Thread by @originalspin

Hey @ScottMendelson, I appreciate what you’re trying to say but your analysis is exactly wrong, and unfortunately, in line with Hollywood’s overriding views on inclusion: That the “limits of diversity” are it only “works” when people “already want to see” a film.

https://twitter.com/Forbes/status/1438511025737793555

“Diversity” isn’t a magical lure to drag people into theaters.

Inclusive development and casting allows you to tell different, more meaningful, expansive AND specific stories. It allows you to market films to different audiences. And it makes old stories feel new again.

But it’s absurd to blame “diversity” for not doing enough to lift films that were badly marketed (Snake Eyes) or had no perceptible connection to diverse audiences (uh, Malignant?? Bundling that film into a “diversity” space is a supernatural stretch)—during a global pandemic.

Here’s the truth, Hollywood: Inclusion is an UPSTREAM opportunity—it begins with the stories you’re telling, the way you’re developing them, the richness of the cultural context you’re mining.

It’s not an after the fact marketing bullet point.

No amount of after the fact positioning will help you at the box office with your “mediocre project that has a handful of nonwhite main castmembers” if the story you’re telling doesn’t have deep, meaningful connections with not just diverse audiences, but broader ones as well.

Don’t learn the wrong lesson from Black Panther (or even Crazy Rich Asians). Yes, there are certain films communities will rally around. But that’s the EXCEPTION, not the rule. The rule is not that we need one big tentpole “diverse” release per community per year.

Inclusion builds up audiences across the board. Black/Latino/Asian audiences already overindex on ticket buying. More inclusive stories/casts accelerates that trend for all releases—not just one or two.

And importantly it normalizes diverse stories/casts for white audiences too.

If we keep at it maybe at some point we will move beyond facile “blaming” of movie failures on diversity, the way we don’t “blame” flops starring white men on the fact that they star white men?

I know you focus on a picture by picture analysis @ScottMendelson but it helps to look at the big picture too.

Inclusion is the future of Hollywood because it’s the future of America.

I have to do a call right now but I’ll respond to your point here in an hour or so. The bottom line is that “folks” is doing a lot of work here though. As is “decade.”

https://twitter.com/ScottMendelson/status/1438563263076192280

Okay, I'm back. When we say "folks" here, I think you mean "folks of color" (and perhaps, their allies)? The fact is—we do. Numerous studies show that audiences of color absolutely overindex on buying tickets to films with meaningfully inclusive casting.

https://twitter.com/ScottMendelson/status/1438563263076192280?s=20

UCLA, for example, has been doing the hard work of tracking this stuff over time.

But that's the second piece: Time. You say you've been watching this play out for a decade? Well, we all know Hollywood is a trailing indicator of change.
thehill.com/changing-ameri…

By the time cultural shifts play out in cinema, they have to have existed for at least a development cycle. So, say three to five years. You know what? I was there for the beginning of this one. It started seven and a half years ago--in TV, not movies.

Think about it: FRESH OFF THE BOAT, BLACK-ISH, and a wave of other diverse shows all came out in the same season, and proved out that there were audiences for stories set in diverse contexts that directly navigated race and cultural difference — while telling universal stories.

I remember at the wrap party for the FOTB pilot an executive—a friend of one of the producers—told me that "everyone" was hoping for FOTB to be a success, because they had so many great Asian American projects in the pipeline...and if it was a hit, they'd be able to make them.

And it was! And they did! And it wasn't just TV that was impacted—it was film. Because the cultural indicator that "audiences were ready" for inclusive works meant pipeline projects could be made/marketed in a totally different way. There were suddenly "diverse stars" to cast!

Somehow, the fact that all these "diverse stars" had been around for a good decade BEFORE 2014 was...forgotten? But again, Hollywood only really makes disruptive moves as a critical mass, so everyone is always suddenly discovering things that were true ten years earlier.

(The business has gotten less and less picture by picture over time. As you well know, it's all about 1. slates and 2. sequels and franchises now.)

https://twitter.com/ScottMendelson/status/1438586600007475206?s=20

It's not too late. It's just the beginning. Because the line between TV and movies, theatrical and streaming, continues to blur. They're still figuring out the new blueprint but ultimately, it will be one where inclusion is going to central, not additive.

https://twitter.com/ScottMendelson/status/1438588635620659202?s=20

Anyway: My point with all this was that the decade you're talking about really began halfway through the decade, and we've seen total disruption over the latter half of the 2010s, plus a global pandemic. You simply can't use data from 2010-2014 in any useful way.

Remember that Simu Liu started out in a Canadian sitcom that went viral...on Netflix. So — TV, streaming, movies — the "who's a bankable star" lines no longer really exist. TV stars are movie stars are streaming stars. And the same is true for genres.

https://twitter.com/ScottMendelson/status/1438591663367065617?s=20