That’s 100% bullshit and my comment wasn’t serious. It also comes from someone with absolutely no power in society.
No power? You're a moderator on a Star Trek forum! Banning people and closing threads, that's power.

That’s 100% bullshit and my comment wasn’t serious. It also comes from someone with absolutely no power in society.
I also have no legal protections from being fired from my job for the way I was born.No power? You're a moderator on a Star Trek forum! Banning people and closing threads, that's power.![]()
I also have no legal protections from being fired from my job for the way I was born.
It doesn’t protect LGBTQ+ people and it’s a debate between those who want equality and those who want to make discrimination legal. There’s an upcoming Supreme Court case, the White House is arguing for it to exclude transgender people. I don’t have much hope.Most western countries have laws that protect anyone from being discriminated against on the basis of their race, gender, religion, or sexual preference. In the US it's Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Whether further legal protections are necessary is a legitimate subject for debate.
It's not "time for a black female lead".
It's time for a good character. If that character happens to be black, fine.
If that character happens to be female, fine.
If that character happens to be both, fine.
But by saying it's time that a character HAS to be of a certain demographic or gender identity, you are just buying into EVERYTHING that is wrong with Hollywood today. We had strong female characters LONG before those three words, "strong female character" were used together as a label to promote an agenda.. in fact, we had them before agendas. I read Tim Miller's comments about the new Terminator character Grace, and how she would scare the shit of of the misogynists.. and it got me thinking, back when there were no characters better than Ellen Ripley, Lindsey Brigman, or Sarah Connor, I had not even heard of the word "misogyny"
my point is that story comes first. not the demographic, not the agenda. You don't make a movie to serve an agenda, you make ti to tell the story
Man, I sure wish there had been a lot more white guys who thought like you in the first century of film making and TV -- all objective and non-discriminatory. You guys would surely have broken up the agenda back then of hiring nothing but white men in leading roles and women in "traditionally female" roles only.you should not put the agenda before the story
Just like John McClane, there is nothing about Steve Rogers' character that requires the character be played by a white actor. Nothing. And what does "diversity has to feel realistic" mean?I think the idea is that divesity has to feel realistic. If you do a Captain America story in 1945 he basically has to be white because of the time. Yet you come to 2019 it is no big deal that he becomes black with Sam. At same time a good story shouldn't be avoided just because your going run into these issues.
According to the studios, the reason they refused to hire minorities and women (in non traditional roles), was because a white audience would not pay money to see movies or buy products that supported TV shows with minorities,thereby cutting into studio profits. That, my friend, is an agenda whether the studios were being honest or not..t is to reach a broader audience and make more money for their shareholders. " hence an agenda.. not a creative story reason
DIe Hard was about a regular guy. It didn't draw attention to his whiteness. In fact, under seige, which was basically die hard at sea, proposes the kind of character you suggestYou've mentioned this before. The point you are missing is that changing the color of the leads skin in Die Hard or even the agenda would have zero impact on the Die Hard story pretending they try and remake the original movies actual plot. It is very rare that the main character in any action film needs to be a white male because of STORY!
What would mess with the spirit of Die Hard? Making it a PG-13 film for one. Making the character some highly trained ex navy SEAL. Not hiring somebody with the charisma to carry the story.
Keep in mind that hiring Bruce Willis was a gutsy move as up until that point he had been the balding, slightly overweight, joke cracking wise guy on Moonlighting--which was a ground-breaking, high brow series in its own right. Casting Willis as an action hero came entirely out of left field--but like RDJ with Iron Man, Willis acting chops and his charisma really gave the movie that something special to push it above the other releases that year.
So, taking a casting risk and hiring an unexpected lead would be exactly in keeping with what the original Die Hard did.
Riiight...read gblews post above.DIe Hard was about a regular guy. It didn't draw attention to his whiteness. In fact, under seige, which was basically die hard at sea, proposes the kind of character you suggest
You both mock and like my post? I'm confused.
Now pull the other leg.
Your posting history on the subject shows otherwise. You are the bigot, not us.That’s 100% bullshit and my comment wasn’t serious. It also comes from someone with absolutely no power in society. The fact that so many white men act like they’re persecuted is laughable. You can’t imagine what’s its actually like. The fact that you think it’s from Internet comments made in jest and movies shows how truly pathetic it is.
Exactly. The only bigotry here is against white men, not against everybody else.
I will never understand this groups mindset that while it is not okay to show bigotry to everybody else (a position I share) but its perfectly fine to show that same bigotry toward white men (a position I will NEVER share).
DIe Hard was about a regular guy. It didn't draw attention to his whiteness. In fact, under seige, which was basically die hard at sea, proposes the kind of character you suggest
imagine if they reversed it, imagine if he WAS an asian martial artist and was recast in today's world as a white blonde dude
Your posting history tells me the opposite.Your posting history on the subject shows otherwise. You are the bigot, not us.
Of course white washing and pretending gay people didn't exsist or were token characters were also a issue as well so race and gender and orientation have always been part of casting process. I am not convinced that talented white actors do not get chances to be stars. JasonMy point is that.. everyone is looking to be offended by something.. I mean it's like they want to be offended.. they are looking for something someone misses, or something not included, and then they choose to be offended by it. Next they'll have to make McClain hard of hearing because.. hey.. people who have trouble hearing haven't had a lead to represent them. And if that hard of hearing character either isn't there or isn't portrayed right, people are going to make an issue over it, so Hollywood will find some new project to make sure that they are represented.
I just heard Asian actor form some well-liked Rom-Coms, Henry Golding, has been asked to play G.I Joes' Snake Eyes. And it seems to fit .. I mean the dude is a Ninja.. who doesn't talk.. and this film will be an origin story. Seems fitting that a charismatic Asian actor would do right to portray him. Yet.. in the comics.. Snake Eyes was a blonde haired pasty white dude. YES..! That's hat he was! So what are they trying to do? Correct that? That was his character! But someone out there has an agenda and thinks that all ninjas have to be Asians and that it would be wrong to cast a white guy for such a role. YET Larry Hama, who created the character.. is ASian! and HE CREATED Snake-EYes as a pasty white dude.
By the way, it didn't matter that in the previous vilms that he was played by ray Park, most certainly NOT a blonde, pasty white dude, because he was in the mask the whole time
This is pretty sad times we are living in where we are even talking about this at all.. movies should come out, entertain us, and be done. When you can include more people of races and genders in an organic way instead of force feeding it to us (Trek was great at this in its heyday) that is fine. But now the headlines and the noise - it's taken over. People are so scared to not be inclusive.. to the point of ridiculousness. The title of this very thread demonstrates that.. it puts the agenda and the group before story, just to appease some kind of social need. It's not organic to storytelling
You think this is about hatred of white men? Srsly? Lol.
A male equivalent of a maid is a footman.
A butler is in charge of footmen, a housekeeper is in charge of maids.
If you're gonna live in the 19th century, at least get the terminology right.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.