Futurama   Planet Express Employee Lounge
The Futurama Message Board

Design and Support by Can't get enough Futurama
Help Search Futurama chat Login Register

PEEL - The Futurama Message Board    Off Topic    It's got a TV!    Television! Teacher, mother, secret lover: The TV Test Thread renewed « previous next »
Author Topic: Television! Teacher, mother, secret lover: The TV Test Thread renewed  (Read 22323 times)
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6] 7 Print
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #200 on: 04-01-2018 23:36 »

Apparently Supernatural did a Scooby Doo episode
tyraniak

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #201 on: 05-11-2018 01:36 »
« Last Edit on: 05-11-2018 02:30 »

Not surprising, but still kind of a bummer

https://www.google.com/amp/deadline.com/2018/05/brooklyn-nine-nine-canceled-andy-samberg-andre-bruagher-fox-1202380877/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/ew.com/tv/2018/05/10/last-man-on-earth-canceled/amp/
tyraniak

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #202 on: 05-12-2018 06:37 »

Slightly happier double post

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2018/05/12/nbc-saves-brooklyn-nine-nine-after-fox-cancellation/604426002/
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #203 on: 05-13-2018 01:20 »

Neat!
M0le

Space Pope
****
« Reply #204 on: 05-13-2018 07:46 »

Gorky

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #205 on: 05-17-2018 01:29 »

I just burned through all four seasons of Broad City in less than a week, and it was a goddamn delight. I have such a soft spot for those low-concept comedies in which characters who clearly enjoy each other's company just sort of live their lives and shoot the shit, and in that regard this show delivers every time. Behold!

UnrealLegend

Space Pope
****
« Reply #206 on: 07-06-2018 10:10 »

Season 2 of Luke Cage is actually really good! It's a huge improvement over the first season and it never loses its momentum. Also it's too long, blah blah blah... that's basically a given at this stage.


I will say that if you skip The Defenders the start of the season will be really confusing.
Gorky

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #207 on: 08-23-2018 03:59 »

I am so far behind on the Marvel shows on Netflix. I'm only two episodes in to the second season of Jessica Jones, which of course I want to finish before I watch Luke Cage...ugh. It's this weird situation where I know I'll enjoy both shows, and I'm definitely curious to know what happens, but I just can't be arsed to actually plant my, well, arse on the couch for the tens of hours it would take to binge all those episodes.

I must say, bingeing has lost some of its allure for me of late. I'm beginning to see it as just a necessary evil, not a superior viewing method to the way things were done in the days before streaming and DVRs. Like, I have a much easier time keeping up with the few network shows I still watch--either by catching them as they air (god bless you, satellite TV) or watching them the next day/following weekend on Hulu or whatever--than I do with stuff on Netflx.

Speaking of which: I've really been enjoying Castle Rock on Hulu for the past few weeks, and I think the manner in which each new episode drops has something to do with it. Sure, I had to binge the first four episodes--which certainly had a momentum all their own, compared to the more off-the-wall stuff that's gone on in the more recent episodes (especially this week's; it was a real mind-fuck, with a devastating ending)--but I've found myself looking forward to the past three Wednesdays, coming home from work and knowing there's a new episode waiting for me. Like, how quaint, y'know?
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #208 on: 08-25-2018 07:12 »

I wouldn't use the word quaint, though it might be most correct.  I definitely agree.... life was better in many regards then, keeping up with a story once a week and discussing it with friends.

I'm not sure if I was an idiot back then, or if I live like a retard now.
UnrealLegend

Space Pope
****
« Reply #209 on: 09-13-2018 13:36 »

I must say, bingeing has lost some of its allure for me of late. I'm beginning to see it as just a necessary evil, not a superior viewing method to the way things were done in the days before streaming and DVRs.

I'm kinda with you there. The bloated length of each season doesn't help.

However, I'm glad I watched season 2 of Iron Fist, because it's a massive improvement over the first one! The fight choreography is better, the acting is better, and the writing is better. It still has a few issues... it dives a bit too deep in the superhero tropes area and I had problems with one particular character, but I found the overall story enjoyable. Let me just throw some spoilery thoughts down:


Anyway, I'm glad that this show made a turnaround in the same way Luke Cage did. It's just a shame that Jessica Jones  failed to do the same, although one difference is that unlike IF and LC, JJ was actually good in her first season. Apparently Defenders isn't likely to get a second season, but if it does I really hope that also improves.

