Jump to content


Boycott Amazon
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Status Updates posted by richardmurray

  1. now0.jpg

    The article linked below said a lot. What are the points: 

    pay to view streaming platforms is what big media in the USA <big media meaning the largest media concerns by fiscal revenue or scale of viewership> is enforcing. I still agree with BEinsports ceo, streaming needs to be free like broadcasting. I think having people pay for streaming is the financial error. I Think streaming is better free, especially in the USA as the usa market is used to it. 

    The relationship to media in the USA from someone who is five years old today to someone ninety five today is such a vast swing that media in the USA is literally organizing or planning for the five year old who will be ninety five one day. The article misses the role of immigration. Outside the USA broadcast media is usually absent or negligent. PEople forget, most countries never had a PBS. Most countries never had cable stations. Most countries populace has always had to pay for USA media content. So , the immigration populace in the USA culturally supports buying media, cause they are used to it. 

    It isn't mentioned in the article, but one of the realities of the business community/private industry/free market capitalist culture in the USA is the heritage of following, especially in media. USA media has rarely had a set of individual daring firms. MEdia firms in the USA copy each other/follow each other to their dooms, historically. The idea of changing the soap operas, or making them more interesting was too daring for media firms in the usa. The problem with statistics side art is statistics can tell you what people are doing relating to art, but it usually guides you away from what you need to do to reimagine successfully. 

    I concur to the student of media in the article. The mid 1990s and the reality television era coincided to the facebook/twitter era coincided to the death of non special effects films being made mostly. Audiences in the USA during the 1990s were being given a few key things: 1)the ability to make fun of people , whether famous or not, in the public eye in a daily way 2)special effects laden films whose visual stimulus overcame plot or story in ticket sales 3) the role of social media posts over letters or phone calls which meant brevity/publicity/high speed in communication became natural for many people in the USA. Sequentially, soap operas which have moments of laughter but are not meant for self deprication, have no high production value special effects, are slower paced, long form tales, which use a private storytelling to be displayed only on the privy of the show , are against alot of the momentums by user experience. 

    I disagree with the notion that a lack of stay at home parents exists in the USA. Too many people are financially poor in the USA. I argue more parents are stay at home than in the 1960s as a percentage of the whole. but those parents aren't interested in a soap opera and moreover, is financially negative. PEople forget, that the main audience for broadcast media in the USA was the immediate post world war II white community in the USA which was very opulent. We forget that many blacks in the USA in the 1950s 1960s didn't have televisions. so, the financial positivity of the viewership of broadcast media in the USA of the 1950s 1960s where the soap operas come from was racially, monophenotypical/ had a larger percentage of financial positives. 

    The tragedy of this article is it shows how cable is clearly still alive as a medium while many in media have suggested the usa has moved on from cable. it shows how the reality is rarely spoken in modern media in the usa. I repeat, at some point the cable services will figure out how to integrate the streaming services. The streaming services don't want it cause it undercuts their competition with each other. The problem for paid to view streaming is it can only make money by growing subscribers. The whole point of commercials is the commercials pay for the show to be viewed freely, with breaks. Before commercials , firms financed shows whole but that is expensive and too much for most firms. PRoctor and Gamble is a pharmaceutical firm that makes a lot of money.

    I conclude with the strength of telenovelas in latin america. As well as the fantasy shows, game of thrones, as fantasy soap operas. It isn't that soap operas are dead in the USA but they are modulated now. Whereas in the past, humans in a modern setting, with conventional drama was adequate. But in modern USA you need dragons/elves/scenes of mythical war/fantastical extravagance/characters that have insane obsessions that mirror the engineered reality tv chaos to have a  soap opera. 


    1. richardmurray


      Great share Nike, the biggest absence in the article for me is the problem with opportunity in the arts in the usa. Very few media firms in the usa are standalone, nearly all are part of a larger network of media entities under a firm. If you take out broadcast television stations/cable stations/streaming stations that are not owned by a media conglomerate. How many media entities exist in the usa? pbs is the only broadcast station that is solely a broadcast station. it isn't part of a conglomerate. All the cable stations are part of a conglomerate outside local cable stations , like in NYC for example. All the streaming services with a percent of the streaming audience are part of conglomerates. so... I argue the lack of unconglomerated media properties is part of the problem with this issue that the article didn't state. If the broadcast television stations were unconglomerated like PBS I am certain soap operas would not be streamed, but will have been artistically worked on to improve. My larger thoughts:) https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=2017&type=status


