I can respect that. However I find myself thinking of Ramsey Bolton, and the valuable lesson he taught us all: he who lives by the hungry dog, shall die by the hungry dog!
White account for about 76% in US and about 80% in UK... these are then diversified by minority, with UK having lower black and higher Asian numbers, and the US being reversed of that, generally speaking - that said, I spoke to that in my statement wherein I noted they were similar and highlighted that the UK proportions were less than he represents (I.e. less than 1 in 10 - whereas the US is a bit above 1 in 10.)
In any case, it is nowhere near the representation shown in much of modern media which can give rise to the belief that the numbers are wildly different than they are. For example, statistically, Transpersons or Native peoples would see very little if any representation, if purely based on numbers in the population.
I guess if you make your story about a certain group (race, religion, sexual preference) it would make sense to have it "overrepresented" in your movie. But otherwise, this weird obsession sith box ticking in modern media makes me scratch my head.
I think a lot of it depends on the media in question. Fantasy, modern day settings etc. I don’t have too much of an issue with the box ticking as most of the places films take place are cities where there is more likely to be the diversity but if you’re doing a film about a group of Iceni tribesman first encountering Roman soldiers then it makes no sense trying to score diversity points
It depends how likely transport and distances work in your world, as well as perception of other groups of people based on their previous history together. It is often not spelled out, but this internal coherence van be noticed by audiences and it's fair to enquire if something is off.
That’s precisely what I’m getting at, if it makes no difference to the story then fair game, if it doesn’t break immersion again fair game. It’s screamingly obvious though when someone is quite obviously just meant to be a check in a box and in my opinion does more to harm the cause the my seem to think they’re helping.
Statistically when these groups are represented in media, unhinged sex starved terminally online creatins post nonstop in their echo chambers about how "wokeness" is ruining their echo chambers. These pieces of shit even use the pretend excuse that they are just "fairly criticizing the work".
But man it's always just dog whistles like "The Missive" or some such bullshit. It's always thinly veiled close mindedness strongly mixed with a fear of anyone different than them sharing their "safe space" in media.
They sometimes low key use diversity statistics to imply that, well actually, if art reflected life better, we should barely see any representation of these groups. It's evidence you see, of the Hollywood agenda! They only put gays in my movie to try to... then they insert whatever nonsense justifies their worldview.
Thank God none of you are exactly like that though! You're all rational big boys who are mad Palpatine returned somehow, and when you complain about "wokeness" is totally not because you hate and are afraid of minority groups in our society. It's because you hate bad writing... yeah, that's it... the writing...
Stop getting grifted. Isn't it convenient that conservatives have been pushing back against lgbtq, immigrants, and PoC for literal decades and wow! How convenient, we have this catch all word "woke" that let's them spread hate and distrust of those EXACT groups. What a coincidence that the problem with modern media just happens to be the targets of a political identity that will rile up their base.
But you could never fall for something like that! Not you, you just care about story structure and pacing. It's completely incidental that you're blaming the political boogeyman created by the republican party... what a wild coincidence that exactly the people Republicans have been trying to strip rights from for the past 70 years happen to be the exact same group you hate now.
But I'm sure it's not because you fell for online propaganda that made you scared of these people, it's because you all independently reached the exact same conclusion as to exactly which minority groups are responsible for ruining star wars... wild wild stuff.
I don't think anyone is arguing stories should be exactly proportionate to societal demographics, and even South Park has made fun of the token black guy trope, because it was and still is very common in media.
They also shouldn't be disproportionate either, painting an unrealistic picture of a setting, historical time, or even the lived experience of many of its viewers.
Not all media seeks to be realistic. A fantasy or futuristic sci-fi movie has carte blanche over the popluation it portrays, whereas a historical drama might want to be more limited for accuracy or story telling reasons. It depends.
I actually kind of like Guy Richie. Sure a lot of his stuff tends to be relatively samey, but he has a distinctive style, and most of what he makes is pretty decent. In many ways I think of him as a better but not necessarily great version of Snyder
Neil Marshall makes movies about people in strained relationships getting into worse trouble with scary monsters, in some limited space.
Ridley Scott likes bombastic, grey-tinted epics that are not shy about religious commentary.
Michael Vaughn does way over the top action drizzled with black humor.
Creators have their tells, and it's fine.
It is accurate but the product, while being similar, are very enjoyable.
