AT&T's WarnerMedia implements diversity and inclusion policy for Warner Bros. movies and TV shows

AT&T today revealed a new company wide diversity and inclusion policy for WarnerMedia, the parent company of Warner Bros., HBO, and Turner. The new policy covers Warner Bros. across their movie, TV, and digital divisions.

The first project to move forward with this new policy is a movie called Just Mercy, which stars Michael B. Jordan. Warner Bros. chairman and CEO, Kevin Tsujihara, commented on the new policy.

“I’m proud that Warner Bros, and our sister companies HBO and Turner, are willing to state unequivocally that this is where we stand on diversity and inclusion. Our policy commits us to taking concrete action to further our goals, to measure the outcomes and to share the results publicly,” Tsujihara said. “I’m also thrilled that we were able to work with Michael B. Jordan to craft a meaningful policy and framework that will apply to all of our productions, across all of our divisions, going forward.”

Birds of Prey may be one of the first DC movies to implement this policy. Cathy Yan was hired as director, and Margot Robbie promised that there would be a lot of diversity on the screen as well.

WarnerMedia’s full statement on the new policy can be read below.

WarnerMedia companies, Warner Bros., HBO and Turner, have long been committed to diversity and inclusion as moral and business imperatives. It is essential that our content and creative partners reflect the diversity of our society and the world around us. Together with other production companies, networks, guilds, unions, talent agencies and others in the industry, we all must ensure there is greater inclusion of women, people of color, the LGBTQ+ community, those with disabilities and other underrepresented groups in greater numbers both in front of and behind the camera.
For our part, WarnerMedia pledges to use our best efforts to ensure that diverse actors and crew members are considered for film, television and other projects, and to work with directors and producers who also seek to promote greater diversity and inclusion in our industry. To that end, in the early stages of the production process, we will engage with our writers, producers and directors to create a plan for implementing this commitment to diversity and inclusion on our projects, with the goal of providing opportunities for individuals from under-represented groups at all levels. And, we will issue an annual report on our progress.
The companies of WarnerMedia have a historic and proven commitment to diversity and inclusion. But there is much more we can do, and we believe real progress can be made in the industry. We will work with our partners in the entertainment community to make this commitment a reality.

SOURCE: Deadline (via Superhero News)

215 comments

OGDickGrayson

September 6, 2018

Maybe your main focus should be on making good movies instead of forcing race/gender quotas.

Flower & Monster & Golden Calf
September 6, 2018
Couldn't hurt seeing the movies they made before this.

Flower & Monster & Golden Calf

September 6, 2018

Michael B Jordan? The actor?
Well, smells like he's a WB / DC guy now. Wonder if he got the John Stewart role.

sbs138
September 6, 2018
Haven't you heard....John Stewart is Asian now.
1. Flower & Monster & Golden Calf
  September 6, 2018
  i doubt that. Nobody is going to race bend a black character.

NinjaGamer13

September 6, 2018

Imagine all the romantic tension between Bats and the Boy Wonder

BatfleckRules
September 6, 2018
The drama will come from the idea that Robin needs to separate his attraction to Batman from his crime fighting partnership with him.
No, just please God no. If I see SJW pandering in a Batman movie it’s gonna make me sick.
Batwoman being lesbian is as far as I’ll accept because I know she was already gay in the comics (even tho she was created in the comics for SJW pandering)

NinjaGamer13

September 6, 2018

I kept waiting for “...as long as they are the most qualified for the role/position,” but predictably it never came. *sigh*

Nahuel Benvenuto

September 6, 2018

This is fucking stupid, "inclusion and diversity" is forced upon us all as those tubes with food the babies in The Matrix had, they want to shove into our throats their agendas to brainwash us, count me out. Is one thing to have people of all kind in movies in a natural way, and another to do movies that say oh, look, a woman, oh look a black guy, oh look a lesbian as if they were aliens, jesus fuck.

Anon

September 6, 2018

SJW filth philosophy has infiltrated everything in life!

BatfleckRules

September 6, 2018

This is the corporate power grab i’ve been talking about for years. Hollywood is herding the sheep into a specific direction and most don’t even know

BatfleckRules

September 6, 2018

If everyone is completely equal and interchangeable no matter the color then go cast a black man as Bruce Wayne/Batman.

I’d love to see all the butt hurt leftist Batman fans hypocrisy when they disagree with that casting choice

Kane

September 6, 2018

Translation: Most of our projects are going to go to shit on the alter of social justice

https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

Bruce Wayne

September 6, 2018

It's really LOL...it's funny how the failing companies of HBO and Turner feel the need to make a big deal out of this. It's not going to change a thing. Just make good TV or good Movies. Stop shoving social issues in my face, especially with one-side politics.

lowdevil

September 6, 2018

Discrimination is bad. Not hiring the right person for the job is worse

sbs138
September 6, 2018
Reminds me of the scene in American History X where the racist father is telling his son exactly that. Not that film and television is the same as being a fire fighter, but not hiring the best person for the job for the sake of diversity is a strange concept.
1. lowdevil
  September 6, 2018
  It's a very touchy conversation. I think that woman have been held down many times in the film industry and on the other hand there are women like Ava Duvernay. And there will just be more like her now.
Rust
September 6, 2018
Deliberately hiring or not hiring someone because of their skin color, sexuality, or genitals is just more discrimination masquerading as fairness.
Segregation and further discrimination are all that this sort of thing ensures.
1. lowdevil
  September 6, 2018
  Nicely put and I wholeheartedly agree . But you can't have one without the other when speaking about almost forcing it too quickly because of the particular climate. This should have taken place 60 years ago. Now we get films like Bird's of Prey where everyone hired including the janitor happens to be a woman. This is what happens when the past 60 years is being corrected over night. I don't care about the subject, good for them, it just bothers me when it's forced down my throat while stating if your not with this you're against everything.

Richard Grayson

September 6, 2018

Sad. This guy BROKE JL e now he is f*cking all DC universe.

Aheaney15

September 6, 2018

I completely agree with you. Wonder Woman and Black Panther, while not great in my opinion, fit that criteria regardless of the cast members. I'm honestly sick of people whining about films like these and to a lesser extent TLJ and labeling them as "SJW Propaganda" because it has more women and/or minorities in them.

If it were like the Ghostbusters 2016 reboot, where there was no reason for the film to exist besides forcing it into a "girl-power" movie while making all the male characters idiots and slapping it onto a fine-the-way-it-was franchise, I would understand the backlash. But this? No.

