Racial Discrimination or "pleasing audiences?"

[lovelylittlefart]

I made a thread similar to this not too long ago with a different account. It only lasted a few pages before a certain someone (who will go unnamed) turned it into a finger pointing name calling free-for-all...so, as a warning, you are free to disagree with me and get into a heated discussion, but the moment you start to make personal attacks is when you will be blocked.

So...something has been irking me about the entertainment industry for a while. I know there are a lot of movies out there with strong leads played by actors of non-white ethnicities, but the roles I'm talking about are the ones which are written for non-white actors that are played by white actors.

Example:

Avatar: The Last Airbender- If I'm not mistaken, it was a series based on Chinese culture and its people, yet the characters were played by white actors.

The Vampire's Assistant- This one was probably lesser known since it bombed at the box office, but in the books, the love interest was a black girl named Debbie Hemlock. The people who wrote the movie completely erased the character and replaced her with a "monkey girl" who was played by a white actress.

There are many more, but I've had a long day, so I'll list them a little later.

The common excuse I hear is that the film makers are just trying to pick actors that appeal to their audiences, but after the recent success of some movies, I'm feeling like that's an excuse for them to continue what they are doing. For example, the common belief for a while seemed to be that little girls did not want to see a movie about a princess who is not vain, but Brave was a huge success and it seem like more film makers are starting to follow its example.

So, here is what we will be discussing:

Why are characters who are of non-white either written out of the story completely or played by white actors?

What can be done to change this?

Do you agree that casting white actors is meant to appeal to audiences?

Here is what we will not be discussing:

"Why isn't the OP offended when the same thing happens to white characters?"

I am going to simply give my answer here. I do notice it when it happens to white characters, but the reason I cannot bring myself to be offended by it is because there are many strong white characters in books and movies. I believe white people are generally represented positively in the movies (not counting villains), but many non-whites are put into "token" categories. When a non-white person is overlooked for a part, or when a non-white character is written out completely, I feel like the movie industry missed out to represent them.

That is all I'm going to say about it. I am not going to discuss it further, because that is not what this thread is about. I will block anyone who intends to derail this thread by turning into a verbal fight. I know I'm asking a lot of the ED, but if you wish to discuss the subject above, open your own thread about that.

[Captain_Shinzo]

The movie industry is a very weird business as you have to take into account many different aspects.
I dislike when a movie destroys certain aspects such as culture or details. It's terrible.
However, I doubt if sometimes it is because of racism or appealing to a specific audience.

Brave is pretty culturally correct when it comes to ethics. Frozen is also pretty culturally correct. Mostly because those movies are funded by an industry that takes pride in making sure facts stay as facts.
I mean, take a look at Surfs Up or Finding Nemo. They take pride in making sure things of life are cartoonized pretty well.

The problem with the examples you gave as movie, of course doesn't diminish your point, depends on funding and who exactly will notice and why certain decisions were made.

Avatar mostly was a kids show and the movie was going to be pretty similar. However, the movie was terrible. They pretty didn't care about the cultures, gave a middle-finger to the plot points of the original show and caused so many plot holes that it put the show to shame.
I think why they chose their actors was because of ease. They presumed no one would notice and it was probably much easier to just find that sort of demographic. Avatar has many characters, so trying to find that many people of chinese descent that could speak proper english for such a movie probably didn't seem important to them.
However, movies based on something is an important integrity that shouldn't go unnoticed.

I'll speak more on your other example because I actually read the books AND saw the movie.
The Vampire's Assistant (or for those who know the books titled Cirque Due Freaks) was a complete butchering of the original novels. Honestly, I didn't entirely like the novels myself. The writing could have been better, there were so many grammar mistakes that it was pretty noticeable even to the demographic of young teen readers, the story could have been much more larger and in-depth, and just so many other things I nitpick from the books. That is something else regardless, however...

I know the role you are speaking of, though. The main protagonist meets a black girl some years throughout the book who becomes a semi-important role many years later in the book series. I think that's the reason why they removed her from the movies, though. The movie already screams out so much like they tried to cram so much of the books into a small cinema series.
Compared to the books, the movie destroyed more than half the books and probably more than that worth of characters and stories. The movie, because of this, turned into garbage. Whether the new love interest was made white because of the removal of a new character is uncertain whether it was plot butchering or just prejudice. After all, it would take some time to go through the series of books, the years and different travels.

To explain to those who haven't read the books, the novel series goes from a small town to a circus of supernatural people from snake humanoids, vampires, unnatural contortionists, etc..., to a temple in the mountains of a society of vampires, to a literally different TIME of the earth.
Obviously from low budget, they can't fit all that in two hours in a movie that probably wont even be successful enough for a sequel. Why care about betrayal of different races and best friends, time travel, immortality, different time frames, and even the change of how time passes or exists?
" Screw that, let's just make a movie the kids will understand and make a quick buck. The novelist wont mind. "

[lovelylittlefart]

Captain_Shinzo

The movie industry is a very weird business as you have to take into account many different aspects.
I dislike when a movie destroys certain aspects such as culture or details. It's terrible.
However, I doubt if sometimes it is because of racism or appealing to a specific audience.

Brave is pretty culturally correct when it comes to ethics. Frozen is also pretty culturally correct. Mostly because those movies are funded by an industry that takes pride in making sure facts stay as facts.
I mean, take a look at Surfs Up or Finding Nemo. They take pride in making sure things of life are cartoonized pretty well.

