#it’s always about casting people of that ethnicity to play characters of the same ethnicity

[a-very-tired-jew]

The irony of anti-Zionists being upset by an Israeli Jew portraying Mary in the upcoming Netflix movie, but not by Anthony Hopkins portraying Herod is quite telling.

[chevelleneech]

I hope non-Black and non-Asian fans who might also ship Reylo quickly come to understand that while Reylo did get a lot of push back for both valid and bullshit reasons… Oshamir shippers do in fact get to celebrate some of the hypocritical arguments working on our favor, because Black/bi-racial femme presenting and Asian male actors are almost never the leads in popular television and film.

They are either paired off with a white partner or they themselves are the sidekick to a white lead, and usually only date people within their ethnicity. The latter of which is neither bad nor wrong, but adds to the misguided belief that Black women and femmes and Asian men are not bankable or attractive outside their own demographic.

So I’m sorry to say, but if you are a Reylo shipper who feels slighted or even frustrated, that’s fine. Feel how you feel, I’m not saying you can’t or shouldn’t make posts about it, but white people being in corruption arc romances or etl is not a rare occasion. Meaning, when yet another one exhibits traits that are toxic or not so great, it is fine for people to not like it. It’s fine for people to call it annoying or repetitive, because it is. When it comes to non-white characters who either match ethnicities or are in an interracial relationship without a white partner, it automatically becomes something new.

Why? Because we do not often see it play out that way on screen. And no, Osha won’t be dealing with anti-Blackness or misogynoir on screen nor will Qimir deal with Asian stereotyping, because race and ethnicity aren’t played the same in Star Wars as far as I know, but that doesn’t mean their casting matters less in reality. At the end of the day, it’s all fiction, but that doesn’t change the fact that Black people and Asian (Filipino men to be exact) people shouldn’t be allowed this opportunity to seem ourselves reflected back on screen in the same genre based shows white people get.

Star Wars, science fiction, and fantasy in general is so overwhelmingly white and creatured/alien, that people don’t even realize how uncommon the tropes and cliches they’re tired of seeing, really are. Osha and Qimir would kikeky still work yet not be as thrilling if either one of them were white, because a white woman being corrupted by the evil man of color has very racist connotations, and a woman of color being corrupted by a misunderstood white man is very common on screen. And if they’re both white… then it’s just a Reylo do over, isn’t it?

So like I said, I understand people will be frustrated and want to know how Oshamir is different regarding the character journeys themselves, but it’s not always just about what’s on the written page. The Acolyte needs fine tuning in terms of the writing, but it’s not the worst show on tv by far. And the fact that Oshamir is interracial and non-white in the classic sense, is a huge part of why they work and why people are more interested than what may have been for Reylo.

[princesssarisa]

I’m starting to think that in The Lion King, the characters' balance between animal and human traits is a slightly uneasy one.

First and foremost, there’s the core concept that every creature has its own “place in the circle of life,” which can’t be violated or else the delicate balance of nature will be upset. Now, if we think of this in animal terms, it’s just fine. In the wild, every animal does have a role to play in the ecosystem, which does exist in a delicate balance that shouldn’t be tampered with. But many critics over the years have looked at it from a human perspective and complained about the movie's "conservative" or "social Darwinist" message. They feel as if it advocates confining people to specific castes and roles in society, whether they like it or not.

The choice in Mufasa: The Lion King to reveal that Mufasa wasn't of royal birth is obviously an attempt by Disney to address this complaint, which has been heard again and again since 1994. But it's not just about the lions: it especially applies to the hyenas.

Even though the hyenas' own land is bleak, barren, and lacking in food, the lions refuse to share the Pride Lands' lush bounty with them, and when Scar changes the status quo and brings them to Pride Rock, their greed leads to famine. Now, there's nothing wrong with this concept from an animal perspective: lions and hyenas are natural enemies and the Pride Lands' ecosystem can't support two apex predator groups. But from a human perspective, it's all too easy to view them as an impoverished "underclass," or worse, as a symbolic ethnic minority group, who are oppressed by the majestic, light-colored, ruling class lions, yet whom we're supposed to view as dangerous parasites. Countless critics have accused the movie of "racism" for that reason.

It's tempting to respond to those complaints by saying "It's not about race or social class, these characters are animals." But does that argument hold up when the characters are sapient like humans? Or when the plot hinges on very human behaviors and concepts? Real lions don't have hereditary rule: a male lion doesn't become the pride's new leader after his father dies, he takes over another pride with brute force. Yet not only does the movie's plot revolve around hereditary rule, but it ties that concept intrinsically to nature's "circle of life." Death is followed by rebirth, everyone has a role to play in the ecosystem... and therefore it's Simba's duty to take his place as king because he's Mufasa's son and heir. Then there are Timon and Pumbaa, who raise a lion cub despite being lions' natural prey, and end up living among the lions at Pride Rock. In real life, animal instinct wouldn't let this happen; they'd be eaten. If these lions are sapient enough to befriend animals they would normally eat, then why can't they treat the hyenas more fairly?

I suppose it works best just to think of the story as being like a myth: about growing up, the cycles of life and nature, coming to terms with death, etc. It shouldn't be viewed as either a realistic portrayal of animals or an allegory for human socio-political issues. But all the same, the way the characters' combine "animal" and "human" qualities hasn't always sat easily with the critics.

[teeth-cable]

You everr realize that Vivziepop is completely bullshitting when it comes to ethnic casting because of Millie?

Like we are definitely getting imp human disguises for merch reasons so its definitely going to come up.

But like if Millie is black then her family should be played by black VAs but all of them are white VAs. Like I don't think Millie is adopted since she looks like a younger version of her mother.

The best course would then be making Millie white and no we can't use Erica being the original VA as evidence because that was always meant to be a temp casting.

But then this creates an issue in Helluva Boss having no fucking diversity like Vivziepop doesn't have to answer to corporate demands to make the ENTIRE CAST white. She can choose to add diversity.

If she makes Millie black that's also showcasing a huge issue in Helluva's lack of diversity in its main group of characters and Millie could come off as a token. Then you have the fact Morgana and Ed would come under fire for taking POC roles as well as Spindle allowing it unless Vivziepop retcons Millie as adopted or half siblings with Sallie.

Like Into The Spiderverse had half its human cast be POC and it answered to corporate demands. Then Across The Spiderverse without spoiling anything has a MAJORITY of the cast be POC.

Now you can argue Spiderverse is based off existing material unlike Helluva but those existing materials had put effort into adding POC in the first place. And guess what Spiderverse had consulted actual minorities when it came to development of the project.

Vivziepop is latina but she's white passing so she needs to consult people who don't pass to get a better understanding overall on things. Like I'm disconnected from my own culture but just because I'm part of it doesn't mean I have a full picture of it.

Vivziepop also isn't black, asian or indigenous so if she's telling stories that features them she needs to do research and consult people.

She actually consulted Morgana about Sallie May being trans thankfully but... I never hear any talk about other people she talks to which shows poor ass attempts. Like Morgana's insight is valid but she does not speak for all trans people and yes you aren't going to please everybody with representation but just consulting a SINGLE PERSON is insane. We also know Viv according to leaked screenshots has or had some form of transphobia so she absolutely needs to consult more people if she's trying to change and do better especially if she's writing about a trans character.

Like Morgana being a white transwoman will not have the same experience as a black transwoman for example. Like I know that from actively trying to learn about trans people.

Like there's a youtuber UnicornofWar who made a video about how the show RWBY is terrible at handling its racism allegory. Now Unicorn is white but actively went out of their way to consult multiple POC for the video and did a shit ton of research. Now I will say Unicorn in the past has said ignorant things about stuff like white washing (thinking its ok because of art style color pallets back then) in earlier videos but currently denounces that viewpoint (note: Unicorn as far as Im aware has never said anything with vile. I have to clarify so I don't misrepresent their person and people don't assume Unicorn like said a slur) and actually apologizes for their ignorance.

