Choppasmith
Member
Yeah I think if he just mentioned the setting and time period he has pretty solid reasoning. Dude dug the whole further with his musings tho.

I mostly wanted an excuse to post this.
Yeah I think if he just mentioned the setting and time period he has pretty solid reasoning. Dude dug the whole further with his musings tho.
I remember back when I was a child watching The Brady Bunch and they started to get all politically correct. Like, OK, lets have an Asian child and a black. I used to get more offended by that
"Nowadays, people are talking about it more," he says regarding film diversity. But "things either call for things, or they dont. I remember back when I was a child watching The Brady Bunch and they started to get all politically correct. Like, OK, lets have an Asian child and a black. I used to get more offended by that than just... I grew up watching blaxploitation movies, right? And I said, thats great. I didnt go like, OK, there should be more white people in these movies."
As a white person I apologize that this guy exists and I share a skin tone with him
Lol.
I can hardly even believe he said it. He's offended. By seeing a black and asian child on a show with 99.9% white characters. The horror.
Why are some people so offended by so much as seeing ethnic minorities/women/lgbt people on a screen (and sometimes not even in a lead role)? I saw a handful of people on another forum who started crying about "pandering!" when there was a female lead on some inconsequential show or another. Who gives a fuck. Straight white male leads could also be considered pandering, just to your hateful insular ass.
Samuel L. Jackson stars in the movie, and is perhaps the most predominately featured person of color in all of the 36 Burton-directed films. As Bustle notes, Billy Dee Williams was featured in 1989s Batman and Michael Clarke Duncan was in 2001s Planet of the Apes, both only in supporting roles. Jackson told the publication that he did indeed notice the lack of diversity in Miss Peregrine, but it obviously didnt keep him from taking the role.
I had to go back in my head and go, how many black characters have been in Tim Burton movies? he said. And I may have been the first, I dont know, or the most prominent in that particular way, but it happens the way it happens. I dont think its any fault of his or his method of storytelling, its just how its played out. Tims a really great guy.
https://twitter.com/notaxation/status/781656139515572224
https://twitter.com/notaxation/status/781660621397909504
^^
Frustrating example of outrage over legitimate outrage. Burton is essentially saying white people are the default for characters unless a character calls for being a minority.
That's such an amazingly tone deaf response in 2016 that it's almost unbelievable. I almost feel like I need to verify the validity of this on Snopes to be sure that he really answered the question this stupidly.
If we're going to be upset at Burton, especially in the face of people struggling to understand our perspective, I think we have a responsibility to fairly represent exactly why he was being ignorant. He wasn't offended simply because there were minorities. He was offended that someone intervened to ensure there were visible minorities on the show. ie, that it was a conscious decision to feature those characters for diversity's sake.Lol.
I can hardly even believe he said it. He's offended. By seeing a black and asian child on a show with 99.9% white characters. The horror.
Why are some people so offended by so much as seeing ethnic minorities/women/lgbt people on a screen (and sometimes not even in a lead role)? I saw a handful of people on another forum who started crying about "pandering!" when there was a female lead on some inconsequential show or another. Who gives a fuck. Straight white male leads could also be considered pandering, just to your hateful insular ass.
If we're going to be upset at Burton, especially in the face of people struggling to understand our perspective, I think we have a responsibility to fairly represent exactly why he was being ignorant. He wasn't offended simply because there were minorities. He was offended that someone intervened to ensure there were visible minorities on the show. ie, that it was a conscious decision to feature those characters for diversity's sake.
Don't do any favours for those who wish to characterize you as a hysterical reactionary, is my point.
I don't know this. That isn't the point. It was Burton's assumption and the basis for his analogy.How do you know this though? Since when was an American show that aired in 1969 to 1974 concerned with diversity? It couldn't possibly be that particularly episode called for two actors of color to be in it, right? No, of course it couldn't; it must've been somehow forced.
I don't know this. That isn't the point. It was Burton's assumption and the basis for his analogy.
The guy is 58 years old, does it really surprise people he isn't on the up and up of American liberal millennial ideals of race related behavior?
