Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

Evolution is thing that cannot blamed, since it has no intention.

A form of words, nothing more. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

Though there is a tendancy to act against the "other" and act in concert with those we consdier "us", there is nothing in evolution that has to prescribe who is other of us.

As I explained, them-us thinking leads to us co-operating with our own group, but also to neglect or oppose the needs of those outside our group. This contributes to our survival, hence the mention of evolution.

[LuckyR]

Some seem to be baffled that there is a difference between fictional storytelling and a documentary.

Like I said above the best fiction is the fiction that is true.

What we seem to have in this denial porn is a rewriting of history and a abrogation of responsibility.

An uncommon opinion, nothing more.

Are you saying that "the best fiction is the fiction that is true" is uncommon??
Rubbish.
What was the last fiction book you read? Now ask yourself if it read true? Look at the most fantastict film of the 21stC. The Lord of the Rings is internally coherent. The relationship between Samwise and Frodo is "true" in that it is a pur expression of loyalty, dedication and friendship. If you can watch their pilgrimage to Mount Doom without getting emotionally touched then I wonder if you might not be all human. ANd yet there is nothing more fictional that TLOTR.

You're using the word "true" in an uncommon (though internally logical) manner. Thus I don't disagree with your point, just it's description. Though while we're in agreement, since we're speaking of preferences, others may (and do) reasonably disagree.

[Sy Borg]

Yes, the tokenism is counter-productive, especially when giant corporations are also ruining loved characters and replacing them with bland token hires. That is guaranteed to breed resentment.

As you say, there have been a number of strong movie statements about racism, like Sidney Poitier's deeply moving films. The Colour Purple. To Kill a Mockingbird (there's nothing wrong with it featuring a white rescuer. That dynamic sometimes did exist).

The standard of scriptwriting has dropped too. Can you imagine a movie today with dialogue anywhere near as sophisticated, yet accessible, as in Paddy Chayefsky's Network?

Gone are the days of directors like Lean, Kramer and Kubrick. The corporate mind seems to take the path of least resistence. Endless remakes and rehashes. Sae anodyne and predictable.
Las month we were offered "Rebel Moon", which is clearly a take on the Magnificent Seven, itself a steal from The Seven Samurai of Kurosawa. Even when they are not remakes, the plot paths of new films are often very predictable.
Big problem. Hero emerges, limited time to solve the problem, Hero meets girl but has a crisis of confidence, then fight the baddies, its all ends with the hero solving the problem by physically beating up the baddy. Just for fun the baddy recovers for another shot, the problem is solves with seconds to spare. There is usually one or two deus-ex-machina for tension along the way.

It's rather like what happened to pop music. In the past, there were classic songs created with obvious passion and talent like Strawberry Fields, Classical Gas, Apache, What's Going On, Wipe Out, Macarthur Park, Respect, Also Sprach Zarathustra, Picnic at Hanging Rock, Frankenstein, Us and Them, Jessica, Bohemian Rhapsody, Feels Like Teen Spirit, Hurricane, etc.

However, over time companies build up a body of knowledge about what sells and what doesn't. That experience forms the basis of their formula formulas for hits. These formulas become ever more refined over time. In the past, unusual or innovative art was thought to have potential. Now, any art that is unusual or innovative will be deemed an unacceptable risk.

I noticed a similar process of rationalisation in the workplace. Every perk that helps make a job enjoyable would gradually be stripped away with each budget, as bean-counters searched for savings. They would reduce work conditions to a meanly rationalised standard. It's the evolution of Taylorism, I guess.