Has Vivziepop ever denounced her old views or behavior? Has she apologized for being ignorant in certain things? Is making a serious effort to change? Has Vivziepop researched throughly and listened to POC insights or concerns?

As far as I'm aware she hasn't.

I have noticed Viv's weird choices for Millie as a black character. I hate to say this but Millie is supposed to be token rep which to me is weird because nobody was pressuring Viv to add rep to her shows. I will say this even in a universe where Viv hired black VAs to voice Millie's family and did do properly research and consulted black people, Millie would still be considered token rep because she is the only the only main character in the show to not have an self-centered EP and has the least amount of screentime.

It makes me wonder if the reason why the IMPs don't have a canon human form yet is because Viv doesn't want to draw POC characters. She has shown she knows the importance of these disguises and they sell well on merch but the only characters who have canon human forms are Stolas and Loona, two white characters who arguably don't even need them. Blitzo is voiced by Brandon Roger who is a mixed Filipino (It's also canon Blitzo looks like Brandon Roger and Blitzo and Brandon Roger are intertwined together so it doesn't make sense for Blitzo to be white), Millie being a black woman, and Moxxie, despite what you might believe is a mixed Latino.

The POC rep we already have isn't good either. In Spring Broken, Verosika and her gang, who the majority are POCs, gets arrested and Verosika makes a joke about sucking police dicks to get out of jail. Having a POC character make a rape joke about police corruption unironically is not funny. Moxxie's mom is obviously supposed to be Latina, falls into the trope of nice POC women who get brutally abused and killed by their white husbands. This actually could have work and wouldn't be as tokenizing if 1. we got to learn about Moxxie's mom as a person and 2. her death wasn't solely use to be angst bait for a male character.

The Spiderverse crew actively puts effort and consulted with POC about characters from their culture. During the early stage of writing for Pavitr Prabhakar, the writing team struggled writing his character and called his VA, Karan Soni to help them write and consult on the character. Thanks to Karan Soni's contribution for Pavitr Prabhakar, he is beloved by desi people alike. Viv doesn't do that and probably will never. She has shown time and time again, she doesn't respect religions, using their symbols as an aesthetic and for monetary gain. Viv's designs for black and other POC characters are terrible, them alway never having POC features and looking racial ambiguous as hell and she ignored the criticism from black and POC people for these POC characters.

[eviltothecore13]

@\anyone who still thinks "Luis Guzman is bad casting because previously Gomez was always 100% unambiguously a white Castilian Spanish guy and has always been played by white Hispanic guys, not Latino and definitely not a POC" (I saw someone getting angry because the 90s films version was included among "Latino characters" in a poll, even, they were yelling "he's Spanish!! 100% Spanish in every single version except Netflix!!"...)

Shut. Up.

First, this is how Charles Addams drew Gomez. Not so "unambiguously 100% white".

Second, while the 60s show cast a white (and not even Hispanic) actor for Gomez, and establishes him as having spent the first 5 years of his life in Spain, there are also references to Latin America with him having spent time/possibly having family in Argentina, and in the Amazon rainforest and having a shrunken head and a blowgun as family heirlooms (could be interpreted as Indigenous ancestry). As well as hints of ancestry from several other cultures.

Third, the films don't state anything specific about Gomez's ancestry (they definitely don't explicitly say "only Spain!"), but if you are someone who can only picture Gomez as Raúl Juliá, and want his ancestry/ethnic background to be the same as his...then not only was Raúl Juliá of course Puerto Rican and not Spanish, but to be truly accurate, his grandmother should then be Black/mixed-race. (Her father was Dominican and listed as "mulatto" on the census, a term used at the time for someone with partial Black ancestry; can't find much information on her mother but she was from one of the US Virgin Islands that's 70% Black people.) Not exactly "100% Castilian and nothing else" there.

Fourth, in the musical he mentions ancestors of his coming to the Americans from Spain hundreds of years ago (rather than his family being purely from Spain/recent immigrants from Spain), and describes himself as "a Latin man".

Getting angry at a poll runner for considering him to be "Latino rep" is truly ridiculous. His ancestry in most versions is pretty ambiguous and all over the place, but it's never been 100% purely Spanish and there's been plenty of references to various Latin American cultures.

[fels-fantasy-hoard]

One of my friends and players just brought something up to me that I think is a discussion that should be had and that is:

Should white people make ocs that are poc in ttrpgs

She sent me two ticktocks here and here where two poc talk about how it makes them uncomfortable when white people play as poc in ttrpgs and she was freaking out because her oc from the last 3-4 years in our campaign is mix raced. My friend is also mix raced but white passing and she was afraid she was offending people.

So, I just wanna give my perspective from observing this same discussion in other writing communities - because it is essentially the same discussion of whether or not white people can write poc in novels, video game, movies, etc because it all comes down to aesthetic appropriation.

Now, if any poc would like to add their own thoughts and experiences with this please do, your voices are much more important than mine - a white person - so I'm going to put my thoughts under a cut. I'm basically going to talk about my own observations within the fantasy genre as a whole when it comes to ethnicity and race and the patterns I've seen and how that translates into the ttrpg medium. Cheers :D

So, the main problem I've seen brought up when white people try to be inclusive by adding poc in their stories is that their inclusion stops at aesthetics. A poc is still written with the mindset of a white person. Changing the ethnicity of a character changes nothing about them and - many times - their ethnicity isn't even clear. They are south Asian but of which country? Which region? South Asians are an incredibly diverse ethnic group just like Afrians or Central/South Americans. If you can swap the ethnicity of a character without changing anything about them, then you aren't actually making good representation, you are doing the bare minimum of preventing an all white cast. It's 2023, we should hold ourselves and each other to higher standards.

Now, when it comes to fantasy stories, there is a bit of a problem. The worlds within fantasy settings become so much smaller because humans often share the setting with nonhumans such as elves, dwarves, gnomes, etc. This means humans are often turned into a european monolith - or something very close to it - while other real world ethnicities are shoved onto fantasy lineages (often times still flavors of european).

I dont think I need to point out why this is a problem. Humans continue using the aesthetics of nonwhite ethnicities but completely divorced of their culture and context. This is the definition of appropriation. I can think of dozens of fantasy stories from various mediums where there would be no change if a poc was white because their ethnicity has no impact on their characterization - as seen with various video game characters who's skin becomes lighter and lighter through every installment or has dark skinned concept art and a light skinned final product.

You want your fantasy setting to be a mixing pot of cultures and ethnicities? Ok, look at the US and how all of these different cultures remain intact even after generations. Yes, there is a level of assimilation but even fourth gen Mexican immigrants are still influenced their culture. Mix raced people have their own unique struggles and cultural experiences. Every country in the world has their own unique mixing pot of cultures and ethnicities. No country is a monolith as that would require committing cultural and/or ethnic genocide to everyone who does not fit the predestined mold.

A setting can have a mixing pot of cultures without racism or prejudice. You can have a human civilization that isn't a monolith. Don't be afraid to research different cultures to represent them with respect. Not only will it make your setting feel more immersive, it will give you a deeper understanding and respect for people irl.

It's always boggled my mind when people say irl race doesn't matter in fantasy then immediately turn around with fantasy racism like... seriously? The beauty of humanity is how diverse our cultures are and yet you'd rather dismiss this beauty over using the violence of prejudice and racism as cheap conflict in your story.

If you actually want to be inclusive in your fantasy stories, do research. Talk to poc of the ethnicity you are trying to represent.

If you are a player wanting to make an oc that is a different ethnicity than you - consider why? Does the character's physical appearance actually matter to their story? Are you willing to put in the work to represent this character's culture and respect the irl culture and people you are drawing from? Is this even your story to tell? If your answer to any of these questions is no, then maybe you should rethink some things.

