101–110 of 200 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a fan of this kind of government influence in filmmaking, but so long as the Chinese are at it maybe they could turn their attention to Hollywood's propensity to depict Asian males as undesirable emasculated nerds and Asian females as fetishized objects.
Like Big Hero 6?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like Big Hero 6?
I've yet to see that film, although the reviews look pretty good so I'll have to give it a view when I get the chance.
Miraculous ladybug also defies the trope, but in a mixed race context (Chinese-French).
I don't understand why the big hotels in China have so much wider access than normal. It seems like they make exceptions for some places mostly visited by international travelers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why are other publications (the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times are mentioned) doing to keep Chinese authorities happy? It is an interesting question. > The NY Times doesn't publish anything about China that they don't publish about many other countries. Certainly coverage of the U.S. and U.K. is much more challenging to those authorities. I don't think that is true. Some of us marched against the Iraq war…
> Did New Times put a front page picture with screaming headline about our demonstrations? http://imgur.com/rd6WRMl Jan 19, 2003 front page picture with link to inside story http://imgur.com/tyau0FK Jan 19, 2003 inside page Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/19/us/threats-responses-rally... Jan 20 Editorial supporting protests http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/20/opinion/a-stirring-in-the-... Here's the NYT top story…
But I don't know what to make of this:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/...
Per archive.org, it was "Saved 3 times between April 5, 2013 and May 27, 2015".
[p.s. edit: and unfortunately archive.org does not have Jan. 19, 2001 recorded:
https://web.archive.org/web/20030101000000*/http://www.nytim...]
In the United States, it is illegal to portray the assassination of a president. Handling topics of National Security, such as Pearl Harbor, must be screened and if needed edited by National Security personnel. Close partnership and collective ownership of media production facilities has given us movies with fake narratives like the Jessica Lynch story, Zero Dark Thirty, etc.
> In the United States, it is illegal to portray the assassination of a president Full stop, no it isn't. > Handling topics of National Security, such as Pearl Harbor, must be screened and if needed edited by National Security personnel. Full stop, no it doesn't. Where the heck are you getting such misinformation? It is not just wrong, it is bordering on libel. > Close partnership and collective ownership of media pr…
It was my understanding that 18 U.S. Code § 871 included depictions enticing or encouraging such acts. I will look this up and come back with more information at a later time.
And to be clear here I mean a depiction of an actual US president. Not a fictitious president.
> Full stop, no it doesn't. Where the heck are you getting such misinformation? It is not just wrong, it is bordering on libel.
The mainstream news media is where I am getting this information. I remember it being reported on during the Pearl Harbor film some years ago (Bush Administration). Though I see it all the time: the SONY Leaks disclosed how the State Department and CIA helped to influence "The Interview" so that it would both depict the assassination of their president and to encourage civil unrest.
I take the libel statement seriously. I will pass it by my attorney. Difficult to discuss here, as neither of us are lawyers.
> There is an audience for those films.
Not a point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've yet to see that film, although the reviews look pretty good so I'll have to give it a view when I get the chance.
It has a very good portrayal of Asians, at least, though still nerdy (but the trope is subverted multiple times). Hollywood is getting better at it. Miraculous ladybug also defies the trope, but in a mixed race context (Chinese-French).
And thanks for the movie tips!
In the United States, it is illegal to portray the assassination of a president. Handling topics of National Security, such as Pearl Harbor, must be screened and if needed edited by National Security personnel. Close partnership and collective ownership of media production facilities has given us movies with fake narratives like the Jessica Lynch story, Zero Dark Thirty, etc.
五毛党
I would appreciate if you deleted your comment and engaged in respectable commenting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has a very good portrayal of Asians, at least, though still nerdy (but the trope is subverted multiple times). Hollywood is getting better at it. Miraculous ladybug also defies the trope, but in a mixed race context (Chinese-French).
I don't watch many major movie releases anymore so I could well be out of the loop and misinformed. If Hollywood is truly getting better at not using the kinds of ethnic, racial, and gender tropes that make for cheap laughs and storytelling then that is very good news to me. And thanks for the movie tips!
Hollywood is huge, everyone has their own standards.
In the United States, it is illegal to portray the assassination of a president. Handling topics of National Security, such as Pearl Harbor, must be screened and if needed edited by National Security personnel. Close partnership and collective ownership of media production facilities has given us movies with fake narratives like the Jessica Lynch story, Zero Dark Thirty, etc.
Assassinating the US President is a pretty standard device plot in many action movies and TV shows. In fact, if you had to judge Americans by our movies, you'd probably think we're all obsessed with killing the President. Also, I could be out of the loop but I don't think the Pearl Harbor attacks are matters of national security any more.
And we blew up New York before it was cool.
We're quite comfortable with watching our country get violently deconstructed in all sorts of fiction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the United States, it is illegal to portray the assassination of a president Full stop, no it isn't. > Handling topics of National Security, such as Pearl Harbor, must be screened and if needed edited by National Security personnel. Full stop, no it doesn't. Where the heck are you getting such misinformation? It is not just wrong, it is bordering on libel. > Close partnership and collective ownership of media pr…
> Full stop, no it isn't. It was my understanding that 18 U.S. Code § 871 included depictions enticing or encouraging such acts. I will look this up and come back with more information at a later time. And to be clear here I mean a depiction of an actual US president. Not a fictitious president. > Full stop, no it doesn't. Where the heck are you getting such misinformation? It is not just wrong, it is bordering on li…
Obviously you are trolling.