Are audiences so sensitive and offended by movie content nowadays?

Tools    





Why do female characters need to be dumb to be funny, I suppose they don't maybe it's just my personal taste, as I like comedies with stupid characters doing dumb things, as long as it's well done and funny.

Do you have Melissa McCarthy in mind?
__________________
My Favorite Films



"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."



Melissa McCarthy is okay, but there is something about her that seems off for me. It's as if she is not really dumb but trying to be but cannot convince me. Maybe she's not giving it her all, or it's the director, not sure.



There is another thing people have been talking about lately. People have talking about how not enough movies have African-American characters as it's put. But is this really necessarily the movie industries fault?

Back in the 70s for example, there were a lot of movies made by filmmakers with hugely black casts for example. But you never see that now, so I am wondering, why were their more movies with black characters in in the 70s compared to now? Have filmmakers just lost interest perhaps?



She has the the dubious problem of being typecast. But she really turned up last year with a very different role in Can you ever really forgive me. She has the range, but she just gets overlooked I guess.

They were exploitation films. Not any major release had black actors as a lead. It's getting better. But a long way to go. Beale Street, Waves, Moonlight, Straight out if Compton, Last black man in San Francisco and all Denzel movies. Now at least you get them as a lead character or many stories revolving around the black community.



Oh okay, but I didn't think they had to be exploitation films. I thought it was the filmmakers choice to be exploitative with them and that was just the thing back then. I didn't think they had to be exploitative because of black casts.

I mean they could have chose to make a movie like say... Boyz in the Hood, Do The Right Thing, or Set It Off back then, if they wanted to, but instead they chose to make exploitation movies like Shaft, Blackula, etc. But wasn't that still there choice?



Oh okay, but I didn't think they had to be exploitation films. I thought it was the filmmakers choice to be exploitative with them and that was just the thing back then. I didn't think they had to be exploitative because of black casts.

I mean they could have chose to make a movie like say... Boyz in the Hood, Do The Right Thing, or Set It Off back then, if they wanted to, but instead they chose to make exploitation movies like Shaft, Blackula, etc. But wasn't that still there choice?
Where do you think they would've got the money to make those films? Remembering that all this is a business. Who would distribute them? Who would show them? I think it's unfair to say they could've made those films 20+ years earlier considering how different the culture (and business) was back then. Some could've been made, sure, but the fact that Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song is the only one I can name which was made in that way goes to show how difficult even getting a small film like that would've been.

Imagine you wanted to tell those stories without a Hollywood studios money or distribution? Or you couldn't put together a soundtrack with great artists? But the money men can allow you to make Shaft or Blackula. Which do you do?
__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.



Speaking of Django Unchained, Tarantino wrote and directed it. The movie holds the all time record for most uses of the "n" word, 116 times...Yet when Tarantino's character appears in the movie he never, says the "n" word. Talk about faux political correctness. Hell he's the one who wrote the script that deliberately broke the record for most "n" words in a movie, knowing full well that action would gain much publicity for Django Unchained and making Tarantino millions, all by deliberately over using racial slurs.

He did that because he knew most people will see him in the movie not using the "n" word so that then he looks like a nice guy. Then to cover his own hypocritical ass he blogs about John Ford at the time of the film's release calling John Ford a white supremacist...which was deliberately done by Tarantino to take the heat off his 116 uses of the "n" word in his entertainment movie.

Are you sure he wasn't just trying to say "Not all white people are bad?"



Well one thing is though, that if Hollywood does make movies that these people who complain want, they still won't be satisfied I don't think. They will find problems in those movies then, and then complain about them.

It's like for example, when The Last Jedi came out, the producers put in more female characters than usual, which was commented on by many viewers, but then when people saw the movie, they complained that they didn't like the female characters having flaws, for example.

So I feel like they will always find something to pick on and Hollywood should realize they won't be satisfied, even if their demands were met? Unless I'm wrong?



Well one thing is though, that if Hollywood does make movies that these people who complain want, they still won't be satisfied I don't think. They will find problems in those movies then, and then complain about them.

It's like for example, when The Last Jedi came out, the producers put in more female characters than usual, which was commented on by many viewers, but then when people saw the movie, they complained that they didn't like the female characters having flaws, for example.

So I feel like they will always find something to pick on and Hollywood should realize they won't be satisfied, even if their demands were met? Unless I'm wrong?
I think The Last Jedi is an obvious example of Hollywood using issues like femism both for marketing purposes and to cover poor writing. I don't think theres much real substance there politically but the focus seems to have shifted away from that and towards tokenism, seemingly learnt from politics.

As far as the general climate goes beyond blockbusters I would still say there in a fairly open era but perhaps not as open as the first 2/3rds or so of the 2010's? that did seem like a period were you had quite a few sexually daring films(not just in content but politics) and IMHO there was a certain conservative reaction to it that I think has been trying to slip in with #metoo.



Well one thing is though, that if Hollywood does make movies that these people who complain want, they still won't be satisfied I don't think. They will find problems in those movies then, and then complain about them.

It's like for example, when The Last Jedi came out, the producers put in more female characters than usual, which was commented on by many viewers, but then when people saw the movie, they complained that they didn't like the female characters having flaws, for example.