  2. now0.png

    ELon Musk : "If the president is working so hard to free someone who is in jail in Russia for some weed, shouldn’t we free people in America? ...There are people in jail in America for the same stuff. Shouldn’t we free them too? My opinion is that people should not be in jail for non-violent drug crimes" 
    start https://youtu.be/fXS_gkWAIs0?t=1659
    end https://youtu.be/fXS_gkWAIs0?t=1704
    if you want a satellite network for rural areas

  3. the softest part of her is everything from nikki powerhouse - cover art by misty sol.jpg

    Title: THe Softest Part of Her is Everything

    Cover artist: Misty Sol < https://www.mistysol.com/ >
    Author : Nikki Powerhouse < https://www.nikkipowerhouse.com/


    Misty Sol entries

    Showing results for '"misty sol"' in status updates. - AALBC.com’s Discussion Forums



    Some points without spoiling the review 

    8:04 or 23:44 Nike - the role of Perception in the film
    25:40 Nicole - description of the films place in genres
    33:35 Both- the nonchalance against common sense:) very funny
    37:54 Nike- Lovely real life example of how people judge a film strictly, advertise their judgement to influence others, but don't even fully assess a film, by their own admission. But how can one recant in real time
    40:16 Nicole- yes, I concur to the relationship to both Peele and the director you mention who in their time in the sun:) had the ability to make films that be thought provoking or artful WHILE also commercial. I don't think it is unimportant to say that Nope covered its cost of production.
    49:44 Both - Keith David is a very fortunate thespian. Not merely being a thespian having less opportunty, cause he is black and media in the USA is owned by whites, who do favor giving opportunity to whites.  But, Keith David has been able to be part of many thoughtful films in the film itself or its role in genre setting in various genres: The THing;The Live;Pitch Black;Nope<science fiction>[Keith David has successfully been a black character in a science fiction film that has lived at the end more than once, died before the 15 minute mark and died just before the end:) ] / Platoon<war film>/ Bird<documentary> [where he played a criminalized version of buster smith] /Roadhouse<action>People don't realize how some films hollywood has been heavily inspired by and never been able to repeat /The Quick and the Dead<western> [a female led western back when it wasn't so easy to see being financed]/PRincess Mononoke <anime>[the studio ghibli collection itself is something else... his voice is everywhere, ever since, and shout to tv show gargoyles]/Crash <social commentary vignettes>[hollywood has tried to find the next crash since crash]/The Inheritance<My personal favorite film with him in it, the story is a rare thing in its message> 

    Prior Movies That Move We entry







  5. now0.jpeg

    Tracy Christian via Michelby & Co.


    lovely article in some ways. I like her points about what it means a business. A business owner especially for Black people in the USA is not always with the wrappings of white owned business, which is usually better financed. I like what she said about labor populaces. How many are not still multiracial in makeup. I am a peter mensah fan. If they do a shazam <hanna barbera> film, they need to get him 100% if you see him in Hidalgo+ his versatility in other work, you will comprehend. ... I disagree that Black forebears reared us to invade spaces. My parents taught me to be free, not to be an agent for making the monoracial multiracial. I also disagree with sadness that multiraciality is absent in many places. Unfortunately, too many non white europeans don't comprehend that merit and labor opportunities are not connected. You have the right as a president to hire your children. It doesn't make you bad. When one controls who gets opportunity they are not forced to give said opportunities based on certifications or matriculations.



  6. National Association of Black Journalist



    1. richardmurray


      Join us for an exciting celebration as we kick off the #NABJNAHJ22 Convention & Career Fair in Las Vegas! This year's Opening Ceremony is powered by Wells Fargo.

  7. My reply to the tweet below

    to answer your question: 1>when people are at the bottom of poverty they commit illegal acts so the police will be ready for the swarm of more poor 2> law enforcement will stop homeless people from staying in NYC by putting them in jail for it 3> a prison cell is a home(1/2) not one anyone desires, but it is a home and I imagine the law enforcement system of the city will receive a lot of money from the bureaucracy for said housing... I concur to all your allusions but it is clear what the future holds(2/2)



