Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I can't believe how seriously people are taking movies now a days. I went and saw Avatar and I liked it, but I didn't have seperation anxiety afterwards or anything. People need to stop looking into TV and movies so much, it kinda freaks me out the importance people are puting into things meant solely for entertainment. I recommend these people who feel like they can't go on without living in pandora, and they don't have some kind of pre-existing depression or chemical imbalance, to go play spore, (I totally thought of avatar as Spore, the movie). If it's real serious problem and they really do want to kill themselves, then they should go get help! I deffinetly agree with previous posters who said there was something wrong chemically with alot of these people before they saw avatar. It sounds to me that the majority of em are just furries desperate for attention though.

QFT

A movie is just that, entertainment, that fact people find enough wrong in this world to want some kind of fictional utopia to this extent I find disturbing.

Wrexasaur wrote:Yes, I am reading your posts sebster.

Cool, sorry if I got a bit snarky there.

The fact that you are talking about minor roles, wherein the black person plays a character that dies because of incompetence, A.), B.), or C.), there is a real presence of 'racial superiority' in the conversation. All the white people live, while the token black man dies, is a topic of racial superiority, explicitly. This does not assume that Hollywood has a grudge against the token black guy of course.

I think it's more accidental, than a comment about racial superiority. The thing is that horror movies, to their credit, made efforts to have mixed casts, but the effort was tokenism to some extent, because the survivor was still going to be the white chick, maybe also the white male love interest of the white chick. As a result, the black guy ends up dying all the time - it isn't part of some message of the white supremacy, but if you look at the pattern across the genre there is an accidental subtext there.

Race supremacy is the key note, of racism. The fact that one 'race', is assumed weaker/stupider/greedier, etc... assumes that others are not. All subtly aside, there is no difference, besides the notions that people prefer to attach to the subject.

I think there's a lot more to race relations than specific, conscious ideas about how other races are different. Racism, at least the part of racism that really matters to me, is more above priviledge than anything else. Personally, if some crazy guy wants to stand on a corner with a sign complaining that the mixing of the white race will end humanity, well that ain't cool but it isn't as big a problem as the vast over-representation of black people among the poor and working poor. The idea that a minority in film is likely to be placed in a stereotyped role, or put in the same cliche narrative they always get, is part of that problem... albeit a very small part of that problem.

sebster wrote:Cool, sorry if I got a bit snarky there.

No worries mate, your reputation precedes you.

I think it's more accidental, than a comment about racial superiority. The thing is that horror movies, to their credit, made efforts to have mixed casts, but the effort was tokenism to some extent, because the survivor was still going to be the white chick, maybe also the white male love interest of the white chick. As a result, the black guy ends up dying all the time - it isn't part of some message of the white supremacy, but if you look at the pattern across the genre there is an accidental subtext there.

When I speak of supremacy, my meaning is very simple.

Person A.) is inferior to person B.)

When I see a black man, die in every horror film to cast a black man in the 'token black man that dies early role', there is a subtext (accidental is related to context, and one could easily assume that it was intentional, for reasons that are purely monetary) leading to this simple core of racism. It is all hinged on the assumption that there is any way, to assume anything about a person, simply due to the color of their skin (basically). Assumptions about a persons genitalia, from their skin color, is also racist; albeit both positive/negative within various context.

I think there's a lot more to race relations than specific, conscious ideas about how other races are different. Racism, at least the part of racism that really matters to me, is more above priviledge than anything else.

Hence my comment about supremacy. If that black guy is actually that hazardous to his own health, while that white guy is so clearly not, that sets a subconscious element of superiority into motion. This all relies on the stupid part of everyone's brains, even if it does not directly infer that people will think in that fashion. It sets a standard, that many people will buy into, though not in a direct, conscious way.

Personally, if some crazy guy wants to stand on a corner with a sign complaining that the mixing of the white race will end humanity, well that ain't cool but it isn't as big a problem as the vast over-representation of black people among the poor and working poor. The idea that a minority in film is likely to be placed in a stereotyped role, or put in the same cliche narrative they always get, is part of that problem... albeit a very small part of that problem

It is also a problem that a white person is placed in many 'positive', stereotypical roles, as it sets a false standard. Being portrayed as a criminal/idiot/first guy to die, ALWAYS... is clearly more negative than being portrayed (generically of course) as a heroic guy that does heroic stuff.

Wrexasaur wrote:This all relies on the stupid part of everyone's brains

I can think of a long list of people who are probably smarter than you (or I) in every subject that would disagree with you on that. Implying you have to be stupid to believe in things like subtext, allegory, symbolism, and a myriad of other concepts is, well, using the stupid part ones brain.

Ahtman wrote:I can think of a long list of people who are probably smarter than you (or I) in every subject that would disagree with you on that. Implying you have to be stupid to believe in things like subtext, allegory, symbolism, and a myriad of other concepts is, well, using the stupid part ones brain.