The problem with the examples you gave as movie, of course doesn't diminish your point, depends on funding and who exactly will notice and why certain decisions were made.

Avatar mostly was a kids show and the movie was going to be pretty similar. However, the movie was terrible. They pretty didn't care about the cultures, gave a middle-finger to the plot points of the original show and caused so many plot holes that it put the show to shame.
I think why they chose their actors was because of ease. They presumed no one would notice and it was probably much easier to just find that sort of demographic. Avatar has many characters, so trying to find that many people of chinese descent that could speak proper english for such a movie probably didn't seem important to them.
However, movies based on something is an important integrity that shouldn't go unnoticed.

I'll speak more on your other example because I actually read the books AND saw the movie.
The Vampire's Assistant (or for those who know the books titled Cirque Due Freaks) was a complete butchering of the original novels. Honestly, I didn't entirely like the novels myself. The writing could have been better, there were so many grammar mistakes that it was pretty noticeable even to the demographic of young teen readers, the story could have been much more larger and in-depth, and just so many other things I nitpick from the books. That is something else regardless, however...

I know the role you are speaking of, though. The main protagonist meets a black girl some years throughout the book who becomes a semi-important role many years later in the book series. I think that's the reason why they removed her from the movies, though. The movie already screams out so much like they tried to cram so much of the books into a small cinema series.
Compared to the books, the movie destroyed more than half the books and probably more than that worth of characters and stories. The movie, because of this, turned into garbage. Whether the new love interest was made white because of the removal of a new character is uncertain whether it was plot butchering or just prejudice. After all, it would take some time to go through the series of books, the years and different travels.

To explain to those who haven't read the books, the novel series goes from a small town to a circus of supernatural people from snake humanoids, vampires, unnatural contortionists, etc..., to a temple in the mountains of a society of vampires, to a literally different TIME of the earth.
Obviously from low budget, they can't fit all that in two hours in a movie that probably wont even be successful enough for a sequel. Why care about betrayal of different races and best friends, time travel, immortality, different time frames, and even the change of how time passes or exists?
" Screw that, let's just make a movie the kids will understand and make a quick buck. The novelist wont mind. "

Thank you for your well thought out response.

I see your points on the other examples, but I'm still bothered by Debbie's character being erased. The film makers could have still been true to the book without following it completely. I mean, show just enough to show the bond between the two mains, show the cirque, show how the main gets lured into the world of the supernatural and there you go. The love interest (Debbie) is not even introduced until the third book, but of course they felt the need to cram the first three books. -.- I guess what bothers me, is if they had simply made a movie based on the first book, it would have been fine, and by the third movie (providing it made enough money for there to be a third), we would have had a likeable black female character who would have grown up to be an English teacher and later help fight against evil. I mean, how cool would it have been to see an English teacher turn into a fighter? That sounds like a pretty strong character (at least for me). I just don't understand why she would be written out, though I'm no expert in making movies. I can't say for sure if it was a result of racism (I can't read the film makers's minds), It just seems strange that not only did they cram the first three books, but the erased Debbie's character as if she never existed.

[Times Of War]

There are a few reasons I can think about.

Considering movies made in America, the majority of the population is European whites, and white as a whole if you include Hispanic whites. Overall there may be cultural differences between the two, but they still have much in common religiously, politically, philosophically, and so on.

Then you have America as a whole, a country, despite slavery, still built mostly on white accomplishments, philosophy, and leadership.

Those two things combined, it makes white people more marketable. White people are the beauty standard, going back as far as Greece and Rome. In your example of the Avatar, it is easy to draw a cartoon of anyone from any ethnicity and make it palatable or desirable. However managing to really make a movie with real people just as appealing, with ethnic minorities, is hard. You'll notice that many of the best, largest grossing ethnic actors, all have very white traits. Those who do well in acting without white traits rely largely on -overselling- their ethnicity, being as ethnic as possible.

The next reason is political correctness, ironically enough, and this issue is seen in the videogame industry.

You see there is a fine line between being "authentic" rather than over the top, or on the other hand, too white. This is one of the reasons so many videogame characters are white. You see, a small indie film or game producer can make something, sell a few thousand copies, and call it a success. They then go about saying how more diverse or ethnically authentic films and games are viable. Problem is, however, that large film and game companies measure their sells in millions, or billions, not thousands. They have a much wider audience, often including Europe, Japan, and China.

So they run a risk. If they make a black character that is -too- black, he becomes a caricature, and offends people. If you make him a completely normal person who wears a suit to work, listens to classical music, and just does normal stuff, you've made him white, and offended people. The same is true of women. Make her too sexy and you objectify her, too prudish and you are oppressing her. If she is ever too weak or needs help, she clearly -needs a man- to save her. If she's the most badass villain on earth that kills puppies for fun and don't need no man, you've made her into a feminazi.

But nobody is offended by how a white person is portrayed, not even most white people. He can wear any crazy tribal clothes and no one will bat an eye. He can be a villain, absolutely evil, and no one will care. He can be a hero, be completely ripped with a 16 pack of abs, and no one will mind. He can be a scrawny, whiny nerd, and no one will care. It doesn't matter how you portray a white man. Further, because most consumers are white, they will buy something marketed by the face of a white man. It doesn't matter how extreme you make him. It doesn't matter if he has a vice for drugs, women, men, anything. It doesn't matter if at moments he is vulnerable and needs help. It doesn't matter if he is the most evil thing to ever walk the face of the earth.

