http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41080906

We've discussed this before in regards to Scarlett Johanssen in the remake of Ghost in the Shell.

The point here is that the character of Major Daimyo in Hellboy is a Japanese-American. Ed Skrein was unaware of this (so was I, in fact) and pulled out when he came to understand the situation.

Now, in my view, there are two opposing principles at stake. The first is that ethnic minorities should not be denied their fair chance of screen time when depicting ethnic minorities. The second is that a character should not be defined by his/her "race", which most people understand to be a relatively superficial surface characteristic. It's cultural background that has a much more important effect in forming and defining a character.

In that respect, I have no idea if Major Daimyo's key defining characteristic is his Japanese cultural heritage or his "slitty eyes".

That said, the role of actors is to pretend to be people they aren't. Why shouldn't a white man play an oriental man, or a black woman play a white woman?



On balance, my opinion is that the "race" of the actor is not all that relevant to the "race "of the role, and the primary concern must be that everyone of every "race" should have a fair chance of playing any role.

The problem is that it is rarely a "fair chance" when it comes to Hollywood producers. There isn't some cabal of bigwigs twirling their mustaches about whitewashing, it is a systematic, bottom-line kind of thing. You make more money with a white actor than not, they are more recognizable in the US, therefore they are picked.

From what I remember of the comics, other than certain stoicism to his character, I don't think his Japanese heritage was much of an issue.
And while I agree that in general race should not matter for who gets a role, I do think common sense needs to be involved lest we get silly things like black Heimdal.
(Don't get me wrong, I love Idris Elba - he's a fantastic actor who brings the gravitas the role needs. I still think it's silly.)

So a guy decided to give up a job because he was scared of the SJW mob, because he was white?

Hmm, funny. I wonder how people would react if a black actress felt pressured into giving up her job because she was black?

Where was the outrage when white characters were replaced with black actors? Anyone?

curran12 wrote:The problem is that it is rarely a "fair chance" when it comes to Hollywood producers. There isn't some cabal of bigwigs twirling their mustaches about whitewashing, it is a systematic, bottom-line kind of thing. You make more money with a white actor than not, they are more recognizable in the US, therefore they are picked.

It's not even a "systematic, bottom-line kind of thing" its a systematic, bottom-line make believe thing. They were all also very sure that women as the main protagonist just weren't what the audience wanted and then Jennifer Lawrence made a few Hunger Games movies (and now also Wonder Woman). Somehow women can act and be the protagonist. Who would have thought? If I remember correctly comic book movies were apparently not that big of a deal and played out a few years ago and today everybody tries to make one because Marvel's cinematic universe worked out somehow.

You are correct that there often no moustache twirling villain involved but unconscious biases and all kinds of misinformed believes lead to these proclamations of "bottom-line thinking". If data were really what drove these decisions then having decades of random hits or misses would have already shown that a white dude on the cover is not the big money driver. Some white dude may drive ticket sales but that has more to do with that dude being widely know as a star and not much with him being a him or white (or talented).

And I would be really careful about that US focus. There's a reason why all kinds of recent blockbuster also have a few scenes in Asia or China (or why Tibetan characters got whitewashed) and the reason is because China is buying a lot of tickets and due to the same type of "bottom line thinking" they add three minutes in China. Here's a example of how things are changing: Transformers:The Last Knight, I haven't seen it but here are the numbers according to boxofficemojo:

Domestic: $130,168,683 21.6%
Foreign: $473,800,000 78.4%
and China alone: $$228,842,508

Does anybody really think that a few minutes in Asia are what makes people choose that movie over something else?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So a guy decided to give up a job because he was scared of the SJW mob, because he was white?

Hmm, funny. I wonder how people would react if a black actress felt pressured into giving up her job because she was black?

Where was the outrage when white characters were replaced with black actors? Anyone?

It's almost like the underlying issues are completely different...



Although you clearly weren't following the movie news feeds when the casting was announced for the Dark Tower movie.

Bran Dawri wrote:
...lest we get silly things like black Heimdal.
(Don't get me wrong, I love Idris Elba - he's a fantastic actor who brings the gravitas the role needs. I still think it's silly.)

He's an alien being who guards a magical portal. I'm not really seeing a problem with his skin colour, to be honest.


Ultimately, the ethnicity of an actor should only be relevant when that ethnicity is an actual aspect of the story being told. That being said, there is a current push to err on the side of caution simply because white actors have always been over-represented. We'll eventually reach a point where it stops being an issue either way... but there's a ways to go there yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mario wrote:

Does anybody really think that a few minutes in Asia are what makes people choose that movie over something else?

It's not the footage specifically that gets bums on seats, but the fact that it (hopefully) engenders positive thoughts about the movie, because it makes us feel warm and fuzzy when we see something familiar in a movie.

 insaniak wrote:
He's an alien being who guards a magical portal. I'm not really seeing a problem with his skin colour, to be honest.

Especially when the real outrage is that Heimdall has always traditionally been depicted with horns on his helmet that go straight out, horizontally, and Idris Elba's horns go straight up... vertically.








Thanks, liberals! *shakes fist at the sky*

Doesn't the same film have a black actress playing a white character?

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Doesn't the same film have a black actress playing a white character?

Don't be silly, that's not a problem because only whites can be racist!

Hrm.

To be honest, I like the idea that some movies feature scenes shot in locations that have not appeared before. I like new takes on traditional characters that present them in new ways.

Done right, it really adds to a movie. Done wrong, we get characters like this:

http://ironman.wikia.com/wiki/Dr._Wu

I would like it if the politics of casting / location were less of an issue and people were encouraged to make decisions based on what works for the story. This would mean Hollywood would need to reduce the overall budgets for films, because what drives most decisions is the bottom line.

Many of the movies I love the most that are considered mainstream were shot on minimal budgets and not expected to be box office successes. In most cases, they had very diverse casts in genuine, authentic roles people could relate to.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Doesn't the same film have a black actress playing a white character?

A white-as-the-driven-snow fire-headed Irishwoman, IIRC.

But that's fine because... uhh... diversity... or something?

Bran Dawri wrote:
From what I remember of the comics, other than certain stoicism to his character, I don't think his Japanese heritage was much of an issue.

Being vague to avoid spoilers - it depends how much of his personal story we're going to see. Being part-Asian and having an Imperial Japanese super-spy/secret agent/superhero for a grandparent is a big part of his story in the comics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, 8 Superhero Race Changes Which Outraged The Fans

Reeks of 'PR stunt' to me, grump ends

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
A white-as-the-driven-snow fire-headed Irishwoman, IIRC.

But that's fine because... uhh... diversity... or something?

For years minorities were depicted in Hollywood as subhuman caricatures. To pretend that the few small inroads nonwhites have made into fair representation (in an industry that is still overwhelmingly white dominated) is an equal grievance smacks of feigned obtuseness.

Alternately, here is a pictorial explanation.

beast_gts wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
From what I remember of the comics, other than certain stoicism to his character, I don't think his Japanese heritage was much of an issue.

Being vague to avoid spoilers - it depends how much of his personal story we're going to see. Being part-Asian and having an Imperial Japanese super-spy/secret agent/superhero for a grandparent is a big part of his story in the comics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, 8 Superhero Race Changes Which Outraged The Fans

The MJ and Johnny Storm issues were the two that bothered me the most. I was cautious about the Ancient One...but Swinton did a good job with the role. Iron Man 3 felt like a big ball of poo from start to finish, which included a British guy playing an Asian role (although the reason of switching AWAY from the racist role makes me more okay with it). Don't care about the other ones; they didn't bother me, but I also don't give a flip about DBZ.

Wait there's another Hellboy after the Golden Horde movie? Why???

