Current Events > Elon Musk reacts to Disney's inclusion standards.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1754999578619707658

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/4/4357d5bf.png

I like how he calls it mandatory racism and sexism without knowing that "underrepresented groups" includes military veterans, older people, and people with disabilities too.

Also this is like all jobs these days. It's why you have to fill out the demographic forms when you apply somewhere online.

There is a difference between representation and forced representation, It is abhorrent to see stuff like that measured in percentages. Even worse is that at the end of the day this is just done to get more money, these corporations and whatever message they spread do nothing for the races or whatever represented. The products are still mediocre but they expect us to show up just because they hired someone who looks like us and that feels scummy as all fuck.

Stuff like that might work in the US but there's a reason why mexico for example, did not care about blue beetle, we don't need to see ourselves reflected we just want a GOOD story/product.

Disney's heart is in the right place, but I can't say that I'm on board with *every* program having < 50% of the cast be comprised of members of underrepresented groups.

In the short run, it'll lead to tokenism where superfluous characters are added to inflate the numbers. That's no big deal because writers will start finding ways to make characters matter as soon as they're called out on tokenism. What annoys me about the scenario is that it limits the stories that can be told.

If they want to make an animated series based off of Beauty and the Beast, 18th century France is suddenly going to have larger Black and Asian populations because, "If magic beasts and talking teacups can exist, why can't they?" If Belle's best friend is Asian and the royal captain of the guard is Black, I could still accept that this is 18th century France through an idyllic lens. But if you reimagine it so that ethnic French people make up less than 50% of the cast, you might as well set the story in Middle Earth, Eternia, or Hyrule. "French" is an architecture and not an ethnicity.

Or if you wanted a western, you would have two options. The first would be to run the story through a filter of a minority family living in the old west. The other would be to make them all talking animal characters so that more than half of the cast can be comprised of actors from underrepresented groups.

I think it would be better if they mandated that 80% of programs adhered to the < 50% rule. Anything set in the present could mandate inclusivity. Anything placed in a historical setting could be more homogenous, but the number of such stories would be limited to less than 20% (unless it's focusing on an underrepresented group) so that everything isn't an excuse for "a small White town in Kentucky circa 1950," "a predominantly White town in 1880s Texas," "Medieval England with a 90% White cast," etc.

FortuneCookie posted...

If they want to make an animated series based off of Beauty and the Beast, 18th century France is suddenly going to have larger Black and Asian populations because, "If magic beasts and talking teacups can exist, why can't they?" If Belle's best friend is Asian and the royal captain of the guard is Black, I could still accept that this is 18th century France through an idyllic lens. But if you reimagine it so that ethnic French people make up less than 50% of the cast, you might as well set the story in Middle Earth, Eternia, or Hyrule. "French" is an architecture and not an ethnicity.

I mean you give someone a proverbial arm twist and they often concede or let slip that say they'll suspend criticism of story quality of you pander to their wants. Or like the anime localization concerns. How many claiming they expect completely accurate translations would honestly maintain their "stance" if line changes were Un-PC, crude or so on like say Ghost Stories?

FortuneCookie posted...

Disney's heart is in the right place, but I can't say that I'm on board with *every* program having < 50% of the cast be comprised of members of underrepresented groups.

In the short run, it'll lead to tokenism where superfluous characters are added to inflate the numbers. That's no big deal because writers will start finding ways to make characters matter as soon as they're called out on tokenism. What annoys me about the scenario is that it limits the stories that can be told.

If they want to make an animated series based off of Beauty and the Beast, 18th century France is suddenly going to have larger Black and Asian populations because, "If magic beasts and talking teacups can exist, why can't they?" If Belle's best friend is Asian and the royal captain of the guard is Black, I could still accept that this is 18th century France through an idyllic lens. But if you reimagine it so that ethnic French people make up less than 50% of the cast, you might as well set the story in Middle Earth, Eternia, or Hyrule. "French" is an architecture and not an ethnicity.

Or if you wanted a western, you would have two options. The first would be to run the story through a filter of a minority family living in the old west. The other would be to make them all talking animal characters so that more than half of the cast can be comprised of actors from underrepresented groups.