Yes I think this happens a a level behind the actual song writing.
Before the Beatles, in the UK at least, most pop was written behind the scenes and the artist was selected for the song. But singer/songwriters like Muddy Waters, Chuck berry, and their own musical ancestors came up from the bottom and were exploited by music producers. By the time the Beatles, and Stones were at ork in the 60s the paradigm switched so that the industry promoted great bands but were at arms length when it came to the act of musical creation. Pink FLoyd, Black Sabbath, Led Zep were all writing automomously. But the grip from the industry reached in deeper.
Now we seem to be back to the industry having more control. Not because there are not songwritter/performers out there, but because the industry seem to want to promote those upon which they have maximum control, and so you get empty hearless, formulaic beat pop.
It seems there might even be some science in the creation of addictive sounds, such as Lady Gaga "p-p-p-poker face", techniques of counterpoint and Auto-tune, modulation techniques, looping sequencing, sampling - all reove the artist from the creation process.

An excellent summary of the situation. Motown might have been the first tipping of power back towards the corporate, with younger, hipper executives getting more involved. This, after a golden period where old executives who did not understand the new music tended to just let young artists get on with it. The Motown approach was super hip and effective at the time but it arguably set a problematic precedent.

[Sculptor1]

Like I said above the best fiction is the fiction that is true.

What we seem to have in this denial porn is a rewriting of history and a abrogation of responsibility.

An uncommon opinion, nothing more.

Are you saying that "the best fiction is the fiction that is true" is uncommon??
Rubbish.
What was the last fiction book you read? Now ask yourself if it read true? Look at the most fantastict film of the 21stC. The Lord of the Rings is internally coherent. The relationship between Samwise and Frodo is "true" in that it is a pur expression of loyalty, dedication and friendship. If you can watch their pilgrimage to Mount Doom without getting emotionally touched then I wonder if you might not be all human. ANd yet there is nothing more fictional that TLOTR.

You're using the word "true" in an uncommon (though internally logical) manner. Thus I don't disagree with your point, just it's description. Though while we're in agreement, since we're speaking of preferences, others may (and do) reasonably disagree.

When we are talking about a drama in which for no apparent reason black parents have a white child. (Wheel of TIme) I do not accept that anyone is not going to be bumped out of their engagement with the drama and ask themselves why, breaking the spell and the fourth wall.
It is very much like the scene on "Plan9 from Outer Space" where a black car exits the scene only to arrive at the next scene as a white car. This shocking failure of continuity, and other boobs is the only thing that makes the famour "Turkey" watchable. But no one is under the spell of the drama since the necessary suspension of disbelief cannot be made. The film is just a joke.
I submit that those that chose to cast a black daughter of the white King of Numenor (RIngs of Power) are not interested in how the plot seems and that people are absorbed in the drama, they are more interested in pushing their pedgogic agenda. This just makes "woke" look stupid. Which is a major tragedy, since the world needs to be awoken

[Sculptor1]

Gone are the days of directors like Lean, Kramer and Kubrick. The corporate mind seems to take the path of least resistence. Endless remakes and rehashes. Sae anodyne and predictable.
Las month we were offered "Rebel Moon", which is clearly a take on the Magnificent Seven, itself a steal from The Seven Samurai of Kurosawa. Even when they are not remakes, the plot paths of new films are often very predictable.
Big problem. Hero emerges, limited time to solve the problem, Hero meets girl but has a crisis of confidence, then fight the baddies, its all ends with the hero solving the problem by physically beating up the baddy. Just for fun the baddy recovers for another shot, the problem is solves with seconds to spare. There is usually one or two deus-ex-machina for tension along the way.

It's rather like what happened to pop music. In the past, there were classic songs created with obvious passion and talent like Strawberry Fields, Classical Gas, Apache, What's Going On, Wipe Out, Macarthur Park, Respect, Also Sprach Zarathustra, Picnic at Hanging Rock, Frankenstein, Us and Them, Jessica, Bohemian Rhapsody, Feels Like Teen Spirit, Hurricane, etc.

However, over time companies build up a body of knowledge about what sells and what doesn't. That experience forms the basis of their formula formulas for hits. These formulas become ever more refined over time. In the past, unusual or innovative art was thought to have potential. Now, any art that is unusual or innovative will be deemed an unacceptable risk.