 Frazzled wrote:
Wait there's another Hellboy after the Golden Horde movie? Why???

Of course not this whole thing is a sham to try and dissuade us from excellent Hellboy movies.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Don't care about the other ones; they didn't bother me, but I also don't give a flip about DBZ.

The thing about that one in particular is that Son Goku's family is from ANOTHER PLANET...not Asia. So.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41080906

That said, the role of actors is to pretend to be people they aren't. Why shouldn't a white man play an oriental man, or a black woman play a white woman?

On balance, my opinion is that the "race" of the actor is not all that relevant to the "race "of the role, and the primary concern must be that everyone of every "race" should have a fair chance of playing any role.

No. A character in a play, movie, novel, story, whatever, is constructed of certain characteristics and traits, which can be very important to both the character and the story. Ethnicity can be a key physical characteristic to the character and the story. Acting isn't just a straight up meritocracy, simply being a good or great actor doesn't mean that you're a good fit for a given role.

Look at GoT, it's taken some heat for having all of the primary characters played by white actors. Some of that is due to casting preference but some of it is also a cascading effect due to the demands of the story. GoT, is a reflection of somebody's vision of what GRRM's novels would look like, it's not necessarily exactly what GRRM envisioned when he wrote them but the show has to conform to an internally consistent visual representation of the novels. Take the Lannisters for example: Jaime and Cersei are brother and sister, which doesn't require a certain ethnicity but it does require that the actors look like they could be siblings. You could cast Denzel Washington as Tywin Lannister and Idris Elba as Jaime and Halle Berry as Cersei and that would be fine but you couldn't cast Lucy Liu as Cersei and have Jaime played by Idris Elba because then the audience would never believe that the two characters are siblings with the same parents regardless of the quality of the acting. Likewise, the character of Tyrion Lannister could be played by an actor of any ethnicity as long as that actor's physical characteristics made it plausible for him to be a sibling to Jaime and Cersei and that he was a little person. You couldn't have an actor who is 6 feet tall play Tyrion Lannister because being a little person is an integral part of that character and the story the show is trying to tell wouldn't work if that key physical characteristic wasn't present.

You can't cast shows/movies/plays in a vacuum. Casting has to be done in a way that doesn't interfere with the story being told because the whole point of a show/movie/play is to tell a specific story to the audience and anything that detracts from the audience's ability to understand the story you're trying to tell is bad.

All I can argue in reply is that Shakespeare's plays are still after 400 years regarded as one of the pinnacles of world literature, yet, all of his women characters were played by men and no-one thought anything of it.

If it was good enough for Shakespeare, Queen Elizabeth and the population of London, why is it wrong for the modern Marvel Superhero fanboi that a fictional alien god be played by someone with a dark skin tone?

It generally...isn't?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So a guy decided to give up a job because he was scared of the SJW mob, because he was white?

Hmm, funny. I wonder how people would react if a black actress felt pressured into giving up her job because she was black?

Where was the outrage when white characters were replaced with black actors? Anyone?

.... oh wait. You are serious????



and


I need a breathe.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All I can argue in reply is that Shakespeare's plays are still after 400 years regarded as one of the pinnacles of world literature, yet, all of his women characters were played by men and no-one thought anything of it.

If it was good enough for Shakespeare, Queen Elizabeth and the population of London, why is it wrong for the modern Marvel Superhero fanboi that a fictional alien god be played by someone with a dark skin tone?

Nobody has argued that having men play woman characters in Shakespearean plays in Elizabethean England was bad.

Two points to note regarding male actors playing female roles in Shakespeare's time:

1. It was socially acceptable for women to be actors at that time so there were no female actors in the acting troupes, they were all male so casting women wasn't an option.
2. The men playing those characters wore costumes that made them look like women to make it easier for the audience to accept that the character being portrayed was a woman.

Idris Elba's portrayal of Heimdal isn't any different from having Gerard Butler and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau portray Egyptian gods. Conventional wisdom would have you believe that the people in the culture that created the pantheon of gods in their religion would have envisioned those deities to physically resemble the people worshiping them but that doesn't mean that you can't have actors of different ethnicities of the people who created the mythological beings portray them in a given director's/studio's version of story about them. They're both made up stories about made up beings, the only drawback would be if there was a negative impact to the internal consistency of the story itself that was objectively noticeable.

It helps that the Asgardians are no longer really considered "gods" but rather just extraterrestrials with godlike abilities.

Which kind of renders the whole "black dude played a Norse god!" argument pointless.

 Kanluwen wrote:
It helps that the Asgardians are no longer really considered "gods" but rather just extraterrestrials with godlike abilities.

Which kind of renders the whole "black dude played a Norse god!" argument pointless.

And yet they influenced Earth and Norse Mythology. How many black guys are there in Norse Mythology?

 trexmeyer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It helps that the Asgardians are no longer really considered "gods" but rather just extraterrestrials with godlike abilities.

Which kind of renders the whole "black dude played a Norse god!" argument pointless.

And yet they influenced Earth and Norse Mythology. How many black guys are there in Norse Mythology?

What exactly is your point?
A vocal number of Christians think that Jesus is a white guy, despite being born in the Middle East.

History and myth rarely align perfectly.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It helps that the Asgardians are no longer really considered "gods" but rather just extraterrestrials with godlike abilities.

Which kind of renders the whole "black dude played a Norse god!" argument pointless.

And yet they influenced Earth and Norse Mythology. How many black guys are there in Norse Mythology?

What exactly is your point?
A vocal number of Christians think that Jesus is a white guy, despite being born in the Middle East.

History and myth rarely align perfectly.

What are you even trying to say here?

 trexmeyer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It helps that the Asgardians are no longer really considered "gods" but rather just extraterrestrials with godlike abilities.

Which kind of renders the whole "black dude played a Norse god!" argument pointless.

And yet they influenced Earth and Norse Mythology. How many black guys are there in Norse Mythology?

What exactly is your point?
A vocal number of Christians think that Jesus is a white guy, despite being born in the Middle East.

History and myth rarely align perfectly.

What are you even trying to say here?

You know precisely what is being said.

I pointed out that the Asgardians are no longer "gods" in the sense that they used to be for the Marvel universe. They're extraterrestrials with godlike abilities certainly, with cosmic powers yadda yadda yadda...

You fired back with your commentary about how because of there being no black guys in the Norse mythology, it means Heimdall has to be white.

I replied with a snarky remark about how there are a vocal number of Christians who believe that Jesus was a white man(i.e. looks like your everyday Joe Schmoe from Nebraska or Kentucky or wherever in the US/England/Canada/Europe at large) despite being born in the Middle East.

I thought the point would be self-evident given that my closing statement is that "history and myth rarely align perfectly", but I guess I need to explain it further:

The caretakers of mythology are not generally those who are the caretakers of history. The reason why we have people who think Jesus was a white man is because the artistic depictions of him were done to match the artists, not the subject material.

So even if Heimdall had stepped through the Rainbow Bridge one day looking like Idris Elba, there is no guarantee that beyond living memory anyone would have known him to be black.

 Kanluwen wrote:
It helps that the Asgardians are no longer really considered "gods" but rather just extraterrestrials with godlike abilities.

Which kind of renders the whole "black dude played a Norse god!" argument pointless.

The argument against Elba being Heimdal was always pointless. It's not meant to be a historically accurate depiction of what the ancient Norse people believed Heimdal looked like. It's a movie loosely based on a comic book that was loosely based on Norse mythology. The only objection to Elba wasn't historical accuracy but that it wasn't true to the depiction of Heimdal in the comics.