sbs138
September 6, 2018
I think people just want to see the on screen characters look like they do in the comic books.
NinjaGamer13
September 6, 2018
They literally said “We’re going to make ourselves hire more minority folks.” That’s not a good strategy. A person’s skin color or orientation should not matter; they should be hired based on their qualification for the position. That is the only way to ensure quality and fairness. I have no problem with hiring more diverse people, as long as they’re the best for the jobs, but if they’re only being hired because they are a minority, then they might not be as good as someone else might have been.
1. Aheaney15
  September 6, 2018
  I agree with most of this, as a matter of fact.
  My point was more that people need to stop acting like having women and minorities makes it propaganda, because quite frankly, the idea that minorities are casted in a role simply based on the fact that they are minorities and not the best for the role does not happen often. At all.
  Besides, when a minority or woman is cast as a character in any film (this is especially relevent to anti-TLJ manbabies), they go ballistic and claim it's "SJW propaganda" and slam the film regardless of actual quality and act racist and sexist in the bargain.
  And before you ask, I am a straight, white, male conservative. I am not a fan of "political correctness" by any stretch of the imagination. But I am also tired of deliberate racism and sexism for the sake of pissing off "SJWs."
  1. NinjaGamer13
    September 6, 2018
    Ah, I see. Yeah, I actually can agree with you there. Sometimes people go overboard in reaction to the genuinely overboard SJW agenda. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I for one couldn’t care less about Rose being an Asian girl in TLJ. That didn’t even show up on my radar as a problem in that movie. The movie had enough real problems that I find it silly that was complained about as much as it was. I did, however, see sort of where they were coming from with the purple-haired lady - just based on the simple fact that when EVERY leadership position is filled by a woman it starts to feel a bit forced. But again, that was the least of the movie’s issues.
    However, when a policy like this is put in place, it definitely does start to sound like casting and hiring people of [insert minority status here] just for the sake of it, instead of just getting the best person for the job. So I definitely understand the upset over this particular case here. And with diversity quotas and affirmative action policies, that can actually happen.
  2. DudeofSteel1Million
    September 7, 2018
    TLJ is slammed for a lot more than just its SJW propaganda (and it IS there) and most of it is because a lot of people think it is a legitimately horrible film with a bazillion plot holes, character inconsistencies, terrible writing, pacing, etc.
    There are very few who actually complain about diversity in a movie like that and the narrative is only skewed to include this very small group just so people can act like only racists and misogynists hate the film instead of acknowledging its numerous other flaws. A similar thing happened with the Ghostbusters remake - but most there recognized that it was just a legitimately terrible film vs. "you just hate it cuz women!!!"
    Very few would actually care about TLJ having strong independent female characters and a racially diverse cast if it had the writing to back it up. Why do you think very few pitched a fit when Sarah Connor kicked ass in Terminator or Ripley fought off Aliens? Because they were actually well-written characters and very few could give a crap what their gender was. Meanwhile, you have someone like Rey who is the epitome of a "Mary Sue" doing everything right, being overtly powerful and containing little to no relatable personality and people are expected to not be annoyed?
    1. Aheaney15
      September 8, 2018
      "TLJ is slammed for a lot more than just its SJW propaganda (and it IS there) and most of it is because a lot of people think it is a legitimately horrible film with a bazillion plot holes, character inconsistencies, terrible writing, pacing, etc."
      While I don't particularly care for The Last Jedi (I haven't seen it since it came out and don't give enough of a shit to see it again), I do not think plot holes and SJW propaganda make any film terribly made. Every movie on the planet has plot holes! And I didn't say the SJW propaganda wasn't there, I just don't think it really matters, as opposed to something like The Emoji Movie or Ghostbusters 2016. Are they reasons to dislike the movie? Absolutely. But they don't make any film poorly made. The reasons I hated Ghostbusters 2016 was because it was poorly written, edited, told, and acted (given the talent behind it is great). I hated The Emoji Movie because... Well, that should be self-explanatory.
      That said, I do actually completley agree with the character, the writing, and the pacing issues, and I think those are legitimate problems. My personal biggest problem was that, although a few were well developed, I did not find a SINGLE character to be likable. Not one. This in turn hurt my emotional investment in the movie.
      What I meant when I said "regardless of actual quality" was that on a technical standpoint; cinematography, score (even if most of it should be accredited to the OT, the new music is still great and keeping the OT music is worth respecting), sound design, set design, costume design, VFX, etc., The Last Jedi is phenomenal. Does that make it a phenomenal movie? No. But neither does SJW propaganda or plot holes make it a badly made movie. My problem is that most people who complain about TLJ being terribly made just babble about those two things while ingoring things it does right.
      In my opinion, there is no such thing as "objectively good" or "objectively bad." Because good and bad when it comes to entertainment is inherently subjective. However, there is such a thing as "objectively well made" and "objectively poorly made." I would say that just about anything on IMDb's top 250 is objectively well made, even if I don't actually love some of those movies. Same goes for IMDb's bottom 100. I would say all of them are objectively poorly made, but a lot of them I find to be so bad they're amazing, or at least so bad they're fascinating.
      ""There are very few who actually complain about diversity in a movie like that and the narrative is only skewed to include this very small group just so people can act like only racists and misogynists hate the film instead of acknowledging its numerous other flaws."
      This is somewhat true, but the vocal minority of people making hundreds of sexist and racist comments towards Kelly Marie Tran, calling things like "fat Asian bitch" and "Jar Jar *insurt legitimately offensive racial slur here*" was enough to get her off social media. And if you go onto the Reddit echo chamber on subs related to Star Wars, they are FULL of people who hate the movie on the basis of women and minorities. Do they represent the overall Star Wars fanbase? Absolutely not. But they are still a problem.
      "A similar thing happened with the Ghostbusters remake - but most there recognized that it was just a legitimately terrible film vs. "you just hate it cuz women!!!""
      Actually agreed here, this was a problem. The backlash for Ghostbusters was understandable, given that the propaganda was so much less subtle and more obvious than TLJ got remotely close to. Plus it was remaking an excellent comedy without anything that made that movie work (the cast and script was what made the original Ghostbusters amazing, not the concept or the message). And the backlash from SJW's was terrible indeed.
      "Very few would actually care about TLJ having strong independent female characters and a racially diverse cast if it had the writing to back it up. Why do you think very few pitched a fit when Sarah Connor kicked ass in Terminator or Ripley fought off Aliens? Because they were actually well-written characters and very few could give a crap what their gender was. Meanwhile, you have someone like Rey who is the epitome of a "Mary Sue" doing everything right, being overtly powerful and containing little to no relatable personality and people are expected to not be annoyed?"
      You bring up a good point here, and I agree with it. I should also make clear: I did not like ANY of the characters in TLJ. They all seemed unlikable to me. Kylo Ren is interesting and dare I say somewhat complex, but he sure as fuck isn't someone I'd root for in any movie.
      TL;DR: I actually agree with almost all of your points, but the anti-SJW movement in my opinion is just as bad as the SJW movement. And this is coming from a straight, white male conservative.
    2. DudeofSteel1Million
      September 8, 2018
      1. Of course every movie has plot holes. But what separates the good ones from the bad ones are the ones that are A) capable of distracting you from the plot holes by being an entertaining and well-written film and B) one that doesn't delight in them for the purpose of "subverting your expectations." A film that holds its twists in high regard over its internal logic is a badly-written film. And a film that contains SJW pandering as an excuse to bypass criticism is also badly-made. That's the reason WHY characters like Rey and Holdo and Rose who are so absurdly written can get away with it BECAUSE they were written to pander to SJW standards. Can't have a "strong female character" show any weakness, so of course the logical move would be to make her nigh-invulnerable and always having the moral high-ground. That's why it matters.
      I get that TLJ from a technical standpoint is "well-made," but that hardly seems to matter when other films like Transformers are also technically "well-made" (even being nominated at the Oscars for several technical categories), but still reviled as terrible movies while TLJ for some reason gets a free-pass.
      2. While I feel for Kelly Marie Tran's dilemma, the fact of the matter is that the media has taken what has happened to her to stir up the narrative that only bigots and misogynists are the ones who hate TLJ so that they can go on blindly defending the film because of SJW propaganda reasonings. And it just seems shameful that only now have people crawled out of the woodwork to go out of their way defending against bullying just so they can drive home an agenda. Where were these people when Ahmed Best got his share of backlash? Who took pity on Jake Lloyd? And you have legitimate people who think that this sudden toxicity of the Star Wars fanbase only got started because they started casting people of color in lead roles.
      It's a double-standard that's hard to ignore. And while it IS a problem, it's so minimalistic that the media actually made themselves believe a troll Facebook page that supposedly "sabotaged" Rotten Tomatoes audience score for the purpose of avenging the DCEU backlash gets believed even when the RT website heads themselves state publicly the ratings were legitimate.
      3. I appreciate your civility and honesty. But I just don't agree that it's not a problem. I also don't agree that the anti-SJW movement is anywhere near as bad as the SJW's themselves because they're not the ones who are twisting the narrative and spreading the "fake news" around.
      People can't legitimately hate TLJ as a movie without being called racists or bigots or misogynists - and it's all because the movie gets a free-pass from the media under the guise of it being "progressive." And that's troublesome.
    3. Aheaney15
      September 8, 2018
      Amazing. Every word of what you just said... was right.
      Anyway, I agree with just about everything.
    4. DudeofSteel1Million
      September 8, 2018
      lol I was just about ready to roll my eyes, thinking you'd end with "wrong."
      Thanks, man.

thefallen83

September 6, 2018

https://media.giphy.com/med...

I bet most of you, who are annoyed by this topic, are white.

