/starwars/ - Star Wars

They're pretending to be racist.

>>7204

>If the new Star Wars had a human/alien romance instead of an interracial one,, would anyone care?

I guarantee you the /pol/tards would look at it as an affront if a white female got with an alien character. They would say it's JJ cleverly trying to encourage racemixing through unconventional means.

This board should just be renamed /swpol/ because there's hardly any threads that discuss Star Wars without bringing race politics into it.

>>7210

I'm with this guy. This board used to be really fun but now it's kinda just depressing. I'm not altogether too happy about what I'm seeing so far but I still wanna just talk about dorky shit ya know

>>7226

>Disney pretty much invited /pol/ here when they featured an interracial couple in the preview, and had the "my two dads" Darth Vader soup advert.

That would be like saying a KKK meeting is implicitly an invitation for blacks to attend. If anything Disney is telling /pol/ that they're not wanted.

>interracial couple

No.

Is it even confirmed that those two characters are in a relationship though?

Also which one is going to be the fucking Jedi? I thought it was going to be the nigger, but i've seen someone else say it's the girl.

I would prefer to see the girl as the Jedi if I had to pick.

>Why is a black/white couple more controversial than an interspecies relationships?

because noone is going to fall for the propaganda and get in a relationship with an "alien" since it's not possible. the nigger man/white women propaganda is what is ALWAYS pushed.

>>7228

Disney will welcome /pol/ as long as money changes hands.

>>7241

I don't even give a shit about the soup ad and I really don't find homosexuality to be a particularly hot topic anymore

my only real issue is JJ specifically saying his casting choices were racially motivated. It tells me his priorities have nothing to do with making a good movie, and THERE is where the issue starts.

Everything else is fallout from that.

>>7242

J.J. admitted his casting was just for diversity?

Could you post a link.

SJW aren't known for their honesty, and I would love to see that.

>>7204

probably not, we're all accustomed to the inter-species thing from mass effect

that doesn't mean it's okay to throw in a jimmy lol

>>7241

chewie's got that look like "here have some of my hot steamy soup, it's fresh from my ass"

>>7244

here, have some sauce

http://www.slashfilm.com/star-wars-7-racially-diverse/

>>7241

>KKK meeting are held in secret.

No need to be a pedant about it, I'm sure you got what I meant.

>Take a very public stand for the SJW

Eh, Disney has been pro-gay for a long ass time. They've been doing their not-official-but-sanctioned "gay days" since the 90s. They've offered health benefits to same-sex partners since 1995. /pol/ is a couple decades late to the controversy.

>>7242

I fail to see how him saying he wanted to make the film more diverse has to be taken as a negative.

Are you telling me that, historically, casting calls and casting decisions haven't had a racial element? That the director/crew didn't have it in their head that a character was white? That a casting call never specified race, or did so through roundabout means (i.e. specifying hair color)? It's only problematic now that the intention is to hire someone black. Envisioning and casting a white character has rarely been controversial, outside of instances where certain parties claim a movie to be whitewashed.

Why wasn't it an issue to conceive of Alias, a show about a highly-intelligent female spy? Why was no one saying "he only cast Jennifer Garner because she's a girl" then? Why aren't they saying it even now? That show was another JJ joint, by the way.

Nobody framed that shit in such an overtly political context, certainly not to the extent that they would today.

I almost sense that, more than anything else, people feel *threatened* by these notions now. So they try to reverse-engineer a logical reason for why it's "wrong", but at heart they just want to find an excuse for why so-and-so can't be such-and-such.

For every outwardly /pol/ish sentiment I feel like there's just as many people claiming "Boyega is a terrible good actor" or "Boyega looks too plain" or "Boyega looks out of place", as if to try to legitimize the fact that they really just don't want a black person on the screen.

Most of these complaints seem to hone on him specifically, more so than any other aspect of the movie. Certainly I see sentiments like "Kylo looks dumb" but even then the complaints are more about the character than the actual actor.

Just one black character in an ensemble cast; all that it took to start a category 5 shit storm.

>>7251

> It's only problematic now that the intention is to hire someone black.

yeah, because he's putting that before talent

hell, he didn't even hire a good black actor, which I would have been fine with. Boyega's just not that good. Unless you think that ham-handed dialogue is really gonna give him a chance to shine, we're not gonna get a good performance

>>7231

When conservatives decided they were going to boycott Disney World over "gay days", Disney pretty much gave no fucks. They will take your money if you want to give it to them. They will give zero fucks if you don't. If they actually cared, the aforementioned commercial would have never happened. It would be in their best interest to say as uncontroversial as possible.

They don't need /pol/'s money. Fuck, /pol/ probably doesn't have that much money, I suspect a lot of them are dejected NEETs and high schoolers.

>>7253

>yeah, because he's putting that before talent

Replace him with another black actor (who isn't Will Smith) and most likely 99% of the same people would be bitching.

>Boyega's just not that good.

Subjective.

How about this, since it's really not about race for you, name a better choice of the same race and roughly the same age.

>>7257

once again, that's basing it ON RACE

why the hell do you have to hire based on race?

but hey, let's play by your rules

how about Jermaine Crawford?

>>7261

Right, but as I illustrated previously, many roles are cast based on race, age, gender, height, weight, hair color. There's nothing intrinsically different between "I'm going to cast a black guy for this role" and "I'm going to cast a middle-aged brunette for this role". They cast white people with the intention of casting white people all of the damn time. When's the last time you argued that someone was cast because he or she was white? Probably never.

>how Jermaine Crawford

I guess he didn't audition.

>>7263

it's star wars. if there's no story reason such as parents for someone to be a race, they can be any race

I sure as hell didn't bitch when Temuera Morrison was Jango, Lando was a part of my fucking childhood, do on and so forth. My issue is it makes no fucking sense to cast someone based specifically for ebin diversity and apparently no other reason, especially someone with as mediocre a career as Boyega. He's just not that good. Maybe he'll surprise everyone and deliver a spectacular performance, but with the way Abrams runs things, I don't feel any reason to be confident in things.

>>7267

I keep saying that his race was only part of the decision, and that his acting was another part of the decision. He wasn't even the only black person to audition, I believe your boy Michael B.-movie Jordan auditioned as well.

Your point of "only hired because of race" seems to hinge on the utterly subjective notion that Boyega has no talent and is *only* a black face with no other positive attributes. It's a flimsy argument in my opinion, especially since it seems to be uncommon. Attack the Block was a critically acclaimed movie, Boyega's performance was generally praised. So there's not even a real precedent for you to say he's a poor actor.

It's OK if you personally feel that way, but you have to also acknowledge that it is reasonable to imagine JJ saw something in Boyega in the same way that movie critics and audiences did, and concede then that the decision was only *partially* based on race. To which I will I reiterate, *many* casting decisions are based on the physical attributes of the actors, and preferring a black actor is no less reasonable than any other preference for age, gender, ethnicity, etc.

I'll admit he isn't *amazing*, but then, who among the cast would you say is? And if you argue that none of them are amazing, then it sounds like Boyega is fitting right in and that JJ is bad at casting in general irrespective of his notions of diversity.

For your argument to have weight we'd have to witness his performance actually drag the film down; to be of a noticeably inferior quality to that of the rest of the actors'. As of right now there's no way to prove this.