Fans who pick on deviations from the original source

[Samson]

So you think it's reasonable to ask people not to go anywhere in order to not hear such comments, instead of discussing them? That's the context. How would you respond to such an ask?

In this thread I have make no comment on what is reasonable, or what they should be discussing. I am only saying that to read facebook comments you need to go to facebook, in the same way you need to go to CFC to read CFC posts, and Endchan to read Endchan posts.

Separately, as you ask, I do think the obvious response to a website having things you do not like is to not go there, if you cannot filter it appropriately using the tools available. This whole thing of complaining about social media companies while still using them all the time is denying one's own agency in this matter. I usually use the argument when talking about things like cyberflashing and abuse (flaming or trolling or whatever you call it these days), but it works about this too. That is what I do, so I am not sure if I would be responding.

 

[aelf]

In this thread I have make no comment on what is reasonable, or what they should be discussing. I am only saying that to read facebook comments you need to go to facebook, in the same way you need to go to CFC to read CFC posts, and Endchan to read Endchan posts.

Separately, as you ask, I do think the obvious response to a website having things you do not like is to not go there, if you cannot filter it appropriately using the tools available. This whole thing of complaining about social media companies while still using them all the time is denying one's own agency in this matter. I usually use the argument when talking about things like cyberflashing and abuse (flaming or trolling or whatever you call it these days), but it works about this too. That is what I do, so I am not sure if I would be responding.

I think you're being dense on purpose and ignoring context just to annoy.

If you don't care about the context, don't wade into a conversation. It's one thing that happens too much here and usually done by far more notorious users, most of whom seem to be gone.

Secondly, in no way was I complaining about social media companies. You're way off base in trying to paint this thread as that. In fact, I'm not even asserting any right not to see the kind of comments I'm talking about. I'm merely arguing that they are wrong. If you don't think there's any merit in discussing them, then you're welcome to leave like a few users have. I don't have a problem with it whatsoever

 

[H4run]

The problem is I don't think everyone agrees on what constitutes a good or the closest representation of the original work. Works of art are experienced - they don't have inherent value

What determined art to be good or bad might fall deeply into the realm of relativity and personal taste,

or even brand.

A stick-like figure that I made might not even worth a penny, but if it's made by Picasso with his signature on it, it might mean more than what it actually represents, it might be worth a million dollars.

But if we talk about an adaptation of a work, we cannot avoid the fact that the work is used as a reference for the making of the adaptation and it is consequently will be again used as a reference to measure how good it is as its adaptation, you might not agree with that technical measurement or definition, but it's a valid definition after all. We cannot separate the original work from the adaptation that is supposed to represent it.

Strict adherence to superficial aspects of a work will likely not result in the equivalent experience when translating it into another medium. And beneath this, there are also practical considerations. Let's take a film adaptation as example. A film needs to sell tickets. If the director believes that the average film-goer will not enjoy and understand the film as much as the director did the original work, then the director will make whatever changes is deemed necessary in order for the average film-goer to enjoy and understand it, since appealing to the average film-goer is likely necessary to sell enough tickets.

Fans might complain that it's changing aspects of the source material, and therefore the director failed in the mission of adapting the work in those respects. But if average film-goers then enjoy and understand the adaptation as much as many fans did the original work, then is there not a legitimate reason to say that the director represented the work well?

I don't think the feeling of discomfort is a good measure for judgement. If we base our views on that feeling alone, then we'd never get past our prejudices.

Pure emotivism makes the enjoyment of art poorer overall, as we would not have any reason to consume anything unless we automatically find it enjoyable.

These kinda contradict themselves Aelf. In the first quoted commentary you measure the success of a work through its sales, when you talk about how good it sells you are focusing more on the consumer enjoyment of a product, the indicator of good adaptation or a bad one would be, does it sells well or not?

While at the second quoted commentary, you want people to level up their standard beyond their feeling comfort or discomfort so they can appreciate high art.

