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.

I mentioned James Bond and Spiderman because I read about Idris Elba and Gillian Anderson being considered/rumored for the role and the fact that a black Spider Man already exists in the comics.

In the Marvel universe any new version of any hero can be imagined and brought into "reality", e.g. the teenage Muslim Ms Marvel comic which came out a few years ago. I think they are planning a film.

Between the Gauntlet and the Micro-verse the MCU can soft reboot any element with a degree of internal logic even with essentially 'I wish' magic

I'm hoping for a SpiderGwen because of how empowering tight supersuits are

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
I'm hoping for a SpiderGwen because of how empowering tight supersuits are

Yes. Empowering. That's the word

 Blackie wrote:
I mentioned James Bond and Spiderman because I read about Idris Elba and Gillian Anderson being considered/rumored for the role and the fact that a black Spider Man already exists in the comics.

Yes? And there is racist, sexist push back against both, and it would be ridiculously naive to assume that their identities wouldn't be part of the marketing, if/when it happens.

My point was that your claim that racism isn't part of marketing is pure idealism, not reality.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
I'm hoping for a SpiderGwen because of how empowering tight supersuits are

Yes. Empowering. That's the word

But using words wrong is perfectly cromulent in the fluid truth era, anyone says different is a perricombombulating whimberl

Voss wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I mentioned James Bond and Spiderman because I read about Idris Elba and Gillian Anderson being considered/rumored for the role and the fact that a black Spider Man already exists in the comics.

Yes? And there is racist, sexist push back against both, and it would be ridiculously naive to assume that their identities wouldn't be part of the marketing, if/when it happens.

My point was that your claim that racism isn't part of marketing is pure idealism, not reality.

I'm sure everyone recognises that culture is produced within a general social milieu with effects and reactions in both directions.

Voss wrote:


And given how audiences react, it's understandable, if crappy, behavior (in terms of studio behavior priotizing cash over social issues, they're businesses). The pushback on, for example, on a minor character like Heimdall was really high. Casting Idris Elba as Thor was never even in the cards, it wasn't even imaginable. And yes, that is racism.

I respectfully disagree. I think Idris Elba even as Heimdal was silly.
I prefer my Norse gods, even third generation derivative ones to look the part, and that has nothing to do with racism.
That being said, I did enjoy Idris Elba as Heimdal, and the Marvelverse is silly enough that I could overlook it (and he made a great Roland in the Dark Tower, which I have, and had, no objection to, nor to a black girl portraying Hermione). I still think that particular role was a very silly decision.

But why would alien Norse gods have to be white? The ancient peoples they appeared to on Earth, sure, but the aliens Norse gods themselves? This isn't a religious film recreating an actual sacred event of the Aesir faith.

It's like the nonsense of Jesus being a white dude, when he should look like an Arab.

#JesusWhitewashed!

I am more concerned about my media being able to help me suspend my disbelief long enough to go along with the story or plot of a film. I do not expect a movie to get everything 100% right, but as long as it is not jarring enough to take me out of the movie, then eveything is fine. However, the line between jarring and not jarring varies a lot by consumer.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
But why would alien Norse gods have to be white? The ancient peoples they appeared to on Earth, sure, but the aliens Norse gods themselves? This isn't a religious film recreating an actual sacred event of the Aesir faith.

What part of "even third generation derivatives" did you miss?
I even bolded it for crying out loud.

 Easy E wrote:
#JesusWhitewashed!

I am more concerned about my media being able to help me suspend my disbelief long enough to go along with the story or plot of a film. I do not expect a movie to get everything 100% right, but as long as it is not jarring enough to take me out of the movie, then eveything is fine. However, the line between jarring and not jarring varies a lot by consumer.

White Jesus may be the original whitewashing subject.

Indeed. I cannot enjoy Nolan's Dark Knight because the notion of a ground-penetrating microwave that instantly aerosolizes the fear poison in the pipes. Every time it comes up, the implausibility of the thing takes me right out of the movie. Just writing about it right now is starting to wind me up for an extended "well, actually..." rant.

Bran Dawri wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
But why would alien Norse gods have to be white? The ancient peoples they appeared to on Earth, sure, but the aliens Norse gods themselves? This isn't a religious film recreating an actual sacred event of the Aesir faith.

What part of "even third generation derivatives" did you miss?
I even bolded it for crying out loud.

