ShadowBoxing
Avenger
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2004
- Messages
- 30,620
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 31
Unless Hector starts using the Meth Dealer as a sock puppet and mimes him saying "Aye, Pappi, yo quero Taco Bell" I think we'll be alright.
I agree.
For my part in this drama... I'm simply trying to get to the part where we discuss the Eskimo people's negative response to PieFace.
You should have been in the Spirit forums for the Ebony/Eisner-Was-A-Nazi-Except-He-Was-A-Jew debate(s).
I know he's a highly regarded character, and I know that a lot of people will see this, but I'm just not convinced that a film of this sort is going to be pulling in a random "general" audience in the same manner that The Dark Knight or Iron Man did.
It's too "sci fi"
(and not household recognizable enough)
a concept to attract varying ethnic groups to the box office.
No, it isn't.
Hammond has a history behind him many people know where his name is not Hammond. I wouldn't care if he was played by an Hispanic actor, though.
The drug dealer character is more like a prop for Hammond to talk about from what I've heard about the script. Does he even have a name beyond Hispanic drug dealer? He's going to be in a scene then never seen again IIRC.
The only people who care would be Hispanic's but it would be unclear if they would do anything about it when the film is released. This hasn't been the first time Hispanic's have been either corpses or drug dealers in films and it won't be the last.
We've just heard one reviewer be upset by it. His own site is polarized over his reaction, too.
I do agree that the should change it to another race or not mention their ethnicity altogether if the Hispanic community does get vocal about it but it would have to be more then this single critics negative reaction before they have cause for alarm.
Only the Hispanic audience is more then one movie critic. They have had no huge negative reaction to this that I'm aware of.
Did you actually read what I said? I just explained that "rogue" is not synonymous with villain--which means that describing him as a rogue does not mean I am describing him as a villain. "Rogue" describe Jordan in that he has always been resistant to authority; he is difficult to control, he misbehaves and is known to be a rule-breaker. It has nothing to do with him being a villain.
In case you are still unlcear, let's review the conversation:
Saint: "Jordan is a rogue."
Dnno1: "He's not a villain, so he's not a rogue!"
Saint: "Rogue does not necessarily mean villain; it can refer to one who misbehaves, who is mischievous or hard to control, which Jordan has always been."
Dnno1: "What are you talking about? He's not a villain!"
Do you see the problem?
Your attempt to vilify Guard is a sad ploy, at best. Guard didn't say anything about white people being "superior," nor did he say that most criminals are Hispanic. Someone said that films too frequently portray blacks minorities as criminals, and Guard responded by saying that, statistically, a majority of criminals are minorities. You confirmed this by posting statistics that indicate the same.
The reason for this statistic, of course, has nothing to do with anyone being superior or inferior. It's simple: poor people are more likely to resort to crime. Minorities are more likely to be poor because decades of racism meant they did not have the same opportunities as the white majority. Even if they do have those opportunities today (and some will argue that they do not; that institutionalized racism still prevents it), it is still a greater challenge for them to surmount the conditions that were created by those decades of racism.
Or, more simply: racism created poverty among minorities, and even though racism is (mostly) gone, the poverty persists, which creates crime, which is why the statistics indicate that the majority of criminals are of racial or ethnic minorities.
I don't know what criminology has to do with story writing. Are you sure you are a criminologist?
Your figures fail to mention that 36% were white.
In fact the highest proportion of the prison population comes from both the white and black races.
Thus, it is erroneous to conclude that most criminals are Hispanic (of which an even smaller number are drug dealers) since they are outnumbered by whites and African Americans.
Furthermore, the following two tables above came directly from Bureau of Justice statistical reports (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cpus98.pdf and http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/jim07.pdf). They indicate that whites have been right up there in population along with their black cohorts.
Also, this data only pertains to the prison population (of less than 3 million) in the United States (it doesn't even cover criminals who have not been incarcerated).
Half the audience for this film will coming from foreign countries where they have a different understanding of the demographics of prisoners in jails.
You are being very misleading, sir, with your post.
You are trying to paint a picture that poses white people as superior sine (as you are impling) "white people don't go to jail as much as minorities" and that is not necessarily the case. This behavior is commonly known as racism and you have fallen prey to being guilty of it.
That's a matter of opinion. What is a fact is that The Guard has no credibility for his bogus statistics.
He didn't have to. By his not disclosing the statistic on the white population in his post, he left the impression that there were no white people in jails and hence the subsequent impression that they were better (superior) to the other demographics.
Also lumping minorities all into one demographic is another ploy to make it look like something else.
The truth of the matter is that the residents in U.S. jails are mostly whites and African Americans (making up more than 80% of the population). His figures were even wrong in his post. Don't try to defend this guy.
Yeah, I don't get the "too sci-fi" aspect either. Heck, it's not like GL is particularly "hard" sci-fi anyways. It's intergalactic cops with a ring that can create impressive constructs, not 2001: A Space Odyssey or Blade Runner. There's a lot more in common between GL and Star Wars than with those two examples.
I also think the intergalactic corps is a nice multi-cultural shorthand metaphor. Why shouldn't that appeal across race lines?
So, there's a dead Latino drug dealer in the movie, and that's important why?
The rest sounds good enough. I like that Oa and Earth based opponents are in the movie. That's an effective way to show the parameters within which GL operates. And we've never really had a cosmic villain in modern superhero movies, with the possible exception of the Galactus cloud, so that's something that if pulled off is something the audience hasn't seen before. I do wish we'd get an idea of the motivation of Hector Hammond though. What's his goal and motivation?
It is exactly how our conversation went down.Yes, this is not how the discussion went down.
