Emmet isn't even white. He's yellow. As far as I'm concerned, you guys are all either colorblind or racist. /micdrop

[quote="Lesser_Hamster"]in all seriousness, advocating equal representation in media isn't a threatening or scary proposition. In fact, it's pretty reasonable.[/quote]

Yeah, and as far as GR's Gender Lectures go, this is totally lightweight. I found the "representation" issue particularly relevant in the Lego Movie because it's premised on the idea literally anybody could be the lead. While it is true, whitebread Emmet is "anybody", he is distinctly [i]somebody.[/i]

One big concept in talking about race and privilege and shit is that...although maleness, straightness, and whiteness fly under the radar (Emmet, Neo, Woody, for example) these identifiers are just as distinct, meaningful, and political as femaleness, queerness, and non-whiteness. It's kind of a mindfuck because we never think about it, but Emmet's identity signifiers, are *just as important and relevant* compared to the hypothetical Lego Movie heroine Thinline suggested, a black, bisexual transwoman. But we read Emmet as "default human" rather than a "special case", "Other", or "liberal Hollywood implementing Affirmative Action policies in movies." Emmet isn't a straight white dude, he's just Emmet. That's what privilege looks like.

Anecdote: early on in a Sociology 100 class, my prof did an experiment: "Raise your hand if you have been treated differently because of your race." Only a few hands went up - mostly [sic] brown people. I nervously half-raised my hand, but not really. The correct answer was that every single person in that (mostly white) room should have raised their hands, because whiteness is a huge factor in how you are treated in society. But to white people, it's invisible - you are the default Lego person. [url=http://amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html]This shit is a classic on the topic[/url]

And Aplaca, if you wanna talk race, I could mention how Morgan Freeman's character is the only brown Lego person in an entire cast of yellow (coded: White) Lego people.

That said, Lego Movie was still really sharp and entertaining. If I had kids, I would totally take them to see it. I could totally be participating in another Lego Movie thread about what I found excellent about the movie, which characters I liked most, what my favorite scenes were, how I thought the ending twist was actually not terrible and sort of tasteful...but this just happens to be where we are right now, and it happens to be a topic I care a lot about. So there ya go!

Thanks for the extra clarification about your complaints; I didn't get the gist from your first post that she was being dumped into the trophy role, as I hadn't seen the movie (like I said).

I feel like a lot of this particular expression of automatic male focus may have a lot to do with long-standing attitudes towards toys in our society; as a movie that was based on children's toys with a long-standing history of predominantly being marketed towards young boys, I'm not too surprised that they would build their story around something akin to a 5 year-old's imagination with some twists to try and make it appeal to a broad audience.

But you're absolutely right that they didn't go far enough to try and make a truly intelligent piece of art, from the sounds of it.






Also d'awwwww moment: GR, you put up with much shit from much people, and fire back aggressively, but at the end of the day you are ALWAYS also reaching out the olive branch and trying to make sure that the substance of the conversation doesn't get lost in cheap shots. Your patience for helping people think about things in different ways, even when I don't agree with the full extent of your stances on things sometimes, is an admirable trait and I think you've gotten a lot better at discussing these issues in a very positive way over the years. Thanks for that.

Edit: Also, Thinline, I lol'd, but it does seem like you missed GR's point a bit (which, to be fair, he expanded upon and clarified mostly after your post; I missed a lot of his point as well).

Thanks.

also
[quote="Marekenshin"]may have a lot to do with long-standing attitudes towards toys in our society[/quote]

Yeah, that probably has something to do with it, but overall it's just kinda where we are now in Western media. Anybody see Elysium? Anybody think it was a little strange that Matt Damon is inexplicably the only white dude in a vast city of Mexicans?

Nobody's saying your movie's bad if you cast a white dude hero. But given the state of ~things~, it's simply valid to note that doing so doesn't really help the state of diverse representation in film. or tv/games.

