Dragon Ball and the Bechdel test.

[ABED]

You don't see the harm in sexual objectification? Not even in daily life?

Define it so we're on the same page.

[FrogTrigger]

Spider-Man was different because he was established as white for half a century. I'd imaging there'd be similar uproar if Hal Jordan was reworked as Korean.

Jamie Foxx is playing electro though, yet people are upset that he's black

Ppl got upset when ultimate spider man had Peter die and be replaced by miles morales

Electro's blue look is similar to his ultimate incarnation when powered up though, that and the cinematic universes don't always reflect the comic world

I mean people are up in arms that the human torch will be black for some reason, even though him being white isn't intrinsic to his character

Plus Hal Jordan would be Hal Jordan even if he was Korean

[VyeRo]

Maybe, maybe not, but it makes you sound disingenuous, and not like it's what you truly believe. It sounds like posturing.

Well, to set the record straight, I do truly believe in what I'm saying. Why else would I spend my time responding in this thread? It's not posturing.

Spielberg wasn't involved in the whole debacle. Spielberg himself said he never told Bay to fire her. I agree with you on the second point, but she apologized for it afterwards.

This isn't be some floating abstraction, it's true, a healthy person wouldn't see themselves as their color. It means something, but to the people that it does, they're ignorant. I also wouldn't be looking to celebrities for quotes, their ignorance knows no bounds.

That's not how the real world works.
And why shouldn't I be looking at celebrities' quotes? If it's an account of a black man/woman recalling their story of how they were first introduced to black people on television, which is a pretty iconic moment, should I discredit them because they are famous? What is this logic? If it's relevant to the discussion I'm going to bring it up.

That's your argument? Racism and sexism exist because unchosen characteristics are more important than a person's character? (where did I say this?) I never said there weren't jerks in this world, but that doesn't mean someone's self worth should be determined by some jackass who can't see past those things. Prejudice exists because many people have collectivist tendencies. Racism and sexism are just two ugly manifestations of that.

My argument was that in an ideal world, gender and your skin color shouldn't matter, but in reality they do. It' shows how very fucked up society is that this is true. It's not about 'personalities' anymore when people are judged by where they came from or the color of their skin. It's pretty easy to say that a POC should just ignore racists and mustn't determine their self worth on some jackass' opinion, but it's way harder in practice to just shrug it off. Especially when you are surrounded by white people everywhere, in TV, magazines, politics. That's why it's important to have diversity, for people to see themselves reflected even if it's just a lousy TV show. It gives minorities a voice through an actor, actress, politician, announcer, you name it. Your argument was that people don't see themselves by the color of their skin, personalities are that they define themselves by, which is as far from reality as you can get. They are forced to acknowledge it.

Not what I said at all. I think people can feel empowered seeing themselves on screen, but that's not limited to physical characteristics.

You said: People are people, and seeing someone their color or gender doesn't mean seeing themselves. We aren't our color or gender.

How else was I supposed to take this? It's a pretty clear statement.

Now I have to define sexual objectification? Let's go to the least credible source Wikipedia because I can't properly put it into words: "Sexual objectification is the act of treating a person merely as an instrument of sexual pleasure, making them a "sex object". Objectification more broadly means treating a person as a commodity or an object, without regard to their personality or dignity. Objectification is most commonly examined at the level of a society, but can also refer to the behavior of individuals."

@Hades:

Funny you should mention that....

[Hades]

@Hades:

Funny you should mention that....

That study is utter bunk, why?

1) It doesn't give the contexts of either statements. For all we know, it could be condemning or sarcastic.

2) Regardless, just because two statements are similar doesn't mean the sources share similar opinions. I mean, the Columbine killers often made statements comparable to what you would hear on xboxlive. Does that mean nutjobs are going into schools on a daily basis?

3) There is zero evidence that Lad's Mags turn the readers into rapists.

[ABED]

First, Wikipedia isn't a credible source. Second, celebrities aren't a great place to go for quotes seeing as how they often say dumb things as well.

That's not how the real world works.
but in reality they do.

That is how it works. There are both psychologically healthy people who don't see themselves as just black or women. And who's "they"? Everyone?