Having Samuel L Jackson be Nick Fury was a bigger deal because it required the character's backstory to be retconned because you couldn't have a black Nick Fury leading a unit of US commandos in WWII. I personally didn't mind because I think Jackson does a good job in the movies but that is an instance where changing the ethnicity of a character had greater ramifications than just appearance.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Having Samuel L Jackson be Nick Fury was a bigger deal because it required the character's backstory to be retconned because you couldn't have a black Nick Fury leading a unit of US commandos in WWII. I personally didn't mind because I think Jackson does a good job in the movies but that is an instance where changing the ethnicity of a character had greater ramifications than just appearance.

It wasn't much of a retcon, given that Fury had already been depicted as black (and bearing a rather strong resemblance to Samuel L Jackson) in some comics prior to the first of the Avengers-verse movies.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Having Samuel L Jackson be Nick Fury was a bigger deal because it required the character's backstory to be retconned because you couldn't have a black Nick Fury leading a unit of US commandos in WWII. I personally didn't mind because I think Jackson does a good job in the movies but that is an instance where changing the ethnicity of a character had greater ramifications than just appearance.

Well, a retcon to Nick Fury also might have been necessary because Nick Fury's original backstory would have required a 95 year old actor.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Idris Elba's portrayal of Heimdal isn't any different from having Gerard Butler and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau portray Egyptian gods.

To be honest, I thought that was silly, too. On top of the silliness of that entire movie.

And while I still think black movie Heimdall is silly, it hasn't stopped me from seeing, and enjoying it, and Elba, in that role. I just don't think movies are important enough to get worked up about to the degree that some people are. I don't watch them for the social commentary or to be engaged on a deeper level. I just wanna have a good time with some popcorn and a beer or two.
But you people keep on rationalizing why having a black guy playing a Norse God is perfectly logical. Me, I'm a simple guy. I think a Norse God, even a third-generation derivative, should look the part.

So props to Ed Skrein bowing out in this instance (apparently the Japanese part is a big part of the character after all - I don't remember him that well), but the argument goes both ways.

In more important matters: Is Hellboy himself going to be played by Ron Perlman again?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All I can argue in reply is that Shakespeare's plays are still after 400 years regarded as one of the pinnacles of world literature, yet, all of his women characters were played by men and no-one thought anything of it.

If it was good enough for Shakespeare, Queen Elizabeth and the population of London, why is it wrong for the modern Marvel Superhero fanboi that a fictional alien god be played by someone with a dark skin tone?

Nobody has argued that having men play woman characters in Shakespearean plays in Elizabethean England was bad.

Two points to note regarding male actors playing female roles in Shakespeare's time:

1. It was socially acceptable for women to be actors at that time so there were no female actors in the acting troupes, they were all male so casting women wasn't an option.
...

Yes, this is the core point. Is it socially unacceptable in the present day for a woman to play a man, or a black guy to play a character that some people think should have white skin, and if so, why?

Socially unacceptable? No. Mighty silly? Absolutely.

For some reason, I like the word silly.

Bran Dawri wrote:

But you people keep on rationalizing why having a black guy playing a Norse God is perfectly logical.

Ok... Again, he's not a Norse God. He's one of a race of beings who the Norse saw as gods. And given recent developments in the comics, may or may not even be the same guy the Norse were familiar with, and may just be the current bearer of the name.

Bran Dawri wrote:
In more important matters: Is Hellboy himself going to be played by Ron Perlman again?

No:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2274648/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Having Samuel L Jackson be Nick Fury was a bigger deal because it required the character's backstory to be retconned because you couldn't have a black Nick Fury leading a unit of US commandos in WWII. I personally didn't mind because I think Jackson does a good job in the movies but that is an instance where changing the ethnicity of a character had greater ramifications than just appearance.

Well, a retcon to Nick Fury also might have been necessary because Nick Fury's original backstory would have required a 95 year old actor.

Not really, as he's taking anti-ageing drugs. (David Hasselhoff played Nick Fury in the 1998 movie)

 Kanluwen wrote:
Which kind of renders the whole "black dude played a Norse god!" argument pointless.

To be fair, I think it's more Marvel kicking themselves over that casting, 'cause they've 'wasted' Idris Elbar on a relatively minor role. Could'a used him for something way better.

It's not as though they can't get Idris back in another role.
Look at what they did with Ryan Reynolds.

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Having Samuel L Jackson be Nick Fury was a bigger deal because it required the character's backstory to be retconned because you couldn't have a black Nick Fury leading a unit of US commandos in WWII. I personally didn't mind because I think Jackson does a good job in the movies but that is an instance where changing the ethnicity of a character had greater ramifications than just appearance.

Well, a retcon to Nick Fury also might have been necessary because Nick Fury's original backstory would have required a 95 year old actor.

No it wouldn't have because Nick Fury's character in the MCI was taking the Infinity Formula to prevent his body from aging.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Fury


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All I can argue in reply is that Shakespeare's plays are still after 400 years regarded as one of the pinnacles of world literature, yet, all of his women characters were played by men and no-one thought anything of it.

If it was good enough for Shakespeare, Queen Elizabeth and the population of London, why is it wrong for the modern Marvel Superhero fanboi that a fictional alien god be played by someone with a dark skin tone?

Nobody has argued that having men play woman characters in Shakespearean plays in Elizabethean England was bad.

Two points to note regarding male actors playing female roles in Shakespeare's time:

1. It was socially acceptable for women to be actors at that time so there were no female actors in the acting troupes, they were all male so casting women wasn't an option.
...

Yes, this is the core point. Is it socially unacceptable in the present day for a woman to play a man, or a black guy to play a character that some people think should have white skin, and if so, why?

I think there's no evidence that it is socially unacceptable. There's certainly no evidence that the casting of Elba and Jackson hurt the success of the MCU movies since they've been wildly popular and successful. If the movie remains internally consistent then casting isn't going to have a negative impact as long as the actors perform well (which has nothing to do with their physical characteristics). You'd still have some complaints about not being true to the source material in some instances but that is more of a product of fans being fanatics not society being racist.

Marvel star slates 'racist' Hollywood over name change

[spoiler]
Chloe Bennet, who stars in TV series Marvel's Agents of SHIELD, has said she had to change her name from Chloe Wang in order to make it in Hollywood.
The actress praised Ed Skrein for recently pulling out of Hellboy.
His casting had been criticised for "whitewashing" the original character, who is of Asian heritage.
She told an Instagram follower who queried her name change: "Hollywood is racist and wouldn't cast me with a last name that made them uncomfortable."
"Changing my last name doesn't change the fact that my BLOOD is half Chinese, that I lived in China, speak Mandarin or that I was culturally raised both American and Chinese... It means I had to pay my rent."
She added: "I'm doing everything I can, with the platform I have, to make sure no one has to change their name again, just so they can get work."

Chloe, who plays a secret agent, has previously explained how her name change led to a more successful career almost immediately.
"Oh, the first audition I went on after I changed my name, I got booked," she told The Daily Beast last year. "So that's a pretty clear little snippet of how Hollywood works."
The actress has since created RUN (Represent Us Now) a group which campaigns for Asian American and Pacific Islander communities to be better represented in Hollywood.
She praised Skrein's decision earlier this week, saying: "DAMN, that's a man. Thank you @edskrein for standing up against Hollywood's continuous insensitivity and flippant behaviour towards the Asian American community.

"There is no way this decision came lightly on your part, so thank you for your bravery and genuinely impactful step forward. I hope this inspires other actors/film makers to do the same.

 Skinnereal wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
In more important matters: Is Hellboy himself going to be played by Ron Perlman again?

No:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2274648/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast

Lame.

beast_gts wrote:
Marvel star slates 'racist' Hollywood over name change

[spoiler]
Chloe Bennet, who stars in TV series Marvel's Agents of SHIELD, has said she had to change her name from Chloe Wang in order to make it in Hollywood.
The actress praised Ed Skrein for recently pulling out of Hellboy.
His casting had been criticised for "whitewashing" the original character, who is of Asian heritage.
She told an Instagram follower who queried her name change: "Hollywood is racist and wouldn't cast me with a last name that made them uncomfortable."
"Changing my last name doesn't change the fact that my BLOOD is half Chinese, that I lived in China, speak Mandarin or that I was culturally raised both American and Chinese... It means I had to pay my rent."
She added: "I'm doing everything I can, with the platform I have, to make sure no one has to change their name again, just so they can get work."

Chloe, who plays a secret agent, has previously explained how her name change led to a more successful career almost immediately.
"Oh, the first audition I went on after I changed my name, I got booked," she told The Daily Beast last year. "So that's a pretty clear little snippet of how Hollywood works."
The actress has since created RUN (Represent Us Now) a group which campaigns for Asian American and Pacific Islander communities to be better represented in Hollywood.
She praised Skrein's decision earlier this week, saying: "DAMN, that's a man. Thank you @edskrein for standing up against Hollywood's continuous insensitivity and flippant behaviour towards the Asian American community.

"There is no way this decision came lightly on your part, so thank you for your bravery and genuinely impactful step forward. I hope this inspires other actors/film makers to do the same.

whilst part of this is racist I suspect more than 50% of it a childish sniggering factor over a name more suited to a certain part of entertainment industry, which again isnt really fair or right but understable to a degree

 Skinnereal wrote:
It's not as though they can't get Idris back in another role.
Look at what they did with Ryan Reynolds.

Huh?

Green Lantern was DC.
Deadpool is FOX.

Neither of them are the MCU.

Sam Jackson as Nick Fury in the MCU is because in the 'alternate universe' version of the Avengers - The Ultimates - the creators specifically made Nick Fury look like Sam Jackson - on purpose!

The MCU Avengers take a lot from The Ultimates, so when the chance came to actually have Sam Jackson play the role, they took it!

Marvel then found a way to have a Nick Fury (Jr.?) look kinda like Sam Jackson too...

And since Marvel's books are stuck in an odd place - having basically started in the 60's and yet maybe 'only' 10 or 15 years worth of comic book history as taken place (maybe?), it doesn't make sense for too many characters to have a backstory that stretches all the way back to WWII, or Vietnam, etc.

Nick Fury had the "Infinity Formula" and Steve Rogers had a prolonged Ice Bath, but other than that...

Bottom line - I don't think Sam Jackson as Nick Fury was a big deal. At all!

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
Marvel star slates 'racist' Hollywood over name change

[spoiler]
Chloe Bennet, who stars in TV series Marvel's Agents of SHIELD, has said she had to change her name from Chloe Wang in order to make it in Hollywood.
The actress praised Ed Skrein for recently pulling out of Hellboy.
His casting had been criticised for "whitewashing" the original character, who is of Asian heritage.
She told an Instagram follower who queried her name change: "Hollywood is racist and wouldn't cast me with a last name that made them uncomfortable."
"Changing my last name doesn't change the fact that my BLOOD is half Chinese, that I lived in China, speak Mandarin or that I was culturally raised both American and Chinese... It means I had to pay my rent."
She added: "I'm doing everything I can, with the platform I have, to make sure no one has to change their name again, just so they can get work."

Chloe, who plays a secret agent, has previously explained how her name change led to a more successful career almost immediately.
"Oh, the first audition I went on after I changed my name, I got booked," she told The Daily Beast last year. "So that's a pretty clear little snippet of how Hollywood works."
The actress has since created RUN (Represent Us Now) a group which campaigns for Asian American and Pacific Islander communities to be better represented in Hollywood.
She praised Skrein's decision earlier this week, saying: "DAMN, that's a man. Thank you @edskrein for standing up against Hollywood's continuous insensitivity and flippant behaviour towards the Asian American community.

"There is no way this decision came lightly on your part, so thank you for your bravery and genuinely impactful step forward. I hope this inspires other actors/film makers to do the same.

whilst part of this is racist I suspect more than 50% of it a childish sniggering factor over a name more suited to a certain part of entertainment industry, which again isnt really fair or right but understable to a degree

Yeah, to me that looks less like racism and more like them not wanting a name that's basically slang for penis.
Stupid, but not racist as that implies an ongoing discrimination against asian actors and actresses.
Hollywood had no problem with Jacky Chan or Jet Li, after all. If Hollywood had a thing against chinese names, they would have pushed to have those names changed as well.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
It's not as though they can't get Idris back in another role.
Look at what they did with Ryan Reynolds.

Huh?

Green Lantern was DC. Deadpool is FOX.
Neither of them are the MCU.

OK. He's probably a bad example.
By 'they', I meant Hollywood. Hasn't there been anyone who played different characters in the same series? It happens a lot on TV.

 Skinnereal wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
It's not as though they can't get Idris back in another role.
Look at what they did with Ryan Reynolds.

Huh?

Green Lantern was DC. Deadpool is FOX.
Neither of them are the MCU.

OK. He's probably a bad example.
By 'they', I meant Hollywood. Hasn't there been anyone who played different characters in the same series? It happens a lot on TV.

Does it now, at least for a major production? I only remember actors being recycled in small productions, such as Nero Wolfe and Black Adder.
In larger productions, such as HBO series, I don't remember actors being reused for different characters.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
It's not as though they can't get Idris back in another role.
Look at what they did with Ryan Reynolds.

Huh?

Green Lantern was DC. Deadpool is FOX.
Neither of them are the MCU.

OK. He's probably a bad example.
By 'they', I meant Hollywood. Hasn't there been anyone who played different characters in the same series? It happens a lot on TV.

Does it now, at least for a major production? I only remember actors being recycled in small productions, such as Nero Wolfe and Black Adder.
In larger productions, such as HBO series, I don't remember actors being reused for different characters.

Doctor Who (I know, BBC and all that) get a lot of their cast from previous episodes. Both Capaldi as the Doctor and Amy Pond were in the Pompeii episode as different characters. Bernard Cribbins was a few people, over the decades.
Maybe it's not as much a thing outside the UK.

 AduroT wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
In more important matters: Is Hellboy himself going to be played by Ron Perlman again?

No:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2274648/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast

Lame.

He's 67 years old. He'd be in his 70s for any sequel. I'm okay with them moving to a younger actor. And I'm excited that this project sounds like it'll be a little closer to the comics. Note that Del Toro's adaptation was a bad one, mind you.

"That said, the role of actors is to pretend to be people they aren't. Why shouldn't a white man play an oriental man, or a black woman play a white woman?"

I disagree - the role of actors is to pretend they are the people depicted in the story/screen play/whatever you want to call it. You should try your best to cast actors that look like the characters in the story. This is honestly one of the only situations where race actually matters about anything to me. I couldn't care less what race the person sitting next to me on the bus is. However, the Asian robot super cop in ghost in the shell being played by a white woman really irritates me. Totally breaks immersion and immersion is the reason we watch films in the first place. Just cast people properly based on how they look first- people that don't look the part should not be considered for the roll - period.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, to me that looks less like racism and more like them not wanting a name that's basically slang for penis.
Stupid, but not racist as that implies an ongoing discrimination against asian actors and actresses.
Hollywood had no problem with Jacky Chan or Jet Li, after all. If Hollywood had a thing against chinese names, they would have pushed to have those names changed as well.

That sounds a bit too glib to be convincing--having a name that might make a twelve-year-old go "hur hur" hasn't held back Dwayne Johnson. And the Asian actors you named (indeed, most of the big Asian actors I can think of) made it big in China or Hong Kong and were then belatedly "discovered" by Hollywood.

