Originally Posted by
Biomega
First off, "good reasoning" is something very different from a "good reason".
Secondly, I don't have to define it, because it's ALL ABOUT the evaluation. I have no idea what it could be, therefore I'm not putting restrictions on it. That's how presenting evidence works in court, too, by the way - no court has a catalog of what evidence could possibly be, you bring it before them and they decide if they accept it as evidence or not. Because the set of potential reasons is (at least in principle) infinite.
And I'm not the one making the determination anyway - YOU are. I want you to bring what YOU think is a good reason, and then I'll see if I agree or not.
Sure you can. And I can point out that this is how evidence has worked for, oh, idk, a couple hundred years at least (probably thousands). You don't have to agree with this. It'd be ridiculous not to, but you don't HAVE to agree.
Gee I wonder, did Crazy Rich ASIANS perhaps have a GOOD REASON to want ASIANS in their cast?
You already forgot about how my entire argument works on a fundamental level, didn't you. Because it's your turn to talk now, so you don't have to care about what I've been saying.
I've given you an example AND repeated it AND pointed out that I gave you an example and repeated it.
That is THREE TIMES this was brought up across THREE posts.
And somehow you still didn't read it? You trollin' or you just, idk, REALLY don't care about what other people are saying?
I haven't seen it, but I imagine they're making a historic argument there. Without more information I couldn't say if it was a good reason or not, but historic films at least have a POTENTIALLY good reason in trying to be historically accurate; that's not a perfect reason, mind you. I'd be 100% with black Vikings, but you could at least in principle make arguments for realism if you have a historic setting contingent on a people as such (i.e. Vikings as a people). I'd have to see the film to say more.
*cough* you're joking, right?
Aside from the two examples I've given that you stubbornly ignored, you mean? Or the standards of evidence that we've operated under in both discourse and law for a couple dozen centuries?
You know fuck all about how this works. Don't lean too far out the window, or you'll fall.
This is about the stupidest thing you've said so far.
I said you can't just say the racist card applies to anyone, and you go from there to "oh so it applies to NO ONE?" - that's a mistake in logic so elementary it boggles the mind that anyone over the age of 12 would ever think to make it.
Is this just a language problem? Do you not know how "anyone" works in that sentence? "it applies to anyone" and "it applies to everyone" are not the same thing. The first means "anyone COULD BE hit by this" and the second one means "everyone WILL BE hit by this".
You wouldn't. But in a large enough sample, statistics say this is so unlikely to happen that even if it did, it's fine to ignore because it's a one-in-a-billion fluke that doesn't warrant treating the other nine-hundred-ninety-nine-million-etc. cases differently. It's a very acceptable failure rate.
It's also why extremely small productions can't really be evaluated the same.
Yes. Yes it is. No adaptation in the history of the world has ever been 100% accurate, unless it's for an extremely short, extremely trivial text (like idk, Hemingway's "shortest story" or whatever).
Nothing on the level of a novella or novel has ever been adapted with 100% accuracy.
I'm not saying that it MUST, I'm saying that it DOES. If you want that to mean MUST, FOR REASONS OF PRACTICAL REALITY then I'm fine with that.
But my argument is NOT that "you HAVE to change skin colors in an adaptation", if that's what you're getting at. Not in any way, shape, or form.
How do you know? I'd object to it if it was made today, and the only reason I'm not is that it's, well, NOT MADE TODAY. How do you know other people aren't objecting to it for that same reason? Heck, how do you even know it actually IS "socially acceptable", it's not like there's widespread discussion about it.
Even IF that was true (and I don't know how you could even tell), it wouldn't matter. Popularity isn't relevant. Good reasons are. Arguing that something is right because it's popular is a logical fallacy.
Because 1. there isn't exactly a big discourse on a 20-year old film to begin with; and 2. people who examine such films critically tend to be aware that you can't just apply today's standards to a work from 20+ years ago.