I don't have the answer on whether or not white people should be allowed to make their oc a person of color but I think this question is indicative of a much larger problem within the fantasy genre of aesthetic appropriation and surface level representation of poc. I don't have any answers - other than put more effort into representing different ethnicities and cultures which its whole own can of worms- but its a conversation that should be had.

I would love to hear other people's thoughts and feel free to correct me or add your own experiences with this. I want to learn so I can write better representation in my stories and understand different perspectives better. Cheers :D

[neikikardartv]

Superhero Roundtable

Gen V (2023)

The series Gen V is a spin-off of The Boys series on Prime, it aired very recently with the season only wrapping up on November 3rd of this year. The show takes place in the same universe as The Boys and its timeline is meant to align and intersect a bit with the new season. Instead of focusing on the main adult superheros of the universe, Gen V chooses to center its narrative on the younger victims of compound V (Which is the drug people can take to potentially get powers). The show is set in a college that only ‘Supes’ can attend (think Sky High). There they are ranked and all aim for the number one spot and to be a part of the famous ‘7’ supe group. The show is similar to what I talked about in my Buffy roundtable but here demons are swapped with superpowers for adolescent woes metaphors.

How do structural mythology, cultural studies, and cultural history reflect the series?

As the show came out this year it's cultural studies and history is all very recent, and it specifically caters toward Gen Z. In doing so the cast is much more diverse than The Boys and earlier superhero shows. The main character is a young Black woman named Marie who’s love interest is a bigender Korean American who can shapeshift between two different genders of masculine and feminine. The friend group she also meets up with also consists of others diverse in background and ethnicity. The call for more diverse superheroes is definitely a product of more recent cultural values and changes, especially with younger people being the target demographic. The politics of the show also represent the recent political timeline with our generation's disappointment in the actions and lack of actions the government has taken on corruption with capitalism, climate change, etc . This can be seen with Vought International, the multibillion dollar conglomerate that founded the famous 7 and manages ‘supes’. The company also does entertainment, news, weapons, fast food chains etc. The corruption of the company and its supes, most notably its most powerful supe Homelander who’s villain arc mirrors Trump, really fits the current post Trump political climate. The structural mythology of supes in the show is interesting as well. Instead of the show having the classic Hero’s journey with its superheroes and their gaining of powers. The main characters of the show got their powers from their parents injecting them with Compund V so they could profit off of their abilities. The superpowers they have are often the root of their trauma. The main character, Marie,  has blood controlling powers that manifested on her first period and led her to accidentally kill her parents in front of her sister. Overall, this pessimistic view of superheroes and their powers is really reflective of our current political and cultural landscape.

In what ways are the superheroes and their abilities informed by their racial, gender, sexual, and cultural identities?

One superhero that exemplifies the concept of their abilities being informed by their identities—specifically gender—is Jordan Li, the bigender Korean American who can shapeshift between two different genders of masculine and feminine that I previously mentioned. Through Jordan Li’s super powers the show is able to mythologize gender fluidity and identity struggles. In this clip, Jordan is talking to their parents who are upset that their developing powers gave them the ability to shift from a boy to a girl. Jordan has to explain that they are still themselves in both forms and have always been the same, but their father still disapproves.

In what ways do costumes and concealing identities further separate the superheroes from normal society? How necessary is it for the superheroes to hide their true identities to successfully achieve their goals?

In the Gen V the superheroes identities aren’t concealed from the public but they do have superhero personas that they are more known by in the public and media sphere. The celebrity-like status they have with their super personas is used to other them and commodify their powers to entertain others as a spectacle. One example of this is with the character Emma whose superpower is her ability to make herself change size. At school she is majoring in becoming a super influencer basically and goes by the persona ‘Little Cricket’ for her popular youtube channel. While her channel is popular we learn that it really is her mother wanting to profit off of her abilities and doesn’t care that she has to throw up and purge in order to change herself. Her power is also fetishized by a male classmate who wants her to get small while they are intimate. So in Gen V the creation of separate identities is not used to achieve their own personal goals but is instead taken advantage of by non-supes to capitalize off of.

How do the economic, political, and social events that occurred during the series’ creation and broadcast cultivate and inform the superheroes’ decisions and actions? 

In the series there is a very ‘us vs. them’ mentality between the supes and non-supes that is reminiscent of the current political climate. In episode 7 a senator comes to the school for an interview and it ends in a riot. The senator runs the Federal Bureau of Superhuman Affairs which seeks to monitor and investigate Supes and stop them from harming others. In the panel Senator Neuman is trying to pander to both sides, with boos and applause for each statement as the students are split between wanting to punish Supes like Homelander for killing innocent people or for thinking that not supporting him is Anti-super.  As the episode description shows, 

Calling all God U #Hometeamers! Today we’re protesting Socialist Victoria Neuman’s town hall on campus! Let’s show Neuman and her Supe-hating woke mob that we won’t put up with their anti-Superhero agenda! THEY WILL NOT CONTROL US! #MakeAmericaSuperAgain #SupeLivesMatter

The supe vs non-supe divide is very politicized with it mirroring liberal and conservative ideals of the spectrum. The situation is very polarizing and the “Supelivesmatter” crowd ends up disrupting the panel and it becomes very violent. The show is not very subtle with its mirroring of Blue Lives Matter and MAGA, especially with Homelander being a stand in for Trump. This is the central conflict between America’s general super population and their actions demonstrating the impact of our own political news cycle on the show.

How do the superheroes question themselves, each other, and their obligations and duties to the people around them?

In the show characters are constantly questioning intentions, who to trust, and what is right and wrong–especially within the supes and non supes dichotomy. The main characters are grappling with if the pain and violence that their powers have inflicted on others unintentionally are actually their fault and dealing with their guilt and self hatred for it at the same time.

This really leads to the central conflict of if their obligations are to use their powers to protect themselves or the non-supes that put them in the position of having these powers in the first place. The show is really complex in its portrayal of this as in the final scene of the show you are really left wondering what is the right thing to do alongside the characters as they decide who they should side with. Gen V is unique because while in The Boys the superheroes are more villainized but in Gen V it’s more unclear as we are able to see through following the adolescent super perspective it wasn't their fault. It is only at university that Marie and other students are able to begin to realize that the violence and trauma their powers have inflicted on their families and other non-supes is not their own but their parents' fault for injecting them with compound V in the first place.

The fact that their parents did in want of fame and fortune promised by Vought International,  really shows that capitalism has been the real villain all along.

“Your parents shot you up with a dangerous drսg when you were a baby to make a buck off you. Don't spend a fսcking minute crying over them”

@theuncannyprofessoro

[neverwritewhatyouknow]

Ok hi respectfully I think your “hypothetical” question on twitter was not the best way to get your point across. This movie is a really big deal for queer Latine folks and treating the reduction of background character’s religion as something worse than a fully white British actor playing an ethnically Latine character was very selfish of you. If Nora’s Jewish identity was more central to her identity in the book it might have made it into the movie but that’s not my point. Alex is a canonically Mexican character being played by TZP who is actually Mexican himself. That doesn’t happen often. Latine characters get played by actors who aren’t from their countries all the fucking time (not that you or any non-latine notice, much less care) and finally that’s not the case with this movie. It makes me really sick how you are trying to overshadow what this means to queer Mexicans, Mixtec and queer Latines. If you want Jewish representation that’s fair but you should fully understand the significance of this first, acknowledge that the method you used to make your point was harmful, and stop making it all about you.

Hi, respectfully

Jewish isn’t just a religion. Judaism is the religion. Jewish people can be followers of Judaism, but you don’t have to be religious to be Jewish.

It’s an ethnicity, a culture, a people, a tribe.

I am in NO way trying to devalue the importance this movie is for Latine people. I’m so fucking happy that they actually cast an actor for Alex who actually fits Alex. That was the first thing I checked when the whole cast was revealed. I literally couldn’t be happier.

I do notice every single time that a minority in anything is played by the wrong minority, so thank you for assuming I don’t. I actively work in the Hollywood industry, I live in LA, and I’m a part of various organizations that fight for the rights of all minorities to have equal and positive representation in media, that always includes Latine people.