I think it would be better if they mandated that 80% of programs adhered to the < 50% rule. Anything set in the present could mandate inclusivity. Anything placed in a historical setting could be more homogenous, but the number of such stories would be limited to less than 20% (unless it's focusing on an underrepresented group) so that everything isn't an excuse for "a small White town in Kentucky circa 1950," "a predominantly White town in 1880s Texas," "Medieval England with a 90% White cast," etc.

What?

xlr_big-coop posted...

There is a difference between representation and forced representation, It is abhorrent to see stuff like that measured in percentages. Even worse is that at the end of the day this is just done to get more money, these corporations and whatever message they spread do nothing for the races or whatever represented. The products are still mediocre but they expect us to show up just because they hired someone who looks like us and that feels scummy as all fuck.

Stuff like that might work in the US but there's a reason why mexico for example, did not care about blue beetle, we don't need to see ourselves reflected we just want a GOOD story/product.

That's a whole lot of post two in this.

FortuneCookie posted...

Disney's heart is in the right place, but I can't say that I'm on board with *every* program having < 50% of the cast be comprised of members of underrepresented groups.

I think TRY to get >50% =/= MUST get 50%.
There's a difference between holistic measurements, and strict quotas. Everyone has already agreed that strict quotas are illegal. But there's nothing wrong with measuring percentages, then using those measurements to determine what efforts should be made in a holistic manner.

I suppose that everyone working in his cobalt mines in Africa are all white people... no? Oh dear, I wouldn't want to be Musk right now!

'Under represented groups', I assume includes women, the disabled, older people?

I bet it comes to more than 50% of the population.

pedro45 posted...

What?

Let me put it this way.

If you're doing a Captain Sinbad or Aladdin story, 90% or more of the cast should be Arab. If you're doing a Zorro story, 80% of the cast or more should be Latino/Latina. If you're doing a Mulan story, in all honesty, the entire (human) cast should be Chinese. If you're doing a story based on Robin Hood or King Arthur, 80% of the cast or more should be White.

That's all I'm trying to say.

FortuneCookie posted...

If they want to make an animated series based off of Beauty and the Beast, 18th century France is suddenly going to have larger Black and Asian populations because, "If magic beasts and talking teacups can exist, why can't they?" If Belle's best friend is Asian and the royal captain of the guard is Black, I could still accept that this is 18th century France through an idyllic lens. But if you reimagine it so that ethnic French people make up less than 50% of the cast, you might as well set the story in Middle Earth, Eternia, or Hyrule. "French" is an architecture and not an ethnicity.

OK, so you don't have a problem if they simply reinvented / adapted Beauty and the Beast so that it's less about historical France, and more in an alternate reality that focuses more on the generic ideals.

Just as Christians hijacked the pagan winter solstice holiday and turned it into Jesus' birthday. And now the rest of the world has reinvented Christmas to be less about Jesus and more about a big green tree, and gifts, and spending time with family.

FortuneCookie posted...

If you're doing a Captain Sinbad or Aladdin story, 90% or more of the cast should be Arab. If you're doing a Zorro story, 80% of the cast or more should be Latino/Latina. If you're doing a Mulan story, in all honesty, the entire (human) cast should be Chinese. If you're doing a story based on Robin Hood or King Arthur, 80% of the cast or more should be White.

That's all I'm trying to say.

Unless, they're reinventing the story, and using alternate realities, or multi-verses. AKA Spider-Verse. AKA modern James Bond, etc., etc., etc.

FortuneCookie posted...

Let me put it this way.

If you're doing a Captain Sinbad or Aladdin story, 90% or more of the cast should be Arab. If you're doing a Zorro story, 80% of the cast or more should be Latino/Latina. If you're doing a Mulan story, in all honesty, the entire (human) cast should be Chinese. If you're doing a story based on Robin Hood or King Arthur, 80% of the cast or more should be White.

That's all I'm trying to say.

My thinking of this is whole the hell cares when there's a billion versions of these stories that are up to your standards and will be a billion more long after we're dead

Omg stop the fucking presses!!! They just made Little Mermaid with a black lead!!!! One version of this out of hundreds out there

lydiaquayle posted...