Anyway, I rate season two of Iron Fist a solid Fuck Joy/10

Also, fuck Joy.
UnrealLegend

Space Pope
****
« Reply #210 on: 11-30-2018 07:21 »

Iron Fist was cancelled.

Luke Cage was cancelled.

And now bloody Daredevil is cancelled.

Season 3 of Daredevil was ridiculously good so this is sad news to hear. There's probably some complicated behind-the-scenes stuff between Disney and Netflix going on. I think it goes without saying that JJ and Punisher are gonna bite the dust as well.
DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #211 on: 12-06-2018 20:59 »

There's probably some complicated behind-the-scenes stuff between Disney and Netflix going on. I think it goes without saying that JJ and Punisher are gonna bite the dust as well.

It's because Disney release their own streaming service, Disney+, later next year. They won't want people paying other streaming services for content that they own. :rolleyes:
UnrealLegend

Space Pope
****
« Reply #212 on: 12-07-2018 07:33 »

There's probably some complicated behind-the-scenes stuff between Disney and Netflix going on. I think it goes without saying that JJ and Punisher are gonna bite the dust as well.

It's because Disney release their own streaming service, Disney+, later next year. They won't want people paying other streaming services for content that they own. :rolleyes:

Actually, it's been stated by multiple sources that the cancellation was 100% by Netflix. Maybe they want to stick with content they have full ownership of? Who knows. It all seems pretty fishy.
DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #213 on: 12-07-2018 16:40 »

Oh, really? Interesting. Perhaps Disney didn't want to come across as dicks by being the ones to cancel all of Netflix's Disney-owned shows so privately forced them into it.
UnrealLegend

Space Pope
****
« Reply #214 on: 12-07-2018 22:56 »

Yeah, that sounds likely. I'm very happy that Daredevil at least managed to end on a high note which thematically felt like it could've be a series finale anyway.

I expect these shows to be declared non-canon in the MCU at some point as well, which I would honestly be okay with.
Gorky

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #215 on: 12-09-2018 22:23 »

On the subject of Marvel shows, I finally got around to watching season two of Jessica Jones, and I think I more or less agree with UrL's assessment a few pages back. I was expecting a far steeper drop in quality from season one, which was just all-around brilliant (pacing issues notwithstanding), but actually I found the central story-line in season two to be exceptionally compelling. It built on some of the bigger themes from season one--especially in the final few episodes--and gave the secondary characters (specifically Malcolm and Jeri, both of whom had far better storylines this season than last) some cool stuff to do.

I absolutely hated the ways it fucked with Trish and Jess's relationship, which is the heart of the show, but I did enjoy the flashback episode and the insight it gave us in to their friendship's historically turbulent nature. I daresay that flashback episode was my favorite of the season, save for the part where I had to watch a man's head get repeatedly slammed against a brick building at close range with superhuman strength. Ugh. (I think I had sort of forgotten how brutally violent the show could be--didn't a guy get garden shears through his temporal lobe in season one?)  

All that said...

In any event, I'm looking forward to the next (and, you know, likely final) season. Hopefully it offers a scintilla of closure, but after the events of season two, I'm not sure how that's possible.
tyraniak

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #216 on: 03-07-2019 00:29 »

Sad news for jeopardy fans https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna980266
Gorky

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #217 on: 03-23-2019 23:48 »
« Last Edit on: 03-23-2019 23:50 »

Yeah, that's a pretty bum deal for Mr. Trebek. I go in and out of watching Jeopardy, and I'm not a huge Alex Trebek fangirl or anything, but it's hard to imagine someone taking up the hosting mantle for him whenever that day comes.