Your argument was that people don't see themselves by the color of their skin, personalities are that they define themselves by, which is as far from reality as you can get.

No, my point is that either they don't, or shouldn't see themselves as their color. You are making the world out to be this awful place where everyone just sees people as some external characteristic. That's not "reality", that's cynicism. Stop ascribing messed up behavior to "society". There are good and bad people.

I never said it was hard to shrug people off, most good things in life aren't easy, like earning self-esteem, but that doesn't make it impossible or not worth going after.

Spielberg wasn't involved in the whole debacle. Spielberg himself said he never told Bay to fire her.

I'll take your word for it, I never cared to look into the matter. I refuse to give Bay anymore of my money. He hasn't made a good film since The Rock.

Now I have to define sexual objectification?

I know what you're getting at, but you'd be surprised by how often communication is hampered by terminology. Unless we know what each other mean's by the words we use, then constructive communication is damn near impossible.

Why don't you tell me where you've read that people are not empowered by things they see themselves in?

That was the question you asked. I answered that people don't just see themselves as their color. Seeing themselves on screen isn't limited to external characteristics, but you seem to ignore the rest of my statements or put words in my mouth. I never said (I don't think I did) that they aren't empowered by seeing themselves on screen. Is every black person empowered when they see every black person in a movie or TV show. What about women? Don't you think the personality of the viewers and the characters play a bigger role. I get that it's great when barriers are broken like the first interracial kiss on Star Trek, but having blacks and women in films isn't groundbreaking. Having a female driven comedy like Bridesmaids was groundbreaking but it should be more important that it was good, funny, and successful.

[Ringworm128]

Would MF taking down Starscream or something like that really made the film any better? If Bayformers was a really deep complex film maybe it would help if she had a bit more character development, but really giving her stuff to do would have just taken away time from the giant robots. And that's why we all went and saw the movies, to watch Optimus Prime and Megatron duke it out. I'm all for good female characters but people are acting like it should be mandatory. A writer should put a good, strong female character in his/her story because they want to, not for the sake of being politically correct. Peoples creative freedom is slowly being chipped away due to fear of being called "racist", "sexist" etc. Pretty soon there will be people being hounded by animal rights group saying "you only put that little dog in your movie to look cute, all the other characters get to do something but not him?"

[Rocketman]

A writer should put a good, strong female character in his/her story because they want to, not for the sake of being politically correct.

And what if nobody wants to? Just throw our hands up? "Welp, nobody wants to let blacks vote, OH WELL thats freedom freedom freedom oi"

Pretty soon there will be people being hounded by animal rights group saying "you only put that little dog in your movie to look cute, all the other characters get to do something but not him?"

Why is it always dogs?

"Gays want to marry? OH SO YOU WANT TO MARRY YOUR DOG NEXT"
"Women want better representation in media? OH YOU'LL BE WHINING ABOUT DOGS NEXT"

[ABED]

And what if nobody wants to? Just throw our hands up?

That's about as likely as the scenario that people try to use to shame me into voting. There will always be plenty of people who will write good females, because they simply want good characters regardless of gender.

"Welp, nobody wants to let blacks vote, OH WELL thats freedom freedom freedom oi"

What?! These scenarios aren't the same. We're not talking about freedom in a political context.

[Ringworm128]

And what if nobody wants to?

Then you write your own good female characters instead of trying to force others to do so. It's like the people who insist there are no good female characters in games (even though that's false) and want shit like Link becoming a girl. Instead of trying to get Links dick cut off they should be making their own games with their own female characters not dictating what others can make.

If this obsession with every series having to have a strong female character keeps up we will eventually have women complaining about being pressured by society to have the no nonsense tough independent woman image while men complaining about being under represented in media, and we will be back to square one.

[ABED]

That's why I like instead of changing Hal Jordan's race, they created another great character, John Stewart.

[Vegard Aune]

Then you write your own good female characters instead of trying to force others to do so. It's like the people who insist there are no good female characters in games (even though that's false) and want shit like Link becoming a girl. Instead of trying to get Links dick cut off they should be making their own games with their own female characters not dictating what others can make.