I noticed a similar process of rationalisation in the workplace. Every perk that helps make a job enjoyable would gradually be stripped away with each budget, as bean-counters searched for savings. They would reduce work conditions to a meanly rationalised standard. It's the evolution of Taylorism, I guess.

Yes I think this happens a a level behind the actual song writing.
Before the Beatles, in the UK at least, most pop was written behind the scenes and the artist was selected for the song. But singer/songwriters like Muddy Waters, Chuck berry, and their own musical ancestors came up from the bottom and were exploited by music producers. By the time the Beatles, and Stones were at ork in the 60s the paradigm switched so that the industry promoted great bands but were at arms length when it came to the act of musical creation. Pink FLoyd, Black Sabbath, Led Zep were all writing automomously. But the grip from the industry reached in deeper.
Now we seem to be back to the industry having more control. Not because there are not songwritter/performers out there, but because the industry seem to want to promote those upon which they have maximum control, and so you get empty hearless, formulaic beat pop.
It seems there might even be some science in the creation of addictive sounds, such as Lady Gaga "p-p-p-poker face", techniques of counterpoint and Auto-tune, modulation techniques, looping sequencing, sampling - all reove the artist from the creation process.

An excellent summary of the situation. Motown might have been the first tipping of power back towards the corporate, with younger, hipper executives getting more involved. This, after a golden period where old executives who did not understand the new music tended to just let young artists get on with it. The Motown approach was super hip and effective at the time but it arguably set a problematic precedent.

It's interesting to note that the Labour Party's socialist taxation strategy created a massive boost in creativity at the and of the 1960s and into following decades.
The Beatles made huge wealth but were forced to pay up to a 90%+ tax on their top earnings. The way to avoid giving it all to the government was to invest it in Apple Records, and Abbey Road studios became a great creative hub in music in the early 70s, producing new artists and without the corporate heavy handedness.

[LuckyR]

An uncommon opinion, nothing more.

Are you saying that "the best fiction is the fiction that is true" is uncommon??
Rubbish.
What was the last fiction book you read? Now ask yourself if it read true? Look at the most fantastict film of the 21stC. The Lord of the Rings is internally coherent. The relationship between Samwise and Frodo is "true" in that it is a pur expression of loyalty, dedication and friendship. If you can watch their pilgrimage to Mount Doom without getting emotionally touched then I wonder if you might not be all human. ANd yet there is nothing more fictional that TLOTR.

You're using the word "true" in an uncommon (though internally logical) manner. Thus I don't disagree with your point, just it's description. Though while we're in agreement, since we're speaking of preferences, others may (and do) reasonably disagree.

When we are talking about a drama in which for no apparent reason black parents have a white child. (Wheel of TIme) I do not accept that anyone is not going to be bumped out of their engagement with the drama and ask themselves why, breaking the spell and the fourth wall.
It is very much like the scene on "Plan9 from Outer Space" where a black car exits the scene only to arrive at the next scene as a white car. This shocking failure of continuity, and other boobs is the only thing that makes the famour "Turkey" watchable. But no one is under the spell of the drama since the necessary suspension of disbelief cannot be made. The film is just a joke.
I submit that those that chose to cast a black daughter of the white King of Numenor (RIngs of Power) are not interested in how the plot seems and that people are absorbed in the drama, they are more interested in pushing their pedgogic agenda. This just makes "woke" look stupid. Which is a major tragedy, since the world needs to be awoken

Well, yes and (definitely in certain circumstances) no. Hamilton succeeds well beyond "wokism" with a black Aaron Burr, Lafayette and George Washington.

I mean, fiction is not documentary. For example, in the US is it an error to have an actor with a Scottish accent play an Irish character? Does the audience of a high school production of My Fair Lady in a predominately black district appreciate the performance any differently than that in a white district? Are modern set and costume productions of Shakespearean plays appreciated substantially less than period pieces? Fiction, by it's nature involves suspension of disbelief.

