Old TV shows are beating Hollywood's DEI agenda

[Flash]

You people do have your problems.

Hollywood is bat shit crazy with DEI. It is despicable.

 

[Failzero]

Witchy Poo

 

[Foxfyre]

My 11 year old Granddaughter was recently watching a new movie on HBO about how Willy Wonka got started. It suppose to take place in the turn of the century Europe.

About half the cast were Black including one of the main leads. It was amazing they even cast a White as Wille.

It is like Hollywood has gone bat shit crazy with DEI.

Even the Apple presentation of Masters of the Air had to put in the Negroes. The story was suppose to be about the 100th Bomber Group that had no Blacks in it. In the historical book the series was based on the only mention of Blacks is when one of the pilots mentioned he saw one of the Tuskegee Airmen in a POW camp. The idiots were so obsessed with DEI that were making the series devoted one of nine episodes to the Blacks

It is like that if they did a remake of Band of Brothers they would cast half of E Company Black.

This Hollywood DEI shit is disgusting just like it is in the rest of the country. No wonder windows are falling off airplanes.

I have no problem with people who happen to be black and there are many black actors and actresses that I adore. Last night we again watched "The Pelican Brief" and I can't imagine anybody being cast in the role of Gray Grantham other than Denzel Washington though the role could have been played by anybody. But Denzel was perfect for the role. Morgan Freeman once said that the vast majority of all roles he has ever played could have been played by anybody. Of necessity he had to play a black man in "Driving Miss Daisy" and of course when he played Nelson Mandela in "Invictus."

But when they start remaking historical films with black actors replacing the actual non-black people who actually lived that history, it begins to become ridiculous. I suppose if there is a remake of "Moonstruck" they'll replace a lot of the Italian and Sicilian characters in Little Italy in New York with black actors which would be absolutely ridiculous. Or any of the cast of Memphis Belle replaced with black actors which would make it historically inaccurate?

The black characters in "Renaissance Man" however, given the makeup of the armed forces, did not seem to be over represented plus they were all lovable and relatable characters leaving the audience feeling good and satisfied at the end. Such movies in my opinion are not only thoroughly entertaining but do wonders for healthy race relations.

Again the black demographic is just under 15% of the American population and for it to approach 50% or more again and again in cast after cast on television, in entertainment, in media makes it look contrived, political, and in your face DEI that is insulting to many. I do not think it helps race relations at all.

 

[Flopper]

Recently I have been watching Spencer for Hire and Hawk. Briefly watched some episodes of Columbo,Magnum PI and CSI NY. As well.

I can’t remember the last time I watched new programming.

Most new commercial TV programing really sucks. I believe that's because most people of average intelligence or higher given a choice don't watch commercial TV. If they are watching any video, it's off the Internet where they have a huge variety and no commercials. I believe most commercial television today is watch in low income housing, homes for elderly, retarded, or insane, hospitals, doctors offices, dive bars, and ghettos.

 

[Flopper]

I have no problem with people who happen to be black and there are many black actors and actresses that I adore. Last night we again watched "The Pelican Brief" and I can't imagine anybody being cast in the role of Gray Grantham other than Denzel Washington though the role could have been played by anybody. But Denzel was perfect for the role. Morgan Freeman once said that the vast majority of all roles he has ever played could have been played by anybody. Of necessity he had to play a black man in "Driving Miss Daisy" and of course when he played Nelson Mandela in "Invictus."

But when they start remaking historical films with black actors replacing the actual non-black people who actually lived that history, it begins to become ridiculous. I suppose if there is a remake of "Moonstruck" they'll replace a lot of the Italian and Sicilian characters in Little Italy in New York with black actors which would be absolutely ridiculous. Or any of the cast of Memphis Belle replaced with black actors which would make it historically inaccurate?

The black characters in "Renaissance Man" however, given the makeup of the armed forces, did not seem to be over represented plus they were all lovable and relatable characters leaving the audience feeling good and satisfied at the end. Such movies in my opinion are not only thoroughly entertaining but do wonders for healthy race relations.

Again the black demographic is just under 15% of the American population and for it to approach 50% or more again and again in cast after cast on television, in entertainment, in media makes it look contrived, political, and in your face DEI that is insulting to many. I do not think it helps race relations at all.

I generally agree with you that Black actors should not play historic white actors and vice versa. Although I saw Hamilton and thought it was great. It doesn't bother me a bit that the Little Mermaid was black or that Tinker Bell was Black or Asian or whatever.

