Well as I got at before the Democratic and Republican parties have changed in radical enough ways in the past that they might as well be brand new parties. In the realignment I mention above the Democrats went from the party of the South to the party of the North which made for political changes in both parties that were as significant as the geographic switch.
After that, off the top of my head there were the Federalists and Whigs who were both one of the top two parties in the country at one point. Multiple US presidents belonged to both. Then there were lesser parties like the States Rights party which, while never a major party, were still very influencial. In the case of the States Rights party, it was established mostly by Southern Democrats in the 40's and was only really active in one presidential election but established many of the platforms that the Republocan party would adopt during the above mentioned Southern Realignment a decade later. So much like Europe's Green parties it was never top tier but still influential.
That's all off the top of my head but should be fairly accurate.
In terms of the presidency what you describe isn't very common.Very few of our presidential candidates from the last several decades weren't centrists.
Parties have come and gone in the US. US political parties have also changed quite a bit during different periods of our history. The most recent example would be the Southern realignment of the 60's and 70's that created the modern Democratic and Republican parties we see today. Before that took place the two parties looked very different than they do today.
Right now we may even be witnessing a major change in party philosophy for both parties.
"Social constructs only exist to the extent you invest in them."
No, social constructs will exist even if I don't invest in them.
"Why do you want to reinforce a toxic social construct?"
Why is it toxic, because it's used divisively? Any difference between people can be used divisively. Should we get rid of religion? How about political opinions? Sexuality? How about nationality?
"You've now conceded that not only am I right but that the best path forward should be do exactly what I am doing which is withdraw investment from them."
When on earth did that happen? Please quote me.
"If it is merely a social construct and you appreciate that it is divisive and counter productive... then why would you invest in it as a concept?"
And now you're just running on some sort of fantasy narrative for this discussion. Quote me please where I "appreciate that it is divisive and counter productive".
Oh jeez, how epicly deep of you. Why don't you go play thought police somewhere else? It would be a shame if some one voiced an oppinion you didn't agree with and you weren't there to troll them by putting words they didnt say into their mouths. You can even pretend you're a good guy protecting your world view (the only world view) by trolling others in internet forums with nothing of intellectual substance until the only person left talking to you is one that doesn't mind fucking with trolls.
Well the key problem here is the statements don't contradict each other. I think people shouldnt drive loud cars but they're still free to do so. I don't think young kids should watch rated R movies but parents are still free to let them watch them. Likewise, I think it would be good for American cinema if it had more than just white males directing the bulk of its films but studios are still free to do what they like with their money.
This seems to be very upsetting for you but you're going to have to deal with the fact that people have all sorts of thoughts about how they feel the world would work better and there is nothing wrong with voicing those thoughts.
Jesus you don't give up. Once again (with the incredibly minor change in wording to satisfy your sematics game) me saying it would be good is not telling some one to do something. It would be good if the grocery store gave me free ice cream but in saying that I'm not telling them to do that.
"2. Rotten Tomatoes measures how popular something is. Using it as a exclusively as "proof" of measurement of "quality" is shows you don't understand point #1 nor #2."
The user score kind of does that but the professional reviewer score certainly does not. But even if these metrics only purely measure popularity as you say (which they don't), that would still mean that highly rated movies aren't "widely regarded as being bad". This is more than simple correlation here, a high score literally means people don't think it's bad. That's literally what low scores are for on these sites.
"3. There is a HUGE disconnect between the RT's "Critics" and "Audience" score."
Which is why I posted both the user review and the professional reviewers scores and they more or less match here so I don't see what you're getting at. If they didn't match then that would be cause for doubt but since they match a conclusion can be reliably reached,
"4. Rotten Tomatoes pull shenanigans like this: They don't count half stars!"
I'm not in a position to watch the video but there's no way a movie score could go from 91% (last Jedi's current score) to 24% by rounding off half stars. It's mathematically impossible. At most it would cause a score variation of 10%.on a 5 star scale.
"The problem is people like you conflate "popular" == good, or RT "high score" == good, when that simply isn't the case."
You're still not getting what I'm saying here. I AM NOT SAYING AVATAR IS GOOD OR BAD. I am only pointing to the clear evidence that Avatar is not "widely regarded as a bad movie". If you move beyond the aggregate score and look at the individual reviews on RT or Metacritic you will see mostly good to great reviews. Dozens of critics and two websites devoted to user scores clearly show that the movie is not "widely regarded as bad". If users widely regarded it as bad they would widely give it low scores. If critics regarded it as bad they would give it low scores. That's literally what those numbers are for on those two websites.