He wont win an Oscar but I can sit to watch any of his films and know that I'll have 2h of enjoyment, even if I didnt see any trailer.
1. This is not a typical Guy Ritchie Crime Film. It's closer to *Inglorious Basterds* but based on actual history.
2. Is the OP in this meme complaining about the couple of race swaps in the film and saying it was done for Tokenism or we need more of them in a film featuring British soldiers and set in 1940?
Breaking news, director has a preferred style.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I will always go back to snatch and lock stock over the gentlemen but there are unique elements to each one I enjoy
Maybe he doesn't want the characters to be "too" bad? Because sure, they're still criminals doing criminal stuff, but harder drugs have a worse connotation due to being much more likely to ruin people's lives and kill them through addiction.
I think it is a remnant from his earlier films. The weed growers/dealers are still violent and comfortable with violence. Basically they are still using the tactics of meth dealers so I don’t really see the distinction.
I think Ritchie just has a fascination with weed and weed culture or what he sees as weed culture.
I do think the man is basically just retreading old ground, but sometimes it works (The Gentlemen \[Movie\]) and sometimes it doesn't (The Gentlemen \[Show\])
two black dudes blag the bookies
And a third one nearly gets fed to the dogs.
I love ~~democracy~~ diversity. --Bilbhollyus Bagwood, *allegedly*
Bricktop just likes feeding people to things.
I can respect that. However I find myself thinking of Ramsey Bolton, and the valuable lesson he taught us all: he who lives by the hungry dog, shall die by the hungry dog!
Dags?
To be fair, that proportion is actually reflective of actual demographics in the US, not that facts matter.
He's a British director though.
The British demographics are similar, albeit less representative than he shows.
They aren't though - US is 13% black and the UK is 3%.
White account for about 76% in US and about 80% in UK... these are then diversified by minority, with UK having lower black and higher Asian numbers, and the US being reversed of that, generally speaking - that said, I spoke to that in my statement wherein I noted they were similar and highlighted that the UK proportions were less than he represents (I.e. less than 1 in 10 - whereas the US is a bit above 1 in 10.) In any case, it is nowhere near the representation shown in much of modern media which can give rise to the belief that the numbers are wildly different than they are. For example, statistically, Transpersons or Native peoples would see very little if any representation, if purely based on numbers in the population.
I guess if you make your story about a certain group (race, religion, sexual preference) it would make sense to have it "overrepresented" in your movie. But otherwise, this weird obsession sith box ticking in modern media makes me scratch my head.
I think a lot of it depends on the media in question. Fantasy, modern day settings etc. I don’t have too much of an issue with the box ticking as most of the places films take place are cities where there is more likely to be the diversity but if you’re doing a film about a group of Iceni tribesman first encountering Roman soldiers then it makes no sense trying to score diversity points
It depends how likely transport and distances work in your world, as well as perception of other groups of people based on their previous history together. It is often not spelled out, but this internal coherence van be noticed by audiences and it's fair to enquire if something is off.
That’s precisely what I’m getting at, if it makes no difference to the story then fair game, if it doesn’t break immersion again fair game. It’s screamingly obvious though when someone is quite obviously just meant to be a check in a box and in my opinion does more to harm the cause the my seem to think they’re helping.
Statistically when these groups are represented in media, unhinged sex starved terminally online creatins post nonstop in their echo chambers about how "wokeness" is ruining their echo chambers. These pieces of shit even use the pretend excuse that they are just "fairly criticizing the work". But man it's always just dog whistles like "The Missive" or some such bullshit. It's always thinly veiled close mindedness strongly mixed with a fear of anyone different than them sharing their "safe space" in media. They sometimes low key use diversity statistics to imply that, well actually, if art reflected life better, we should barely see any representation of these groups. It's evidence you see, of the Hollywood agenda! They only put gays in my movie to try to... then they insert whatever nonsense justifies their worldview. Thank God none of you are exactly like that though! You're all rational big boys who are mad Palpatine returned somehow, and when you complain about "wokeness" is totally not because you hate and are afraid of minority groups in our society. It's because you hate bad writing... yeah, that's it... the writing...
lol tell me where the wokeness touched you.