NinjaGamer13
September 6, 2018
And thanks to intersectionality, that eliminates us from the victimhood olympics, thus making our thoughts not matter, right?
1. thefallen83
  September 6, 2018
  Well...
  http://78.media.tumblr.com/...
  1. NinjaGamer13
    September 6, 2018
    Lol
Aheaney15
September 6, 2018
As a white person - This backlash to Kevin's comments is fucking stupid and there are people on this thread who should be ashamed of themselves.

Reverse_Flash

September 6, 2018

Because a lot of people have grown fond of the characters over the years as they are in the source material and they don't want them to be changed just because of some silly agenda that doesn't fix anything. In fact it seems to only worsen the problem.

Sure, we can have a well acted, good Superman movie starring a non white character. Who cares right? We can also change his suit from blue to purple, and his S symbol on his chest to a LGBT flag. As long as it's a good movie, who cares?

That's very silly imo. If they aren't going to respect the source material, why make movies based on them in the first place? They can just create new diverse movie characters.

Reverse_Flash
September 6, 2018
"Because no one will go and see a new diverse character"
That's a baseless statement. People do not always watch CBM's because they know and love the characters. If we're talking about Batman, Superman, Iron Man, etc., then sure. But a character like Black Panther? he was barely known before Civil War. I know he isn't a new character but his success still proves audiences can embrace diverse characters they're not familiar with.
There are many factors that can make a movie successful. You can't narrow it down to "they don't like new diverse characters". I don't see any reason why people wouldn't embrace new diverse DC/Marvel characters if the movies are good and entertaining.
"it shouldn't matter what race/gender they are"
Disagree. If the character's race doesn't matter then nothing else does. The line must be drawn somewhere, especially if there's a source material to honor.
"when people freak out over castings and make something that shouldn't be controversial"
When you have an agenda and you try to force it down people's throats, they will react. There are better ways to implement diversity in movies that doesn't involve changing long time established characters.
1. Reverse_Flash
  September 6, 2018
  "Because creating new characters is difficult" "selling them to people is even more difficult"
  That's their job.
  Filmmakers introduce new characters in movies all the time, and they sell just well. Again, I think your statement is completely baseless.
  "Literally every other aspect of the film matters more."
  I'm speaking about the character, not the movie. Like I said, a good and entertaining movie will work. That doesn't mean they should do whatever they want with CB characters imo.
  "It's only being "shoved" because you see it that way."
  Changing the race of long time established characters for the sake of diversity is exactly that. There's no other way around it.
  Hey I know you love Superman, but guess what, since we're all for diversity he's going to be asian now, wheather you like it or not.
  Yeah, that's shoving.
  1. Reverse_Flash
    September 6, 2018
    "They don't create characters and then give them hundreds of millions of dollars though"
    Actually they do. Take a look at box office hits and you'll see plenty with new characters.
    Also charactes can be build up. Not every franchise begins with a billion dollar movie.
    "Why shouldn't they be allowed to what they want with the characters?"
    They can do what they want, but I don't agree with it because they didn't create them and they're supposed to represent the characters from the comics.
    Ultimately it's a matter of personal taste. I'm simply against not respecting the source material. To me the ethnicity of characters is part of their core.
    "because you're so against it."
    That's a silly reasoning. It's like saying it's only rape because you're against having sex with the person. Well yes, you are allowed to be against it.
    1. DudeofSteel1Million
      September 6, 2018
      I can't believe I'm siding with Reverse Flash here.... But this statement was just too hard to ignore.
      "Please name huge blockbusters with original characters that cost hundreds of millions to make."
      Avatar?
      Cost well over 200 million to produce.
      Debate all you want to the movie's quality, but the characters and setting were not based off any book or movie prior and it's the highest grossing movie ever made in the history of cinema worldwide.
    2. NinjaGamer13
      September 7, 2018
      That first comment can’t be serious. A quick Google search will show you plenty movies that fit that description.
      He stayed true to the spirit of who Batman is and how his comics are. Sure there’s always a little bit of leeway when it comes to adapting anything to the big screen, but you must remain to the character’s core. So Bruce having dark brown hair instead of black or falling down a well versus falling down a crack or whatever are all fair game, as long as the story is being told in a way that is representative of the character and his history in a respectful way. Making Bruce the completely opposite race would not fall under that category. Bruce’s being white is an integral part of the character at this point; he has developed an appearance that is iconic to the character and his history, and furthermore, from a story perspective, his being anything other than white wouldn’t work, as he comes from old, American money. So, while a black actor could no doubt play a great Batman, it would betray the spirit of the character to cast him that way.
    3. Reverse_Flash
      September 7, 2018
      "Please name huge blockbusters with original characters that cost hundreds of millions to make."
      Avatar.
      Your request is very silly though. Very few movies cost hundreds of millions to make, so you're not going to prove anything with that. Expensive franchises are often build up. Even Marvel characters had to be build up.
      Again, your idea that new diverse characters can't be successful is completely baseless. Can you back that up? Any examples of great, entertaining movies with new & diverse characters that bombed because people didn't like said characters?
      "Nolan didn't create Batman, didn't stop him from putting his own take on the character. "
      Nolan didn't change Batman's race, sex or sexual preference.
      "Now you're being utterly hyperbolic and quite frankly, a little disgusting."
      Sure, but it's a fair analogy. You're saying something is shoved only because you're against it. That's silly. You're free to have your own ideologies.
    4. Reverse_Flash
      September 7, 2018
      "Avatar was sold in it's 3D tech and the director."
      I knew that excuse was coming but it's irrelevant. New characters can be successful as proven by Avatar. Want more examples? Look at Pixar movies. They often create and succeed with new characters. Coco was an original story based on mexican characters and it was a box office hit.
      I'm hearing the next excuse already: but it's Pixar. And again that's irrelevant to my point.
      Whether it takes great marketing, brand recognition, a great casting or great filmmakers doesn't matter. The point is, it can be done. New characters can and have succeeded. And brands like Marvel and DC have all the resources to achieve that.
      "These movies doesn't exist, that's the whole point."
      They do as proven above.
      "make abused analogies to try and discredit their point."
      You need a softer example? Is having the right to disagree with a decision that's being made such a complicated concept to you? Here:
      You love metal and absolutely hate pop music. Your mom says "from now on, we'll listen to Justin Bieber at dinner time. No headphones allowed". Your reasoning: It's only shoving because you hate pop. We'll yeah, you are entitled to hate it, lol.
      Cheers.
    5. Reverse_Flash
      September 7, 2018
      Another irrelevant excuse. And Pixar movies aren't necessarily for children.
      Another example: Get Out. Black lead, new character and was one of the most profitable films of 2017.
      but...but...but... let's hear it.
      "And your analogies are bloody awful."
      Translation: I have no counterargument.
      Cheers.
    6. Reverse_Flash
      September 7, 2018
      Horror movies are less expensive.
    7. Reverse_Flash
      September 8, 2018
      It's a valid example though.
2. NinjaGamer13
  September 7, 2018
  There are plenty of previously not-well-known comicbook characters that have become popular from movies or TV shows. What are you talking about? Iron Man, Thor, the Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man, Black Panther, Doctor Strange, Green Arrow, Atom, Black/White Canary Harley Quinn, Black Lightning, etc. Do you really think the only movies and shows that can be made are about big names? History proves that as long as good stories are told, lesser known characters can often rise to popularity. So I don’t see why they can’t use some lesser-known characters for diversity or go about the whole diversity thing without sacrificing too much of other characters’ histories.
  1. Reverse_Flash
    September 7, 2018
    I can't believe I agree with NinjaGamer13.

Reese Evans

September 6, 2018

Cue re-opening the trite "black Batman" conversation. That, or Batman gets sidelined for a string of minority-headed movies, or gets shown up as weak and stupid by a sassy female African-American version of Robin. Social Justice does not sell, WB. Get woke, go broke.

thefallen83
September 6, 2018
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/W...

thefallen83

September 6, 2018

http://26.media.tumblr.com/...

NinjaGamer13

September 6, 2018

Because he is literally saying they are going to force themselves to hire more minorities. That’s not how the process should work. They should always and only hire those who are best for the jobs, without regard to their skin color or orientation. That is the only way to ensure quality and fairness. I have no problem with hiring more diverse people, as long as they’re the best for the jobs, but if they’re only being hired because they are a minority, then they might not be as good as someone else might have been.