  8. now0.png

    In one article, the author suggest Hollywood is broken up into parts, a white hollywood side unspoken hollywoods, while also suggesting hollywood is aracial, which means the owners are blocking an inherent universality in hollywood. He suggest Mary Alice isn't a household name, but then states she was a household name in black households... what are the points I am getting at? First, this article doesn't honor Mary Alice enough. It focuses on her work in one show, but doesn't refer to her work in los angeles for an august wilson play. I think fences. Honor artist by referring to their work. Second, for someone who loves to learn about race teaching, the opinion author forgets that opportunity in fiscal capitalism has one source, owner. Opportunity in fiscal capitalism is never about merit. It is about the owner. Who the owner wants to help. I repeat, who the owner wants to help. ... the author's point is Mary Alice was denied the career she should had by the mismanagement of fiscal capitalism in the film /television industry in the USA. Meaning what? The owners of film studios side tv stations <and later streaming/cable or other> should give opportunity based on the content of character, not the color of skin. But, If I own a film studio and I have all the films I want to produce in the fiscal year in preproduction except one. Do I give the one slot, the directors chair, to my son who didn't graduate high school, has no experience in the industry or do I give it to a graduate of howard who won awards from spike lee+ oprah winfrey + robert townsend+ in Nollywood? I will give it to my son. why? I am a racist. My bloodline is important to me over those who are not. Sequentially, i Have a negative bias towards my clan. Penultimate from the conclusion, I use the third point, ownership is the key to opportunity in fiscal capitalism. The owner can choose to give opportunity on some scale of merit. But the owner is not obliged to. You own so that you control what you do, and you can never be wrong. You may lose money. You may be cruel or mean spirited. But you are not wrong because you are the owner. Mary Alice was failed by impotency in Black Hollywood not White Hollywoods opportunity to white thespians OR impotency of Black producers in Hollywood to provide support to Black thespians, not White producers in Hollywoods support of White thespians. I can say more but I will agress




    Nichelle Nichols side Bill Russell







    The NBA is white owned. The NBA didn't accept the HArlem Rens , who played in the now destroyed Renaissance Ballroom. They had a black owner. The Negro Leagues didn't have all black owners, but had many. The American + National leagues , all with white owners could join but couldn't join with Black owners. 

    Ownership matters. Black people keep suggesting a white man has to look out for non white people in the ownership position. No a white man doesnn't

    1. richardmurray



      After reading the article below, two points come to mind. First, the court cases that the supreme court is receiving concerning affirmative action are not about Blacks, or Blacks of Africa, it is about Asians, whether White asians or Black Asians, though mostly White asians. 

      Second, the firms argument is the legitimacy <yes the word legitimacy was used> of modernity or the future requires universities to push a multiracial student body. The firms don't say the best always come from the schools, but the best need to come from those schools to go to them. 

      What is the firms point? Firms in the USA have restrictive hiring practices. Built over time, advertised as based on merit. The firms hiring practices are based on universities matriculations. But, universities absent affirmative action will make it costlier for those not white and thus the firms, especially tech firms, links into asia will eventually be thin. 

      What is the argument against affirmative action, in my opinion, not their legal teams words? 

      The argument against is that affirmative action has been used by asian students to get an unfair advantage when most of those asians are not american citizens, or are not in a community that is financially disadvantaged, ala like Native Americans or Blacks.  So USA universities are using affirmative action to gain an international alumni for their favor. Blocking people in the USA who are not more advantaged. To be blunt, in a world with Crazy rich asians, China/Japan/South Korea/India all the top of the list of countries not USA/Western Europe/Russia, the asian community is not disadvantaged. 


      Apple, GE, other major US companies ask Supreme Court to uphold affirmative action
      The companies said race needs to be considered to help build diverse workforces.

      ByDevin Dwyer
      August 01, 2022, 9:20 AM

      More than 80 major American companies that employ tens of thousands of U.S. workers are asking the Supreme Court to uphold the use of race as a factor in college admissions, calling affirmative action critical to building diverse workforces and, in turn, growing profits.

      The businesses -- some of the most high-profile and successful in the U.S. economy -- outlined their position in legal briefs filed Monday ahead of oral arguments this fall in a pair of cases expected to determine the future of the race-based policy.

      The companies told the court they rely on universities to cultivate racially diverse student bodies which in turn yield pools of diverse, highly educated job candidates that can meet their business and customer needs.
      "The government's interest in promoting student-body diversity on university campuses remains compelling from a business perspective," the companies wrote in an amicus, or friend-of-the-court, brief. "The interest in promoting student-body diversity at America's universities has, if anything, grown in importance."

      Among the signatories are American Express, United and American Airlines, Apple, Intel, Bayer, General Electric, Kraft Heinz, Microsoft, Verizon, Procter & Gamble and Starbucks.