I'm asking you to defend why it matters even with second gen derivatives. Why does it matter? Complaining about third gen knockoff that are clearly aliens not fitting ethnicity sounds like complaining that the (theoretical) anime version of Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter portrays him as a black robot. Why is ethnicity so important to you for these particular deities?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
#JesusWhitewashed!

I am more concerned about my media being able to help me suspend my disbelief long enough to go along with the story or plot of a film. I do not expect a movie to get everything 100% right, but as long as it is not jarring enough to take me out of the movie, then eveything is fine. However, the line between jarring and not jarring varies a lot by consumer.

White Jesus may be the original whitewashing subject.

Indeed. I cannot enjoy Nolan's Dark Knight because the notion of a ground-penetrating microwave that instantly aerosolizes the fear poison in the pipes. Every time it comes up, the implausibility of the thing takes me right out of the movie. Just writing about it right now is starting to wind me up for an extended "well, actually..." rant.

As a fan of Adam West Batman, that was the most relatable aspect of the film for me.

Fair enough, then!

Bran Dawri wrote:

Voss wrote:


And given how audiences react, it's understandable, if crappy, behavior (in terms of studio behavior priotizing cash over social issues, they're businesses). The pushback on, for example, on a minor character like Heimdall was really high. Casting Idris Elba as Thor was never even in the cards, it wasn't even imaginable. And yes, that is racism.

I respectfully disagree. I think Idris Elba even as Heimdal was silly.
I prefer my Norse gods, even third generation derivative ones to look the part, and that has nothing to do with racism..

Fourth, actually. [Movie<-Comic<-Snorri's Edda's [as a Christian writing them down two centuries after Iceland converted, well after the Viking era]<-original mythology] So fictionalized fictionalization of fictionalized fiction.
And how does it not? No matter where you place it, its either reject the modern actor because he's black, or claim that Scandinavians wouldn't worship black gods.

Voss wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I mentioned James Bond and Spiderman because I read about Idris Elba and Gillian Anderson being considered/rumored for the role and the fact that a black Spider Man already exists in the comics.

Yes? And there is racist, sexist push back against both, and it would be ridiculously naive to assume that their identities wouldn't be part of the marketing, if/when it happens.

My point was that your claim that racism isn't part of marketing is pure idealism, not reality.

Here where I live no one complained about a black Heimdall, even some of my friends who are fans of the comics. And I live in a country where non white actors only get the roles of strangers or citizens with foreign origins.

Since I don't live in the USA I was interested in this matter because from my point of view it's impossible to understand if critiques like this one are generated because of racism or an overreaction towards realism, which seems to be more important than the acting and the plot in the majority of american movies.

The first example I made was about an Hawaiian character that didn't look asiatic, but not all the people from Hawaii look japanese. Was that push back caused because her look was not realistic enough or because a choice like that one is a consequence of a racist society? You say the latter, I hope you're not always right.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
But why would alien Norse gods have to be white? The ancient peoples they appeared to on Earth, sure, but the aliens Norse gods themselves? This isn't a religious film recreating an actual sacred event of the Aesir faith.

What part of "even third generation derivatives" did you miss?
I even bolded it for crying out loud.

I'm asking you to defend why it matters even with second gen derivatives. Why does it matter? Complaining about third gen knockoff that are clearly aliens not fitting ethnicity sounds like complaining that the (theoretical) anime version of Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter portrays him as a black robot. Why is ethnicity so important to you for these particular deities?

Err, I said why when I said *Norse* Gods, even third generation derivatives. You then delved into how they were derived, as if that's pertinent to my preference. It's not. When a film is named "Thor", and is about him and other Aesir, I expect people who look like larger-than-life Vikings. That's all there is to it.

But you said it wasn't racism. Now you are saying that the ethnicity matters more than the capabilities of the actor when the role happens to be of an ethnicity you care about.

And in case you claim realism is your motivation, that's why I specified that these are aliens, not Earthborn Nordics. Just because the worshippers were white doesn't mean the alien gods were all homogenous. If we're talking realism, there are no aliens and no Aesir, but rather the yawning emptiness of a meaningless void.