Anyway: A week ago, I began watching through The Sopranos for the first time. It's a show that's been on my to-watch list for a while, and I figured I'd give the first episode a shot--if it struck me as dumb or dated or pretentious or what-have-you, I planned to just wash my hands of it after the pilot. This tends to be my attitude with most shows--I know a pilot is rarely indicative of a show's eventual quality, but if it doesn't at least contain some seed of potential, or otherwise telegraph that the series might one day evolve into something better, I can't justify spending the time on it (my to-watch list being so very, very long).

But, shit, The Sopranos is surprisingly good! It's not brilliant, by any means, but it's cheekier and more self-aware than I would've guessed from what I've been able to glean of it over the years through pop cultural osmosis. It's compulsively watchable; I burned through the first two seasons in six days. It's also charmingly of its time (the late '90s and early aughts), but in terms of character and theme, it's all relatively timeless. Oh, and it's way less gory than I'd been led to believe--which, as a lady of very weak stomach, was a welcome surprise.

Also: I understand it's meant to be the granddaddy of modern-day prestige TV, but honestly I find it far more well-acted (and far less up-its-own-ass) than a lot of the shows it supposedly paved the way for (Breaking Bad comes to mind). I'm definitely looking forward to watching the rest of the series in the coming weeks; I'm relatively unspoiled (I knew Tony's mom died because the actress died, and I'm aware of the series-ending did-Tony-get-whacked cut-to-black, but beyond that all the deaths and related twists and turns have been entirely new to me), which definitely enables me to invest a bit more.
tyraniak

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #218 on: 03-25-2019 00:02 »

Sopranos definitely earned its stripes when it comes to quality tv drama, not sure if you've Mad Men, which the creator was also a writer and a producer on sopranos.
Farnsworth38

Professor
*
« Reply #219 on: 10-07-2019 20:49 »

Just seen a trailer for the BBC's War of the Worlds. Finally, a version where Horsell Common is actually in England. It looks promising, but has taken a while to appear so there may have been 'issues' during production: Hopefully it wasn't subjected to detrimental interference.
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #220 on: 10-08-2019 09:45 »

I wonder if Drew Carey will host Jeopardy.
tyraniak

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #221 on: 10-28-2019 02:21 »

Not sure if anyone has seen The Boys on Amazon, but I highly recommend it
Scrappylive

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #222 on: 12-31-2019 23:58 »

On the eve of another decade, I remain greatly disappointed about one major thing: where is the great TV show (preferably a sitcom) that is set in the '90s?

•In the 1970s, we had Happy Days (and its many spin-offs) set in the '50s.
•In the 1980s, we had The Wonder Years set in the '60s.
•In the 1990s, we had That '70s Show set in (you guessed it) the '70s.
•In the 2000s, we had Everybody Hates Chris set in the '80s. (And also That '80s Show was there, but... yeah...)

So it follows that, in the 2010s, we should have had a great sitcom set in my favorite decade: The '90s.

But no.

Sure, '90s nostalgia has been strong these past few years. We've had plenty of '90s shows that have been continued in some form or another, be it reboots, revivals, or sequel series. But where is my new, original time piece set in the '90s?
tyraniak

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #223 on: 01-05-2020 03:14 »

I know there's a spinoff  to The Goldbergs that's set during that time, but I'm not expecting it to last long
Gorky

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #224 on: 01-26-2020 17:49 »

I think we may just be in a protracted period of '80s nostalgia (see also: Stranger Things), but it's also possible that you've hit the nail on the head with this:

We've had plenty of '90s shows that have been continued in some form or another, be it reboots, revivals, or sequel series.

It seems that the modus operandi has become the reboot/revival/sequel route, which I fucking hate. This example will just reveal how much of a loser I am, but they did a mini-revival of Mad About You at the tail end of last year and I find that deeply infuriating because the original Mad About You actually had a really poignant, interesting, and risk-taking finale that was completely negated by the reboot (to my understanding--I haven't actually seen it yet). There is an art to writing a story with a cohesive and self-contained beginning, middle, and end; I feel like now, with everything, there's this implied promise that the end will never really be the end...and, like, STORYTELLING DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY, GOODNIGHT!

