MovieChat Forums > Ismailov > Replies
Ismailov's Replies
I said nothing about "systemic racism." I said that Cody took advantage of Hollywood's willingness to hire Native Americans for Native American roles, not that there was a racist conspiracy to elevate him above actually indigenous actors.
If you can't see the problem with America's best-known Native American being someone who lied about being indigenous, I don't know what to tell you. As I said, it doesn't negate the good he did, but it is certainly grounds for criticism.
Yes, as I said, claiming to be a "real Indian" evidently helped his career and public persona. If he had said he was an Italian-American who really, really liked Native American culture, it seems safe to say his filmography would have been shorter and his role in pop culture not nearly as significant.
I don't understand your point that, conceivably, an actual indigenous person could have obtained Cody's film and TV roles if things had been different. It doesn't change the fact that precisely because there were people in Hollywood willing to hire indigenous actors, Cody took advantage of this situation by pretending to be indigenous. Likewise I'm sure the people behind the Crying Indian ad wanted a "real Indian" in the role.
There's no contradiction between him being a liar and also doing good things. There were Native Americans who knew Cody and who felt that he deserved to be considered an honorary Native American. I think this is an understandable point of view. But there are also Native Americans who are more critical, and I think that's also understandable. Plenty of historical figures, including many actors, were flawed individuals.
While I agree that Kananga's dastardly scheme is relatively normal, the notion of the Prime Minister of a foreign country pretending to be a totally separate individual in charge of a Harlem street gang is pretty silly even by the standards of Bond films. I'm sure Kananga could have bought off the leader of a gang and incorporated said gang into his operations.
As I wrote, "he certainly did help promote Native American organizations and causes." I'm not trying to posthumously "cancel" him or whatever, just pointing to a certain ambiguity about his life.
He did do good things with his fame, but at the end of the day the closest thing America had to an unofficial representative of all that is Native American was a guy who was no more indigenous than Columbus and who lied in order to get into a position where he could "promote NA awareness."
It wasn't until the mid-1990s (by which time Cody was retired from acting) that a journalist tracked down his Sicilian-American relatives and reported Cody's upbringing in an immigrant household. Until then it seems the world at large had no idea Cody had fabricated his early life to claim he was indigenous.
Claiming to be the real deal clearly helped his acting career and his public persona (e.g. he got to meet Presidents Carter and Reagan, as well as Pope John Paul II.) But he also seemed to *want* to be Native American ever since childhood. Hollywood gave him the opportunity to embrace a fictional version of his life as well as make a living off of it. His wife was actually indigenous, as were their adopted children, and he certainly did help promote Native American organizations and causes. Yet he clearly lied and benefited from American pop culture's fascination with the "vanishing Indian."
I know this is an old thread, but Roy and his fellow Replicants are "dangerous and vicious" because they basically carried out the equivalent of a slave revolt to get to earth, and any human they come into contact with is likely to either kill them or report their existence to those who want them dead.
The genetic engineers they kill are pretty much equivalent to slave breeders. Sebastian for example is partly responsible for the Replicants having a four-year lifespan (hence his remark "there's some of me in you" after it's noted he has "Methuselah syndrome.") It makes sense why a Replicant would hold them in deep contempt and kill them.
If I had to guess, Deckard figured a more "subtle" cover for approaching Zhora would be pretty pointless, since she evidently knows there are humans seeking to hunt down and kill her and her friends.
IMO it isn't so much "Roy learned to respect human life" (it isn't like he kills just any random humans he comes across) as trying to prove to a blade runner that Replicants are "more human" (emotionally) than those who create or kill them. Deckard will have that memory for the rest of his life. A dead man wouldn't.
Deckard isn't the first nor last blade runner, so killing him won't put an end to the blade runner unit, nor does killing him bring the other Replicants back from the dead. I suppose one could also argue that Roy screwed Deckard's fingers pretty badly, so that even if they heal they'll never be quite the same for shooting.
I don't expect a reply nine years later, but I wouldn't say the title is misleading. The film revolves around a guy who mows lawns for a living before his life gets drastically changed. As a tagline put it, "God made him simple. Science made him a god."
I can't imagine what the plot could be. Eddie Moscone holds a grudge against Jack for 30+ years and suddenly decides it's time to blow up his coffee shop?
