Poll of the Day > DWARF Actors say Peter Dinklage cost them 7 JOBS over his SJW Disney Outrage!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Several Dwarf Actors vented furiously to Disney now removing the 7 dwarves from its Snow White live action movie after Game of Thrones star, Peter Dinklage called them out for being offensive stating this decision robs them of the work and chance to fulfil their dream role!!

Multiple actors and agents said they were plenty of them who have accepted that job that dinklage, a golden globe winner was paid 1.2 million per episode for Game of Thrones after now saying it's "backwards" to do so

They say Dinklage is not the authority on what the community as a whole finds offensive and that canceling roles like this does far more damage than good

Some are now begging Disney to bring the parts back and to audition for them

Dylan Postl said "It makes me sick to my stomach to think that there 7 roles for dwarfs that can't get normal acting roles or very few and far betweenr oles and now they are gone because of this guy. Peter Dinklage is the biggest dwarf actor probably of all time but it doesn't make him king dwarf. When he was cast as a little person role for Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones or Elf or this that or the other thing, those cheques cashed just fine. He had no issue then. But now he wants to be a progressive? Come on man. I don't know if Peter Dinklage is sitll acting or if he is done now but i don't know..it's pretty selfish. people came before him. If it is his mindset that all he wants to be the only one then you gotta grow up man. It's not helping our community. It's taking jobs away from our community that are very few and far between as it is. This story is the latest victim of our woke nation. We are in a society and a time of woke and progression and ig et that, to an extent but this is a fairytale. When i grew up all iw anted to do is be a professional wrestler and work for WWE. When i was 19 they were casting for a leprechaun, a person of my stature and i could never in a million years have gotten a job with them without this gig. If a dwarf just dreams of being an actor in a Disney film then this role is made for them. You're taking these roles of not just one but 7 little people away because you feel like we made progress? It's so stupid. it's just dumb. This social justice stuff burns me"

62 y/o Jeff Brooks has been a dwarf actor since 1979 and cast as a winkling chrismas elf in a holiday commercial who said snow white and 7 dwarves is not an offfensive story and would have jumped at the role. He played a GARDEN GNOME once and was proud to do so

He said dwarves did work in tehe mines and were easy to complete by people who are small after Dinklage said the stereotype of dwarf people working in mines was offensive and inaccurate.

31 y/o Katrina Kemp was skeptical if Disney was ever going to cast real dwarves in the movie in the first place as CGI would have made it cheaper

Dinklage was asked about the live action movie and vented his rage on disney's depiction of dwarf actors and said if anyone was listening to him on his soap box on the offensiveness of little actors and said Disney went progressive by hiring a hispanic actress for the lead role but did not change its depiction of dwarves

Do you agree with Dylan?

https://i.imgur.com/qbyChyz.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ARryf1W.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/fSe9abD.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/LWtitXc.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/jiza0in.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/en9vGLu.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/YyY5aDI.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/YI1iNPQ.jpg

The fact is that Dinklage has deliberately played into the stigmatization, stereotyping, and fetishization of people with dwarfism, so I was honestly a bit surprised that his word alone was enough to cause this. From everything I've seen on this subject, I'm inclined to disagree with Dinklage. - an SJW

Minority Group VS The Unemployed

Watch as both battle it out, to the death, for your sympathy! Who will emerge victorious!?!?

You mean a well-intentioned SJW act hurt the very people it was supposed to help? I'm shocked, SHOCKED! ...well, not that shocked.

Full Throttle posted...

He said dwarves did work in tehe mines and were easy to complete by people who are small after Dinklage said the stereotype of dwarf people working in mines was offensive and inaccurate.

Considering *children* often worked in mines given their smaller stature, I wonder where the Dink got the idea that shorter people wouldn't work in mines. His claim feels counterintuitive.

It's because these things are meant to be decided by panels of professional accredited psychologists and sociologists. Not some actor just because they think they relate to the part.

If we don't trust our brightest then what's the point? If anyone can make far-reaching precedents that curtail the freedoms of this generation and those to come after "just because" then we are headed for disaster.

It definitely seems annoying and does make Dinklage's word come across as having more power than it ought to.

Disney probably had too much zeitgeist and didn't really spend any time thinking through what the right response should be. It can set a bad precedent when someone can just object and POOF, it's changed.

Straughan posted...

It's because these things are meant to be decided by panels of professional accredited psychologists and sociologists. Not some actor just because they think they relate to the part.