The question, in question was to prove that it’s wrong to erase any minority. People, a lot of the time, don’t seem to want to really understand where others come from unless you make a super big and wild example. Do I want a white guy to be Alex? FUCK NO! Literally even when I was typing it, I was like, there’s nobody who would agree with this, it’s fucking insane. (Luckily, it only looks like 2 people agreed and I’d claim those as bots before thinking anyone would agree).

Was it the best comparison? Probably not. But was it effective to get people to understand that canon ethnicities can’t just be erased when the production wants a cool actor? Yes. And it’s not to take away from Alex or his story or anything even related to him, it’s to show that the question is So blindly upsetting, because it is really upsetting when your ethnicity and culture get erased. It’s so painful and upsetting and terrible. No matter who it is. Jewish characters are so rarely played by Jewish actors, non-Jews play them all the fucking time. So yeah, I get it, Anon. We’re fighting the same fight. We both want representation for who we are, and we both deserve that a million times over

Nora also isn’t a background character. She was one of the biggest characters in the book. She was in just about every important scene that wasn’t just Alex and Henry. She’s kinda a big deal (don’t know if they made her smaller in the movie, especially with the whole June thing). Her Jewishness was on every page, it was central to her because it’s who she was. She was smart and awesome and cool, and Jewish. It shouldn’t have to be central to her story to be worthy of representation. Jews don’t have to “play Jewish” to be seen as such. We exist just like you, it’s just a part of who we are. We don’t have to constantly be, what? Eating bagels and talking about pogroms? to be seen as Jewish. We’re normal people. It not being central to her is actually what makes her so different from other Jewish characters, because she’s not a Jewish joke.

Queer Latine people SHOULD celebrate this movie. I’m celebrating with you, for you. But two things can be true at once, Alex is fucking great and obviously should only ever be played by a Latino actor. Not even a question. And, that it was wrong of the movie to erase Nora’s ethnicity too. Because Jews deserve rep.

And honestly, if you want to be mad at anyone for the hypothetical existing at all, blame the production. Not for removing Nora (I mean, yeah, that’s the reason for all of this), but because for the past year I’ve been trying to show them how what they did was wrong and I’ve been educating on Jew-erasure and antisemitism, and informing them on all things everything. And they have remained silent or blocked when questioned at all. I wouldn’t have had to post it, had the movie acknowledged at any point what they did, besides the blocking.

But anyway, welcome to my Tumblr, Anon. Please take a look around. If you have any questions, you know where my Ask box is. I’m way more likely to see messages on here than Twitter.

[matan4il]

I love your posts about Jewish representation on TV and it reminded me of another post I saw by someone else who talked about how there’s a movie coming soon to Amazon that’s based on a book (it’s called Red and White & Royal Blue), and how the only Jewish character from the book was the only character to not be cast authentically in the movie because the actress and her family and openly and proudly Christian. I don’t think the character herself was canonically very religious, she goes home for Hanukkah, but she was written as Jewish ethnically. The blog I read it on talked about how it’s Jew erased because they didn’t cast someone Jewish and you can’t play another ethnicity (especially a minority one) and because the character doesn’t really do anything Judaism related, no one will even know she was supposed to be Jewish. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on it?

Hi Nonnie! And just lemme give you the BIGGEST hug! I thought this was fascinating. I'm so glad that you enjoy my posts about Jewish representation on TV and in film, they're obviously really important to me on a very personal level. IDK if this'll make you happy to hear, but I plan on writing at least two more posts about Jewish rep, one on OUaT and one on Friends. All in the context of my theory regarding Jewish rep. Here’s my thoughts on your ask...

What you're asking about can be referred to as the question of "Jewface." It's a term that has existed since the late 19th century, when non-Jews started portraying caricatures of Jews, often while wearing fake enlarged noses, fake long beards, ragged clothes and speaking with a thick Yiddish accent. By 1909, mainstream American Jewry had already decried this custom. But recently, this term has been brought up again, in 2021 Sarah Silverman wanted to talk about the way Jewish roles often go to non-Jewish actors.

I have to admit that as a general understanding seemed to take over that white people should not be cast in the role of POC for several reasons, Jews were left out of that discussion, so I think Sarah was absolutely right in bringing it up, as are you to ask about the casting of this Jewish character in RW&RB. The thing is, Jews ARE an ethno-religion. That means that we're not like Christians or Muslims, who are only bound together by a shared religion, Jews are also bound by shared ancestry. We're not the only ones, BTW! Another prominent ethno-religion is the Druze. Now, the Druze are far more strict than the Jews, they cannot marry any non-Druze and no one can convert to the Druze religion. Judaism isn't as strict: Jews can marry non-Jews, and people can convert to Judaism. However, for most of Jewish history, not that many people converted to Judaism. It was due to more than one reason:

Many non-Jews never got a chance to know Jews and Judaism, so there would be no reason for them consider converting.

Judaism on its part is against trying to convert non-Jews to Judaism (we believe that if someone converts, that means their soul was always Jewish, they were always meant to be a part of the Jewish people. But for that, conversion has to be an act of free will and not the result of a campaign of persuasion).

Jews were persecuted to such a degree, they suffered discrimination in every walk of life you can think of, they were lied about, demonized, repeatedly attacked, too often even massacred, so why would you want to be a Jew? Even if you did get to know Jews and Judaism and decided you liked this, the price to pay for being Jewish was just too great. This was an obstacle to conversion as well as to simply marrying Jews.

This is why for the most part, non-Jews did not convert to Judaism. At the same time, Jews sought to marry other Jews in order to pass on the Jewish identity, faith, values, traditions, culture, language, etc. As one lady explained it to me some years ago, "If you truly believe that a certain set of values is full of good, that your religion is true and enriching, and that your culture is beautiful, why wouldn't you want your kids to have all that as well? And the best way of ensuring that inheritance was by marrying and having kids with another Jew."

That means that to a great degree, the People of Israel (notice, this is what Jews call themselves in the Bible: not the Religion of Israel, the People of Israel, עם ישראל) did remain one people, one nation. Even the exceptional people who did convert to Judaism, they also married into the Jewish people, and their kids married Jews as well, and so did their grandchildren, and so the descendants of converts still shared that same common Jewish ancestry.

And all of this together was probably critical to the survival of Jewish identity. Take for example the Philistines. They were a seafaring people (most likely Greek and originating in the island of Crete based on the pottery they left behind) who invaded the Land of Israel from the west and settled along the southern part of Israel's coast. When the Babylonian empire invaded and occupied the Land of Israel roughly 2600 years ago, the Philistines were expelled to Babylon together with the Jews. But where the Jews maintained their identity long enough for the Persian empire under Cyrus the Great to defeat the Babylonians and allow the return of exiled populations to their homelands, the Philistines disappeared from the pages of history. Historians believe it's most likely that as a small minority, they inter-married with the majority, the Babylonians, to the point where they lost their culture, their language, their faith, and as a result, their distinct identity, and that's why there's no record of them after the expulsion to Babylon.

Now back to the question of casting, while Jews all over the world share common ancestry, we don't necessarily all look the same. The Middle East is actually a place where facial features and skin tones have always been very diverse, and that's what the Jews are, Middle Eastern. Add to that some degree of inter-marriage with convert Jews, and the result is that there really is no one look that all Jews share. So the question of casting, I don't think it's best tackled through that prism. I think it's more about the way the ethnic part of the ethno-religious identity of Jews should be acknowledged. About feeling like we matter, and that casting directors take Jewish identity into account, just like they do when they cast for a black character or an Indian one or a Native American. I also think having this conversation would allow us to talk about how the idea of Jewish facial features HAS BEEN demonized along the centuries (precisely that idea of the "Jewish nose" that was used in ugly antisemitic caricatures, or the idea of Jews having darker complexions than the average European).

