[Slow Ben]

Thanks Apt.

[Aptorian]

What did I do?

[Illuyankas]

Well you definitely reminded me that Black Dynamite is a thing and I think it might be on Netflix so I'm gonna rewatch it, so unironically cheers

[amphibian]

Illuyankas, on 04 July 2017 - 05:58 PM, said:

Yeah but the predators still eat the herbivores, right? Like, do they have herbimorgues for herbivores that feed directly into predator restaurants? Do they synthesize herbivore meat? Someone sat next to you on the bus eating a sandwich filled with a slice of your cloned aunt? Or are the predators now scientifically adapted to flora instead of their fellow fauna? If so, why do they still have canines when they suck for handling their new food source? They can develop a way to allow them to digest plant matter but dentists are extinct?

I feel this universe has more issues than how hamhanded a metaphor for racism it is.

This is never answered onscreen and it's absolutely on the level of Karsa not meeting Torvald in the series again.

[amphibian]

The people raised on the movies and television shows of yore absolutely still are racist, sexist, and a whole bunch of other Isms. The current political

The downstream effects of horrible things being enshrined into popular children's and adults' entertainment are actual things to be reckoned with. I don't believe that Call of Duty will turn all its players into mass murderers, but it does reinforce that the way to confront perceived evil is from the correct end of a firearm. The most popular books, shows, films, songs, and so on become part of our cultural valence. They greatly shape what we perceive to be evil, what we perceive to be right, how we confront positions we disagree with, and even how much compassion we display towards others.

That's why a world where Star Wars and Harry Potter are the biggest things going manages to deal less well with creeping, insidious evil like conservative political parties that are hellbent upon killing millions slowly by depriving access, by rerouting money to the rich, and by convincing the "world" that this is the best course of action because people can solve all their own problems themselves.

Zootopia is a bad movie because it genuinely attempts to tackle some seriously heavy and evil shit in the form of cultural institutions, systemic actions, and individual prejudice and it mostly fails to do so in a way that's actually good beyond being a children's movie that is lukewarm inspiring. One cannot hug out 300 years of institutionalized slavery or even begin to attempt to fix it by making the metaphorical descendants of slaves or women cops in a police system that is still dedicated mostly to defending property over people, especially brown people.

[D'rek]

Illuyankas, on 04 July 2017 - 05:58 PM, said:

Yeah but the predators still eat the herbivores, right?

IIRC everybody eats non-organic food and (non-sentient) bug-based food.

...and they like it

[worry]

Tbh I don't think of Judy Hopps as a black woman (and Ginnifer Goodwin is among the whitest actresses to ever act, bless her heart), but I do think her storyline is focused on women entering male-dominated fields and encountering sexism, and I think it does a decent enough job there. It's where that story intersects with race -- and frankly nearly every time it tackles race -- the movie fails. So I don't think the movie fails at every turn with every issue, but if the issues it tackles were parts of a Russian nesting doll, race would be the biggest one, the outer shell, and it sucks.

As far as this goes:

Quote

I guess I'll make this simple. You've gone and assumed that the message is about a NATURAL reversion to a previous "savagery". It's not. Even a little bit. And it doesn't even affect the whole predator populous, not yet. And let's be clear...the predators are very much as civilized as the prey at the start of the film (and the end)...evidenced by Fox and Bunny being friends, or that a Lion is mayor, and his underling sheep is prey. To indicate that this is otherwise as you have, means you saw what you wanted to see, and not what was presented or implied.

It's not an assumption, it's embedded in the metaphor. Predators and prey. Unless you think the metaphor was that predators were cannibals among a merely phenotypically diverse but otherwise homogeneous animal kingdom -- which might be even worse -- I'd think you have to make a giant (and misguided) leap in logic to arrive at the notion that what this world calls "savagery" wasn't the natural state for predators. The crux of the movie is that society works because predators don't eat prey anymore. I don't think it was even subtext, it felt pretty plainly spelled out.

And obviously everyone is "civilized" at the start of the film. That's the point, the savages have been tamed. That's the moral of the story: once you've tamed the savages, once they've met your standard of civilization, it's unfair to keep blaming them for their past sins. And that's a pretty sick lesson. As far as what I "wanted to see" goes, I wanted to see a good movie. And there was plenty to like (lots of gags worked, action was solid, design was great) -- I didn't hate it as much as Amph -- but then again it was perhaps easier for me to separate the wheat from the chaff since the chaff wasn't lecturing me to overcome my sinister natural urges, for the greater good, no matter how much I'm provoked. Resist the urge to behave as badly as your ancestors did, before we taught them right from wrong.