Quite simply, the balancing act for a minority is hard, and fine edged, and isn't guaranteed to pay off. White people, and white men especially though, can wear any face, any clothes, any role, and never offend anyone, except for a minority who are pissed that all the roles are being done by white dudes.

[Captain_Shinzo]

lovelylittlefart

Captain_Shinzo

The movie industry is a very weird business as you have to take into account many different aspects.
I dislike when a movie destroys certain aspects such as culture or details. It's terrible.
However, I doubt if sometimes it is because of racism or appealing to a specific audience.

Brave is pretty culturally correct when it comes to ethics. Frozen is also pretty culturally correct. Mostly because those movies are funded by an industry that takes pride in making sure facts stay as facts.
I mean, take a look at Surfs Up or Finding Nemo. They take pride in making sure things of life are cartoonized pretty well.

The problem with the examples you gave as movie, of course doesn't diminish your point, depends on funding and who exactly will notice and why certain decisions were made.

Avatar mostly was a kids show and the movie was going to be pretty similar. However, the movie was terrible. They pretty didn't care about the cultures, gave a middle-finger to the plot points of the original show and caused so many plot holes that it put the show to shame.
I think why they chose their actors was because of ease. They presumed no one would notice and it was probably much easier to just find that sort of demographic. Avatar has many characters, so trying to find that many people of chinese descent that could speak proper english for such a movie probably didn't seem important to them.
However, movies based on something is an important integrity that shouldn't go unnoticed.

I'll speak more on your other example because I actually read the books AND saw the movie.
The Vampire's Assistant (or for those who know the books titled Cirque Due Freaks) was a complete butchering of the original novels. Honestly, I didn't entirely like the novels myself. The writing could have been better, there were so many grammar mistakes that it was pretty noticeable even to the demographic of young teen readers, the story could have been much more larger and in-depth, and just so many other things I nitpick from the books. That is something else regardless, however...

I know the role you are speaking of, though. The main protagonist meets a black girl some years throughout the book who becomes a semi-important role many years later in the book series. I think that's the reason why they removed her from the movies, though. The movie already screams out so much like they tried to cram so much of the books into a small cinema series.
Compared to the books, the movie destroyed more than half the books and probably more than that worth of characters and stories. The movie, because of this, turned into garbage. Whether the new love interest was made white because of the removal of a new character is uncertain whether it was plot butchering or just prejudice. After all, it would take some time to go through the series of books, the years and different travels.

To explain to those who haven't read the books, the novel series goes from a small town to a circus of supernatural people from snake humanoids, vampires, unnatural contortionists, etc..., to a temple in the mountains of a society of vampires, to a literally different TIME of the earth.
Obviously from low budget, they can't fit all that in two hours in a movie that probably wont even be successful enough for a sequel. Why care about betrayal of different races and best friends, time travel, immortality, different time frames, and even the change of how time passes or exists?
" Screw that, let's just make a movie the kids will understand and make a quick buck. The novelist wont mind. "

Thank you for your well thought out response.

I see your points on the other examples, but I'm still bothered by Debbie's character being erased. The film makers could have still been true to the book without following it completely. I mean, show just enough to show the bond between the two mains, show the cirque, show how the main gets lured into the world of the supernatural and there you go. The love interest (Debbie) is not even introduced until the third book, but of course they felt the need to cram the first three books. -.- I guess what bothers me, is if they had simply made a movie based on the first book, it would have been fine, and by the third movie (providing it made enough money for there to be a third), we would have had a likeable black female character who would have grown up to be an English teacher and later help fight against evil. I mean, how cool would it have been to see an English teacher turn into a fighter? That sounds like a pretty strong character (at least for me). I just don't understand why she would be written out, though I'm no expert in making movies. I can't say for sure if it was a result of racism (I can't read the film makers's minds), It just seems strange that not only did they cram the first three books, but the erased Debbie's character as if she never existed.

Eh, who knows. I think mostly because it doesn't follow with their plans.
After all, to introduce Debbie, they would have to make the main character go through the house fire, meet Debbie, and then go through that long year span where they were separated and she is currently an adult and teacher.
They crammed SOOOOO much though. More then three books, in my opinion. My favorite character, Hackrat? I think? (It's been more than four years since I've read the series.) Pretty much doesn't exist anymore. Hell, he had the coolest side story. Nope, he's erased. The betrayal of the two friends through the series of time where the other friend becomes a vampire hunter and later joins the outcasted society of vampires to seek his revenge on the protagonist? Rushed right away. Wasn't even dramatic. Des Tiny wasn't even cool in the movie. The way he was portrayed in the book was much better. In the movie, he was pretty rushed.

That's what happens when you give movie makers a story they probably didn't even read, though.
The movie makes it sound like they were given ALL the books and they only read the synopsis of each one. So bad.

I think if they made the movies right, it would have been AMAZING. Even better than the books, honestly.
( I seriously have a problem with the writing. No joke. )
Looks like their budget was pretty poor, though. That CGI was pretty bad. That's what bad movies do, though. I knew when I saw the commercials for it, the movie was going to suck. Mostly because the use of CGI. Movies overuse computer animation this day and age. They don't even do it right. Jurassic park was so successful in its CGI because they actually used puppets and robotics for the CGI. Reason why it was so amazing and fluid. Done so well.
Now people just slap it anywhere. What can you do, though.