Unless, they're reinventing the story, and using alternate realities, or multi-verses. AKA Spider-Verse. AKA modern James Bond, etc., etc., etc.

That opens up new doors, but it's also limiting if you're imposing a filter of "Do it, but in the modern era," or "Do it, but in the future." You can have King Arthur... so long as the story takes place in the 25th century in the galaxy known as Avalon.

TheoryzC posted...

My thinking of this is whole the hell cares when there's a billion versions of these stories that are up to your standards and will be a billion more long after we're dead

Omg stop the fucking presses!!! They just made Little Mermaid with a black lead!!!! One version of this out of hundreds out there

I was in support of that change.

I don't document my posts and I don't believe that one archive site is still around. But I defended that change numerous times. Since mermaids don't exist, who is to say what an undersea kingdom of people would look like or what their culture would be? The same goes for Mushu talking like Eddie Murphy. Who is to say what voice a dragon would have if there were dragons?

FortuneCookie posted...

That opens up new doors, but it's also limiting if you're imposing a filter of "Do it, but in the modern era," or "Do it, but in the future." You can have King Arthur... so long as the story takes place in the 25th century in the galaxy known as Avalon.

Regardless, that's all that really matters. If Christians gets to Jesus-wash Saturnalia, then there's nothing wrong with reinventing fictional stories, as long as proper credit is due to actual history, and nobody is claiming that ACTUAL 17th century Ireland had 40% black people.

It's just putting unnecessary restrictions on the people creating these stories.

If the story is good it doesn't matter what color the characters skin is, but once you start forcing them to add characters into the story just for the sake of being there it completely diminishes the value of those characters.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with retelling old stories in different settings. Even among the examples I used, Zorro borrowed from Robin Hood and Sinbad borrowed from the Odyssey.

Heavy_D_Forever posted...

If the story is good it doesn't matter what color the characters skin is, but once you start forcing them to add characters into the story just for the sake of being there it completely diminishes the value of those characters.

Only if it's a hard quota, which is illegal anyway. If it's more holistic standards, then it's perfectly fine. That's how the world has worked for hundreds of years anyway. And you are correct, no one wants tokenism, regardless. Minorities are the first to stand and argue against tokenism.

If it's a suggestion, and not a hard quota, I have no problem with it.

All of my original story ideas would meet the < 50% criteria anyway; especially if underrepresented groups include individuals who are LGBTQ.

I dont get the fine print where it says that context matters in order to determine if they qualify as an underrepresented group on account that legally they cant ask questions regarding race, religion, etc.

I feel they could have accomplished the same notion just by adding a winking emoji

Such a strange final bit.

Edit: also this is fake. These were ABCs standards from 2020. I remember when they made the rounds.

So there's no credible source for this.

FortuneCookie posted...

If they want to make an animated series based off of Beauty and the Beast, 18th century France is suddenly going to have larger Black and Asian populations because, "If magic beasts and talking teacups can exist, why can't they?" If Belle's best friend is Asian and the royal captain of the guard is Black, I could still accept that this is 18th century France through an idyllic lens. But if you reimagine it so that ethnic French people make up less than 50% of the cast, you might as well set the story in Middle Earth, Eternia, or Hyrule. "French" is an architecture and not an ethnicity.

Big studios like Disney and others already do this.

I wonder when it took effect, because certainly wasnt happening during Black Panther

Its too bad they arent concerned with hiring POTs or... people of talent.

Elon's comments are the quintessential "when you are used to privilege, equality feels like oppression"

And he wonders why people call him ApartheidClyde.

Isn't this more or less the standard that was implemented in Hollywood? Content makers needed to fulfill 3 out of 4 categories, and the bulleted points show how to fulfill said categories. I mean, it has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, and will probably stick around long after it serves its purpose, but is an industry standard.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/3/3525b35b.jpg

Nothing was "Woke" about this movie besides movie was the fact that women and brown people existed. Also I need to block X from this broswer. I blocked it from another one . But now X is still coming into my life. Got to get away from it.

