No, I'm pretty sure I'm thinking of modern day Indians, but good on you for trying to tell me what I actually thought.The Lunatic said:Snip
No, I'm pretty sure I'm thinking of modern day Indians, but good on you for trying to tell me what I actually thought.The Lunatic said:Snip
I don't know drug addled Stephen King wrote characters that well anyway. Detta being a prime example. Eddie's entrance wouldn't be done partial naked either. I'd also assume that they just skip straight to Susanne becuase all that stuff seems to complex to show on film.Ogoid said:Particularly when ethnicity was a factor in Roland's relation with other characters, i.e. Detta Walker... not that I think there was a snowball's chance in hell they'd include her in a Hollywood film these days.the December King said:This. This is what I came here to say. As far as I care, it worked for Gamora, it will likely work for Starfire.
The only problem I have ever had in casting was with Idris Elba being cast as Roland in The Dark Tower. And I'm sure he was awesome, but I still was confused and frustrated (haven't gotten around to seeing it, but it's not a boycott or anything, I've just been really busy).
Well, given modern Indians are descended from those old Aryans, it makes sense they'd have Caucasian features.erttheking said:No, I'm pretty sure I'm thinking of modern day Indians, but good on you for trying to tell me what I actually thought.The Lunatic said:Snip
This is pretty much my philosophyJamesStone said:Both sides are stupid, but one is stupid and racist so I know what side I'll be on in this fight, if only for opposition to racists.
It's not always black or white, and shouldn't be treated as so binary.JamesStone said:Both sides are stupid, but one is stupid and racist so I know what side I'll be on in this fight, if only for opposition to racists.
And if after evaluating the information logically and neutrally the conclusion is that they were acting like racists, does sharing those findings makes one a self-labelled "good guy" hating?Vendor-Lazarus said:snipJamesStone said:Both sides are stupid, but one is stupid and racist so I know what side I'll be on in this fight, if only for opposition to racists.
Okay, before this gets too bitter, I'm going to step in and spoil the joke- sorry, Agent_Z, but it's pretty apparent it didn't work anyway. Take a look back at the first post. "Bigoted asshole says something unpleasant" is hardly newsworthy, is it? Even if the asshole in question isn't Donald Trump? No. Of course it isn't. Words are just words, and a bigot who's flooding someone social media account is a bigot who's not setting fires or shooting people or doing anything to actually make the world a worse (if not more unpleasant) place. Of course, an anti-bigot who's reporting on the actions of bigots is an anti-bigot who's not educating people or challenging views or doing anything to make the world a better (again, if not more unpleasant) place. Here's the punchline: if a person is a "good guy" because they oppose racism, are they going to make this announcement by decrying an action as "beyond the pale"? This is satire.CaitSeith said:And if after evaluating the information logically and neutrally the conclusion is that they were acting like racists, does sharing those findings makes one a self-labelled "good guy" hating?Vendor-Lazarus said:snipJamesStone said:Both sides are stupid, but one is stupid and racist so I know what side I'll be on in this fight, if only for opposition to racists.
Imagine; What if they aren't self-labelled "good guys" hating, and only called that by their opponents?
in the same vein, I could call myself an athlete, that doesn't make it so. Just becuase I claim I'm not racists, doesn't make me not racist. How do we decide what's racist then?Vendor-Lazarus said:It's not always black or white, and shouldn't be treated as so binary.JamesStone said:Both sides are stupid, but one is stupid and racist so I know what side I'll be on in this fight, if only for opposition to racists.
For most, it's actually all shades of grey.
Imagine; What if they aren't racist, and only called that by their opponents?
I can call you an athlete. Doesn't make it so.
Instead of listening to the self-labelled "good guys" hating, evaluate the information logically and neutrally.
Then decide.
I did that, and I decided that the people doing this are worthless, racist fucktards.Vendor-Lazarus said:Instead of listening to the self-labelled "good guys" hating, evaluate the information logically and neutrally.
Then decide.
You got a lot on this already, but here's one more angle.Vendor-Lazarus said:It's not always black or white, and shouldn't be treated as so binary.JamesStone said:Both sides are stupid, but one is stupid and racist so I know what side I'll be on in this fight, if only for opposition to racists.
For most, it's actually all shades of grey.
Imagine; What if they aren't racist, and only called that by their opponents?
I can call you an athlete. Doesn't make it so.
Instead of listening to the self-labelled "good guys" hating, evaluate the information logically and neutrally.
Then decide.
