Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Interesting news just starting to float around that Cavill may no longer by playing Superman. Let's hope The Witcher works out well.

Well the whole dceu was a gak show anyway. Good on him getting out. Hes a better actor then those movies ever let him be.

Loved books.

Couldn't give a gak if the actors are white/black/asian...

Only that they'd be GOOD for the roles and make it work onscreen.

Ie, Idris Elba in Dark Tower. Even the story was "meh"... he fething owned the Gunslinger role.

 whembly wrote:
Loved books.

Couldn't give a gak if the actors are white/black/asian...

Only that they'd be GOOD for the roles and make it work onscreen.

Ie, Idris Elba in Dark Tower. Even the story was "meh"... he fething owned the Gunslinger role.

Thats actually a really great example.

A character who in the books is described in absolute terms to be white with clear blue eyes. A man who looks exactly like Clint Eastwood in his older-middle years.

Black actor did a great job.

Agreed. If race isn't really "important" to the character, the setting, or the director's intent, then anything other than a raceblind casting is in bad taste. Cast the best person for the job, regardless of anything.

However, if there isn't a narrative reason or political reason, then I strongly oppose any kind of casting with a bias - that being white-central, or BAME.

I hate diversity for diversity's sake when it comes to arts and entertainment. It boils down to simple pandering, pandering to chase dollars. I blame the audience for this one, the culture who watches all of this stuff and throws a fit when they don't see enough people "like them" in whatever source material they're viewing. In shortest terms I always feel diversity should be a benefit, but never a goal.

To me, the source material should always be sacred to the person/people who created it. Everything else comes second. A well done story, book, movie, novel, etc. should stand on its own merits without having to pander to make someone comfortable or chase an extra percentage of profit. Furthermore I don't believe a creator of an IP has any need to justify why a character is what they are. "Zoe is a 12 year old female from Botswana" - "Why?" - "Because I said she is."

I see the argument constantly "well, what woman does my daughter have to look up to for a strong woman!?" or "what does my (insert race here) child look up to in these films?" - to which I ask, why can your child not look up to a person of a different race or sex? You're starting that gak in the home if that's how you're raising your kid. I find the current crop of "female" wannabe heroes laughable when I compare them to Ripley (and yes Vasquez...because Goreman "was" always an donkey-cave) and Sarah Connor...legit bad ass females I admired as a *gasp* teenage male growing up. I admired characters in movies regardless of race or sex...a good character is a good character. Maybe it's because I grew up in a lower-middle class area as a military brat, but it was never the race or sex of the character that mattered to me. Denzel and Freeman in Glory were way more badass than the whiny Broderick (and the super awkward Elwes).

That's just my soap box, but I hate the way we treat everyone with kid gloves when it comes to race and sex. Let the characters be whatever they were. Why don't we work from the other direction and ask why people can't admire a strong character without regard to their 'category'?

On the other hand, who gives a gak what anyone thinks is sacred? So a bunch of polish people are super proud of some not great books written by a polish author that were turned into really great games by a polish video game studio.

And?

Pride for prides sake is just jerking off an ego and has exactly zero value.

It blinds you to faults or criticism and bars you from improvement.

The author is dead.

A sentiment that doesn't mean literally that the author has died but instead that after a work has been created and released to the public it doesn't matter what the author meant or what the author wants the audience will take from it what they will and the work becomes something the author has no say or control over.

So a bunch of feths from some country care that some feth from their country made a thing that eventually got adapted to be considered great around the whole world. Well, the author is dead. And their opinions, while potentially interesting, no longer (and never really) actually matter.

 Galas wrote:
But Idris Elba is Idris Elba. I would allow him to portray my Grandmother in a movie about my life without a second thought.

Same here, I cant read the Dark Tower series without seeing him as Roland, the man is just freakin awesome!

 Lance845 wrote:
On the other hand, who gives a gak what anyone thinks is sacred? So a bunch of polish people are super proud of some not great books written by a polish author that were turned into really great games by a polish video game studio.

(...)

Well, the author is dead. And their opinions, while potentially interesting, no longer (and never really) actually matter.

I cant wait for the next Hollywood LotR movie adaption where Gimli has been replaced by a hot werewolf and Legolas by a hot Vampire, because who needs artistic integrity when you can led the marketing team design your movie according to what's trendy right now

 Lance845 wrote:
On the other hand, who gives a gak what anyone thinks is sacred? So a bunch of polish people are super proud of some not great books written by a polish author that were turned into really great games by a polish video game studio.

And?

Pride for prides sake is just jerking off an ego and has exactly zero value.

It blinds you to faults or criticism and bars you from improvement.

The author is dead.

A sentiment that doesn't mean literally that the author has died but instead that after a work has been created and released to the public it doesn't matter what the author meant or what the author wants the audience will take from it what they will and the work becomes something the author has no say or control over.

So a bunch of feths from some country care that some feth from their country made a thing that eventually got adapted to be considered great around the whole world. Well, the author is dead. And their opinions, while potentially interesting, no longer (and never really) actually matter.

On one hand, death of the author (and the author's intent being forsaken in favour of a different theme or idea for the director) are valid outcomes. However, there should always be a reason to change something. Was the original work problematic? Is there an unforseen aspect, or interpretation, that could be brought out further? Is it a minor detail? All of these would be fine reasons to change something in regards to death of the author.

However - just because you CAN change something doesn't mean you should. Why *should* you change it? What does it add? Is it superfluous? And, as dyndraig says, let's just recast and re-race everyone from LOTR, hell, let's go and do it with every IP we have, because "Death of the Author wooooooo". Death of the Author is most commonly used for thematic and messaging reasons - what the author is saying, what their message is: not necessarily "let's change everything about their work". It's more about perception as to what their material says, versus what the author claims it says (case in point, Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 being seen as anti-censorship, but him actually claiming it's about anti-mass media).