But I understand your point, your point is people should stop complaining about some adjustments or changes that happened in the adaptation, something that you consider as some minor adjustments, things like the country origin of the main character or their race, their age, their gender perhaps, and all other details that you deemed to be non-essential. You hope people, especially fans of the original work, should past the staggering discomfort of that distortion from the main body of the original work and get used to it and shrug it off.

While for me the point of adaptation is to deliver a visualized version of the original work, while keeping in mind all the production difficulties and time limitations and every technical difficulty, the main purpose of an adaptation to represent the original work is never changed, so do the measurement of how good it is.

Or else it should not be called adaptation instead they can call it a re-imagination, or a work that is heavily inspired by the original work, but when we say it is the adaptation then we shouldn't be surprised if fans and appreciators are pissed when their female Chinese main character get represented by a male white dude. And it's not emotive, because it's not something that comes out of nowhere, there is a clear reason and measurement as to why they found the adaptation is a bad one. I'm not saying your ability to withstand the unfaithful adaptation is wrong, but I also believe that it's completely understandable if fans or appreciator of a work disappointed when their favorite work get distorted and butchered by the adapter.

 

[Samson]

I think you're being dense on purpose and ignoring context just to annoy.

If you don't care about the context, don't wade into a conversation. It's one thing that happens too much here and usually done by far more notorious users, most of whom seem to be gone.

Secondly, in no way was I complaining about social media companies. You're way off base in trying to paint this thread as that. In fact, I'm not even asserting any right not to see the kind of comments I'm talking about. I'm merely arguing that they are wrong. If you don't think there's any merit in discussing them, then you're welcome to leave like a few users have. I don't have a problem with it whatsoever

I can assure you I am not being intentionally dense or ignoring context, though I may well be missing something in a dense way.

As I read it, Edward said he avoided "pointlessly visiting hate sites" (I interpreted "hate sites" to be facebook). You said "You don't have to visit anywhere to see Facebook comments". I have glanced further up the thread and nothing strikes that radically changes the context of that but perhaps I am missing it. I note that that post of yours was the first in this thread that mentioned facebook.

The second paragraph of my post was removed from the context of the thread, but I think I made it clear that was separate and just answering your question and it seemed that the question was somewhat removed from what I was saying, so deserved a different context. I was never saying you should not discuss the phenomena, or I would not be in this thread.

 

[aelf]

What determined art to be good or bad might fall deeply into the realm of relativity and personal taste,

or even brand.

A stick-like figure that I made might not even worth a penny, but if it's made by Picasso with his signature on it, it might mean more than what it actually represents, it might be worth a million dollars.

But if we talk about an adaptation of a work, we cannot avoid the fact that the work is used as a reference for the making of the adaptation and it is consequently will be again used as a reference to measure how good it is as its adaptation, you might not agree with that technical measurement or definition, but it's a valid definition after all. We cannot separate the original work from the adaptation that is supposed to represent it.

I mean, if the adaptation really has little or nothing to do with the original work, then you could raise this point. But that's usually hardly the case. The changes I'm talking about are not major. So the question is not whether something completely fails to be a representation, but how good a representation it is.

These kinda contradict themselves Aelf. In the first quoted commentary you measure the success of a work through its sales, when you talk about how good it sells you are focusing more on the consumer enjoyment of a product, the indicator of good adaptation or a bad one would be, does it sells well or not?

While at the second quoted commentary, you want people to level up their standard beyond their feeling comfort or discomfort so they can appreciate high art.

But I understand your point, your point is people should stop complaining about some adjustments or changes that happened in the adaptation, something that you consider as some minor adjustments, things like the country origin of the main character or their race, their age, their gender perhaps, and all other details that you deemed to be non-essential. You hope people, especially fans of the original work, should past the staggering discomfort of that distortion from the main body of the original work and get used to it and shrug it off.