Also, the tendency toward reboots/revivals/sequels set in the present day allows artists to avoid truly exploring what it is, specifically, about the '90s that inspires such fond feelings in the first place. Maybe it's because it was society's last gasp before the internet ruined our lives, maybe it's because we were living in blissfully pre-9/11 times, maybe it's because we were filled with such (ultimately, I think, misguided) hope about what the new millennium would bring. Who knows? Point is, we'll never find out if artists refuse to engage with the time itself, as opposed to just re-purposing its most beloved intellectual property and crassly cashing in on people's nostalgia.
Tweek

UberMod
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #225 on: 01-27-2020 08:54 »

I suspect that apart from the obvious nostalgia for those in their 40s/50s one of the main reasons for '80s set shows is that it is the last decade before the internet/mobile phones... a time when once you walked out of the door people couldn't easily contact you and an era when it took effort to look up facts. Of course the same is true of the early '90s but if you want your series to go on for several years things will change.
Gorky

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #226 on: 02-12-2020 01:51 »

That's a good point, Tweek: the narrative convenience of cell phones and the internet can rob certain stories of their tension, so if you set your story in the pre-digital age, you get some of that conflict back.

On an entirely unrelated note: Has anyone seen Letterkenny? I've been casually watching it (like, when I need something on in the background that I only intend to half pay attention to) on Hulu. It's pretty funny--and, I assume, entirely accurate to the Canadian experience.

Also, there are many cute dogs. Behold!

UnrealLegend

Space Pope
****
« Reply #227 on: 02-28-2020 14:06 »

Has anybody watched I Am Not Okay With This?

When I heard that it's short I decided to binge watch it (It's only like, 2.5 hours in total) and I was blown away by the ending (massive spoilers ahead).


I definitely suggest watching this. It does lean on some very familiar tropes, but the short length means it's not too much of a commitment.
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #228 on: 05-10-2020 18:45 »

I haven't.  What channel?

I watched that Love Robots and Death cartoon anthology show from Netflix awhile back.  I really enjoyed it.

I think we may just be in a protracted period of '80s nostalgia (see also: Stranger Things), but it's also possible that you've hit the nail on the head with this:

We've had plenty of '90s shows that have been continued in some form or another, be it reboots, revivals, or sequel series.

It seems that the modus operandi has become the reboot/revival/sequel route, which I fucking hate. This example will just reveal how much of a loser I am, but they did a mini-revival of Mad About You at the tail end of last year and I find that deeply infuriating because the original Mad About You actually had a really poignant, interesting, and risk-taking finale that was completely negated by the reboot (to my understanding--I haven't actually seen it yet). There is an art to writing a story with a cohesive and self-contained beginning, middle, and end; I feel like now, with everything, there's this implied promise that the end will never really be the end...and, like, STORYTELLING DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY, GOODNIGHT!

Also, the tendency toward reboots/revivals/sequels set in the present day allows artists to avoid truly exploring what it is, specifically, about the '90s that inspires such fond feelings in the first place. Maybe it's because it was society's last gasp before the internet ruined our lives, maybe it's because we were living in blissfully pre-9/11 times, maybe it's because we were filled with such (ultimately, I think, misguided) hope about what the new millennium would bring. Who knows? Point is, we'll never find out if artists refuse to engage with the time itself, as opposed to just re-purposing its most beloved intellectual property and crassly cashing in on people's nostalgia.

I never heard about a Mad About You reboot or resequencing or fanfiction.  It doesn't exist, you know? Mad About You really did end in that poignant manner; it actually was a self contained piece of art within that media... And there seems value, to me, in that distinction.
You'll probably never see Cowboy Bebop, but it is, definitively 27 sessions long.  Do I want more Bebop?  Sure...is that possible?  No.  It is what it is, but it also is what it isn't.  It isn't a story without a single unified theme that threads about itself, or a show lacking interesting characters I got to know across its finite and deliberately chosen length, and it isn't a show I didn't watch that gave me thoughts in my head about what it meant to be an adult, what family was about, and how one might be able to win at life by losing if they could at least live for themself.

And I won't go into another like FLCL...that one is exactly 6 episodes....and it's perfect...if I want more, laying on a couch in strange places, I put on episode 2.... Or 3....sometimes 1....sometimes I look at the screen, sometimes episode 5.....it actually is perfection, but it never should have been.  It shouldn't make sense...it didn't start out with any idea or intention of cohesion.  I can put on random episodes of that because it is precisely 6 episodes long, and because each episode is bokkended by its siblings...

