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.

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.

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?

1. Ideally, yes. In practice, we all know that often isn't the case.

2. I don't believe he was saying there needs to be a reason for characters to be male, or status-quo, just that there doesn't need be one to justify them NOT being that either. Which, tbh….it's a weird thing to say that any type of character doesn't need to be justified. All characters need to be justified via good writing, regardless of who they are. Though from the stand point of whether or not one needs extra justification for falling outside the status-quo of casting, I think we can all agree with that, if we're being reasonable. Unless the production in question is of a very specific nature, where it would be strange to see certain people represented, there is no reason to demand something beyond the scope of what we subject the status-quo representation to.

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.

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.

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.

Of course, a character's actions need to be justified, what that character does needs to be justified in order for it to be a believable character. What I'm saying is: there doesn't need to be an explanation to that character's ethnicity, gender or sexual preference. If that character is gay, so be it. There doesn't need to be a subplot of homophobia or something like that to justify why that character is gay. Diversity will only truly exist when writers stop only using gay characters to talk about homophobia or black characters to talk about racism. Minorities also live normal lives, you know?

A good example is How to Get Away With Murder. There is a gay character and two black ones in the main cast, and you know what? They have relationships, they party, they meet with their friends, they talk about anything and everything, they get sad, they get angry, they get happy, etc. Their existence isn't summed up by who they like or the colour of their skin. That's good writing: including without being cliché or stereotyping.

The Haradrim are not classified nor mentioned to have dark skin. The only people in Middle Earth that are described to have characteristics akin to an Afro-American are the Black Numenoreans. Here's a wiki excerpt:

"This warrior is described^[8] as having brown skin (although so are some hobbits), with black plaits of hair braided with gold."

Brown skin, not black. And the brown skin is likely due to the culture of their people being over exposed to the sun, resulting in a "tan" skin tone.

There is mention of the "Black Numenorean Lord's". But that description isn't explicitly implied on their skin color nor mentioned. It could be their armor, or symbolic of the tyrannical Numenorean rule since 'Black' or Dark' were often the shorthand titles of evil in Middle Earth Lore.

There were no Black people in J.R.R. Tolkeins vision of Middle Earth, so naturally there couldn't be any in Lord of the Rings.

I actually don't have that much of a problem with that.

Battlefield V is getting a shit storm of hate for it's reveal. The reveal didn't impress me at all so I'm glad but I still expect the actual game to be stellar.

But if there isn't a justifiable reason for either or, then why do women keep demanding strong female leads?

Well that's easy, because the majority of female characters are written simply to revolve around, and enrich the existence of male characters. Obviously there's exceptions, but more often than not that's the case. Their characters are often defined by little more than how they influence some guy, which is ultimately quite shallow. So why wouldn't women want more strong female leads, or just strong female characters in general?

Just because because there doesn't necessarily have to be a reason for why a character is written as/cast as male, female, black, white, etc.... doesn't mean there aren't valid reasons for people wanting to see more of certain representation, or even just better written, more nuanced versions for those they do get.