Lastly, I know some people might point out that Jews get to be cast as non-Jews, so supposedly this shouldn't prevent non-Jews from being cast as Jews. Well, other actors who are POC are sometimes cast in roles originally intended for white people. An example is the 2018 show Troy: Fall of a City which cast a black Achilles, even though he was Greek (and specifically described as having fair features, as the ancient Greeks believed that was a sign of being favored by the gods). As much as such a casting might stir a discussion, at no point would we assume this means it would be okay to cast a white person in a movie about Martin Luther King Jr.!

Which brings me to another point, the question of which Jewish roles are played by Jews and which are not. This is something that I thought of being a gay woman. I know that a lot of gay actors, once they come out and are publicly perceived as gay, they get type cast as gay. It doesn't matter whether they look gay. It doesn't matter that prior to coming out, they could get lots of straight roles. Once they're identified as gay, there's a world of roles they're not going to get anymore, especially as a romantic lead or an action hero. It's a part of why many gay actors choose not to come out, even if they're okay doing so on every other level.

I'll just stop the analyzing of gay roles for a second to mention that this was true for Jews for a really long time as well. Yes, they were cast in non-Jewish roles, but they had to change their names and make sure no one would know they're actually Jewish. For example, beloved comedian Danny Kay was actually born David Daniel Kaminsky. Kirk Douglas, the movie legend? Born Issue Danielovitch Demsky. Winona Ryder? She was born Winona Horowitz. Natalie Hershlag? You know her as Natalie Portman.

At the same time as openly gay actors are limited to (mostly minor) gay roles, there are MAJOR gay roles in the entertainment industry, the ones that will have prestige attached to them, and those are almost always played by actors who are publicly known as straight. Think of Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal in Brokeback Mountain, Jared Leto in Dallas Buyers Club or Armie Hammer in Call Me By Your Name. They're all men that the public knows as straight. Now, I think straight people should be able to play gay and learn some empathy for gay people through that, that gay people should get to play straight and not be punished through the loss of work opportunities for being open about being queer, and I also think that when it's all mixed up, that can also prevent the bullying of an actor for taking on a gay role to the point they're forced to come out (by accepting that it's okay to be queer, straight, questioning, gay-but-before-realization, and take on a gay role). BUT I do think we have to talk about the Big Gay Roles being cast almost exclusively by straight actors. We should put studios and execs, not actors, on the spot, and ask them for more Big Gay Roles and for more diverse casting in those roles, and we should def not badger a teenager for being cast in a gay role.

Along the same line, I was asking myself about Big Jewish Roles. TBH, over the years, there haven't been many, give or take mostly Holocaust movies. But now in recent years, we have the non-Jewish Rachel Brosnahan in the lead role as a Jewish woman in The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, until that show was canned we had the non-Jewish Kathryn Hahn set to star as the Jewish Joan Rivers, the non-Jewish Daniel Craig was cast as the lead in the movie Defiance which told the real story of Tuvia Bielsky leading a group of Jewish partisans and saving the lives of roughly 1200 Jews during the Holocaust. These are just some examples off the top of my head, there are many more. So yeah, I'd like more Big Jewish Roles and more actual Jews cast in them.

In conclusion, I think Jewish actors being cast in Jewish roles should, at the very least, be talked about because it does matter and it does help explain a part of Jewish identity, and I also think we need more Jewish stories with Big Jewish Roles, and I think it does very much matter that those be cast (at least predominantly if not exclusively) with Jewish actors.

Thank you so much for being interested! And I am so sorry for the length... But I really didn't know how to do this subject justice in less words. xoxox

You can find my ask tag here and my other posts about Jewish representation here. xoxox

[rivilu]

Watched absolution because I saw a certain spoiler and was intrigued, loooonggg post of spoilers and thoughts under the cut

Are we are really surprised the supercop zealot is bioware's canon divine? lmao.

I generally liked the cast of characters quite a lot, Roland Lacklon and Qwydion most of all, Miriam is cool too, just not top spot for me. she's like. Number 4 on my list. Of surviving characters that is.

Rip Fairbanks. Made the rookie Ser Jory mistake of mentioning his loving wife more than once within the intro of the series. You will be missed.

The writers really said make them think we will finally switch up the Mage Is Always The 'Traitor' reveals (that aren't even true for games 1 and 2 but the joke is marketable so who cares for accuracy right) but then just do the same thing again. I have a feeling they think they are playing 4d chess when really it's just predictable.

The action was well executed and I liked the romance with Roland and Lacklon, it was cute :)

The show handled Tevinter better than I expected but my expectations were subterranean so that doesn't mean much.

Still don't care for the way bioware deals with blood magic. With Dorian we finally had a smart opinion on it [that the writers didn't try to stamp out or treat as stupid, sorry Merrill]- that it's simply a tool as long as there's no victims, but here we backpedal again into the narrative going 'anyone that even THINKS of blood magic is and always will be evil full stop'. Yes we're talking about a Magister here i'm not defending Rezaren in specific I'm just weary of how they'll treat it going forward.

Speaking of the guy, he was fine as a villain. pretty decent portrayal of a guy whose position of power deludes him into thinking his goal is noble and righteous no matter what, even to the detriment of the people he's supposedly trying to help, because well. He never saw them as people in the first place. 'Family' maybe, whatever that's supposed to mean to him, but still property. Things he gets to do whatever he wants to do with.

Miriam using his harrowing as an example of a moment he chose not to defend her or her brother though, is kinda meh. Bc girl, he was actively trying and failing not to get possessed, his mother's the one to blame for that specific instance and you KNOW it, I know we had to see that scene for exposition but i'm peeved jdshfjd I bet there were maaany more backstory examples of him being shit to choose from anyhow.

There was an Attempt at moral grayness at least two times in the show, with Tassia and Hira, and they are both... interesting.

Tassia imo does it better, as as the knight commander she can be safely [and firmly] put in the villain box, but the added levels of grey with her caring for her people's safety, opposing the venatori etc make her interesting to watch in a way where I may not be rooting for her but I don't want her to die either, yanno? She's a bit like if Aveline were an anti-villain, and actually decently well written at that. She gets spot 5 of my list.

Now Hira. Is a prisoner of that good ol Mage Betrayal Russian Roulette. I'd seen a small spoiler about her being up to no good before watching, but even without that, when Fairbanks stabbed her I could just SNIFF that red herring. Again, the writers may think they're playing 4d chess but I know not making a mage (or more) the villain, is to them what apples are to doctors. Then her motivation is just. Not convincing to me. Her family was influential tevinters that wanted to improve conditions for the oppressed, then they were killed and/or ran out the country by the venatori for it. so... she jumps right to ethnic cleansing as the solution?

(And I do mean right to it. She did go to the inquisition first but that's what she wanted to get out of it.)

Collateral damage is a funny way of referring to innocent people's lives queen!

Idk something about that feels familiar. Betrayal, a mage that jumps to genocide, yet said mage is somehow granted more lenience by the narrative than that stance should EVER allow? Because here's the thing. no matter HOW fucked a country is, how terrible the politics and power structures are, 'wiping the country out' IS NEVER A MORALLY GREY THING. IT'S AS BLACK AS IT GETS. it is the power structure itself that must be targeted. (you know, the thing Anders tried to do and gets eternally condemned for?) Wanting to massacre an entire population is not an opinion that's up for discussion, it is not worthy of redemption, and it should not be written as if it is. This pattern of character writing is just. Concerning to me. Some of the characters with the most morally bankrupt stances being passed off as grey. And I could get far deeper into it here, nearly did in fact, but It's a tad too late in the night for a 5 page essay on fantasy and real world politics intersection. I'll just leave it at ''bioware's centrism is doing what centrism does best and blinding them to their world's actual political power dynamics and I think it's going to bite them in the ass sooner or later''

But enough of that, let's try to get back to something funny shall we?

The cheese jokes. Bioware please, the horse, stop, stop it's already dead!

