell Hollywood that people want diversity? Financially support projects that lines up with such values.

However, after this discussion I have changed my perspective that they aren't mutually exclusive goals, that is a very good point I had failed to consider before. Thank you.

Secondly, lack of "controversial subjects" sells.

Diversity is only controversial to those who fear or resent it.

If anything, this only further drives home the need for increased diversity in blockbuster films. And the last time I checked, no effort was ever made by any studio to scrub out the cast of say, the Black Panther or The Fast and the Furious franchises for international audiences.

Indeed. And I don't for a second believe Hollywood or any major corporation cares about anything other than money. And naturally they respond to nothing but money. If you don't see such films in cinemas, as you've clearly proclaimed before, what message does that send to Hollywood? Forgive me if I think that actions speak louder than words.

Here's my understanding of how such things go:
Film includes diverse cast
--> Overseas markets does not respond positively + Western markets does not buy tickets despite calls for more diversity
--> Film does not do as well as expected --> Hollywood concludes that diversity doesn't sell.

[Flaffy]

The whole point of my post was that calling for diversity in the human cast is absolutely welcome. For six movies now, most of the leads have been very Caucasian.

Why? Why can't this be changed?

Unfortunately, because the loudest people often aren't the ones paying tickets to see the movies in cinemas. And this is a trend I've observed on both sides of the aisle.

It certainly doesn't help that studios have spines about as sturdy as a wet noodle. There have been many many instances where representation is relegated to a few easy to cut out scenes. Or where studios kowtow and pull entire TV episodes out of circulation entirely for even daring to anything that might be considered "offensive". (Owl house and Steven Universe comes to mind) For example, the below comes at absolutely zero surprise to me, corporations gonna do what corporations do best, stifle art to make money.

"Even if creating LGBTQIA+ content was the answer to fixing the discriminatory legislation in the world, we are being barred from creating it."
Link: https://variety.com/2022/film/news/disney-pixar-same-sex-affection-censorship-dont-say-gay-bill-1235200582/

Look I'll be frank, how the Chinese market responded to John Boyega is reprehensible. The response to that isn't to shut out people of color and LGBTQ people from Hollywood. We belong here as much as anyone else.

The appropriate response therefore should be actually supporting projects when they include diversity. I don't understand why this major point of mine's is seemingly lost on people.

[suspsy]

And why, pray tell, can we not have all of those things, plus a diverse cast? There's nothing whatsoever in the JW franchise which dictates that the lead actors should always remain white.

Who said we couldn't? I certainly didn't.

Well, you have been struggling rather vainly to come up with arguments against increasing the diversity of the JW main cast, which has always been almost entirely white as I noted before.

I have never said that. Please do not put words in my mouth. Just because I don't think increasing diversity is a priority to me personally does not mean I am against increasing cast diversity in films such as JW.

Then it begs the question as to why you have been arguing so vigorously and so vainly against increased diversity this entire time, doesn't it?

I have. The reason why Hollywood is hesitant on increasing diversity is purely for financial reasons.

No, that's not what I asked. I asked you why we cannot be advocating for multiple goals simultaneously, such as improved story and increased diversity. And it ought to be painfully obvious by now that increasing diversity is not inherently detrimental to box office success. Again, look at The Fast and the Furious. Look at Black Panther, Shang-Chi, and the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which has become increasingly diverse in terms of both race and gender. And don't even try to argue that that's the reason why the more recent MCU films have not been as successful. Critics and audiences have been nearly unanimous in citing weaker stories and overall superhero fatigue as the main reasons. Shang-Chi was the tenth highest grossing film of 2021. Black Panther took in well over $1 billion and the sequel, which had a Black woman as the lead, grossed nearly $900 million. Your argument has been shown to be toothless.

You still have not addressed my point on how people advocate for diversity but not put where their money's worth when it really counts. What's the best way to tell Hollywood that people want diversity? Financially support projects that lines up with such values.

So your reasoning is that a person can't advocate for increased diversity in movies unless they go out and see every single movie with a racially diverse cast? That makes no sense.

Indeed. And I don't for a second believe Hollywood or any major corporation cares about anything other than money. And naturally they respond to nothing but money. If you don't see such films in cinemas, as you've clearly proclaimed before, what message does that send to Hollywood? Forgive me if I think that actions speak louder than words.

See what I wrote above. I'm also in favour of diversity in theatre casting; does that therefore mean that I should be obligated to buy a ticket to every single Romeo and Juliet performance where one or the other main character is played by a non-white actor? And should I have go out and attend every single football team because I'm happy that the players are racially diverse?