Meanwhile, all you've done is say the movie is bad because you say it is and that's fine but that doesn't change reality.
"1). You could as easily argue George Lucas or Spielberg are what they used to be. Everyone can see they're not. Look at the more recent Ridely Scott movies... they're not as good as the old ones. They're stale... Tired."
Once again, just because you don't like the movies doesn't mean anyone isn't a top tier director. Your personal taste only matters to you. The reality is all of the directors you mention except Lucas (who doesn't seem to direct anymore) get top tier movies to direct from studios. Your personal tastes do not alter reality! You're literally ignoring an easily observed reality that they're still sought after and successful directors and claiming the opposite because you don't like their movies.
As for the rest, I've already established race matters by pointing out the world around us. I don't see why I need to waste my time stepping through your comments and word games and replying to everything in turn when a simple look around at the world we live in verifies that race as a social construct exists, If race didn't exist all of those groups I mention wouldn't use it as a categorizing tool. If you can't answer the simple question:"If race isn't real why does the government, social scientists, corporate marketing, etc. use it as a tool for categorizing people?" then we're done here.
By the way, you're not being insightful telling me that race is a social construct. I'm well aware of that. That doesn't make it not real.
In both cases here you are ignoring overwhelming practical examples in the real world in favor of your own opinions and word play.
Oh good, a post full of stuff you claim I said or mean that you just made up.
I'm a white guy so I "watch movies directed by a true representative of your (my) demographic." because that's just 90% of what's out there. No where have I even come close to suggesting that movies shouldn't be about entertainment but I suppose it is fun to make stuff up.
"Those who have money are spending / investing the way they want. Lacking the money, you have no right to tell them how to use theirs. I don't see a problem."
No where have I told anyone how to spend their own money, I've simply voiced an opinion (agreeing with Cameron) that Hollywood could use more directors that aren't white guys. Guess what, my opinions are non binding to others! Other people don't have to listen to them and in this case the relevant people won't even hear them
"Next question clarifies that. Without success criteria, yours is not a goal but a rant."
That's not true at all. I'm simply agreeing with Cameron that Hollywood could use more non white guy directors. I don't need a fully functioning solution along with target goals to have a simple idea. Unless you're the thought police. Are you the thought police? Have the laws changed and I'm not allowed to speak my mind anymore?
"How many races ? Of course the race 17/64th Mongolian , 3/16th Caucasian, 7/32nd African American and 21/64th African is hugely underrepresented in the movie industry. Within this race, I find it hugely unfair that the mitochondrial DNA is hugely skewed towards Caucasian and African to an almost total exclusion of Mongolian. NOT FAIR waaaah."
No, the already established races will do just fine. The US census has pretty much handled the establishment of broad racial categories.
"I was unaware that they gained wide acceptance without giving people what they want - entertainment, satisfaction, some art even contributes in giving audience a sense of fulfillment . Do you have any evidence that audience chose these art forms due to the demographic profile ? If not, the entertaining people would entertain regardless of demographic profile. The boring people would rot in a corner. I don't see a problem."
For starters, this doesn't address anything I said in the quote you site above it. I don't think you read what I wrote there as it has nothing to do with choosing media based on demographic or that entertainers in any way shape or form gained acceptance by not giving people what they want.
I think it's fun that Cameron's simple observation that we could use more non white guy directors has you making all sorts of assumptions based on zero evidence though!
I never said Avatar was either good or bad. I only refuted the idea put forward that it was "widely regarded as being bad".and provided the data to back up my claim.
"So go and watch movies directed by a true representative of your demographic. It is legal, I assure you."
It sure is and I do. Not sure if you're trying to get at something here.
"You could fund members of this more varied talented people to make movies. That is also legal."
I'm not a movie financier and lack both the funds and the desire to enter such a profession.
""More variety" than what ?"
I'm not trying to be insulting but I can't believe you are asking that. More variety than conditions as they are now obviously.
"When do we stop increasing "variety" to make it better ?"
Don't know. That's not a reason to have a goal towards more variety though
"What exactly does variety mean ?"
Once again, my apologies but I can't believe you're asking about that. Obviously more variety in regards to race and gender. That's literally what the whole thread has been about.
Imagine a world where minorities and women never gained wide acceptance in American music. No rap, no rock, no R&B (just to mention a small bit), just the blandness that comes from a single perspective. Plus, we wouldn't even have a clue as to what we were missing.