If we don't trust our brightest then what's the point? If anyone can make far-reaching precedents that curtail the freedoms of this generation and those to come after "just because" then we are headed for disaster.

Why should it be up to scientists that are not part of the "minority"?

Revelation34 posted...

Why should it be up to scientists that are not part of the "minority"?

Because a part of the minority doesn't axiomatically mean a valuable or wise decision. The minority members alone are different and together are a temporal body. Long lasting and reaching decisions are best made by those who are trusted experts. And such experts would as a function of their judgment use and value the feelings of the minority along with other things a single part of or that temporal whole might not.

This is why courts and tribunals exist. And it is why they elicit the testimony and guidance of experts.

They kinda have a point about Dinklage being perfectly okay with his paychecks. That's rather hypocritical. It's their community, so best to let them decide what bothers them.

This is exactly what I wondered. Like how does the rest of the community feel? Now that Dinklage got his checks from a role he got specifically for being a little person no one else can have little people roles? It just seems weird.

I can agree that Hollywood should just cast them in regular roles, other then the obvious.

I called it in the other post that Peter was a moron costing other's jobs...seems I was correct.

Revelation34 posted...

Why should it be up to scientists that are not part of the "minority"?

Because science should trump identity politics? That's a weird-as-fuck excuse for getting around science, and inherently problematic.

As I said in the other topic, I think the solution might be to simply change some of the language and aesthetics. I don't have any problem at all with fairy tale adaptations changing with the times; historically that has always happened to such stories. The Brothers Grimm HEAVILY changed stories in order to push their personal political views onto the public, for example, far worse than anything modern Disney has done because they were attempting to permanently alter the understanding of the stories in society (and they in great part succeeded by stifling the original versions of the tales), whereas modern Disney adaptations do not suppress other versions.

So, making the story "Snow White and the Seven Fey" OR "Snow White and the Seven Miners" would have been a better move than cancelling the thing altogether, I think. The first alternative still is otherizing to the actors but removes the language taken issue with, while the second would remove the root issue but I expect some people would complain about it not being fantastical enough (though there are a lot of folklore stories with key figures that aren't fantastical, like the woodcutter in Red Riding Hood). They aren't perfect solutions, but I think tweaking these stories on a superficial level is good for modern audiences.

It is unfortunate that so many rolls for people with dwarfism end up casting them as non-human fantasy creatures. It's not difficult to understand why that is problematic, but this is a deep-seated problem in tne industry and Dinklage did not help here, I don't think.

Should be noted that I am neither a person with dwarfism nor someone in a creative industry, so I am very much talking out of my ass, lol. I might be missing something.

Gaawa_chan posted...

The Brothers Grimm HEAVILY changed stories in order to push their personal political views onto the public, for example, far worse than anything modern Disney has done because they were attempting to permanently alter the understanding of the stories in society (and they in great part succeeded by stifling the original versions of the tales),

Uh, what?

The Brothers Grimm took preexisting folktales and HEAVILY modified massive sections of the story in order to support their political beliefs. I thought this was well-known? Then again I am a fan of fantasy so...

The original versions of a lot of the stories they told are quite different, with everything from character personalities and behaviors to overall themes/moral lessons being completely re-written.

Uh, let me do some googling and see if I can dig up some more info for you beyond my assertions that this is the case. Oh! But one general example is that this is why so many of the fairy tale villains are like... evil stepmothers and such. That was NOT some wonky coincidental trend in folklore; that was manufactured.

Edit: Rapunzel is probably the most obvious example. I had to double-check because I wasn't sure I remembered correctly (have a terrible headache) but in older versions of Rapunzel, the heroine saved herself.
It should be noted that several of these stories are a meshing of multiple variations (Rapunzel is an example of this, actually). Which parts the Brothers Grimm chose to keep and omit should be noted. It is unfortunate that the older versions of the tales are extremely obscure today. Oral traditions and all that.
Edit2: I'm not going to hunt down all the variations, but here's one most people note. This one does have a love interest, but notice that it's not the prince that rescues her, and that she uses magic (in fact, a lot of folklore "good-aligned" characters used to, which obviously would not have flown in the culture of the Brothers Grimm. Magic-using women should be murdered, not praised):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrosinella
But yeah, just read the changes section on that page. They altered the main heroine a great deal in order to force her to conform to their beliefs about what constitutes a "good woman." It's not even subtle, lol.