Here's my understanding of how such things go:
Film includes diverse cast
--> Overseas markets does not respond positively + Western markets does not buy tickets despite calls for more diversity
--> Film does not do as well as expected --> Hollywood concludes that diversity doesn't sell.

Which is both erroneous and frankly disgusting reasoning.

[Flaffy]

Then it begs the question as to why you have been arguing so vigorously and so vainly against increased diversity this entire time, doesn't it?

I believe you are mistaking my wants for "less diversity" in certain stories and extrapolating to me being against diversity as a whole. This has never been my point. I do recognise now that American media is an entirely different ballpark when it comes to topic such as this, as such should not be used in the same argument as "foreign" (to you) media where the stories have deep cultural roots and with a cast that consists of people of the same ethnicity. Along with the different meanings of "diversity" depending on the cultural context, one coming from an objective lens (the % of the cast who are of the same race), while the other coming from a westernised/globalised lens (anyone who isn't "white" is considered diverse).

For reference, I've only ever been introduced to the term "Person of Colour" since moving to the UK.

No, that's not what I asked. I asked you why we cannot be advocating for multiple goals simultaneously, such as improved story and increased diversity. And it ought to be painfully obvious by now that increasing diversity is not inherently detrimental to box office success. Again, look at The Fast and the Furious. Look at Black Panther, Shang-Chi, and the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which has become increasingly diverse in terms of both race and gender. Shang-Chi was the tenth highest grossing film of 2021. Black Panther took in well over $1 billion and the sequel, which had a Black woman as the lead, grossed nearly $900 million. Your argument has been shown to be toothless.

See above. Black Panther was a cultural phenomenon in the west. But to the rest of the world, particularly in Asia, it was simply another Marvel superhero film. Without crucial cultural and historical contexts like african slavery, it is harder to fully connect with / appreciate what the film is or is trying to do. As shown below, the domestic market heavily carried the success of Black Panther. Compared to it's Marvel contemporaries, the international box office gross is not very spectacular. A success absolutely, but not spectacular. Hence the importance of the support of domestic / western audiences when it comes to films staring diverse casts.


Take China as a case study. Black Panther's gross was similar to other large Marvel films at the time. It certainly did not outperform as it did in the west. We cannot discount the Marvel hype present at the time too. Where even Captain Marvel, a largely unknown superhero beforehand, grossed over $1 billion ($700 million international BO, comparable to Black Panther's $650 million international BO).


Re: Fast & Furious
China and East Asia has a weird relationship with black and brown folk. The reason why F&F does well in China could just simply be that the lead, Vin Disel, is considered by both himself and audiences as "ethnically ambiguous".

And don't even try to argue that that's the reason why the more recent MCU films have not been as successful. Critics and audiences have been nearly unanimous in citing weaker stories and overall superhero fatigue as the main reasons.

Which goes back to better stories and better writing. But yes both inclusivity and better writing can be done at the same time. It's a shame that MCU films are seemingly incapable of doing both lately.

So your reasoning is that a person can't advocate for increased diversity in movies unless they go out and see every single movie with a racially diverse cast? That makes no sense.

No. I'm not saying that, please kindly stop jumping to conclusions. What I'm saying is that studios respond far more to money than anything else.

Which is both erroneous and frankly disgusting reasoning.

Unfortunate reality of corporations. I'm a cynical guy, I don't for a second believe that corporations would care about diversity if it didn't bring them profits. They certainly don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. Disney is the same company that advocates for diversity & inclusion in the west, yet is complicit in humans rights violations in Xinjiang (Mulan 2020), or edits films to scrub out representation to appeal to conservative markets (numerous). It's very naive to think otherwise.

[GojiraGuy1954]

I am of the opinion that the context of, and execution of said diversity/inclusivity being far more important.

Why is context required only when it comes to casting minority actors

[Flaffy]

I am of the opinion that the context of, and execution of said diversity/inclusivity being far more important.

Why is context required only when it comes to casting minority actors

No? That is not my point.

My use of "context" refers to the following three questions:
1) Is it an inherently cultural story / setting?
2) Are the characters of said story best portrayed by x race/ethnicity?
3) Would inserting another race/ethnicity into said story be appropriate?

Using the above questions, one could therefore determine whether racial diversity or lack thereof is appropriate.

e.g. Black Panther
1) Yes, set in a fictional African country
2) Yes, the lead is best played by someone of African descent
3) No, the lead being played by someone not of African descent would not be appropriate
Therefore: A less diverse cast consisting primarily of black actors is appropriate.

e.g. Mulan
1) Yes, set in ancient China
2) Yes, the lead is best played by a Chinese woman
3) No, the lead being played by someone not Chinese nor a woman would not be appropriate
Therefore: A less diverse cast consisting primarily of chinese actors is appropriate.

e.g. Jurassic World
1) No
2) No
3) n/a, the roles can be portrayed by anyone
Therefore: A more diverse cast can be acheived.