Now take a look at the Summer movie hits coming up.
What you're saying (regardless of its validity) doesnt change the fact that it clearly isnt "widely considered to be a bad movie". That has been my only point in regards to the movie.
A) Cameron is still an A list director whether you like it or not. Studios don't throw Avatar sequel type of money at a B lister B) Fine, you're right, race doesnt matter. Everyone in marketing, the social sciences, government, and hundreds of other professions who use race to catagorize have it wrong and you have it right. All categories are clearly meaningless because they aren't perfect representarions of every single item in them as well.
A) Zero interest in debating Avatar and Titanic as it's a tangent dependant on taste and conjecture (hence me suggesting we agree to disagree) B) I'm not going to debate you in the direction you want to take this conversation either. If you really believe that race and gender dont matter then you can take your arguement to every single person who works with population statistics (including the movie industry) because they all believe those catagories are meaningfull.
"Titanic is more likely to be remembered than Avatar."
Man, we're going to have to agree to disagree on that point because I couldnt disagree more.
As for the race and gender stuff...
Men and women, whites and non whites, they have very different life experiences. Cinema is telling stories and having stories told by a variety of sources only makes to medium stronger. To use popular music as an analogy as you did, imagine where it would be if it was still mostly white guys. I would suggests that our summer block busters (overwhelming directed by white guys) are as culturally stagnant as how our music would be in that hypothetical scenario.
"I'm not sure where you're coming from with the "killing content" stuff." I think you're applying your own biases there as that is newly brought to the discussion by you. There are no talk of quotas here.
Slashdot Mirror
Well as I got at before the Democratic and Republican parties have changed in radical enough ways in the past that they might as well be brand new parties. In the realignment I mention above the Democrats went from the party of the South to the party of the North which made for political changes in both parties that were as significant as the geographic switch.
After that, off the top of my head there were the Federalists and Whigs who were both one of the top two parties in the country at one point. Multiple US presidents belonged to both. Then there were lesser parties like the States Rights party which, while never a major party, were still very influencial. In the case of the States Rights party, it was established mostly by Southern Democrats in the 40's and was only really active in one presidential election but established many of the platforms that the Republocan party would adopt during the above mentioned Southern Realignment a decade later. So much like Europe's Green parties it was never top tier but still influential.
That's all off the top of my head but should be fairly accurate.
In terms of the presidency what you describe isn't very common.Very few of our presidential candidates from the last several decades weren't centrists.
Parties have come and gone in the US. US political parties have also changed quite a bit during different periods of our history. The most recent example would be the Southern realignment of the 60's and 70's that created the modern Democratic and Republican parties we see today. Before that took place the two parties looked very different than they do today.
Right now we may even be witnessing a major change in party philosophy for both parties.
"Social constructs only exist to the extent you invest in them."
No, social constructs will exist even if I don't invest in them.
"Why do you want to reinforce a toxic social construct?"
Why is it toxic, because it's used divisively? Any difference between people can be used divisively. Should we get rid of religion? How about political opinions? Sexuality? How about nationality?
"You've now conceded that not only am I right but that the best path forward should be do exactly what I am doing which is withdraw investment from them."
When on earth did that happen? Please quote me.
"If it is merely a social construct and you appreciate that it is divisive and counter productive... then why would you invest in it as a concept?"
And now you're just running on some sort of fantasy narrative for this discussion. Quote me please where I "appreciate that it is divisive and counter productive".
"Straighten your shit out."
Live in the real world. Race does not equal bad.
"Because you say they aren't?"
No, because they aren't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
While not entirely representative of reality, they're unscripted TV which is not what a soap opera is at all. There is no story arc.
If you can't see that then you're probably the type to leave a smarmy comment at the end of a slashdot post, jackass
Hahahaha, I'm "projecting". That's rich coming from you https://slashdot.org/comments....
Oh jeez, how epicly deep of you. Why don't you go play thought police somewhere else? It would be a shame if some one voiced an oppinion you didn't agree with and you weren't there to troll them by putting words they didnt say into their mouths. You can even pretend you're a good guy protecting your world view (the only world view) by trolling others in internet forums with nothing of intellectual substance until the only person left talking to you is one that doesn't mind fucking with trolls.
Well the key problem here is the statements don't contradict each other. I think people shouldnt drive loud cars but they're still free to do so. I don't think young kids should watch rated R movies but parents are still free to let them watch them. Likewise, I think it would be good for American cinema if it had more than just white males directing the bulk of its films but studios are still free to do what they like with their money.
