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.

Typically, I find the kind of sloppy writing that leads to noticible inconsistencies in technology goes hand in hand with the kind of sloppy writing that ruins characters. Writers who work to maintain consistency and pay attention to set up and pay off typically apply that ethic across the board.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
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.

Question - would be ok to have Japanese actors for a movie with characters based on the Bantu Mythology?

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
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.

Question - would be ok to have Japanese actors for a movie with characters based on the Bantu Mythology?

How closely based? Superheroes? Criminals using code names? Stargate ancient aliens stories? A recreation of a sacred story?

And you mean one Japanese actor who has the acting chops? Or hiring based on race exclusively?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
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.

Question - would be ok to have Japanese actors for a movie with characters based on the Bantu Mythology?

How closely based? Superheroes? Criminals using code names? Stargate ancient aliens stories? A recreation of a sacred story?

And you mean one Japanese actor who has the acting chops? Or hiring based on race exclusively?

Any of those. When it's ok, and when it's not?
I ask thinking about the storm after Ghost in the Shell and the accuses of whitewashing.

 Blackie wrote:

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.

Its always going to be racism. Most general audience wouldn't know 'realism' if it came up and bit them, and frankly most studios don't bother attempting it at the first place. It's part of the reason most movies are so terrible.

As for Aloha, for one thing, the character wasn't Japanese at all. I'm not even sure why you're mentioning it, other than stereotypes about a lot of Japanese nationals in Hawaii.
But the character's whole schtick is aggressively pitching Hawaiian culture at people- the character's ethnicity was central to her role in the film, so going to such great lengths to avoid it so completely in the actress is going to make even the densest audience member reviewer go, 'Wait, what?' It's an obvious talking point for a film that probably didn't have much else to discuss.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

I ask thinking about the storm after Ghost in the Shell and the accuses of whitewashing.

That just struck me as the studio saying... 'Yeah, this sucks. Grab successful white actress #23 so we might be able to get some money out of this slug'

[Tip: just go watch the anime. It's better, and doesn't have stupid decisions like that. This trend of converting animation into 'live action' or rather, CGI, is terrible. The limitations of live action make them so much worse.]

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
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.

Question - would be ok to have Japanese actors for a movie with characters based on the Bantu Mythology?

How closely based? Superheroes? Criminals using code names? Stargate ancient aliens stories? A recreation of a sacred story?

And you mean one Japanese actor who has the acting chops? Or hiring based on race exclusively?

Any of those. When it's ok, and when it's not?
I ask thinking about the storm after Ghost in the Shell and the accuses of whitewashing.

Well, race lifting between minorities is still pretty common and rarely draws much controversy unless you hire a Chinese actress to play a Japanese character (and presumably vice versa). The dynamics are different in the US between that and whitewashing because typically representation helps out minority actors, even if not the right minority, which in the long term helps open the doors for actors of all ethnicities. Whitewashing just helps reinforce the idea that white actors need to be hired for various reasons (or justifications) and just keeps the status quo, which has momentum leftover from the days of overt racism. For Asian Americans, who can probably only count a handful of performers of their ethnicity among the stars or household names of the acting world, casting a "safe" white actor in a hundred million dollar movie to play what should (?) be a Japanese character feels like a step back if not a slap in the face.

I find that minorities are poorly represented on screen compared to the society I live in (which, granted, is not representative of much of the U.S.), so I support diversity and studios that attempt to give up and coming actors of all ancestries a chance rather than settling for the nepotism or "safe casting" of last century's studios.

Backfire wrote:

 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.

This seems very hypothetical. That said, various WW2 films have been made using Chaffee tanks as Shermans, and M3 halftracks as Hanomags, and M26 tanks as Tigers, and so on and so on.

No-one cared, because the exact variety of a tank or a rifle doesn't matter. What matters is that it's a tank or a rifle being used to recreate a dramatic historical event.