Next we should talk about how The Secret Life of Pets treats activists -- specifically animal rights activists -- as grievance vampires who use progressive causes as cover for their true ulterior motives: committing crimes, causing mayhem, and ultimately just reveling in violence for its own sake.

[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 04 July 2017 - 01:19 PM, said:

I think I can guarantee you that the demographic for this film, young kids, did not and would not get the wrong message from this film. They won't see the societal parallels that some of you all are ascribing it. They saw a film about an anthropomorphized animal kingdom all of whom have learned to fight against their various earlier natures (earlier natures which largely parallel what animals are like in our world today) before they established a civilization, being ravaged by a drug-induced savagery.

I mean that’s it. They won’t read into it like you have noted they might.

Young kids aren't gonna notice the societal parallels when they watch it, but if someone grows up loving it, they may well internalise some of the lessons of the film (I mean, I'm pretty sure that's what the film wants them to do). And as they grow up they are going to come up against these issues and this kind of thing can have a big impression on how a mind first filters things without them even knowing it.

[Silencer]

worry, on 04 July 2017 - 08:50 PM, said:

Tbh I don't think of Judy Hopps as a black woman (and Ginnifer Goodwin is among the whitest actresses to ever act, bless her heart), but I do think her storyline is focused on women entering male-dominated fields and encountering sexism, and I think it does a decent enough job there. It's where that story intersects with race -- and frankly nearly every time it tackles race -- the movie fails. So I don't think the movie fails at every turn with every issue, but if the issues it tackles were parts of a Russian nesting doll, race would be the biggest one, the outer shell, and it sucks.

As far as this goes:

Quote

I guess I'll make this simple. You've gone and assumed that the message is about a NATURAL reversion to a previous "savagery". It's not. Even a little bit. And it doesn't even affect the whole predator populous, not yet. And let's be clear...the predators are very much as civilized as the prey at the start of the film (and the end)...evidenced by Fox and Bunny being friends, or that a Lion is mayor, and his underling sheep is prey. To indicate that this is otherwise as you have, means you saw what you wanted to see, and not what was presented or implied.

It's not an assumption, it's embedded in the metaphor. Predators and prey. Unless you think the metaphor was that predators were cannibals among a merely phenotypically diverse but otherwise homogeneous animal kingdom -- which might be even worse -- I'd think you have to make a giant (and misguided) leap in logic to arrive at the notion that what this world calls "savagery" wasn't the natural state for predators. The crux of the movie is that society works because predators don't eat prey anymore. I don't think it was even subtext, it felt pretty plainly spelled out.

And obviously everyone is "civilized" at the start of the film. That's the point, the savages have been tamed. That's the moral of the story: once you've tamed the savages, once they've met your standard of civilization, it's unfair to keep blaming them for their past sins. And that's a pretty sick lesson. As far as what I "wanted to see" goes, I wanted to see a good movie. And there was plenty to like (lots of gags worked, action was solid, design was great) -- I didn't hate it as much as Amph -- but then again it was perhaps easier for me to separate the wheat from the chaff since the chaff wasn't lecturing me to overcome my sinister natural urges, for the greater good, no matter how much I'm provoked. Resist the urge to behave as badly as your ancestors did, before we taught them right from wrong.

Next we should talk about how The Secret Life of Pets treats activists -- specifically animal rights activists -- as grievance vampires who use progressive causes as cover for their true ulterior motives: committing crimes, causing mayhem, and ultimately just reveling in violence for its own sake.

This actually raises an interesting point - ignoring, for the moment, the supposed parallels with real life, in the world of Zootopia, was it the prey who "civilised" the predators? The predators were (and still are, to an extent - see Mayor Lion and Bellweather's whole plot being predicated on the fact that there are a lot more prey than predators but they don't get the power somehow) clearly the dominant force in the "savage" past. How did Zootopia ever come to exist if the predators were still savage? Did the prey band together to "tame" the predators? In which case that should have created an underclass initially as you mention, but there's really no indication that there was such an underclass, or that Zootopia was founded by prey or anything.