NinjaGamer13
September 6, 2018
Well it also has to be understood that that reflects real life, too. It’s not good or bad, it just is what it is. I don’t care what color or whatever a person is, so I’m fine with people keeping things open and being sure to audition/interview people of all different backgrounds, but that seems different than what they’re saying. They seem to be saying “Well let’s cast such and such just because he’s this particular minority.” And that also concerns me regarding how it might end up changing established characters in ways that differ radically from the comics.
Seb
September 6, 2018
"but when the vast majority of actors are white it doesn't hurt to choose someone else for the role"
As someone working in STEM, doing mostly (power) engineering, I can safely say that 90% of said fields are male. However, as an individual man, I am still punished and hurt by affirmative action, whenever companies hire female engineers solely for being female and denying me the opportunity just because I happen to be male, even if my skills outweigh those of the woman... which yes, has actually happened to me before. So don't you dare say that "it doesn't hurt", because YES, it fucking does... and you will quickly change your opinion if YOU are the one expected to give up your right to opportunities for the sake of supposed "fairness" and "equality".
The idea that just because you are a member of the majority, you are therefore immune to discrimination or injustice, is fucking insane, as simply being a member of that majority, means fuck all on an individual level. Yes, these types of terrible quotas absolutely hurt individuals, in this case being white people, and just because the majority of actors are white, doesn't mean it isn't therefore discrimination. It's not even up for debate.
1. Seb
  September 7, 2018
  "And those women don't get to be as qualified as you because of their sex"
  Dafuq? What a sexist statement. Women are just as capable as men and have every chance to learn and prove themselves.
  "They get less opportunities and experience because if that"
  So you're saying women are inherently inferior are engineering than men, which is why men are favored? Even if that were true, companies wouldn't exactly be sexist for doing so, they would simply be looking at the best person for the job, which according to you are men.
  And if you're just saying that women aren't as good because they don't get the opportunity in the first place, explain to me how more women are going to college and University than men. Explain to me why they get better grades than men. Explain to me why this is also in part a result of teachers being less severe towards girls. And most importantly, if STEM is so anti-women, if it's so sexist, if it's so fucking rampant and filled with utter mysoginy, explain to me how women have a 2:1 advantage over men in hiring preferences in STEM.
  http://www.pnas.org/content...
  I am so fucking sick of people accusing us (men in STEM and just STEM in general) of being sexist or not giving women opportunities. You have no idea what you're talking about. From the very first day I was going to Uni, the first thing the teachers said was how they would like to have more women. How they don't understand why there are almost only men. How they are tryig to get more women. Throughout my Uni experience, only thing I saw is how the girls were treated MUCH better, by the very system people like you accuse of being blatantly sexist... I saw how they got preferential treatment and didn't have to perform as hard as the boys (especially with female professors or teachers). Then in the workplace, again, the FIRST fucking thing I heard when I was visiting a company (ArcelorMittal) was how they would love to have more women and how they were favoring them during hiring in the name of """fairness"""". Then one time when I was applying for a job, they said I didn't get the job because I'm a guy and they gave the job to a woman back from my Uni class. A woman that I know wasn't as smart as me... Fact is, she barely even earned her degree in the first place. But she had a vagina, and that's all that matters.
  So don't you dare say that "women are so unlucky they get nothing". They have EVERY opportunity. They get EVERYTHING that men have... and throughout my life, all I have ever seen is women being treated better by the system. And it's not just personal anecdotes, these things are actually supported by credible statistics (more women in college, more likely to get in, get better grades, better chances in the workplace).
  You have no idea what you're talking about and simply assume STEM is sexist because you heard some delusional feminist saying it and you didn't stop to think if there's actually a shred of honesty in that toxic assertion.
  "And no is saying that they're going to say "We're no longer hiring white people""
  On an individual level? Of course they will. The BBC literally fired Jon Holmes for being white and male.
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...
  But you're right, Holmes should just suck it up, because "in the larger picture", this isn't unfair. It's just """equality""". Give me a break.
  "they're saying we're going to stop being so ignorant and start looking outward for who we can hire"
  You clearly don't know how affirmative action works. AA spits in the face of the meritocracy, the only thing it cares about are arbitrary characteristics. It is nothing but ignorant and they only look outward in the sense that they only judge people on their physical appearance, not who they are, but what they are.
  1. Seb
    September 7, 2018
    I don't give a fuck, you just accused STEM of being inherently sexist and used the same, bigoted, discriminatory argument to justify quotas there, so it doesn't matter.
    Maybe you just realized you do indeed have no idea what you were actually talking about so you're turning to conversation again to Hollywood. What you don't realize is, this doesn't matter, because it is the PRINCIPLE that matters. I just gave you a very detailed explanation why quotas and AA are fucking terrible and discrimination, and this is true for ALL fields. Even IF Hollywood is actually sexist and racist (which I see very little evidence of, just like there is ZERO evidence that STEM is super racist and sexist), it wouldn't matter because all you would be perpetuating is an argument of revenge, not justice. Two wrongs don't make it right, period.
    1. Seb
      September 7, 2018
      Yeah you did. In any case, it does not matter, because you're not taking a principled approach and you didn't actually refute a single thing I said.
    2. Seb
      September 7, 2018
      You explicitly said women can't get as good as men in STEM, which means one of two things: either women are inherently inferior to men at engineering, or women don't have the same opportunities in STEM (which can ONLY be a result of sexism).
      You lose either way, so don't pull this "I didn't LITERALLY say that men are sexist"-crap, because the conclusion of your argument is the implicit assertion that STEM is indeed sexist.
      What you're doing now is hardcore backtracking and playing a game of "those aren't my exact words", when we all knew damn well what you actually meant, you included.
      I for one, am sick of being accused of being in a oppressive environment that only advantages men at the expense of women, or that it is "easier" for men, or that women don't get the same opportunities, when this is the exact opposite of reality. And don't you say it isn't personal, because it really fucking is.
      "Ohh, YOU might not be a sexist, I'm just talking about YOUR ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL FIELD, which is made up by men just like you... THAT field is sexist, but you're not!"
      Sorry, I'm not convinced, nor will I ever be. Stop whining and seeing problems where none exist. Want more women in STEM? Fine, tell them to actually dedicate their time to studying engineering instead of wasting their time on fucking gender studies to then whine how there aren't many women in STEM.
    3. Seb
      September 7, 2018
      we were talking about engineering, which is STEM.... For your sake, stop it. You're literally just embarrassing yourself at this point.
    4. Seb
      September 7, 2018
      No you weren't, you were SPECIFICALLY talking about my female competition, as in female engineers. Dude, just own what you said and correct yourself instead of backtracking as hard as you are. It's pathetic tbh with you.
    5. Seb
      September 7, 2018
      "No. I literally wasn't"
      Also you: "And those women don't get to be as qualified [IN ENGINEERING] as you because of their sex"
      A DIRECT reference to my female engineer competitors. At this point, you're just a liar.
      And AGAIN, even if you're "just" talking about "a different industry", it does not matter because the PRINCIPLE is the same regardless. It is WRONG.
    6. Seb
      September 7, 2018
      Yes, I indeed was the one who mentioned it... but you still DIRECTLY replied to my engineering comment, so again, you're just being blatantly dishonest at this point.
      Whatever man... you're not actually contributing anything here and you don't even seem to want to defend your position in the first place. You have nothing to say, clearly.
    7. Seb
      September 7, 2018
      Yes we are. Own it.
    8. Seb
      September 7, 2018
      As I said... nothing to contribute.
    9. Seb
      September 7, 2018
      Please tell me, if and I quote: "women don't get to be as qualified as me [at engineering] because of their sex" according to you, why is that the case? What causes this problem? Please, enlighten me. Go ahead and answer the question and show all of us the extent of your intellectual honesty here.

TheKillingJoke

September 6, 2018

Prepare yourself for asian batman

thefallen83
September 6, 2018
Already happened. Batman: Gotham Knight
https://i0.wp.com/www.comix...
http://images.sequart.org/i...

Alfred

September 6, 2018

This is just nauseating....