The concept of substituting actors of different races than the characters (white characters being played by black actors and vice versa) was intended as a way to opening up non-traditional character roles to more actors but has received complaints that it waters down racial differences.

There has been a number of movies and stage presentations where white actors played black roles, for example Lawrence Olivier as Othello. Actually, there has been 13 major movies in which white people have played black roles. Throughout film history, Asian and Native American roles have typically gone to white American actors.

 

[Foxfyre]

I generally agree with you that Black actors should not play historic white actors and vice versa. Although I saw Hamilton and thought it was great. It doesn't bother me a bit that the Little Mermaid was black or that Tinker Bell was Black or Asian or whatever.

The concept of substituting actors of different races than the characters (white characters being played by black actors and vice versa) was intended as a way to opening up non-traditional character roles to more actors but has received complaints that it waters down racial differences.

There has been a number of movies and stage presentations where white actors played black roles, for example Lawrence Olivier as Othello. Actually, there has been 13 major movies in which white people have played black roles. Throughout film history, Asian and Native American roles have typically gone to white American actors.

I have no problem with them casting an Asian to play an Asian, a black person to play a black person or anybody else that their race makes no difference. But the remarks in which black Americans are ridiculously over represented is perceived by many as in your face 'wokism' regardless of the intent. I am maybe the least racist person on the planet and I find myself resenting it because I don't appreciate anybody being in my face about race, sexual orientation, politics, religion, or anything else. I don't get in anybody else's face re my face, sexual orientation, politics, religion, or anything else. I think it will ultimately backfire on them if it hasn't already done so already.

In the movie "The Magic of Belle Isle" I think Morgan Freeman was the only black actor in the film except for his nephew that had only a scene or two--I'll have to watch it again to verify that. But his role was so seamlessly incorporated into the plot as are most of his roles, you forgot he was a black man and he was just another character in the film. Wonderful film by the way.

But that is how it should be. Almost ALL of Freeman's roles could be played by anybody of any race. And skin color should become of no more importance than hair or eye color. They'll never get there though by going 'woke' and in your face with everything. It only serves to reinforce a mindset that black isn't white and is therefore different.

And I don't care either that the remake of animated and old films recasts people of different races into the original roles when it doesn't make any difference. But again when they go overboard with it or mess with the original concept, it does bother a lot of people and most likely has a much different effect than what was intended. Also I see no reason to do remakes of cherished movies. But we've discussed how little creativity and imagination is demonstrated by a highly charged 'woke' and PC oriented dynamic so it's probably easier than coming up with new plots and characters.

 

[Flopper]

I have no problem with people who happen to be black and there are many black actors and actresses that I adore. Last night we again watched "The Pelican Brief" and I can't imagine anybody being cast in the role of Gray Grantham other than Denzel Washington though the role could have been played by anybody. But Denzel was perfect for the role. Morgan Freeman once said that the vast majority of all roles he has ever played could have been played by anybody. Of necessity he had to play a black man in "Driving Miss Daisy" and of course when he played Nelson Mandela in "Invictus."

But when they start remaking historical films with black actors replacing the actual non-black people who actually lived that history, it begins to become ridiculous. I suppose if there is a remake of "Moonstruck" they'll replace a lot of the Italian and Sicilian characters in Little Italy in New York with black actors which would be absolutely ridiculous. Or any of the cast of Memphis Belle replaced with black actors which would make it historically inaccurate?

The black characters in "Renaissance Man" however, given the makeup of the armed forces, did not seem to be over represented plus they were all lovable and relatable characters leaving the audience feeling good and satisfied at the end. Such movies in my opinion are not only thoroughly entertaining but do wonders for healthy race relations.

Again the black demographic is just under 15% of the American population and for it to approach 50% or more again and again in cast after cast on television, in entertainment, in media makes it look contrived, political, and in your face DEI that is insulting to many. I do not think it helps race relations at all.

I think movies are trying to makeup for a hundred years of underrepresenting and poorly portraying Individuals who deviate from sexual norms, are members of minority ethnic groups, who are overweight, have health conditions, deformities, etc.

Any time we talk about why certain types movies are made we need to consider the true driving force, MONEY. The age group 18-34 is the age group most likely to frequently watch movies and attend movie theaters. They are also the group who are most interested in seeing more diversity in movies. The age group least likely to attend theaters and frequently watch movies, those over 45 are the age group least interested in seeing more diversity in movies.