We've seen Shakespeare (Henry V) performed in modern dress, with modern army rifles and so on, and it does not compromise the quality of the drama.

@Bob, no intention to sound confrontational, but I think you are using two different standards here. In my opinion, either the "race" of the actor should not matter in blatantly fictional works, or it should. If Elba can be Heimdall (and you have a point in why yes he can be), Scarjo can be a cyborg with an "asian brain", especially because of the design of the original movie.
Speaking of which:

@Voss: seen the anime movie and the sequel, liked both. the first one a long, long time ago, introduced by one of the guy I played 40k with back then!
Gotta see the SAC perhaps, what's your opinion of that series?

As an Asian dude, no, it's not good to have cast ScarJo as Maj. Kusanagi. The "original movie" is exaggerated, not realistic, and most importantly, because there are Asian actresses who would do a better job with the role.

As a general rule, having white people play non-white roles is a lazy casting decision. If Marvel had had cast a white dude as Black Panther, would that have worked? No.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
As an Asian dude, no, it's not good to have cast ScarJo as Maj. Kusanagi. The "original movie" is exaggerated, not realistic, and most importantly, because there are Asian actresses who would do a better job with the role.

As a general rule, having white people play non-white roles is a lazy casting decision. If Marvel had had cast a white dude as Black Panther, would that have worked? No.

So why Elba as Heimdall is ok?

Like Bob said its often a money call, doesn't make it right or fair but as ever progress is a slow process

as for Hemdall, if you wanted a scary mofo bridge guardian course you going to pick someone that looks like that

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
As an Asian dude, no, it's not good to have cast ScarJo as Maj. Kusanagi. The "original movie" is exaggerated, not realistic, and most importantly, because there are Asian actresses who would do a better job with the role.

As a general rule, having white people play non-white roles is a lazy casting decision. If Marvel had had cast a white dude as Black Panther, would that have worked? No.

So why Elba as Heimdall is ok?

Did you not read what I wrote?

I said that whitewashing is bad.

I have no issue with having space Heimdall in the Marvel Universe who inspired the Norse of the Marvel Universe actually being black, and getting whitewashed by those in-Universe Norse in the exact same way real world Europeans have whitewashed Jesus for past 1,000+ years...

@JohnHwangDD: And I asked because I think that it's not a fair statement. The major is as much fictional as space-Heimdall (for the record, I have no problem with Elba-Heimdall either, for the same reason I have no problem with Scarjo-major).

I would have had problem with Toshiro Mifune playing king Cetshwayo in "Zulu". Luckily it did not happen. That movie is supposed to be historical, albeit the relatives of some of the soldiers could object some detail.

Not sure what Jesus has to do with it.
Also FYI - concerning the USA, middle easterns ARE white. It's a very flexible concept. I am Italian, I discovered I am white in the USA... now. 100 years ago it would have been different.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

@Voss: seen the anime movie and the sequel, liked both. the first one a long, long time ago, introduced by one of the guy I played 40k with back then!
Gotta see the SAC perhaps, what's your opinion of that series?

First season is good, significantly better than the original film. (Which... eh. For the time was ok, but I'd actually step back further and read the manga, as it needs the extra depth). SAC gives a better read on the society and why things are shaped the way they are.

I found the second season... oddly dull, with some really odd and disturbing random tangents. [And I mean really, really odd, like the Major inviting a child to have sex with her body, and sorta/kinda intimidating him into not actually doing it]
Haven't seen the even more recent stuff, but every time I've tried to watch the second season I've checked out and started just ignoring it (letting it play in the background for the noise) about half-way through.

So why Elba as Heimdall is ok?

Going to be honest, it's partly because he is a better actor. That's not entirely fair to Johanssen, because she's mostly just underused and her character's skills don't really matter much for the kind of stories they tell (she's better in any of the Iron Man films than the Avengers films).
It certainly isn't because he's 'scary' [What the hell, Turnip?], but he does the 'enigmatic guardian' rather well.