(i dont actually mind but that was my original reaction so here you go sdfhjs)

Dragon cool. Like that it stays alive.

ok, sorry that's all I got. We have to tackle the elephant in the room now folks and i'm afraid I am not optimistic.

So. Meredith motherfucking Stannard is still alive and kicking. And while I can completely understand why people are excited, AN ACTUALLY GOOD VILLAIN IS BACK, WOOHOO! -i just can't help but think. When? When will this plot thread be handled? Because as much as I wish the titular character of dreadwolf would drop dead by act one, I highly, highly doubt it hjsdfjf. And if she can't be the main villain, or at least what Howe was to Loghain, then I don't want her to be in da4. Because that game has SO MUCH SHIT to tackle, with Elven Gods and Titans, the egg and also Antiva and the Qunari now for some fucking reason? Frankly I don't think they can even do THIS sum of things justice in a single game, unless things with the gods take a different turn and they aren't what solas said/villains for us to fight (please I hate the slavery thing so fucking much just for once retcon something to the benefit of religious minorities bioware i'm fucking BEGGING) so adding Meredith to the mix is not something I can picture working out. I don't want to get excited for her to be back (She was the spoiler that got me to watch the series) only to have it be a repeat of the templar/mage war in inq where she's lukewarmly taken out by act 1.

Also before I do an all in all, we all got that Hira is getting Played right. Like I dont like her much(at all), as stated previously, but she's still a mage. working for Meredith motherfucking Stannard. Is it too early to call her eventually dying from that dumbass decision orrr..? Because yes girly, she also wants to genocide your home country, but she has VERY different reasons from you and you're almost guaranteed to be first on the chopping block the moment the red lyrium cracks. (i dont find this bullet point bad writing btw this is just razzing the characters for fun jhsdj)

ok so all in all. the show's alright. I highlighted more of the bad than the good here because anything past da2 has that effect on me sadly, but the characters do Carry as per usual. And i'd say it's worth a watch for the action shots alone. Some of my fears of Bioware's direction were confirmed, and i am still not at all enthused about da4, but if a season two comes out I'll probably watch it. unnecessarily long post over, adiós.

[alarrytale]

Have you seen the new Men’s Health mag interview with TZP? He was asked about queer representation and he said that when Nick was asked about his sexuality last week in an interview it was rude because it’s personal. Smart. He headed the interviewer off at the pass before he could ask if he was straight and taking a queer role away from a queer actor. I thought it was a really good interview overall. He was pretty inspiring.

Hi, anon!

I saw the quotes on my tl. I wasn't as impressed as you were about his interview. Does this quote remind you of anything said by another closeted actor/singer/boyfriend of Louis Tomlinson, playing a queer character on film?

TZP: I've seen a lot of poorly focused and not well executed queer films. And I watched more and more after I got cast in this and there was a clear distinction of what kind of movie I didn't want to make.

Source

They are both not out as queer and are out here talking down other queer movies, while being percieved by the general public as "straight people". Don't they know they're not allowed to do that, when they're not giving the queer community representation, at least without getting critisism and backlash from the queer community? It seems to me that TZP, much like H forget that he's supposed to be straight. He's speaking as a member of the community about the community he's not representing. It won't be recieved well.

Anyway, here is the quote about Nick and sexuality;

MH: The conversation around queer men being the ones deserving to play queer characters is ongoing. But that conversation seems to get muted when the actors do it right. What do you think was right about Red, White & Royal Blue? TZP: Cate Blanchett said something, 'We must fight to the death to suspend disbelief.' And that just always stuck with me, because if you're watching a film and there's nothing outside the room that matters, the actors are doing their jobs. Nicholas was just asked the other day about his sexuality, and I just find it so rude. It’s unprofessional and no one's business. That's someone's personal life. And so I'm grateful to be part of a project where, yes, it is a love story, but again, it's not the sole focus. These people have robust, full lives. They're educated. Alex is in law school. Henry is crazy smart and he's a prince, and his sense of duty is unparalleled. The less people focus on sexuality and see what these people are capable of, that's when we've created real change.

First of all, lol, the conversation about queer actors playing queer roles get's muted when the queer community is convinced the one's playing the queer roles are closeted, but queer. If the queer community is convinced said person is straight, then the conversation starts up again. It's not about the convincing performance. Many straight actors have won awards for playing queer people. It's still not okay.

Second of all, TZP starting to talk about Nick and being asked about his sexuality does indeed sound like TZP is going on defence and warning the interviewer to not ask him the same question. Sexuality can be a sensitive subject, but when you're an actor and a public figure playing a queer role, you will get asked questions like this. It's not rude nor unprofessional. Queer people want queer representation. If you're closeted you say you're straight or you don’t answer and let people speculate. If you're that concerned about people wanting to know if you represent them by identifying as queer, and you're that protective of your privacy, you shouldn't take a queer acting role. You should probably not be a celebrity at all. It's all a very "don't ask, don't tell" attitude and i don't care for it.

TZP also want less focus on sexuality and if people don't focus on it we've created change. That's the goal, but that's not how the world works at all. We all want a world where sexuality, race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, ability, social status and affluence doesn’t matter in how we are percieved by others. That's not how the world works. You can’t say it doesn’t matter that black people are cast in movies. You can’t say it doesn’t matter that people with dwarfism are cast to play people with dwarfism. All marginalised and minority groups wants representation and to be seen and validated by mainstream media. Same goes for queer people. So sexuality does matter. It matters very much for queer people, that queer people get to play queer people in order to normalise being queer.

So until we live in a world where sexuality isn't a hindrance whatsoever, and queer people enjoy the same success as straight people, and being queer is normalised, sexuality matters.

[papirouge]

I’m pretty sure Matt Walsh is one of those American conservatives who were a failed entertainer/musician turned to conservative media for a paycheck. Someone posted a video about a girl who used to work for those far right spaces and she would say that these personalities online were failed actors and musicians and went to the right of politics for a check since all they need to do is talk. They don’t believe what they say and will ignore the power of the tongue constantly. It doesn’t matter how hypocritical or backwards the message is. If they say it, they get paid. So I take nothing they say to heart. Walsh and his kind had bashed Halle and the little mermaid remake so much, but when someone decides to make it an Asian girl, Native girl, gay girl or trans (or someone else they don’t like), then they’ll come back to Halle’s Ariel and praise it for being accurate. These type of people I find to be lost souls without a higher purpose no matter how much they praise Christian beliefs. I don’t feel Christ is in their hearts as much as the love of money and power and influence. The things that Satan temped Jesus with in the desert.

Yeah, there's nothing more dangerous than people with failed dreams because they are so bitter and hateful against everyone. I think Ben Shapiro is a failed screenwriter and Candace Owen tried to create an app to signal hate crime when she was still a liberal 💀 oh and let's not forget Andrew Tate and his career as an MMA player (heard he was not bad at it but it was kinda nipped into the bud). Miles Cheong (an infamous Musk bootlicker) was a video game reviews and got splashed by the gamergate scandal. I remember when Musk started beefing against Rockstar game/GTA VI (probably tweaking on ketamine) on xitter, Miles went to his defense saying he never played a GTA game, and he got fact-checked with a community note explaining that since he was a game reviewer, he most likely already played that game 😭💀

And conservatives seething at Ariel being Black over the "she's looking like Ariel" really show they hypocrite selves because when Margot Robbie (who was a perfect barbie lookalike) got casted in Barbie, they still had a problem with that cast because she was too old (which is INSANE because barbie can literally be any age), or ugly (which is peak delusion), etc etc... They will always find excuses....