DuneMan posted...

Isn't this more or less the standard that was implemented in Hollywood? Content makers needed to fulfill 3 out of 4 categories, and the bulleted points show how to fulfill said categories. I mean, it has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, and will probably stick around long after it serves its purpose, but is an industry standard.

recent events should have shown you there is no point where it will have served its purpose

bigots will always crawl out of the wood works if you show them even a hint they can be bigoted

LSGW_Zephyra posted...

Elon's comments are the quintessential "when you are used to privilege, equality feels like oppression"

This isnt equality

This is equity, which is a twisted version of equality that favours equal outcomes over equal opportunities.

I talking about the film industry specifically, not the fascist cultists bowing to the orange charlatan.

Question is ..what does Elon gain from this? Earn red brownie points?

Toonstrack posted...

So there's no credible source for this.

This was my thought. That does not look like an internal corporate document. That looks like a graphic made by some idiot on the internet. Elon Musk has posted fake shit and subscribed to hoaxes before. He's not a very bright guy.

This is about as dumb as Gosar's fear mongering about less white recruitment in the military.

It's a corporation and brand...by default they are designed to adjust business strategies and content based on current trends to maximize audience interest and participation.

The difference now is more representation vs. everyone being white and young like back in the day. Useless characters thrown in are no bueno though, no matter how white or brown etc. your movie is.

pokeweeb30 posted...

This isnt equality

This is equity, which is a twisted version of equality that favours equal outcomes over equal opportunities.

There is a lot to unpack here...

Anywho, seems like good stuff. Good on Disney. Looking to see his lawsuit crash and burn just like everything else

The plight of the straight white man continues to grow. Has anyone had it worse than them?

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/abc-unveils-ambitious-set-of-inclusion-standards-exclusive-4069409/

That image is in this 2020 article about ABCs inclusion standards.

Tenlaar posted...

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/abc-unveils-ambitious-set-of-inclusion-standards-exclusive-4069409/

That image is in this 2020 article about ABCs inclusion standards.

ABC are owned by Disney so it checks out.

Can Elon fuck off back to whatever hell dimension he crawled out of?

Crimsoness posted...

Can Elon fuck off back to whatever hell dimension he crawled out of?

Are you calling South Africa a hell dimension?

pokeweeb30 posted...

Are you calling South Africa a hell dimension?

No, he's calling whatever hell dimension he crawled out of to reach south Africa, a hell dimension.

pokeweeb30 posted...

Are you calling South Africa a hell dimension?

Are you actually going to bat for known shithead Elon Musk?

Whose alt?

Murphiroth posted...

Are you actually going to bat for known shithead Elon Musk?

Whose alt?

Their name reminds me of PokemonFanatic44 or whatever their name was. The posting is reminiscent too. But it's too early to tell anything.

I love that Musk has effectively and single handedly destroyed the notion that rich people are rich because they are smarter than all of us.

FortuneCookie posted...

If you're doing a story based on Robin Hood or King Arthur, 80% of the cast or more should be White.

Let me check some history real quick to make sure I've got some facts right...

The Romans brought a lot of black people to England, as early as the second century, when they built Hadrian's Wall, and even had black centurions up there to hold the wall.

Arthur was sixth and seventh centuries, hundreds of years later.

The moors conquered Spain in the 700s, a century after Arthur. They stuck around in Europe through the 1200s (and a little later) before being given the boot.

But just because there was conflict doesn't mean there wasn't commerce or travel.

Robin Hood was during the 1100s. There was plenty of travel to and from the holy land, which meant there was plenty of brown people for the Europeans to encounter.

So... depending on the story you're telling, 80% feels a little high for most period pieces outside a royal family or court setting.

The UK had to have been more diverse than popular media has led us to believe. There's just too much bleed over in cultures and kingdoms throughout history on the continent.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Because those private businesses aren't pandering exclusively to cishet white men anymore and that makes them upset.

ScazarMeltex posted...

I love that Musk has effectively and single handedly destroyed the notion that rich people are rich because they are smarter than all of us.

I think Donald Trump did that long before Elon.