And there goes that franchise....I thought they had only one way to go after Endgame’s success...down.more diversity being shoved down your throats, coming to a new marvel movie soon!
In an interview with Variety, Kevin Feige, the cast of Avengers: Endgame, and its directors, Joe and Anthony Russo, opened up about their experiences in the MCU. And, while the focus revolved around the concluding film in Phase Three of the franchise, Joe Russo explained that the future of the MCU will be much more inclusive, saying, "The future of these movies will be an inclusive one. Diversity, both in front of and behind the camera, will be its gold standard."
great... nothing like a big fat helping of identity politics with your film:
Marvel Studios Kevin Feige Promises LGBTQ Characters in the Marvel Cinematic Universe
Okay, well I don't think that majority of moviegoers were on his side either, he's the villain. I've seen some people ironically supporting thanos as a joke... but that's a joke.I think the poster that I replied to was talking about moviegoers being on the side of Thanos.
Yes they make you feel, but sometimes people can overreact to a movie as if it were real.People invest emotion into movies all the time. Isn’t that what movies do, make you feel?
O, well, I didn’t see anyone supporting him, so it was a surprise to me.Okay, well I don't think that majority of moviegoers were on his side either, he's the villain. I've seen some people ironically supporting thanos as a joke... but that's a joke.
Yes they make you feel, but sometimes people can overreact to a movie as if it were real.
Yes I understand the emotional connection people can have with films. Connecting with the movie in some way is a part of the experience, that's what makes it entertaining.Well, if you see someone crying on screen, especially in death scenes..its hard not to join in. Just like when you see people on screen laughing and telling jokes, its hard not to join in the laughter. Movies exist to make you feel one way or another, that’s the point of them. They also have ways of making you like or dislike people so then you feel as if you are feeling their feelings.
Ya, exactly...replying to the spoiler section of your comment. Was anyone implying anything else? And if so, I must have missed that part.Yes I understand the emotional connection people can have with films. Connecting with the movie in some way is a part of the experience, that's what makes it entertaining.
But movies are still fictional stories so when a character dies, there's no need to overreact because of that death. It makes sense to be upset by it, it makes sense to feel a certain way when certain things happen in a movie, emotional moments are made to elicit emotion... but ultimately it's not real, and I do think most people are aware of this. Like when Ironman died, I was upset and disappointed because he was my favorite character and I liked him, but I'm not devastated or anything... he's not a real person. The character's death doesn't affect my life, I was just disappointed for a bit when I watched the film, and I move on after. I just have to accept that the writers wanted to take the character in that direction and see what they do next.
I agree too...he can do it without the hammer, maybe its like a security blanket?I find it interesting that Thor is powerful but is so dependente of his hammer. Even his late father tried to convince him of his valor but could not do it. Plus it gives a nice opportunity to lots of people say the have the same body as thor now!
How many times do you want me to say it? The hypothetical scenario you're describing doesn't ever actually occur... it's a flawed premise. The majority of LGBT characters have been played by heterosexual actors. Heterosexual actors have not been excluded to make room for LGBT people, it's typically been the other way around. White and heterosexual actors are not being excluded or removed from films, other actors are being included alongside white actors. No one is coming to a movie set and kicking out all of the white actors and replacing them with other, less qualified non-white people because they want "diversity". They don't have a quota for the amount of white heterosexual people in the film. They are deciding to create more non-white characters because they want to tell those stories and have those perspectives as well. Movie writers are creating more non-white/heterosexual characters and casting the appropriate actors to play those roles instead of primarily only creating white characters that can only be played by white actors. Don't you get that if they create a black character for example, they will cast the most suitable black actor for that role?
LGBT characters are somewhat different because they can be played by both non-LGBT and LGBT actors. This should normally not be a problem but it is one because straight actors have been continually cast in LGBT roles and LGBT actors have been continually pushed aside and not given a fair chance to get any roles at all. This is not because every straight actor is more talented than every single LGBT actor in existence, it's because LGBT actors have historically been excluded and overlooked. I've already stated that if someone creates an LGBT character, I think it would be beneficial if they made a real effort to cast an LGBT actor in that role, regardless of if there are non-LGBT actors who might also qualify because of how excluded LGBT actors have been from the industry for so many years. I don't think there's anything wrong with non-LGBT actors playing LGBT characters as a concept, but it becomes flawed when LGBT actors never get a chance to play any characters because they're always excluded. Therefore, choosing to specifically cast a talented and merited LGBT actor instead of a non-LGBT one could help make things more fair in that case. It would not be the exclusion of a heterosexual actor, it would be the reversal of the historical exclusion of LGBT actors.
If an LGBT actor plays an LGBT character, they can bring something to the role that a non-LGBT person really can't, because they understand the nuance of that very identity they're portraying... they really should be given a fair shot at playing those roles. But ultimately it's the casting director's choice and as I previously point out, they do not cast solely based upon talent, there are various other factors that are considered as well. Usually it comes down to multiple candidates that are all just as capable, qualified, and talented enough to play the role (they all have merit)... but other factors are always considered. Even just physical appearance alone is a large factor in casting, regardless of acting ability... aren't you aware of this?