      Citing data and research on a rapidly diversifying America, the companies said race-based diversity initiatives are about more than what many call a moral imperative and critical to their bottom lines.

      "Prohibiting universities nationwide from considering race among other factors in composing student bodies would undermine businesses' efforts to build diverse workforces," they said.

      Eight of the top U.S. science and technology companies, including DuPont and Gilead Sciences, filed a separate brief stressing their view on the importance of racially diverse campuses for cultivating the best future innovators.

      "If universities are not educating a diverse student body, then they are not educating many of the best," they wrote, urging the court not to strike down affirmative action. "Today's markets require capitalizing on the racial and other diversity among us … Those efforts, in turn, contribute to the broader health of our nation's economy."

      In a series of decisions beginning in 1978, the high court has found that race can be used as one factor among many when considering college admissions applications but that a school cannot use quotas or mathematical formulas to diversify a class.

      "In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her 2003 opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger.

      A conservative student group challenging the use of race as a factor in undergraduate admissions at Harvard University, the nation's oldest private college, and the University of North Carolina, the nation's oldest public state university, is asking the court to overturn that precedent.

      The group, Students for Fair Admissions, alleges that Asian-American applicants have been illegally targeted by Harvard and rejected at a disproportionately higher rate in violation of Supreme Court precedent and the students' constitutional rights.

      Two lower federal courts have rejected those claims.

      That the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the cases is widely seen as an indication that the justices could be willing to revisit their precedents on affirmative action and end the use of racial classifications in admissions altogether.

      It will be the first test on the issue for the court's six-to-three conservative-leaning majority, following the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy and the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both of whom defended race-conscious admissions.



  9. NEw York State is giving licenses to those who have a member of their family in jail for cannibis possession while also having a business for 2 years. 

    So black people who don't have any one in the family who went to jail for cannibis possession , which is quite a large percent+ black people who don't have atwo year old business are not able to take advantage of new york state's initiative to help the disadvantaged with the rockefeller alw/war on drug laws period. 

    The next cannibis licenssing meeting will be in queens



  10. now0.jpg

    May your spirit fly high Nichelle Nichols
    Uhura LINK

    Uhura tuning Vulcan lute LINK
    Uhura singing beyond Antares LINK


    Bill Russell's spirit flew as well, the most honest Black basketball in media ever

    on coaching LINK

    on Black Youth LINK

    I PAraphrase Bill russell, use the link above to verify or read the whole"You have guys who have been pampered for 10-15 years. So you can't say this is an example. Or this is an average guy. Most athletes, my self included, are self centered. Maybe psychologically that is why we plays sports, but it is not normal. ... If i  am going to go into Harlem, and go to a play ground and say to kids, if you work hard you can do the same thing I did, that would be a lie. That would be unfair to myself and unfair to the kids. I can say to the kids, do your best and fight it everyday. But to say I am an example of the greatness of the country, that is not true. If I am going to be honest to myself, I am an exception and have treated as an exception for years and years. The problem is I am only treated as an exception in certain areas. "


  11. now0.jpg

    Queen of Glory (2021) | Trailer | Nana Mensah




    Deep Dive Into Building Inclusive Worlds
    Steven Barnes < https://www.facebook.com/groups/1432951630350251/user/604520909/ > of Lifewriting will be teaching  

    When: September 9 – October 9, 2022
    Where: Online — Available everywhere and at your own pace
    Price: $500

    Worldbuilding for speculative fiction and games can be a daunting task; even moreso for writers who want to create inclusive cultures filled with diverse characters without unconsciously replicating colonialist structures and viewpoints. This class offers writers a deep dive into key aspects of building inclusive worlds — Creating Cultures, Ideology, Religion, Cosmology, Sociobiology, Language, Research, and more — with a dream team of outstanding builders of speculative worlds: Steven Barnes, K. Tempest Bradford, Kate Elliott, Max Gladstone, Jaymee Goh, Lauren Jankowski, Pam Punzalan, Nisi Shawl, and Juliette Wade.

    This four-week class includes video lectures and interviews plus extensive discussion and Q&A. Students will leave the class with a deep worldbuilding toolset and resources for further study.

