Lack of representation = systemic racism: Footloose is Exhibit A

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember when they were outraged Dunkirk had no black characters.

A friggin WW2 movie in Europe where the English were trying to escape for their lives……and they’re mad because that historical story has no major presence of black people. Truly insane how DEI is a de facto cult. You can’t even tell stories from history now as they were.

Ok.

I’m the op if this thread…surprised to see it pop up again!

I’m fine with historical films using actors that make sense rather than inserting diversity for the sake of diversity. But any slavery-era film will have black and white actors. And black men did fight in WWII.

But if you rewatch mainstream movies from the 1980s primarily made for a teenage audience—like Footloose—you’ll realize Hollywood made a choice to not include black actors in even a token way. It begs the question…why?

The dance scene is what is most stark, particularly given this was the era of dance films and breakdancing.

Would you be upset if it were a film about an academic team? You know black people do things besides dance, right?

Bless your heart for trying to spur deep thought, but you have missed the point, Dear.

The point is I think it’s wrong for all the Hollywood films of the 80s targeting a teenage audience to not include any black actors…regardless of the setting or focus of the film.

Their choice to not even include at least a few black actors during a big dance scene at a time when Hollywood was churning out dance movies just baffles me. It seems like a choice they made rather than an oversight. I mean, imagine being on set as they choreographed the scene. It didn’t occur to anybody that the scene was perhaps shockingly white?

Wonder who choreographed the film.

[Anonymous]

Jamal Sims.

He choreographed Footloose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember when they were outraged Dunkirk had no black characters.

A friggin WW2 movie in Europe where the English were trying to escape for their lives……and they’re mad because that historical story has no major presence of black people. Truly insane how DEI is a de facto cult. You can’t even tell stories from history now as they were.

Ok.

I’m the op if this thread…surprised to see it pop up again!

I’m fine with historical films using actors that make sense rather than inserting diversity for the sake of diversity. But any slavery-era film will have black and white actors. And black men did fight in WWII.

But if you rewatch mainstream movies from the 1980s primarily made for a teenage audience—like Footloose—you’ll realize Hollywood made a choice to not include black actors in even a token way. It begs the question…why?

The dance scene is what is most stark, particularly given this was the era of dance films and breakdancing.

Would you be upset if it were a film about an academic team? You know black people do things besides dance, right?

Bless your heart for trying to spur deep thought, but you have missed the point, Dear.

The point is I think it’s wrong for all the Hollywood films of the 80s targeting a teenage audience to not include any black actors…regardless of the setting or focus of the film.

Their choice to not even include at least a few black actors during a big dance scene at a time when Hollywood was churning out dance movies just baffles me. It seems like a choice they made rather than an oversight. I mean, imagine being on set as they choreographed the scene. It didn’t occur to anybody that the scene was perhaps shockingly white?

Wonder who choreographed the film.

Willing to bet at that time rural Kansas was “shockingly white.” And guess what -even white kids in rural KS wanted to break dance in the 80s. I’m all for representation, but this idiocy gives so many people who are not into representation fuel to call the idea absurd. So, really, dig in your heels, pat your back, you’ve made this ridiculously laughable.

[Anonymous]

The people complaining about this are the same ones who deny wanting quotas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember when they were outraged Dunkirk had no black characters.

A friggin WW2 movie in Europe where the English were trying to escape for their lives……and they’re mad because that historical story has no major presence of black people. Truly insane how DEI is a de facto cult. You can’t even tell stories from history now as they were.

Ok.

I’m the op if this thread…surprised to see it pop up again!

I’m fine with historical films using actors that make sense rather than inserting diversity for the sake of diversity. But any slavery-era film will have black and white actors. And black men did fight in WWII.

But if you rewatch mainstream movies from the 1980s primarily made for a teenage audience—like Footloose—you’ll realize Hollywood made a choice to not include black actors in even a token way. It begs the question…why?

The dance scene is what is most stark, particularly given this was the era of dance films and breakdancing.

Would you be upset if it were a film about an academic team? You know black people do things besides dance, right?

Bless your heart for trying to spur deep thought, but you have missed the point, Dear.

The point is I think it’s wrong for all the Hollywood films of the 80s targeting a teenage audience to not include any black actors…regardless of the setting or focus of the film.