So I feel like they will always find something to pick on and Hollywood should realize they won't be satisfied, even if their demands were met? Unless I'm wrong?
You could say the same about the anti-PC brigade though. Unless the actor is a white male, there’s always a comment how it is token casting and ‘diversity’ is ruining things and the women are taking over. Why should those people be pandered to?

At the end of the day, a good writer keeps his finger on the pulse in modern society and can create dramatic engaging characters. If it’s well-written, you will get strong female roles and roles for people of colour as a natural by-product. The problem is when writers try to manufacture these roles.
__________________
You cannot have it both ways. A dancer who relies upon the doubtful comforts of human love can never be a great dancer. Never. (The Red Shoes, 1948)



You could say the same about the anti-PC brigade though. Unless the actor is a white male, there’s always a comment how it is token casting and ‘diversity’ is ruining things and the women are taking over. Why should those people be pandered to?

At the end of the day, a good writer keeps his finger on the pulse in modern society and can create dramatic engaging characters. If it’s well-written, you will get strong female roles and roles for people of colour as a natural by-product. The problem is when writers try to manufacture these roles.
The only complaints I've ever heard about token casting (including from myself) is when Hollywood feels compelled to replace an already established character with someone of a different race, gender or orientation. If filmmakers feel more diversity is needed in a particular story, then by all means insert more diverse characters by creating new ones or using other characters that are already minorities - but don't change established characters just to fulfill some kind of quota.



Well what I don't understand is where these arguments are coming from cause there are a lot of movies with characters of diversity out there, yet people are complaining like it's still the 60s, or something like that. I'm thinking where have these people been in the last 20 years or so. Unless I am wrong?

But I wouldn't say I am part of an anti-PC brigade either. I am part of the brigade that wants movies to tell good stories, regardless race or gender. Whatever race or gender fits in that story, is what fits. I am a part of that brigade, if there is one like that.



You could say the same about the anti-PC brigade though. Unless the actor is a white male, there’s always a comment how it is token casting and ‘diversity’ is ruining things and the women are taking over. Why should those people be pandered to?
I actually think this is what Hollywood is deliberately fishing for in a lot of those films personally, knowing you have overly sensitive alt right types who would howl at any "diversity" casting as the end of masculinity. This can then be played up and the film sold as somehow politically significant.

At the end of the day I think quality still provides the final judgement for most audiences away from the more vocal fringes and there attendant media. Something like Fury Road for example doesn't seem to get much criticism and that's I think a blockbuster with some genuine political substance to it.



Where do you think they would've got the money to make those films? Remembering that all this is a business. Who would distribute them? Who would show them? I think it's unfair to say they could've made those films 20+ years earlier considering how different the culture (and business) was back then. Some could've been made, sure, but the fact that Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song is the only one I can name which was made in that way goes to show how difficult even getting a small film like that would've been.

Imagine you wanted to tell those stories without a Hollywood studios money or distribution? Or you couldn't put together a soundtrack with great artists? But the money men can allow you to make Shaft or Blackula. Which do you do?
Oh okay, that's fair, that they wouldn't have been able to get the money, if that's true. But if that's true, then how come producers who had the money were mostly only interested in making exploitation films back then, if that's true?



Something similar happened with The Farewell. Disney first approached LuLu Wang for the movie. They wanted to change the main characters to American ones, coz they were skeptical that without white lead characters it would be a hard sell to Americans. If that would have happened, that would have lost all its charm. The cross-continental family and difference in family values in the east (China, India etc) and the west, all would have been lost. And it would gone from from 8.1 rating to 2.5 or so. Luckily, the magical people of A24 stepped in and she did it for less money. A24 accepted the movie should be in Chinese. And we got one of the best movies of the year.



Oh okay, that's fair, that they wouldn't have been able to get the money, if that's true. But if that's true, then how come producers who had the money were mostly only interested in making exploitation films back then, if that's true?
Were there actually 'exploitation films' or were most of them just cheesy popcorn movies made for the teens going to their local drive-in theater? During the same time period there were plenty of the same kind of over the top, low budget cheese movies being made with white cast such as Roger Corman films and nobody calls them 'white exploitation films'.

As you pointed out the civil rights movement is over and it's not the 1960s anymore, and yet we still have some: extremist liberals...who missed out on fighting for actual civil rights back in the 60s, so they use social media to whine about nothing at all. And in doing so they cause more racial strife, by artificially convincing people that the world is full of racial hatred and by claiming that institutions like movie making are inherently racist and so need to be shouted down.



Oh okay, but where is all this racial hatred coming from though, since movies have had lots of diversity in them for the last three decades or no so even?

And sure there are instances like LuLu Wang not being able to get a non-white cast from Disney, but that's just Disney. She still got it from somewhere else and it seemed to work. So things don't seem bad, like these millennial are making them out to be. I just don't get why millennial have to fight for something, that is behind their time, just because they missed doing so back then. And I'm a millennial too, but I don't understand. However, I grew up watching a lot of 90s and 2000s movies. I feel that maybe millennials don't actually watch many movies, so they are not aware of the diversity maybe?



If it wasn't A24, it probably wouldn't have been made. I don't think millennials fight for anything in the past. Millennials are just an easy target. The only thing that would get millennials' knickers in a twist would be Android Vs iOS (for the record, I am team Android)!


It's not as bad as it sounds.... It has taken a lot of fight to get to where we are today. But there is still a looooong way to go.