Way ahead? It seems this is this is the norm rather than the exception. Black Panther running up to top grossing movie of all time, Shape of Water oscar, etc...
Is Nu-Who Really a "Kelvin" Timeline?
- Thread starter starsuperion
- Start date
Way ahead? It seems this is this is the norm rather than the exception. Black Panther running up to top grossing movie of all time, Shape of Water oscar, etc...
This is from a few years ago and deals with US films, but the basic principles apply here as well.
Hollywood has a problem: it’s mostly all white men.
From 2007 to 2014, only 30.2% of 30,835 speaking characters were female. That means there was roughly one female for every 2.3 male actors in a film, according to a new study out of the Media, Diversity & Social Change Initiative at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.
That doesn’t even get into the issue of race or ethnicity. In 2014, 73.1% of characters in the top 100 films were white. Middle Easterners and Latinos had some of the worst showings, holding 2.9% and 4.9% of the roles, respectively.
Graph from PBS
The report looked at 700 popular films released over 7 years, examining the mix of gender and race on screen and behind the camera. All speaking characters were counted and assessed for demographics, domestic traits and hyper-sexualization.
Not only are women and minorities sidelined over their white male peers, but age matters, as well. Last year, there wasn’t a single movie among the top 100 fictional films that starred a woman over 45 years of age.
Source: Notable feminist liberal PC SJW snowflake rag Fortune magazine:
http://fortune.com/2015/08/06/hollywood-diversity-white-men/
Well, there's no doubt that you're tired of it. I can reassure you that you're not representative of that many people.
Unlikely, given that it's so spectacularly and manifestly untrue that merely expressing the thought could, on a purely theoretical basis, call into question one's capacity for maintaining even those involuntary life-support functions that require a functioning medulla, to say nothing of performing tasks which require a highly developed cerebellum.
On the contrary I think we are acknowledging that for the first time.
The only fatigue I suffer is over listening to people like you whine about how unfair it all is that white men only represent 75% of characters in popular media instead of 99%. Won't someone think of the poor downtrodden white male?
*Fat white male in his mid-40's here.
Black Panther barely makes the Top 10 box office films of all time (unadjusted)
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/
That's pretty awesome!
Sorry, I might be missing your point here, are you saying a couple of prominent examples illustrate an overall picture of parity?
Stealing that pic for future reference!
That might work for the 10th or 11th Doctor eras, but not for 9 or 12. Either way, doing that would just come across as an attack on the original show.
Speaking of the original, the first Doctor era retconned its "The Aztecs" with its "The Timer Meddler". Ever since, it's not been any real issue. The revived series found better ways to say it, like "fixed points in time". That's all that needs to be done. Some events are fixed, others are not.
Time meddler did t retcon Aztecs. It’s just the Doctor was more enforcing of Gallifreys own rules, and got slowly more relaxed about that. The rules even change as it goes on...first the CIA start breaking the rules behind closed doors (Genesis of the Daleks) and The Council is shown breaking its own non-intervention policy with the Ravolox Affair (Trial of a Time-Lord) they don’t even police time travel tach any more, leading to proliferation (Attack of the Cybermen, any use of Daley Time Corridor tech, goingas far back as Evil of the Daleks. Even small state affairs like the Time Lash. The CIA is still intervening as we see in the Two Doctors) by the Time War, all the rules are off. Time Travel is basically a nuke, and leads to the ‘destruction’ of Gallifrey, and to an extent, a version of Skaro.
Fixed points in time are no such thing, they are more mutually agreed on neutral points...because if either side messes with them, the whole ‘world’ I.e the more or less existing web of time comes tumbling down. There would be a massive amount of paradoxes floating around, and the whole thing would collapse and reform...possibly making time travel impossible for anyone left to develop it. The web of time is shown to be self correcting...Reapers, the mars astronaut shooting herself....but it’s like a garden, pruned by the Time Lords in particular, as opposed to a wild and natural thing (evidenced by the reapers, and the Time Lords earlier wars against N forms and the Vampires.)
Basically, a lot of it is politics, and the rest is gardening and law enforcement. That’s how you end up with Anarchist Renegades like The Monk, The War Chief, and even The Doctor and occasionally The Master. The Master and The Rani tens to err on the side of not messing with Time so much though.
Ditto
That was surely a piece of self-parody in reference to his similar speech in 'Voyage of the Damned'. At least the show isn't afraid to undercut the Doctor's smug arrogance with a bit of humour on occasion.
This is from a few years ago and deals with US films, but the basic principles apply here as well.
Hollywood has a problem: it’s mostly all white men.
From 2007 to 2014, only 30.2% of 30,835 speaking characters were female. That means there was roughly one female for every 2.3 male actors in a film, according to a new study out of the Media, Diversity & Social Change Initiative at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.
