I'm tired of this overemphasis on diversity spilling into our entertainment.

[Lucca]

Azuren said:

LuccaCardoso1 said:

1. Is it really about talent, though? Let's see... 

From the top 100 grossing films in 2017, women represented:

• 8% of directors
• 10% or writers
• 2% of cinematographers
• 24% of producers
• 14% of editors

From the top 250 highest grossing films in 2017, women represented only 3% of composers.

If you look at individual cases, you might say that a woman wasn't hired because she wasn't as good as a male that was applying for the same role, but when you look at the bigger picture it's undeniable that women are not given the same opportunity. To say that females are not hired because of lack of talent stops making sense when you look at these numbers.

 

2. Why does a character need a reason to be female, black, gay, or from any minority? Why does the homosexuality of a character need to have something to do with the story? I don't know if you know that, but in real life, people are gay just because that's how they are. There's no reason for it. I mean, most main characters are white straight males, and there's usually no reason for it. If you're really for diversity, stop asking for reasons for people to be from a minority.

Funny you mentioned the new Ghostbusters being all female for no reason. The old Ghostbusters were all male, and I don't think they ever explained why. By the way, they are different characters. It's not like they transformed the old male characters into female ones.

 

3. I don't think anyone's arguing against that. Diversity doesn't lead obligatorily to stereotypes. You just need to have a decent writer and they won't rely on that.

 

I'm all for adapting stories, to be honest. I mean, if you want to keep them up to date, you have to change them. Especially old stories, where the characters tend to be all white males, and where the females and minorities tend to have few to no part in the main plot. If you want your world to be believable, you need to have minorities, because, you know, they exist in real life.

1. Those numbers don't imply anything outside of men more actively and successfully pursuing those careers. There's no evidence of sexism blocking anyone from certain positions, only evident facts. One could just as easily assume women go after different careers, or that women are just not as good. The thing about capitalism, though, is it is a meritocracy at the end of the day. That means prejudice in this case is less likely to be the culprit than incompetence or disinterest.

C'mon, that's ridiculous. Saying that only 2% of the cinematographers in the highest grossing films are women because women don't want to be cinematographers makes no sense. I study Cinema, and at my university there are more women studying Cinema than men.

Even if we consider that as true, if we see the statistics for high-profile independent films, 29% of directors are female. In Hollywood, only 8% are female. That means that women want to direct movies (even if there are fewer women than men), but Hollywood doesn't want them to.

Meritocracy would be great if it really existed as you want it to. But the truth is it doesn't.

Azuren said: 

2. Why do they need to have a reason to be male? Your own argument turns itself on its head through just the simple use of its own adage.

They don't! That's my point. Just like characters don't need a reason to be white straight males, they shouldn't need a reason to be from any minority. If a character is gay, then it is gay. That doesn't need to have an explanation in the plot.

Azuren said: 

3. And if you have a good writer who knows nothing about black culture being told to add in a black character, do you think he's going to write a believable character or a stereotype?

By "good", I mean appropriate. If you want a black character in your movie, then hire someone who can write a believable black character. By the way, to be a good overall writer you're kinda supposed to be able to write any kind of character.