Furthermore, let's just take a look at that first line - replace Polish with any of the more typical BAME groups. You still stand by that? Cultural identity is kinda a big deal, especially for a people which hasn't exactly had a rosy history. Clearly, cultural pride has a market (Black Panther inspired a lot of folks), but why is this one too far?
So, just to clarify, do your views on not being allowed to be proud of something that's symbolic of your culture apply to ALL cultures?

(I'm going to ignore the statement about it making people exempt from criticism, because that's often not the culture's fault - that's more often than not more that person not wanting to be critiqued anyway.)

 Lance845 wrote:
On the other hand, who gives a gak what anyone thinks is sacred? So a bunch of polish people are super proud of some not great books written by a polish author that were turned into really great games by a polish video game studio.

And?

Pride for prides sake is just jerking off an ego and has exactly zero value.

It blinds you to faults or criticism and bars you from improvement.

The author is dead.

A sentiment that doesn't mean literally that the author has died but instead that after a work has been created and released to the public it doesn't matter what the author meant or what the author wants the audience will take from it what they will and the work becomes something the author has no say or control over.

So a bunch of feths from some country care that some feth from their country made a thing that eventually got adapted to be considered great around the whole world. Well, the author is dead. And their opinions, while potentially interesting, no longer (and never really) actually matter.

It's not about making Poles happy, it's about accepting it is Polish and not changing it because you think your audience is too shallow and immature to have any cultural empathy.

Not everything has to be passed through the standard American filter. Part of appreciating art is appreciating not all of it was developed by people like you for people like you, yet still being able to relate to it while also accepting and learning about the differences.

I don't really care whether or not it makes Poles happy, I'm not Polish and don't have any Polish heritage, but I still want the story to stay true to its Polish heritage.

I reckon it's partly because of that Polish heritage that so many of the characters are actually really well written, including those strong believable female characters.

Regarding The Death of the Author - that has more to do with interpreting and analysing a text and how a reader derives meaning from it, not to butchering it in to another form. It is a valid argument, but not for the reason of saying it's fine to change things. It's hardly a universally accepted school of thought anyway and hardly universally applicable.

 Elbows wrote:
I hate diversity for diversity's sake when it comes to arts and entertainment. It boils down to simple pandering, pandering to chase dollars. I blame the audience for this one, the culture who watches all of this stuff and throws a fit when they don't see enough people "like them" in whatever source material they're viewing. In shortest terms I always feel diversity should be a benefit, but never a goal.

To me, the source material should always be sacred to the person/people who created it. Everything else comes second. A well done story, book, movie, novel, etc. should stand on its own merits without having to pander to make someone comfortable or chase an extra percentage of profit. Furthermore I don't believe a creator of an IP has any need to justify why a character is what they are. "Zoe is a 12 year old female from Botswana" - "Why?" - "Because I said she is."

I see the argument constantly "well, what woman does my daughter have to look up to for a strong woman!?" or "what does my (insert race here) child look up to in these films?" - to which I ask, why can your child not look up to a person of a different race or gender? You're starting that stuff in the home if that's how you're raising your kid. I find the current crop of "female" wannabe heroes laughable when I compare them to Ripley (and yes Vasquez...because Goreman "was" always a donkey cave) and Sarah Connor...legit bad bottomed females I admired as a *gasp* teenage male growing up. I admired characters in movies regardless of race or sex...a good character is a good character. Maybe it's because I grew up in a lower-middle class area as a military brat, but it was never the race or gender of the character that mattered to me. Denzel and Freeman in Glory were way more bad bottomed than the whiny Broderick (and the super awkward Elwes).

That's just my soap box, but I hate the way we treat everyone with kid gloves when it comes to race and gender. Let the characters be whatever they were. Why don't we work from the other direction and ask why people can't admire a strong character without regard to their 'category'?

Fog up, I've had to change a few words in your post because work filters! Apologies, but was necessary.

Second, this isn't meant to be a personal attack, or antagonistic.

Whilst you make a fair point that anyone can look up to anyone (I think MLK was a great example of how to get things done in the face of adversity, for instance), but you have to look at how specific races tend to be portrayed on screen.

Black males tend to be Gang Banging Thugs. It seems you can't involve a black actor without having their character use 'muddy funster' repeatedly, or refer to women solely as female dogs (work filters folks, not me being sensitive to rude words and derogatory terms). And if they're in with the good guys, they best be that big ol' slab o' muscle right up the back. Can't have them as the smart, brainy one - apparently because reasons.

Latin American origin? Make up will see you at 7am to put some dodgy facial tattoos and a bandana on you, before a hard day calling everyone cabrone or puto. Because, yup! You're a drug dealer. Again.

TV, big screen. It's the same.

That's why positive role models for those communities and that are important. It's why Black Panther mattered to a great many people - even if others don't understand quite why.

So if Super Hero A doesn't have a curiously specific background (for arguments sake, if Cap had been a German experiment to create an Aryan Ubermensch, but happened to rail against his indoctrination, as a drawn out, admittedly shonky example), why reserve the role for Yet Another White Bloke? Good example here is of course Heimdal. Despite the protestation of goons, there's absolutely no reason they shouldn't have cast Idris Elba there. According to the backstory, the Asgardians inspired the Norse Gods - not the other way around.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Fog up, I've had to change a few words in your post because work filters! Apologies, but was necessary.

Second, this isn't meant to be a personal attack, or antagonistic.

Whilst you make a fair point that anyone can look up to anyone (I think MLK was a great example of how to get things done in the face of adversity, for instance), but you have to look at how specific races tend to be portrayed on screen.

Black males tend to be Gang Banging Thugs. It seems you can't involve a black actor without having their character use 'muddy funster' repeatedly, or refer to women solely as female dogs (work filters folks, not me being sensitive to rude words and derogatory terms). And if they're in with the good guys, they best be that big ol' slab o' muscle right up the back. Can't have them as the smart, brainy one - apparently because reasons.

Latin American origin? Make up will see you at 7am to put some dodgy facial tattoos and a bandana on you, before a hard day calling everyone cabrone or puto. Because, yup! You're a drug dealer. Again.

TV, big screen. It's the same.