We're talking about it because I was the one to call him a rogue--and you disagreed, saying "he is not a villain." I then clarified for you that rogue is not synonymous with villain, making your comment that "he is not a villain" irrelevant to my branding him as a rogue. I have already explained this.I said that Jordan may be a hothead (in the script) but not a rogue (a villain, which is my definition and the common one). Your definition of rogue does not coin him as a villain so why are we talking about this?
He didn't have to. By his not disclosing the statistic on the white population in his post, he left the impression that there were no white people in jails and hence the subsequent impression that they were better (superior) to the other demographics.
Nonsense: he pointed out the percentages for each group specifically; he didn't lump them together.Also lumping minorities all into one demographic is another ploy to make it look like something else.
Yes, that's right, but getting into all of them was not required by my point.There a lot more reasons for this than what you are stating here
Funny: it was okay for you to talk about it when you were responding to Guard, but it's not okay for me to talk about it when responding to you?(it is a multi-factorial problem). I suggest you do not get into this discussion since it is not on topic,
Bull. The only people who would have assumed that are morons. Any one with a brain knows that when a person says "64% of criminals are minorities," that they are implying that the remaining 36% of prisoners are white--BY VIRTUE OF THAT BEING THE ONLY POSSIBILITY.
Guard also said outright in his post that many prisoners are wqhite. Perhaps you should read before you complain.
Nonsense: he pointed out the percentages for each group specifically; he didn't lump them together.
Yes, that's right, but getting into all of them was not required by my point.
Funny: it was okay for you to talk about it when you were responding to Guard, but it's not okay for me to talk about it when responding to you?
The hell? If anything, I would have thought people would have taken exception to me thinking the Jack Black GL script was funny.
No, I'm in insurance, actually. I said I majored in criminology in college.
So...what you're driving at is that 64 percent of the criminals were not white. Which was more or less my whole point, if you will recall.
And where, pray tell, is it written that I need to mention the percentage of whites, in the context of my statement? 36% of criminals being white has absolutely no bearing on how many criminals are "minorities", which was my entire point.
Allow me to repeat my rather simple point:
As a criminology major...there's a reason that many criminals are portrayed as "minorities". At least as of circa 2000, many criminals ARE "minorities". This is a stereotype that unfortunately has it's basis in statistical fact. Especially in larger, more urban cities. Now, are many criminals white as well? Yes, but look at the races and ethnicities that jails and prisons are full of. The poor, and the "minorities".
This was my point. Can you invalidate it simply because I didn't put what percentage of criminals are white? The numbers have probably changed since then, but obviously not much. Are you really going to quibble because I didn't say "Many criminals are also white"?
Oh...wait. I did say that.
So what's your issue, exactly? The implication should be obvious, but apparently you're going to get upset because I forgot to mention what percentage "many" equals, despite the fact that it is, wait for it...IRRELEVANT in context. The percentage of whites in jail, last I checked, is still less than the combined percentage of minorities in jail. Therefore, my statement was, and remains, a valid one.
So? What does that have to do with anything in context?
This man has the right idea. :gl:This race depiction in a "comic book movie" talk is getting monotonous and a bit sad guys. Enough of the he said she said garbage and let's get back to talking GL.
I have a degree in criminology as well and really minorities make up a large percentage in prisons compared to their percentage in the actual population.
So lets say in Canada aboriginals make up 2 percent of the population, but in prisons are 10 percent of the prison population (just made this up), it doesnt mean that they commit more crimes than white people, its disproportionate in regards to the population. In reality, race plays a role in unfair trials but poverty is another, if not more, important factor which basically limits the access to justice and the ability of someone to be represented justly.
Secondly statistics are just a general indicator but really if you exam them they aren't very telling. Do police patrol upper class neighbourhoods as often as lower class ones, no they don't. Are poorer children thrown in jail for marijuana consumption and seen as drug addicts or dealers whereas richer ones get passed off as it "just being a phase". As a criminoloy major Guard you should know better than to use them to say many "criminals" are minorities without clearly defining what your refering to.
It's such a non-issue that if thought through too deeply, borders on banality.
No, they would only look at the statistic that most prisoners are minorities and wouldn't have a clue what the white population was without having to grab a paper and pencil.
Note that in the Bureau of Justice reports they always list the white population. In fact when always reporting statistical data you always list all possible outcomes whether it is implied or not. The fact remains that the majority of prisoners are white and African American (making up over 80%) since they have the largest numbers in the prison population. If it is fair game to lump a group of races together and say they are the majority in a particular population, then lets be fair and group the demographics with the highest populations. Face it he was misleading in reporting the facts. Hispanics make up about 15% of people in jails and that isn't counting all the criminals anyway. It is a bad statistic.
No, I caputured his quote in my post and he hasn't changed his original statement. He said that most criminals are minorities and nothing else. When you say most criminals are minorities, you are lumping them together (African American, Hispanic, and other).
First of all, none of your figures match the ones that have been reported by the BoJ and you do not site a source, so that would invalidate it (i.e. make it bogus).
Secondly you are quoting figures based on criminals who got caught and are in prison.
This does not account for all or most criminals, which you stated in your post.
Finally, based on your numbers, the largest proportion of mixed races would come from the white and African American figures.
As an example if all of the prisoners were in one facility and I were to go to visit one randomly it would be more probable that I would see one that was either white (non-Hispanic) or African American (a close to 80% chance) than I would just any minority (a 64% chance). I think you should stick to selling insurance.
This man has the right idea. :gl:
Those of you who wish to continue playing the statistics game as it pertains to criminality, or whatever spawned this ridiculous race side topic, are welcome to do so via PMs. It doesn't require a general audience.