[quote="GoldenRhino"]Nobody's saying your movie's bad if you cast a white dude hero. But given the state of ~things~, it's simply valid to note that doing so doesn't really help the state of diverse representation in film. or tv/games.[/quote]
It's certainly valid. It really makes you wonder, "Why not?" Are they afraid of lowering their bottom line? Is there some kind of data that proves people are less willing to spend money on entertainment that feature slightly-less-than-Caucasian males? I'm kind of unwilling to believe that. I grew up in the middle of Bumfuck, Tennessee, and people around here love Harold and Kumar just as much as they love Ricky Bobby.

I don't exactly have strong opinions about stuff like this. Hell, most of the time when I'm reading these diversity related articles/discussions I have to remind myself that I'm not white and probably should care a little more. Not being very analytical or observant while consuming media most likely doesn't help matters. My apathy wanes year after year though, and it's kind of fun to join the discussion.

To stay on topic.. I really don't agree with the casting of Will Ferrell. I mean, it's fine, but just imagine Willem Dafoe screaming at his son over fucking with his Legos. Red face, veiny neck, bug eyes, wobbly cheeks, saliva flying and streaming between his lips. Hilarious.

I like that we're having this level of conversation about a kids' movie. Really, I do.

I appreciate your point GR, I am all for having more diverse lead roles (The Heat = lady buddy cop movie = YES!!).

Although I didn't think that Wyldstyle solely became a trophy (not that there wasn't some trophyism going on), I do vaguely recall her continuing to kick butt through the end of the movie, along with Princess Unikitty.

Point taken on the idea of kids' movies over-emphasizing 'you can do anything!'. Hard work and failure are not, well, entertaining things to show in an entertainment medium. That's just Hollywood's attitude - easier to sell a happy story. I was completely unsurprised they changed the ending of Edge of Tomorrow (based on the Japanese story All You Need is Kill) - not completely, but just enough.

I am actually not as concerned over minority races in big movie roles as I used to be because I came to an obvious realization... in other countries, the actors are all the race of that country (although there are countries with races that aren't represented as much because they don't have a movie industry, and India gots its own problems I've heard with the fixation on pale skin). Yes, the US is arguably a special case because we're a mixing bowl or whatever. I too still would be happy to see more diversity, however.

dis thred
tl;dr

[quote="Blank"]dis thred
tl;dr[/quote]

thanks for showin up, Blank.

Unrelated, but--

[url=http://mashable.com/2014/07/14/archie-dies-gay-friend-comic-book/?utm_cid=mash-com-fb-ent-link]Archie Killed While Saving Gay Friend[/url]

Saw this and it sort of reminded me of this thread. Like, it's nice to see gay characters represented in Archie, but isn't this just another case of: "Whitey (or, in this case, [i]straight[/i] guy) saves the day"? Am I off base here?

"It's thanks to the sacrifice of the noble straight/white/able-bodied character that the day/victim/situation is saved!!"

I dunno. Maybe I'm just reading too deeply into shit after this thread

LOL WTF? I'm just so surprised that they're *killing* Archie (albeit in some spin-off). Not that I know anything about Archie, just...huh.

Yeah it's a little suspect, especially since it's "Archie is killed while saving [b]gay[/b] friend." Not "friend" - "gay friend." So yeah, sure, there are visible gay people Archie cares about in this world. Cool. More gay characters are cool - ideally though, "characters who also happen to be gay". Watching out for tokenism here.

But yeah, if you're trying to draw attention to homosexuality being totally fine and an acceptable part of American society, having straight people racking up all of the credit for showing everyone the light is kinda backwards. The whole Macklemore "Same Love" situation. It's not like you can blame people for liking a pro-gay anthem written by a straight person - I know a number of people across the sexuality spectrum who appreciate it. But I also know some people who roll their eyes hard, because 1) "Same Love"'s incredible success was greatly secured by it being a product of a straight man. 2) The artist is therefore being hailed as a "socially conscious" rapper when others have been putting out the same messages in their music for years. 3) The artist hasn't given shoutouts (or shifted the spotlight) to actual gay people doing the actual work of demanding acceptance and criticizing our homophobic culture.

Always good questions to ask: Who is actually benefiting from this? Who is the spotlight shining on? Is this only happening because a minority group representing [b]itself[/b] would be too extreme and radical for a mainstream audience to handle?

LOL

Relevant:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3408#comic