Their choice to not even include at least a few black actors during a big dance scene at a time when Hollywood was churning out dance movies just baffles me. It seems like a choice they made rather than an oversight. I mean, imagine being on set as they choreographed the scene. It didn’t occur to anybody that the scene was perhaps shockingly white?

Wonder who choreographed the film.

Willing to bet at that time rural Kansas was “shockingly white.” And guess what -even white kids in rural KS wanted to break dance in the 80s. I’m all for representation, but this idiocy gives so many people who are not into representation fuel to call the idea absurd. So, really, dig in your heels, pat your back, you’ve made this ridiculously laughable.

Zero.

Zero black teens in a film targeting teenage audiences across America in the 1980s.

Sorry, but Hollywood made a choice to not throw in at least a few black actors.

I mean, they hired a black choreographer for the film…they just couldn’t bring themselves to put a person of color in the film.

I know rural Kansas was very white in the 80s…but it wasn’t 100% white. Neither was the state. And neither was America.

[Anonymous]

Setting aside actual demographics of a film’s pretend setting, try to think about this:

Imagine being a black or brown person or Asian person in the 1980s and only seeing white people in the major Hollywood films targeting American teens.

Imagine how that might make you feel.

That’s the point.

I suspect most whites didn’t give this any thought in the 80s. Let’s face it: America was still very segregated at that time…as evidenced by demographics, your Gen X recollection of your white schools, etc.

We are better now. Dramatically better.

Most of us would think it’s weird to be in a room with only white people. We would think it’s weird for a mainstream film to not include diversity.

That’s the point of this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Setting aside actual demographics of a film’s pretend setting, try to think about this:

Imagine being a black or brown person or Asian person in the 1980s and only seeing white people in the major Hollywood films targeting American teens.

Imagine how that might make you feel.

That’s the point.

I suspect most whites didn’t give this any thought in the 80s. Let’s face it: America was still very segregated at that time…as evidenced by demographics, your Gen X recollection of your white schools, etc.

We are better now. Dramatically better.

Most of us would think it’s weird to be in a room with only white people. We would think it’s weird for a mainstream film to not include diversity.

That’s the point of this thread.

You need to get out in America more. There are still plenty of places that are white or almost completely white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Setting aside actual demographics of a film’s pretend setting, try to think about this:

Imagine being a black or brown person or Asian person in the 1980s and only seeing white people in the major Hollywood films targeting American teens.

Imagine how that might make you feel.

That’s the point.

I suspect most whites didn’t give this any thought in the 80s. Let’s face it: America was still very segregated at that time…as evidenced by demographics, your Gen X recollection of your white schools, etc.

We are better now. Dramatically better.

Most of us would think it’s weird to be in a room with only white people. We would think it’s weird for a mainstream film to not include diversity.

That’s the point of this thread.

I really do not care. In the 80s there were tons of shows with black casts teens could watch to feel better about themselves. Good Times, The Jeffersons, Different Strokes, What's Happenin, Cosby Show, A Different World, and on and on. Focusing on one move is ridiculous. Footloose was based on a group of teens in rural America. A lot of urban kids probably couldn't relate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember when they were outraged Dunkirk had no black characters.

A friggin WW2 movie in Europe where the English were trying to escape for their lives……and they’re mad because that historical story has no major presence of black people. Truly insane how DEI is a de facto cult. You can’t even tell stories from history now as they were.

Ok.

I’m the op if this thread…surprised to see it pop up again!

I’m fine with historical films using actors that make sense rather than inserting diversity for the sake of diversity. But any slavery-era film will have black and white actors. And black men did fight in WWII.

But if you rewatch mainstream movies from the 1980s primarily made for a teenage audience—like Footloose—you’ll realize Hollywood made a choice to not include black actors in even a token way. It begs the question…why?

The dance scene is what is most stark, particularly given this was the era of dance films and breakdancing.

Would you be upset if it were a film about an academic team? You know black people do things besides dance, right?

Bless your heart for trying to spur deep thought, but you have missed the point, Dear.

The point is I think it’s wrong for all the Hollywood films of the 80s targeting a teenage audience to not include any black actors…regardless of the setting or focus of the film.

Their choice to not even include at least a few black actors during a big dance scene at a time when Hollywood was churning out dance movies just baffles me. It seems like a choice they made rather than an oversight. I mean, imagine being on set as they choreographed the scene. It didn’t occur to anybody that the scene was perhaps shockingly white?