Small independents can draw funding from various special interest groups to make offbeat movies but major movies are distributed by major studios. The cost of major productions are so high today, Hollywood has to give audiences what they want to see. If audiences did not want to see diversity in movies, it wouldn't be there.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think movies are trying to makeup for a hundred years of underrepresenting and poorly portraying Individuals who deviate from sexual norms, are members of minority ethnic groups, who are overweight, have health conditions, deformities, etc.

Any time we talk about why certain types movies are made we need to consider the true driving force, MONEY. The age group 18-34 is the age group most likely to frequently watch movies and attend movie theaters. They are also the group who are most interested in seeing more diversity in movies. The age group least likely to attend theaters and frequently watch movies, those over 45 are the age group least interested in seeing more diversity in movies.

Small independents can draw funding from various special interest groups to make offbeat movies but major movies are distributed by major studios. The cost of major productions are so high today, Hollywood has to give audiences what they want to see. If audiences did not want to see diversity in movies, it wouldn't be there.

I don't think the average American evaluates any form of entertainment on its diversity but whether it entertains in a satisfying way.

We do not make up for past injustices. To make things right we stop doing them and allow people to live together in harmony and without prejudice. Throwing it in their faces does not change hearts and minds but perpetuates and elevates racism I think for personal gain or profit much more than compensation for those used.

 

[candycorn]

I think movies are trying to makeup for a hundred years of underrepresenting and poorly portraying Individuals who deviate from sexual norms, are members of minority ethnic groups, who are overweight, have health conditions, deformities, etc.

Any time we talk about why certain types movies are made we need to consider the true driving force, MONEY. The age group 18-34 is the age group most likely to frequently watch movies and attend movie theaters. They are also the group who are most interested in seeing more diversity in movies. The age group least likely to attend theaters and frequently watch movies, those over 45 are the age group least interested in seeing more diversity in movies.

Small independents can draw funding from various special interest groups to make offbeat movies but major movies are distributed by major studios. The cost of major productions are so high today, Hollywood has to give audiences what they want to see. If audiences did not want to see diversity in movies, it wouldn't be there.

Maybe.

But, for just one example, the Aaron Sorkin movie about the Chicago 7 focused in a large part on their trial and how a defendant was not severed from the other defendants even though he had nothing to do with them--as I recall I don't think he had ever met any of the other defendants; he was bound and gagged in the jury's presence when he protested.

As far as I know, the movie wasn't made to "make up" for anything but to enlighten folks--like myself--who were previously ignorant of the existence of this sad episode in American history.

Conservatives seem to not want to know about sad episodes in our history.

 

[Failzero]

Witchy poo Naked

 

[Flash]

I don't think the average American evaluates any form of entertainment on its diversity but whether it entertains in a satisfying way.

We do not make up for past injustices. To make things right we stop doing them and allow people to live together in harmony and without prejudice. Throwing it in their faces does not change hearts and minds but perpetuates and elevates racism I think for personal gain or profit much more than compensation for those used.

It is hard to take a show seriously about Medieval Europe with Black actors playing roles that you know should be White. You know that the only reason there are Black actors is because the silly ass Hollywood jerkoffs are meeting DEI goals.

The same goes for almost every of movie, TV show or commercial where Blacks are presented way out of whack with their culture.

What is really silly is that the advertisers are using DEI shitheads in commercials when that is not their target market.

It is a sickness that the Libtards are afflicted with. They are trying to force their sicko Libtard crap on us.

I watched a lot less nowadays than I use to. I ignore commercials that are Negro or has Queers or mixed race couples or whatever DEI crap the sickos want to throw at it. I don't watch any movie or TV show where the main actors are DEI shitheads.

 

[Flash]

 

[Oddball]

F Troop!

 

[August West]

Green Acres

The writers were obviously stoned. I try not to miss it.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is hard to take a show seriously about Medieval Europe with Black actors playing roles that you know should be White. You know that the only reason there are Black actors is because the silly ass Hollywood jerkoffs are meeting DEI goals.

The same goes for almost every of movie, TV show or commercial where Blacks are presented way out of whack with their culture.

What is really silly is that the advertisers are using DEI shitheads in commercials when that is not their target market.

It is a sickness that the Libtards are afflicted with. They are trying to force their sicko Libtard crap on us.

I watched a lot less nowadays than I use to. I ignore commercials that are Negro or has Queers or mixed race couples or whatever DEI crap the sickos want to throw at it. I don't watch any movie or TV show where the main actors are DEI shitheads.

I don't care what 'culture' somebody lives so long as it is legal. All my black friends, associates, neighbors just live like average Americans with no obvious cultural difference from the Asian, Hispanic, Italian, Irish heritage folks around here. Most are also a lot richer than my husband and I are.