I do apologise for the confusion, it seems I have confused myself as well. As I've said before, diversity in the west has a very specific connotation that I neglected to address/clarify in my posts. I shall do it now.
Diversity (objective): % of actors of the same race
Diversity (western): individuals who are not of the white, heterosexual, male

[suspsy]

Then it begs the question as to why you have been arguing so vigorously and so vainly against increased diversity this entire time, doesn't it?

I believe you are mistaking my wants for "less diversity" in certain stories and extrapolating to me being against diversity as a whole. This has never been my point.

Then you have not done a good enough job of making that distinction clear. Nor have you made any convincing argument whatsoever against casting more non-white people in future Jurassic World movies, in spite of all your comments. And it's a shame you went to all that trouble to look up and paste those graphs, because they really don't disprove anything regarding the phenomenal success of Black Panther worldwide. You can attempt to split as many hairs as you wish, but it doesn't remotely alter the fact that the movie made well over a billion dollars with a largely non-white cast. The same goes for the Fast and the Furious films. And for all six JP/JW films. And any future ones. And since you concur that domestic box office gross will always matter the most for Hollywood productions, it doesn't make much sense to try arguing that Black Panther was "just another Marvel movie" in your country. Besides, the data you cited proves that it did perform very well over there.

So your reasoning is that a person can't advocate for increased diversity in movies unless they go out and see every single movie with a racially diverse cast? That makes no sense.

No. I'm not saying that, please kindly stop jumping to conclusions.

But that is precisely what you said when you demanded to know how I could possibly support increased diversity in movies and other entertainment genres that I don't actually intend on seeing. Please don't try to wiggle out of it now simply because you can't counter the response I gave to you.

Unfortunate reality of corporations. I'm a cynical guy, I don't for a second believe that corporations would care about diversity if it didn't bring them profits.

And since it's been conclusively shown that it does indeed bring them profits, your entire argument against casting more non-white people in the next JW instalment has been rendered moot.

[thomasw100]

Then it begs the question as to why you have been arguing so vigorously and so vainly against increased diversity this entire time, doesn't it?

I believe you are mistaking my wants for "less diversity" in certain stories and extrapolating to me being against diversity as a whole. This has never been my point.

Then you have not done a good enough job of making that distinction clear. Nor have you made any convincing argument whatsoever against casting more non-white people in future Jurassic World movies, in spite of all your comments. And it's a shame you went to all that trouble to look up and paste those graphs, because they really don't disprove anything regarding the phenomenal success of Black Panther worldwide. You can attempt to split as many hairs as you wish, but it doesn't remotely alter the fact that the movie made well over a billion dollars with a largely non-white cast. The same goes for the Fast and the Furious films. And for all six JP/JW films. And any future ones. And since you concur that domestic box office gross will always matter the most for Hollywood productions, it doesn't make much sense to try arguing that Black Panther was "just another Marvel movie" in your country. Besides, the data you cited proves that it did perform very well over there.

So your reasoning is that a person can't advocate for increased diversity in movies unless they go out and see every single movie with a racially diverse cast? That makes no sense.

No. I'm not saying that, please kindly stop jumping to conclusions.

But that is precisely what you said when you demanded to know how I could possibly support increased diversity in movies and other entertainment genres that I don't actually intend on seeing. Please don't try to wiggle out of it now simply because you can't counter the response I gave to you.

Unfortunate reality of corporations. I'm a cynical guy, I don't for a second believe that corporations would care about diversity if it didn't bring them profits.

And since it's been conclusively shown that it does indeed bring them profits, your entire argument against casting more non-white people in the next JW instalment has been rendered moot.

I have followed this discussion. I can see the voice of the activist in what you write. I have learned that it is hopeless to discuss with activists, because as long as one is not perfectly aligned with their view of the world they will keep going.

[Flaffy]

Then you have not done a good enough job of making that distinction clear. Nor have you made any convincing argument whatsoever against casting more non-white people in future Jurassic World movies, in spite of all your comments. And it's a shame you went to all that trouble to look up and paste those graphs, because they really don't disprove anything regarding the phenomenal success of Black Panther worldwide. You can attempt to split as many hairs as you wish, but it doesn't remotely alter the fact that the movie made well over a billion dollars with a largely non-white cast. The same goes for the Fast and the Furious films. And for all six JP/JW films. And any future ones. And since you concur that domestic box office gross will always matter the most for Hollywood productions, it doesn't make much sense to try arguing that Black Panther was "just another Marvel movie" in your country. Besides, the data you cited proves that it did perform very well over there.