I wasn't trying to imply that you have to be stupid. I was simply stating that the non-critical part of your mind, is the part to (at least initially) ingest such information/symbolism. Granted, that information can pass through, into the critical part, within fractions of a second.

I suppose that I picked a bad adjective within that context. 'Non-critical' is a more even-handed one, to be sure.

Wrexasaur wrote:When I see a black man, die in every horror film to cast a black man in the 'token black man that dies early role', there is a subtext (accidental is related to context, and one could easily assume that it was intentional, for reasons that are purely monetary) leading to this simple core of racism. It is all hinged on the assumption that there is any way, to assume anything about a person, simply due to the color of their skin (basically). Assumptions about a persons genitalia, from their skin color, is also racist; albeit both positive/negative within various context.

While the claim that someone doesn't see race is kind of a nice idea in theory, in reality it generally amounts to little more than putting your hands over your ears and ignoring the basic issues of priviledge that exist between different races.

Here's the thing, I once thought the same thing as you, that race was artificial and the way forward was simply to look past it. I was, of course, a white kid going to a school that was around 99% white. I would hear complaints that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs was a white guy and I'd think it was silly, because surely if the person in charge knows the job and isn't racist it shouldn't matter colour his skin colour is. Then I saw a short satirical piece, where the positions of white people and aboriginals were reversed, it wasn't very good for the most part but the bit where the aboriginal Minister for White Affairs sat there talking about aboriginal affairs was pretty effective - who the hell was this aboriginal guy to know what was needed to solve our problems? It was, of course, nothing more than a slightly tv show and nothing in and of itself, but it got the ball rolling for me, I started to get that just 'not seeing race' is something of a crock when the majority has so much more money and so much more power than the minority.

Hence my comment about supremacy. If that black guy is actually that hazardous to his own health, while that white guy is so clearly not, that sets a subconscious element of superiority into motion. This all relies on the stupid part of everyone's brains, even if it does not directly infer that people will think in that fashion. It sets a standard, that many people will buy into, though not in a direct, conscious way.

That seems a stretch to me. I don't think you need to establish that it is subliminally causing attitudes of superiority and inferiority in order to say that the black guy always getting killed is a bad thing. That requirement also sets an impossible standard for other unfortunate cliches, it is bad that homosexuality, even when sympathetic, is shown in tragic terms... this doesn't establish any kind of subliminal message of superiority, but it doesn't have to to be crappy.

It is also a problem that a white person is placed in many 'positive', stereotypical roles, as it sets a false standard. Being portrayed as a criminal/idiot/first guy to die, ALWAYS... is clearly more negative than being portrayed (generically of course) as a heroic guy that does heroic stuff.

That strikes me as a fairly trivial issue, to be honest. I mean, equal treatment in film is pretty trivial compared to income equality, but the difficulty of your race being shown in film as heroic seem to me to be about the smallest problem someone could have.

sebster wrote:While the claim that someone doesn't see race is kind of a nice idea in theory, in reality it generally amounts to little more than putting your hands over your ears and ignoring the basic issues of priviledge that exist between different races.

I am not sure I was clear about what I was attempting to say.

I know for a fact that there are serious disparities that exist in almost every society on the planet. There are situations that someone of a specific ethnicity will have to face, where I will not (varying by society, and context). When I say that race means nothing, it is because the color of ones skin, unless I know more about that persons background, does mean nothing. This is literally talking about the color of that persons skin, and nothing else; not the strange ideas that people attach to the notion surely.

Part of my family is Alaskan, and though I know little of them, I know that they (as natives of Alaska) face hardships due to that simple fact. They do not face these hardships due to their ethnicity, they face them because of the way society views their ethnicity. More directly, how they react to their ethnicity, and how their culture has been brought into the 'mainstream' of societies whole.

Racism is multifaceted, but it does all boil down to privilege (ethnic/cultural hierarchies), although the privileged may not intentionally be obstructing/repressing directly. 'A lack of understanding', is a simple way of summing it all up.

I started to get that just 'not seeing race' is something of a crock when the majority has so much more money and so much more power than the minority.

In my personal interactions with people, I try not to take anything at face value. Although someones appearance may suggest that they are something rather specific (if not stereotypically specific), I assume that as an individual, experiences vary wildly. Not to say that on the whole, there isn't a very distinct pattern amongst the most oppressed communities, in terms of their ability be successful in general.

That seems a stretch to me. I don't think you need to establish that it is subliminally causing attitudes of superiority and inferiority in order to say that the black guy always getting killed is a bad thing. That requirement also sets an impossible standard for other unfortunate cliches, it is bad that homosexuality, even when sympathetic, is shown in tragic terms... this doesn't establish any kind of subliminal message of superiority, but it doesn't have to to be crappy.

It really depends on how you view superiority/inferiority. You can be typecast in conversation, people may assume things that are extremely false, etc... Of course, that is par for the course in most human interaction on the whole, anyway. Reinforcing it with stereotypes, is not a great thing to do. I would in no way, say that the most recent films to come out dealing with the trials and tribulations of the gay community (generically), should have been altered to suit that.