....this doesn't make sense. Burton movies has aleays been about people who are different and stuff.
This make me sad.
oogie Boogie's va is literally the only other major black actor in a Burton film I can think of.
If we're going to be upset at Burton, especially in the face of people struggling to understand our perspective, I think we have a responsibility to fairly represent exactly why he was being ignorant. He wasn't offended simply because there were minorities. He was offended that someone intervened to ensure there were visible minorities on the show. ie, that it was a conscious decision to feature those characters for diversity's sake.
Don't do any favours for those who wish to characterize you as a hysterical reactionary, is my point.
My parents are 10 year older and not as tone deaf as he is. So yeah it surprises me.
It's his perception. That such an episode manifested due to political correctness (unless I'm mistaken, I don't think we know the machinations that led to that unique episode). I am not Tim Burton. I do not share his views. My post was to address those suggesting, e.g., that he's simply offended by seeing minorities on-screen.Not really a surprise coming from Tim "A black" Derpon when you look at his filmography. I am a bit curious about the book though since I never read it - are the characters diverse or not, or is it left up to interpretation?
It was a backdoor pilot for a show about kids adopted from different racial backgrounds. No one "intervened" or forced color on Burton's sensitive eyes "for diversity's sake." It's literally the premise.
Can't wait for Denzels response to why "Fences" is mostly black.
Not really a surprise coming from Tim "A black" Derpon when you look at his filmography. I am a bit curious about the book though since I never read it - are the characters diverse or not, or is it left up to interpretation?
Can't wait for Denzels response to why "Fences" is mostly black.
He is going to tell you to check his wallet
Can't wait for Denzels response to why "Fences" is mostly black.
That's a poor response... Although, I'm wondering what kind of response would be better. Trying to answer why your film is mostly white seems like a minefield, unless it's set in Victorian era England or some other, historical setting that was mostly white.
That's a poor response... Although, I'm wondering what kind of response would be better. Trying to answer why your film is mostly white seems like a minefield, unless it's set in Victorian era England or some other, historical setting that was mostly white.
I've never read the book, but it's set on a remote island in Wales. According to the last census in 2011, 95.6% of the Welsh population was white, 2.3% was Asian, and only 0.6% was black.
I think the main difference between this an the Coens is that the casting for this film almost had to be deliberate. The book is pretty diverse and then you have a completely white cast for the adaptation, which is weird. Burtons comment also feels like he thought about it and then decided, "fuck that noise I don't wanna be PC".Well, it was also same with the Coen brothers. You can tell that thoughts like this never cross their mind, and they're caught off guard and scramble to not look like a racist, giving an awkward answer that ends up feeling kinda racist anyway.
I feel the same way I did when the Coens gave their answer, I don't think they're racist at all, but they obviously never give this stuff a second thought and just stay in a comfort zone.
Can't wait for Denzels response to why "Fences" is mostly black.
https://twitter.com/notaxation/status/781656139515572224
https://twitter.com/notaxation/status/781660621397909504
^^
Frustrating example of outrage over legitimate outrage. Burton is essentially saying white people are the default for characters unless a character calls for being a minority.
Not this tired and awful argument, the film is a big budget FANTASY movie made to be seen by the widest audience possible. Samuel L. Jackson is freakin' in it. Being historically accurate isn't what they're going for and even then casting one of the kids as ironically enough an "Asian kid or a black" would still fit within your demographics that you pathetically used to justify the casting.
I'm all for Tim Burton to cast whoever he wants in his movies but the demographics one is always used to maintain the status quo up into the demographics shift and then other arguments are used to maintain it. It's a bullshit argument but it keeps being carted out as if it means anything.
Funny it's never used the other way, as the Angry Asian Man put it best, "You can set a story anywhere in the world, in any era of history, [regardless of the demographics] and Hollywood will still somehow find a way for the movie to star a white guy. You can count on it".
Excuse me? I didn't make any arguments, nor was I "justifying the casting". The parent poster asked what the racial makeup of the book was. It's set in Wales, which is a hundred shades of white, so I assume the book is similar, but I have no idea. I already made my opinion of Burton's default white attitude known earlier in the thread.