None of my posts state that I am against casting non-white leads in JW films. I believe I have made my stance of apathy clear, I do not care for the race of the lead in a JW film. I cannot help if you insist on reading it as me being personally against POC castings.
I had questioned the reasoning for specifically wanting to cast a POC, but both you and @stargatedalek have brought up good points addressing that.
1) Increasing diversity and Better storytelling are not mutually exclusive. It is not a zero sum game
2) "A passive positive is still a positive, even if not enough to save a bad production on its own."

Re: Box office
You are conflating my points. My emphasise on Black Panther's immense domestic box office success was to address the importance of western audiences supporting films with non-traditional casting. I brought up China's box office because this is very likely the pinnacle of what a black-dominant cast can achieve in the market. The point of the graphs is to show that BP overperformed in the domestic market, contributing significantly to the much touted $1.3 billion figure; while overseas it did not overperform, doing expected numbers as a MCU movie.

For every success story there's a flop, and for every flop there's a success. For the Chinese box office, The Little Mermaid (2023) only earned $3.7 million, Creed 2 at $2.5 million (with Creed 3 not being shown in China at all iirc), The Marvels at $15 million, Crazy Rich Asians at $1.5 million etc. Pacific Rim Uprising got expected numbers in China, but failed in all other territories, ending up with a global gross of only $290 million. There certainly are many other explanations as to why these films underperformed in overseas territories, but Hollywood executives perceive this as an inherent risk to casting minority actors (again, US specific perspective), and ultimately a factor in deciding whether to cast someone in a particular role or not. Likewise there are many explanations as to why films such as BP, MIB3 and F&F do well overseas, be it sheer star power, franchise familiarity, or just simple good writing (e.g. Green Book).

Moreover, one needs to recognise all the films that were outright banned (or cheekily re-edited) in some oversease territories for including diversity (western) that did not line up with said territories values.

But that is precisely what you said when you demanded to know how I could possibly support increased diversity in movies and other entertainment genres that I don't actually intend on seeing. Please don't try to wiggle out of it now simply because you can't counter the response I gave to you.

No that is not what I said. Anyone can advocate for causes they care about, and I am certainly in no position to challenge how you choose to lend support as an individual. However, one cannot deny that actions (and in this case, cold hard cash) have larger impacts than words on a screen. I don't see how acknowledging the fact that corporations respond to profits, and profits only, is in any way a controversial take.

And since it's been conclusively shown that it does indeed bring them profits, your entire argument against casting more non-white people in the next JW instalment has been rendered moot.

I don't understand why you insist on twisting my argument that I'm against casting non-white people in JW films. My original post had two main and distinct points.

a) Jurassic World has bigger issues than lack of diversity (western).

Interesting perspective. I personally find the quality of the script, and story the director/writer is trying to tell being far more important than the skin colour of the actors on screen. No matter how diverse a cast is, it still wouldn't make up for a poorly written story.

b) Stories that are inherently and intrinsically tied to a culture would not necessarily benefit from increased diversity (objective).

Moreover, I feel this recent push for diversity has had the opposite indended effect in certain cases. Take Netflix's 3 Body Problem show for example. It was a sci-fi novel written by a Chinese writer from a uniquely Chinese perspective, yet the show strips away a lot of that in favour of spectacle, adapted for a western audience. The cast in the show is no doubt more diverse than the near 100% chinese cast of the original story, but I don't believe that increased diversity in this regard was an inherently positive thing, as loosing the chinese perspective (and eastern philosophies) detracts from the uniqueness of this story which sets it apart from it's blockbuster counterparts like Star Wars.

As I've said in my previous post here: https://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=11396.msg370532#msg370532 , there is a distinct and different connotation of the word "diversity" in the west that I had neglected to clarify in my previous posts which lended to much confusion. Unfortunately I don't see how we can have a productive discussion when my points are being ignored or deliberately altered to better suit your argument.

[PumperKrickel]

I have followed this discussion. I can see the voice of the activist in what you write. I have learned that it is hopeless to discuss with activists, because as long as one is not perfectly aligned with their view of the world they will keep going.

1. This is a rude thing to say.
2. Wishing for proper representation in movies is not activism and there is no argument against it that isn't racist, ableist or bigoted at it's core.

[suspsy]

I have followed this discussion. I can see the voice of the activist in what you write. I have learned that it is hopeless to discuss with activists, because as long as one is not perfectly aligned with their view of the world they will keep going.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight, I'm an activist because I think it would be nice if the leads in a Jurassic World movie weren't played by white people as they have been the last six times.

