This thread is fucking hilarious.
As far as I can tell the movie is gonna have a big opening on par with most other MCU films. Not gonna be a Top 5 MCU film in terms of overall numbers though I think, but its gonna do respectably. So it seems like the ideas about her comments affecting the release of the film were way overblown.
The opening is mostly irrelevant. It's the overall numbers and attitude to it that will mean something.
This might be one of those times, for the reasons we've already gone into.True, but generally a big opening is a good sign of big numbers for the movie overall. Not always, but its usually a good bet.
This might be one of those times, for the reasons we've already gone into.
Time will tell.
Yes, well, we all know that your opinion is the only one that matters.I highly doubt it this will be one of those times myself given that its Marvel and that the movie is pretty good, but stranger things have happened I guess. We will just have to see.
Yes, well, we all know that your opinion is the only one that matters.
In all things.
Brie Larson is racist and sexist, fuck her and fuck this modern culture for not calling her out on her bullshit.
Brie Larson is racist and sexist, fuck her and fuck this modern culture for not calling her out on her bullshit.
Well, you highly doubt it will be one of those times because the movie is pretty good.Never said that in any way, but okay? lol
She is not rascist or sexist. What she said was just blown way out of proportion. What she said was at an awards night aimed at women, yes there were men there but she was talking to her audience and they clapped at what she said.
She never said she wants to get rid of white male critics, she just wants the industry to be more inclusive.
She said that she personally didn't care about what a white male thinks about A crack in Time, she wants to know what white women and women of colour thought of the film. Im a white male and thought the film was a piece of shit so she might have a point. There could be people out there that loved the film but their voices aren't heard.
I'm shocked that the side that goes on and on about dog whistles are now mysteriously deaf.Exactly. She even clarified her statements.
What I’m looking for is to bring more seats up to the table. No one is getting their chair taken away. There’s not less seats at the table, there’s just more seats at the table. - Brie Larson
If she had said she didn't want white people or men reviewing her movie then yeah that would be racist/sexist, but thats not what she was saying.
I'm shocked that the side that goes on and on about dog whistles are now mysteriously deaf.
Brie Larson is racist and sexist, fuck her and fuck this modern culture for not calling her out on her bullshit.
Except it would only be a "power grab" if she was demanding that those already in the business should be fired in order to add those new people. Nowhere did she say that though. She wants to add people. Not replace them. That is a really important distinction.1. Can’t be racist against whites.
2. Can’t be sexist against men.
3. She started a conversation.
4. It’s about inclusion and diversity* because those are the only things that matter to the Cult of Social Justice.
*It was discussed earlier in the thread, but the proportion of white male film interviewers is roughly on par with their proportion of the US population (around 61% I believe). What she is asking for is therefore overrepresentation of non-white females. It’s a power grab pure and simple and it is justified by the doctrines of intersectionality. “Inclusion” and “diversity” are just the terms they use to justify said power grab. These are ideological terms designed to elicit emotional responses from low IQ brainlets.
Except it would only be a "power grab" if she was demanding that those already in the business should be fired in order to add those new people. Nowhere did she say that though. She wants to add people. Not replace them. That is a really important distinction.
oh please. She spouted left wing dog whistles at a hollywood gala. Crapping on "40 year old white guys" probably plays well in Hollywood, but lets be clear what this was. A publicity stunt designed to help further her brand of being a feminist activist.I want more representation among the movie review industry = Not racist or sexist. That what she was getting at.
I don't want white people or men reviewing my movie = Absolutely racist and sexist. But thats not what she said. Its what people are trying to say she meant by the comment.
As she pointed out wanting more representation is not taking away seats at the table. Its adding them. She could have definitely worded it better so that she didn't need to come back and clarify her statements though. I will definitely admit that.
oh please. She spouted left wing dog whistles at a hollywood gala. Crapping on "40 year old white guys" probably plays well in Hollywood, but lets be clear what this was. A publicity stunt designed to help further her brand of being a feminist activist.
She isn't "adding more chairs to the table" she is growing a fanbase by dividing people up by partisan lines. Which is fine, but don't pretend you are a fucking saint while you're doing it.
She is not rascist or sexist. What she said was just blown way out of proportion. What she said was at an awards night aimed at women, yes there were men there but she was talking to her audience and they clapped at what she said.
She never said she wants to get rid of white male critics, she just wants the industry to be more inclusive.
She said that she personally didn't care about what a white male thinks about A crack in Time, she wants to know what white women and women of colour thought of the film. Im a white male and thought the film was a piece of shit so she might have a point. There could be people out there that loved the film but their voices aren't heard.
Brie Larson is racist and sexist, fuck her and fuck this modern culture for not calling her out on her bullshit.
Yes, let’s create employment positions out of thin air because she meant include more people, not replace existing positions. Because money grows on trees and obviously there is a market to sustain these non-existing jobs. She probably plans to create a few publications and websites herself to create these non-existant positions too.
I’m sure that’s what she meant.
Let's say she meant that white men should be replaced. Is there something inherently wrong with that? Is there something objectionable to giving underrepresented groups more opportunities that might displace a privileged few who are among a group that has been a beneficiary of race based nepotism for as long as the movie industry and the press covering have functioned?