[Sculptor1]

Are you saying that "the best fiction is the fiction that is true" is uncommon??
Rubbish.
What was the last fiction book you read? Now ask yourself if it read true? Look at the most fantastict film of the 21stC. The Lord of the Rings is internally coherent. The relationship between Samwise and Frodo is "true" in that it is a pur expression of loyalty, dedication and friendship. If you can watch their pilgrimage to Mount Doom without getting emotionally touched then I wonder if you might not be all human. ANd yet there is nothing more fictional that TLOTR.

You're using the word "true" in an uncommon (though internally logical) manner. Thus I don't disagree with your point, just it's description. Though while we're in agreement, since we're speaking of preferences, others may (and do) reasonably disagree.

When we are talking about a drama in which for no apparent reason black parents have a white child. (Wheel of TIme) I do not accept that anyone is not going to be bumped out of their engagement with the drama and ask themselves why, breaking the spell and the fourth wall.
It is very much like the scene on "Plan9 from Outer Space" where a black car exits the scene only to arrive at the next scene as a white car. This shocking failure of continuity, and other boobs is the only thing that makes the famour "Turkey" watchable. But no one is under the spell of the drama since the necessary suspension of disbelief cannot be made. The film is just a joke.
I submit that those that chose to cast a black daughter of the white King of Numenor (RIngs of Power) are not interested in how the plot seems and that people are absorbed in the drama, they are more interested in pushing their pedgogic agenda. This just makes "woke" look stupid. Which is a major tragedy, since the world needs to be awoken

Well, yes and (definitely in certain circumstances) no. Hamilton succeeds well beyond "wokism" with a black Aaron Burr, Lafayette and George Washington.

I would never watch it.
It has no value in any sense.
Pure fluff, with of without mis given ethnicities.
A travesty of history meaningliss garbage and a flagrant denial of truth even if they were all the accurate ethnically.

I mean, fiction is not documentary.

Most people draw their historical knowledge from fictional accounts, sadly.

For example, in the US is it an error to have an actor with a Scottish accent play an Irish character? Does the audience of a high school production of My Fair Lady in a predominately black district appreciate the performance any differently than that in a white district? Are modern set and costume productions of Shakespearean plays appreciated substantially less than period pieces? Fiction, by it's nature involves suspension of disbelief.

Why are you asking?
When I watch fiction I want to be absorbed in the drama, I do not want to be thrown out of the flow of make beliveve by someone trying to push their agenda.

[Sy Borg]

It's rather like what happened to pop music. In the past, there were classic songs created with obvious passion and talent like Strawberry Fields, Classical Gas, Apache, What's Going On, Wipe Out, Macarthur Park, Respect, Also Sprach Zarathustra, Picnic at Hanging Rock, Frankenstein, Us and Them, Jessica, Bohemian Rhapsody, Feels Like Teen Spirit, Hurricane, etc.

However, over time companies build up a body of knowledge about what sells and what doesn't. That experience forms the basis of their formula formulas for hits. These formulas become ever more refined over time. In the past, unusual or innovative art was thought to have potential. Now, any art that is unusual or innovative will be deemed an unacceptable risk.

I noticed a similar process of rationalisation in the workplace. Every perk that helps make a job enjoyable would gradually be stripped away with each budget, as bean-counters searched for savings. They would reduce work conditions to a meanly rationalised standard. It's the evolution of Taylorism, I guess.