That's why positive role models for those communities and that are important. It's why Black Panther mattered to a great many people - even if others don't understand quite why.

So if Super Hero A doesn't have a curiously specific background (for arguments sake, if Cap had been a German experiment to create an Aryan Ubermensch, but happened to rail against his indoctrination, as a drawn out, admittedly shonky example), why reserve the role for Yet Another White Bloke? Good example here is of course Heimdal. Despite the protestation of goons, there's absolutely no reason they shouldn't have cast Idris Elba there. According to the backstory, the Asgardians inspired the Norse Gods - not the other way around.

I agree that racial stereotypes are an issue, and are something that's long overstayed it's welcome.

However, this is more reason for raceblind casting, not for BAME casting. We need more roles that anyone, with any role, could apply for: with Heimdall, I could be wrong, but I don't believe that was a BAME casting, and more of a "best person for the job" casting - a raceblind one, which I prefer.

Again, the important part with Heimdall is that MCU/Marvel Heimdall is NOT Norse God Heimdall. They're fictional heroes made by Americans, with the names and vague outlines of the old Norse gods. Hell, they're not really even correct with Thor and Loki being brothers (even adopted). It's why there was a considerably larger fuss kicked up about Nikolaj Coster-Waldau and Gerard Butler playing gods of Eygpt in the titular film: because that was actually SUPPOSED to be Horus and Set.

While the Witcher isn't actual Polish myth or an actual defined figure, it's made by someone of that culture, strongly inspired by that culture, and could be a positive representation for that ethnic group (which, at least in the UK, doesn't have a great public image). In that respect, I see no reason it shouldn't be like Black Panther.

In general, I dislike BAME casting. Make more raceblind roles, raceblind castings, and then that way, if the character is a good role model, then that would apply for whatever race the actor playing them is. Or, better yet, we could push further for people to see anyone, of any race or any gender, as a positive role model (of course, I'm aware that's easier said than done).

dyndraig wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
On the other hand, who gives a gak what anyone thinks is sacred? So a bunch of polish people are super proud of some not great books written by a polish author that were turned into really great games by a polish video game studio.

(...)

Well, the author is dead. And their opinions, while potentially interesting, no longer (and never really) actually matter.

I cant wait for the next Hollywood LotR movie adaption where Gimli has been replaced by a hot werewolf and Legolas by a hot Vampire, because who needs artistic integrity when you can led the marketing team design your movie according to what's trendy right now

And when they do ALL the other version of LoTR will still exist and that new werewolf/vampire LotR will have to stand or fall on it's own merits. Just like the hobbit trilogy has had to where it was a long dragged out slog that put a simiril in the lonely mountain treasure for no good reason and added a bunch of crap that wasn't in the original books. Oh, did you like the peter jackson lotr trilogy? Well not only did they cut a bunch of stuff out they also made a bunch of stuff up and like 3 characters acted completely different from the way they do in the books. And at the end Sauramon didn't even take over the shire and the hobbits didn't kill him which was the only part of all 3 books where the hobbits did something for themselves!

Thanks for proving my point.

It doesn't matter a single atom what the authors original material was or what the author wants or what the country the author is from feels. The author is dead. The reader is born. And any subsequent adaptations are the works of new authors who will die upon release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

On one hand, death of the author (and the author's intent being forsaken in favour of a different theme or idea for the director) are valid outcomes. However, there should always be a reason to change something. Was the original work problematic? Is there an unforseen aspect, or interpretation, that could be brought out further? Is it a minor detail? All of these would be fine reasons to change something in regards to death of the author.

In the world of the Witcher, everyones skin color is a minor detail.

However - just because you CAN change something doesn't mean you should. Why *should* you change it? What does it add? Is it superfluous? And, as dyndraig says, let's just recast and re-race everyone from LOTR, hell, let's go and do it with every IP we have, because "Death of the Author wooooooo". Death of the Author is most commonly used for thematic and messaging reasons - what the author is saying, what their message is: not necessarily "let's change everything about their work". It's more about perception as to what their material says, versus what the author claims it says (case in point, Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 being seen as anti-censorship, but him actually claiming it's about anti-mass media).

The original essay "The Author is Dead (The Reader is Born)" is actually primarily about a way to criticize a work, were in the work is supposed to stand on it's own merits and convey it's own messages and needs to be viewed in a vacuum separated from the authors life and intent. Which is specifically applicable here where the world of the Witcher is 100% fictional, borrows heavily from germanic brothers grimm folk lore, and the authors nationality and the population mix of his country doesn't have any bearing on the world he created.

Why should they cast not white people in the witcher TV series? Because it just doesn't matter. The character can be 100% in tact with a different skin color. And in the actual world we live in it's better to give fair and equal opportunities then it is to place the original author of the not super famous books on a pedestal and hold his whiteness sacred.

Furthermore, let's just take a look at that first line - replace Polish with any of the more typical BAME groups. You still stand by that? Cultural identity is kinda a big deal, especially for a people which hasn't exactly had a rosy history. Clearly, cultural pride has a market (Black Panther inspired a lot of folks), but why is this one too far?
So, just to clarify, do your views on not being allowed to be proud of something that's symbolic of your culture apply to ALL cultures?

(I'm going to ignore the statement about it making people exempt from criticism, because that's often not the culture's fault - that's more often than not more that person not wanting to be critiqued anyway.)

Yes, I think cultural pride is stupid when cultural pride is used to try to mire you in traditions and prevent change. Cultural pride has been used as an excuse to not let gay people get married. To not let black people marry white people. To not let women vote. To not let black people go to school. RIGHT NOW women are stoned to death in the middle east because they want to get an education and a job because of cultural pride.

Again, the amazing thing about Black Panther is not that it's something that belongs to black people. It's that they made just a movie that was nearly fully cast by black people with zero tokenism. Their blackness wasn't a butt of a joke. Their blackness wasn't a defining characteristic of their character. And when the white people were in the movie their whiteness wasn't the defining characteristic of THEIR character either. You might be able to count the number of american/european movies made this way on 1 hand. It's also the first time where the main character was a literal hero.