    Required Text
    Course Format, Schedule, and Time Commitment
    Who Should Take This Class?
    Full and Partial Scholarship Opportunities
    Lectures and Interviews + Instructor Bios
    Refund Policy
    Special Offer: Worldbuilding + Research
    Lifewriting group post URL



    1. richardmurray



      Lineart- $10

      Flat color-$12


      Half bodies:

      Lineart- $12

      Flat colors- $14

      Commissions by Kuroshi-tenshi on DeviantArt


  13. now0.jpg

    The tweet in question mentioned 6 things: Keke palmer's career/Zendaya's career/Colorism/Hollywood/Comparing two thespians careers/former child stars careers... The suggestion made in the tweet is that the two child stars have different careers at the moment with zendaya being more and Palmer less, and that contrast is an example of colorism in hollywood. And lastly, that said point warrants a deep inspection to their careers. ... I will start with the point. No two thespians ever have the same careers. Hollywood has never provided two thespians with the same careers. Boris karloff didn't have the same career as bela legosi. Billie D Williams didn't have the same career as James Earl Jones. No two thespians ever have the same career in the film industry anywhere. Jackie Chan didn't have the same Career as samo hung, and that is hong kong cinema. Alec Baldwin doesn't have the same career as Harrison Ford. What is my point? Suggesting that two thespians careers can be defined as different based on a negative bias is a simplicity of how the film industry works. Sharon stone didn't have the same career as Meryl Streep who didn't have the same career as Michelle Pfeiffer. The film industry never is the same for any two thespians. Now, is colorism real. I will define colorism as biases based on skin tone. To the issue in question. The skin tone closer to the average of white europeans is given a positive bias while the skin tone closer to the average of black africans is given a negative bias. Based on my definition of colorism, it is real. But, are the careers of Palmer side Zendaya an issue of said bias or hollywood reality? Based on that logic, Angela Bassett overcame colorism and Vanessa Williams didn't gain enough from it. But is that true? If you look into any two thespians careers the reality is simple. A thespian is lucky if they are involved in fiscally profitable work at a higher rate. Why did Val Kilmer's career, before his illness, not be greater than Tom Cruise? Colorism is real. All biases are real. But are biases the key to success or perceived success in a given space? Not always. The main point of the original tweet, which is a reply, is an assumption, absent any way to be proven. As Palmer correctly stated, Keke palmer's career is keke palmer's. I add, Zendaya's career is Zendaya's. Comparing artist careers based on negative biases in any industry isn't acceptable unless it is an industry normal. For example, Judy Garland was born the same year as Dorothy Dandridge. Both are well known singers. Both played in well-known roles. Was dorothy dandridge blockaded from roles as a black person in hollywood that Judy Garland wasn't as a white person in hollywood? yes. But that was an industry standard at that time, in all areas. Black characters were intentionally not written. Black writers were intentionally not hired. Black producers only existed in the independent system, not hollywood. Colorism like all biases is real and still exists, throughout all aspects of humanity. But, a bias must be universally applied in an arena to claim its potency, not existence but potency, absent strict proof. Lastly... the tweet that is the source of the article's debate is a reply. In the original tweet, linked below, Keke PAlmer is praised. Zendaya isn't mentioned. And, the viewpoint that Keke Palmer is a recent star is challenged as historically inaccurate using the posters life. 

    Why do I say this? I argue the BET article is dysfunctional. If you simply go to the original post. You will see the source post. They are not even connected in theme. And, I argue that Keke Palmer in replying to the colorism point has either bad media management, cause many stars do not make their own tweets, or enough people she cars about mentioned this that she felt she needed to speak. I will also add, in modern times, sometimes making negative issues loud is a way to become more popular. 





    the tweet in question, THE REPLY



    the original tweet, THE SOURCE



    1. richardmurray


      My common out prose for this entry 


      The tweet that is referenced in the article is a reply to a source tweet. The source tweet doesn't mention Zendaya, supports Keke palmer's long acquired superstardom, and is confused as to the people who didn't know of palmer already. ... What is my point? The tweet in question refutes the original post absent any explanation. And I know I am about to go away from the issues. But, one of the problems with media through electronic devices is that many of the websites designed generate dysfunctional multilog. If I say< tweet> the following: "the sky is red, always was and always will be, my parents told me." If someone reshare my tweet , adding the following text: "The sky is really blue, where do the red sky people come from. Volvanoes are red". It is simply a refute. But then if the sky tweet:" I think I am the sky, and the sky has been around for a long time however I like" Then an article from NET<nature elements television> states: "sky responds to colorism about Volcano" and refers to the tweet replied from mine . What I see is a dysfunction in the structure of media. And I will say what I said many times before. I think website design needs to be changed. but I will not make that pulpit speech again 


  14. now0.jpg

    Congrats to Jordan Peele side all the creators involved in NOPE


    Box Office: Jordan Peele’s ‘Nope’ Opens to No. 1 With $44 Million

    By Rebecca Rubin

    Audiences responded with a resounding “yep” to Jordan Peele’s science-fiction thriller “Nope,” which topped the box office with its $44 million debut.