Yes I think this happens a a level behind the actual song writing.
Before the Beatles, in the UK at least, most pop was written behind the scenes and the artist was selected for the song. But singer/songwriters like Muddy Waters, Chuck berry, and their own musical ancestors came up from the bottom and were exploited by music producers. By the time the Beatles, and Stones were at ork in the 60s the paradigm switched so that the industry promoted great bands but were at arms length when it came to the act of musical creation. Pink FLoyd, Black Sabbath, Led Zep were all writing automomously. But the grip from the industry reached in deeper.
Now we seem to be back to the industry having more control. Not because there are not songwritter/performers out there, but because the industry seem to want to promote those upon which they have maximum control, and so you get empty hearless, formulaic beat pop.
It seems there might even be some science in the creation of addictive sounds, such as Lady Gaga "p-p-p-poker face", techniques of counterpoint and Auto-tune, modulation techniques, looping sequencing, sampling - all reove the artist from the creation process.

An excellent summary of the situation. Motown might have been the first tipping of power back towards the corporate, with younger, hipper executives getting more involved. This, after a golden period where old executives who did not understand the new music tended to just let young artists get on with it. The Motown approach was super hip and effective at the time but it arguably set a problematic precedent.

It's interesting to note that the Labour Party's socialist taxation strategy created a massive boost in creativity at the and of the 1960s and into following decades.
The Beatles made huge wealth but were forced to pay up to a 90%+ tax on their top earnings. The way to avoid giving it all to the government was to invest it in Apple Records, and Abbey Road studios became a great creative hub in music in the early 70s, producing new artists and without the corporate heavy handedness.

England from the mid 60s to the mid 70s did have an incredible burst of creativity, which then travelled across the Atlantic. Even today, much of the music I listen to comes from that time. In time, the movement went stale, as all things do, but it was grand while it lasted.

Just panning back out to the thread in general, while we reportedly have an ageing population, the average mental age seems to be reducing. I find it interesting just how interested adults are in Disney content - the Marvel franchise, Snow White, the Little Mermaid etc. The "sweet spot" has long been content that children can enjoy, but contains subtleties that their parental chaperones can also enjoy, eg. Star Wars, Toy Story.

When I look back to my parents' tastes, the idea of them being interested in such children's tales would be laughable. Dad was into the Bourne Identity and other such adventure/spy thrillers and Mum was into Wuthering Heights, Lawrence of Arabia and generally into grandiose epics.

Maybe it's the influence of the 60s but today's adults are much more "out there", more interested in the fantastical than the grounded. This is where woke media runs into trouble, in having films "reflect the world the way it is today". Simply, people have never been hungrier for escape, but activist film makers are not letting them do it. Apparently, easy escapism is seemingly not permitted until men, heterosexuals, whites and Jews atone for their imagined sins [sic].

On the plus side, if fans of somewhat infantilised content become sufficiently fed up with being patonised, that may be the spur for those viewers to look beyond the mainstream for content, which might help the work of worthy, smaller, independent film makers achieve prominence.

[LuckyR]

You're using the word "true" in an uncommon (though internally logical) manner. Thus I don't disagree with your point, just it's description. Though while we're in agreement, since we're speaking of preferences, others may (and do) reasonably disagree.

When we are talking about a drama in which for no apparent reason black parents have a white child. (Wheel of TIme) I do not accept that anyone is not going to be bumped out of their engagement with the drama and ask themselves why, breaking the spell and the fourth wall.
It is very much like the scene on "Plan9 from Outer Space" where a black car exits the scene only to arrive at the next scene as a white car. This shocking failure of continuity, and other boobs is the only thing that makes the famour "Turkey" watchable. But no one is under the spell of the drama since the necessary suspension of disbelief cannot be made. The film is just a joke.
I submit that those that chose to cast a black daughter of the white King of Numenor (RIngs of Power) are not interested in how the plot seems and that people are absorbed in the drama, they are more interested in pushing their pedgogic agenda. This just makes "woke" look stupid. Which is a major tragedy, since the world needs to be awoken

Well, yes and (definitely in certain circumstances) no. Hamilton succeeds well beyond "wokism" with a black Aaron Burr, Lafayette and George Washington.

I would never watch it.
It has no value in any sense.
Pure fluff, with of without mis given ethnicities.
A travesty of history meaningliss garbage and a flagrant denial of truth even if they were all the accurate ethnically.