But the middle isn't the end, and the end isn't in the middle of FLCL.  There's a story where that is what it is though, and its length is perfect on either side of that in between pages of a book...and on the left it literally says at the bottom, The middle is the end,...and on the right at the top it literally says, and the end is in the middle.

I haven't...read...quite read that book yet... It...will have been written?

Anyway.  I never heard about some website beating a dead horse with a high voltage electric transmission line concerning MAY ....  It doesn't exist.  I never... Will have heard about it...or..will have seen it?  Nah, MAY ended perfectly, just like you said.  Unlike HIMUM...The fuxking kids probably figured out Aunt Robin wasn't their mom a long time ago Bob Saget, and they agree with her about the restraining order Aunt Robin has on you...  And saying that it was a full house, or changing details about your past, like sandwiches, and doppelgangers, anything an architect (fucking srsly?), or trying to portray Uncle Barney as the womanizing bad guy;  he and Aunt Robin did a good job raising Nick and Alex.....just drop it Bob Saget....we aren't fulled so easily.
UnrealLegend

Space Pope
****
« Reply #229 on: 06-29-2020 10:24 »

There's been numerous white voice actors quitting their roles as non-white cartoon characters recently; The Simpsons and Family Guy being among them.

I fully understand and support the idea of diverse casting... but I feel like this is going too far. A voice actor's appearance has literally no impact on their performance, and there's nothing stopping black actors voicing white characters (and it happens. Let's consider Darth Vader for a moment; arguably one of the most iconic fictional characters of all time) If the character requires some degree of authenticity, then sure, absolutely. If they speak with an accent that could come across as mocking or offensive, then again, that makes sense.

If Futurama were still going, I don't think there'd be much drama there, at least. I can't think of many actors voicing (human) characters outside their race other than Barbados Slim and a couple of Globetrotters.

I'm just glad BoJack Horseman ended just in time to avoid this wave of controversy.
David A

Space Pope
****
« Reply #230 on: 06-30-2020 01:18 »

Does this mean that Patrick Seitz will no longer be allowed to voice black characters, or Russian characters?  What about that time that he was the voice actor for a black Russian character?  I feel like they probably would have had a hard time finding an actual black Russian actor to voice Simon.
Gorky

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #231 on: 06-30-2020 22:42 »

I'm of various minds on this subject. For starters, I think whenever possible characters of color should be played by voice actors of color, and so this reckoning is long overdue. Like, for example, from the very start it was baffling to me that Jenny Slate was playing a Black biracial character on a show as otherwise woke as Big Mouth (which I love!). The tendency to have white actors voice nonwhite characters speaks to the limits of well-meaning liberalism: like, creators recognize the need for diversity and representation, but their Rolodex is apparently lacking in actual nonwhite actors to cast in those diverse roles. So that's kind of bullshit, and I'm glad these creators are (belatedly) recognizing the error of their ways.

That being said, I've also seen arguments that recasting these roles (along the same lines as removing episodes of TV shows that feature blackface, regardless of the context--say, obviously satirical and/or to a greater political end--in which that blackface occurs) is a placatory half-measure intended to convince people that Racism is Dead...you know, even in the absence of any lasting, systemic change to our broken institutions. So, from that perspective, this all strikes me as performative activism--these creators are doing the right thing, but it took them way to long to realize it was the right thing, and really this should just be one part of a larger movement toward equity and inclusion in Hollywood and beyond.

I also think there's some nuance to be drawn out here between a character like Jenny Slate's Missy on Big Mouth and, say, Apu on The Simpsons. Missy is a fully-developed, interesting, well-written character--whereas Apu, though largely well-meaning, reinforces a number of harmful stereotypes against Indian people. The nature of the latter character is what makes his portrayal by a white actor all the more troubling, and I still think the show bungled its response to that particular controversy.