You know what I saw in the mall the other day. 3 people of 3 different skin tones wearing clothes with black panther stuff on it. It's not just something for black people to be proud of. It's something we should all be proud of.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I agree that racial stereotypes are an issue, and are something that's long overstayed it's welcome.

However, this is more reason for raceblind casting, not for BAME casting. We need more roles that anyone, with any role, could apply for: with Heimdall, I could be wrong, but I don't believe that was a BAME casting, and more of a "best person for the job" casting - a raceblind one, which I prefer.

I am all for race blind casting. I think it's great! I think it's the end goal of the marathon we are all running. But it's a marathon not a toggle switch we can just flip on. This is part of a process as a society. We cannot instantly tell everyone to start treating everyone fairly and then have everyone just do it. It's a process that begins with gak like affirmative action (which creates it's own problems) which starts other discussions but starts to break down barriers, moves on to the conscious choice to include BLAME even when your not told you need to, sometimes for good reasons and sometimes for bad (and the work suffers for it or doesn't based on a great number of things that have nothing to do with skin color) and eventually BLAME doesn't need to be a thing at all because it's just not something anyone thinks about.

I think it's great that you want race blind casting. I just think your kidding yourself if you think we have reached that point yet.

Again, the important part with Heimdall is that MCU/Marvel Heimdall is NOT Norse God Heimdall. They're fictional heroes made by Americans, with the names and vague outlines of the old Norse gods. Hell, they're not really even correct with Thor and Loki being brothers (even adopted). It's why there was a considerably larger fuss kicked up about Nikolaj Coster-Waldau and Gerard Butler playing gods of Eygpt in the titular film: because that was actually SUPPOSED to be Horus and Set.

While the Witcher isn't actual Polish myth or an actual defined figure, it's made by someone of that culture, strongly inspired by that culture, and could be a positive representation for that ethnic group (which, at least in the UK, doesn't have a great public image). In that respect, I see no reason it shouldn't be like Black Panther.

To be fair, in the Marvel Universe that IS Thor and Loki and Odin and so on. Those ARE the Norse gods. That Thor is the same Thor the Norse were telling stories about in the Prose Eda.

Black Panther takes place in a fictional version of the real world. It has an Africa. Wakanda is a fictional country with a fictional culture that isn't anybodies to be represented. The few real world africans we saw in that movie were in the opening scene and were militants transporting women and children to be recruited or killed or raped or turned into slaves. The analog with poland and the witcher doesn't exist.

Because AllSeeingSkink and Sgt_Smudge are spot on and this has been already discussed at lenght I won't even answer to Lance's post.

Instead, I would like to focus on what AllSeeingSking said for the second time now - believable strong female characters as a result of polish history - as this is a very spot on observation and my true concern about Netflix production if they choose to do a "loose adaptation". Many "strong women" in US based production are incoherent and clearly designed to "inspire" without much regard for psychological integrity and they are commonly made to look strong by either vocalizing their supposed strength directly without well established foundations for such claim and/or by weakening male characters around them and emphasising male flaws of character. This is the most common topic of discussion with my wife when watching many US based stories (not all of course) and Netflix is really notorious for this - I'm now in the process of watching second season of Iron Fist and the whole season construction is quite ridiculous in that regard.

The reason why we (polish audience) perceive those characters as unbelievable is that throughout polish history polish women and men alike couldn't just whine about inequality and oppression to get something done, because the real struggle and oppression came from external occupants and sex had close to nothing to do with how hard or how easy your life was. We had no period in our history when women were institutionally treated as "pretty house plants" and "stay at home mom" was very rare - most children in the last century were raised "with a key around their neck" as we say here, that is they were expected to deal with daily school life, including returning home and feeding themselves unassisted from early primary school. Another key reason is that up untill 2000s we had state only higher education with very limited number of openings and internal admission exams. To put things in numbers: during 80s and 90s there were only 7 openings a year in academic painting and a dozen or so in graphic design, around 50 in university maths and psychology and only technical university had number of openings reaching hundreds per department - all that for 1.2mln Varsovians and few more millions of people in neighboring voivodeships. Up untill mid '90s your personal or parental wealth status had very little to do with your chances of admission as even private tutoring was illegal (as any private commercial activity back then). You wanted carrer and recognition of your virtues? You had to earn those in direct competition with everyone else. The only way around was through personal connections somewhere high in state agencies. Of course inner family traditions played important role as well - if you were raised in a family that owned a piano because your parent was a musician you had an obvious head start, but nobody would call that a privledge or systemic inequality because you still had to pass admission exams as any other and if you were talented and driven enough there were public activity clubs to practice in. Corruption culture was sometimes a problem, but not "rigged system". It was also very, very common for those women who have chosen university path in Poland to deliberately have their first child during university years even if they did not have direct parental or grandparental help available (inner migration was and is very common in Poland).

As a result of above and other similar reasons strong women and men throughout our history simply act to prove their strength instead of try to talk others into believing they are strong. If you actually had adequate character traits necessary to elevate you from your starting position to your desired position you might have succeeded if and only if you were skilled and lucky enough to get ahead of competition. This made for very consistent biographies of both successful role models and failed people (in whatever meaning, this could be national level or local neighborhood level) that polish writers could utilize to write believable characters in any genre. And so they did. There was also no need or culture for design/propaganda driven artificial role modeling in '80s and '90s because we already knew that those are futile after early 50's and 60's when communism directly tried to establish homo-sovieticus mindset here.

It was only with millenial generation and constant "patting on the back" private education culture introduction when entitlement narrative was planted here. I actually remember my first WTF moment when I was accused of "undercutting wings" of a privately schooled woman from next younger generation when pointing out glaring flaws in her ideas for her bachelor's thesis. But I have already wrote a post about three kinds of feminism earlier and I don't want to repeat myself.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It's not about making Poles happy, it's about accepting it is Polish and not changing it because you think your audience is too shallow and immature to have any cultural empathy.

