Do movie studios intentionally make bad movies?

[Samsara]

Definitwly a separate issue, but I don't think remaking movie and changing race or gender of characters to be more inclusive is really helping anything. I'm not sure they're really making any extra money making Ariel or Snow White non-white. I read a good take a while back from a person of color who called it insulting that this is being done. They called on Hollywood to make movies with original stories about diverse characters. Changing established characters races is basically saying that there aren't any good characters of color worth making movies about. I tend to agree, but as a white guy I don't think I can really have an opinion on the matter.

Yeah, I have an opinion on the matter, but I am with the person who made that take -- I think those of color would be insulted by that too. I think there are plenty of creative people who can make compelling characters of color. It's certainly a separate issue, but somewhat related in that the studios have to think more broadly about a much more diverse audience these days.

[Adami]

I get that it gets blurry. But not every time a minority is hired to play a traditionally white role, is it a diversity hire. It seems the conversation goes like this.

People: You should hire whoever is best for the job, without considering race or whatever.
Studio: Okay, we think this person is best for the job
-points to black or Asian actor-
People: GOD DAMN DIVERSITY HIRE!!

I won't defend the 7 dwarves thing, cause who knows? But why on earth couldn't they have thought Halle Bailey was the best choice for the role? There's a very unsettling double standard to demand they not consider race but then accuse them of it when the person isn't white.

Again, taking the 7 dwarves out of this because I have no idea what they're going for there, unless we have some strong evidence that it WAS just a diversity hire, then always accusing studios of that is rather distasteful.

[Samsara]

The word "blurry" is a perfect adjective for the diversity issue in films. Honestly, I don't know what the "right" thing to do is. But I know that I don't feel good about taking established white characters and making them Black, or Asian, etc. But I do very much support new, original content and characters who are diverse, and showcase the reality that the world is not white. It is many shades of color. It's a difficult issue for sure.

[Adami]

The word "blurry" is a perfect adjective for the diversity issue in films. Honestly, I don't know what the "right" thing to do is. But I know that I don't feel good about taking established white characters and making them Black, or Asian, etc. But I do very much support new, original content and characters who are diverse, and showcase the reality that the world is not white. It is many shades of color. It's a difficult issue for sure.

They’re both happening. But the new and original films often have slim chance of succeeding.


Also haven’t white actors been playing non white roles since film began?

[lordxizor]

Also haven’t white actors been playing non white roles since film began?

They have. And this is widely believed to be wrong today. So do we make up for past wrongs by doing the same thing in the opposite direction today? I don't think that's the right approach personally.

[Adami]

Also haven’t white actors been playing non white roles since film began?

They have. And this is widely believed to be wrong today. So do we make up for past wrongs by doing the same thing in the opposite direction today? I don't think that's the right approach personally.

For historical figures, sure. Though white people are still playing Jesus.

But Ariel and whatever aren’t historical figures. Someone made them up. There’s nothing inherently white about about Ariel. She’s a mermaid.

[lordxizor]

Also haven’t white actors been playing non white roles since film began?

They have. And this is widely believed to be wrong today. So do we make up for past wrongs by doing the same thing in the opposite direction today? I don't think that's the right approach personally.

For historical figures, sure. Though white people are still playing Jesus.

But Ariel and whatever aren’t historical figures. Someone made them up. There’s nothing inherently white about about Ariel. She’s a mermaid.

A historically black fictional character being portrayed as white would receive massive backlash. Why is the opposite OK?

I honestly don't give a shit about Ariel. I'm asking in a more academic way.

[Adami]

Because the vast vast vast majority of historically made up characters are white. We’re not at a time right now where making up new ones goes very far. So we either keep 99% of it white, or we shake things up in ways that don’t ruin the character at all.

[lordxizor]

Because the vast vast vast majority of historically made up characters are white.

Are they? I've got to assume there are tons of stories made up by asian or african authors that are not white. We've just focused historically on european based stories in the west.

[Adami]

Because the vast vast vast majority of historically made up characters are white.

Are they? I've got to assume there are tons of stories made up by asian or african authors that are not white. We've just focused historically on european based stories in the west.

Probably. But we are, largely, talking about the American/European markets. China and African countries likely don’t care about classic European fairy tales and we have no idea what they’re doing. But while America and Europe have traditionally made almost everything about white people, the populations are now quite different and art is reflecting that. If a film maker makes up a story about an Asian or Black whatever, it has a very very very low chance to being shown in AMCs across the country. But little mermaid or Cinderella are guaranteed.

[soupytwist]

It's seems odd to me it's ok to have a white American or an New Zealander actor play the role of Robin Hood and no one really cares.  Yet if a person of color (even if they were English!) Was cast a certain section of society would cause an outcry.

And yes I'm aware that swings both ways.

[Adami]

It's seems odd to me it's ok to have a white American or an New Zealander actor play the role of Robin Hood and no one really cares.  Yet if a person of color (even if they were English!) Was cast a certain section of society would cause an outcry.

And yes I'm aware that swings both ways.

And don't get me started on people not named Paul playing characters named Paul!!

[Stadler]

Definitwly a separate issue, but I don't think remaking movie and changing race or gender of characters to be more inclusive is really helping anything. I'm not sure they're really making any extra money making Ariel or Snow White non-white. I read a good take a while back from a person of color who called it insulting that this is being done. They called on Hollywood to make movies with original stories about diverse characters. Changing established characters races is basically saying that there aren't any good characters of color worth making movies about. I tend to agree, but as a white guy I don't think I can really have an opinion on the matter.

