Fandom and entitlement

[Ghost]

@Sparks Thanks, that's what I was looking for. I wanna read up on this stuff, because there's rarely a smoking gun, but I'd like to hear better accounts.

[faraday]

@Ghost said in Fandom and entitlement:

anyone actually seen, read, or heard (interviews/articles) where it's explained by the people who make the decisions that they're not "taking chances" on women or POC?

It’s pretty well documented, yes. There are numerous examples of Hollywood people being asked to change a role from a woman to a man or from a POC to white. Then there are the basic stats on representation (or lack thereof). You can either conclude from this that Hollywood is flat-out racist/sexist or that they have a pervasive belief that such casting is “risky”. Neither is good.

Here’s a nice article on representation: https://paris7masterculture.wordpress.com/2018/12/10/the-representation-of-poc-people-of-color-in-hollywood-a-case-study/

I particularly like the quote from Viola Davis: “The only thing that separates women of color from everyone else is opportunity. You cannot win an Emmy for roles that are simply not there.”

Also relevant

[faraday]

Double post since I just stumbled across this on EW tonight and it seemed relevant to the discussion:

The Wachowskis were offered a bigger budget to make Bound a heterosexual love story

Tilly recalled that there was an offer on the table to make the film with a bigger budget — with the stipulation that the Wachowskis rewrite the script and make Gershon’s character a man.

@Ghost said in Fandom and entitlement:

I wanna read up on this stuff, because there's rarely a smoking gun, but I'd like to hear better accounts.

I don't think the problem in Hollywood is as overt as "We hate <POC/women/LGBTQ/etc.>", so there's probably not a "smoking gun" in that sense. The problem is always masked in excuses like: "But that story won't appeal to as wide of an audience" or "But we need a 'bankable star' to lead this" or "But girls don't buy as many toys" or whatever. There are tons of examples in interviews/articles/etc. of that kind of thing happening, though, so in a sense there actually are a lot of smoking guns lying around.

[Seraphim73]

@insomniac7809 said in Fandom and entitlement:

I really don't think the Harry Potter films are at risk of losing $10mil unless the premier is literally shown on a rapidly-sinking raft made entirely out of $100 bills that is also on fire, and even then they'd probably break even.

From what I've heard, China won't even show a movie with an explicitly gay relationship in it. So yeah, the US returns might actually go up a little if a Harry Potter movie showed an explicitly gay relationship in it, but there would be no China returns, and that'll take a huge chunk out of international box office right there.