Which reminds me of an article I read the other day accusing Steven Moffat, the showrunner of Doctor Who, for being sexist... Now granted the article did have plenty of actual quotes from Moffat that basically confirmed that yeah, he is... but on the other hand they also claimed that his sexism has once again been confirmed by the fact that he cast Peter Capaldi, a male actor, to play the Doctor. y'know, the character who has always been male even when pretty much every other aspect of his character is prone to constant change... Yeah I doubt Moffat chose a man to play the role because "Eww a woman being the big hero who saves all of time and space on a daily basis!" but rather because the Doctor is a man, and has always been a man, and even in the context of a show where the main character frequently changing is actually a part of the plot (Oh, and I believe Moffat was actually the first writer to ever entertain the possibility that a female Doctor could happen, with his non-canon parody episode Curse of Fatal Death), changing his gender might be a bit much for the fans to accept as well.

[FrogTrigger]

That's why I like instead of changing Hal Jordan's race, they created another great character, John Stewart.

And then they kinda crap on him and made him be known as the gl who accidentally killed a whole planet bc no one wanted guy Gardner to be guilty

Then have him show up in gl comics to kill other lanterns

After being crippled through the nineties and taken away from his powered up status

[Hades]

And what if nobody wants to? Just throw our hands up? "Welp, nobody wants to let blacks vote, OH WELL thats freedom freedom freedom oi"

Yep, because lack of female presence in movies is SO totally comparable to a time when black people were lynched, had their homes burned down, forced out of towns and had little legal recourse.

[VyeRo]

@Hades:

Funny you should mention that....

That study is utter bunk, why?

1) It doesn't give the contexts of either statements. For all we know, it could be condemning or sarcastic.

2) Regardless, just because two statements are similar doesn't mean the sources share similar opinions. I mean, the Columbine killers often made statements comparable to what you would hear on xboxlive. Does that mean nutjobs are going into schools on a daily basis?

3) There is zero evidence that Lad's Mags turn the readers into rapists.

I'm sure a study that's about to be published in a journal is 'utter bunk'.
1) "The study used quotes from the four UK lad’s mags with the highest circulation: FHM, Loaded, Nuts and Zoo, published between January and March 2010. Quotes from convicted rapists from verbatim interview transcripts in the United States in the book: The Rapist Files: Interviews With Convicted Rapists by Sussman & Bordwell." It's right there. I seriously don't think their quotes were 'sarcastic' in any way, shape or form.

2) Except the study just concluded the opposite of what you're saying. We're not talking about the Columbine killers and violence in video games, that is another subject entirely.

3) No one said lad mags are turning readers into rapists.

First, Wikipedia isn't a credible source. Second, celebrities aren't a great place to go for quotes seeing as how they often say dumb things as well.

I know, I even said so myself in that post. But it was 1am and I couldn't be bothered. Nevertheless, the definition is still accurate.

So someone's account of a defining childhood moment must be discredited because they may have said some dumb things in the past? Celebrities aren't a great place to go for facts and scientific findings sure, but this is about someone's personal experience. I found it relevant to the discussion so I brought it up as an example.

No, my point is that either they don't, or shouldn't see themselves as their color. You are making the world out to be this awful place where everyone just sees people as some external characteristic. That's not "reality", that's cynicism. Stop ascribing messed up behavior to "society". There are good and bad people.

Because the world is like that? People are forced to acknowledge their skin color, even though they themselves don't want to or shouldn't have to. And it's not cynicism when it's fucking reality. I see it in my daily life, I see it happen to other people, to myself. Even 'good' people are not aware of the stereotypes they are perpetuating and how some of their views are backwards. The point is, it's not a clear cut of either you're racist or you're not, not when things like this are so ingrained in society you're not even aware of it happening.

I know what you're getting at, but you'd be surprised by how often communication is hampered by terminology. Unless we know what each other mean's by the words we use, then constructive communication is damn near impossible.

Sexual objectification has only so many definitions, and it all comes down to the same thing. I'm pretty sure everyone knows what we're talking about here, no definitions needed.