I mean, if we were talking about a historical film, I'd likely agree. But we're talking feel-good pew-pew quippy-quip movies. It's much more important to cast an actor who can deliver lines like "I'll cast your dark elf soul back to Swartelfheim" with sufficient gravitas and then do a spit take at some old scientist's flapping buttocks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On a slightly different note, how does everyone feel about Jeanette Goldstein and Fisher Stevens, white actors most famous for playing iconic minority characters? (Vasquez from Aliens and Ben from Short Circuit/2). I haven't seen much pushback against them, presumably for taking their roles seriously, but they do illustrate how difficult it has been historically for minority actors to land any notable roles.

I didn't even know either of those people weren't the ethnicity they were portraying.

One thing that doesn't get enough blame for the same actors getting roles over others, including minority actors, is nepotism in Hollywood.

In the recent past, the only good racelift has been RDJ in Tropic Thunder. Fight me.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
In the recent past, the only good racelift has been RDJ in Tropic Thunder. Fight me.

To be fair it only worked because it was a racelift that lampooned racelifting. Parody almost always gets a hard pass.

Besides it was utterly hilarious.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
In the recent past, the only good racelift has been RDJ in Tropic Thunder. Fight me.

Does Galaxy Quest count as recent? Tony Shaloub played an actor named Kwan playing a character named Tech Sergeant Chen. That's a hat trick.

Yeah, it was lampooning race lifting, especially how Hollywood will often cast actors of one minority to play a different minority because...they don't think people notice?

Even better in tropic thunder RDJ stayed in character as the actor in the role when doing the commentary on the DVD.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
In the recent past, the only good racelift has been RDJ in Tropic Thunder. Fight me.

Does Galaxy Quest count as recent? Tony Shaloub played an actor named Kwan playing a character named Tech Sergeant Chen. That's a hat trick.

Yeah, it was lampooning race lifting, especially how Hollywood will often cast actors of one minority to play a different minority because...they don't think people notice?

Kwan/Chen might be my favourite Galaxy Quest character, he just takes everything in his stride with an almost herbal infused calm and gets the girl (well Squiddy thing) to boot

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Actors are playing roles, not being themselves.

However, they have to be believable in that role. Having a black woman as Luke in a remake of Star Wars works just fine, neither his race nor his gender are significant parts of the character. Having a black woman playing the role of a KKK member does not work, because being white is a key part of the (hypothetical) character. And yes, that's what you're going to have to do in your hypothetical Nigerian girls' school, but it's understood that amateur school productions are not going to be high in quality and you work with what you've got. The same doesn't apply for a movie with an obscenely huge budget and the ability to hire anyone they want for a role.

Sophie Okonedo -- a black actress -- was great in the role of Queen Margaret in the BBC's adaptation of several of Shapespeare's history plays a couple of years ago.

We just had this discussion in James Bond thread...
It is not just the question of "whitewashing", when they cast Angelina Jolie for the role of Kay Scarpetta, all the Patricia Cornwall fans charged the barricades, as Jolie doesn't match all how Scarpetta is described in the books.

If we are not caring about the actors matching the visual expectation, what about props and sets? What if some hypothetical Hollywood director, lets call him Michael B., decides to make a new movie about D-Day and gives all the Germans AK-47's because they just look more menacing and badass than historical Mauser carabines? Who cares then if they're unhistorical?
Well, I for one would care very much. Setting is important part of a movie and if the screenwriters do not care about consistency within the setting, I am not going to be interested about the setting and consequently, about the movie.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
In the recent past, the only good racelift has been RDJ in Tropic Thunder. Fight me.

Does Galaxy Quest count as recent? Tony Shaloub played an actor named Kwan playing a character named Tech Sergeant Chen. That's a hat trick.

Yeah, it was lampooning race lifting, especially how Hollywood will often cast actors of one minority to play a different minority because...they don't think people notice?

Galaxy Quest was 1999 - practically 20 years ago...

RDJ went deeper, though... playing an actor, playing a dude disguised as another dude.

Backfire wrote:

We just had this discussion in James Bond thread...
It is not just the question of "whitewashing", when they cast Angelina Jolie for the role of Kay Scarpetta, all the Patricia Cornwall fans charged the barricades, as Jolie doesn't match all how Scarpetta is described in the books.