Also, I think another reason they made the new romantic interest probably was some prejudice. Only because an interracial couple is "threatening". It shouldn't be but a lot of people out there have a problem with "races mixing". It's silly but true, so movie producers try to avoid it in small movies. Big movies don't care because they make up for it. Producers but ethics and ideals behind this day and age to worry about the big buck.

[Yoshpet]

A lack of fidelity between movie actors and their character descriptions in the source material is generally a disservice to fans, so I don't buy that it's "for the audience" one bit.

[lovelylittlefart]

Captain_Shinzo

lovelylittlefart

Captain_Shinzo

The movie industry is a very weird business as you have to take into account many different aspects.
I dislike when a movie destroys certain aspects such as culture or details. It's terrible.
However, I doubt if sometimes it is because of racism or appealing to a specific audience.

Brave is pretty culturally correct when it comes to ethics. Frozen is also pretty culturally correct. Mostly because those movies are funded by an industry that takes pride in making sure facts stay as facts.
I mean, take a look at Surfs Up or Finding Nemo. They take pride in making sure things of life are cartoonized pretty well.

The problem with the examples you gave as movie, of course doesn't diminish your point, depends on funding and who exactly will notice and why certain decisions were made.

Avatar mostly was a kids show and the movie was going to be pretty similar. However, the movie was terrible. They pretty didn't care about the cultures, gave a middle-finger to the plot points of the original show and caused so many plot holes that it put the show to shame.
I think why they chose their actors was because of ease. They presumed no one would notice and it was probably much easier to just find that sort of demographic. Avatar has many characters, so trying to find that many people of chinese descent that could speak proper english for such a movie probably didn't seem important to them.
However, movies based on something is an important integrity that shouldn't go unnoticed.

I'll speak more on your other example because I actually read the books AND saw the movie.
The Vampire's Assistant (or for those who know the books titled Cirque Due Freaks) was a complete butchering of the original novels. Honestly, I didn't entirely like the novels myself. The writing could have been better, there were so many grammar mistakes that it was pretty noticeable even to the demographic of young teen readers, the story could have been much more larger and in-depth, and just so many other things I nitpick from the books. That is something else regardless, however...

I know the role you are speaking of, though. The main protagonist meets a black girl some years throughout the book who becomes a semi-important role many years later in the book series. I think that's the reason why they removed her from the movies, though. The movie already screams out so much like they tried to cram so much of the books into a small cinema series.
Compared to the books, the movie destroyed more than half the books and probably more than that worth of characters and stories. The movie, because of this, turned into garbage. Whether the new love interest was made white because of the removal of a new character is uncertain whether it was plot butchering or just prejudice. After all, it would take some time to go through the series of books, the years and different travels.

To explain to those who haven't read the books, the novel series goes from a small town to a circus of supernatural people from snake humanoids, vampires, unnatural contortionists, etc..., to a temple in the mountains of a society of vampires, to a literally different TIME of the earth.
Obviously from low budget, they can't fit all that in two hours in a movie that probably wont even be successful enough for a sequel. Why care about betrayal of different races and best friends, time travel, immortality, different time frames, and even the change of how time passes or exists?
" Screw that, let's just make a movie the kids will understand and make a quick buck. The novelist wont mind. "

Thank you for your well thought out response.

I see your points on the other examples, but I'm still bothered by Debbie's character being erased. The film makers could have still been true to the book without following it completely. I mean, show just enough to show the bond between the two mains, show the cirque, show how the main gets lured into the world of the supernatural and there you go. The love interest (Debbie) is not even introduced until the third book, but of course they felt the need to cram the first three books. -.- I guess what bothers me, is if they had simply made a movie based on the first book, it would have been fine, and by the third movie (providing it made enough money for there to be a third), we would have had a likeable black female character who would have grown up to be an English teacher and later help fight against evil. I mean, how cool would it have been to see an English teacher turn into a fighter? That sounds like a pretty strong character (at least for me). I just don't understand why she would be written out, though I'm no expert in making movies. I can't say for sure if it was a result of racism (I can't read the film makers's minds), It just seems strange that not only did they cram the first three books, but the erased Debbie's character as if she never existed.

Eh, who knows. I think mostly because it doesn't follow with their plans.
After all, to introduce Debbie, they would have to make the main character go through the house fire, meet Debbie, and then go through that long year span where they were separated and she is currently an adult and teacher.
They crammed SOOOOO much though. More then three books, in my opinion. My favorite character, Hackrat? I think? (It's been more than four years since I've read the series.) Pretty much doesn't exist anymore. Hell, he had the coolest side story. Nope, he's erased. The betrayal of the two friends through the series of time where the other friend becomes a vampire hunter and later joins the outcasted society of vampires to seek his revenge on the protagonist? Rushed right away. Wasn't even dramatic. Des Tiny wasn't even cool in the movie. The way he was portrayed in the book was much better. In the movie, he was pretty rushed.

That's what happens when you give movie makers a story they probably didn't even read, though.
The movie makes it sound like they were given ALL the books and they only read the synopsis of each one. So bad.