Not everything has to be passed through the standard American filter. Part of appreciating art is appreciating not all of it was developed by people like you for people like you, yet still being able to relate to it while also accepting and learning about the differences.

I don't really care whether or not it makes Poles happy, I'm not Polish and don't have any Polish heritage, but I still want the story to stay true to its Polish heritage.

The Witcher borrows very heavily from a crap ton of other heritages. Almost every story written in the witcher books is an adaptation of a Hans Christian Anderson or Brothers Grimm fairly tale made dark and twisted because thats the witcher for you.

One of them is Beauty and the Beast where the beast is cursed and the Beauty is a type of vampire thats using him for protection.

Nothing is made in a vacuum. This is no more polish then the TV show Supernatural is all the many cultural entities that show up and they kill are their culture.

I am not arguing for the Witcher to be made "like me". I am arguing that being upset about casting not white is stupid. I hope the show is as good as the games which is to say way better then the books. What race the actress playing Ciri is doesn't have any impact on that quality.

I reckon it's partly because of that Polish heritage that so many of the characters are actually really well written, including those strong believable female characters.

Have you read any of the books? I have. There is good stuff in there. There is also a lot of really rough stuff thats just not great. Do you think it's only possible to portray the women characters as strong if they have a white heritage? Whats actually important? The writing and directing or the skin color here?

Regarding The Death of the Author - that has more to do with interpreting and analysing a text and how a reader derives meaning from it, not to butchering it in to another form. It is a valid argument, but not for the reason of saying it's fine to change things. It's hardly a universally accepted school of thought anyway and hardly universally applicable.

Its always fine to change things because the old thing hasn't gone anywhere. If the show comes out and inspires people to go read the original books then great. The books are still there. The show doesn't remove the books from existence in the same way that the games didn't and the horribly bad previous tv attempt didn't either.

Lance845 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

On one hand, death of the author (and the author's intent being forsaken in favour of a different theme or idea for the director) are valid outcomes. However, there should always be a reason to change something. Was the original work problematic? Is there an unforseen aspect, or interpretation, that could be brought out further? Is it a minor detail? All of these would be fine reasons to change something in regards to death of the author.

In the world of the Witcher, everyones skin color is a minor detail.

So why is the casting team asking for a BAME actress?

I want to just clarify, I personally don't have an issue if the actress was non-Polish ethnicity. Clearly, with Henry Cavill's casting, they're not going to have a "correct" ethnic cast. What I DO have a problem with is the fact that it quite literally is forced "diversity". If race is such a non-issue, it shouldn't matter what race Ciri is, and should be an open casting.

And, regardless if in the world of the Witcher, skin colour isn't a cause for racism, it doesn't change the fact that there was an original concept for character's colour, and it's not a bad one.
Don't fix what ain't broken is what I say: and if you want to bring in the argument of "we should have diversity, that's the broken part", having an ethnically Polish actress would fulfil that too.

There's no reason not to have a Polish actress, unless they're either not a good actress, or the casting team want someone decidedly not-white.

The original essay "The Author is Dead (The Reader is Born)" is actually primarily about a way to criticize a work, were in the work is supposed to stand on it's own merits and convey it's own messages and needs to be viewed in a vacuum separated from the authors life and intent. Which is specifically applicable here where the world of the Witcher is 100% fictional, borrows heavily from germanic brothers grimm folk lore, and the authors nationality and the population mix of his country doesn't have any bearing on the world he created.

You can criticize the books with separation from the author, but from a cultural representation standpoint, you cannot ignore that the Witcher is incredibly rooted in the culture of the author, be that folklore or not. It's still the culture of that people, and when it is a people that have had very little in the way of representation, that's quite important for a "muh representation" argument.

Again - what exactly is the problem with having an open casting? Why did it need to be BAME? That's all I'm saying.

Why should they cast not white people in the witcher TV series? Because it just doesn't matter. The character can be 100% in tact with a different skin color. And in the actual world we live in it's better to give fair and equal opportunities then it is to place the original author of the not super famous books on a pedestal and hold his whiteness sacred.

Yes, agreed. I don't the ethnicity of the character really matter. What does matter is how they're choosing to cast them - by putting up arbitrary barriers. We should give FAIR and EQUAL opportunities - BAME casting is not equal and fair.

Furthermore, let's just take a look at that first line - replace Polish with any of the more typical BAME groups. You still stand by that? Cultural identity is kinda a big deal, especially for a people which hasn't exactly had a rosy history. Clearly, cultural pride has a market (Black Panther inspired a lot of folks), but why is this one too far?
So, just to clarify, do your views on not being allowed to be proud of something that's symbolic of your culture apply to ALL cultures?

(I'm going to ignore the statement about it making people exempt from criticism, because that's often not the culture's fault - that's more often than not more that person not wanting to be critiqued anyway.)

Yes, I think cultural pride is stupid when cultural pride is used to try to mire you in traditions and prevent change. Cultural pride has been used as an excuse to not let gay people get married. To not let black people marry white people. To not let women vote. To not let black people go to school. RIGHT NOW women are stoned to death in the middle east because they want to get an education and a job because of cultural pride.

Exactly. There's nothing inherently wrong with cultural pride. There IS a problem when your culture revolves around stoning women because they want basic human rights. There is a problem when your culture prevents gays being married. Cultural pride is a problem if it prevents basic human rights.

The cultural pride here of respecting the origins and culture of a minority race is hardly the same. Again, I personally wouldn't complain if it was a raceblind casting, and someone not of Polish heritage was cast (hi Henry Cavill - most likely an open casting). However, when it is a BAME casting that seems to alienate the very ethnic group that the franchise is BASED off? That's kinda disrespectful to cultural pride, which isn't really negatively harming anyone.

Again, the amazing thing about Black Panther is not that it's something that belongs to black people. It's that they made just a movie that was nearly fully cast by black people with zero tokenism. Their blackness wasn't a butt of a joke. Their blackness wasn't a defining characteristic of their character. And when the white people were in the movie their whiteness wasn't the defining characteristic of THEIR character either. You might be able to count the number of american/european movies made this way on 1 hand. It's also the first time where the main character was a literal hero.