All other things being equal, I think it's better to give the nonwhite actor the nonwhite character to play, and am not especially moved by meritocratic arguments that the role should really just go to the "best" actor, regardless of skin color or background. Like, meritocracy is a lie anyway, and I have no doubt you could find an Indian actor just as talented as Hank Azaria to play Apu. (That said, I also recognize that old-school voice casting, like what was done with The Simpsons, was largely based on getting the most bang for your buck--finding an actor who could play dozens of characters, for the price of one. But there have been numerous nonwhite characters on The Simpsons from the jump, so it might have been prudent to cast a few people of color way back then.) The nature of modern-day voice casting is such that one actor may only play one role (because you're paying for the actor's name, not the actor's versatility), in which case it seems like a no-brainer to find actors whose racial/ethnic backgrounds align with the racial/ethnic backgrounds of the character they're being asked to play.
UnrealLegend

Space Pope
****
« Reply #232 on: 03-25-2021 13:03 »

If Futurama were still going, I don't think there'd be much drama there, at least. I can't think of many actors voicing (human) characters outside their race other than Barbados Slim and a couple of Globetrotters.

Lol, I just remembered Leo Wong. He'd be history, for sure.

Anyway, I watched Parks and Rec recently. It was very enjoyable and I loved the characters. Like Community, I'm finding myself quoting it non-stop.
David A

Space Pope
****
« Reply #233 on: 03-25-2021 15:25 »

What about all the robots and aliens that are voiced by human actors?
Gorky

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #234 on: 03-25-2021 16:17 »

Dude, you know that’s a false equivalency, right—like, I’m assuming that’s the joke? Leo Wong is an egregiously stereotypical character and the fact that he’s voiced by a white dude is...not great. It’s almost like the voice-acting equivalent of Mickey Rooney’s character in Breakfast at Tiffany’s (now widely acknowledged to be a horribly offensive instance of yellow-face).

And yes, Inez is a variation on that same stereotype, mitigated slightly by the fact that she’s voiced by an actual Chinese-American actress but still perpetuating a potentially harmful idea of a Chinese immigrant. Futurama didn’t invent these stereotypes, but that doesn’t mean it’s not cringeworthy for the show to revel in and perpetuate them regardless of who’s voicing the character.

And I say this as someone who considers Leo and Inez hilarious—their passive-aggressive meddling and judgment in “A Flight to Remember” and “Teenage Mutant Leela’s Hurdles” are delightful. But I also acknowledge that part of what I’m laughing at is, you know, the show’s perpetuation of harmful stereotypes about Asian-American parental expectations. And that’s something worth sitting with for a moment, at least.

That doesn’t mean the Wongs are canceled or whatever, but it’s important to recognize the problematic nature of the things we love. Being reactionary and dismissive about something that’s legitimately problematic is kind of an immature response. As consumers of media we should be able to hold two ideas in our head at once: I enjoy this thing, but there are elements of this thing that are potentially harmful. Literally all media is problematic in one way or another—it shouldn’t be so difficult to acknowledge that, and we shouldn’t see it as some personal attack on us, our taste, our politics, our morality, etc.
Tachyon

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #235 on: 03-25-2021 22:36 »

Will you agree that the typical viewer of Futurama knows absolutely nothing about the actors who voice particular characters?


...mitigated slightly by the fact that she’s voiced by an actual Chinese-American actress...


If a show perpetuates a harmful stereotype to an audience who know nothing whatsoever about the voice actors involved, what specific mitigation is accomplished by having the character be voiced by a person whose background or ethnicity is tied to the particular stereotype? How is that mitigation of any kind, by any definition? I don't see your point.

Gorky

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #236 on: 03-25-2021 23:50 »
« Last Edit on: 03-25-2021 23:54 »

Will you agree that the typical viewer of Futurama knows absolutely nothing about the actors who voice particular characters?

Oh, absolutely, but that seems neither here nor there. Are you suggesting that an audience’s ignorance about the racial or ethnic identity of the voice actor renders the casting choice itself a non-issue?

If a show perpetuates a harmful stereotype to an audience who know nothing whatsoever about the voice actors involved, what specific mitigation is accomplished by having the character be voiced by a person whose background or ethnicity is tied to the particular stereotype? How is that mitigation of any kind, by any definition? I don't see your point.