I mean, fiction is not documentary.

Most people draw their historical knowledge from fictional accounts, sadly.

For example, in the US is it an error to have an actor with a Scottish accent play an Irish character? Does the audience of a high school production of My Fair Lady in a predominately black district appreciate the performance any differently than that in a white district? Are modern set and costume productions of Shakespearean plays appreciated substantially less than period pieces? Fiction, by it's nature involves suspension of disbelief.

Why are you asking?
When I watch fiction I want to be absorbed in the drama, I do not want to be thrown out of the flow of make beliveve by someone trying to push their agenda.

1) You are entitled to your outlier opinion.

2) Why aren't you answering?

[Sculptor1]

When we are talking about a drama in which for no apparent reason black parents have a white child. (Wheel of TIme) I do not accept that anyone is not going to be bumped out of their engagement with the drama and ask themselves why, breaking the spell and the fourth wall.
It is very much like the scene on "Plan9 from Outer Space" where a black car exits the scene only to arrive at the next scene as a white car. This shocking failure of continuity, and other boobs is the only thing that makes the famour "Turkey" watchable. But no one is under the spell of the drama since the necessary suspension of disbelief cannot be made. The film is just a joke.
I submit that those that chose to cast a black daughter of the white King of Numenor (RIngs of Power) are not interested in how the plot seems and that people are absorbed in the drama, they are more interested in pushing their pedgogic agenda. This just makes "woke" look stupid. Which is a major tragedy, since the world needs to be awoken

Well, yes and (definitely in certain circumstances) no. Hamilton succeeds well beyond "wokism" with a black Aaron Burr, Lafayette and George Washington.

I would never watch it.
It has no value in any sense.
Pure fluff, with of without mis given ethnicities.
A travesty of history meaningliss garbage and a flagrant denial of truth even if they were all the accurate ethnically.

I mean, fiction is not documentary.

Most people draw their historical knowledge from fictional accounts, sadly.

For example, in the US is it an error to have an actor with a Scottish accent play an Irish character? Does the audience of a high school production of My Fair Lady in a predominately black district appreciate the performance any differently than that in a white district? Are modern set and costume productions of Shakespearean plays appreciated substantially less than period pieces? Fiction, by it's nature involves suspension of disbelief.

Why are you asking?
When I watch fiction I want to be absorbed in the drama, I do not want to be thrown out of the flow of make beliveve by someone trying to push their agenda.

1) You are entitled to your outlier opinion.

2) Why aren't you answering?

These two comments are against Forum rules

[Sy Borg]

Not sure I understand the current ... disagreement?

Whatever, I 100% endorse this comment:

When I watch fiction I want to be absorbed in the drama, I do not want to be thrown out of the flow of make believe by someone trying to push their agenda.

In increasing challenging and unstable times, movie companies have an opportunity to contribute to people's wellbeing by providing engrossing entertainment. Instead, too many (especially Disney and Amazon) are squandering that opportunity with tokenistic ticking of boxes and over-the-top affirmative action. Affirmative action means helping people with *talent* to use those talents, it's not to employ relative rookies in professional specialist positions because of their gender or skin colour when much better candidates are available.

There is a common claim that some of these "woke" directors and producers aim to make movies "better reflect the world that we live in". That is exactly the opposite to what they should be doing. People go to the movies for escape, not forced education. Many don't want to watch today's issues amplified and dramatised. They can get that on the news at any time.

[Sculptor1]

Not sure I understand the current ... disagreement?

Whatever, I 100% endorse this comment:

When I watch fiction I want to be absorbed in the drama, I do not want to be thrown out of the flow of make believe by someone trying to push their agenda.