That being said, I don't think conservatives would have have much a problem with an Asian barbie bc Asians (at least easterners) are still pale, Asians don't have the same history as they do with black Americans so rightoids don't have the same deep seated guilt(?) that breeds that resentment & defensiveness whenever they see black people represented in media. I'll never forget how gamerbro got mad at Jade being Black in the new Mortal Kombat game, but didn't have much of a reject reaction when a significant part of the cast got turned into Asians (Syndel, Raiden, Smoke, etc.).. of course you had idiots asking why ninjas were Asians (???) and how they would rather be "Mediterranean" LMAO As if Mediterranean was an ethnicity (Italians and Egyptians are technically both "Mediterranean" - they still are different ethnicities). But it was a failed attempt to act sleek and not straight up say "I prefer those characters to White" ....a mEdiTeRrAneAn ninja wouldn't still make anysense anyway 💀

And yeah, none of these conservatives are Christians. They are modern day pharisees or zealots. It's not coincidence that Jesus rebuked both of these sides. In the desert, satan tempted Jesus with 3 leverage : materialism/desire of the flesh (asking him to turn stone into bread), greediness (asking him to bow before him to have all the glory in the world), and prideful recklessness (asking him to self harm/throw himself over a cliff arguing nothing will happen to him anyway bc he's the son of God). When you think of everything happening in the world, it HAS to fall in either of those category. Satan keeps using those tricks cause they work.

[dilfdoctordoom]

I like Rocket but I don't understand how Gunn didn't think it would be appalling to let Thanos murder Gamora and then have vol 3 be all about how Rocket shouldn't be allowed to die as a result of his abusers actions. Worse he doesn't have anyone talk about Gamora being murdered, rather than the stupid lines about how she can't remember anything for whatever reason they won't explain, except for one time. That one time is Peter talking about it like her being thrown off a cliff was some silly little joke of an incident. I don't understand how people can't see how awful that was.

Also I really wish there was more space to talk about how even if unintentional it does matter that the only female character who ended up with consistent development from beginning to end and a solid arc was Nebula who is played by a white actress. And the character seemed to benefit off of Gamora because Zoe talked about how Gamora was always guiding the team and keeping them on task and that's Nebula's job in vol 3. This may seem like no big deal but it becomes one because the movie says nothing about 2018 Gamora having those responsibilities. We only get Peter mentioning Gamora formed the team and no other characters back him up on this or offers their own thoughts on Gamora's time with the family. Instead they stand around like they barely knew her and never heard or experienced anything Peter talks about. In this context it frames it as if Nebula has always had the role on the team and Gamora did nothing. Then with Mantis she never gets much authority and her arc isn't well developed. Her arc also leads to her leaving the team and while going off isn't inherently bad, it does leave Nebula as the only woman allowed to stay close with most of the family on Knowhere. Plus Peter's teased as returning so it really is Gamora and Mantis left not getting to stick around or have a continuing story.

I don't know what happened with all the choices and decisions between vol 2 and what we ended up with in vol 3 but Rocket getting the love and attention he deserves doesn't make up for other characters not receiving the same writing and treatment. Particularly Gamora. There needs to be more space to discuss that vol 3 does some things well while doing other things not so well or even terribly. Especially because race and ethnicity are already factors in how people are viewed and by extension how the characters they play are viewed. It does matter when canon acts like this is how it should be and vol 3 is written as if 2018 Gamora was never that important and should be forgotten while 2014 Gamora is sidelined, underwritten and given very little purpose or nuance to her characterization.

This! Literally all of this!

It's not just that Gamora's story is unsatisfactory; it's that the leading woman of color was diminished in every aspect of the story, the other woman of color had her character arc skipped over, and dead Gamora was reduced to just being Peter Quill's girlfriend.

It's not one issue, it's several combined. I adore Rocket Raccoon but I think it's insane to act like him getting a good story was worth shafting the WOC of this franchise, especially when the Guardians franchise already has issues with sexism and racism and was just coming off the fridging of their leading female character.

And you're very right to critique that Nebula comes off the best out of all the women in the Guardians. I'd argue she has the best treatment out of every female character in the franchise and when she's getting prioritized over women of color, it feels... icky, to say the least.

Vol 1 & 2 managed to balance this large cast-- so it doesn't make sense when Vol 3 doesn't even try to do the same.

Gamora's ending also feels... ill thought out? I don't think there was any consideration of intersectionality, either behind the scenes or in the fandom. Fandom makes it out as a feminist win that she doesn't end up with her love interest.... despite the fact that such an ending perpetuates the trope that the black woman doesn't "need" love.

The fandom has shown a really ugly side at the idea of discussing the racism and sexism in this movie, which isn't surprising, but is still disheartening.

Nobody's saying these movies are devoid of anything good. Liking them can coexist with acknowledging their flaws-- and there are a lot of flaws.

At the end of the day, this is a franchise that failed women (women of color & queer women in particular) at every turn. It took until the second movie for the Guardians team to officially gain a second female member; it's adapting a run that operated on a minimum of three women in the Guardians at a time. Heather Douglas gets her existence written away, as does Cammi. Phyla-Vell is introduced as a child, separated from every single thing related to her character. Mantis is a racist caricature. Gamora gets fridged. Even Nebula suffers under this writing; her abuse is downplayed and treated as a joke in Vol 3.

[elastijubilee]

OMG *face palms so hard* I guess this is a rant.

As a musical movie lover, I am really frustrated that when I go to watch The Color Purple (2023) movie trailer the comments always show, no matter what channel I go to, and the one that always shows is something along the lines of "Ugh, LITERALLY nobody asked for a remake, nobody in Hollywood just completely out of ideas, lemme guess there's going to be tons of CGI." That last part made no sense to me...please stop writing comments after drinking an entire box of wine, Joann.

Anyway, it's very annoying that seems to be the comment at the top of every comment section, despite it not being the top liked comment by any means. I noticed this because I really wanted to share the trailer here for more engagement, but it's kinda annoying to hit a link for a trailer and immediately be hit with something negative.

I dunno maybe it's a mistake on the movie marketing team's part, to not actively show them singing and only play Fantasia in the underscore, because it seems some people think that it's a "remake" of the "original" movie. When in fact it is based off the stage musical, which a lot of people feel is closer to the book.

While I love the first movie, and Spielberg is my favorite director of all time, I know a lot of people who have always wanted another adaptation that felt more tonally in keeping with Alice Walker's story. A lot of them are black people. And this new film has a black director that some of them may feel either would be better or at the very least deserves his chance at taking a crack at the material. That's not me saying Spielberg shouldn't have directed the first one because he's not black, I'm not a subscriber to that kind of thinking (again fave director and there's nobody I would've rather seen direct West Side Story), especially when talking about a movie from over thirty years ago. I'm just saying that letting a person of the same ethnicity as the characters direct this version is important and something I respect.

Plus, Spielberg himself is producing! He's excited about this story getting told again! And as a musical lover of course he'd want to see this on film. Oprah, also part of the first movie's cast and produced the stage musical from the beginning, is also supporting this.

People who love the musical have been aware of this and waiting awhile. Glad to be called a nobody. Lots of people wanted it and actually knows what it is. It's been talked about a while by certain groups, it's not a secret, but these people have to pop up when the trailer drops to scream "reee-make!" It's not a remake, it's a readaptation based on an already existing musical that has been acclaimed. Not a remake.

I mean I understand not liking a lot of remakes or new adaptations, but I'm also not going to go spouting off about them vitriolically when I know nothing about them, especially the ginormous fact that it's a musical. Big ass difference from the first one. I also don't jump to conclusions about the quality being bad when the trailer shows no evidence of it being bad. Yes, there are some things I personally feel should be left alone and not used for a cash grab, however 1) this is not one of them 2) not every remake or new adaptation is bad. 2021 produced West Side Story, Nightmare Alley, and Dune, all of which were up for Best Picture. Guess what else they had in common.

Is The Color Purple 2023 going to be amazing? I don't know, it's not out yet. But the trailer looked good in my opinion and it's NOT A REMAKE.