The other part is it helps the 'Nine Realms' seem larger. If Earth is more diverse than every other Realm (World? Plane? Whatever?) in the 'universe,' it seems smaller. Idris and Tadanobu Asano (who played Hogun of the Warriors Three) help make the Realms seem more alive, and more reasonable as a setting. That they throw Hogun on a bus to home in the Thor 2 prologue and kill him off real fast in Thor 3 didn't really do them any favors.

This all gets really fuzzy when you hook guardians of the galaxy up and there is a whole galaxy of aliens running around, but still, as presented in Thor, it helps Asgard not look like a creepy racist cult of neo-nazi aliens. Which is unequivocally good, because some of the Jotun stuff really does raise flags (even though alien ice giants and whatnot).

Thank you for the review Voss. Maybe if the first season is auto-conclusive enough I could stop there.
BTW the impression I had from the manga is that it's a completely different beast altogether.

Elba is a very good actor and unless historical accuracy is a priority, THAT should be the most important measure, to be honest.
I think we are being unfair with ScarJo. I think she is good in exactly this kind of roles, when she can appear distant. I say this thinking about Under the Skin, a movie I loved. I think she is great there, she really nailed it. She is very different in different moments of the movie (so her signature "stiffness" is gradually lost), all while her character is progressing, or at least she looks like someone that she is TRYING to change and progress - which is kinda the point, and from this stems the whole tragedy.

I am also convinced that her possible limits as an actress were not the main reasons of the storm, to be honest.

of course he's scary he sounds like Shere Khan

and the whole MCU is constructed out of inaneium so ripping on it is fair game, of course the majority of them are wizz-bang fun but thats all they are

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
@JohnHwangDD: And I asked because I think that it's not a fair statement. The major is as much fictional as space-Heimdall (for the record, I have no problem with Elba-Heimdall either, for the same reason I have no problem with Scarjo-major).

I would have had problem with Toshiro Mifune playing king Cetshwayo in "Zulu". Luckily it did not happen. That movie is supposed to be historical, albeit the relatives of some of the soldiers could object some detail.

Not sure what Jesus has to do with it.
Also FYI - concerning the USA, middle easterns ARE white. It's a very flexible concept. I am Italian, I discovered I am white in the USA... now. 100 years ago it would have been different.

It may not be "fair" to you, but then, you also come from what may fairly be considered a privileged "white" background in the current US. Ergo, it's simply not your place to so have any opinion on whitewashing. That is, when you get right down to it, your white opinion doesn't matter here, any more than it matters what you think about who gets to say the N-word. Your white privilege does not extend to allowing you to have any sort of valid opinion on non-white topics. Yes, I'm deliberately playing the race card on a racially-sensitive subject to tell you to STFU and just listen when a less-privileged non-white person is talking about any such subject.

Whitewashed Jesus is a callback to a previous comment I made in this thread.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
@JohnHwangDD: And I asked because I think that it's not a fair statement. The major is as much fictional as space-Heimdall (for the record, I have no problem with Elba-Heimdall either, for the same reason I have no problem with Scarjo-major).

I would have had problem with Toshiro Mifune playing king Cetshwayo in "Zulu". Luckily it did not happen. That movie is supposed to be historical, albeit the relatives of some of the soldiers could object some detail.

Not sure what Jesus has to do with it.
Also FYI - concerning the USA, middle easterns ARE white. It's a very flexible concept. I am Italian, I discovered I am white in the USA... now. 100 years ago it would have been different.

It may not be "fair" to you, but then, you also come from what may fairly be considered a privileged "white" background in the current US. Ergo, it's simply not your place to so have any opinion on whitewashing. That is, when you get right down to it, your white opinion doesn't matter here, any more than it matters what you think about who gets to say the N-word. Your white privilege does not extend to allowing you to have any sort of valid opinion on non-white topics. Yes, I'm deliberately playing the race card on a racially-sensitive subject to tell you to STFU and just listen when a less-privileged non-white person is talking about any such subject.