In increasing challenging and unstable times, movie companies have an opportunity to contribute to people's wellbeing by providing engrossing entertainment. Instead, too many (especially Disney and Amazon) are squandering that opportunity with tokenistic ticking of boxes and over-the-top affirmative action. Affirmative action means helping people with *talent* to use those talents, it's not to employ relative rookies in professional specialist positions because of their gender or skin colour when much better candidates are available.

There is a common claim that some of these "woke" directors and producers aim to make movies "better reflect the world that we live in". That is exactly the opposite to what they should be doing. People go to the movies for escape, not forced education. Many don't want to watch today's issues amplified and dramatised. They can get that on the news at any time.

Thanks, yes.
I consider myself to be "woke". And I am very keen to see all ethnicities and sexual preferences represented in drama. But I think it is of vital importance to use drama to show that prejudice exists, not to deny its existence with clopping casting.
I think we need a new word for the directors and producers of whom you speak. What they are doing is not "woke" but the opposite of it. It is pedagogy in the clothes of historical revisionism; screaming "virtue signalling".

[Sy Borg]

Not sure I understand the current ... disagreement?

Whatever, I 100% endorse this comment:

When I watch fiction I want to be absorbed in the drama, I do not want to be thrown out of the flow of make believe by someone trying to push their agenda.

In increasing challenging and unstable times, movie companies have an opportunity to contribute to people's wellbeing by providing engrossing entertainment. Instead, too many (especially Disney and Amazon) are squandering that opportunity with tokenistic ticking of boxes and over-the-top affirmative action. Affirmative action means helping people with *talent* to use those talents, it's not to employ relative rookies in professional specialist positions because of their gender or skin colour when much better candidates are available.

There is a common claim that some of these "woke" directors and producers aim to make movies "better reflect the world that we live in". That is exactly the opposite to what they should be doing. People go to the movies for escape, not forced education. Many don't want to watch today's issues amplified and dramatised. They can get that on the news at any time.

Thanks, yes.
I consider myself to be "woke". And I am very keen to see all ethnicities and sexual preferences represented in drama. But I think it is of vital importance to use drama to show that prejudice exists, not to deny its existence with clopping casting.
I think we need a new word for the directors and producers of whom you speak. What they are doing is not "woke" but the opposite of it. It is pedagogy in the clothes of historical revisionism; screaming "virtue signalling".

I used to be woke but I gave it up. Whatever, I never cared about representation in fiction. As an Australian, most fiction I see is American or European, and most of our own movies are pretty dull. I can't remember ever feeling represented in fiction, or even considering it a possibility, or an issue.

The whole idea of fiction is to look at what other people are doing, not to stare lovingly into a metaphorical mirror. When I ponder what could bring on such a wave of narcissism, I can see that it is insecurity in an ever more crowded and competitive world. People are feeling swamped and insignificant (because they have been, and they are) and it seems that even the blinding triviality of movie casting becomes important to them, beyond just the wish to see a good story told well.

Diversity finds its way into fiction naturally without making distracting casting choices. The drive to turn all movie casts into a human liquorice allsorts is, as you say, virtue signalling. If the companies actually cared, they would see that what they are doing is actually counter-productive and breeding resentment. But companies like Disney and Amazon don't care about doing diversity in a strategic way that actually helps. The whole point is to appear to be dedicated to The Cause.

[Xenophon]

I think this thread is something like an immense game of 围棋， or "Go." You know, the big ol' board game with dozens of white and black stones. Player A tries to criticize the idea of black mermaids while still adhering to the letter of the gospel of racial equality. (I suppose the Boas oeuvre can be the rule book here.) Player B, meanwhile, tries to ferret out the "racist by implication" subtext of Player A's posts. If either player performs his mandated role (to his own satisfaction) this scores one point. As written, certain discrepancies in scoring are unavoidable. I suppose an AI umpire might be brought in to settle things. Anyhow, this game will supplant the NBA and NFL just as soon as UBI relieves players of the need to get a living.

[Sculptor1]

Diversity finds its way into fiction naturally without making distracting casting choices.

Yeah funny