While for me the point of adaptation is to deliver a visualized version of the original work, while keeping in mind all the production difficulties and time limitations and every technical difficulty, the main purpose of an adaptation to represent the original work is never changed, so do the measurement of how good it is.

Or else it should not be called adaptation instead they can call it a re-imagination, or a work that is heavily inspired by the original work, but when we say it is the adaptation then we shouldn't be surprised if fans and appreciators are pissed when their female Chinese main character get represented by a male white dude. And it's not emotive, because it's not something that comes out of nowhere, there is a clear reason and measurement as to why they found the adaptation is a bad one. I'm not saying your ability to withstand the unfaithful adaptation is wrong, but I also believe that it's completely understandable if fans or appreciator of a work disappointed when their favorite work get distorted and butchered by the adapter.

It's a contradiction that's inherent to capitalism, isn't it? People must perceive value to buy an artifact, but if that value is decided only by the market, then what is the meaning in the artifact?

I'm sure you can agree that if humans can find no meaning other than through what they immediately enjoy, then existence will quickly feel pointless to many. Not to mention the kind of problems this might cause socially. At the same time, however, whatever can be immediately enjoyed by most will appeal to the largest number of people. So, for that practical reason, some form of compromise is usually made.

Now, fans of something are not like the masses of lay people. They have more context and knowledge of the material, and so they should in theory have a sharper idea of its meaning. This knowledge might mean they can choose to go the way of zealously insisting that no adaptation strays from they what they know, or they can use what they know to appraise the adaptation in a reasoned way. The second choice results in true engagement that opens the way for them to enjoy an adaptation, changes and all, even if that might not end up being the case. The first choice means they choose to dislike and be angry at the adaptation right from the start. Which choice is more productive and beneficial?

I can assure you I am not being intentionally dense or ignoring context, though I may well be missing something in a dense way.

As I read it, Edward said he avoided "pointlessly visiting hate sites" (I interpreted "hate sites" to be facebook). You said "You don't have to visit anywhere to see Facebook comments". I have glanced further up the thread and nothing strikes that radically changes the context of that but perhaps I am missing it. I note that that post of yours was the first in this thread that mentioned facebook.

The second paragraph of my post was removed from the context of the thread, but I think I made it clear that was separate and just answering your question and it seemed that the question was somewhat removed from what I was saying, so deserved a different context. I was never saying you should not discuss the phenomena, or I would not be in this thread.

Nothing I've said is removed from the thread's topic. An analogy is an analogy.

I don't see Facebook as a hate site and since, as you say, I was the first to mention it, I don't see how you could think he meant that. Now, Edward might not be aware of how Facebook works himself, but I'm sure you know that within Facebook there are pages. If I went to visit some page where fans congregate to discuss minutiae and I have a fundamental problem with their approach, then you might legitimately ask why I went to that page in the first place, which is probably in line with his argument. My reply was simply to say that you don't have to go anywhere on Facebook to see posts on your news feed and at least a few comments on those posts, and I used the supermarket analogy to illustrate a similar situation in real life, where the location is not some place that is specific to the kind of comments I came across. So, you might say it's not that I went looking for 'trouble', it's that I happened to see it.

 

[warpus]

Exactly this. Without discounting any technical difficulty and challenge, the main work is the main reference to measure the success of an adaptation that claimed to represent the visualized main work.

I think if a director outright said: "We are attempting to present you almost exactly what was in the novel and put it on the big screen", then that's a valid of judging the final result. But I don't think every adaptation necessarily needs to be an exact lifting of the novel. It makes a lot of sense to be faithful to the novel, but IMO you don't always have to be, and can still make a good movie.

The original Blade Runner took a short story and expanded on it and changed things a bit, in its adaptation, and ended up being a really good movie. But is that an example of an adaptation? I guess I'm not really sure.