Cute of you to think that being actively bigot online somehow stops that person from being actively bigot on real life. I wish to know when the harassed person agreed with you to take one for the team...Recusant said:Okay, before this gets too bitter, I'm going to step in and spoil the joke- sorry, Agent_Z, but it's pretty apparent it didn't work anyway. Take a look back at the first post. "Bigoted asshole says something unpleasant" is hardly newsworthy, is it? Even if the asshole in question isn't Donald Trump? No. Of course it isn't. Words are just words, and a bigot who's flooding someone social media account is a bigot who's not setting fires or shooting people or doing anything to actually make the world a worse (if not more unpleasant) place. Of course, an anti-bigot who's reporting on the actions of bigots is an anti-bigot who's not educating people or challenging views or doing anything to make the world a better (again, if not more unpleasant) place. Here's the punchline: if a person is a "good guy" because they oppose racism, are they going to make this announcement by decrying an action as "beyond the pale"? This is satire.CaitSeith said:And if after evaluating the information logically and neutrally the conclusion is that they were acting like racists, does sharing those findings makes one a self-labelled "good guy" hating?Vendor-Lazarus said:snipJamesStone said:Both sides are stupid, but one is stupid and racist so I know what side I'll be on in this fight, if only for opposition to racists.
Imagine; What if they aren't self-labelled "good guys" hating, and only called that by their opponents?
Probably because they couldn't make it seem bad, but when the exact same criticism happens to also be against the costume design for a black female they could ride the white horse and claim racism despite their being none.undeadsuitor said:Which is even weirder, cause the entire casts wardrobe and hair is awful but you don't hear much about themtheevilgenius60 said:Most of the crackback I've seen against her Starfire hasn't been race based. ~95% of the rancor has been aimed at her costume and hair for the role.
Word. You'd think it wouldn't be too much to ask of professional makeup and costume artists to put as much effort into it as some random person on the internet with Photoshop and 10 minutes to spare [https://i.redd.it/lcsjlfjnmhr01.jpg], but instead, here we are.kiri3tsubasa said:The issue with the costume and how she is presented. Seriously the people in the costume department should have been fired for this. They could have made it work, but they didn't and because of that all legitimate criticisms brought against the costume department are thrown away under the guise of sexism. I found an image that shows what they could have done with her, but chose not to for what ever reason.
I don't like her costume as much as the next person, but let's be real here: Many of the complaints are not just about her costume they specifically stated that having a black actress was a poor choice. We should not just ignore that or attempt to downplay it or pretend that is not what it is. It makes it a lot more difficult to discuss the cut of her dress and the bulky obnoxious fur coat when you have people just offended for her being black regardless of what she wears.kiri3tsubasa said:The issue with the costume and how she is presented. Seriously the people in the costume department should have been fired for this. They could have made it work, but they didn't and because of that all legitimate criticisms brought against the costume department are thrown away under the guise of sexism. I found an image that shows what they could have done with her, but chose not to for what ever reason.
So what prevented them from presenter her as the image shown on the left? We have the technology and the practicable ability. Look at Gamora from Guardians of the Galaxy.
Actually, what if they intentionally made her look like that for the very reason of calling all critics sexist and misogynistic? Im starting to think we are getting to that point, after all you can dismiss all criticisms if you call your criticisms racist, nazi, misogynistic, etc.
Probably because they couldn't make it seem bad, but when the exact same criticism happens to also be against the costume design for a black female they could ride the white horse and claim racism despite their being none.undeadsuitor said:Which is even weirder, cause the entire casts wardrobe and hair is awful but you don't hear much about themtheevilgenius60 said:Most of the crackback I've seen against her Starfire hasn't been race based. ~95% of the rancor has been aimed at her costume and hair for the role.
Here's the point. You're absolutely right that the picture shows she would have made a very acceptable Starfire.kiri3tsubasa said:The issue with the costume and how she is presented. Seriously the people in the costume department should have been fired for this. They could have made it work, but they didn't and because of that all legitimate criticisms brought against the costume department are thrown away under the guise of sexism. I found an image that shows what they could have done with her, but chose not to for what ever reason.
So what prevented them from presenter her as the image shown on the left? We have the technology and the practicable ability. Look at Gamora from Guardians of the Galaxy.
Actually, what if they intentionally made her look like that for the very reason of calling all critics sexist and misogynistic? Im starting to think we are getting to that point, after all you can dismiss all criticisms if you call your criticisms racist, nazi, misogynistic, etc.
Probably because they couldn't make it seem bad, but when the exact same criticism happens to also be against the costume design for a black female they could ride the white horse and claim racism despite their being none.undeadsuitor said:Which is even weirder, cause the entire casts wardrobe and hair is awful but you don't hear much about themtheevilgenius60 said:Most of the crackback I've seen against her Starfire hasn't been race based. ~95% of the rancor has been aimed at her costume and hair for the role.
Like it's that easy. "Yeah, it's horrible that people were racist. But understandable that they were because the costume she didn't pick for herself WAS terrible. So I get it."Miki
Miki
@PradBlain
?
Jul 20
Replying to @badpostitans
I mean her costume did suck tbh.
So, it's off topic, but I'm going to come down hard on this because it's frankly dangerous to indulge scientific racism even a little..The Lunatic said:snip