Wonder who choreographed the film.

Willing to bet at that time rural Kansas was “shockingly white.” And guess what -even white kids in rural KS wanted to break dance in the 80s. I’m all for representation, but this idiocy gives so many people who are not into representation fuel to call the idea absurd. So, really, dig in your heels, pat your back, you’ve made this ridiculously laughable.

It doesn’t even have to be the 80s. The US is still 60% white, and even almost 70% white if you count white hispanics. That means the are huuuuuuuue swaths of the country where you can go miles and mile and miles without ever seeing a single black person, even to this day. It’d be weird to have a movie with the setting in a city like Boston and have half the characters be black….that’s just not the way it is. They’d look so out of place in the movie because you almost never see a single black person in Boston even today. Or a movie say set in North or ado Utah Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Montana……just weird to push for a lot of black characters in films that might have those kinds of settings for the movie because their populations are nonexistent in those areas. People who live on the coasts in the US are in a different world for what they think the country looks like outside the coasts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember when they were outraged Dunkirk had no black characters.

A friggin WW2 movie in Europe where the English were trying to escape for their lives……and they’re mad because that historical story has no major presence of black people. Truly insane how DEI is a de facto cult. You can’t even tell stories from history now as they were.

Ok.

I’m the op if this thread…surprised to see it pop up again!

I’m fine with historical films using actors that make sense rather than inserting diversity for the sake of diversity. But any slavery-era film will have black and white actors. And black men did fight in WWII.

But if you rewatch mainstream movies from the 1980s primarily made for a teenage audience—like Footloose—you’ll realize Hollywood made a choice to not include black actors in even a token way. It begs the question…why?

The dance scene is what is most stark, particularly given this was the era of dance films and breakdancing.

Would you be upset if it were a film about an academic team? You know black people do things besides dance, right?

Bless your heart for trying to spur deep thought, but you have missed the point, Dear.

The point is I think it’s wrong for all the Hollywood films of the 80s targeting a teenage audience to not include any black actors…regardless of the setting or focus of the film.

Their choice to not even include at least a few black actors during a big dance scene at a time when Hollywood was churning out dance movies just baffles me. It seems like a choice they made rather than an oversight. I mean, imagine being on set as they choreographed the scene. It didn’t occur to anybody that the scene was perhaps shockingly white?

Wonder who choreographed the film.

Willing to bet at that time rural Kansas was “shockingly white.” And guess what -even white kids in rural KS wanted to break dance in the 80s. I’m all for representation, but this idiocy gives so many people who are not into representation fuel to call the idea absurd. So, really, dig in your heels, pat your back, you’ve made this ridiculously laughable.

It doesn’t even have to be the 80s. The US is still 60% white, and even almost 70% white if you count white hispanics. That means the are huuuuuuuue swaths of the country where you can go miles and mile and miles without ever seeing a single black person, even to this day. It’d be weird to have a movie with the setting in a city like Boston and have half the characters be black….that’s just not the way it is. They’d look so out of place in the movie because you almost never see a single black person in Boston even today. Or a movie say set in North or ado Utah Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Montana……just weird to push for a lot of black characters in films that might have those kinds of settings for the movie because their populations are nonexistent in those areas. People who live on the coasts in the US are in a different world for what they think the country looks like outside the coasts.

Nobody asked for “a lot,” pp.

A few.

Heck, how about just one?

PS - There are black people in Boston. Geez.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Setting aside actual demographics of a film’s pretend setting, try to think about this:

Imagine being a black or brown person or Asian person in the 1980s and only seeing white people in the major Hollywood films targeting American teens.

Imagine how that might make you feel.

That’s the point.

I suspect most whites didn’t give this any thought in the 80s. Let’s face it: America was still very segregated at that time…as evidenced by demographics, your Gen X recollection of your white schools, etc.

We are better now. Dramatically better.

Most of us would think it’s weird to be in a room with only white people. We would think it’s weird for a mainstream film to not include diversity.

That’s the point of this thread.

Oh please. In the 80s we had the A Team. Rocky movies were out with tons of diverse cast. 80s looooved ninjas and karate and there were tons of movies with Asians and Asian culture. There were iconic movies like Full Metal Jacket, Beverly Hills Cop, Lethal Weapon, The Warriors, 48 Hours, Purple Rain, Aliens, Coming to America, and Donthe Right Thing. Hello? The Predator! Ghostbusters….so many more.