Whitewashed Jesus is a callback to a previous comment I made in this thread.

I can only laugh at all of this. Have a nice day m8.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
@JohnHwangDD: And I asked because I think that it's not a fair statement. The major is as much fictional as space-Heimdall (for the record, I have no problem with Elba-Heimdall either, for the same reason I have no problem with Scarjo-major).

I would have had problem with Toshiro Mifune playing king Cetshwayo in "Zulu". Luckily it did not happen. That movie is supposed to be historical, albeit the relatives of some of the soldiers could object some detail.

Not sure what Jesus has to do with it.
Also FYI - concerning the USA, middle easterns ARE white. It's a very flexible concept. I am Italian, I discovered I am white in the USA... now. 100 years ago it would have been different.

It may not be "fair" to you, but then, you also come from what may fairly be considered a privileged "white" background in the current US. Ergo, it's simply not your place to so have any opinion on whitewashing. That is, when you get right down to it, your white opinion doesn't matter here, any more than it matters what you think about who gets to say the N-word. Your white privilege does not extend to allowing you to have any sort of valid opinion on non-white topics. Yes, I'm deliberately playing the race card on a racially-sensitive subject to tell you to STFU and just listen when a less-privileged non-white person is talking about any such subject.

Whitewashed Jesus is a callback to a previous comment I made in this thread.

I can only laugh at all of this. Have a nice day m8.

And that is why you are part of the problem. Pity.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
@JohnHwangDD: And I asked because I think that it's not a fair statement. The major is as much fictional as space-Heimdall (for the record, I have no problem with Elba-Heimdall either, for the same reason I have no problem with Scarjo-major).

I would have had problem with Toshiro Mifune playing king Cetshwayo in "Zulu". Luckily it did not happen. That movie is supposed to be historical, albeit the relatives of some of the soldiers could object some detail.

Not sure what Jesus has to do with it.
Also FYI - concerning the USA, middle easterns ARE white. It's a very flexible concept. I am Italian, I discovered I am white in the USA... now. 100 years ago it would have been different.

It may not be "fair" to you, but then, you also come from what may fairly be considered a privileged "white" background in the current US. Ergo, it's simply not your place to so have any opinion on whitewashing. That is, when you get right down to it, your white opinion doesn't matter here, any more than it matters what you think about who gets to say the N-word. Your white privilege does not extend to allowing you to have any sort of valid opinion on non-white topics. Yes, I'm deliberately playing the race card on a racially-sensitive subject to tell you to STFU and just listen when a less-privileged non-white person is talking about any such subject.

Whitewashed Jesus is a callback to a previous comment I made in this thread.

I can only laugh at all of this. Have a nice day m8.

And that is why you are part of the problem. Pity.

Dude, you called "non-white topics" stuff that is not "white" or "non-white" in a way or another. You layered your arbitrary and biased restrictions on which actor should be allowed to play which role, with a coat of hypocrisy and accusation of "privilege".
Also FYI I lived in 4 countries and 2 continents for work, and I also find odd that you bring "cards" into the discussion, while last time I checked asian-americans are far from being a disadvantaged category. You are hilarious.
Finally, last comment concerning Jesus: you have no clue how an arab looks like (btw Jesus was a jew last time I checked). You could not tell apart half of my relatives from many people that identify themselves as arabs.
Embarrassing.

EDIT: I also wish to point out that you said to another poster: "your opinion does not matter because of your (alleged) skin color". I hope you can see the irony of this, one day.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
@JohnHwangDD: And I asked because I think that it's not a fair statement. The major is as much fictional as space-Heimdall (for the record, I have no problem with Elba-Heimdall either, for the same reason I have no problem with Scarjo-major).

I would have had problem with Toshiro Mifune playing king Cetshwayo in "Zulu". Luckily it did not happen. That movie is supposed to be historical, albeit the relatives of some of the soldiers could object some detail.