I do hope, as you do, that in the future, more complex stories can be shown via cinema, expressing views from the LGBT community.

That strikes me as a fairly trivial issue, to be honest. I mean, equal treatment in film is pretty trivial compared to income equality, but the difficulty of your race being shown in film as heroic seem to me to be about the smallest problem someone could have.

Yes, last bit was definitely trivial, especially within this context.

It is also a problem that a white American person is placed in many 'positive', stereotypical roles, as it sets a false standard.

Fixed.

Seriously, I can't remember the last time I saw an American film that didn't portray certain American stereotypes of the British. Even when we're not the villains (which is rare enough, I half expected the 'Company' guy in Avatar to be British.. ) - we are portrayed as cowardly, incompetent, aloof, arrogant or clownish. Even when there are heroic Brits, they always end up as a 'noble failure' or just outright dying!

Not in any way saying that this is tantamount to racism, but it's another facet to the disscussion of ethnicity in Popular Culture.

These links are pretty funny, and slightly related to the topic at hand.

http://roosterteeth.com/comics/strip.php?id=1523

http://roosterteeth.com/comics/strip.php?id=1524

As Albatross mentions (quite well actually, kudos!), its less a "racist" thing, even if the stereotyping is racist at its fundamental core, and more a cultural ignorance thing. Its not a PC thing, Fate, its more about how its become trite to have a repentant white man join the spirtual, in-tune-with-the-earth Natives, versus the ambigously evil "company", etc etc etc. Its a cultural fallacy that isn't getting any fresher, unless its made fun of. The evil German is a good example. The useless Brit (unless they are an evil bastard) is another. Its just a cultural definition of an obsolete world view (including whether or not that world view was ever true to begin with!).

>>Something that I haven't heard complained about anywhere is how the Marines are depicted as villains almost to a man with no redeeming qualities at all.

That was complained about in one of the other threads on the film.

Kilkrazy wrote:>>Something that I haven't heard complained about anywhere is how the Marines are depicted as villains almost to a man with no redeeming qualities at all.

That was complained about in one of the other threads on the film.

The Colonel ignored being on fire in order to STRAP INTO A MECH. That's pretty fething redeeming right there lmao.

The white messiah complex is symptomatic stereotype that affects both ends, not just the Natives.

Wrexasaur wrote:Racism is multifaceted, but it does all boil down to privilege (ethnic/cultural hierarchies), although the privileged may not intentionally be obstructing/repressing directly. 'A lack of understanding', is a simple way of summing it all up.

Cool, I think we pretty much agree on this.

In my personal interactions with people, I try not to take anything at face value. Although someones appearance may suggest that they are something rather specific (if not stereotypically specific), I assume that as an individual, experiences vary wildly. Not to say that on the whole, there isn't a very distinct pattern amongst the most oppressed communities, in terms of their ability be successful in general.

Yeah, I try as well. I fail though, at times, its pretty hard to avoid making assumptions about people.

Anyhow, this has been interesting but we're likely getting way off topic.

Isn't Q in the Bond films an old British dude?

He is the smart one that helps Bond kill bad guys with cool gadgets.

I'd be honored to have that role.

I'm also depressed I had to pay $2 more to see it in 3D vs not in 3d. Should have been the same price.

The point of 3D is to create a reason for a price differential.

Otherwise you would still be watching films in black and white, running at 16 frames a second with no sound track.

Fateweaver wrote:Isn't Q in the Bond films an old British dude?

10 bonus internets if you know Q's real name w/o having to look it up.

Kilkrazy wrote:The point of 3D is to create a reason for a price differential.

Otherwise you would still be watching films in black and white, running at 16 frames a second with no sound track.

Not just to charge more, but to justify people going to the cinema in the first place. With the improvements in home entertainment reaching the point where many people enjoy it as much as seeing it at the movies, the studios are looking to improve the cinema experience. Their answer is 3D.

It's not ALWAYS an evil german. It's usually an evil Eastern European guy. Besides James Bond was usually a british guy.

halonachos wrote:It's not ALWAYS an evil german. It's usually an evil Eastern European guy. Besides James Bond was usually a british guy.

No, it's usually someone of questionable (and sometimes not-so-subtle) Germanic descent.



All I have to say.

@Killkrazy-Keep in mind that these marines are mercenaries, it says so in the first 10 minutes of the movie, where Jake Sully rolls off of the transport onto the military base.

The soldiers don't care what happens as long as they get paid. I'd argue that this is the reason why they have little redeeming qualities.

PANDORA! *donk* oh, yeah,



that sux

Fateweaver wrote:Isn't Q in the Bond films an old British dude?

He is the smart one that helps Bond kill bad guys with cool gadgets.

True, there's also James Bond. Bond is the classic British stereotype - aloof, callous, suave and occasionally brutal.

Q is a pretty good exception actually, although some might recognise elements of the classic 'English eccentric' character, especially in John Cleese's portrayals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

It's not ALWAYS an evil german

No, it is ALWAYS an evil German!