It’s hilarious how modern day progressives think they invented diversity. Just because you have a selective memory and focused solely on a movie like footloose doesn’t mean there wasn’t diversity in movies back in the 80s. You just have a terrible memory and love to nitpick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember when they were outraged Dunkirk had no black characters.

A friggin WW2 movie in Europe where the English were trying to escape for their lives……and they’re mad because that historical story has no major presence of black people. Truly insane how DEI is a de facto cult. You can’t even tell stories from history now as they were.

Ok.

I’m the op if this thread…surprised to see it pop up again!

I’m fine with historical films using actors that make sense rather than inserting diversity for the sake of diversity. But any slavery-era film will have black and white actors. And black men did fight in WWII.

But if you rewatch mainstream movies from the 1980s primarily made for a teenage audience—like Footloose—you’ll realize Hollywood made a choice to not include black actors in even a token way. It begs the question…why?

The dance scene is what is most stark, particularly given this was the era of dance films and breakdancing.

Would you be upset if it were a film about an academic team? You know black people do things besides dance, right?

Bless your heart for trying to spur deep thought, but you have missed the point, Dear.

The point is I think it’s wrong for all the Hollywood films of the 80s targeting a teenage audience to not include any black actors…regardless of the setting or focus of the film.

Their choice to not even include at least a few black actors during a big dance scene at a time when Hollywood was churning out dance movies just baffles me. It seems like a choice they made rather than an oversight. I mean, imagine being on set as they choreographed the scene. It didn’t occur to anybody that the scene was perhaps shockingly white?

Wonder who choreographedh the film.

Let’s keep living in the past. If you haven’t noticed, black representation in movies and tv shows is the norm now. But you keep on being bitter. Some people thrive on constantly being upset.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Setting aside actual demographics of a film’s pretend setting, try to think about this:

Imagine being a black or brown person or Asian person in the 1980s and only seeing white people in the major Hollywood films targeting American teens.

Imagine how that might make you feel.

That’s the point.

I suspect most whites didn’t give this any thought in the 80s. Let’s face it: America was still very segregated at that time…as evidenced by demographics, your Gen X recollection of your white schools, etc.

We are better now. Dramatically better.

Most of us would think it’s weird to be in a room with only white people. We would think it’s weird for a mainstream film to not include diversity.

That’s the point of this thread.

Oh please. In the 80s we had the A Team. Rocky movies were out with tons of diverse cast. 80s looooved ninjas and karate and there were tons of movies with Asians and Asian culture. There were iconic movies like Full Metal Jacket, Beverly Hills Cop, Lethal Weapon, The Warriors, 48 Hours, Purple Rain, Aliens, Coming to America, and Donthe Right Thing. Hello? The Predator! Ghostbusters….so many more.

It’s hilarious how modern day progressives think they invented diversity. Just because you have a selective memory and focused solely on a movie like footloose doesn’t mean there wasn’t diversity in movies back in the 80s. You just have a terrible memory and love to nitpick.

Is OP even old enough to have watched the original when it came out? Or did they watch it and try to put today's expectations on it? I knew kids who could relate to it. A town of all white people, run by very religious people. That story could have happened half an hour from where I grew up. Up until very recently it was a dry town. Dancing was absolutely not allowed. The sidewalks rolled up at 8 pm unless it was for Bible study. Guess what, OP. There was not a single black person. Not a single Asian or Mexican, either. All stark white people.

[Anonymous]

But...Breakin’ also came out in 1984

https://youtu.be/wFC5yYW58TM?si=pCbFm1Iw9mVjYTaj

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I take your point OP. But I don’t think footloose is the best example — a film about an insular backwards conservative town afraid of change and modernity—integrating that group would have been difficult for the narrative.

But talk about any of the John Hughes movies, or Fast Times’s, or Bill and Teds, or clerks (I guess that’s 90s).

IMO, the worst offender is actually Friends.

I thought the show was good, but, c'mon.. young people in NYC, and no gay people or minorities? That is until Ross dated two different nonwhite women. I think I read that he thought it was also ridiculous that a show about young people in NYC had zero non white people.

I also read a long time ago that when there were a couple of Asian guest cast, they had to deal with racism.

Friends started in the 90s. Seinfeld was just as bad, actually.