You know what I saw in the mall the other day. 3 people of 3 different skin tones wearing clothes with black panther stuff on it. It's not just something for black people to be proud of. It's something we should all be proud of.

Exactly, so why do we need a BAME casting when we should all be proud of an ethnically Polish Ciri?

The Wakandans didn't HAVE to be black. They're a fictional country. But it's the most logical, and culturally appropriate, thing to do, and that's 100% fine. I have no issues with Black Panther's casting, and I absolutely recognize that it was open to everyone. But why wouldn't the Witcher (which is also logically and culturally appropriately Polish) also be open to everyone too?

I am all for race blind casting. I think it's great! I think it's the end goal of the marathon we are all running. But it's a marathon not a toggle switch we can just flip on. This is part of a process as a society. We cannot instantly tell everyone to start treating everyone fairly and then have everyone just do it. It's a process that begins with gak like affirmative action (which creates it's own problems) which starts other discussions but starts to break down barriers, moves on to the conscious choice to include BLAME even when your not told you need to, sometimes for good reasons and sometimes for bad (and the work suffers for it or doesn't based on a great number of things that have nothing to do with skin color) and eventually BLAME doesn't need to be a thing at all because it's just not something anyone thinks about.

I think it's great that you want race blind casting. I just think your kidding yourself if you think we have reached that point yet.

I don't see why we can't flip the switch. By dragging this out, it furthers the idea of a "white vs everyone else" culture war, just like this is doing. BAME in itself is the epitome of that.
I know that realistically, we can't just say "let's forget centuries of systemic racism", but it doesn't means that people can't start doing that, and hopefully, other follow.

With BAME being a thing, it creates friction in the idea that diversity is something to fill quotas, to tick off a box. Going straight into open casting, with no restrictions, would allow for natural, non-forced diversity - REAL diversity. When that persists, then it will carry itself.

Again, the important part with Heimdall is that MCU/Marvel Heimdall is NOT Norse God Heimdall. They're fictional heroes made by Americans, with the names and vague outlines of the old Norse gods. Hell, they're not really even correct with Thor and Loki being brothers (even adopted). It's why there was a considerably larger fuss kicked up about Nikolaj Coster-Waldau and Gerard Butler playing gods of Eygpt in the titular film: because that was actually SUPPOSED to be Horus and Set.

While the Witcher isn't actual Polish myth or an actual defined figure, it's made by someone of that culture, strongly inspired by that culture, and could be a positive representation for that ethnic group (which, at least in the UK, doesn't have a great public image). In that respect, I see no reason it shouldn't be like Black Panther.

To be fair, in the Marvel Universe that IS Thor and Loki and Odin and so on. Those ARE the Norse gods. That Thor is the same Thor the Norse were telling stories about in the Prose Eda.

Not really. Unless the MCU Edda is very different to ours. In our Edda, I believe Thor is red-headed, married to Sif, and was a lover of a frost giant. Loki wasn't adopted, and I actually believe was closer to Odin's counterpart than Thor's. Very different to the MCU Asgardians.

MCU Heimdall is not the same Heimdall as the Edda.

Black Panther takes place in a fictional version of the real world. It has an Africa. Wakanda is a fictional country with a fictional culture that isn't anybodies to be represented. The few real world africans we saw in that movie were in the opening scene and were militants transporting women and children to be recruited or killed or raped or turned into slaves. The analog with poland and the witcher doesn't exist.

Africa doesn't mean black. It's fictional, they could be any skin colour, any ethnicity. If anything, their isolationism should actually have prompted some kind of racial divergence - if it was even real.

So if Black Panther WAS truly fictional with no representation, why do so many people view it as such? Death of the Author: while it might not have been intended to be anyone's culture*, it has been adopted into black cultures globally.

The Witcher have the same analog, with both settings being strongly based in real world cultural cues, taking from real world aesthetics or influence, but both being ultimately fictional. Again, I don't mind if Ciri wasn't Polish. I do have an issue that they seemingly don't permit for a Polish actress despite that being a very clear cultural influence on the setting.

*and I do think it was quite clearly intended to be significant for black people.

@ Sgt_Smudge

Awesome. Turns out you and I don't actually disagree on much. So for clarity sake let me rewind this right back to the beginning.

News is casting call for Ciri is looking for a BLAME actress. Thats all the information we got (and it turns out that could be incorrect but lets ignore that for now).

So in the equation we have BLAME casting call for X reasons = Y

Now Y could be well meaning idiocy. It could be Racism. It could be totally legit.

That all depends on X. X COULD be artistic licenses to separate the disparate nations by a more visual means for the political element of the world. It could also just be racism. It could also be marketing being fethers. We don't know. And we don't have any other information to even begin to calculate what X is. Literally every answer is equally possible without any further information.

Until we get some more information being upset about what X COULD be is a stupendous waste of time. And yelling "racism" or "potential racism" is exactly the same as every left wing idiot standing on a street corner yelling that white men are the problem with everything in the world.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So why is the casting team asking for a BAME actress?

Thats the question! Not all answers to that question are bad. Without more info getting upset is dumb.

I want to just clarify, I personally don't have an issue if the actress was non-Polish ethnicity. Clearly, with Henry Cavill's casting, they're not going to have a "correct" ethnic cast. What I DO have a problem with is the fact that it quite literally is forced "diversity". If race is such a non-issue, it shouldn't matter what race Ciri is, and should be an open casting.

They could very well have reasons for diversifying the cast that is not diversity for diversities sake. We will have to wait and see.

The original essay "The Author is Dead (The Reader is Born)" is actually primarily about a way to criticize a work, were in the work is supposed to stand on it's own merits and convey it's own messages and needs to be viewed in a vacuum separated from the authors life and intent. Which is specifically applicable here where the world of the Witcher is 100% fictional, borrows heavily from germanic brothers grimm folk lore, and the authors nationality and the population mix of his country doesn't have any bearing on the world he created.