That was the question you asked. I answered that people don't just see themselves as their color. Seeing themselves on screen isn't limited to external characteristics, but you seem to ignore the rest of my statements or put words in my mouth. I never said (I don't think I did) that they aren't empowered by seeing themselves on screen. Is every black person empowered when they see every black person in a movie or TV show. What about women? Don't you think the personality of the viewers and the characters play a bigger role. I get that it's great when barriers are broken like the first interracial kiss on Star Trek, but having blacks and women in films isn't groundbreaking. Having a female driven comedy like Bridesmaids was groundbreaking but it should be more important that it was good, funny, and successful.

I never said it was only limited to external characteristics, did I? The point is, when everything in media is white white white, and POC and women barely get a chance to shine, what do you think happens when a character like that finally gets introduced? You think people are only going to pay attention to their personalities? No, they are also going to pay attention to their color, their ethnicity etc because it's just so rare when movie execs decide to quit whitewashing for a moment to even think about hiring a minority instead of a default white male actor/actress. And I'm not saying here that only racists will pay attention, but everyone, including the group that is being 'represented' here. Also, I'm not saying every black person is empowered by every black person in a movie, but I'm pretty damn sure it was a big fucking deal several years ago when they, among other groups, were basically ignored in media.

The sad thing is that having minorities, women, movies like Bridesmaids shouldn't be groundbreaking, but it is. The focal point should be on their characters, their personalities, no one is arguing that, but if they don't even get to have a stage, then what's the point?

If anyone's interested, here are some interesting charts:

Gender inequality in films

Racial diversity

[Sylveon]

And yes, people do feel empowered, I've read quotes, I've heard it in marketing class. There is this quote (and I sadly can't remember who said it but it was a black celebrity), and it was about one of the first ever TV shows with black people in it and it had such an astounding effect on this person, because many years ago you didn't see black people on television. Like he/she called the entire family and they went nuts. I'm sure you can find some stats on it though.

I think you're referring to this?

“Well, when I was nine years old, Star Trek came on, I looked at it and I went screaming through the house, ‘Come here, mum, everybody, come quick, come quick, there’s a black lady on television and she ain’t no maid!’ I knew right then and there I could be anything I wanted to be.” — Whoopi Goldberg

(Mae Jemison, the first African-American woman in space, also credits Lt. Uhura as being the reason she decided to become an astronaut, so clearly representation in media does do something.)

I can't believe people are still arguing about this. No, people shouldn't be forced to include characters of a specific race or gender in their stories, but clearly there is something wrong when only 30.8% of speaking characters in the top 500 films released between 2007 and 2012 were women.

[Hades]

@VyeRo

1) I was talking about the Magazines. For instance, it does not show the actual quotes, nor does it frame them in their specific contexts.

2) It uses the Exact. Same. Logic. I mean, if I were to take random quotes from mass shooters and video game statements made online, i could say that gamers are all mass shooters in the waiting, or that metalheads are all satanists who carve people up in the night.

3) Except, that's what the study was implying.

[Puto]

Edit to include @Hades: I'm not a supporter of quotas. I''m a supporter of well-written male and female characters. So fiction is all about the white straight men? Because no one else actually exists besides that. Got it. It reminds me of people going beserk when Jamie Foxx was cast in Spiderman, because the character 'couldn't be black'.

For the record, pretty sure the same type of backlash would occur if, say, they tried to cast a white guy as John Stewart. And the same kind of backlash happened when they cast a non-asian guy as Gokū in Dragon Ball Evolution, too.

[ABED]

That's why I like instead of changing Hal Jordan's race, they created another great character, John Stewart.

And then they kinda crap on him and made him be known as the gl who accidentally killed a whole planet bc no one wanted guy Gardner to be guilty

Then have him show up in gl comics to kill other lanterns

After being crippled through the nineties and taken away from his powered up status

Didn't they also have Hal Jordan go nuts and kill people after Coast City was destroyed? It's not limited to black characters.

Because the world is like that?

Yes, the world is like that. Just because people bring something up doesn't mean that the proper reaction is to act on it. It is cynicism when you ascribe those actions to everyone. It's the malevolent universe premise.

It doesn't help people to constantly be the one to bring things up. One of the things that bothers me is when we do get blacks in a film, they make it about the character being black, instead of just being a character. Take Lawrence Fishburn in Man of Steel or Sam Jackson in the MCU. They are black men playing characters that were traditionally white, but I don't recall many caring because they were good in those roles and no fuss was made in those films about them being black. The more that sort of thing is done, I think the less people will care over time. Putting diversity in people's faces doesn't help matters.