Anyway, just a random thought I had reading a couple of the more recent posts.

[worry]

All that stuff will be covered in the prequel coloring books.

[QuickTidal]

Worry...voice actors skin colour is not and should not be considered with regards to who they play...let alone a movie about animals.

Voicing animation is a way to step past that. And usually is.

So Ginnifer Goodwin's whiteness...does not and should not enter into the discussion.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 04 July 2017 - 10:34 PM

[worry]

Milo & Otis is a movie about animals. Zootopia is a movie about people that uses animals as metaphors in a head-on exploration of racial issues. I didn't claim Judy represents black women, as I don't think she does, so Ginnifer Goodwin is as good a voice as anyone to play her -- but hypothetically if she did represent a black character then yah Ginnifer Goodwin voicing her IS a problem. And "stepping past that" sounds like post-racial color blindness to me, which I reject wholly as a solution to anything or even as a sign of progress. Maybe you missed the context where someone said Judy was a black character -- like in general I don't disagree that if your character is a rabbit then the race of the voice actor may not be relevant, aside from the fact that the movie industry is already insanely tilted in favor of white actors even for voice roles -- but in the context of this discussion it's particularly relevant. But also I definitely reject outright the notion that race "shouldn't enter into the discussion" more generally too. Post-race is privilege.

[QuickTidal]

I wrote out a long post rebutting yours with defenses of voice acting and the merits therein...but you know what? Not worth it. I'm obviusly not going to change your mind.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 05 July 2017 - 03:00 AM

[worry]

You could always post what you want to say and then at the end say "don't @ me" thus nullifying any chance I have to rebut the rebuttal. It's a good way to get in the last word when you're sick of arguing.

[Morgoth]

I always preferred the "no, you" defence.

[Illuyankas]

That is a cowardly and self-serving post, QT. If you don't want to engage, don't engage; posting about how you don't think the person you're conversing with would listen to your arguments is petty, petulant and puts off everyone reading who may have been persuaded by your points.

Also canines still aren't suitable for a bug-based diet and there's no proof that insects aren't sentient either so they totally copped out of a satisfactory answer there, this movie sucks

[Itwæs Nom]

There simply wasn't enough time for their teeth to evolve I guess

[Illuyankas]

Yeah but dentistry must be a thing, surely? I don't know how they can claim to live in a civilised society if they haven't rolled out a universal program to allow all predators free dentistry to allow them to consume their new universal food source of bugs and inorganic things instead of having to murder sentient people and devour their corpses. To not do this would be to condemn 10% of your populace to eating food they're literally not evolved to handle which would be unpleasant, probably painful and completely unacceptable if you have a shred of decency. More like Fauxtopia, am I right?

[QuickTidal]

Briar King, on 05 July 2017 - 03:03 AM, said:

I bet it contained lots of CAPSLOCKS to right? Lol

It did not. But it was far less coherent than I wanted it to be.

worry, on 05 July 2017 - 03:25 AM, said:

You could always post what you want to say and then at the end say "don't @ me" thus nullifying any chance I have to rebut the rebuttal. It's a good way to get in the last word when you're sick of arguing.

I could, but what would be the point of that?

Morgoth, on 05 July 2017 - 07:14 AM, said:

I always preferred the "no, you" defence.

I often use this defence, when my sister says I'm being an ass.

Illuyankas, on 05 July 2017 - 08:58 AM, said:

That is a cowardly and self-serving post, QT. If you don't want to engage, don't engage; posting about how you don't think the person you're conversing with would listen to your arguments is petty, petulant and puts off everyone reading who may have been persuaded by your points.

You are absolutely right Illy. It was late, I was tired and annoyed, and felt what I wrote would not help a discourse in which we’d been so diametrically opposed.

But you’re right, I should have left it up. I’ll own that. Apologies to all, and more specifically to Worry.

I can try to re-word this morning with a clearer head if I might?

I think this touches a nerve for me because voice actors (some of whom I call friends) have to deal with so much crap in their craft. They get pissed on by other actors who don’t think their performances are…well performances. So stymying (or trying to stymy) who they can and can’t play based on real life racial boundaries is not only unfair, it’s completely un-needed as a boundary in a media where you don’t see the persons face. It truly allows a transcendence of race.

