What Sterotypes do you hate?

[Villano]

Well, to be fair, Jafar was a lot more Arab than Aladdin. Would anyone have recognized Aladdin as an Arab if he was in something else? Probably not.

How would you recognize any cartoony character as an ethnic group? Unless you use some sort of visual shorthand like "red hair equals Irish", it's pretty impossible. True, he could pass as being Indian or, perhaps, Latino, but so could Jafar.

Does Pocahontas look Native American or Filipino?* And why do so many people think Lex Luthor was black?

If you show someone a picture of Aladdin or any of the other characters, most people, even those who've never seen the film, would probably describe them as Arabs (or, perhaps, Indian) due to their clothing.

All of that is irrelevant anyway, since my point was that people complained that Disney was racist because they made the villain an Arab while overlooking the fact that everyone, from hero to co-stars to background characters, were Arabs too. All this goes back to the original point that people will complain if a villain is anything other than white. Even if everyone in a film is of one ethnic group, people will complain if anyone evil belongs to that group.

Well, if you read the original, it's set in China, the magician is African (and has a brother), the princess's real name is Badr-al-Budur, and Jafar is from a completely different story (though he is an Arab).

True, but if Disney did the film version like that, people wouldn't complain that the villain was an Arab, but was black. Plus, from what I've heard, in the original, the guy who cheats Aladdin out of the lamp was Jewish, which would lead to more controversy (but, to be fair, the inclusion of a villianous Jew was probably intentionally Anti-Semitic to begin with).


*EDIT: To add to the silliness of cartoon ethnicity, according to Wikipedia, there were complaints that Pocahontas didn't look Native American at all...but looked black!

 

[Huw]

True, but if Disney did the film version like that, people wouldn't complain that the villain was an Arab, but was black.

He is in several illustrated versions.

Plus, from what I've heard, in the original, the guy who cheats Aladdin out of the lamp was Jewish, which would lead to more controversy (but, to be fair, the inclusion of a villianous Jew was probably intentionally Anti-Semitic to begin with).

One of Aladdin's early wishes, before he realises the full power of what he has, is for food. The djinni brings him food on silver plates. Aladdin then goes out to sell them, and meets a Jewish trader, who pays him a fraction of their true worth (but still more money than Aladdin has ever seen before). The Jew is never aware of the lamp, it's the magician who pulls off the "new lamps for old trick".

 

[ssampier]

I must say I understand the issue of racism in our media. I think it, largely, depends on the intent. Is the dark or ethnically different antagonist only a villian because he is darker or different than anybody else? A difficult question to answer.

In the late-1990s, a movie called The Siege was released. It was about middle-eastern terrorists attacking New York City. It was heavily critisized because the producers chose to use arab villians. Even Roger Ebert compared the movie to anti-semite propoganda pieces from the early 20th century (despite the fact that one of the protagonists was a muslim of middle-eastern descent).

Of course, maybe the critics were right: arab terrorists attacking NYC is something that would never, ever happen.

Great movie, by the way. Which also ignores the fact the protagonist is an African-American (Denzel Washington). I think the movie comes off as balanced. I wish we could have more movies like this.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Mainly I pointed fingers at anime earlier mostly because what of it I've seen has a big concentrated dose of stereotypes I've already seen enough of. Now the big one itself and it can be summed up in two little words

BASIC MARKSMANSHIP

Why is it that in every movie, tv show, cartoon, etc. that aside from the climatic moment when plot requires good aim no one can hit the broad side of a barn. Why is it that supposedly dangerous and well trained enemies can't hit a man sized target standing in clear lines of fire fifteen meters away? Anyone who can't hit a moving helmet sized target at fifty meters would never have even passed basic rifle marksmanship at basic. Even twice that is an insignificant distance for a man-sized target for anyone trained. Yet regardless of who is shooting in the movies they can't hit large targets right in front of them, WHY?

 

[Elemental]

When a man hits a woman, it's to indicate he's an evil bastard. If a woman hits a man, it's presented either as perfectly justified, or comedic. (If you've seen the trailer for My Super Ex-Girlfriend, imagine that it's a male superhero harassing and threatening his girlfriend when she breaks up with him. Is it still funny?)

Ass-kicking female characters....who inexplicably become ineffectual when the plot calls on them to be killed (to create angst for the male hero) or captured (so the male hero can rescue her). Bonus points if she falls into bed with the hero for no real reason halfway through.

In comics, the refusal to kill the villain because That Would Make Us Just As Bad As Him. Of course, said villain will inevitably escape from prison in the next big crossover event, and kill a few dozen unnamed characters--has any reasonably popular comic book villain ever gone to prison and actually served the full term before escaping? In anything like the real world, someone like the Joker would have recieved the death penalty a long time ago, even if it required the whole state to change their laws. Either that, or he'd have had a 'tragic accident' at the police station.