I think if they made the movies right, it would have been AMAZING. Even better than the books, honestly.
( I seriously have a problem with the writing. No joke. )
Looks like their budget was pretty poor, though. That CGI was pretty bad. That's what bad movies do, though. I knew when I saw the commercials for it, the movie was going to suck. Mostly because the use of CGI. Movies overuse computer animation this day and age. They don't even do it right. Jurassic park was so successful in its CGI because they actually used puppets and robotics for the CGI. Reason why it was so amazing and fluid. Done so well.
Now people just slap it anywhere. What can you do, though.

Also, I think another reason they made the new romantic interest probably was some prejudice. Only because an interracial couple is "threatening". It shouldn't be but a lot of people out there have a problem with "races mixing". It's silly but true, so movie producers try to avoid it in small movies. Big movies don't care because they make up for it. Producers but ethics and ideals behind this day and age to worry about the big buck.

I picked up the first book again four years after finishing the series. It was amazing seeing some of the flaws I didn't see before. Darren Shan is a good story teller, but there is a lot of room for improvement in his writing, I agree. Perhaps he got better. He apparently wrote a prequel series for Mr. Crepsley and a zombie series. I'll probably check them out one day. Hopefully, his writing got better.

I agree. Harkat was a good character. He was funny, noble, brave, and had a great backstory. Mr. Tiny was also an amazing character. I was fifteen when I first read the books, and I remember reading about him for the first time at night time in the back seat of a car on the way home from out of town and getting chills. Evra was another favorite of mine, but in the movie, he was an annoying douche with a guitar, and I really think Steve Leopard was a good antagonist. I agree that everything was crammed and rushed. I don't think being low budget is ever an excuse to make a crap movie and overusing CGI. There have been a lot of successful low budget science fiction films. If CGI is ever used in those movies, it is done sparingly. You can tell the movie makers actually put thought in making a good movie, because you see character development and the CGI is used when it is needed. I really do hope in a few years when the public has forgotten about the atrocity of a movie, someone chooses to pick up the movie and make it better...or at least make a kick a** television series. Actually, as I write that, I think it would be more awesome as a television series.

What you say about some of the audiences not liking the idea of an interracial couple is true, but I still feel like it could have been done if they had just stayed true to the story and made the first movie based on the first book. I'm no expert, but I think it would have done quite well...all that would be needed after making movie was the right marketing. Vampires was a genre that was catering to young teen girls at the time, so they could have tried to market this to a more general audience...make it like, "Hey! Here's a vampire story everyone could enjoy!" and BOOM, you have a potential blockbuster. By the time they got to the third or fourth book, it could have been a big enough phenomenon for people not to care about the love interest being black. Yeah, you'd have some assholes taking to the internet and making disgusting remarks like they did with Rue's character in The Hunger Games, but more than likely, people would be too busy enjoying the movie to care.

...of course, I might just be wishful thinking.

[Captain_Shinzo]

Yoshpet

A lack of fidelity between movie actors and their character descriptions in the source material is generally a disservice to fans, so I don't buy that it's "for the audience" one bit.

I agree, but I also believe those movies couldn't fork over extra money to find the proper actors or to follow through proper details.
Avatar and The Vampire's Assistant were so cheap I could have filmed the exact same footage, edited such footage in Windows Movie Maker and it would have been better.

[Petrograd]

Its not just race, the cultural American-washing applies to European works (like The little mermaid, the plot being changed to fit Americans) and even non-American English works being American-washed, like Harry Potter being played by predominantly American actors.

[Captain_Shinzo]

lovelylittlefart

I picked up the first book again four years after finishing the series. It was amazing seeing some of the flaws I didn't see before. Darren Shan is a good story teller, but there is a lot of room for improvement in his writing, I agree. Perhaps he got better. He apparently wrote a prequel series for Mr. Crepsley and a zombie series. I'll probably check them out one day. Hopefully, his writing got better.I agree. Harkat was a good character. He was funny, noble, brave, and had a great backstory. Mr. Tiny was also an amazing character. I was fifteen when I first read the books, and I remember reading about him for the first time at night time in the back seat of a car on the way home from out of town and getting chills. Evra was another favorite of mine, but in the movie, he was an annoying douche with a guitar, and I really think Steve Leopard was a good antagonist. I agree that everything was crammed and rushed. I don't think being low budget is ever an excuse to make a crap movie and overusing CGI. There have been a lot of successful low budget science fiction films. If CGI is ever used in those movies, it is done sparingly. You can tell the movie makers actually put thought in making a good movie, because you see character development and the CGI is used when it is needed. I really do hope in a few years when the public has forgotten about the atrocity of a movie, someone chooses to pick up the movie and make it better...or at least make a kick a** television series. Actually, as I write that, I think it would be more awesome as a television series.What you say about some of the audiences not liking the idea of an interracial couple is true, but I still feel like it could have been done if they had just stayed true to the story and made the first movie based on the first book. I'm no expert, but I think it would have done quite well...all that would be needed after making movie was the right marketing. Vampires was a genre that was catering to young teen girls at the time, so they could have tried to market this to a more general audience...make it like, "Hey! Here's a vampire story everyone could enjoy!" and BOOM, you have a potential blockbuster. By the time they got to the third or fourth book, it could have been a big enough phenomenon for people not to care about the love interest being black. Yeah, you'd have some assholes taking to the internet and making disgusting remarks like they did with Rue's character in The Hunger Games, but more than likely, people would be too busy enjoying the movie to care....of course, I might just be wishful thinking.