In the case of the Dune movie, IMO the director was able to translate the feeling I got when I read the book, and put it on the big screen. He was able to take a lot of the world building and characters and do the same with them. Not everything is the same, but I also sort of don't want to fully judge it until the sequel is out. I think parts of the two movies will connect together and it might flesh things a bit better yet. That's a guess though. In the end I think that directors will often try to re-create that feel, instead of necessarily staying 100% faithful to the original story. IMO it's sort of their job to figure out what will work on the big screen and what won't, so that will almost always lead to changes of some sort

 

[Birdjaguar]

The movie Captains Courageous (1937) took a mediocre novel and turned it into a great movie. The book was brought to life through great casting and great acting. I'm sure Kipling would have been proud.

 

[H4run]

Which choice is more productive and beneficial?

I get pissed by it and still maintain my productivity? it's better to express it than keeping the grudge inside just to make it come out as a pimple in my face later XD

Like Jamurd song that sings:
Nanti daripada jadi jerawat, baiknya aku menjerit.
Before the grudge turn into a pimple, I better scream it out.

Anyway bro, you want a point of view from someone on that side, I gave you one, as I'm someone from that side for both a remake and an adaptation. I really feel not satisfied with why Faye is not cast by Singaporeans, I'm not happy if an Asian cast is played by white under the pretext of "there is no sufficient Asian talent"

And I am equally annoyed if a supposed to be white cast is played instead by an actor from people of color just to satisfy the woke masses, I would not like an Afro-American Billy The Kid, because that's not how it suppose to happen.

These are problems that can be easily solved but they choose not to solve them either due to the director's own prejudice that there are no sufficient good Asian actors that can act decently or they just want to have their own agenda in it.

You might not agree with me, and I'm alright with that, but at least you know the basic view and this is not something that completely sprang out of nowhere.

I think if a director outright said: "We are attempting to present you almost exactly what was in the novel and put it on the big screen", then that's a valid of judging the final result. But I don't think every adaptation necessarily needs to be an exact lifting of the novel. It makes a lot of sense to be faithful to the novel, but IMO you don't always have to be, and can still make a good movie.

I don't see any problem with this, I completely agree. What do I have a problem with is, an unjustifiable alteration, either because the Director doesn't respect the original work enough, or because they have insufficient knowledge and appreciation of the original work, or they just do it for trivial motives, like "hey let us adapt Earth of Mankind, and while Annelies was an Indo and depicted in the novel possessed a heavily Westerner look and appearance, let's choose an Indo that looks more Indonesian instead, because I luvvvv my countreeeh, and my gurllls are roock brooo" Or other more complicated motives but using the same similar patter, for that in my view they can eat a crap, no no, not a crap, lots and lots of craps.

 

[Zardnaar]

Depends on how severe the changes from the original.

I expect condensations and dialog changes and dislike big changes to the metaplot not a big fan of changing plots and characters to much.

 

[tjs282]

The original Blade Runner took a short story and expanded on it and changed things a bit, in its adaptation, and ended up being a really good movie.

This is almost completely wrong

Unlike a lot of the PKD movie-adaptions (e.g. Total Recall, Impostor, Screamers), which were indeed based on short stories, Do Androids Dream...? is a full-length novel. And Blade Runner didn't expand it, or change things "a bit". It took most of the character names, and the basic premise of "cop [=freelance bounty hunter] hunts androids who act exactly like people", but threw out nearly everything else.

But yes, it was still a great movie, on its own terms.

 

[aelf]

I get pissed by it and still maintain my productivity? it's better to express it than keeping the grudge inside just to make it come out as a pimple in my face later XD

Like Jamurd song that sings:
Nanti daripada jadi jerawat, baiknya aku menjerit.
Before the grudge turn into a pimple, I better scream it out.