You can criticize the books with separation from the author, but from a cultural representation standpoint, you cannot ignore that the Witcher is incredibly rooted in the culture of the author, be that folklore or not. It's still the culture of that people, and when it is a people that have had very little in the way of representation, that's quite important for a "muh representation" argument.

I don't take any stock in the "muh representation" argument outside of variety being good. I don't care what any individual is feeling on the matter. Socially I have some very liberal leanings. But I am a libertarian at heart. And that means you are not owed your feelings being coddled. I want a world where we just don't think about it because we have reached the point of race blindness. If we need to force some diversity now to get to there then fine. Good. Get there.

Why should they cast not white people in the witcher TV series? Because it just doesn't matter. The character can be 100% in tact with a different skin color. And in the actual world we live in it's better to give fair and equal opportunities then it is to place the original author of the not super famous books on a pedestal and hold his whiteness sacred.

Yes, agreed. I don't the ethnicity of the character really matter. What does matter is how they're choosing to cast them - by putting up arbitrary barriers. We should give FAIR and EQUAL opportunities - BAME casting is not equal and fair.

We don't KNOW that the barriers are arbitrary. Thats an assumption.

Furthermore, let's just take a look at that first line - replace Polish with any of the more typical BAME groups. You still stand by that? Cultural identity is kinda a big deal, especially for a people which hasn't exactly had a rosy history. Clearly, cultural pride has a market (Black Panther inspired a lot of folks), but why is this one too far?
So, just to clarify, do your views on not being allowed to be proud of something that's symbolic of your culture apply to ALL cultures?

(I'm going to ignore the statement about it making people exempt from criticism, because that's often not the culture's fault - that's more often than not more that person not wanting to be critiqued anyway.)

Yes, I think cultural pride is stupid when cultural pride is used to try to mire you in traditions and prevent change. Cultural pride has been used as an excuse to not let gay people get married. To not let black people marry white people. To not let women vote. To not let black people go to school. RIGHT NOW women are stoned to death in the middle east because they want to get an education and a job because of cultural pride.

Exactly. There's nothing inherently wrong with cultural pride. There IS a problem when your culture revolves around stoning women because they want basic human rights. There is a problem when your culture prevents gays being married. Cultural pride is a problem if it prevents basic human rights.

The cultural pride here of respecting the origins and culture of a minority race is hardly the same. Again, I personally wouldn't complain if it was a raceblind casting, and someone not of Polish heritage was cast (hi Henry Cavill - most likely an open casting). However, when it is a BAME casting that seems to alienate the very ethnic group that the franchise is BASED off? That's kinda disrespectful to cultural pride, which isn't really negatively harming anyone.

Then Ciri should be some kind of Roman/Greek. Her nation in the fictional world is most heavily influenced by Alexanders Roman Empire. Not polish. But again. It's a 100% fictional world and no landmass or nation that exists in our world exists in theirs. So... whatever.

Again, the amazing thing about Black Panther is not that it's something that belongs to black people. It's that they made just a movie that was nearly fully cast by black people with zero tokenism. Their blackness wasn't a butt of a joke. Their blackness wasn't a defining characteristic of their character. And when the white people were in the movie their whiteness wasn't the defining characteristic of THEIR character either. You might be able to count the number of american/european movies made this way on 1 hand. It's also the first time where the main character was a literal hero.

You know what I saw in the mall the other day. 3 people of 3 different skin tones wearing clothes with black panther stuff on it. It's not just something for black people to be proud of. It's something we should all be proud of.

Exactly, so why do we need a BAME casting when we should all be proud of an ethnically Polish Ciri?

The Wakandans didn't HAVE to be black. They're a fictional country. But it's the most logical, and culturally appropriate, thing to do, and that's 100% fine. I have no issues with Black Panther's casting, and I absolutely recognize that it was open to everyone. But why wouldn't the Witcher (which is also logically and culturally appropriately Polish) also be open to everyone too?

Wakandans DO have to be black. There might be small structural differences between historically French and Historically British people but they are both white as hell. Wakanda is a country right in middle Africa. Ethnically they are black. Again, the marvel earth is mostly our earth. That landmass is the same as our landmass with an extra country drawn into the middle of it. We know what people from that region look like.

Not true of the witcher.

I am all for race blind casting. I think it's great! I think it's the end goal of the marathon we are all running. But it's a marathon not a toggle switch we can just flip on. This is part of a process as a society. We cannot instantly tell everyone to start treating everyone fairly and then have everyone just do it. It's a process that begins with gak like affirmative action (which creates it's own problems) which starts other discussions but starts to break down barriers, moves on to the conscious choice to include BLAME even when your not told you need to, sometimes for good reasons and sometimes for bad (and the work suffers for it or doesn't based on a great number of things that have nothing to do with skin color) and eventually BLAME doesn't need to be a thing at all because it's just not something anyone thinks about.

I think it's great that you want race blind casting. I just think your kidding yourself if you think we have reached that point yet.

I don't see why we can't flip the switch. By dragging this out, it furthers the idea of a "white vs everyone else" culture war, just like this is doing. BAME in itself is the epitome of that.
I know that realistically, we can't just say "let's forget centuries of systemic racism", but it doesn't means that people can't start doing that, and hopefully, other follow.

It would be great! but there is what SHOULD be and what IS. And what IS is almost never what SHOULD be. The fact is it does take time and changes happen in iterations not instantaneous switches. You and I might understand what it actually means to have truely Raceblind casting but that doesn't mean that even the people who say they want to do that are capable of doing it without their systemic, cultural racism influencing the outcomes.

With BAME being a thing, it creates friction in the idea that diversity is something to fill quotas, to tick off a box. Going straight into open casting, with no restrictions, would allow for natural, non-forced diversity - REAL diversity. When that persists, then it will carry itself.