I meant that Inez could be argued as comparatively less “offensive” than Leo because Lauren Tom is herself Chinese-American and by all accounts very much enjoyed playing both Amy and Inez (I’m thinking about all the gleeful swearing in Cantonese). It complicates this question of what is and is not problematic because you could argue that Tom’s willingness to portray the character is a tacit endorsement of the stereotype—in other words, she herself is in on and comfortable with the joke—and therefore a non-Chinese audience is “allowed” to laugh at the character guilt-free.

I get that this becomes a more complicated issue in animation because the layperson isn’t necessarily going to know that the person playing Inez is herself Chinese-American—but, as I said above, I’m not sure I understand why that’s the point you’re fixated on. The (uniformly white) writers who put words in Leo or Inez’s mouth know the racial/ethnic identity of the person by whom those lines will be spoken, and that’s the “original sin,” as it were, when it comes to Billy West’s portrayal of Leo.
Tachyon

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #237 on: 03-26-2021 02:19 »


...I’m not sure I understand why that’s the point you’re fixated on. The (uniformly white) writers who put words in Leo or Inez’s mouth know the racial/ethnic identity of the person by whom those lines will be spoken, and that’s the “original sin,” as it were, when it comes to Billy West’s portrayal of Leo.


My point is that a single individual (Lauren Tom, in this case) endorsing potentially offensive dialog they are voicing is simply a single anecdote, and in my view it doesn't mitigate anything with respect to the offensiveness or inoffensiveness of any given dialog.

If I were voicing a bigoted, insensitive redneck-type character what possible difference does it make whether I happen to think the dialog is fine, versus a Latino person voicing the character and thinking the dialog is fine? Perhaps I'm just missing something.

Gorky

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #238 on: 03-26-2021 03:23 »

I actually don't think you and I are too far off here, Tachy. My point is just that an actor whose racial and/or ethnic identity aligns with the racial and/or ethnic identity of the character they're portraying is likely better-positioned to speak (no pun intended) to the offensiveness (or inoffensiveness) of that characters' dialogue. But, like, an actor is generally contractually obligated to say whatever the script tells them to say, so it's not necessarily fair to assume that the actor's willingness to take on a given role is an endorsement of that role. (And just because one individual who belongs to a marginalized group says the dialogue is A-OK, that doesn't equate to the endorsement of the entire group to which that person belongs--I don't want to suggest a tokenistic way of thinking about these things.)

I'm not sure your bigoted redneck example really holds water in this particular instance, though, because I'm talking specifically about the portrayal of characters from racially or ethnically marginalized groups. White working-class (seemingly "uncultured") individuals are certainly stigmatized, but it's not along racial or ethnic lines--so, like, it's not a big deal if a rich white person portrays a poor white person. Similarly, I see no problem with a Latino person playing a bigoted redneck because the power dynamics are such that the traditionally marginalized actor is portraying a traditionally socially-dominant (read: white) character. (It's that whole reverse-racism thing: reverse racism doesn't actually exist, because racism itself implies an inherent power dynamic that does not exist between a white person who claims to be experiencing racism from a non-white person.)

It's in the opposite instance where you begin to run into trouble. So, a white man portraying a Chinese man raises some concerns because that identity mismatch is along racial/ethnic lines--and, in the specific case of Billy West/Leo, the portrayal itself is based in entrenched stereotypes about Chinese immigrants' manner of speech, way of dressing (the whole cowboy aesthetic), relationship to money (Leo is notably cheap), etc. At the very least, it merits a discussion about yellow-face and the problematic implications thereof, which I felt like David was sort of rolling his eyes at in his initial post, hence my need to butt into the conversation with my own take on things. :p
Tachyon

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #239 on: 03-26-2021 03:59 »

I get where you're coming from, and could have stated my thoughts much more clearly.

Of course a member of a marginalized group will most certainly have far greater insight and sensitivity in regard to historical mistreatment of that group. We are in near-complete agreement.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6] 7 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

SMF 2.0.17 | SMF © 2019, Simple Machines | some icons from famfamfam
Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.
Page created in 0.614 seconds with 35 queries.