On a tangent, I'd be interested to know how this works for non-white-majority countries with big domestic film & TV industries, like India, China or Japan. Do minority actors there have the same problems? Is it seen as something that needs redressing?

That sounds a bit too glib to be convincing--having a name that might make a twelve-year-old go "hur hur" hasn't held back Dwayne Johnson.

However that's not a good example for several reasons

1: Johnson is a far more obscure nickname for that bodily part then Wang

2: He was a Pro Athlete who eventually went into the World Wrestling Federation. He made it big before moving onto movies, as your examples of "Made it big in China".

 Elemental wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, to me that looks less like racism and more like them not wanting a name that's basically slang for penis.
Stupid, but not racist as that implies an ongoing discrimination against asian actors and actresses.
Hollywood had no problem with Jacky Chan or Jet Li, after all. If Hollywood had a thing against chinese names, they would have pushed to have those names changed as well.

That sounds a bit too glib to be convincing--having a name that might make a twelve-year-old go "hur hur" hasn't held back Dwayne Johnson. And the Asian actors you named (indeed, most of the big Asian actors I can think of) made it big in China or Hong Kong and were then belatedly "discovered" by Hollywood.

On a tangent, I'd be interested to know how this works for non-white-majority countries with big domestic film & TV industries, like India, China or Japan. Do minority actors there have the same problems? Is it seen as something that needs redressing?

Wang is a more well known slang term for penis than Johnson though, especially for young ones. You find more jokes about wangs than Johnson, Shadow Warrior being an example ("Who wants some Wang?" - Said by the main character, Lo Wang, who's name is also a double entendre)

Noriyuki Morita's (Mr Miyagi from Karate Kid) film career started in the states. He was Japanese, though born in US. So that's an actor who didn't make it big in Japan before getting discovered by Hollywood.
Furthermore the fact Chan and Li had existing careers is irrevalent; had Hollywood been truly racist they either would not have bothered or stressed in their contract that they must go under a different name if they are to work in the states.

Amazingly enough, Japan is positively seething with Japanese actors who have managed to make it big in Japanese cinema and TV without the benefit of having been discovered by Hollywood.

I...never said there wasn't? I know Japan has a fairly large film industry, en par with Hollywood's. There's Akira Kurosawa, the Toho films, Tokyo Story, etc. And that's to name a few. Not sure what your point is.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
had Hollywood been truly racist they either would not have bothered or stressed in their contract that they must go under a different name if they are to work in the states.

Actually, no. Chloe changed her name on her own. It's just that before she did so, she wasn't getting any acting jobs. She thinks it's due to her last name, because it was Chinese. You say it's because it was a double entendre in English. I'm not a Hollywood casting agent, so I can't vouch for the veracity of that either way. Just pointing out that both of those statements are opinion.
I'm leaning towards her side, because I don't think a funny name would be all that much of a problem in Tinseltown, and she could also have gone with retaining her real name but going for a nom-de-plume onscreen. Only the auditions and contracts would have needed her real name on it. But again, I'm no casting agent, so that, too, is only an opinion.

Bran Dawri wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
had Hollywood been truly racist they either would not have bothered or stressed in their contract that they must go under a different name if they are to work in the states.

Actually, no. Chloe changed her name on her own. It's just that before she did so, she wasn't getting any acting jobs. She thinks it's due to her last name, because it was Chinese. You say it's because it was a double entendre in English. I'm not a Hollywood casting agent, so I can't vouch for the veracity of that either way. Just pointing out that both of those statements are opinion.
I'm leaning towards her side, because I don't think a funny name would be all that much of a problem in Tinseltown, and she could also have gone with retaining her real name but going for a nom-de-plume onscreen. Only the auditions and contracts would have needed her real name on it. But again, I'm no casting agent, so that, too, is only an opinion.

Fair enough. I do think her claim that hollywood, as a collective entity, wouldn't accept her audition because of her name is unfounded as you do have actors in hollywood with asian names, but it is entirely possible that she had a casting agent that rejected her because of her name. Whether its due to a race thing or because the agent couldn't help snickering whenever he read wang is unknown.
Its still unfortunate, either way. Going by a pseudonym would have been an acceptable solution. Not sure why she didn't do that, but there was probably a good reason.

Kilkrazy wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41080906

We've discussed this before in regards to Scarlett Johanssen in the remake of Ghost in the Shell.

The point here is that the character of Major Daimyo in Hellboy is a Japanese-American. Ed Skrein was unaware of this (so was I, in fact) and pulled out when he came to understand the situation.

Now, in my view, there are two opposing principles at stake. The first is that ethnic minorities should not be denied their fair chance of screen time when depicting ethnic minorities. The second is that a character should not be defined by his/her "race", which most people understand to be a relatively superficial surface characteristic. It's cultural background that has a much more important effect in forming and defining a character.

In that respect, I have no idea if Major Daimyo's key defining characteristic is his Japanese cultural heritage or his "slitty eyes".

That said, the role of actors is to pretend to be people they aren't. Why shouldn't a white man play an oriental man, or a black woman play a white woman?



On balance, my opinion is that the "race" of the actor is not all that relevant to the "race "of the role, and the primary concern must be that everyone of every "race" should have a fair chance of playing any role.

Personally, I think the whole "debate" about Hollyweird "whitewashing" is a load of crap to generate controversy in the interests of marketing and PR. But in the end, it makes the ones crying about it look stupid as all hell.

Case in point: Star Trek: Into Darkness. Cumberbatch as Khan. Garrett Wang (of Voyager fame) and George Takei started talking out their asses about choosing a white, British actor to portray Khan being "whitewashing". What those two has-beens didn't stop to think about is that 1. Khan's nationality, race, and ethnicity was never explicitly specified in Trek canon or in the Original Series. (other than the fact he wears a turban in a "historical" picture and has an Indian sounding name). 2. The whole "Sikh" BS was something cooked up by fans (based on an unused line in the Space Seed script's final draft) that became soft canon at some point. And 3. (This is the key point) Ricardo Montalban was a white Spanish-born Mexican national portraying somebody (allegedly) from the Indian subcontinent. In other words, the character was "whitewashed" from the get-go.


Nobody makes an issue out of "blackfacing" of iconic characters (i.e. Nick Fury). So-called "whitewashing" shouldn't be an issue either, As long as the actor can do a good job, I don't give a damn. (Cumberbatch did a good job as Khan, and Samuel L. Jackson makes a great Nick Fury).

Kanluwen wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It helps that the Asgardians are no longer really considered "gods" but rather just extraterrestrials with godlike abilities.

Which kind of renders the whole "black dude played a Norse god!" argument pointless.

And yet they influenced Earth and Norse Mythology. How many black guys are there in Norse Mythology?

What exactly is your point?
A vocal number of Christians think that Jesus is a white guy, despite being born in the Middle East.

History and myth rarely align perfectly.

Technically, most so-called modern "Arabs" are white. So are most of the original Semitic and non-semitic peoples of the region stretching from Asia Minor to parts of North Africa.


Anything not originating in Europe doesn't automatically equate to non-white.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So a guy decided to give up a job because he was scared of the SJW mob, because he was white?

Hmm, funny. I wonder how people would react if a black actress felt pressured into giving up her job because she was black?

Where was the outrage when white characters were replaced with black actors? Anyone?

Non-existent, because for every 1 role for a PoC there's 8 million roles for a white guy.

If Ed Screin gave up this role there are two hundred more on a list waiting for him to step into.

Yeah, remember when Morgan Freeman was blacklisted (pun not intended) from Holywood because he was black?

Oh...

 curran12 wrote:
The problem is that it is rarely a "fair chance" when it comes to Hollywood producers. There isn't some cabal of bigwigs twirling their mustaches about whitewashing, it is a systematic, bottom-line kind of thing. You make more money with a white actor than not, they are more recognizable in the US, therefore they are picked.