    Those ticket sales were slightly behind projections of $50 million and fall in between the results of Peele’s first two films, 2017’s “Get Out” (which opened to $33 million) and 2019’s “Us” (which opened to $71 million). “Nope” may not have cemented a new box office record for Peele, but it demonstrates the director’s popularity at the movies and marks a strong start for an original, R-rated horror film.

    In fact, “Nope” stands as the highest opening weekend tally for an original film since “Us” debuted more than three years ago. Yes, that includes Quentin Tarantino’s star-studded “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,” which started with $41 million in July 2019.

    “The opening isn’t as big as ‘Us,’ but it’s still extremely impressive,” says David A. Gross, who runs the movie consulting firm Franchise Entertainment Research. “The weekend figure is far above average for the genre.”

    It’s worth noting that Peele’s sophomore feature “Us,” a scary story about menacing doppelgängers, enjoyed an especially huge opening weekend because it followed the runaway success of the Oscar-winning “Get Out.” After his directorial debut captured the zeitgeist by delivering scares while encouraging audiences to think, fans of the filmmaker were more than a little eager to watch Peele’s next mind-bending nightmare. Though Peele still has outsized goodwill with audiences, box office expectations for “Nope,” another anxiety-inducing social thriller, should have been comparatively a little more Earth-bound.

    “Nope” cost $68 million, which is significantly more than “Get Out” (with its slender $4.5 million budget) and “Us” (with its $20 million budget). So the movie will require a little more coinage than Peele’s past films to turn a profit. Word-of-mouth will be key. “Get Out” and “Us” were wildly successful in theaters, with each collecting $255 million at the global box office. “Nope” does not open at the international box office until mid-August.

    “Nope” reunites Peele with “Get Out” star Daniel Kaluuya — and adds Keke Palmer and Steven Yeun to the mix — in the story of siblings who live on a gulch in California and attempt to uncover video evidence of a UFO. Critics were fond of “Nope,” which holds an 82% on Rotten Tomatoes. Audiences gave the film a “B” grade, the same CinemaScore as “Us.”

    Universal’s president of domestic distribution Jim Orr points out that “Nope” is appealing to all demographics; according to exit polls, 35% of ticket buyers were Caucasian, 20% were Hispanic, 33% were African American and 8% were Asian. He says that’s a good sign in terms of its theatrical run.

    “We’re thrilled with the results this weekend,” Orr says. “Jordan Peele is an incredible talent. His films are layered and thought-provoking and ridiculously entertaining.”

    Since “Nope” was the only new movie to open this weekend, several holdover titles rounded out North American box office charts.



    Post Script NOTE: the purple outfit in the article linked above

  15. The problem with Lord of the Rings and most fictions based off of books in the USA is a cross section of various elements.

    1. Media firms in the USA feel obliged to cater to a pan - multi racial concept, to evade the label of negative bias. So, if all types of human beings must be present then most fictions have to be modulated for it.

    2. Media firms in the USA prepare for Public Domain by intentionally changing characters so that the version of the character is purposefully other than the character that will go into the public domain. 

    3. Media firms are unconvinced that the buyers of subscriptions or buyers of film tickets favor new stories over old stories, so they must use old stories as the basis of their activities while doing points 1 and 2. 

    These three points is the problem for all media firms in the USA. 

    Now for the artists. Artists, especially the sub class writer, naturally makes fiction based on our internal desires. To rephrase through example, if a male writer writes a story absent a lesbian character in it, or a woman who successfully defends herself, it can be certain that media firms in the USA will desire to change the story if adapted into another medium to include said two characters. Why? Point number 1. 

    The best example is am*zon prime's interpretation of Tolkien's second age. 

    The reviews below make one thing clear. This has nothing to do with Tolkien's  lord of the rings. This is for lack of a better term, like an adoptable, that doesn't know it. 






    REVIEW 1


    REVIEW 2


    REVIEW 3


    REVIEW 4


    REVIEW 5


    REVIEW 6


    REVIEW 7


    REVIEW 8






  • Create New...