But I agree that it's as ridiculous to cast a black person in the role of what was a historical white person as it would be to cast a white person in the role of Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King or Whitney Houston or any other famous black person. That it was done in the past is irrelevant. That was then. This is now. A black actor in the primary cast of "Moonstruck" would have looked contrived which it would be. But in roles in which race/ethnicity make no difference the right person for the role can be of any race and certainly the brilliant black actors/actresses of which there are many should have full and unprejudiced consideration for those roles along with everybody else.

If they would just get out of our faces with these 'woke' concepts and allow society to naturally become color blind, I think racial integration would once and for all become common and the norm. So long as they force us to see skin color first, that will not happen.

 

[Foxfyre]

F Troop!

One of the most entertaining movies of the 1960's was a spoof western comedy "The Hallelujah Trail" starring Burt Lancaster and Lee Remick. It portrayed the different groups involved in getting whiskey to Denver to the winter with the people of Denver, the liquor profiteers, the U.S. Cavalry, and the Indian tribe all interested in the project for different reasons. But the Indians facial expressions and obvious unspoken opinions about this or that going on were priceless and in my opinion stole the show as that is what I most remember of the movie. It also made the Indians relatable and endearing.

We need a lot more of that in the movies.

 

[Flash]

I don't care what 'culture' somebody lives so long as it is legal. All my black friends, associates, neighbors just live like average Americans with no obvious cultural difference from the Asian, Hispanic, Italian, Irish heritage folks around here. Most are also a lot richer than my husband and I are.

But I agree that it's as ridiculous to cast a black person in the role of what was a historical white person as it would be to cast a white person in the role of Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King or Whitney Houston or any other famous black person. That it was done in the past is irrelevant. That was then. This is now. A black actor in the primary cast of "Moonstruck" would have looked contrived which it would be. But in roles in which race/ethnicity make no difference the right person for the role can be of any race and certainly the brilliant black actors/actresses of which there are many should have full and unprejudiced consideration for those roles along with everybody else.

If they would just get out of our faces with these 'woke' concepts and allow society to naturally become color blind, I think racial integration would once and for all become common and the norm. So long as they force us to see skin color first, that will not happen.

You may have a Black neighbor(s) that doesn't live that destructive Black Ghetto Culture of Violence. Good for them. My neighbor is that way and I have great respect for his family..

However, they are the small minority. The great majority of Blacks are living the Ghetto Culture of Violence.

Hollywood needs to portray Blacks as they mostly really are. Welfare, queens, druggies, absentee parents, street thugs, thieves, murderers, insurrectionists, racists etc. They are not accurately depicted in the movies, on TV or in commercials.

 

[Foxfyre]

You may have a Black neighbor(s) that doesn't live that destructive Black Ghetto Culture of Violence. Good for them. My neighbor is that way and I have great respect for his family..

However, they are the small minority. The great majority of Blacks are living the Ghetto Culture of Violence.

Hollywood needs to portray Blacks as they mostly really are. Welfare, queens, druggies, absentee parents, street thugs, thieves, murderers, insurrectionists, racists etc. They are not accurately depicted in the movies, on TV or in commercials.

For the most part Hollywood HAS portrayed that kind of black culture as the norm, but I don't believe that IS the norm. Most of the people in those black neighborhoods where ill advised 'liberal' urban renewal projects put them and that quickly became crime ridden ghettos, are mostly innocent victims of the thugs and hoodlums that control those areas.

One of my favorite movies is a rather obscure film starring Antonio Banderas "Take The Lead". His character was allowed by the black principle of an inner city largely black high school to introduce ballroom dance as an experiment. And the film brilliantly illustrated both the worst and best of what exists in those environments from the gangs, prostitution, lawlessness, violence to the honorable and decent. It was another serious and very well done effort to present black people as both villains when they were and as ordinary sympathetic relatable people. It was a brilliant and well done effort that unintentionally but effectively promoted what race relations should be in the USA, i.e. colorblind.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

They can't be funny anymore... imagine if a TV show did this today:

 

[Flopper]

Maybe.

But, for just one example, the Aaron Sorkin movie about the Chicago 7 focused in a large part on their trial and how a defendant was not severed from the other defendants even though he had nothing to do with them--as I recall I don't think he had ever met any of the other defendants; he was bound and gagged in the jury's presence when he protested.

As far as I know, the movie wasn't made to "make up" for anything but to enlighten folks--like myself--who were previously ignorant of the existence of this sad episode in American history.

Conservatives seem to not want to know about sad episodes in our history.