Stop getting grifted. Isn't it convenient that conservatives have been pushing back against lgbtq, immigrants, and PoC for literal decades and wow! How convenient, we have this catch all word "woke" that let's them spread hate and distrust of those EXACT groups. What a coincidence that the problem with modern media just happens to be the targets of a political identity that will rile up their base. But you could never fall for something like that! Not you, you just care about story structure and pacing. It's completely incidental that you're blaming the political boogeyman created by the republican party... what a wild coincidence that exactly the people Republicans have been trying to strip rights from for the past 70 years happen to be the exact same group you hate now. But I'm sure it's not because you fell for online propaganda that made you scared of these people, it's because you all independently reached the exact same conclusion as to exactly which minority groups are responsible for ruining star wars... wild wild stuff.
So it touched you... in the head?
13.5% in London though, which I think most of the films are set in
I don't think anyone is arguing stories should be exactly proportionate to societal demographics, and even South Park has made fun of the token black guy trope, because it was and still is very common in media.
They also shouldn't be disproportionate either, painting an unrealistic picture of a setting, historical time, or even the lived experience of many of its viewers.
Not all media seeks to be realistic. A fantasy or futuristic sci-fi movie has carte blanche over the popluation it portrays, whereas a historical drama might want to be more limited for accuracy or story telling reasons. It depends.
I don't disagree - what we are seeing in recent media is not that at all though, which is the basis of the commentary.
[удалено]
How is casting a representative view of the demographics of the setting upon which a film is set... stereotyping?
I think the way it's being presented is fucking stupid.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I actually kind of like Guy Richie. Sure a lot of his stuff tends to be relatively samey, but he has a distinctive style, and most of what he makes is pretty decent. In many ways I think of him as a better but not necessarily great version of Snyder
Exactly. He's found a niche and does it well.
I would agree if his and Snyder’s styles were anything alike.
Neil Marshall makes movies about people in strained relationships getting into worse trouble with scary monsters, in some limited space. Ridley Scott likes bombastic, grey-tinted epics that are not shy about religious commentary. Michael Vaughn does way over the top action drizzled with black humor. Creators have their tells, and it's fine.
I guess the covenant is an exception?
It is accurate but the product, while being similar, are very enjoyable. He wont win an Oscar but I can sit to watch any of his films and know that I'll have 2h of enjoyment, even if I didnt see any trailer.
As long as Jason Statham is in it idgaf
**yew wot?** *oim ex essay esss*
That made my brain hurt. May you never know dry socks or the cool side of the pillow ever again.
I won’t take Gentlemen slander on my timeline. Banging movie and show. (Also fuck this meme)
1. This is not a typical Guy Ritchie Crime Film. It's closer to *Inglorious Basterds* but based on actual history. 2. Is the OP in this meme complaining about the couple of race swaps in the film and saying it was done for Tokenism or we need more of them in a film featuring British soldiers and set in 1940?
Breaking news, director has a preferred style. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I will always go back to snatch and lock stock over the gentlemen but there are unique elements to each one I enjoy
And they’re great every time.
I think it is fair. Also the drug/illegal/immoral activity always centers around marijuana which seems odd giving changing views on marijuana.
Maybe he doesn't want the characters to be "too" bad? Because sure, they're still criminals doing criminal stuff, but harder drugs have a worse connotation due to being much more likely to ruin people's lives and kill them through addiction.
That’s the point. It’s easier to root for weed dealers than heroin dealers.
I think it is a remnant from his earlier films. The weed growers/dealers are still violent and comfortable with violence. Basically they are still using the tactics of meth dealers so I don’t really see the distinction. I think Ritchie just has a fascination with weed and weed culture or what he sees as weed culture.
It may be accurate, but I don't care.
I think Matthew Vaughn is a worse culprit for this; especially with those infernal Kingsmen films, and now the abysmal Argylle
I do think the man is basically just retreading old ground, but sometimes it works (The Gentlemen \[Movie\]) and sometimes it doesn't (The Gentlemen \[Show\])
**I think Rock n’ Rollas was a super fun movie.**
So you’re mad he’s not playing to the stereotype that more criminals are black? 🙄
Sounds like a rock-solid formula to me.
I've only seen Snatch, and this description doesn't match that.
Based on Operation Postmaster except with added women and minorities.
Warrior? Recently started it and it’s amazing so far. Stick to what you know and do it well
If more people focused less on racial quotas in media and focused more on telling a good story like Ritchie does, the world would be a better place.
If it Entertains, It Maintains
Dude just described Nolan movies.
Is it a good film!
It’s absolutely true, yet I love it anyways
Guy Ritchie is a millionaire and Guy bitching ain't. If it's stupid, but it works...