Thomas Guy

September 7, 2018

I find it interesting that we can have the '89 Joker, the Nolan Joker, and the SS Joker, all very different, different looking, different personalities. But if you cast a black actor in any of those roles, suddenly it's not correct. Very few characters have race built into their back story. Black Panther, Luke Cage, and if you're doing certain stories Hal Jordan, these characters have their race as an important part of their character. But if you make Batman a Chinese American, it loses nothing and can add things into the story. If you were to make Deadshot a woman, it loses nothing. I'm confused as to why we're so dead set on these characters that have been static for 70+ years stay static.

MrShmoo

September 7, 2018

Hardly a big deal, most large companies have a similar policy now. The retail sector has done this for many years without actually needing a written policy document

Ravager

March 18, 2019

I like to think there was a time where you didn't need to pat yourself on a back by stating something that was never a risk to being with. No one has a problem with hiring people of different races anymore and they haven't for decades. Honestly, policies like these are only meant to stroke the ego of whatever dumbass wrote them by stating the obvious. Now something that should feel natural feels artificial and fake, great job!

OGDickGrayson
September 6, 2018
Maybe your main focus should be on making good movies instead of forcing race/gender quotas.
1. Flower & Monster & Golden Calf
  September 6, 2018
  Couldn't hurt seeing the movies they made before this.
Flower & Monster & Golden Calf
September 6, 2018
Michael B Jordan? The actor?
Well, smells like he's a WB / DC guy now. Wonder if he got the John Stewart role.
1. sbs138
  September 6, 2018
  Haven't you heard....John Stewart is Asian now.
  1. Flower & Monster & Golden Calf
    September 6, 2018
    i doubt that. Nobody is going to race bend a black character.
NinjaGamer13
September 6, 2018
Imagine all the romantic tension between Bats and the Boy Wonder
1. BatfleckRules
  September 6, 2018
  The drama will come from the idea that Robin needs to separate his attraction to Batman from his crime fighting partnership with him.
  No, just please God no. If I see SJW pandering in a Batman movie it’s gonna make me sick.
  Batwoman being lesbian is as far as I’ll accept because I know she was already gay in the comics (even tho she was created in the comics for SJW pandering)
NinjaGamer13
September 6, 2018
I kept waiting for “...as long as they are the most qualified for the role/position,” but predictably it never came. *sigh*
Nahuel Benvenuto
September 6, 2018
This is fucking stupid, "inclusion and diversity" is forced upon us all as those tubes with food the babies in The Matrix had, they want to shove into our throats their agendas to brainwash us, count me out. Is one thing to have people of all kind in movies in a natural way, and another to do movies that say oh, look, a woman, oh look a black guy, oh look a lesbian as if they were aliens, jesus fuck.
Anon
September 6, 2018
SJW filth philosophy has infiltrated everything in life!
BatfleckRules
September 6, 2018
This is the corporate power grab i’ve been talking about for years. Hollywood is herding the sheep into a specific direction and most don’t even know
BatfleckRules
September 6, 2018
If everyone is completely equal and interchangeable no matter the color then go cast a black man as Bruce Wayne/Batman.
I’d love to see all the butt hurt leftist Batman fans hypocrisy when they disagree with that casting choice
Kane
September 6, 2018
Translation: Most of our projects are going to go to shit on the alter of social justice
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
Bruce Wayne
September 6, 2018
It's really LOL...it's funny how the failing companies of HBO and Turner feel the need to make a big deal out of this. It's not going to change a thing. Just make good TV or good Movies. Stop shoving social issues in my face, especially with one-side politics.
lowdevil
September 6, 2018
Discrimination is bad. Not hiring the right person for the job is worse
1. sbs138
  September 6, 2018
  Reminds me of the scene in American History X where the racist father is telling his son exactly that. Not that film and television is the same as being a fire fighter, but not hiring the best person for the job for the sake of diversity is a strange concept.
  1. lowdevil
    September 6, 2018
    It's a very touchy conversation. I think that woman have been held down many times in the film industry and on the other hand there are women like Ava Duvernay. And there will just be more like her now.
2. Rust
  September 6, 2018
  Deliberately hiring or not hiring someone because of their skin color, sexuality, or genitals is just more discrimination masquerading as fairness.
  Segregation and further discrimination are all that this sort of thing ensures.
  1. lowdevil
    September 6, 2018
    Nicely put and I wholeheartedly agree . But you can't have one without the other when speaking about almost forcing it too quickly because of the particular climate. This should have taken place 60 years ago. Now we get films like Bird's of Prey where everyone hired including the janitor happens to be a woman. This is what happens when the past 60 years is being corrected over night. I don't care about the subject, good for them, it just bothers me when it's forced down my throat while stating if your not with this you're against everything.
Richard Grayson
September 6, 2018
Sad. This guy BROKE JL e now he is f*cking all DC universe.
Aheaney15
September 6, 2018
I completely agree with you. Wonder Woman and Black Panther, while not great in my opinion, fit that criteria regardless of the cast members. I'm honestly sick of people whining about films like these and to a lesser extent TLJ and labeling them as "SJW Propaganda" because it has more women and/or minorities in them.
If it were like the Ghostbusters 2016 reboot, where there was no reason for the film to exist besides forcing it into a "girl-power" movie while making all the male characters idiots and slapping it onto a fine-the-way-it-was franchise, I would understand the backlash. But this? No.
1. sbs138
  September 6, 2018
  I think people just want to see the on screen characters look like they do in the comic books.
2. NinjaGamer13
  September 6, 2018
  They literally said “We’re going to make ourselves hire more minority folks.” That’s not a good strategy. A person’s skin color or orientation should not matter; they should be hired based on their qualification for the position. That is the only way to ensure quality and fairness. I have no problem with hiring more diverse people, as long as they’re the best for the jobs, but if they’re only being hired because they are a minority, then they might not be as good as someone else might have been.
  1. Aheaney15
    September 6, 2018
    I agree with most of this, as a matter of fact.
    My point was more that people need to stop acting like having women and minorities makes it propaganda, because quite frankly, the idea that minorities are casted in a role simply based on the fact that they are minorities and not the best for the role does not happen often. At all.
    Besides, when a minority or woman is cast as a character in any film (this is especially relevent to anti-TLJ manbabies), they go ballistic and claim it's "SJW propaganda" and slam the film regardless of actual quality and act racist and sexist in the bargain.
    And before you ask, I am a straight, white, male conservative. I am not a fan of "political correctness" by any stretch of the imagination. But I am also tired of deliberate racism and sexism for the sake of pissing off "SJWs."
    1. NinjaGamer13
      September 6, 2018
      Ah, I see. Yeah, I actually can agree with you there. Sometimes people go overboard in reaction to the genuinely overboard SJW agenda. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I for one couldn’t care less about Rose being an Asian girl in TLJ. That didn’t even show up on my radar as a problem in that movie. The movie had enough real problems that I find it silly that was complained about as much as it was. I did, however, see sort of where they were coming from with the purple-haired lady - just based on the simple fact that when EVERY leadership position is filled by a woman it starts to feel a bit forced. But again, that was the least of the movie’s issues.
      However, when a policy like this is put in place, it definitely does start to sound like casting and hiring people of [insert minority status here] just for the sake of it, instead of just getting the best person for the job. So I definitely understand the upset over this particular case here. And with diversity quotas and affirmative action policies, that can actually happen.
    2. DudeofSteel1Million
      September 7, 2018
      TLJ is slammed for a lot more than just its SJW propaganda (and it IS there) and most of it is because a lot of people think it is a legitimately horrible film with a bazillion plot holes, character inconsistencies, terrible writing, pacing, etc.
      There are very few who actually complain about diversity in a movie like that and the narrative is only skewed to include this very small group just so people can act like only racists and misogynists hate the film instead of acknowledging its numerous other flaws. A similar thing happened with the Ghostbusters remake - but most there recognized that it was just a legitimately terrible film vs. "you just hate it cuz women!!!"
      Very few would actually care about TLJ having strong independent female characters and a racially diverse cast if it had the writing to back it up. Why do you think very few pitched a fit when Sarah Connor kicked ass in Terminator or Ripley fought off Aliens? Because they were actually well-written characters and very few could give a crap what their gender was. Meanwhile, you have someone like Rey who is the epitome of a "Mary Sue" doing everything right, being overtly powerful and containing little to no relatable personality and people are expected to not be annoyed?
      1. Aheaney15