Harold and Kumar had a diverse cast, but it was a film that speaks to people because the characters weren't defined by being Asian and Indian.

As for the Whoopi Goldberg quote, I already answered that point, I can get people getting excited about something groundbreaking, but beyond that, why would a women feel empowered by, for instance, seeing a female character murder someone? Are they seeing themselves on the screen?

I think putting quotas is a bad idea, as people will quickly find out, and resent the quotas and constantly be wondering "did they get that role because they were right for it, or because they were female, black, latino/latina, etc.?) Let the writers write, and I think over time, TV and film will have plenty of diversity in their casting, but I don't think we should judge these things in comparison to society as a whole. Casting shouldn't be an exercise in representative sampling, though I'm pretty sure if you did most characters would still be white, as America is predominantly white. However, there would be slightly more females then males on screen.

[VyeRo]

@ Sylveon:

Yes, that's the quote! Didn't realize it was Whoopi Goldberg.
And I can't believe I'm arguing about this either. Never thought you would have to justify having diverse and female well-rounded characters in movies, but what can I say.

@ Hades:

1) This article has some quotes from the study. The quotes are about treating women in a very degrading, dehumanizing manner.

2) Maybe, but the results of this study can only be applied in this context. They found a link between lad mags statements and rapists', that's it. The same cannot be said for mass shooters and video game violence, because then you would have to conduct a seperate research. They are not mutually exclusive.

3) No, it wasn't implying that lad mag readers are rapists, or are going to become rapists. Did you even read the article? It said they found a link between the language used in lad mags and rapists' statements. It shows a problematic trend where women are talked about in a very dehumanizing way, to the extent that they cannot see the difference between quotes from lad mags and rapists' quotes.

@ ABED:

It doesn't help people to constantly be the one to bring things up. One of the things that bothers me is when we do get blacks in a film, they make it about the character being black, instead of just being a character.

I agree that's not a healthy trend either, but it can't be helped when POC are cast so rarely in movies.

The more that sort of thing is done, I think the less people will care over time. Putting diversity in people's faces doesn't help matters.

And making an effort to introduce more diversity in and behind the scenes is a great head start, don't you think? When it becomes not an exception but a given that a cast is made up of (well-rounded) POC and women, only then will people stop talking about it and making such a big deal out of it. Because this isn't the case, every time it does happen people will celebrate.

Harold and Kumar had a diverse cast, but it was a film that speaks to people because the characters weren't defined by being Asian and Indian.

Have we seen the same movies? Harold and Kumar was filled with racial jokes/stereotypes. They were most definitely defined by their ethnicity.

As for the Whoopi Goldberg quote, I already answered that point, I can get people getting excited about something groundbreaking, but beyond that, why would a women feel empowered by, for instance, seeing a female character murder someone? Are they seeing themselves on the screen?

Because even then it's refreshing to see a female character kick ass, and it's not just about her looks and body for once. For example, I thought Artemisia (from 300: rise of an empire) was kickass. You're taking it very literal, we don't see ourselves in murderers, we see ourselves in the woman and what she represents.

I don't think 'letting the writers write' is a good idea, because change doesn't happen that way. We're in 2014 now. Have you taken a look at the charts I posted? Where is the improvement? Why is there such a unequal balance between women/men and white/POC in the first place? Doesn't this say something about society as a whole? I think it's worth looking into imo.

[Gaffer Tape]

And I can't believe I'm arguing about this either. Never thought you would have to justify having diverse and female well-rounded characters in movies, but what can I say.

Please don't do that. I've seen it pop up in a few others of your posts on this topic too, and it rubs me the wrong way every time. I've been staying out of this conversation lately, but now that it's back on track, it's been fun to read, but comments like this threaten to derail it again. I'm agreeing with a lot of what you're saying, but don't treat your opinions like they're sacred, or that anyone who doesn't agree with you is advocating some backwards, sexist, overt male-dominance while you're one of the few enlightened ones. Do you want a discussion, or do you just want your opinions parroted back at you?