Again, the important part with Heimdall is that MCU/Marvel Heimdall is NOT Norse God Heimdall. They're fictional heroes made by Americans, with the names and vague outlines of the old Norse gods. Hell, they're not really even correct with Thor and Loki being brothers (even adopted). It's why there was a considerably larger fuss kicked up about Nikolaj Coster-Waldau and Gerard Butler playing gods of Eygpt in the titular film: because that was actually SUPPOSED to be Horus and Set.

While the Witcher isn't actual Polish myth or an actual defined figure, it's made by someone of that culture, strongly inspired by that culture, and could be a positive representation for that ethnic group (which, at least in the UK, doesn't have a great public image). In that respect, I see no reason it shouldn't be like Black Panther.

To be fair, in the Marvel Universe that IS Thor and Loki and Odin and so on. Those ARE the Norse gods. That Thor is the same Thor the Norse were telling stories about in the Prose Eda.

Not really. Unless the MCU Edda is very different to ours. In our Edda, I believe Thor is red-headed, married to Sif, and was a lover of a frost giant. Loki wasn't adopted, and I actually believe was closer to Odin's counterpart than Thor's. Very different to the MCU Asgardians.

MCU Heimdall is not the same Heimdall as the Edda.

Yes he is. Just because the Norse told the stories over and over again for centuries and got details wrong or shifted the stores doesn't mean that they were not based on those people. The Prose Edda is, already in our world, a extended game of telephone in which one person collected a bunch of verbally handed down myths and legends and compiled them into a single volume. Add to that actual entiies who come and go from the world as they please and you have the Marvel Universes Norse Gods.

Black Panther takes place in a fictional version of the real world. It has an Africa. Wakanda is a fictional country with a fictional culture that isn't anybodies to be represented. The few real world africans we saw in that movie were in the opening scene and were militants transporting women and children to be recruited or killed or raped or turned into slaves. The analog with poland and the witcher doesn't exist.

Africa doesn't mean black. It's fictional, they could be any skin colour, any ethnicity. If anything, their isolationism should actually have prompted some kind of racial divergence - if it was even real.

So if Black Panther WAS truly fictional with no representation, why do so many people view it as such? Death of the Author: while it might not have been intended to be anyone's culture*, it has been adopted into black cultures globally.

The Witcher have the same analog, with both settings being strongly based in real world cultural cues, taking from real world aesthetics or influence, but both being ultimately fictional. Again, I don't mind if Ciri wasn't Polish. I do have an issue that they seemingly don't permit for a Polish actress despite that being a very clear cultural influence on the setting.

*and I do think it was quite clearly intended to be significant for black people.

Try watching Black Panther again with your Race Blind glasses on. Watch it next to Iron man. Thor. Dr. Strange. It's just another Marvel movie doing the character in the title justice. It's not meant to be significant for anyone. It's meant to push the story forward and sell merch. THAT is the significant part. The fact that black panther is JUST a movie is what makes it so special. The very moment it is MEANT to be making some kind of statement is the very moment it stops being special. BP is as race blind as you can get specifically because it just is what it is.

Disregard, I did not read through the argument of which I want no part.

 dogma wrote:
Disregard, I did not read through the argument of which I want no part.

We can go with a different, but equally divisive, argument: Team Yen or Team Triss?

Triss without a doubt. Yennefer is an awfull person.

So, saw a thing yesterday that the BAME calling was actually for members of Polish ethnicity, which I guess in Britain technically fits into the BAME category.

May just be total smoke being blown, but someone on Reddit posted about a Polish 17 year old friend of theirs who had been called in for casting for the role.

 djones520 wrote:
So, saw a thing yesterday that the BAME calling was actually for members of Polish ethnicity, which I guess in Britain technically fits into the BAME category.

May just be total smoke being blown, but someone on Reddit posted about a Polish 17 year old friend of theirs who had been called in for casting for the role.

Polish people are not "Black/Asian Minority Ethnic".

That was a separate call for polish actresses located in Poland, announced only after the original BAME rage outburst.

 Galas wrote:
Triss without a doubt. Yennefer is an awfull person.

Like all choices in witcher they are BOTH bad people.

Shani. The only decent person in the world.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Triss without a doubt. Yennefer is an awfull person.

Like all choices in witcher they are BOTH bad people.

Shani. The only decent person in the world.

Okay, but Triss is a way better person than Yen is portrayed as in the games. That is without even going in to how bad of a person she is in the books.

And with that I announce I am team Yen, because I like the crazy.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Triss without a doubt. Yennefer is an awfull person.

Like all choices in witcher they are BOTH bad people.

Shani. The only decent person in the world.

meh.....Triss all the way

Consider if your significant other had amnesia while you were on vacation so your best friend decided to move in on them since they cant remember you.

Triss is that friend. She doesnt even feel bad about it.

 Lance845 wrote:
Consider if your significant other had amnesia while you were on vacation so your best friend decided to move in on them since they cant remember you.

Triss is that friend. She doesnt even feel bad about it.

I was gonna said "It is for the better, Yennefer does not deserve Geralt" but then I hate Geralt so I actually believe he and Yennefer are just perfect for each other.

 Lance845 wrote:
Consider if your significant other had amnesia while you were on vacation so your best friend decided to move in on them since they cant remember you.

Triss is that friend. She doesnt even feel bad about it.

Keep in mind that, as far as Triss knew at the time of the first game, Yennefer was dead. So, Geralt was an open playing field again. Very open, considering just how many encounters Geralt can have with the ladies in the first game.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Polish people are not "Black/Asian Minority Ethnic".

Really? Because in Chicago, where there a lot of people who are Polish or of Polish descent, actual Polish immigrants are considered an ethnic minority.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Keep in mind that, as far as Triss knew at the time of the first game, Yennefer was dead. So, Geralt was an open playing field again. Very open, considering just how many encounters Geralt can have with the ladies in the first game.

I imagine that, in a world without birth control, a strapping man that can't get you knocked up is a pretty desirable dalliance.

As for the original question: Triss. Yen's appearance is the result of sorcery. That may seem shallow, but you can't trust a person who puts on that kind of mask.