I think the real issue has been that the further back in time you go, the fewer non-insulting non-white characters there are. So when one of those characters had a chance to make a big screen debute and they ended up being played by a white guy it ruffled feathers. A good example is the rather limited staple of interesting non-stereotypical asian characters in Western culture and the massive reaction to the perfect storm that was the casting of M. Night's horrible Avatar adaptation. Of course even with an Asian actor playing Aang that film still would have been terrible. Seriously who sat down in the meeting and decided M. Night should be anywhere near that project? In the end I didn't care so much that Scar Jo wasn't asian as much as I thought she was a bad fit for the Major. She's a small thin woman, and the Major has generally been depicted as an amazon-like person outside of the Arise OVA series which was okay but not as good as the original film or SAC. Even then though I was more turned off the movie by the obviousness of how bad it was going to be. Even from the trailers I could tell that the people making it weren't actually making a Ghost in the Shell adaptation. They were making a generic action movie in its guise ripping set scene from the anime and original film.

I think that's becoming less of an issue going forward though because the diversity of popular culture has been on the rise for most of my life and it's already spreading to film. There's no denying though that people can be really stupid about this issue. A few years ago a woman named Janet Varney posted pictures of herself dressed as Avatar Korra (take a look at the info box on the right if you would, towards the bottom of it specifically), and she was absolutely baked on social media by idiots calling her racist for dressing as a non-white character. I remember when people were talking about wanting a Spider-Man film featuring Miles Morales and there were people coming out the wood work screaming "Spider-Man can't be black." My personal favorite was Hunger Games when a whole bunch of racist bile was thrown Amandla Stenberg way because apparently a whole bunch of people read the book and never realized Rue was described as "dark skinned" and it was just so insulting that a girl with brown skin depicted her in film.

I wouldn't call this a turning point really. I think Ed Skrein should do what he thinks is right and if this is it more power to him, but I wouldn't consider it fair to hold it against him had he stayed either. This enters the realm where pop culture has gotten really goofy with how it handles sensitive topics.

 LordofHats wrote:


I think the real issue has been that the further back in time you go, the fewer non-insulting non-white characters there are.

I wouldn't call this a turning point really. I think Ed Skrein should do what he thinks is right and if this is it more power to him, but I wouldn't consider it fair to hold it against him had he stayed either. This enters the realm where pop culture has gotten really goofy with how it handles sensitive topics.

This. On a tangential side-note: How many people think Blazing Saddles could get made today without an sh*tstorm of controversy? May be more suited to a topic of its own.

I'm still bitter that they didn't cast a green kid for the Neverending Story...

 insaniak wrote:
I'm still bitter that they didn't cast a green kid for the Neverending Story...

And that time they made Drax gray and red? How dare they race change the most important green character in comics hardly anyone had heard of

Bran Dawri wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:


I think the real issue has been that the further back in time you go, the fewer non-insulting non-white characters there are.

I wouldn't call this a turning point really. I think Ed Skrein should do what he thinks is right and if this is it more power to him, but I wouldn't consider it fair to hold it against him had he stayed either. This enters the realm where pop culture has gotten really goofy with how it handles sensitive topics.

This. On a tangential side-note: How many people think Blazing Saddles could get made today without an sh*tstorm of controversy? May be more suited to a topic of its own.

Actors have changed their names for lots of reasons throughout history, not just because of racism. Sometimes it's to make their name more recognizable, to make it different from an existing actor, or just to make it easier for people to spell/pronounce (a more common problem in older days). I do have a hard time believing names are commonly changed today for racism reasons*, just due to the medium being so visual now (trailers and ads everywhere online, etc.), that anyone will quickly see what the actor looks like, anyway. But years ago, names had more power, because it might be all you knew about the movie until you walked into the theatre and saw the posters. Running with the Blazing Saddles example, who would go see a movie they heard advertised on the radio as being directed by Melvin Kaminsky and starring Jerome Silberman?


*note I said "commonly". I have no doubt it does happen, just not as often as some people might claim. I do believe that a lot of name changes were because Hollywood believed the American public is too stupid to be able to recognize or spell a name that has more than five syllables or one Z in it. Yes, I am that cynical.

 Skinnereal wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
It's not as though they can't get Idris back in another role.
Look at what they did with Ryan Reynolds.

Huh?

Green Lantern was DC. Deadpool is FOX.
Neither of them are the MCU.

OK. He's probably a bad example.
By 'they', I meant Hollywood. Hasn't there been anyone who played different characters in the same series? It happens a lot on TV.

IIRC the only time, outside of voice acting (and I'm just assuming that, I don't care enough to check) that one actor has played two roles in the MCU is Alfre Woodard, who played Black Mariah in Luke Cage and also Miriam Sharpe in Civil War (she's the one that corners Tony about her dead son in Sokovia).

John Wayne changed his name to help his career and it wasn't about racism when he did it. Names are important for acting careers that's why "stage names" have always been a thing.

Show business is a very bottom line oriented business. Studios want to make money on the movies they make and casting and green lighting projects has more to do with creating products they think will make money more so than conspiring to oppress minority actors for the sake of venal racism.

Prestor Jon wrote:
John Wayne changed his name to help his career and it wasn't about racism when he did it. Names are important for acting careers that's why "stage names" have always been a thing.

Show business is a very bottom line oriented business. Studios want to make money on the movies they make and casting and green lighting projects has more to do with creating products they think will make money more so than conspiring to oppress minority actors for the sake of venal racism.

In John Wayne's case, I think it was more about sexism than racism really. "Marion Morrison" probably didn't sound masculine enough for the image Wayne wanted to cultivate.

Prestor Jon wrote:
John Wayne changed his name to help his career and it wasn't about racism when he did it.

Speaking of John Wayne, how about that time he played Genghis Khan?




If you haven't seen it, I very strongly recommend you don't rush out to do so now.

It's regarded as one of the early classics of whitewashing. It was done because they were trying to make a big bang film and John Name was a bankable star.

Legend of the Five Rings (L5R) is a Northeast Asian-themed fantasy setting. The IP was recently purchased by FFG. This past GenCon, FFG launched the new L5R LCG. As part of the spectacle, FFG hired people to portray samurai. All of these people appeared to be East Asian. Struck me as awkward, but in an inevitable way. Like, if these actors hadn't been East Asian, would there be some outcry about whitewashing? Then again, it's so weird to see a big crowd of white people gawking at a handful of Asians in cosplay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
Speaking of John Wayne, how about that time he played Genghis Khan?

He paid a steep price for that role.

 Skinnereal wrote:
By 'they', I meant Hollywood. Hasn't there been anyone who played different characters in the same series? It happens a lot on TV.

Star Trek is hilarious for this. The Klingons and Vulcans are played by a handful of actors, just with slightly different make up. So when they developed Quark and Rom in to major characters, then watching old episodes you notice those two guys appearing all the time as other Ferengi.

However, the thing with Marvel is they've stated they won't cast an actor in two different roles. Its one of the commitments they have to making a whole universe of films that is consistent from film to film. So now that Elba has been cast in a minor role, they can't cast him as anything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, to me that looks less like racism and more like them not wanting a name that's basically slang for penis.

There is absolutely no way that a casting agent in the 21st century thinks Wang is so hilarious that it would stop that person getting cast. Most productions are still run and cast out of LA, Chinese immigration in to California is huge, there are a lot of people there called Wang. It's not a novelty. Also hardly any casting agents are 12 years old.

