MovieChat Forums > CaptBeefBlower > Replies
CaptBeefBlower's Replies
No one is crying or claiming that 1940s England was 100% white. This is a strawman that you've created in order to insult others. If anything, the overemotional and irrational one here is you.
In 1951, according to the best available data, about 99.8% of the population was white. Most of the non-white population was Asian. This leaves 0.05% of the population who came from West Africa and the West Indies. Some of that group would have been South Asian in origin, and 1951 was six years after the end of the war and three years after the start of the Windrush. So less than 0.05% of the population was black during the war. England wasn't 100% white during the Blitz, but it very nearly was. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_England, see 'Estimations of white and non-white population in England and Wales, 1951-1968')
The Blitz is a key foundation of modern British identity and myth-making, and the central narrative of the Blitz was that Londoners worked together to survive, overcoming class differences and living cheek by jowl in bomb shelters and on crowded Tube platforms. McQueen has gone to a great effort to put aside real people's lives and instead insert race and racism into an event that wasn't about race at all. Pointing out that this is obsessive and inappropriate isn't racist or privileged. I'm mixed-race myself, and I'm utterly sick and tired of the focus on skin colour and "white privilege".
Instead of whingeing about others' opinions, make the positive case for focusing on a black person during the Blitz. Out of the stories of 9 million Londoners, why is this the one that must be told? Remember that it's a fictional story - the boy never existed - while there's a plethora of true stories of tragedy, excitement, heroism, love, heartbreak, terror, etc. No one can claim that this is a story that demands to be told, because it never happened. All this focus on race does is divide us further.
Winning an Oscar for writing an adaptation of a classic novel barely counts... In fact, writing awards should be for original work only. Most of the words in Sense and Sensibility aren't Thompson's!
She's a good actor though.
Said no one ever. I think this woman does a good job of explaining the recent issues with Hollywood's female leads: https://youtu.be/Nqmd4iU8J3k?si=X_GsvrM-beuAlAr7
This is the correct answer. There's a guy called Roy Price who built Amazon Studios. He was cancelled for telling a dirty joke in a taxi, though it likely never even happened. He reckons that about 40% of entertainment industry cancellations were based on nothing whatsoever - they were purely made up. Many of the other cancellations were for minor infractions that deserved no more than a slap on the wrist.
Like all witch hunts, metoo was based on initial wrongdoing but then ballooned and ruined innocent people's lives, often with women strategically killing men's careers out of spite or for personal advantage.
She should apologise to him personally. Until she does that, she's still treating him unfairly.
It's not enough to recant her previous articles of faith. What a bizarre religion wokeness is...
It's utterly ridiculous. If race is so extremely important to these people, why do they treat it with such flippant disregard?
I always like to see him pop up in the most unexpected places. He often plays small roles but always makes an impression. I say the same thing as you - It's Finchy!
Ooof. Got a reason?
Amen.
Hahaha! I absolutely understand your frustration. How did we go from Halle Berry to these munters? There's an epidemic of ugly masculine black women in the media, mostly bald. See Cynthia Ervio, Lashana Lynch and Adjoa Andoh, and those are just the British examples.
Stats from dating apps consistently show that black women are the least desired ethic group, even among black men. And yet they are constantly pushed despite the total lack of demand.
It honestly seems like the ugliness is the point. It's to deny us pleasure and punish us for being male. Having attractive actresses would go against feminist principles, or something. So we're likely to be stuck in this purgatory until the fashion changes or some studios go out of business.
I see Phoebe Waller-Bridge has inserted herself into yet another franchise beloved of boys and men. Because that's exactly the area crying out for more snarky feminist humour...
I don't get the thought process. Studios pay through the nose for these existing IPs because they come with existing fanbases and recognisable characters, then proceed to alienate the fanbases and change the characters. Though, of course, this only happens when the fanbases are male.
I totally understand broadening an IP's appeal to capture a bigger audience, but you don't have to alienate the core demographic - people who may have been fans for decades - in order to achieve this. It's hard not to conclude that it's done on purpose for political or ideological reasons.
And why is it always such an ugly woman?
I've come to the conclusion that TV and movie producers don't want male viewers any more. Why else would they go to so much effort to remove anything that might make us watch, even in IPs that are naturally most attractive to men and boys? See Star Wars, Dr Who, Godzilla, etc. And apparently this is fine because wanting to see beautiful women or competent men makes us bigots.
We know that good will triumph over evil in this show, which means a black woman defeating a white man. Everything is political nowadays.
Yeah, what's up with eight two-minute rounds? Presumably it's so Tyson doesn't get gassed.
Heavyweight boxing's a joke these days, though not due to a lack of talent. It's ridiculous how boxers are allowed to pick and choose their fights and only have to step into the ring once every 12 months.
Why on earth do they do this? Are editors just too expensive nowadays? It really kills my interest in watching something. Perhaps producers think we assess value for money based on movie length rather than movie quality.
I thought it was slow, nonsensical trash and that Ferguson was completely forgettable. But each to their own.
What a bizarre article. The author makes it sound like a new kingdom of life has just been discovered, rather than organisms that have been known since the 19th century. This woman simply discovered a couple of new species in 2018.
Emma Stone seems fun.
S2 was a big step down from S1 because it was an ensemble affair. Reacher depended too much on other people rather than solving problems himself. It felt overblown and messy.
Please tell me this is sarcasm. The Dems should stop focusing on identity politics and instead focus on improving the economy and ordinary people's quality of life. A focus on equality is fine too, but it has to be beneficial for everyone, not just cover for positive discrimination. Solid policies on the economy, jobs, healthcare, the cost of living and education, delivered by someone who seems competent, would have won them the election. A lot of Democrat supporters are also off-puttingly obnoxious (see the OP for an example).