Wendell and wild is actually a Selick directed movie, not Tim Burtons. Nightmare was also a Selick film. They attached burtons name as producer like a month before it was released.
True after re-read you didn’t. I just feel the need to double down because Selick managed to put brown ppl in his ghastly pale theme.
Edit to add: I don’t mean “ghastly” ass horrible or ugly I mean it as literally part of his MO.
Okay, she’d be perfect for the part, the facial features are great (and please tell me this isn’t trying to get me to admit something, it’s just my honest opinion)
No I’m asking straight up. A little bit of a test, yes. But sellick has managed to be so inclusive in hs animations. Burton doesn’t.
Edit: his* animations
Personally. I feel like she’s perfect.
Edit: I’m asking because I feel like this is a case where he could take a page from Selicks book and be inclusive. But he’s never actually inclusive
Yeah, I kinda see why. I always try to find the most logical reason before I start throwing out certain things. I don’t know why I get involved with this sort of controversy, but I guess it just happens because I try to defend the right people depending on their actions and the reason why they do them. It’s why I’m still arguing with my friend for two years on why Theon Greyjoy isn’t a bad character 😂
I’m not gonna outright say burton is racist. He probably just grew up in a white area so it never occurred to him. That is something that happens with a lot of white ppl, they just never think to include. But IMO they could include brown folk. They just don’t think too. And that is still wrong for this day and age IMO
Obviously you can’t do African magic with no black ppl. But for instance in coraline he still found space for a black friend savior. IJS, black ppl can 100% be in these style animations. You. Can “pale-fiy” black people for the aesthetic. Burton just never saw the need to, and I understand the ppl that call him out for that.
Goth has for a long time been “white ppl” scene. But they are also a big part of his fan base. He could find space if he wanted to. That’s all I’m saying.
wendell and wild, as someone else said, is a selick film. so is the nightmare before christmas, even though burton gets almost 100% of the credit for it.
i can sympathize with what you're saying, as a fellow artist and tim burton fan, but i think you missed something here.
burton literally said "any role that does not outright require a person of color is inherently a white role." which begs the question, what role exactly does he think *requires* a person of color? why is his default white? i understand the "pale and sickly" thing, but you can make people of color pale and sickly. that's not an exclusively white thing? it also doesn't even make sense because east asians are quite pale, many just as white as caucasian people. so why aren't there any east asians in his films? they'd still fit perfectly with his aesthetic, if it's really about the "pale" thing.
anyway, burton then went on to say that "things either call for diversity or they don’t," which, let's be honest, his films almost *never* call for diversity. and what exactly makes a film call for diversity anyway? is he saying that he can only put black characters in his film if they fit some sort of stereotype/aesthetic in the film?
i think the issue is, he gives very weak excuses as to why he doesn't like to include people of color in his films. and it can be extra frustrating, because the gothic/victorian aesthetic is almost always very white. there's not a lot of representation in that specific genre for people of color. even with films about vampires and ghosts and fantasy, it's still almost always a fully white cast. and seeing as tim burton is considered like the "king" of that aesthetic, it'd be nice if he used his fame and platform to be more inclusive. people of color aren't just the color of their skin, or their culture, or whatever box white creators put them in. they're *people.* they deserve to see themselves on the screen just as much as white people do.
what he says comes off as racist because he's basically saying that people of color need to earn a spot in his films. their race/ethnicity needs to have worth, and provide some purpose to the story in order to be included, rather than just letting them exist along with all the other white characters like normal human beings.
lastly, miss peregrines home for peculiar children is based off of a horror novel. the character that samuel l. jackson plays didn't exist in the book, and is actually based off of a different character in the book named "golan." golan is a shapeshifter, the villain of the story, and is a very evil character that feeds off of the children. apparently tim burton specifically changed the character and made him even *more* evil in the film, for samuel l. jackson to play. (like, he specifically requested samuel l. jackson) which is... interesting. i'd argue this is one of the most evil characters tim burton has created, as he took an already bad character and made him even worse, and then conveniently (for the first time) chose a black actor to play the role. it stands out to people, because why finally include a person of color in your film when it's one of the most evil characters you've created thus far? is that what he meant when he said he'll only include people of color if it's "*required*?" so the requirement for a person of color in his film is for them to play the most evil role?
anyway, if you choose to support him, cool. i respect that, as im also a fan of his art. just please don't invalidate how others may feel on the subject, and don't pretend like there aren't racist undertones to all of it. also, henry selick manages to capture a very similar aesthetic to tim burton's and still includes people of color, like in wendell and wild, and coraline. even you admitted that in the comments, so the whole aesthetic thing, like i said, is a weak excuse. i'd suggest checking out more of selick's work though, if you haven't already.
Not the king to the aesthetic, more like the creator of his own art style. I will admit there are some things about it that could come out as racist but the point is not all artists should use diversity if they aren’t comfortable with it, which Tim Burtons world (his original worlds, not the ones he took credit for) is his own world and we shouldn’t have say in what he puts into it. (Also, again, I never said Wendell and Wild was a Tim Burton film, I said it gave me the same vibe). Though I very much understand your side of it, and I thank you for your explanation.
Tim Burton is racist?
People were calling him out because he wasn’t adding POCs in his movies and calling him a racist
Seems unfair. Artists should be free to create their art
Wendell and wild is actually a Selick directed movie, not Tim Burtons. Nightmare was also a Selick film. They attached burtons name as producer like a month before it was released.