And if De Niro isn't going to be in front of the camera, should it even be called Midnight Run 2? It's either going to be a very different movie (which is fine in itself), or it's just going to look like a lame retread of the first one.
(I prematurely clicked "add reply" before I was done finishing my post, hence why there's a deleted post of mine)
<blockquote>Probably not in a significant manner, but almost certainly in some manner. There are enough anti Woke people around. Just look at these boards and Youtube.</blockquote>
The point I was making is that the franchise appearing "woke" is largely based on business considerations. If briefly mentioning Q's sexuality would have been a risky financial decision, then I doubt those behind the film would have gone through with it. The lack of outcry over the subject suggests that they knew there would be little cause for concern as far as profits go.
<blockquote>If a politician passes a law that screws over workers due to him believing in it or due to him caving to corporate pressure, does it matter? No. He still screwed over the workers.</blockquote>
The comparison isn't the same, because in this case it's multiple corporate entities involved in the Bond franchise, who evidently felt compelled to appear (as you put it) "woke." I'd argue it's because they are trying to keep up with societal trends in a bid to emphasize how "relevant" the franchise is. You claim it's merely for "ideological reasons," but you can't seem to provide evidence aside from vaguely mentioning a "gay lobby."
<blockquote>Even liberals like Bill Maher called them a mafia.</blockquote>
I don't consider Bill Maher an authority on anything except being a smug jackass.
<blockquote>Conspiracy means doing something illegal.</blockquote>
Since you seem to be going by a dictionary definition, it can also be defined as doing something harmful, which you evidently consider the case.
<blockquote>The movie definitely won't do any better because they put a gay guy and a Black woman in it.</blockquote>
Profits have been made and they can point to the two characters to undermine "woke" criticisms of the franchise. From a business perspective, it makes sense to do what they did.
<blockquote>Weather they did it in order to appease the gay lobby mafia or because the writers themselves believe in this ideology is irrelevant.</blockquote>
It is relevant if one actually wants to understand why it's done, instead of just ranting and bringing up contradictory explanations because you don't like what you call the "promotion" of homosexuality.
<blockquote>People doing what they openly believe in is not a conspiracy.</blockquote>
Then why use terms like "brainwashing" or "mafia"?
<blockquote>There doesn't need to be a campaign to boycott the film in order for a movie to be financially negatively hit.</blockquote>
Then how do you know a film is being "financially negatively hit" in any significant manner? "Get woke, go broke" clearly doesn't apply to this film given how it's doing at the box office. And as I said, there's far more complaints about Lashana Lynch's character than there has been about Q being written as a homosexual.
<blockquote>. . . putting Black woman and gays in a movie in 2021 is due to wokneness and political agenda? It's fucking obviously true.</blockquote>
But again, you're treating this as some sort of conspiracy entirely above the heads of moviegoers and the operations of a market economy, rather than businesses trying to keep up with (and monetize) trends in society.
In your world the widespread acceptance of homosexuality in the West, and the representation of homosexuals in pop culture in "normal" contexts (i.e. not as flamboyant weirdos or killers or something), is reducible to a political agenda by nefarious individuals. Meanwhile your own opposition to what you call "promoting" homosexuality is, somehow, not an agenda.
<blockquote>They didn't have him gay in previous Bonds because social attitudes towards homosexuality were more conservative back then</blockquote>
But why would that matter if those responsible for the films had a "political agenda" and were willing to promote it against the wishes of audiences?
<blockquote>the "woke" virtue signalling far leftist ideology hasn't yet infested the society as much as it has today. The gay lobby today now proudly demands that. . .</blockquote>
In other words, those responsible for financing and creating the films feel compelled to do it? That isn't a "political agenda" on their part then, that's caving in to pressure.
Remember, if an individual or organization is "virtue signaling," that implies they don't really care about a subject and are just pretending to do so to look "good."
<blockquote>My point was that the movie isn't doing any better because of it</blockquote>
I wasn't arguing about that though. I was taking issue with your strange arguments that essentially treat the widespread acceptance of homosexuals in 2021 (and consequent expectation of seeing them represented in "normal" contexts within pop culture) as a conspiracy.
In reality, as I said, it's little more than an effort by a decades-old movie franchise to show how "modern" it is by saying "look, there's a gay character, the franchise is truly in the 21st century." It's largely a case of businesses trying to keep up with trends.