This seems to be very upsetting for you but you're going to have to deal with the fact that people have all sorts of thoughts about how they feel the world would work better and there is nothing wrong with voicing those thoughts.
Jesus you don't give up. Once again (with the incredibly minor change in wording to satisfy your sematics game) me saying it would be good is not telling some one to do something. It would be good if the grocery store gave me free ice cream but in saying that I'm not telling them to do that.
"Hope you are not lying about your own stance about North Korea though :"
What stance is that?
"You have no say on what Hollywood "could" do or not do with their money."
Yeah, I more or less said that already.
"2. Rotten Tomatoes measures how popular something is. Using it as a exclusively as "proof" of measurement of "quality" is shows you don't understand point #1 nor #2."
The user score kind of does that but the professional reviewer score certainly does not. But even if these metrics only purely measure popularity as you say (which they don't), that would still mean that highly rated movies aren't "widely regarded as being bad". This is more than simple correlation here, a high score literally means people don't think it's bad. That's literally what low scores are for on these sites.
"3. There is a HUGE disconnect between the RT's "Critics" and "Audience" score."
Which is why I posted both the user review and the professional reviewers scores and they more or less match here so I don't see what you're getting at. If they didn't match then that would be cause for doubt but since they match a conclusion can be reliably reached,
"4. Rotten Tomatoes pull shenanigans like this: They don't count half stars!"
I'm not in a position to watch the video but there's no way a movie score could go from 91% (last Jedi's current score) to 24% by rounding off half stars. It's mathematically impossible. At most it would cause a score variation of 10%.on a 5 star scale.
"The problem is people like you conflate "popular" == good, or RT "high score" == good, when that simply isn't the case."
You're still not getting what I'm saying here. I AM NOT SAYING AVATAR IS GOOD OR BAD. I am only pointing to the clear evidence that Avatar is not "widely regarded as a bad movie". If you move beyond the aggregate score and look at the individual reviews on RT or Metacritic you will see mostly good to great reviews. Dozens of critics and two websites devoted to user scores clearly show that the movie is not "widely regarded as bad". If users widely regarded it as bad they would widely give it low scores. If critics regarded it as bad they would give it low scores. That's literally what those numbers are for on those two websites.
Meanwhile, all you've done is say the movie is bad because you say it is and that's fine but that doesn't change reality.
Nothing!
I don't do anything about North Korea getting nukes either!
"1). You could as easily argue George Lucas or Spielberg are what they used to be. Everyone can see they're not. Look at the more recent Ridely Scott movies... they're not as good as the old ones. They're stale... Tired."
Once again, just because you don't like the movies doesn't mean anyone isn't a top tier director. Your personal taste only matters to you. The reality is all of the directors you mention except Lucas (who doesn't seem to direct anymore) get top tier movies to direct from studios. Your personal tastes do not alter reality! You're literally ignoring an easily observed reality that they're still sought after and successful directors and claiming the opposite because you don't like their movies.
As for the rest, I've already established race matters by pointing out the world around us. I don't see why I need to waste my time stepping through your comments and word games and replying to everything in turn when a simple look around at the world we live in verifies that race as a social construct exists, If race didn't exist all of those groups I mention wouldn't use it as a categorizing tool. If you can't answer the simple question :"If race isn't real why does the government, social scientists, corporate marketing, etc. use it as a tool for categorizing people?" then we're done here.
By the way, you're not being insightful telling me that race is a social construct. I'm well aware of that. That doesn't make it not real.
In both cases here you are ignoring overwhelming practical examples in the real world in favor of your own opinions and word play.
Oh good, a post full of stuff you claim I said or mean that you just made up.
I'm a white guy so I "watch movies directed by a true representative of your (my) demographic." because that's just 90% of what's out there. No where have I even come close to suggesting that movies shouldn't be about entertainment but I suppose it is fun to make stuff up.
"Those who have money are spending / investing the way they want. Lacking the money, you have no right to tell them how to use theirs. I don't see a problem."
No where have I told anyone how to spend their own money, I've simply voiced an opinion (agreeing with Cameron) that Hollywood could use more directors that aren't white guys. Guess what, my opinions are non binding to others! Other people don't have to listen to them and in this case the relevant people won't even hear them
"Next question clarifies that. Without success criteria, yours is not a goal but a rant."