Anyway bro, you want a point of view from someone on that side, I gave you one, as I'm someone from that side for both a remake and an adaptation. I really feel not satisfied with why Faye is not cast by Singaporeans, I'm not happy if an Asian cast is played by white under the pretext of "there is no sufficient Asian talent"

This was a missed opportunity indeed, and one that can't be justified, especially in a time after Crazy Rich Asians. And that's a reason why the change is bad. It's not bad simply because it's a change.

For that matter, I don't think Cowboy Bebop is a good adaptation for various reasons. I don't remember the original very well anymore, but it definitely isn't an action comedy in the American tradition. Maybe they attempted to bridge a cultural gap or something, but it seems to have lost a lot in translation. One criticism I read is characters have changed in significant ways and not for the better in terms of good storytelling. I can't give a more detailed critique myself because I don't remember enough to compare, so I'll just say that it's merely decent for a Netflix show.

And I am equally annoyed if a supposed to be white cast is played instead by an actor from people of color just to satisfy the woke masses, I would not like an Afro-American Billy The Kid, because that's not how it suppose to happen.

Again, this depends, right? If the story or character doesn't suffer because of the change, then there should be no problem. Historically, race and gender swaps were not a problem on the theatrical stage, both in the East and West. People have just gotten their figurative panties twisted over this since others have asked for better representation and called out white washing, which are issues that have less to do with storytelling than with inequality.

 

[H4run]

Again, this depends, right? If the story or character doesn't suffer because of the change

Why the change though? Unless there is a valid difficulty there shouldn't be any necessity to change it, well if they change it still it's their right however they shouldn't be surprised if people got annoyed because the visual representation of the work doesn't match the original work that already intimate in the mind of the reader. The fact that some people don't mind it, doesn't negate the validity of another group of people that are disturbed by it.

Historically also directors don't give any confidence to give a black role to a black actor, history also pretty much chill with the depiction of Mr. Yunioshi by Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffanny's.

This was a missed opportunity indeed, and one that can't be justified, especially in a time after Crazy Rich Asians. And that's a reason why the change is bad. It's not bad simply because it's a change.

I agree with this.

 

[aelf]

Why the change though? Unless there is a valid difficulty there shouldn't be any necessity to change it, well if they change it still it's their right however they shouldn't be surprised if people got annoyed because the visual representation of the work doesn't match the original work that already intimate in the mind of the reader. The fact that some people don't mind it, doesn't negate the validity of another group of people that are disturbed by it.

There's usually some reason, right? If we're talking about Hollywood, then the default/easiest route is probably to cast someone white. If they whitewashed a character, then the suspicion would be that they were lazy or chasing star power. If they didn't do that, then there's probably some other reason. Whether you agree with the reason or not is another matter, but the objection shouldn't just be about the fact that it was changed.

In the same way that we reject the opinions of those who dislike others for superficial reasons like skin colour, we shouldn't be so happy to accept such views in this regard as well.

 

[Gorbles]

Why the change though? Unless there is a valid difficulty there shouldn't be any necessity to change it, well if they change it still it's their right however they shouldn't be surprised if people got annoyed because the visual representation of the work doesn't match the original work that already intimate in the mind of the reader. The fact that some people don't mind it, doesn't negate the validity of another group of people that are disturbed by it.

There are often difficulties getting the desires actor or actress for a particular role. Excluding institutional bigotry for a moment, or even the basic moneymaking motive of casting known stars into roles they might not be suited for, just to draw positive attention to the role. Putting them both aside, there are often difficulties getting people suited for the actual cast call in the first place. This happens in both TV and places like Hollywood.

To your last bit, that works both ways. That some people might be upset that the character had been changed to whatever extent, doesn't invalidate that others might like or otherwise appreciate the change. It's impossible to determine intent - nobody can say "everybody who disliked this was racist". But you could say "every person who is racist against this actor or actress would've disliked this", assuming there's no qualitative factors at play. And this is where the problem sets in.

 

[H4run]

It's impossible to determine intent - nobody can say "everybody who disliked this was racist". But you could say "every person who is racist against this actor or actress would've disliked this", assuming there's no qualitative factors at play. And this is where the problem sets in.