This is why David Oleyowo (amongst his other work) can portray the white Agent Kallus on SW: REBELS, and in 2015 portrayed audio James Bond in TRIGGER MORTIS. Or why Phil Lamarr can have an huge, decades-spanning career where he’s played all races, colours, and species. Not because he’s black and should play black characters, but because voices don’t have those boundaries, and vocal talent searchers don’t have to see his skin colour when they cast him. They simply hear his brilliance in acting. Do you agree with these POC playing white roles? I don’t see anything whatsoever wrong with it, as long as they don’t ONLY have to play white roles...which neither actor does. Both have also played their own race in other voice roles. Phil Lamarr, other than all his Futurama work is most famous for being Green Lantern John Stewart…and is as iconic in the role as Kevin Conroy is as Batman.

I also never said anything about post-race. I said that voice acting transcends the need for labels. I fully believe that.

As such, if the bunny in ZOOTOPIA is meant to be a young black woman…and is played by a white actor (Goodwin), should you have an issue with that when it goes the other way (see above) so easily without complaint? Barring that I don’t actually think the specific characters represent specific races…as is proven by the analogy of “prey are white people, predators are POC” being wrong from character to character (white actors portrayed predators, and POC actors portrayed prey in the film). I think they were purposely mixed, so as to not fall into casting that follows racial boundaries.

MULAN features a main cast who are largely Asian American, but Eddie Murphy plays the Chinese dragon. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that.

Where does that opinion apply to voice dubbing? Japanese anime are dubbed into English all the time, usually using mix of voice actors, and English animated films are in turn voice acted by Japanese actors. Is that okay? Is that only okay because it’s being translated? Could they not, under your comments, cast Asian Americans to play English dubbing roles in Japanese animated films? What about deeply entrenched Japanese culture animated films like THE WIND RISES? English cast is pretty white. Seems to me that Japanese Anime dubbing has for years been able to transcend race based simply upon the fact that the voice actors faces are not present. You know, as you watch, that the characters are still Japanese….but you hear them speak in a language you understand. I think that’s okay.

Where is the line? Why does it exist?

It also isn’t like voice acting suffers the same type os stereotypes that regular acting has as far as race. Phil Lamarr (who I use because he’s one of the oldest working voice actors in the biz) literally walked from his early comedy roles on Mad TV into voice acting as a career. And his biggest roles run the gamut of races, with Samurai Jack (Japanese) being a huge one where he’s not playing his race, while he also plays Hermes Conrad (a Jamaican, not his nationality), and John Stewart (his race and nationality), Arthur Curry – Aquaman (white), Bail Organa (Spanish), Kit Fisto (alien), and he’s even played J.A.R.V.I.S. On Avengers (AI).

If people like Lamarr can transcend race often for his voice acting, then why is it disallowed to go the other way? Are Asian viewers pissed that a black man played Samurai Jack for so many years? Should they be?

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

QuickTidal, on 05 July 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

Briar King, on 05 July 2017 - 03:03 AM, said:

I bet it contained lots of CAPSLOCKS to right? Lol

It did not. But it was far less coherent than I wanted it to be.

worry, on 05 July 2017 - 03:25 AM, said:

You could always post what you want to say and then at the end say "don't @ me" thus nullifying any chance I have to rebut the rebuttal. It's a good way to get in the last word when you're sick of arguing.

I could, but what would be the point of that?

Morgoth, on 05 July 2017 - 07:14 AM, said:

I always preferred the "no, you" defence.

I often use this defence, when my sister says I'm being an ass.

Illuyankas, on 05 July 2017 - 08:58 AM, said:

That is a cowardly and self-serving post, QT. If you don't want to engage, don't engage; posting about how you don't think the person you're conversing with would listen to your arguments is petty, petulant and puts off everyone reading who may have been persuaded by your points.

You are absolutely right Illy. It was late, I was tired and annoyed, and felt what I wrote would not help a discourse in which we’d been so diametrically opposed.

But you’re right, I should have left it up. I’ll own that. Apologies to all, and more specifically to Worry.

I can try to re-word this morning with a clearer head if I might?