        September 8, 2018
        "TLJ is slammed for a lot more than just its SJW propaganda (and it IS there) and most of it is because a lot of people think it is a legitimately horrible film with a bazillion plot holes, character inconsistencies, terrible writing, pacing, etc."
        While I don't particularly care for The Last Jedi (I haven't seen it since it came out and don't give enough of a shit to see it again), I do not think plot holes and SJW propaganda make any film terribly made. Every movie on the planet has plot holes! And I didn't say the SJW propaganda wasn't there, I just don't think it really matters, as opposed to something like The Emoji Movie or Ghostbusters 2016. Are they reasons to dislike the movie? Absolutely. But they don't make any film poorly made. The reasons I hated Ghostbusters 2016 was because it was poorly written, edited, told, and acted (given the talent behind it is great). I hated The Emoji Movie because... Well, that should be self-explanatory.
        That said, I do actually completley agree with the character, the writing, and the pacing issues, and I think those are legitimate problems. My personal biggest problem was that, although a few were well developed, I did not find a SINGLE character to be likable. Not one. This in turn hurt my emotional investment in the movie.
        What I meant when I said "regardless of actual quality" was that on a technical standpoint; cinematography, score (even if most of it should be accredited to the OT, the new music is still great and keeping the OT music is worth respecting), sound design, set design, costume design, VFX, etc., The Last Jedi is phenomenal. Does that make it a phenomenal movie? No. But neither does SJW propaganda or plot holes make it a badly made movie. My problem is that most people who complain about TLJ being terribly made just babble about those two things while ingoring things it does right.
        In my opinion, there is no such thing as "objectively good" or "objectively bad." Because good and bad when it comes to entertainment is inherently subjective. However, there is such a thing as "objectively well made" and "objectively poorly made." I would say that just about anything on IMDb's top 250 is objectively well made, even if I don't actually love some of those movies. Same goes for IMDb's bottom 100. I would say all of them are objectively poorly made, but a lot of them I find to be so bad they're amazing, or at least so bad they're fascinating.
        ""There are very few who actually complain about diversity in a movie like that and the narrative is only skewed to include this very small group just so people can act like only racists and misogynists hate the film instead of acknowledging its numerous other flaws."
        This is somewhat true, but the vocal minority of people making hundreds of sexist and racist comments towards Kelly Marie Tran, calling things like "fat Asian bitch" and "Jar Jar *insurt legitimately offensive racial slur here*" was enough to get her off social media. And if you go onto the Reddit echo chamber on subs related to Star Wars, they are FULL of people who hate the movie on the basis of women and minorities. Do they represent the overall Star Wars fanbase? Absolutely not. But they are still a problem.
        "A similar thing happened with the Ghostbusters remake - but most there recognized that it was just a legitimately terrible film vs. "you just hate it cuz women!!!""
        Actually agreed here, this was a problem. The backlash for Ghostbusters was understandable, given that the propaganda was so much less subtle and more obvious than TLJ got remotely close to. Plus it was remaking an excellent comedy without anything that made that movie work (the cast and script was what made the original Ghostbusters amazing, not the concept or the message). And the backlash from SJW's was terrible indeed.
        "Very few would actually care about TLJ having strong independent female characters and a racially diverse cast if it had the writing to back it up. Why do you think very few pitched a fit when Sarah Connor kicked ass in Terminator or Ripley fought off Aliens? Because they were actually well-written characters and very few could give a crap what their gender was. Meanwhile, you have someone like Rey who is the epitome of a "Mary Sue" doing everything right, being overtly powerful and containing little to no relatable personality and people are expected to not be annoyed?"
        You bring up a good point here, and I agree with it. I should also make clear: I did not like ANY of the characters in TLJ. They all seemed unlikable to me. Kylo Ren is interesting and dare I say somewhat complex, but he sure as fuck isn't someone I'd root for in any movie.
        TL;DR: I actually agree with almost all of your points, but the anti-SJW movement in my opinion is just as bad as the SJW movement. And this is coming from a straight, white male conservative.
      2. DudeofSteel1Million
        September 8, 2018
        1. Of course every movie has plot holes. But what separates the good ones from the bad ones are the ones that are A) capable of distracting you from the plot holes by being an entertaining and well-written film and B) one that doesn't delight in them for the purpose of "subverting your expectations." A film that holds its twists in high regard over its internal logic is a badly-written film. And a film that contains SJW pandering as an excuse to bypass criticism is also badly-made. That's the reason WHY characters like Rey and Holdo and Rose who are so absurdly written can get away with it BECAUSE they were written to pander to SJW standards. Can't have a "strong female character" show any weakness, so of course the logical move would be to make her nigh-invulnerable and always having the moral high-ground. That's why it matters.
        I get that TLJ from a technical standpoint is "well-made," but that hardly seems to matter when other films like Transformers are also technically "well-made" (even being nominated at the Oscars for several technical categories), but still reviled as terrible movies while TLJ for some reason gets a free-pass.
        2. While I feel for Kelly Marie Tran's dilemma, the fact of the matter is that the media has taken what has happened to her to stir up the narrative that only bigots and misogynists are the ones who hate TLJ so that they can go on blindly defending the film because of SJW propaganda reasonings. And it just seems shameful that only now have people crawled out of the woodwork to go out of their way defending against bullying just so they can drive home an agenda. Where were these people when Ahmed Best got his share of backlash? Who took pity on Jake Lloyd? And you have legitimate people who think that this sudden toxicity of the Star Wars fanbase only got started because they started casting people of color in lead roles.
        It's a double-standard that's hard to ignore. And while it IS a problem, it's so minimalistic that the media actually made themselves believe a troll Facebook page that supposedly "sabotaged" Rotten Tomatoes audience score for the purpose of avenging the DCEU backlash gets believed even when the RT website heads themselves state publicly the ratings were legitimate.
        3. I appreciate your civility and honesty. But I just don't agree that it's not a problem. I also don't agree that the anti-SJW movement is anywhere near as bad as the SJW's themselves because they're not the ones who are twisting the narrative and spreading the "fake news" around.
        People can't legitimately hate TLJ as a movie without being called racists or bigots or misogynists - and it's all because the movie gets a free-pass from the media under the guise of it being "progressive." And that's troublesome.
      3. Aheaney15
        September 8, 2018
        Amazing. Every word of what you just said... was right.
        Anyway, I agree with just about everything.
      4. DudeofSteel1Million
        September 8, 2018
        lol I was just about ready to roll my eyes, thinking you'd end with "wrong."
        Thanks, man.
thefallen83
September 6, 2018
https://media.giphy.com/med...
I bet most of you, who are annoyed by this topic, are white.
1. NinjaGamer13
  September 6, 2018
  And thanks to intersectionality, that eliminates us from the victimhood olympics, thus making our thoughts not matter, right?
  1. thefallen83
    September 6, 2018
    Well...
    http://78.media.tumblr.com/...
    1. NinjaGamer13
      September 6, 2018
      Lol
2. Aheaney15
  September 6, 2018
  As a white person - This backlash to Kevin's comments is fucking stupid and there are people on this thread who should be ashamed of themselves.
Reverse_Flash
September 6, 2018
Because a lot of people have grown fond of the characters over the years as they are in the source material and they don't want them to be changed just because of some silly agenda that doesn't fix anything. In fact it seems to only worsen the problem.
Sure, we can have a well acted, good Superman movie starring a non white character. Who cares right? We can also change his suit from blue to purple, and his S symbol on his chest to a LGBT flag. As long as it's a good movie, who cares?
That's very silly imo. If they aren't going to respect the source material, why make movies based on them in the first place? They can just create new diverse movie characters.
1. Reverse_Flash
  September 6, 2018
  "Because no one will go and see a new diverse character"
  That's a baseless statement. People do not always watch CBM's because they know and love the characters. If we're talking about Batman, Superman, Iron Man, etc., then sure. But a character like Black Panther? he was barely known before Civil War. I know he isn't a new character but his success still proves audiences can embrace diverse characters they're not familiar with.
  There are many factors that can make a movie successful. You can't narrow it down to "they don't like new diverse characters". I don't see any reason why people wouldn't embrace new diverse DC/Marvel characters if the movies are good and entertaining.
  "it shouldn't matter what race/gender they are"
