Talk:The Magnificent Seven (2016 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

September 25 to October 1, 2016 (25th)

Uh oh...[edit]

I kind of messed up the page a bit. Can somebody help me out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.79.234.193 (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.79.234.193 (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Call for Disambiguation[edit]

Since there was a television series called "The Magnificent Seven" and also a 1960 film, both of which have their own articles in Wikipedia, should this article not be headed by a note stating "For other uses, see "Magnificent Seven (Disambiguation)? What reinforces this plea is that a Google search is headed by this article. Vorbee (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"of color"[edit]

Hidwin has twice changed "actors of color" to "nonwhite actors". The first time had no explanation and was incorrectly noted as a minor edit. The second time gave the explanation "Casting: 'Of color' sounds like a term straight out of the 'separate but equal' 1950s."

Yes, "separate but equal", starting in the late 19th century, is relevant here. That doctrine assumed that white was typical/normal and legally established an "otherness" for the majority of the world's population. The term "nonwhite", as with the earlier term "colored", feeds into this by identifying people by what they are not: they are not white. The term "of color" is a more recent (starting in the 1980s or so) term meant to identify people by characteristics they do have. (I've often thought we should switch from calling people "white" to calling them "people without color" or "bleached".) - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only trait "people of color" (which is just "Colored Person" with the words switched around, by the way) share in common is that their skin pigmentation isn't white. When you're referring to people outside a group, you use non-[group name]. If you're referring to everyone who isn't employed, for example, you'd say unemployed to distinguish them from the people who are employed (okay that example uses "un-" but it basically means the same as "non-").

I like how you state that referring to people by what they are not feeds into "otherness", but then you suggest we switch to calling white people "people without color", which literally identifies them by what they are not. Hidwin (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse having "actors of color". Searching for "of color" in the industry trade papers The Hollywood Reporter and Variety shows this descriptor much, much more prevalent than "nonwhite". It is not just "words switched around"; the goal of the change is to emphasize the person first, which the trade papers appear to do. There is a similar framing with "disabled people" vs. "people with disabilities". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erik's got this. "Colored" suggests that someone was changed from white, which is about "otherness", presenting whiteness as standard and everyone else as different. "Of color" is widely used and accepted. "Colored", originally used for persons of mixed race (where one of the races was European white), later became an offensive term applied exclusively to African Americans.

(I suggest "people without color" as an intentional absurdity. If you dig through my edit history, you'll eventually find where I have cleaned out character descriptions where some characters are described as female/black/Asian/etc. while white male characters are not described as either.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Horner[edit]

The article says that "he died in June 2015, before filming could commence." However, the next paragraph says filming started in May. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say he died before filming was completed. 65.130.200.108 (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should this film be listed as a "Black Film"[edit]

This film is on the list of Black films. Why?

As I recall, there is only one Black actor in this film. There is an Asian character and several Native American actors as well. Why isn't this an Asian or American Indian film instead?

Was the writer, director or producer Black? Seems like inappropriate cultural appropriation otherwise. 100.14.104.228 (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]