I don't think you've ever heard of a cash-in movie, then. Where good concepts go to die...There are plenty of GREAT indie movies that were low-budget. Plenty of them are amazing and well done without needing tons of money. Snow On Tha Bluff? Genius, especially since I live near there. These, though, are movies that plan to make their money from the actual movie.

A cash-in movie would be something like I am Sam or Food Fight. These are movies that use product placements or a bought concept to make their money.
That was the point of both Avatar and The Vampire's Assistant. They already had the audience bought off because of their franchise. They just needed their money. So technically, it was like a robbery that plenty fell for. A quick buck.


Oh god, don't even get me STARTED on how vampires have been ruined in the industry because of Twilight among other stories. No one even knows what the movie Interview With a Vampire is or even who Anne Rice is. It's so sad. Teens sell, that's all it is. Cheap romance sells. Things don't really even need great thought now.Warm Bodies? That was an awesome-a** concept and it promised so much. Sadly, it was just another cheap-plotted romance sold off to teens...

( Oh yes. Off note, I love your avatar and signature. Such a good movie. )

[Its A Crystal]

lovelylittlefart

I believe white people are generally represented positively in the movies (not counting villains)

This does raise America's interesting way of handling villains.

Because no matter the setting in time and space.

No mater the ethnicity of the villain.

I'd say there is a 7.5/10 chance that that villain is going to have a British accent.

To the main point - It's ******** dickish and Hollywood needs to knock it off.

[lovelylittlefart]

Captain_Shinzo

lovelylittlefart

I picked up the first book again four years after finishing the series. It was amazing seeing some of the flaws I didn't see before. Darren Shan is a good story teller, but there is a lot of room for improvement in his writing, I agree. Perhaps he got better. He apparently wrote a prequel series for Mr. Crepsley and a zombie series. I'll probably check them out one day. Hopefully, his writing got better.I agree. Harkat was a good character. He was funny, noble, brave, and had a great backstory. Mr. Tiny was also an amazing character. I was fifteen when I first read the books, and I remember reading about him for the first time at night time in the back seat of a car on the way home from out of town and getting chills. Evra was another favorite of mine, but in the movie, he was an annoying douche with a guitar, and I really think Steve Leopard was a good antagonist. I agree that everything was crammed and rushed. I don't think being low budget is ever an excuse to make a crap movie and overusing CGI. There have been a lot of successful low budget science fiction films. If CGI is ever used in those movies, it is done sparingly. You can tell the movie makers actually put thought in making a good movie, because you see character development and the CGI is used when it is needed. I really do hope in a few years when the public has forgotten about the atrocity of a movie, someone chooses to pick up the movie and make it better...or at least make a kick a** television series. Actually, as I write that, I think it would be more awesome as a television series.What you say about some of the audiences not liking the idea of an interracial couple is true, but I still feel like it could have been done if they had just stayed true to the story and made the first movie based on the first book. I'm no expert, but I think it would have done quite well...all that would be needed after making movie was the right marketing. Vampires was a genre that was catering to young teen girls at the time, so they could have tried to market this to a more general audience...make it like, "Hey! Here's a vampire story everyone could enjoy!" and BOOM, you have a potential blockbuster. By the time they got to the third or fourth book, it could have been a big enough phenomenon for people not to care about the love interest being black. Yeah, you'd have some assholes taking to the internet and making disgusting remarks like they did with Rue's character in The Hunger Games, but more than likely, people would be too busy enjoying the movie to care....of course, I might just be wishful thinking.

I don't think you've ever heard of a cash-in movie, then. Where good concepts go to die...There are plenty of GREAT indie movies that were low-budget. Plenty of them are amazing and well done without needing tons of money. Snow On Tha Bluff? Genius, especially since I live near there. These, though, are movies that plan to make their money from the actual movie.

A cash-in movie would be something like I am Sam or Food Fight. These are movies that use product placements or a bought concept to make their money.
That was the point of both Avatar and The Vampire's Assistant. They already had the audience bought off because of their franchise. They just needed their money. So technically, it was like a robbery that plenty fell for. A quick buck.


Oh god, don't even get me STARTED on how vampires have been ruined in the industry because of Twilight among other stories. No one even knows what the movie Interview With a Vampire is or even who Anne Rice is. It's so sad. Teens sell, that's all it is. Cheap romance sells. Things don't really even need great thought now.Warm Bodies? That was an awesome-a** concept and it promised so much. Sadly, it was just another cheap-plotted romance sold off to teens...

( Oh yes. Off note, I love your avatar and signature. Such a good movie. )

Sad. sad Few film makers seem to care about making a quality movies these days. It's such a shame.

I think there is hope for vampires, as we know them, to come back, though. I've heard they are making a television story based on The Strain Trilogy (which contains the more zombie like vampires)...so there is that. I also kind of hope that some of the younger fans of Twilight maybe pick up other books or movies with vampires, since their series has ended and they are looking for another fix. With time, maybe there will be a demand for another Anne Rice movie, and it could be something way better than the Atrocity that was The Queen of the Damned movie. Dammit! Marius did not turn Lestat!