  Disagree. If the character's race doesn't matter then nothing else does. The line must be drawn somewhere, especially if there's a source material to honor.
  "when people freak out over castings and make something that shouldn't be controversial"
  When you have an agenda and you try to force it down people's throats, they will react. There are better ways to implement diversity in movies that doesn't involve changing long time established characters.
  1. Reverse_Flash
    September 6, 2018
    "Because creating new characters is difficult" "selling them to people is even more difficult"
    That's their job.
    Filmmakers introduce new characters in movies all the time, and they sell just well. Again, I think your statement is completely baseless.
    "Literally every other aspect of the film matters more."
    I'm speaking about the character, not the movie. Like I said, a good and entertaining movie will work. That doesn't mean they should do whatever they want with CB characters imo.
    "It's only being "shoved" because you see it that way."
    Changing the race of long time established characters for the sake of diversity is exactly that. There's no other way around it.
    Hey I know you love Superman, but guess what, since we're all for diversity he's going to be asian now, wheather you like it or not.
    Yeah, that's shoving.
    1. Reverse_Flash
      September 6, 2018
      "They don't create characters and then give them hundreds of millions of dollars though"
      Actually they do. Take a look at box office hits and you'll see plenty with new characters.
      Also charactes can be build up. Not every franchise begins with a billion dollar movie.
      "Why shouldn't they be allowed to what they want with the characters?"
      They can do what they want, but I don't agree with it because they didn't create them and they're supposed to represent the characters from the comics.
      Ultimately it's a matter of personal taste. I'm simply against not respecting the source material. To me the ethnicity of characters is part of their core.
      "because you're so against it."
      That's a silly reasoning. It's like saying it's only rape because you're against having sex with the person. Well yes, you are allowed to be against it.
      1. DudeofSteel1Million
        September 6, 2018
        I can't believe I'm siding with Reverse Flash here.... But this statement was just too hard to ignore.
        "Please name huge blockbusters with original characters that cost hundreds of millions to make."
        Avatar?
        Cost well over 200 million to produce.
        Debate all you want to the movie's quality, but the characters and setting were not based off any book or movie prior and it's the highest grossing movie ever made in the history of cinema worldwide.
      2. NinjaGamer13
        September 7, 2018
        That first comment can’t be serious. A quick Google search will show you plenty movies that fit that description.
        He stayed true to the spirit of who Batman is and how his comics are. Sure there’s always a little bit of leeway when it comes to adapting anything to the big screen, but you must remain to the character’s core. So Bruce having dark brown hair instead of black or falling down a well versus falling down a crack or whatever are all fair game, as long as the story is being told in a way that is representative of the character and his history in a respectful way. Making Bruce the completely opposite race would not fall under that category. Bruce’s being white is an integral part of the character at this point; he has developed an appearance that is iconic to the character and his history, and furthermore, from a story perspective, his being anything other than white wouldn’t work, as he comes from old, American money. So, while a black actor could no doubt play a great Batman, it would betray the spirit of the character to cast him that way.
      3. Reverse_Flash
        September 7, 2018
        "Please name huge blockbusters with original characters that cost hundreds of millions to make."
        Avatar.
        Your request is very silly though. Very few movies cost hundreds of millions to make, so you're not going to prove anything with that. Expensive franchises are often build up. Even Marvel characters had to be build up.
        Again, your idea that new diverse characters can't be successful is completely baseless. Can you back that up? Any examples of great, entertaining movies with new & diverse characters that bombed because people didn't like said characters?
        "Nolan didn't create Batman, didn't stop him from putting his own take on the character. "
        Nolan didn't change Batman's race, sex or sexual preference.
        "Now you're being utterly hyperbolic and quite frankly, a little disgusting."
        Sure, but it's a fair analogy. You're saying something is shoved only because you're against it. That's silly. You're free to have your own ideologies.
      4. Reverse_Flash
        September 7, 2018
        "Avatar was sold in it's 3D tech and the director."
        I knew that excuse was coming but it's irrelevant. New characters can be successful as proven by Avatar. Want more examples? Look at Pixar movies. They often create and succeed with new characters. Coco was an original story based on mexican characters and it was a box office hit.
        I'm hearing the next excuse already: but it's Pixar. And again that's irrelevant to my point.
        Whether it takes great marketing, brand recognition, a great casting or great filmmakers doesn't matter. The point is, it can be done. New characters can and have succeeded. And brands like Marvel and DC have all the resources to achieve that.
        "These movies doesn't exist, that's the whole point."
        They do as proven above.
        "make abused analogies to try and discredit their point."
        You need a softer example? Is having the right to disagree with a decision that's being made such a complicated concept to you? Here:
        You love metal and absolutely hate pop music. Your mom says "from now on, we'll listen to Justin Bieber at dinner time. No headphones allowed". Your reasoning: It's only shoving because you hate pop. We'll yeah, you are entitled to hate it, lol.
        Cheers.
      5. Reverse_Flash
        September 7, 2018
        Another irrelevant excuse. And Pixar movies aren't necessarily for children.
        Another example: Get Out. Black lead, new character and was one of the most profitable films of 2017.
        but...but...but... let's hear it.
        "And your analogies are bloody awful."
        Translation: I have no counterargument.
        Cheers.
      6. Reverse_Flash
        September 7, 2018
        Horror movies are less expensive.
      7. Reverse_Flash
        September 8, 2018
        It's a valid example though.
  2. NinjaGamer13
    September 7, 2018
    There are plenty of previously not-well-known comicbook characters that have become popular from movies or TV shows. What are you talking about? Iron Man, Thor, the Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man, Black Panther, Doctor Strange, Green Arrow, Atom, Black/White Canary Harley Quinn, Black Lightning, etc. Do you really think the only movies and shows that can be made are about big names? History proves that as long as good stories are told, lesser known characters can often rise to popularity. So I don’t see why they can’t use some lesser-known characters for diversity or go about the whole diversity thing without sacrificing too much of other characters’ histories.
    1. Reverse_Flash
      September 7, 2018
      I can't believe I agree with NinjaGamer13.
Reese Evans
September 6, 2018
Cue re-opening the trite "black Batman" conversation. That, or Batman gets sidelined for a string of minority-headed movies, or gets shown up as weak and stupid by a sassy female African-American version of Robin. Social Justice does not sell, WB. Get woke, go broke.
1. thefallen83
  September 6, 2018
  https://thumbs.gfycat.com/W...
thefallen83
September 6, 2018
http://26.media.tumblr.com/...
NinjaGamer13
September 6, 2018
Because he is literally saying they are going to force themselves to hire more minorities. That’s not how the process should work. They should always and only hire those who are best for the jobs, without regard to their skin color or orientation. That is the only way to ensure quality and fairness. I have no problem with hiring more diverse people, as long as they’re the best for the jobs, but if they’re only being hired because they are a minority, then they might not be as good as someone else might have been.
1. NinjaGamer13
  September 6, 2018
  Well it also has to be understood that that reflects real life, too. It’s not good or bad, it just is what it is. I don’t care what color or whatever a person is, so I’m fine with people keeping things open and being sure to audition/interview people of all different backgrounds, but that seems different than what they’re saying. They seem to be saying “Well let’s cast such and such just because he’s this particular minority.” And that also concerns me regarding how it might end up changing established characters in ways that differ radically from the comics.
2. Seb
  September 6, 2018
  "but when the vast majority of actors are white it doesn't hurt to choose someone else for the role"
  As someone working in STEM, doing mostly (power) engineering, I can safely say that 90% of said fields are male. However, as an individual man, I am still punished and hurt by affirmative action, whenever companies hire female engineers solely for being female and denying me the opportunity just because I happen to be male, even if my skills outweigh those of the woman... which yes, has actually happened to me before. So don't you dare say that "it doesn't hurt", because YES, it fucking does... and you will quickly change your opinion if YOU are the one expected to give up your right to opportunities for the sake of supposed "fairness" and "equality".