Generating drama by killing off minor characters to generate angst for the heroes and reinforce that this situation is serious. It's cheap, and it does not work any more, we all know the important characters are going to be fine. It's especially annoying in comics, where the minor characters that get killed are often ones who are interesting and well-developed, because the writers don't have to keep them as static as the big names.

 

[Villano]

In comics, the refusal to kill the villain because That Would Make Us Just As Bad As Him. Of course, said villain will inevitably escape from prison in the next big crossover event, and kill a few dozen unnamed characters--has any reasonably popular comic book villain ever gone to prison and actually served the full term before escaping? In anything like the real world, someone like the Joker would have recieved the death penalty a long time ago, even if it required the whole state to change their laws. Either that, or he'd have had a 'tragic accident' at the police station.

Why would someone escape from prison after serving their full term? They're not in prison anymore.

I kind of agree with this to a certain extent. However, the Joker has already been ruled criminally insane, so you can't execute him (and I doubt whatever state Gotham is in has the death penalty or else the sane guys like Penguin would be on deathrow). Batman and the average cop wouldn't kill him since they aren't cold-blooded murderers, however, I do wonder why no crime boss has ever put out a hit on him. He must attract way too much attention from the cops. True, the typical hitman may not be able to take him out, but why not hire Deathstroke or some other superhuman?

Generating drama by killing off minor characters to generate angst for the heroes and reinforce that this situation is serious. It's cheap, and it does not work any more, we all know the important characters are going to be fine. It's especially annoying in comics, where the minor characters that get killed are often ones who are interesting and well-developed, because the writers don't have to keep them as static as the big names.

I hate this! I remember seeing a description of big company crossovers which said that the end result is to kill off a bunch of third-tier characters and launch a half dozen new titles, of which only one lasts.

DC killed off a bunch of characters I'd actually like to read (good-bye Flash), but Aquaman, who's never been interesting is still chugging along.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

BASIC MARKSMANSHIP

Why is it that in every movie, tv show, cartoon, etc. that aside from the climatic moment when plot requires good aim no one can hit the broad side of a barn. Why is it that supposedly dangerous and well trained enemies can't hit a man sized target standing in clear lines of fire fifteen meters away? Anyone who can't hit a moving helmet sized target at fifty meters would never have even passed basic rifle marksmanship at basic. Even twice that is an insignificant distance for a man-sized target for anyone trained. Yet regardless of who is shooting in the movies they can't hit large targets right in front of them, WHY?

Why should this surprise anyone? They never aim! Yeah, I hate this too.

 

[Ranger REG]

When a man hits a woman, it's to indicate he's an evil bastard.

I blame Dr. Phil and Oprah. Women want equality yet chivalry must be respected. What a double standard.

 

[Victim]

Mainly I pointed fingers at anime earlier mostly because what of it I've seen has a big concentrated dose of stereotypes I've already seen enough of. Now the big one itself and it can be summed up in two little words

BASIC MARKSMANSHIP

Why is it that in every movie, tv show, cartoon, etc. that aside from the climatic moment when plot requires good aim no one can hit the broad side of a barn. Why is it that supposedly dangerous and well trained enemies can't hit a man sized target standing in clear lines of fire fifteen meters away? Anyone who can't hit a moving helmet sized target at fifty meters would never have even passed basic rifle marksmanship at basic. Even twice that is an insignificant distance for a man-sized target for anyone trained. Yet regardless of who is shooting in the movies they can't hit large targets right in front of them, WHY?

Real life is why. Amazingly, people don't shoot as well in actual combat as they do on the firing range.

Hit Potential In Gun Fights

The police officer's potential for hitting his adversary during armed
confrontation has increased over the years and stands at slightly over 25% of
the rounds fired. An assailant's skill was 11% in 1979.

In 1990 the overall police hit potential was 19%. Where distances could be
determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:

Less than 3 yards ..... 38%
3 yards to 7 yards .. 11.5%
7 yards to 15 yards .. 9.4%

In 1992 the overall police hit potential was 17%. Where distances could be
determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:

Less than 3 yards ..... 28%
3 yards to 7 yards .... 11%
7 yards to 15 yards . 4.2%

Combat Shooting

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I understand quite well the difference between the two as I've experienced both, my problem is the extent that they wildly exxagerate the problem for the circumstances involved in many movies. Also never use police as an example of combat shooting. For one they never engage in real combat. There is a vast difference between drawing down on an untrained gang-banger because he's armed and an actual firefight where the circumstances are not even close to the same. In order to get an idea regarding actual combat shooting look for figures from the military. I can't even begin to number the times I've seen movies or tv shows in which multiple parties standing in full view of each other with sub-guns or long arms less than twenty meters away empty entire magazines without effect. At that distance a few misses can be expected simply from excitement and pushing too hard, but not emptying entire magazines by the fifth round they should be on target or they weren't trained properly and don't have the disposition for it. Any member of a military unit that incompetent has no place in combat they are going to get their squadmembers killed.