- Joined
- Jul 18, 2019
Diversity is perfectly fine, its forced diversity that is lame. if being "the gay one" is the only quality the character has, then its just an implant for the sake of implant....yet these are the same people that dislike tokenism
. then we have shit like at the very end of Rise of Skywalker (and plenty of other movies i might add) where its just there to pander. no set up, no "oh shit really?" reveal, just thrown in for the sake of it being so.
my least favorite of all is diversity that could have been great, but instead treats the characters as the forced diverse characters. the best example of this, that happened recently was the movie 1917. in like 2 scenes they included africans in british uniform, and it was only like one or two each time....why not hire like 30 africans....put em in French uniforms? you dont even have to mention it (since they were not spoken to in the movie anyway), but it would have been more accurate. and look more minorities would get a paycheck. then there is another scene where the main character is in the back of a truck, and there is one single indian guy. how about this for a superior scene. main guy still gets picked up, this time, truck is full of indians (segregated units and all). now its been established the main character is just a farm boy from the home island, i doubt he would have met many if any people from the Raj. why not have him ask about their funny hats? they drop like three lines about their religion, then mention they are there fighting for the crown to try and get independence for their own nation/people. BAM! more historically accurate, again more minorities getting paid, and the viewer has also gained some knowledge.
im sure there are plenty of other examples involving both race and orientation but i think you see my point.
Masako is an acceptable example. she had a whole arc involving her family and past, she just also happened to like muff, but it was not socially acceptable so she kept it on the downlow
my least favorite of all is diversity that could have been great, but instead treats the characters as the forced diverse characters. the best example of this, that happened recently was the movie 1917. in like 2 scenes they included africans in british uniform, and it was only like one or two each time....why not hire like 30 africans....put em in French uniforms? you dont even have to mention it (since they were not spoken to in the movie anyway), but it would have been more accurate. and look more minorities would get a paycheck. then there is another scene where the main character is in the back of a truck, and there is one single indian guy. how about this for a superior scene. main guy still gets picked up, this time, truck is full of indians (segregated units and all). now its been established the main character is just a farm boy from the home island, i doubt he would have met many if any people from the Raj. why not have him ask about their funny hats? they drop like three lines about their religion, then mention they are there fighting for the crown to try and get independence for their own nation/people. BAM! more historically accurate, again more minorities getting paid, and the viewer has also gained some knowledge.
im sure there are plenty of other examples involving both race and orientation but i think you see my point.