I could write a whole thing about the problem with certain reboots or remakes being really bad, but the key would be either them missing the point of certain things or being rushed and lazy. Don't think that's the case here. And while we're on the topic I hate the "there's no original ideas in Hollywood anymore" narrative. First of all, nothing is wholly original, it's impossible. Second, of all there are hundreds of original movies or first time adaptations EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR. These people either only see the thing aggressively marketed to them and complain. Or purposely seek these things out and complain. I personally think it's weird to go out of your way to ignore a wealth of new material in the media but then refuse to see something related to something you already love because "original and old always = better." Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if most of these people don't even care about The Color Purple, they just like bitching and pushing a narrative. Obviously, I love old movies (not that the '80s are that old) but I don't think everything older is perfect and untouchable just by the virtue of being first.

I dunno I think these are all valid points and feel free to use them if you want to argue against these people lol.

[moviemunchies]

I was very surprised to find that critics gave this movie mixed reviews, because I thought it was loads of fun?

Bullet Train is a bit like this: a bunch of people from the criminal underworld are on a bullet train to Kyoto, and they duke it out. That’s kind of all you need as a premise (you’ll find out more as the movie goes on).

Or, alternatively: Brad Pitt plays a retrieval agent codenamed ‘Ladybug’ (a joke considering his bad luck) who is hired to grab a suitcase full of cash. He’s not the only one after the suitcase, however, and the two hitmen transporting the case–along with the son of a ruthless mob boss–are not planning to part with it so easily.

Almost all of the major action in the movie takes place within the train itself. This makes the movie itself a bit of an interesting action piece, because the characters are limited in their options. They can’t go anywhere not on the train (at least, not for long) and they can’t use anything except what’s on the train with them. I was worried that it would get old pretty quickly then–a movie where the protagonists are always coming back over and over again to the same locations can be grating. But I didn’t with this film, and it worked for me.

I kept thinking, while watching the film, that  it would be accurate to call it “Chekhov’s Gun: The Movie.” Seriously, if something comes up in any capacity, it will probably come back somewhere later in the film. If you need to explain Chekhov’s Gun as a concept to someone, refer them to this film. It’s a fun part of the movie too, because maybe you can guess where things are going, or you can be completely thrown off guard as to how something comes back to be important.

There is, however, one point where a character survives, and we’re not really given a good explanation other than “fate” and that’s dumb. The chain of Chekhov’s Guns going off makes it incredibly noticeable.

But it remains loads of fun throughout. The characters, despite being mostly assassins, are fun and likable and amusing to watch as they struggle through their missions. I can’t say there are that many funny movies I’ve seen about assassins, but I’m glad to say this is one.

[And there are a number of surprising appearances in the movie that threw me off when they came up. I had a lot of, “Wait, HE/SHE’s in this movie?!” while watching.]

A pretty awkward thing about this movie though is that even though it takes place in Japan, and it’s adapted from a Japanese novel, almost none of the main characters are Japanese, or even Asian, and it’s not like most of them speak Japanese. The Father and the Elder (even characters who are given names are usually referred to by titles supplied by text in the film) are incredibly important characters, so much so that the story actually starts with them. You wouldn’t guess it from the marketing of the movie, which barely features the Elder and I don’t think shows the Father at all.

There was some controversy about whitewashing the story, and rightfully so. The author of the novel apparently had no problem, so maybe we should leave it at that, but at the same time… if the makers of the film were going to change almost all the characters to different ethnicities, wouldn’t it make sense to set it somewhere else? Was there something about the story that necessitated it being on a Japanese bullet train and not any other train?

The answer that I can think of is ‘No, not really.’ It is probably a relic of the story being based off of a Japanese novel, but if you didn’t have that information you may think that it’s just to make the story seem more “exotic” (and we can’t really rule out that idea either). It also smacks of the studios deciding that a movie with an Asian cast wouldn’t appeal to American audiences  And that’s disappointing.

Still, it is a fun movie. We know that movies featuring heavy violence with serious stakes can be funny–Deadpool proved that if nothing else. This movie is much like that in that there’s gruesome violence, but it still manages to be absolutely hilarious. Maybe that disconnect with bother some viewers; it didn’t particularly bother me though. 

I have heard it said that some critics felt like this was too similar to other films in its storytelling, particularly those of Guy Ritchie and Quentin Tarantino. I didn’t get that impression, and I don’t think a lot of audiences did, though I can kind of see the similarity to some Guy Ritchie films with how it plays with time and flashbacks and such.

I would recommend this movie if you’re into violent action movies, especially those that heavily feature humor. I think it’s a bit uncomfortable that they changed the cast ethnicity, and a bit disappointed by the implications of that. But at the same time, it’s a really fun movie, and a very enjoyable viewing experience–one that I expect would be even more rewarding upon re-watching. I’d gladly watch it again.

[amythystraine]

6 Misconceptions About Witches

From The Witch's Desk (originally posted Jan 2015)... 6 Misconceptions About Witches

1. Witches always wear black.

Granted, black is a staple color in my closet, but not for any witchly reason. I like basic black because it goes with everything, it feels right when I wear it, my jewelry looks good against it, and it’s a good basic “color” for me. I know plenty of witches who virtually never wear black, but prance about the world in pretty pastels of pink and lavender, blues and greens, and other very unwitchly colors.

2. Witches sacrifice human infants.

Really?…Really. Pleeeeze– I birthed seven babies in my lifetime, and I have yet to sacrifice nary a one. I’ve grounded a few, preached at a couple, pulled my hair out over another, and puzzled over them all. But sacrifice them? Not yet (she says mischievously).

It should also be noted, under this “sacrificial” theme, that witches do not sacrifice animals. On the contrary, some of the most enthusiastic animal rights activists will be found in the pagan community. We tend to honor the animal kingdom, to consider animals our brethren, creatures that we have the pleasure of sharing the Earth with. We embrace their energy, learn from their inherent goddess given wisdom and instincts, and feel humbled when they allow us into their circle of trust.

3. Witches cast spells.

Not necessarily. Some do, and others don’t. It depends upon what road you take within this widely divergent spiritual path. My “thing” is divination, clairvoyance, psychism; at it’s very basic– the tarot. I have cast spells, lots in the beginning, but fewer and fewer as I was shown by the Goddess my true path on this journey, my unique gift. And besides, as magickal practitioners will tell you, casting spells– casting them correctly– is time consuming and a heck of a lot of work. You have to put some effort into it, as in anything, to get the most out of it. I have grown lazy in my impending old-age.

4. Witches are in league with and worship the Devil.

Really…no, this time I mean Reeeaaally! The Devil (or Satan, Beelzebub, Lucifer, etc.) did not arrive on the horizon of civilization until Christianity came along and needed a Fall Guy. It’s rather insulting that that they invent this despicable character, and then they accuse us of playing with him. They can keep him…the gods and goddesses of the world-wide pantheons are so much more interesting and desirable, awe inspiring, beautiful, and magickal.

5. Witches curse people.

Well, I’ll give you this one. Some witches do, or have, or if they haven’t, they still have the ability and the power to do so. However, most witches– and I know a few– would not even consider doing such a thing, under any circumstances. And here’s something else to think about, scary and true…Anyone who has ever deliberately wished something bad on someone has thrown a curse, whether they are a witch or not. The universe hears you, and it’s constantly moving energy according to your wishes and desires. My grandmother told me once: “Be careful what you wish on others.” And she also expanded on this thought by adding, “What you wish on someone else will come back on you.” (She was a woman ahead of her time.)

6. Witches are ugly old hags?

Well, umm, I hope not. If this is true, I’m screwed. Witches are women and men of all ages, sizes, ethnicities, and nationalities. They live in the world in the same capacity as every other human being. They inhabit the work force and a normal healthy place in society. A witch could be anyone that you’ve ever met in the course of your life, under the most ordinary mundane of circumstances, and you never even realized it…think about this.

With all that said, as a woman standing on the threshold of her 60th decade, I’m more than ready to embrace the Crone, or the Hag, in all her glory. I’m ready to move beyond youthful vanity and revel in the aspect of me that is the most important…what I am, who I am, from the heart.