<blockquote>And how do you even know the movie hasn't suffered because of it?</blockquote>
Because not only has it been quite successful, but I'm not aware of any movement to boycott the film over the Q character, whereas you can be sure such a boycott <i>would</i> have existed as late as the 2000s, at the very least in the United States and other parts of Europe.
It's a safe bet there's more people refusing to see the film due to Lashana Lynch's character than because of a brief reference to Q's sexuality.
The movie clearly isn't suffering financially because of it. They can claim it's yet more evidence of how "modernized" Bond is, especially if the Q from this movie goes on to remain Q in future Bond films.
If it was merely "part of an agenda," why wasn't it done in any of the earlier Bond films? Why is it only done in 2021 when homosexuality is, as I said, mainstream? If it's "virtue signaling" then that just confirms they're doing it because they're expected to do so, not because those in charge of the business side of things are willing to take giant financial risks to publicize their own political principles.
Black Muslims circa 1960 were far more likely to be reading <i>Message to the Blackman in America</i> by Elijah Muhammad than anything by Ibn Khaldun.
In other words, Islam mostly came to black Americans in the form of groups like the Moorish Science Temple, the Nation of Islam, the Five Percenters, etc., who had their own "unorthodox" beliefs and black-centered spin on the religion.
As for mainstream Muslims, they tend to play up the "universal" aspects of Islam and the fact that Muhammad freed a black slave named Bilal who became one of his most important associates. Of course, in reality, Muhammad's attitude toward slavery (and the practices of Islamic rulers and traders throughout the centuries) don't live up to the sanitized image, but that doesn't necessarily stop Africans from identifying with Islam any more than it stops them from identifying with Christianity (whose followers generally stress a similarly "universal" message despite centuries of theological justifications for slavery.)
Politics also played a part. There was a particularly strong effort in the 1960s-70s to promote pride in black culture, and Islam was seen as not only in some sense at odds with existing American society but led to black converts replacing their "slave names" with new ones (hence why Malcolm Little ended up by the end of his life known as el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz.)
When he was in the Nation of Islam, yes. After he left, no. When he went on a pilgrimage to Mecca he claimed that his views on race had changed. He also argued the following: "If white Americans would accept the religion of Islam, if they would accept the Oneness of Allah, then they could also sincerely accept the Oneness of Man, and they would cease to measure others always in terms of their differences in color. . . I do believe that whites of the younger generation, in the colleges and universities, through their own young, less hampered intellect, will see the 'handwriting on the wall' and turn for spiritual salvation to the religion of Islam and force the older generation of American whites to turn with them."
I can understand not liking that the writers decided "hey, let's show how inclusive we are by briefly noting one of Bond's sidekicks is a homosexual," since that can come across as condescending, opportunistic and/or lazy. I don't think there's much of a "political agenda" in it, for the simple reason that homosexuality is mainstream and plenty of shows and movies are expected to have some sort of gay representation. So the writers are basically just following the business trend.
If a Bond film in the 1960s-90s had implied Q was a homosexual, there would have been boycotts and a loss in sales. The decision would have only made sense in a political context (e.g. to challenge the prevailing portrayal of homosexuals in the media as perverts, criminals, and/or flamboyant caricatures.) It would have been a very risky decision for the franchise.
But in 2021, as I said, it's just seen as good business sense to have a secondary character who happens to be gay, even if it is irrelevant to the plot.
<blockquote>Gay population is only about 2%.</blockquote>
That isn't a good argument. 2% means about a million people in Britain, and homosexuals evidently come from all walks of life.
No doubt Q being a homosexual is an effort to "diversify" the characters, but it isn't shocking that at least one of Bond's associates in the year 2021 would be a homosexual. It'd be much more unlikely if Q were a Scientologist or a Bhutanese immigrant.
I'd say the Obruchev character is definitely inspired by Boris.
* Their first appearances involve their coworkers making fun of them, whereas Boris and Obruchev consider themselves superior to their coworkers.
* Their coworkers are killed with the connivance of both men, who are revealed to be working for the villain.
* They both act as the "brains" who are needed to put the villain's dastardly plan into operation.
* They pose no physical threat to Bond.
* They're clearly meant for comic relief.
* They show off their egos right before they die (Boris gloating how he's invincible, Obruchev gloating that he knows enough to be able to genocide specific races.)
I gotta say though, Boris is much more endearing. Obruchev just comes across as whiny and the writers seem too focused on giving viewers reasons to hate him.