What's actually going on, most likely, is that casting is machine. They have millions of people listed, so they have some basic sorting methods. Someone with the last name Wang is put in 'Asian', and only looked at when Asian roles are cast. Which can be a problem for a young actor when there's nowhere near as many Asian roles as there are Asian actors. It's a double problem when the actor doesn't look that Asian, because then lots of roles she is looked for probably find she isn't 'Asian enough'.

A name change avoided that filter, so she was more likely to be seen and auditioned for roles that weren't specifically Asian.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Actors have changed their names for lots of reasons throughout history, not just because of racism. Sometimes it's to make their name more recognizable, to make it different from an existing actor, or just to make it easier for people to spell/pronounce (a more common problem in older days). I do have a hard time believing names are commonly changed today for racism reasons*, just due to the medium being so visual now (trailers and ads everywhere online, etc.), that anyone will quickly see what the actor looks like, anyway. But years ago, names had more power, because it might be all you knew about the movie until you walked into the theatre and saw the posters.

Its not really about the actors being in the trailer or anything like that. And in most cases we're talking about actors who aren't getting their names on the poster. Once you get famous enough to be on the poster, ethnicity doesn't matter. It's about cracking in to the system in the first place, and that's a process where race still plays a big part.

Actors with minority backgrounds will frequently not be considered for roles when that background isn't stated.

The problem compounds, because when actors find it hard to get minor roles, they can't break in to bigger roles.

There is an all female version of Lord of The Flies in the works and the complaint train is already leaving the station.

 sebster wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
By 'they', I meant Hollywood. Hasn't there been anyone who played different characters in the same series? It happens a lot on TV.

Star Trek is hilarious for this. The Klingons and Vulcans are played by a handful of actors, just with slightly different make up. So when they developed Quark and Rom in to major characters, then watching old episodes you notice those two guys appearing all the time as other Ferengi.

However, the thing with Marvel is they've stated they won't cast an actor in two different roles. Its one of the commitments they have to making a whole universe of films that is consistent from film to film. So now that Elba has been cast in a minor role, they can't cast him as anything else.

Anything shooting in parts of Canada(Vancouver and Montreal in particular) has this happening too.

It's great fun seeing villains from the CW superhero shows in Hallmark movies, for example.

 Ahtman wrote:
There is an all female version of Lord of The Flies in the works and the complaint train is already leaving the station.

thisisanoutrage.jpg

The real complaint here is that yet another remake is being made of a super-boring book we all got forced to read in school and hated.

 sebster wrote:
What's actually going on, most likely, is that casting is machine. They have millions of people listed, so they have some basic sorting methods. Someone with the last name Wang is put in 'Asian', and only looked at when Asian roles are cast. Which can be a problem for a young actor when there's nowhere near as many Asian roles as there are Asian actors. It's a double problem when the actor doesn't look that Asian, because then lots of roles she is looked for probably find she isn't 'Asian enough'.

A name change avoided that filter, so she was more likely to be seen and auditioned for roles that weren't specifically Asian.

...

Its not really about the actors being in the trailer or anything like that. And in most cases we're talking about actors who aren't getting their names on the poster. Once you get famous enough to be on the poster, ethnicity doesn't matter. It's about cracking in to the system in the first place, and that's a process where race still plays a big part.

Actors with minority backgrounds will frequently not be considered for roles when that background isn't stated.

Exactly. The problem is that in the US and the UK (and probably elsewhere too), white European is the "default"; actors of other ethnicities will often only be considered for roles for that ethnicity, even when it's completely irrelevant. Some films/shows are better than others, possibly through deliberate efforts to recruit more non-white actors.

I never realised Chloe Wang/Bennet was half Chinese, as it happens..

 Ahtman wrote:
There is an all female version of Lord of The Flies in the works and the complaint train is already leaving the station.

Ha - love how the complaints focus on how the story is about "male toxicity." But '84 Ghostbusters wasn't about "male ingenuity"? Earth is a silly place.

Except their argument doesn't make sense, because Lord of the Flies was never about masculinity, it was about savagery and civilization, the dark side of humanity, dehumanization and the loss of innocence.

No idea where this association of toxic masculinity comes from, but that certainly didn't pop up in class. I really doubt that's what Golding had in mind when he wrote the book.
To me it just looks like they didn't really read the book, at least in detail. It sounds like a very simplistic explanation.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Except their argument doesn't make sense, because Lord of the Flies was never about masculinity, it was about savagery and civilization, the dark side of humanity, dehumanization and the loss of innocence.

No idea where this association of toxic masculinity comes from, but that certainly didn't pop up in class. I really doubt that's what Golding had in mind when he wrote the book.
To me it just looks like they didn't actually read the book, at least in detail. It sounds like a very simplistic explanation.

Because to Feminism, all males are Literally Hitler.

That's some pretty low quality bait

No, no, it's perfectly reasonable to paint a massively disparate social movement with billions of actors with one stupid brush.

You're only allowed to do the whole all female gender flip cast show if it attempts to depict the women in a positive light or as role models.

 AduroT wrote:
You're only allowed to do the whole all female gender flip cast show if it attempts to depict the women in a positive light or as role models.

Or conversely, if the story is about the characters' moral failure then it is therefore specifically a story about men.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Except their argument doesn't make sense, because Lord of the Flies was never about masculinity, it was about savagery and civilization, the dark side of humanity, dehumanization and the loss of innocence.

No idea where this association of toxic masculinity comes from, but that certainly didn't pop up in class. I really doubt that's what Golding had in mind when he wrote the book.
To me it just looks like they didn't really read the book, at least in detail. It sounds like a very simplistic explanation.

The association is that certain strands of Gender Studies assert that all of those things(savagery, "evil", dehumanisation, all the "-isms" etc) are "toxic masculinity". It's idiotic, but an unsurprising outgrowth of the idea of Patriarchy - when your entire construct relies on the idea that society uniquely advantages men and uniquely disadvantages women, but more modern social theory recognises a more complex conception of power dynamics in society, the only way to keep the original construct relavent is to recharacterise all the negative aspects of that society as inherently masculine. By the juvenile Tumblrized conception of "toxic masculinity" all injustice is, at the core, about the fragility of the male ego - prejudices and power differentials based on sex, gender, race, religion, class; all of them are merely expressions of how nasty and stinky boys are.

It's basically "boys have cooties ewwww" with a veneer of academic language.

Meh.
Look the film industry does give no cares to white wash or anything. It worships the doller, the almighty money flow above all.

They may claim many thing but cut to the baseline it is money, and making lots of it.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Except their argument doesn't make sense, because Lord of the Flies was never about masculinity, it was about savagery and civilization, the dark side of humanity, dehumanization and the loss of innocence.

No idea where this association of toxic masculinity comes from, but that certainly didn't pop up in class. I really doubt that's what Golding had in mind when he wrote the book.
To me it just looks like they didn't really read the book, at least in detail. It sounds like a very simplistic explanation.

The association is that certain strands of Gender Studies assert that all of those things(savagery, "evil", dehumanisation, all the "-isms" etc) are "toxic masculinity". It's idiotic, but an unsurprising outgrowth of the idea of Patriarchy - when your entire construct relies on the idea that society uniquely advantages men and uniquely disadvantages women, but more modern social theory recognises a more complex conception of power dynamics in society, the only way to keep the original construct relavent is to recharacterise all the negative aspects of that society as inherently masculine. By the juvenile Tumblrized conception of "toxic masculinity" all injustice is, at the core, about the fragility of the male ego - prejudices and power differentials based on sex, gender, race, religion, class; all of them are merely expressions of how nasty and stinky boys are.

It's basically "boys have cooties ewwww" with a veneer of academic language.

The funny thing is the book isn't even about that.. It's a deconstruction of the "Good British Boy Heroes" era that was extremely popular, where you had your typical British Boy Hero manage to survive anywhere while still keeping true to civilizations roots and thriving against savagery of the lands.