...and thanks. Leeloo is the best. XD

[lovelylittlefart]

The Daario Naharis

lovelylittlefart

I believe white people are generally represented positively in the movies (not counting villains)

This does raise America's interesting way of handling villains.

Because no matter the setting in time and space.

No mater the ethnicity of the villain.

I'd say there is a 7.5/10 chance that that villain is going to have a British accent.

To the main point - It's ******** dickish and Hollywood needs to knock it off.

...sorry...couldn't help it. xd

I do see your point, though, but it's not just with the British accent.

TBE...give me a chance to find some examples.

Ah...here we go...as much as I love Disney's Aladdin, this is something I didn't notice as a kid, but notice now:



Now, I don't for one minute believe the creators of this movie were racist or hateful in making it the way they did. This took place in the early 90's. It probably would have been different if the movie was being made now. Disney has done a lot of evolving over the last few decades.

[Captain_Shinzo]

lovelylittlefart

Captain_Shinzo

lovelylittlefart

I picked up the first book again four years after finishing the series. It was amazing seeing some of the flaws I didn't see before. Darren Shan is a good story teller, but there is a lot of room for improvement in his writing, I agree. Perhaps he got better. He apparently wrote a prequel series for Mr. Crepsley and a zombie series. I'll probably check them out one day. Hopefully, his writing got better.I agree. Harkat was a good character. He was funny, noble, brave, and had a great backstory. Mr. Tiny was also an amazing character. I was fifteen when I first read the books, and I remember reading about him for the first time at night time in the back seat of a car on the way home from out of town and getting chills. Evra was another favorite of mine, but in the movie, he was an annoying douche with a guitar, and I really think Steve Leopard was a good antagonist. I agree that everything was crammed and rushed. I don't think being low budget is ever an excuse to make a crap movie and overusing CGI. There have been a lot of successful low budget science fiction films. If CGI is ever used in those movies, it is done sparingly. You can tell the movie makers actually put thought in making a good movie, because you see character development and the CGI is used when it is needed. I really do hope in a few years when the public has forgotten about the atrocity of a movie, someone chooses to pick up the movie and make it better...or at least make a kick a** television series. Actually, as I write that, I think it would be more awesome as a television series.What you say about some of the audiences not liking the idea of an interracial couple is true, but I still feel like it could have been done if they had just stayed true to the story and made the first movie based on the first book. I'm no expert, but I think it would have done quite well...all that would be needed after making movie was the right marketing. Vampires was a genre that was catering to young teen girls at the time, so they could have tried to market this to a more general audience...make it like, "Hey! Here's a vampire story everyone could enjoy!" and BOOM, you have a potential blockbuster. By the time they got to the third or fourth book, it could have been a big enough phenomenon for people not to care about the love interest being black. Yeah, you'd have some assholes taking to the internet and making disgusting remarks like they did with Rue's character in The Hunger Games, but more than likely, people would be too busy enjoying the movie to care....of course, I might just be wishful thinking.

I don't think you've ever heard of a cash-in movie, then. Where good concepts go to die...There are plenty of GREAT indie movies that were low-budget. Plenty of them are amazing and well done without needing tons of money. Snow On Tha Bluff? Genius, especially since I live near there. These, though, are movies that plan to make their money from the actual movie.

A cash-in movie would be something like I am Sam or Food Fight. These are movies that use product placements or a bought concept to make their money.
That was the point of both Avatar and The Vampire's Assistant. They already had the audience bought off because of their franchise. They just needed their money. So technically, it was like a robbery that plenty fell for. A quick buck.


Oh god, don't even get me STARTED on how vampires have been ruined in the industry because of Twilight among other stories. No one even knows what the movie Interview With a Vampire is or even who Anne Rice is. It's so sad. Teens sell, that's all it is. Cheap romance sells. Things don't really even need great thought now.Warm Bodies? That was an awesome-a** concept and it promised so much. Sadly, it was just another cheap-plotted romance sold off to teens...

( Oh yes. Off note, I love your avatar and signature. Such a good movie. )

Sad. sad Few film makers seem to care about making a quality movies these days. It's such a shame.

I think there is hope for vampires, as we know them, to come back, though. I've heard they are making a television story based on The Strain Trilogy (which contains the more zombie like vampires)...so there is that. I also kind of hope that some of the younger fans of Twilight maybe pick up other books or movies with vampires, since their series has ended and they are looking for another fix. With time, maybe there will be a demand for another Anne Rice movie, and it could be something way better than the Atrocity that was The Queen of the Damned movie. Dammit! Marius did not turn Lestat!

...and thanks. Leeloo is the best. XD

See, that's the thing about Twilight that greatly pisses me off. It wasn't even about the vampires that attracted the teens. It was the romance. Team Jacob and Team Edward? No ******** fanbase would ever stoop so low unless an entire story was just based on romance. That's what Twilight was. It didn't even give vampires a good image in the industry. Kids fell in love with the misconception and the romance. Not what REAL vampires were based on back in the day.

If all Twilight fans just watched the anime Hellsing or Hellsing Ultimate, maybe they would know what really good stories and vampires are like instead of cheap romance.