Yeah, I have an opinion on the matter, but I am with the person who made that take -- I think those of color would be insulted by that too. I think there are plenty of creative people who can make compelling characters of color. It's certainly a separate issue, but somewhat related in that the studios have to think more broadly about a much more diverse audience these days.

The problem with all of this is the same problem with the identity politics movement in general:  We're trying to shoehorn what are inherently personal responses, based on our own experience, values and view of the world, and make them into grand, sweeping all-encompassing gestures.  Having an African American say that casting "Snow White as black is insulting" is no grand racial statement.  It's only ever the opinion of that guy (or girl) in the moment.  And vice versa.  And we need to start realizing that more than we do now. 

SO MUCH of these arguments are predicated on the lenses of those observing, and generally speaking we are patently shitty at accounting for lenses that aren't ours. 

[ZirconBlue]

Dungeons and Dragons is actually a good example of what I'm talking about in this thread. I haven't seen it, so I don't know if it's any good or not. But why would studio execs think a nerdy role playing game would translate to a large movie audience? I could have told them it wouldn't. They could have made a lower budget movie that was still profitable if it was good instead of going to a big budget blockbuster.

Are you talking about the quality of the movies or their box office success?  You seem to be conflating the two.  Dungeons and Dragons is not a "bad" movie, regardless of how much money it made.  And, I'd suggest that's true of several of the other examples given.  Sometimes good movies don't find their audience for a variety of reasons, and sometimes "bad" movies are very financially successful. 


And the reason they're making D&D properties right now is the game has seen huge growth in recent years, is more popular and more mainstream than it has ever been.  There are popular YouTube channels, like Critical Role, where people are basically just watching other people play D&D. 

[gmillerdrake]

Dungeons and Dragons is not a "bad" movie, regardless of how much money it made. 

It was actually a pretty fun movie. Watching it with the kiddos.

[Samsara]

I've been a D&D fan since 1985. Seen the ebb and flow of fandom. Really glad it is now at an all-time high (thanks, Stranger Things, and HBO for bringing George R.R. Martin's world to TV). I don't necessarily play any longer (I just have other priorities), but I am still a massive fan and reader of properties that started with D&D in mind (Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, etc.)

D&D (the film) is on my list to check out. Perhaps this Friday night.

[lordxizor]

Dungeons and Dragons is actually a good example of what I'm talking about in this thread. I haven't seen it, so I don't know if it's any good or not. But why would studio execs think a nerdy role playing game would translate to a large movie audience? I could have told them it wouldn't. They could have made a lower budget movie that was still profitable if it was good instead of going to a big budget blockbuster.

Are you talking about the quality of the movies or their box office success?  You seem to be conflating the two.  Dungeons and Dragons is not a "bad" movie, regardless of how much money it made.  And, I'd suggest that's true of several of the other examples given.  Sometimes good movies don't find their audience for a variety of reasons, and sometimes "bad" movies are very financially successful. 


And the reason they're making D&D properties right now is the game has seen huge growth in recent years, is more popular and more mainstream than it has ever been.  There are popular YouTube channels, like Critical Role, where people are basically just watching other people play D&D. 

I am sort of mixing the two. I guess I mean do they make movies that they know will not make much money in the theater. These are not always bad movies I guess, though they typically are.

[ozzy554]

It's very easy to accidentally make a bad movie.

Step 1: Buy great script or rights to beloved IP.

Step 2: Demand re-writes and reshoots until it no longer resembles what you bought in the first place based on focus tested bullshit while dumping more millions into the project.

Step 3: Realizing the movie is a mess but you've sunk too much money to just outright can it so you release it anyway hoping for the best.

No Major studio goes out of their way to make bad movies but man do they know how to accidentally turn them into one.

Also just because a movie bombs doesn't mean it's bad or it doesn't have an audience for it. A lot of movies have been sunk by bad advertising. Whether it be misadvertising as a different kind of movie or just barely having any ads at all. Also there's shitty scheduling. I've heard D&D is a lot of fun but it was sandwiched between The Mario movie and John Wick 4. With theaters being the most expensive they've ever been you cant count on people seeing more than 2 in a month unless they have like A-list or something. 

[Zantera]

There definitely are movie studios who make bad movies intentionally, like those Asylum movies. You think about certain movies like Sharknado, it's definitely made to be a "funny bad" movie.

I don't think the same applies to other big studios like Disney, because a better movie means higher chances of making more money. So you want your movie to be good, I think the issue is that the MCU or Star Wars or their live action cartoon movies (Jungle Book, Lion King, Little Mermaid etc) are so 'assembly line' at this point that keeping the quality up is hard because you need to pump them out every few months to stay on schedule.

In the case of Disney with the MCU I think they really messed up by doing too much at the same time and also not having a strong enough plan after Endgame. They thought "We can just keep doing what we do because everyone loves us" but that has clearly backfired. These used to be guaranteed viewing experiences for me and I feel pretty done at this point. The movies are just all over the place and the tv shows are not worth watching. I know a lot of people who used to be equally as into the MCU, hyped about seeing every new movie in the cinema and now if the MCU is brought up in conversation its like a wet fart in the room and people are sort of awkwardly going "Yeah maybe I'll watch the next movie". I know there's also people who are still hyped but for me they tried to do too much and it wasn't as consistent as before. It also doesn't help them that there's other companies making bad superhero movies at the same time cause it all feeds into the same problem.