Edit3: Wasn't satisfied with this post. The point is that these stories have a long history of being edited to conform to the cultural norms of the time, and that they were changed in far more dramatic ways in the past to do so. Changing superficial things like whether or not the 7 people Snow White hangs out with are human or not does not at least change substantive parts of the story; it is superficial. If people are bothered by deliberate changes for political reasons to stories, then they should probably be objecting to the way the Brothers Grimm fundamentally tweaked the characters, plot, and themes of these stories than whether or not the word "Dwarf" is used.

Edit4: I just can't stfu, lol. Uh, if you're curious, you should look up Snow White. It's fun to read about the old variations and speculated composite origins of these stories, and consider how they were altered to conform to the culture of the time and place that that variation was told in. Gives people some perspective on how people whining about "changing things to make them WOKE!!! will destroy the world!" is just... patently absurd.

Gaawa_chan posted...

The Brothers Grimm took preexisting folktales and HEAVILY modified massive sections of the story in order to support their political beliefs. I thought this was well-known? Then again I am a fan of fantasy so...

I feel like your complaint suggests there were definitive versions for most folktales. As you note (and I was going to point out before reading the rest of your post), we're talking about a largely oral tradition across multiple regions and cultures where there can be hundreds of versions of the same story. (Which is why there's a categorization system around the stories themselves.)

As such, it wasn't so much that the "originals" were rewritten, it's more that there was no true "original" -- there were multiple versions of the tale, each with their own takes and often with their own endings, many of which were designed as morality tales. Which, I'll acknowledge you also kinda addressed although you put a little more of a spin on it. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with that idea within your assessment, but I can see where that's coming from -- although it's no different than any other telling of the story, because there's no chain of ownership on the stories themselves let alone a core canon.

I was asking if you had a source that might prove the changes were done with a deliberate intent to promote specific "personal political views," because that's what you originally suggested. And that's an unusually specific claim. You're not saying social views or morals, you're saying politics. And I feel something like that should be easy to prove if there's merit to it.

The_Viscount posted...

I feel like your complaint suggests there were definitive versions for most folktales.

No, my point was that the Grimm versions are NOT definitive and neither are the Disney ones, so people shouldn't get their panties in a twist over Disney choosing to change things. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

I was asking if you had a source that might prove the changes were done with a deliberate intent to promote specific "personal political views," because that's what you originally suggested. And that's an unusually specific claim. You're not saying social views or morals, you're saying politics. And I feel something like that should be easy to prove if there's merit to it.

I... don't know what to tell you; this has always been the case for these stories, and I'm kind of weirded out that you're challenging it. But citations, sure, sure... I doubt I can find the first works where I learned of this (first learned it from a book I read years ago and I have no idea where that thing is now, nor do I remember the title).

This blog post in and of itself is not a citation, but I don't want to link all of the citations it contains, so here is this:
http://fairytalefanboy.blogspot.com/2016/11/fairy-tales-and-socialpolitical-issues.html

"Fairy Tales and Political Socialization" Page 183 starts talking about the Brothers Grimm works specifically and their influence on European socio-politics.
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/89845/3/Samadzadeh_Mehrdad_201806_PhD_thesis.pdf

"Cultural Nationalism: The Grimm Brothers' Fairy Tales" - Related.
https://www.crsd.org/cms/lib/PA01000188/Centricity/Domain/667/English/Fairy%20Tales/Cultural_Nationalism.pdf

"Breaking the Magic Spell: Politics and the Fairy Tale" is an interesting related work, though definitely people won't all agree with its assessment lol.

Ahem...
https://sites.pitt.edu/~dash/grimm110.html

Like... how do I put this? Their reasons for writing the texts that they did were overtly political (cultural preservation/unification... even though some of the stories they used weren't even German tales, lol, and that alone should be a massive red flag as to what they were doing with these stories, claiming that they it was a matter of preserving German heritage, which... sure, there's nothing wrong with that, but why change the stories so significantly then instead of preserving the older versions?) if you know much of anything about them. It was not a mere matter of preservation; if it was, they would have compiled variations of the stories instead of writing their own heavily modified versions. Charitable people call them patriots, while less charitable people call them nationalists. This is not a condemnation; it's a factual observation.

The_Viscount posted...

You mean a well-intentioned SJW act hurt the very people it was supposed to help? I'm shocked, SHOCKED! ...well, not that shocked.