 Yodhrin wrote:


The association is that certain strands of Gender Studies assert that all of those things(savagery, "evil", dehumanisation, all the "-isms" etc) are "toxic masculinity". It's idiotic, but an unsurprising outgrowth of the idea of Patriarchy - when your entire construct relies on the idea that society uniquely advantages men and uniquely disadvantages women, but more modern social theory recognises a more complex conception of power dynamics in society, the only way to keep the original construct relavent is to recharacterise all the negative aspects of that society as inherently masculine. By the juvenile Tumblrized conception of "toxic masculinity" all injustice is, at the core, about the fragility of the male ego - prejudices and power differentials based on sex, gender, race, religion, class; all of them are merely expressions of how nasty and stinky boys are.

It's basically "boys have cooties ewwww" with a veneer of academic language.

That's a twisted explanation, it worth of the "not even wrong" label. Try just reading the wikipedia article for something less hyperbolic. Here's a short quote that's easy to digest:

The concept of toxic masculinity is used in the social sciences to highlight the idea that some traditional norms of masculine behavior – ideas of how men should behave – are in fact harmful to men, women and society overall.

insaniak wrote:I'm still bitter that they didn't cast a green kid for the Neverending Story...

I'm more upset that they didn't get asexual reptilian aliens to play the Dracs in "Enemy Mine"...

-Loki- wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
It's not as though they can't get Idris back in another role.
Look at what they did with Ryan Reynolds.

Huh?

Green Lantern was DC. Deadpool is FOX.
Neither of them are the MCU.

OK. He's probably a bad example.
By 'they', I meant Hollywood. Hasn't there been anyone who played different characters in the same series? It happens a lot on TV.

IIRC the only time, outside of voice acting (and I'm just assuming that, I don't care enough to check) that one actor has played two roles in the MCU is Alfre Woodard, who played Black Mariah in Luke Cage and also Miriam Sharpe in Civil War (she's the one that corners Tony about her dead son in Sokovia).

Was going to say Josh Brolin with Cable and Thanos, but realized right as I started typing that one is Fox and the other is MCU, though the lines seem to be blurring more and more each film.

Manchu wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
You're only allowed to do the whole all female gender flip cast show if it attempts to depict the women in a positive light or as role models.

Or conversely, if the story is about the characters' moral failure then it is therefore specifically a story about men.

Specifically about WHITE men, let's not turn great strides in gender equality into yet another Hollywood race hate thing...

Mario wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:


The association is that certain strands of Gender Studies assert that all of those things(savagery, "evil", dehumanisation, all the "-isms" etc) are "toxic masculinity". It's idiotic, but an unsurprising outgrowth of the idea of Patriarchy - when your entire construct relies on the idea that society uniquely advantages men and uniquely disadvantages women, but more modern social theory recognises a more complex conception of power dynamics in society, the only way to keep the original construct relavent is to recharacterise all the negative aspects of that society as inherently masculine. By the juvenile Tumblrized conception of "toxic masculinity" all injustice is, at the core, about the fragility of the male ego - prejudices and power differentials based on sex, gender, race, religion, class; all of them are merely expressions of how nasty and stinky boys are.

It's basically "boys have cooties ewwww" with a veneer of academic language.

That's a twisted explanation, it worth of the "not even wrong" label. Try just reading the wikipedia article for something less hyperbolic. Here's a short quote that's easy to digest:

The concept of toxic masculinity is used in the social sciences to highlight the idea that some traditional norms of masculine behavior – ideas of how men should behave – are in fact harmful to men, women and society overall.

Err, you're entirely misreading my post. "Certain strands...", "By the juvenile Tumblrized conception of..." draw a distinction between the commonly accepted view and the specific variation being characterised and criticised. But don't let me get in the way of your "Well, AKCHURLY..." wikipedia linking...

 Just Tony wrote:

I'm more upset that they didn't get asexual reptilian aliens to play the Dracs in "Enemy Mine"...

Manchu wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
You're only allowed to do the whole all female gender flip cast show if it attempts to depict the women in a positive light or as role models.

Or conversely, if the story is about the characters' moral failure then it is therefore specifically a story about men.

Specifically about WHITE men, let's not turn great strides in gender equality into yet another Hollywood race hate thing...

Blech, I'm so sick of realism in art. How passé.

 Just Tony wrote:

Was going to say Josh Brolin with Cable and Thanos, but realized right as I started typing that one is Fox and the other is MCU, though the lines seem to be blurring more and more each film.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if that bit of double casting gets mentioned somehow in DP2...

 Manchu wrote:
Legend of the Five Rings (L5R) is a Northeast Asian-themed fantasy setting. The IP was recently purchased by FFG. This past GenCon, FFG launched the new L5R LCG. As part of the spectacle, FFG hired people to portray samurai. All of these people appeared to be East Asian. Struck me as awkward, but in an inevitable way. Like, if these actors hadn't been East Asian, would there be some outcry about whitewashing? Then again, it's so weird to see a big crowd of white people gawking at a handful of Asians in cosplay.

I was there for that, it was kind of awkward, it was immediately remarked upon during the event by more than few people

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Legend of the Five Rings (L5R) is a Northeast Asian-themed fantasy setting. The IP was recently purchased by FFG. This past GenCon, FFG launched the new L5R LCG. As part of the spectacle, FFG hired people to portray samurai. All of these people appeared to be East Asian. Struck me as awkward, but in an inevitable way. Like, if these actors hadn't been East Asian, would there be some outcry about whitewashing? Then again, it's so weird to see a big crowd of white people gawking at a handful of Asians in cosplay.

I was there for that, it was kind of awkward, it was immediately remarked upon during the event by more than few people

That's a tricky one, a few days of no sleep and the 'convention diet' means if I saw people out of LCG ambling about in the real world I'd might do a double (or triple in the case of Shiba Umijitsu) take

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Legend of the Five Rings (L5R) is a Northeast Asian-themed fantasy setting. The IP was recently purchased by FFG. This past GenCon, FFG launched the new L5R LCG. As part of the spectacle, FFG hired people to portray samurai. All of these people appeared to be East Asian. Struck me as awkward, but in an inevitable way. Like, if these actors hadn't been East Asian, would there be some outcry about whitewashing? Then again, it's so weird to see a big crowd of white people gawking at a handful of Asians in cosplay.

I was there for that, it was kind of awkward, it was immediately remarked upon during the event by more than few people

In a way this is the boat Iron Fist was in. The character in the comics was historically a blond white guy, and the show presented the opportunity to crap on it no matter how they chose to proceed: if they left him white, it was whitewashing, and if they made him Asian, it was stereotyping.

I do think whitewashing is an issue, where historically nonwhite roles are recast as whites, but with Iron Fist specifically it was very irritating to see the phrase being diluted in that way.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I was there for that, it was kind of awkward, it was immediately remarked upon during the event by more than few people

No doubt. I felt awkward just looking at the pics. Conversely, no one would feel weird about an Asian person dressed up as a wizard in a D&D parade.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
(or triple in the case of Shiba Umijitsu)

Shiba who now?

 Ouze wrote:
if they left him white, it was whitewashing, and if they made him Asian, it was stereotyping.

L5R is a much weirder boat. The characters are the manifestation of (mostly white) Americans imagining a fantastical version of Northeast Asia; they aren't really "Asian" themselves - no more (or less) so than Heimdall from Thor is meaningfully black or white. To the extent that L5R characters are presented as Asian, it is for the sake of (mostly white) Americans imagining Asianess without necessarily caring about the actual culture and history of Japan, China, Korea, etc., exactly how the movie going public doesn't care about Scandinavian mythology vis a vis a Thor movie.