That's not true at all. I'm simply agreeing with Cameron that Hollywood could use more non white guy directors. I don't need a fully functioning solution along with target goals to have a simple idea. Unless you're the thought police. Are you the thought police? Have the laws changed and I'm not allowed to speak my mind anymore?
"How many races ? Of course the race 17/64th Mongolian , 3/16th Caucasian, 7/32nd African American and 21/64th African is hugely underrepresented in the movie industry. Within this race, I find it hugely unfair that the mitochondrial DNA is hugely skewed towards Caucasian and African to an almost total exclusion of Mongolian. NOT FAIR waaaah."
No, the already established races will do just fine. The US census has pretty much handled the establishment of broad racial
categories.
"I was unaware that they gained wide acceptance without giving people what they want - entertainment, satisfaction, some art even contributes in giving audience a sense of fulfillment . Do you have any evidence that audience chose these art forms due to the demographic profile ? If not, the entertaining people would entertain regardless of demographic profile. The boring people would rot in a corner. I don't see a problem."
For starters, this doesn't address anything I said in the quote you site above it. I don't think you read what I wrote there as it has nothing to do with choosing media based on demographic or that entertainers in any way shape or form gained acceptance by not giving people what they want.
I think it's fun that Cameron's simple observation that we could use more non white guy directors has you making all sorts of assumptions based on zero evidence though!
"You are completely missing the points."
Sigh... no you are.
I never said Avatar was either good or bad. I only refuted the idea put forward that it was "widely regarded as being bad".and provided the data to back up my claim.
"So go and watch movies directed by a true representative of your demographic. It is legal, I assure you."
It sure is and I do. Not sure if you're trying to get at something here.
"You could fund members of this more varied talented people to make movies. That is also legal."
I'm not a movie financier and lack both the funds and the desire to enter such a profession.
""More variety" than what ?"
I'm not trying to be insulting but I can't believe you are asking that. More variety than conditions as they are now obviously.
"When do we stop increasing "variety" to make it better ?"
Don't know. That's not a reason to have a goal towards more variety though
"What exactly does variety mean ?"
Once again, my apologies but I can't believe you're asking about that. Obviously more variety in regards to race and gender. That's literally what the whole thread has been about.
Imagine a world where minorities and women never gained wide acceptance in American music. No rap, no rock, no R&B (just to mention a small bit), just the blandness that comes from a single perspective. Plus, we wouldn't even have a clue as to what we were missing.
Now take a look at the Summer movie hits coming up.
What you're saying (regardless of its validity) doesnt change the fact that it clearly isnt "widely considered to be a bad movie". That has been my only point in regards to the movie.
I've provided 4 data points that clearly refute the claim that Avatar is widely regarded as bad.
You've voiced your oppinion.
Thanks!
A) Cameron is still an A list director whether you like it or not. Studios don't throw Avatar sequel type of money at a B lister
B) Fine, you're right, race doesnt matter. Everyone in marketing, the social sciences, government, and hundreds of other professions who use race to catagorize have it wrong and you have it right. All categories are clearly meaningless because they aren't perfect representarions of every single item in them as well.
What a fool I am...
A) Zero interest in debating Avatar and Titanic as it's a tangent dependant on taste and conjecture (hence me suggesting we agree to disagree)
B) I'm not going to debate you in the direction you want to take this conversation either. If you really believe that race and gender dont matter then you can take your arguement to every single person who works with population statistics (including the movie industry) because they all believe those catagories are meaningfull.
Of course real house wives and the kardashians arent soap operas. The rest of your examples are decades old.
...and this is 2018.
How much contact do you have with women? I ask because I've never had a female friend or dated some one who watched soaps.
Soaps are widely regarded as a haven for B list actors and B list writing. Prime material does not recieve a 1pm weekday time slot.
As another way of putting it, if lady's (just over 50% of the population) were all about soap operas they'd have a better time slot.
Sure but that does not refute what i said at all.
"Titanic is more likely to be remembered than Avatar."
Man, we're going to have to agree to disagree on that point because I couldnt disagree more.
As for the race and gender stuff...
Men and women, whites and non whites, they have very different life experiences. Cinema is telling stories and having stories told by a variety of sources only makes to medium stronger. To use popular music as an analogy as you did, imagine where it would be if it was still mostly white guys. I would suggests that our summer block busters (overwhelming directed by white guys) are as culturally stagnant as how our music would be in that hypothetical scenario.
"I'm not sure where you're coming from with the "killing content" stuff." I think you're applying your own biases there as that is newly brought to the discussion by you. There are no talk of quotas here.