( Seriously, I could take a cheap fanfiction, edit the details, and make a movie out of it and it would sell so much. )

[lovelylittlefart]

Captain_Shinzo

lovelylittlefart

Captain_Shinzo

lovelylittlefart

I picked up the first book again four years after finishing the series. It was amazing seeing some of the flaws I didn't see before. Darren Shan is a good story teller, but there is a lot of room for improvement in his writing, I agree. Perhaps he got better. He apparently wrote a prequel series for Mr. Crepsley and a zombie series. I'll probably check them out one day. Hopefully, his writing got better.I agree. Harkat was a good character. He was funny, noble, brave, and had a great backstory. Mr. Tiny was also an amazing character. I was fifteen when I first read the books, and I remember reading about him for the first time at night time in the back seat of a car on the way home from out of town and getting chills. Evra was another favorite of mine, but in the movie, he was an annoying douche with a guitar, and I really think Steve Leopard was a good antagonist. I agree that everything was crammed and rushed. I don't think being low budget is ever an excuse to make a crap movie and overusing CGI. There have been a lot of successful low budget science fiction films. If CGI is ever used in those movies, it is done sparingly. You can tell the movie makers actually put thought in making a good movie, because you see character development and the CGI is used when it is needed. I really do hope in a few years when the public has forgotten about the atrocity of a movie, someone chooses to pick up the movie and make it better...or at least make a kick a** television series. Actually, as I write that, I think it would be more awesome as a television series.What you say about some of the audiences not liking the idea of an interracial couple is true, but I still feel like it could have been done if they had just stayed true to the story and made the first movie based on the first book. I'm no expert, but I think it would have done quite well...all that would be needed after making movie was the right marketing. Vampires was a genre that was catering to young teen girls at the time, so they could have tried to market this to a more general audience...make it like, "Hey! Here's a vampire story everyone could enjoy!" and BOOM, you have a potential blockbuster. By the time they got to the third or fourth book, it could have been a big enough phenomenon for people not to care about the love interest being black. Yeah, you'd have some assholes taking to the internet and making disgusting remarks like they did with Rue's character in The Hunger Games, but more than likely, people would be too busy enjoying the movie to care....of course, I might just be wishful thinking.

I don't think you've ever heard of a cash-in movie, then. Where good concepts go to die...There are plenty of GREAT indie movies that were low-budget. Plenty of them are amazing and well done without needing tons of money. Snow On Tha Bluff? Genius, especially since I live near there. These, though, are movies that plan to make their money from the actual movie.

A cash-in movie would be something like I am Sam or Food Fight. These are movies that use product placements or a bought concept to make their money.
That was the point of both Avatar and The Vampire's Assistant. They already had the audience bought off because of their franchise. They just needed their money. So technically, it was like a robbery that plenty fell for. A quick buck.


Oh god, don't even get me STARTED on how vampires have been ruined in the industry because of Twilight among other stories. No one even knows what the movie Interview With a Vampire is or even who Anne Rice is. It's so sad. Teens sell, that's all it is. Cheap romance sells. Things don't really even need great thought now.Warm Bodies? That was an awesome-a** concept and it promised so much. Sadly, it was just another cheap-plotted romance sold off to teens...

( Oh yes. Off note, I love your avatar and signature. Such a good movie. )

Sad. sad Few film makers seem to care about making a quality movies these days. It's such a shame.

I think there is hope for vampires, as we know them, to come back, though. I've heard they are making a television story based on The Strain Trilogy (which contains the more zombie like vampires)...so there is that. I also kind of hope that some of the younger fans of Twilight maybe pick up other books or movies with vampires, since their series has ended and they are looking for another fix. With time, maybe there will be a demand for another Anne Rice movie, and it could be something way better than the Atrocity that was The Queen of the Damned movie. Dammit! Marius did not turn Lestat!

...and thanks. Leeloo is the best. XD

See, that's the thing about Twilight that greatly pisses me off. It wasn't even about the vampires that attracted the teens. It was the romance. Team Jacob and Team Edward? No ******** fanbase would ever stoop so low unless an entire story was just based on romance. That's what Twilight was. It didn't even give vampires a good image in the industry. Kids fell in love with the misconception and the romance. Not what REAL vampires were based on back in the day.

If all Twilight fans just watched the anime Hellsing or Hellsing Ultimate, maybe they would know what really good stories and vampires are like instead of cheap romance.

( Seriously, I could take a cheap fanfiction, edit the details, and make a movie out of it and it would sell so much. )

I want scary vampires back. I think one of the things that made Lestat and others so frightening was that they could promise their prey romance and lead them to their deaths.

I don't mind romance at all as long as the story isn't centered around the romance. I decided to have an open mind and give the first book a try. I couldn't even get through it. I felt like the romance was forced between the two mains, and there was very little character development at all. I didn't feel any connection with Edward or Bella, because Meyer's main goal seemed to be getting those two together.

I remember getting in a little bit of an argument with a Twilight fan (or Twihard, as some of them wish to be called). I told her that Edward was not romantic, but rather creepy. I have a hard time thinking it's romantic to have some pale creepy guy watching me outside my window as I sleep. I find it disturbing that he doesn't allow Bella to drive her own car and insists that he'll be taking her to school, and the fact that he continues to pursue a relationship with her even though he is capable of killing her without a second thought is selfish. She argued that Lestat is just as creepy if not more than Edward. I told her she was right. Lestat is creepy, but none of the creepy things he does is meant to be seen as romantic. He is a monster. He knows he is a monster. That's one of the things I like most about Rice's books. There is no sugar coating what a vampire is.