I'm shocked that the side that goes on and on about dog whistles are now mysteriously deaf.
Let's say she meant that white men should be replaced. Is there something inherently wrong with that? Is there something objectionable to giving underrepresented groups more opportunities that might displace a privileged few who are among a group that has been a beneficiary of race based nepotism for as long as the movie industry and the press covering have functioned?
Let's say she meant that white men should be replaced. Is there something inherently wrong with that? Is there something objectionable to giving underrepresented groups more opportunities that might displace a privileged few who are among a group that has been a beneficiary of race based nepotism for as long as the movie industry and the press it covering have functioned?
Yeah, it's called racism and bigotry, something you seem familiar and comfortable with on a personal level.
I don't think what she said is racist and I don't believe she meant "white men should be replaced", but yes there would be quite alot wrong if someone said that about any group of people regardless of circumstances. The way to go about bringing diversity to something is not to subtract, but to add.
I think to effect true diversity, of visible representation and ideas, you have to subtract. You can't diversify a group that has been historically hegemonic without subtracting enough of those whose representation within the group has solely been because of their race. Without removing some - if not at all - of them, you are still allowing the worldview that facilitated their presence to go unchallenged. I think starting from a clean slate is the ideal approach, replacing racial nepotism with a meritocracy that both appreciates different opinions informed by one's relationship to the dominant society and the objective value of their contribution.
I think to effect true diversity, of visible representation and ideas, you have to subtract. You can't diversify a group that has been historically hegemonic without subtracting enough of those whose representation within the group has solely been because of their race. Without removing some - if not at all - of them, you are still allowing the worldview that facilitated their presence to go unchallenged. I think starting from a clean slate is the ideal approach, replacing racial nepotism with a meritocracy that both appreciates different opinions informed by one's relationship to the dominant society and the objective value of their contribution.
I could not disagree more. The entire point of pushing diversity is to give representation to those who don't have it. You don't do that by taking representation from those that do. It defeats the entire purpose of what you are doing and then you end up becoming the very thing you are trying to get rid of.
Let's say she meant that white men should be replaced. Is there something inherently wrong with that? Is there something objectionable to giving underrepresented groups more opportunities that might displace a privileged few who are among a group that has been a beneficiary of race based nepotism for as long as the movie industry and the press it covering have functioned?
I think to effect true diversity, of visible representation and ideas, you have to subtract. You can't diversify a group that has been historically hegemonic without subtracting enough of those whose representation within the group has solely been because of their race. Without removing some - if not at all - of them, you are still allowing the worldview that facilitated their presence to go unchallenged. I think starting from a clean slate is the ideal approach, replacing racial nepotism with a meritocracy that both appreciates different opinions informed by one's relationship to the dominant society and the objective value of their contribution.
But many of those journalists are only there because they are white males who were in the right place at the right time, taking the positions of more qualified minorities who would have contributed different perspectives thanks to their markedly divergent backgrounds. By still allowing the same people whose presence was and is unearned to remain, you are not addressing the exclusionary system that requires diversification. Don't misunderstand me. I welcome white male journalists covering the movie industry. But let's start from the beginning. Let's actually allow a diverse pool of talent to be considered rather than just adding a few tokens to join an already toxic pool. That doesn't do anything to address the problem. And, honestly, that's a problem with liberalism. It is reactive instead of being proactive.
DerFührer, more like. Do you realize what you're writing?
But many of those journalists are only there because they are white males who were in the right place at the right time, taking the positions of more qualified minorities who would have contributed different perspectives thanks to their markedly divergent backgrounds.
Wait are you joking?
You actually believe that the race and gender of journalists is an important matter to Disney before they go on a press tour?Joking about what? Are we going to pretend that the overwhelmingly white and male journalists Brie referred to didn't have their race and gender taken into consideration when they joined a pool of press members that all happened to be the same? Do you even understand what she was saying?
Do you even understand what she was saying?
What's "racist" about her, snowflake?
Being opposed to white male hegemony doesn't make one a racist. Try again.
But many of those journalists are only there because they are white males who were in the right place at the right time, taking the positions of more qualified minorities who would have contributed different perspectives thanks to their markedly divergent backgrounds. By still allowing the same people whose presence was and is unearned to remain, you are not addressing the exclusionary system that requires diversification. Don't misunderstand me. I welcome white male journalists covering the movie industry. But let's start from the beginning. Let's actually allow a diverse pool of talent to be considered rather than just adding a few tokens to join an already toxic pool. That doesn't do anything to address the problem. And, honestly, that's a problem with liberalism. It is reactive instead of being proactive.
Imagine if she had said she didn't want her press tours to be overwhelmingly black, the racism would be obvious then.
This is part of the problem is people today want to roleplay as '60s era revolutionaries ignoring the last half a century of progress, ironically only fucking up this progress and the social cohesion that grew from it.
I do, but I am honestly wondering whether or not you do at this point. She made it very clear that what she wanted was add more seats to the table not take others away. What you are suggesting is literally the exact opposite of what she was talking about. In fact what you are suggesting would just cause even more damage than there already is.