How are the actor's roles not relevant to a question about what kinds of actors should play certain roles? I've answered multiple times by saying that I think that deciding to specifically cast more LGBT actors as LGBT characters instead of non-LGBT actors in those roles would be a beneficial because of the history of how excluded LGBT actors have been. If you've created an LGBT character, why not make the effort to get an LGBT actor for the role?you couldnt even answer a simple yes and no question (probably because you couldnt look it up on google somewhere). you gave me a big song and dance about their roles (totally irrelevant to the question, and ridiculous because actors/actresses act and very good ones do it convincingly) but you just couldnt say it.
Lol, I have not once said anything that's racist or sexist.youve proven to us that youre a hypocritical racist/sexist.
Yeah, and the situation you're describing simply does not occur in the first place. White people are not being pushed out of films simply because other kinds of people are also in those films. If you're attempting to use this hypothetical idea to say that diversity in films is bad, it doesn't work because that's not actually how movies are cast. And you're ignoring the historical reality of the discriminatory and marginalizing practices of the film industry against actors and characters who aren't straight white guys. These actors and characters have been pushed out of movies for years and making the effort to include some of them in films is not an exclusion of white people.here is the answer: NO.
That's what I've said multiple times... they should get a fair shot to play any role. But this doesn't happen because the film industry has been marginalizing LGBT actors. There are various biases in the film industry. They pigeonhole LGBT actors into pursuing LGBT roles then they rarely even cast them for LGBT roles... and again, this is not because they lack merit or talent.if superior talented LGBTQsometimesY actors/actresses are up for the role against hetero actors/actresses, the they also should get the job.
Are you still unaware that casting directors have multiple criteria for who they choose to play a role. It's not only limited to acting ability. Ultimately, they end up choosing the person who they think will make them the most money.its about pure merit, which your side cannot comprehend
Creating non white characters does not degrade the quality of a movie. Hiring talented and merited non-white actors to play well written roles is not being done at the expense of quality. Diversity simply means having a wider range of character types and people to play those characters. This improves movies by allowing them to express multiple viewpoints and perspectives... it helps to connect with the entirety of the audience and be more reflective of reality as well.you want diversity over quality just for the sake of saying that you are inclusive
That's right. That's the definition of an hypothetical question. It doesn't matter if it happens or not. The answer to that question and the derivative discussion is what matter. The question is pretty straightforward.The hypothetical scenario you're describing doesn't ever actually occur...
He wants to use a false premise to argue against the idea of inclusion in films. But since the premise is already false, it's not something that can be used to argue against the idea of diversity in movies. Having non-white/heterosexual characters in films doesn't mean that white or heterosexual actors are being removed from films. Having a diverse cast doesn't mean choosing people who are unmerited for the role they're playing.That's right. That's the definition of an hypothetical question. It doesn't matter if it happens or not. The answer to that question and the derivative discussion is what matter. The question is pretty straightforward.
So big catastrophic scenarios about global warming or whatever topic can't be debated because they haven't happened yet? His premise describes an actual problematic: there's already companies, senates and other organizations where Human Resources is forced to hire men and women equally in number to fulfill the gender quota, regardless skills or merit. I don't have any problem with a person's sexual orientation, but that scheme can lead to many problems in any work enviroment, be a company or a movie.He wants to use a false premise to argue against the idea of inclusion in films. But since the premise is already false, it's not something that can be used to argue against the idea of diversity in movies. Having non-white/heterosexual characters in films doesn't mean that white or heterosexual actors are being removed from films. Having a diverse cast doesn't mean choosing people who are unmerited for the role they're playing.
I don't know how that's relevant. The inclusion of non-white characters into films does not and will not result in the exclusion of white characters. There can be a wide range of characters in a movie. Historically the vast majority of characters have been straight white guys, this results in the exclusion of all other human beings as characters and actors. Now people are realizing that there have been discriminatory practices in the film industry and they are deciding to create other types of characters as well. They should be able to make non-white characters or LGBT characters without people getting upset that the character isn't white or straight... most characters are already white and straight. A few other types of characters being included in a film doesn't change that and it doesn't mean that white people are being removed from movies. They don't have quotas for the amount of white/heterosexual people in a film. They are hiring the most merited and suitable actors for the character they've written... if that's a black character, then they will cast a merited black actor.So big catastrophic scenarios about global warming or whatever topic can't be debated because they haven't happened yet? His premise describes an actual problematic: there's already companies, senates and other organizations where Human Resources is forced to hire men and women equally in number to fulfill the gender quota, regardless skills or merit. I don't have any problem with a person's sexual orientation, but that scheme can lead to many problems in any work enviroment, be a company or a movie.
I don't think so. I think thor had protetics so he would look fat, and maybe star lord was fat because of the actor's real body and stuff and they decided to joke about it, hahaI agree too...he can do it without the hammer, maybe its like a security blanket?
Good comment about the Thor body. Do, you think in Guardians volume 3 Star Lord will be buff while Thor isn’t? A difference from Infinity War where Star Lord was a sandwich short of fat?
Well ya, that’s what happened in real life, Thor had a fat suit on and Star Lord was one sandwich short, but I was thinking more in the next movie they’re in. Keep fat Thor but have Star Lord get in shape especially since he’s gonna be searching for Gamora?I don't think so. I think thor had protetics so he would look fat, and maybe star lord was fat because of the actor's real body and stuff and they decided to joke about it, haha
But with the all "accept your body" thing maybe thor will keep his adiposity