Valuing a character based on his relationship to the protagonist is both what you're doing here and what you're demonizing here. I'm not sure labeling characters as "sidekicks" based on a trailer (seriously? based on a trailer?!) is less a disservice than their creators have done by allowing their point of view to complement rather than direct the dramatic premise of a story.
Also, in 2010, 72.4% of Americans were white, and most of us under the age of 65 were dudes. That means movies made here are probably going to have at least that many white dudes as protagonists. So what? Why can't you identify with a white man if his is a story with universal truth? My favorite movies aren't about white dudes, they're about friendships. Wayne's World, Thelma and Louise, E.T., Man on Fire. Some of these are about dudes, some of these are about white people, but they're all about something bigger.
You can be cynical and say that anyone who is both not a white dude and not a protagonist is a gimmick, but that's all you're being, not incendiary or progressive or a champion, but a cynic.
i don't know what has more layers, choire's weather posts or my winter storm ensemble.
this is how i felt and very similar to what i experienced working in the entertainment department of a cruise ship, where everyone is supposedly having fun for a living in exotic locales and on the open sea, but, after clocking out, descend to E deck, where they cry uncontrollably in their windowless cabin.
does anyone know what's up with that cool-looking building that is falling apart right in front of this whole foods?
i wish you guys would talk about hockey sometimes
i just did this laugh where it starts out as a brief, concentrated explosion of laughter then about forty-five seconds of aftershock chuckling then a second, lower-level laughter explosion, and then some wheezing and then the ultimate finally-caught-my-breath, post-laughter sigh.
classic seed-planting. edith will definitely be tapping that in 3-6 months.
especially in "non-essential" departments like parks, to which i can attest as a former park ranger. you know, a walkie-talkie costs like six grand, right? and we get new ones like every other year, but that doesn't mean it's the reason children aren't getting a new chalkboard let alone a proper education. in conclusion, this article is bogus. people need to stop being so serious about comedy!
@ep i think the thing about consumer demand re: television programming is that consumption and the demand for it are not properly measured; the neilson system seems fucked, and a business model in the television industry does not necessarily (if at all) correlate with demand. i haven't read pozner, so i don't know if she makes that part of her argument, but i think it has a lot to do with why cable sucks.
i really like the analogy of chemists and the scientific community in general. but the thing about scientific knowledge is that, for the century "we" (scientists and philosophers, i.e., experts) put in to debating, say, evolution through natural selection, most people still don't understand the concept, even if they purport to accept it as true.
i'd be interested to learn the percentage of people
who actively participate in wikipedia as part of all the people who use wikipedia as a source or entry-point for learning. i'm guessing that an amazing majority of people who visit that site take its content as authority just as they'd take scientific studies as authority or even a newspaper article about arnold's lovechild as authority.
i guess my point is that most people aren't and won't ever be engaged in the the activities of authorship, traditional or collective, about most topics. so it seems like there will always be a relatively small amount of people who put forth knowledge and opinion, and there will always be a far greater amount of people soaking up that knowledge with reckless abandon. or am i not giving people enough credit?