Anyone who uses "activist" as a pejorative is hopeless, period.

[thomasw100]

I have followed this discussion. I can see the voice of the activist in what you write. I have learned that it is hopeless to discuss with activists, because as long as one is not perfectly aligned with their view of the world they will keep going.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight, I'm an activist because I think it would be nice if the leads in a Jurassic World movie weren't played by white people as they have been the last six times.

Anyone who uses "activist" as a pejorative is hopeless, period.

I said the voice of the activist, which referred to the way you have been responding to whatever Flaffy said in response to your criticism. No matter what he responded, you were still not satisfied and kept going. I sensed a certain level of radical view here that wanted to view Flaffy as racist just because of what he said. This is what happens when a discussion enters the realm of ideology. I reject any ideology, because what ideology does is that it puts a belief or idea about society above the well-being and happiness of all people. We see the consequences of that in history and even today.

I honestly do not care at all what the cast of Jurassic World movies is composed of and gender and ethnic diversity should be the normal thing nowadays in every aspect of society. I acknowledge that this state has not been fully realized yet so some affirmative actions are still needed. But I am not in support of anything that goes beyond a fair and equal interaction and involvement of people from any type of background.

[PumperKrickel]

I reject any ideology, because what ideology does is that it puts a belief or idea about society above the well-being and happiness of all people. We see the consequences of that in history and even today.

Whose well-being and happiness is put at risk by the belief that the lead human character in a dinosaur movie doesn't need to be white?

Maybe I'm not educated enough on the subject or maybe it's a language barrier, but I also don't understand what you mean by saying you "reject any ideology". Isn't the belief that "gender and ethnic diversity should be the normal thing nowadays in every aspect of society" an ideology in itself? What's your definition of ideology?

[suspsy]

I said the voice of the activist, which referred to the way you have been responding to whatever Flaffy said in response to your criticism.

And you still used the term as a pejorative against me.

No matter what he responded, you were still not satisfied and kept going.

Because when people encounter arguments they fundamentally disagree with, they should remain silent instead of speaking up? Oooookay.

I sensed a certain level of radical view here that wanted to view Flaffy as racist just because of what he said.

Please define "radical." And then show me where I called anyone here a racist.

This is what happens when a discussion enters the realm of ideology. I reject any ideology, because what ideology does is that it puts a belief or idea about society above the well-being and happiness of all people. We see the consequences of that in history and even today.

Unless you're willing to be specific about what you define to be "ideology," what you define to be "the well being and happiness of all people," and what you define to be "consequences," this is just rhetoric.

I honestly do not care at all what the cast of Jurassic World movies is composed of and gender and ethnic diversity should be the normal thing nowadays in every aspect of society. I acknowledge that this state has not been fully realized yet so some affirmative actions are still needed. But I am not in support of anything that goes beyond a fair and equal interaction and involvement of people from any type of background.

This too is just rhetoric. If you believe you can present a detailed and convincing argument against giving the leads in a future Jurassic World film to non-white actors, and how it would go beyond a "fair and equal involvement of people from any type of background," then please do so already. If not, then I reckon this is concluded.

[Flaffy]

I have followed this discussion. I can see the voice of the activist in what you write. I have learned that it is hopeless to discuss with activists, because as long as one is not perfectly aligned with their view of the world they will keep going.

1. This is a rude thing to say.
2. Wishing for proper representation in movies is not activism and there is no argument against it that isn't racist, ableist or bigoted at it's core.

No wonder America is so divided. There is no room for nuance or conversation to be had without resorting to throwing around labels. Just because someone doesn't align with your views 100%, it doesn't mean they are against your cause/movement as a whole. If you come into a debate with preconceived notions about the other party, how do you expect an objective and productive discussion to be had?

Re: Proper representation
"Proper representation", what does that even mean? It's such a broad term with many different interpretations depending on the individual. I've observed 3 major camps:
1) Some are satisfied with surface level representation, where simply seeing a person with the same skin tone as them on screen constitudes as adequate representation.
2) Other folk call for deeper more meaningful representation to where the race/ethnicity/sexuality of the character/cast is not just a passing label, but instead is integral to the character and story.
3) Finally there's those who are strongly for the preservation of the appropriate culture and ethnicity in stories that are inherently tied to a specific culture.

All are ok, and all are valid. I don't see why being apathetic towards surface-level diversity means an individual is inherently racist, bigoted or abelist. Key word: Apathetic, not caring, don't mind when it's there but not fussed either if it isn't. Apathy is not the same nor should it be lumped into being against diversity.

Just because someone prefers apples, does not mean they hate pears.