Considering *children* often worked in mines given their smaller stature, I wonder where the Dink got the idea that shorter people wouldn't work in mines. His claim feels counterintuitive.

"Well Intentioned"? What the fuck are you on because I want some.

I'll glance at those later, but just looking at the links, they feel more sociological than political.

Gaawa_chan posted...

Edit: I sure do love my long-winded edits. As someone else pointed out to me privately regarding this conversation, I cannot "prove" the "intent" of two people who existed over two centuries ago ago that I cannot read the minds of. I kind of have to go off their stated intentions (which were political, let's be very clear here; they made no secret about it). I'm uh, actually going to quote the message they sent to me because it made me lol. They are not as nice as I am.
why are many of the women in fairytale-related media incapable of fending for themselves when in the originals they were capable of doing so
why are many people experiencing poverty posted as dirty, ugly, foolish etc, while the exceptions are either unbothered by their poverty or fucking magic.
Definitely not politically motivated, sure. are you kidding me?

I feel like your mystery caller doesn't know what "politics" are.

Arcturusisnow posted...

"Well Intentioned"? What the fuck are you on because I want some.

Are you suggesting Dink was acting out of malice or some ulterior motive?

The_Viscount posted...

sociological than political.

I shouldn't have to explain to an adult that politics and sociology overlap.

I feel like your mystery caller doesn't know what "politics" are.

My discord friend does in fact seem to understand that sociology is intertwined with politics, unlike you.
It turns out that whether or not the State thinks that witches should be burned to death, support for monarchies, denigration of minorities, etc... is both sociological and political. Who would have thought?
But I notice you have side-stepped my observation of their nationalistic "cultural preservation" that consisted of outright revision of culture... which is unambiguously, obviously political.
Do you like... have some sort of deep-seated emotional attachment to some sort of pure head-canon you've built around two men who have been dead for literal centuries? I don't understand why you're taking issue with any of this, it's really weird.

Are you suggesting Dink was acting out of malice or some ulterior motive?

Honestly I'm a bit confused about what Dinklage was hoping to accomplish as well.

Gaawa_chan posted...

As I said in the other topic, I think the solution might be to simply change some of the language and aesthetics. I don't have any problem at all with fairy tale adaptations changing with the times; historically that has always happened to such stories. The Brothers Grimm HEAVILY changed stories in order to push their personal political views onto the public, for example, far worse than anything modern Disney has done because they were attempting to permanently alter the understanding of the stories in society (and they in great part succeeded by stifling the original versions of the tales), whereas modern Disney adaptations do not suppress other versions.

So, making the story "Snow White and the Seven Fey" OR "Snow White and the Seven Miners" would have been a better move than cancelling the thing altogether, I think. The first alternative still is otherizing to the actors but removes the language taken issue with, while the second would remove the root issue but I expect some people would complain about it not being fantastical enough (though there are a lot of folklore stories with key figures that aren't fantastical, like the woodcutter in Red Riding Hood). They aren't perfect solutions, but I think tweaking these stories on a superficial level is good for modern audiences.

It is unfortunate that so many rolls for people with dwarfism end up casting them as non-human fantasy creatures. It's not difficult to understand why that is problematic, but this is a deep-seated problem in tne industry and Dinklage did not help here, I don't think.

Should be noted that I am neither a person with dwarfism nor someone in a creative industry, so I am very much talking out of my ass, lol. I might be missing something.

That's true about the Brother's Grimm. Although it was more religious then political.

The_Viscount posted...

Because science should trump identity politics? That's a weird-as-fuck excuse for getting around science, and inherently problematic.

So you're saying a bunch of scientists can tell minorities that they are wrong about their own feelings?

Peter Dinklage is not the most famous dwarf actor of all time. That would be Warwick Davis.

Rather hypocritical of Dinklage. He had no problem Being in the movie Elf where his dwarfism was purely played for laughs.

Lil_Bit83 posted...

I can agree that Hollywood should just cast them in regular roles, other then the obvious.

I know of several examples of dwarf actors being cast in regular roles. Just to name a few: Peter Dinklage in Pixels, Meredith Eaton in MacGyver, and Rick Howland in Lost Girl. The latter is significant to me because his role is my favorite character in the show. All three roles could have been played by non dwarfs and it wouldn't have made a difference. I'm all for casting dwarfs in regular roles. Unless a role requires a specific sex, ethnicity, age, or body shape; it makes no sense to limit your options.