On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:45:57 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:17:01 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> 
>>> My point though is, that may be the "percieved" message to some
>>> people, not what is at all intended.
>> 
>> That's the problem in a lot of cases - it's not intended, it's not
>> thought about at all, though it should be.
>> 
> I am sorry, but.. Why? Are you seriously telling me that every person
> making **any** kind of film needs to put in some character of reference
> that side steps offending some group of people, based solely on the fact
> that they *might* be offending by it? 

No, but having more diversity in films makes the films generally more 
interesting, for one thing.  Using stereotypes and characters based on 
stereotypes generally makes films less rich and less interesting to many 
people.

> That's completely ridiculous, and
> if you think about it, you know it is. No one would claim that you
> should, for example, make a movie like Braveheart, in which some of the
> British where not total assholes with clear intent to do harm to the
> Scotsmen, just because some English person might take offense at it.

We're not talking about historical films (or historical fiction, for that 
matter) where events and specific personas are integral to the films.

At least I don't *think* anyone's claiming Avatar has any basis in 
reality.

> Claiming that you have to be "oh so terribly careful to not
> unintentionally imply to disabled people that *some* disabled people
> might actually care about what they *can't* do, isn't much different.
> Its not about them, its about the character in the bloody movie.

Um, no, if you start painting with a broad brush, then you're going to 
have a problem.  That's the problem.  You generally don't find 30's 
cartoons on the air either, even ones that exist - partly because the 
stereotypes are considered inappropriate (in fact, I just watched some 
old Looney Toons cartoons dating from the 30s and 40s, and the disc 
actually included a disclaimer to that effect, much to my surprise).

>>> As with Warps example of the deaf kid, you can get people who just
>>> flat out can't see past their own position on a matter, and presume
>>> that there is a message that isn't there.
>> 
>> Most people can't see past their own position.  Or are unwilling to,
>> because removing yourself from your own frame of reference requires
>> effort and a willingness to say "I might be wrong about this".  People
>> are generally stubborn about things like this and reject a view that
>> isn't their own because it isn't their own - and we all know that our
>> own views are the only thing that matters, right?
>> 
> Rarely. But then, my "views" include the idea that any good idea should
> be considered, bad ideas may be as much poor execution, or lack of
> thought, than truly bad, and that no view lacks *all* merit, even if the
> only merit is to show that there are ideas that mesh *very badly* with
> what most people recognize as rational, and understanding why is critica
> in understanding, also, why people think what *is* rational is rational.

Oh, sure, and I'm not saying that it's been done intentionally; things 
like this can be done unintentionally, and when someone raises awareness 
that it has been done (or may have been done), the response I expect (in 
general) is "gee, we didn't think of that - thank you for helping me 
understand" - because as a general rule, offending audiences is not a 
good way to bring in more money - and that IS what the film industry is 
trying to do.

Jim

Post a reply to this message