This is real
What if they just said they’re casting non white people AS white characters! Racist people should be fine with it. Just recast Frodo and have a black person still playing a white Frodo. They’re actors! I bet they can convincingly play another race, cmon.
Hot take incoming.
I haven’t seen this LOTR thing or even read that link about it, but on the general issue I’m a bit confused. A black Thomas Jefferson in Hamilton is fine, but if a non-black dude played Barack Obama in something, then that would be highly problematic.
On an intellectual level, I get why that is the case. I’m not saying it’s wrong and I am fine with it. But it feels weird.
It’s just context. White actors got all the opportunities for too long just because of racism. We don’t want white actors getting cast as Obama because we don’t want black actors crowded out and we know that people of color have been unfairly crowded out of opportunities forever. That’s all there is to it.
1 Like
And that’s why Pete Buttigieg didn’t win the Democratic nomination for president.
4 Likes
But none of the characters are explicitly any particular skin color from the text, except maybe the elves are “fair,” and that can mean a lot of things. Galadriel and Elrond are both the same colors they were in the movies.
4 Likes
Well there has to be a bit more. That’s only half of it. We still need to explain why directors should be open to casting a black person as Jefferson (i.e., a notorious slave-owner).
Good thread. TIL:
https://twitter.com/reallyactivist/status/1566112660118069248?s=21&t=Smo_ty0ok6u91ybXPaGTGQ
2 Likes
Someone want to explain this math to me?
https://twitter.com/ReallyActivist/status/1566125036045344768
https://twitter.com/ReallyActivist/status/1566125052902326272
He must have just mis-typed or something otherwise its hard to take him seriously even if his main point is almost certainly right and I would imagine not news to anyone in the industry.
You’re looking at it from the advertiser’s perspective. From the network’s point of view, if it can draw high ad revenues for programming without comparably high viewership, that’s a win. In this case, the NCAA final is a huge win, because they’re getting $1M for a spot that should really only cost about $600-$700k.
3 Likes
Bolded is obviously true, but his point is that it is a bigger win than the superbowl. If you want to do the analysis your way, then we would need to know how much they paid for the rights to broadcast each event.
It sounds like his assumption is that number of viewers is a proxy for this. If that’s true, then he’s not making any sense. If it’s not true, then he should provide that info and crunch those numbers.
1 Like
The Super Bowl is already sky high in that metric. Around ¢4-5/viewer when typical is more like 1.
Thread about the state of the business side of cable news networks:
https://twitter.com/ReallyActivist/status/1566112660118069248?s=20&t=PGOb0u2Ud2jjUKk_lGj_zQ
Cliffs: Without PAC money there are no cable news networks.
I think we nee a thread about the state of your pony. Or ponies in general. I think you’re third on this one.
1 Like
god douchehat is such a fucking douche it’s so infuriating that these guys never have to answer for this dumb shit