  The idea that just because you are a member of the majority, you are therefore immune to discrimination or injustice, is fucking insane, as simply being a member of that majority, means fuck all on an individual level. Yes, these types of terrible quotas absolutely hurt individuals, in this case being white people, and just because the majority of actors are white, doesn't mean it isn't therefore discrimination. It's not even up for debate.
  1. Seb
    September 7, 2018
    "And those women don't get to be as qualified as you because of their sex"
    Dafuq? What a sexist statement. Women are just as capable as men and have every chance to learn and prove themselves.
    "They get less opportunities and experience because if that"
    So you're saying women are inherently inferior are engineering than men, which is why men are favored? Even if that were true, companies wouldn't exactly be sexist for doing so, they would simply be looking at the best person for the job, which according to you are men.
    And if you're just saying that women aren't as good because they don't get the opportunity in the first place, explain to me how more women are going to college and University than men. Explain to me why they get better grades than men. Explain to me why this is also in part a result of teachers being less severe towards girls. And most importantly, if STEM is so anti-women, if it's so sexist, if it's so fucking rampant and filled with utter mysoginy, explain to me how women have a 2:1 advantage over men in hiring preferences in STEM.
    http://www.pnas.org/content...
    I am so fucking sick of people accusing us (men in STEM and just STEM in general) of being sexist or not giving women opportunities. You have no idea what you're talking about. From the very first day I was going to Uni, the first thing the teachers said was how they would like to have more women. How they don't understand why there are almost only men. How they are tryig to get more women. Throughout my Uni experience, only thing I saw is how the girls were treated MUCH better, by the very system people like you accuse of being blatantly sexist... I saw how they got preferential treatment and didn't have to perform as hard as the boys (especially with female professors or teachers). Then in the workplace, again, the FIRST fucking thing I heard when I was visiting a company (ArcelorMittal) was how they would love to have more women and how they were favoring them during hiring in the name of """fairness"""". Then one time when I was applying for a job, they said I didn't get the job because I'm a guy and they gave the job to a woman back from my Uni class. A woman that I know wasn't as smart as me... Fact is, she barely even earned her degree in the first place. But she had a vagina, and that's all that matters.
    So don't you dare say that "women are so unlucky they get nothing". They have EVERY opportunity. They get EVERYTHING that men have... and throughout my life, all I have ever seen is women being treated better by the system. And it's not just personal anecdotes, these things are actually supported by credible statistics (more women in college, more likely to get in, get better grades, better chances in the workplace).
    You have no idea what you're talking about and simply assume STEM is sexist because you heard some delusional feminist saying it and you didn't stop to think if there's actually a shred of honesty in that toxic assertion.
    "And no is saying that they're going to say "We're no longer hiring white people""
    On an individual level? Of course they will. The BBC literally fired Jon Holmes for being white and male.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...
    But you're right, Holmes should just suck it up, because "in the larger picture", this isn't unfair. It's just """equality""". Give me a break.
    "they're saying we're going to stop being so ignorant and start looking outward for who we can hire"
    You clearly don't know how affirmative action works. AA spits in the face of the meritocracy, the only thing it cares about are arbitrary characteristics. It is nothing but ignorant and they only look outward in the sense that they only judge people on their physical appearance, not who they are, but what they are.
    1. Seb
      September 7, 2018
      I don't give a fuck, you just accused STEM of being inherently sexist and used the same, bigoted, discriminatory argument to justify quotas there, so it doesn't matter.
      Maybe you just realized you do indeed have no idea what you were actually talking about so you're turning to conversation again to Hollywood. What you don't realize is, this doesn't matter, because it is the PRINCIPLE that matters. I just gave you a very detailed explanation why quotas and AA are fucking terrible and discrimination, and this is true for ALL fields. Even IF Hollywood is actually sexist and racist (which I see very little evidence of, just like there is ZERO evidence that STEM is super racist and sexist), it wouldn't matter because all you would be perpetuating is an argument of revenge, not justice. Two wrongs don't make it right, period.
      1. Seb
        September 7, 2018
        Yeah you did. In any case, it does not matter, because you're not taking a principled approach and you didn't actually refute a single thing I said.
      2. Seb
        September 7, 2018
        You explicitly said women can't get as good as men in STEM, which means one of two things: either women are inherently inferior to men at engineering, or women don't have the same opportunities in STEM (which can ONLY be a result of sexism).
        You lose either way, so don't pull this "I didn't LITERALLY say that men are sexist"-crap, because the conclusion of your argument is the implicit assertion that STEM is indeed sexist.
        What you're doing now is hardcore backtracking and playing a game of "those aren't my exact words", when we all knew damn well what you actually meant, you included.
        I for one, am sick of being accused of being in a oppressive environment that only advantages men at the expense of women, or that it is "easier" for men, or that women don't get the same opportunities, when this is the exact opposite of reality. And don't you say it isn't personal, because it really fucking is.
        "Ohh, YOU might not be a sexist, I'm just talking about YOUR ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL FIELD, which is made up by men just like you... THAT field is sexist, but you're not!"
        Sorry, I'm not convinced, nor will I ever be. Stop whining and seeing problems where none exist. Want more women in STEM? Fine, tell them to actually dedicate their time to studying engineering instead of wasting their time on fucking gender studies to then whine how there aren't many women in STEM.
      3. Seb
        September 7, 2018
        we were talking about engineering, which is STEM.... For your sake, stop it. You're literally just embarrassing yourself at this point.
      4. Seb
        September 7, 2018
        No you weren't, you were SPECIFICALLY talking about my female competition, as in female engineers. Dude, just own what you said and correct yourself instead of backtracking as hard as you are. It's pathetic tbh with you.
      5. Seb
        September 7, 2018
        "No. I literally wasn't"
        Also you: "And those women don't get to be as qualified [IN ENGINEERING] as you because of their sex"
        A DIRECT reference to my female engineer competitors. At this point, you're just a liar.
        And AGAIN, even if you're "just" talking about "a different industry", it does not matter because the PRINCIPLE is the same regardless. It is WRONG.
      6. Seb
        September 7, 2018
        Yes, I indeed was the one who mentioned it... but you still DIRECTLY replied to my engineering comment, so again, you're just being blatantly dishonest at this point.
        Whatever man... you're not actually contributing anything here and you don't even seem to want to defend your position in the first place. You have nothing to say, clearly.
      7. Seb
        September 7, 2018
        Yes we are. Own it.
      8. Seb
        September 7, 2018
        As I said... nothing to contribute.
      9. Seb
        September 7, 2018
        Please tell me, if and I quote: "women don't get to be as qualified as me [at engineering] because of their sex" according to you, why is that the case? What causes this problem? Please, enlighten me. Go ahead and answer the question and show all of us the extent of your intellectual honesty here.
TheKillingJoke
September 6, 2018
Prepare yourself for asian batman
1. thefallen83
  September 6, 2018
  Already happened. Batman: Gotham Knight
  https://i0.wp.com/www.comix...
  http://images.sequart.org/i...
Alfred
September 6, 2018
This is just nauseating....
Thomas Guy
September 7, 2018
I find it interesting that we can have the '89 Joker, the Nolan Joker, and the SS Joker, all very different, different looking, different personalities. But if you cast a black actor in any of those roles, suddenly it's not correct. Very few characters have race built into their back story. Black Panther, Luke Cage, and if you're doing certain stories Hal Jordan, these characters have their race as an important part of their character. But if you make Batman a Chinese American, it loses nothing and can add things into the story. If you were to make Deadshot a woman, it loses nothing. I'm confused as to why we're so dead set on these characters that have been static for 70+ years stay static.
MrShmoo
September 7, 2018
Hardly a big deal, most large companies have a similar policy now. The retail sector has done this for many years without actually needing a written policy document
Ravager
March 18, 2019
I like to think there was a time where you didn't need to pat yourself on a back by stating something that was never a risk to being with. No one has a problem with hiring people of different races anymore and they haven't for decades. Honestly, policies like these are only meant to stroke the ego of whatever dumbass wrote them by stating the obvious. Now something that should feel natural feels artificial and fake, great job!

Batman News Archive

AT&T's WarnerMedia implements diversity and inclusion policy for Warner Bros. movies and TV shows

215 comments

Browse By Topic

Browse By Year

Browse By Author