That doesn’t even get into the issue of race or ethnicity. In 2014, 73.1% of characters in the top 100 films were white. Middle Easterners and Latinos had some of the worst showings, holding 2.9% and 4.9% of the roles, respectively.
Graph from PBS
The report looked at 700 popular films released over 7 years, examining the mix of gender and race on screen and behind the camera. All speaking characters were counted and assessed for demographics, domestic traits and hyper-sexualization.
Not only are women and minorities sidelined over their white male peers, but age matters, as well. Last year, there wasn’t a single movie among the top 100 fictional films that starred a woman over 45 years of age.
Source: Notable feminist liberal PC SJW snowflake rag Fortune magazine:
http://fortune.com/2015/08/06/hollywood-diversity-white-men/
I am sure you believe all this is an injustice. Judging by your little Sinclair Blurb signature there, a raging leftist is probably what some might call one such as you. I'm not saying you are, just making the observation, someone could get that impression by this post, and I am sure you have more then enough drones who agree with this stance. I however just have one point to make on this post..
so in the post you cite all these studies and such on representation.. and how there is inequality, and yet when a female lead is chosen, the notion that this is somehow "justice" for a precieved inadequate parity is also presented. What is funny is how it is stated that if a female lead or any other lead then a white male is chosen, then using the stats and so on you feel justified in this belief. I think what perplexes me is the ignorance of historical context, and the idea that it shouldn't matter who is chosen, except when it's a white male, then it's somehow bad.. In any other way casting is done, it is considered good.. regardless of the person's talent or ability.
Parity is great, and surely needed in some instances, but to force it and to the detriment of the talented and capabale then you are really saying it doesn't matter a person's skill, or ability. We only want a certain race, color, or gender, or political POV. that seems very much like racism does it not?? Justifications for it aside.. because they don't matter.
on the fundamental level what you advocate for is IMHO wrong. We should look at all people in terms of their capability and not their gender, race, orientation, and political leanings. Flipping that is what has led to historical acts of violence and scape goating a particular group, Like the Democratic Party did in the 60s-70s against Black People and inventing the KKK to keep them from voting. I would think someone with the time to research and provide all those stats would also know the difference and thru the lense of history see the folly of such ideology. IN FACT I would say that the modern flipping of making gender and race first as well as orientation, can still lead to violence against one group in particular, which you eloquently mock with your funny little white male pic. Nice to see that there's still an unprotected class of citizen out there, and you enjoy making light of the circumstance because you use history to say it should matter. As if there's a justification to take from one group and give to another, which is just creating another group with a grievance, and the cycle continues. What's funny is how history and stats can be twisted to be used to somehow solidify someone's position as true and accurate. Again, I say that your numbers don't take into account anything other then representation. It does not take into account industry trends, demographics in the trends, and political or bias reasoning that can come with casting. I take what you have placed here, with your nice little pie chart too, with a grain of salt.
I urge anyone who is curious to do their own research, and see if there are other underlying factors that would support or not support this supposition. I don't take anything for face value anymore, and really in my opinion, no body should.
Last edited:
It took you over three weeks to come to the conclusion that I'm left wing politically? Wow, you're some kind of intuitive genius or something. And I love that you quoted me again after all this time, in this discussion I'd moved on from, just to hit me with the dig that I'm a "leftist," as if that's supposed to bother me. You're adorable.
By the way, congratulations on getting a C+ on your fifth grade book report about the Democratic Party's past history. Do you have anything relevant to the situation today and which party is currently providing aid and comfort to white supremacists, like say the President (and Congress and voter base who support him) who said there are "fine people on both sides" at the neo-Nazi rally, won't distance himself from David Duke, and makes constant bigoted remarks about and policies against Mexicans, Muslims, transgender and black people, and others?
Last edited:
Why yes, Yes I have been told I am adorable. Thank you.
Edit: Tho I am perplexed why someone would admit to being one or the other, left or right, I mean follow the leader can be fun sometimes, because it doesn't require independent thought or critical thinking. I would submit tho that the natural human nature is to be independent minded and can rationally make decisions and choices based on that freedom of mind. I pick and choose. Sometimes I am liberal on things, sometimes I am conservative, and sometimes I am indifferent. That seems to me to be the natural and normal way people think. But to blindly accept and follow one Ideological premise seems to me as close minded, and Backwards in terms of personal growth. (Just Saying)...
Locutus of Bored said:
Hahahah!
This reads like a joke script from Samantha Bee.. I am sure she's one of your idols. 
Hey, if you make the pink ahem... Hat for a rally I'd love a copy. 
Last edited:
Hold on, I need three weeks to think up a witty comeback to you reposting the image I just posted and "insulting" me by comparing me to a professional comedy writer and host.
You're terrible at this. Just stick to sulking about how persecuted you are as a white man. Play to your strengths.
You're terrible at this. Just stick to sulking about how persecuted you are as a white man. Play to your strengths.
Similar threads
- Locked