If we are not caring about the actors matching the visual expectation, what about props and sets? What if some hypothetical Hollywood director, lets call him Michael B., decides to make a new movie about D-Day and gives all the Germans AK-47's because they just look more menacing and badass than historical Mauser carabines? Who cares then if they're unhistorical?
Well, I for one would care very much. Setting is important part of a movie and if the screenwriters do not care about consistency within the setting, I am not going to be interested about the setting and consequently, about the movie.

You gotta check out the new Robin Hood movie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
In the recent past, the only good racelift has been RDJ in Tropic Thunder. Fight me.

Does Galaxy Quest count as recent? Tony Shaloub played an actor named Kwan playing a character named Tech Sergeant Chen. That's a hat trick.

Yeah, it was lampooning race lifting, especially how Hollywood will often cast actors of one minority to play a different minority because...they don't think people notice?

Galaxy Quest was 1999 - practically 20 years ago...

RDJ went deeper, though... playing an actor, playing a dude disguised as another dude.

When was Tropic thunder? Feels like a decade or more at least.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

You gotta check out the new Robin Hood movie.

I don't think I will.

Anyway based on trailer, it looks like 'history based fantasy' story like '300', which wasn't remotely historical but was passable as escapism trip. Realism standards are going to be lower for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The you have TLJ with hyper-drive suicide. This invalidates the entire story of starwars....It invalidates the deathstar - invalidates deathstar 2....just so they could get that really cool looking epic shot. And stuff like lasers arching in open space...WTF is that man?

I think it is estabilished that 'Turbo-Lasers' of Star Wars aren't really 'lasers' but some kind of blasters. I mean, it has always been obvious their bolts don't move anywhere close to lightspeed.
In RTJ they had car-sized A-Wing knock out 17km long Star Destroyer by ramming...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

But even the second is wrong. The scene doesn't fit because it's the wrong kind of humor for Star Wars. The scene with Han is in character, the humor is in the situation and how Han fumbles his attempt to talk his way out of trouble. You're laughing at it, but it's something that could plausibly happen in the Star Wars setting. And that makes it feel real and fit with a serious movie like Star Wars. Contrast that with Poe's prank call, where it's completely out of character. We're supposed to believe that this serious hero character, who has never been comic relief up until this point, is going to open a battle by literally making a prank call to the enemy leader. It's ridiculous and against the tone of everything else, and feels like a comedy routine being performed instead of a character acting naturally. If you showed someone that scene before they watched TLJ they'd probably think it was some kind of parody of Star Wars rather than a real scene.

I disagree. Poe did almost exact same thing in TFA when he met Kylo Ren so him playing a smartass is hardly out of character. If there was Luke playing such a trick, then you would have a point. Difference was that Kylo Ren completely ignored Poe's (false) bravado whilst Hux fell for it. Any way, while the scene was quite poor attempt at comedy, I can't fault it as such from realism perspective. One might argue that it is unrealistic how such an obviously idiotic person like Hux is in so high position in FO fleet, but even that would be quite weak poke at realism.

Much bigger 'internal realism' problem is how a single X-Wing, no matter how skillfully flown, could knock out most of the defensive guns from a battleship.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:
The word most of the posters here should be using is not realism, it's verisimilitude. The feeling or appearance of being real within the context of what's going on.

When established characters act out of character, that goes against verisimilitude. When you establish that something takes lots of specialized training to do, and then a new character can do it 'just because' that goes against verisimilitude. When smart characters do dumb things that goes against verisimilitude. When characters lose resources they had earlier in the story with no explanation as to how or why they were expended, that goes against verisimilitude.

'Characters acting stupid' is much used trope in horror movies, where writers often face difficulties putting characters plausibly in tense situations. "Horrible killer is hunting us down one by one. Lets split up."
It was particularly acute in 'Prometheus' where characters were written to do all kind of dumb things to get them in 'exciting' scenes, like poking their face within 5cm of a potentially dangerous alien, getting lost in a cave despite powerful mapping drones and hologram maps, running in straight lines whilst small sidestep would have avoided danger...

But this kind of stuff is not just a realism problem. If the characters endanger themselves by doing dumb things, we, the viewers, may lose respect to them. If someone is in danger we need to care about the character at least little bit for scene to have effect, but if they are going on harms way out of sheer stupidity, why should we care? The guy was an idiot going poking T-Rex nest in nighttime. Let him be eaten and have natural selection take its course.

Prometheus' Xenobiologist petting the alien king cobra in full threat display is a perfect example of unrealistic behavior.