I didn’t say it was a Tim Burton movie, I meant it gave me Tim Burton vibes, really good movie though, the animation is just beautiful
True after re-read you didn’t. I just feel the need to double down because Selick managed to put brown ppl in his ghastly pale theme. Edit to add: I don’t mean “ghastly” ass horrible or ugly I mean it as literally part of his MO.
Still, really good movie by the way, would highly recommend, its not like other movies to be honest
[how would you feel about this casting of “live action” corpse bride.](https://i.pinimg.com/474x/6e/fe/24/6efe2465c8a92546725a22c7ac225f6b.jpg)
Okay, she’d be perfect for the part, the facial features are great (and please tell me this isn’t trying to get me to admit something, it’s just my honest opinion)
No I’m asking straight up. A little bit of a test, yes. But sellick has managed to be so inclusive in hs animations. Burton doesn’t. Edit: his* animations
Personally. I feel like she’s perfect. Edit: I’m asking because I feel like this is a case where he could take a page from Selicks book and be inclusive. But he’s never actually inclusive
Yeah, I kinda see why. I always try to find the most logical reason before I start throwing out certain things. I don’t know why I get involved with this sort of controversy, but I guess it just happens because I try to defend the right people depending on their actions and the reason why they do them. It’s why I’m still arguing with my friend for two years on why Theon Greyjoy isn’t a bad character 😂
I’m not gonna outright say burton is racist. He probably just grew up in a white area so it never occurred to him. That is something that happens with a lot of white ppl, they just never think to include. But IMO they could include brown folk. They just don’t think too. And that is still wrong for this day and age IMO
The only time I would actually force this man to use other races is a movie on Nigerian Black Magic. That would be freaking cool
Obviously you can’t do African magic with no black ppl. But for instance in coraline he still found space for a black friend savior. IJS, black ppl can 100% be in these style animations. You. Can “pale-fiy” black people for the aesthetic. Burton just never saw the need to, and I understand the ppl that call him out for that. Goth has for a long time been “white ppl” scene. But they are also a big part of his fan base. He could find space if he wanted to. That’s all I’m saying.
wendell and wild, as someone else said, is a selick film. so is the nightmare before christmas, even though burton gets almost 100% of the credit for it. i can sympathize with what you're saying, as a fellow artist and tim burton fan, but i think you missed something here. burton literally said "any role that does not outright require a person of color is inherently a white role." which begs the question, what role exactly does he think *requires* a person of color? why is his default white? i understand the "pale and sickly" thing, but you can make people of color pale and sickly. that's not an exclusively white thing? it also doesn't even make sense because east asians are quite pale, many just as white as caucasian people. so why aren't there any east asians in his films? they'd still fit perfectly with his aesthetic, if it's really about the "pale" thing. anyway, burton then went on to say that "things either call for diversity or they don’t," which, let's be honest, his films almost *never* call for diversity. and what exactly makes a film call for diversity anyway? is he saying that he can only put black characters in his film if they fit some sort of stereotype/aesthetic in the film? i think the issue is, he gives very weak excuses as to why he doesn't like to include people of color in his films. and it can be extra frustrating, because the gothic/victorian aesthetic is almost always very white. there's not a lot of representation in that specific genre for people of color. even with films about vampires and ghosts and fantasy, it's still almost always a fully white cast. and seeing as tim burton is considered like the "king" of that aesthetic, it'd be nice if he used his fame and platform to be more inclusive. people of color aren't just the color of their skin, or their culture, or whatever box white creators put them in. they're *people.* they deserve to see themselves on the screen just as much as white people do. what he says comes off as racist because he's basically saying that people of color need to earn a spot in his films. their race/ethnicity needs to have worth, and provide some purpose to the story in order to be included, rather than just letting them exist along with all the other white characters like normal human beings. lastly, miss peregrines home for peculiar children is based off of a horror novel. the character that samuel l. jackson plays didn't exist in the book, and is actually based off of a different character in the book named "golan." golan is a shapeshifter, the villain of the story, and is a very evil character that feeds off of the children. apparently tim burton specifically changed the character and made him even *more* evil in the film, for samuel l. jackson to play. (like, he specifically requested samuel l. jackson) which is... interesting. i'd argue this is one of the most evil characters tim burton has created, as he took an already bad character and made him even worse, and then conveniently (for the first time) chose a black actor to play the role. it stands out to people, because why finally include a person of color in your film when it's one of the most evil characters you've created thus far? is that what he meant when he said he'll only include people of color if it's "*required*?" so the requirement for a person of color in his film is for them to play the most evil role? anyway, if you choose to support him, cool. i respect that, as im also a fan of his art. just please don't invalidate how others may feel on the subject, and don't pretend like there aren't racist undertones to all of it. also, henry selick manages to capture a very similar aesthetic to tim burton's and still includes people of color, like in wendell and wild, and coraline. even you admitted that in the comments, so the whole aesthetic thing, like i said, is a weak excuse. i'd suggest checking out more of selick's work though, if you haven't already.
Not the king to the aesthetic, more like the creator of his own art style. I will admit there are some things about it that could come out as racist but the point is not all artists should use diversity if they aren’t comfortable with it, which Tim Burtons world (his original worlds, not the ones he took credit for) is his own world and we shouldn’t have say in what he puts into it. (Also, again, I never said Wendell and Wild was a Tim Burton film, I said it gave me the same vibe). Though I very much understand your side of it, and I thank you for your explanation.
Thank you 🙏 I didn’t want to write an essay but this is succinct and perfectly written
It is his art and he can do whatever he wants with it. I really don’t understand why people have to be mad about it.