Alright, so what you are trying to say here is, if a Director adapted Karl May's work give the Morgan Freeman the main-role playing as Old Shatterhand, we cannot say those who dislike Morgan Freeman to be cast as Old Shatterhand are racists, but instead, we may say racist people would not like Afro-American to play as a white actor, so racist people most probably would've hated this.

So whoever doesn't like this cast might dislike it for variety of different reasons, but we always suspect racism as the default main reason?

Is that what you mean Gorb?

 

[EnglishEdward]

Now, Edward might not be aware of how Facebook works himself

Although I have a Facebook account, my knowledge of how Facebook works is indeed limited.

But it is not where I would go for film reviews or news.

I can see that if you are considering whether to watch a film, and go to a film review site, and find it full of abusive
and needlessly negative comments (whether due to it being an adaption or not), you might find that rather annoying.

Now reverting back to why people do not like adaptions; I think that it is because when people first encounter the product;
whether by reading the book or by seeing a play or film; that sets their reference point for what that product is about.
If they see an adaption, the difference between the original and adaption may create a cognitive or intellectual jar; and that
can be disconcerting or off putting, feel wrong etc, and it is not unreasonable that they comment on that basis.

Furthermore some adaptions may not be very good; and that can understandably result in negative comments.

And that is not a defence of hateful or rude comments.

There is also a degree of historical snobbery; oh; I saw the first performance in 19...; anything else is a poor imitation.

 

[Gorbles]

Alright, so what you are trying to say here is, if a Director adapted Karl May's work give the Morgan Freeman the main-role playing as Old Shatterhand, we cannot say those who dislike Morgan Freeman to be cast as Old Shatterhand are racists, but instead, we may say racist people would not like Afro-American to play as a white actor, so racist people most probably would've hated this.

So whoever doesn't like this cast might dislike it for variety of different reasons, but we always suspect racism as the default main reason?

Is that what you mean Gorb?

Eh, it's not that we can suspect it for the main reason either. It's just a fact, as-is, that people seem rather keen to sweep under the rug. People don't like talking about racism, but it's endemic to industries like these which are entertainment mediums for a vast amount of people.

To that end, overtly courting racism is often . . . silly. It's not good for business at this kind of scale. Nobody likes there being a spotlight on it, because then the people who actually are can't play devil's advocate, or some other brand of linguistic fun. So any racism is often a side-effect, either of the industry, or of implicit bias in hiring practises. But then there are notably racist (or sexist, etc) individuals in the industry. Throughout Hollywood. They're known by their peers, even on the historical record. But it's not "proper" to talk about their beliefs as though it wouldn't affect their works. Which is asinine. Of course a person's beliefs influences the art they create. We see it happen in software, nevermind in the arts.

To bring this back to changes in casting choices with regards to adaptations, this is (typically) because business runs these efforts. They're transactional. They're to make money. Netflix doesn't make something like She-Ra and the Princesses of Power to annoy all the 40 year old men who want He-Man "like he was back in the 80s". They don't even necessarily make it to be "woke". They make it to make money, first and foremost. The racism, or sexism, or the opposite (i.e. casting a good, progressive director / producing team, etc) inherent in any choices that go into a show like this is done because Netflix thinks it'll earn money.

Such is the case with non-animated material. To take your hypothetical Billy the Kid . . . it would primarily be done to make money. That doesn't mean it can't be done well, though, nor does it mean it can't be done badly. Which I think is more what aelf is getting at. If a change is well-executed, even if it isn't historical, or whatever . . . is that a bad thing? To take Old Shatterhand (which I'll happily admit I had to look up, because I'm relatively young and not into my Westerns either), the primary relation there is a white European paired with an Apache chief (vs. "bad" white people or the like). It's a common enough kind of setup. Old Shatterhand doesn't have to be white, or German, or whatever. Would it have worked as well if they had to rewrite his character to be black? I don't know, I don't know the source material enough. And even average source material can be carried by a good actor (like Freeman, even though I wouldn't traditionally call him a kind of action star in the common sense).