I think this touches a nerve for me because voice actors (some of whom I call friends) have to deal with so much crap in their craft. They get pissed on by other actors who don’t think their performances are…well performances. So stymying (or trying to stymy) who they can and can’t play based on real life racial boundaries is not only unfair, it’s completely un-needed as a boundary in a media where you don’t see the persons face. It truly allows a transcendence of race.

This is why David Oleyowo (amongst his other work) can portray the white Agent Kallus on SW: REBELS, and in 2015 portrayed audio James Bond in TRIGGER MORTIS. Or why Phil Lamarr can have an huge, decades-spanning career where he’s played all races, colours, and species. Not because he’s black and should play black characters, but because voices don’t have those boundaries, and vocal talent searchers don’t have to see his skin colour when they cast him. They simply hear his brilliance in acting. Do you agree with these POC playing white roles? I don’t see anything whatsoever wrong with it, as long as they don’t ONLY have to play white roles...which neither actor does. Both have also played their own race in other voice roles. Phil Lamarr, other than all his Futurama work is most famous for being Green Lantern John Stewart…and is as iconic in the role as Kevin Conroy is as Batman.

I also never said anything about post-race. I said that voice acting transcends the need for labels. I fully believe that.

As such, if the bunny in ZOOTOPIA is meant to be a young black woman…and is played by a white actor (Goodwin), should you have an issue with that when it goes the other way (see above) so easily without complaint? Barring that I don’t actually think the specific characters represent specific races…as is proven by the analogy of “prey are white people, predators are POC” being wrong from character to character (white actors portrayed predators, and POC actors portrayed prey in the film). I think they were purposely mixed, so as to not fall into casting that follows racial boundaries.

MULAN features a main cast who are largely Asian American, but Eddie Murphy plays the Chinese dragon. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that.

Where does that opinion apply to voice dubbing? Japanese anime are dubbed into English all the time, usually using mix of voice actors, and English animated films are in turn voice acted by Japanese actors. Is that okay? Is that only okay because it’s being translated? Could they not, under your comments, cast Asian Americans to play English dubbing roles in Japanese animated films? What about deeply entrenched Japanese culture animated films like THE WIND RISES? English cast is pretty white. Seems to me that Japanese Anime dubbing has for years been able to transcend race based simply upon the fact that the voice actors faces are not present. You know, as you watch, that the characters are still Japanese….but you hear them speak in a language you understand. I think that’s okay.

Where is the line? Why does it exist?

It also isn’t like voice acting suffers the same type os stereotypes that regular acting has as far as race. Phil Lamarr (who I use because he’s one of the oldest working voice actors in the biz) literally walked from his early comedy roles on Mad TV into voice acting as a career. And his biggest roles run the gamut of races, with Samurai Jack (Japanese) being a huge one where he’s not playing his race, while he also plays Hermes Conrad (a Jamaican, not his nationality), and John Stewart (his race and nationality), Arthur Curry – Aquaman (white), Bail Organa (Spanish), Kit Fisto (alien), and he’s even played J.A.R.V.I.S. On Avengers (AI).

If people like Lamarr can transcend race often for his voice acting, then why is it disallowed to go the other way? Are Asian viewers pissed that a black man played Samurai Jack for so many years? Should they be?

I think the issue that a lot of people have is that smaller actors who are black or Asian or whatever get overlooked for roles that are given to "big name" white people for the name recognition. So, if there were literally no actors who were the same race/background as the character they're playing, then those people would be fine with the role voiced by said white actor. But, as it is, there are actors who are more similar to the characters they portray, so why not cast those actors in the role?

(Sorry for lack of better explanation — hungover from yesterday).

I'm of the opinion that I don't really care about the actor's race/background; I care about their stature and pervasiveness. I think more smaller actors should be given bigger roles, instead of relying on the "big names" to have a diverse repertoire of voices (or even just one voice, repeated in all their roles...[cough nolan north cough]). The bigger the pool of actors that people can pull from, and the less reliant they become on pulling "big names", then the more likely it is that those more diverse (racially and culturally) actors will get better roles — playing whatever race, culture, species, sentience they want.

EDIT: But also, screw voice acting. I want more shit with the depth of options and dialogue as Planescape: Torment, and you can't get that AND have it be fully voice acted (unless you've got massive reserves of cash and time to burn). Make me read! 😄

This post has been edited by Whisperzzzzzzz: 05 July 2017 - 01:03 PM