 

[H4run]

Such is the case with non-animated material. To take your hypothetical Billy the Kid . . . it would primarily be done to make money. That doesn't mean it can't be done well, though, nor does it mean it can't be done badly. Which I think is more what aelf is getting at. If a change is well-executed, even if it isn't historical, or whatever . . . is that a bad thing? To take Old Shatterhand (which I'll happily admit I had to look up, because I'm relatively young and not into my Westerns either), the primary relation there is a white European paired with an Apache chief (vs. "bad" white people or the like). It's a common enough kind of setup. Old Shatterhand doesn't have to be white, or German, or whatever. Would it have worked as well if they had to rewrite his character to be black? I don't know, I don't know the source material enough. And even average source material can be carried by a good actor (like Freeman, even though I wouldn't traditionally call him a kind of action star in the common sense).

Gorb, even though it's factual that there are peoples in the movie industry that are racist, yes many of them if you read my post I also vehemently against them. I also use an example of how a supposed to be Singaporean Faye Valentine been cast by a white actor as a disturbance to me, it's even racist if their reasoning is there are not enough good Asian Talent.

But using an undeniable fact that there are racist directors and spectators within the industry, and using a simple syllogism of "if you don't like actors from people of color you are probably racist because all racist people would not like that" you would not only put many innocent peoples on defense and trying to prove their innocence, but you would also suppress any other reasoning and factors of why peoples dislike that.

If you wouldn't mind Denzel Washington playing as Billy the Kid, because you wanted to see how it turned out, the fact that I don't like Billy the Kid to be played by an Afro-American actor doesn't make vis-a-vis racist, because for me Billy the Kid is a white cowboy anti-hero and villain, and it would be out of touch and out of historical context historically for the role to be played by an Afro American actor. I would not negate those who like it, but equally, those who dislike cannot be negated as a possible racist and need to prove their innocence and their intent to be questioned. I would equally annoyed if Tom Cruise played an adaptation of Eiji Yoshikawa work as Oda Nobunaga, that's not because I hate white people or I don't give Tom Cruise a chance to be a savior in Asia, because the very idea of it is, lets say, causing a discomfort.

Most assumptions are false. We can't see other intent, but we can judge by the symptoms, if peoples doing racist act either they intended it or not we may say that they are racist, like, if a white person throw a racial slur at me, either they meant it or not I can assume that they are racist at that moment, while it's entirely possible that it's just a slip of tongue, or they are just too dumb that they think it is funny, but at that moment I have every right to put them into defense and make them prove their innocence. But if we expand this further beyond its symptoms, that we even consider a non-racist action as a "possible racist act" because we concluded that most racist people will endorse it, for me that's already oppression.

Respect you Gorb, but I really disagree with you in this, strongly.

 

[aelf]

Gorb, even though it's factual that there are peoples in the movie industry that are racist, yes many of them if you read my post I also vehemently against them. I also use an example of how a supposed to be Singaporean Faye Valentine been cast by a white actor as a disturbance to me, it's even racist if their reasoning is there are not enough good Asian Talent.

The actor is not white, actually, so it's not quite that. She was likely cast because, with the direction they were going (action comedy), they might have felt they needed someone like her and she's already a name in the industry (Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom). So, in a way, it still smacks of laziness.

The industry is a bit of a nepotistic closed circle as well, which doesn't help with representation.

 

[Gorbles]

Gorb, even though it's factual that there are peoples in the movie industry that are racist, yes many of them if you read my post I also vehemently against them.

Hey, I never said you weren't against them. Nothing I posted was aimed at anything but the industry here. Nor did I say "you're probably racist if you didn't like X". So I'm not sure where you're reading that, sorry.