Not sure what Jesus has to do with it.
Also FYI - concerning the USA, middle easterns ARE white. It's a very flexible concept. I am Italian, I discovered I am white in the USA... now. 100 years ago it would have been different.

It may not be "fair" to you, but then, you also come from what may fairly be considered a privileged "white" background in the current US. Ergo, it's simply not your place to so have any opinion on whitewashing. That is, when you get right down to it, your white opinion doesn't matter here, any more than it matters what you think about who gets to say the N-word. Your white privilege does not extend to allowing you to have any sort of valid opinion on non-white topics. Yes, I'm deliberately playing the race card on a racially-sensitive subject to tell you to STFU and just listen when a less-privileged non-white person is talking about any such subject.

Whitewashed Jesus is a callback to a previous comment I made in this thread.

I can only laugh at all of this. Have a nice day m8.

And that is why you are part of the problem. Pity.

Of course, when you go after someone like this, you discredit your whole argument. I agree with you that whitewashing is a bad thing, but then you tell not just him but me as well (since I am white) that I am not allowed to have an opinion about whitewashing.

NEWS FLASH: Things do not change because the minority wants it changed. Things change because the majority accept they are wrong and WANT change. When you attack someone, you make them defensive. People who are defensive dig in and defend their position right or wrong. To get them to change requires discussion.

And discussion means understanding that BOTH sides do indeed get to have an opinion they can discuss.

But this is not what he is arguing for. He is arguing for something quite uni-directional.

I daresay, privilege seems an ironic term in this particular usage.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
@Bob, no intention to sound confrontational, but I think you are using two different standards here. In my opinion, either the "race" of the actor should not matter in blatantly fictional works, or it should. If Elba can be Heimdall (and you have a point in why yes he can be), Scarjo can be a cyborg with an "asian brain", especially because of the design of the original movie.
?

It's not that simple.

I agree in principle that the capability of the actor to perform a specific role *should* be all that matters. However, even at this idealized level, it's not that simple. To play an existing person/character, ideally you should be able to find an actor who resembles the person and who is also the most capable. But that doesn't happen perfectly, so now you have to weigh factors other than pure merit for some roles. How much does the capability of the actor matter more than the similarity of the actor to the character? For some roles, like a well documented historical figure, appearance matters a great deal to avoid losing the audience. For a different kind of a role, like a book character or legend, it matters far more to have an actor who can capture the intangible qualities that define the character. By the time we get to Thor, the alien that pretended to be a god based on the second hand accounts of the oral traditions of a mythological God recognized by a specific people, we are getting into some fairly hazy area.

But that's in an ideal world. In the real world, race matters because it has always mattered. The doors were closed on minority actors regardless of talent for generations. There is a huge history of minority characters being played by white actors: blackface, yellow face, all the way through the eighties with the actors I mentioned earlier, and now into the current generation with the whitewashing in movies like The Last Airbender, and whatever you call the need to cast a white protagonist into a movie that shouldn't have any white people in it. So for a lot of the people who feel on the receiving end of this practice, it matters very much. Does it matter more than talent? I don't think so, really. I think if Elba was a bad actor, everyone would have hated him as Heimdall and called it Tokenism. If Scarjo had just nailed the character, audiences would have been more forgiving, although there would still be more of a backlash for continuing what is seen as an unfair practice ingrained in the most visible field of society.

Mickey Rooney as Mr Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany's, seen with modern eyes, is a cringing embarrassment of casting.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Mickey Rooney as Mr Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany's, seen with modern eyes, is a cringing embarrassment of casting.

wut ? wait ? there's other people in that movie besides the practically perfect Audrey ?

and anyhoo Genghis Wayne is far worse

Voss wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

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.

Its always going to be racism. Most general audience wouldn't know 'realism' if it came up and bit them, and frankly most studios don't bother attempting it at the first place. It's part of the reason most movies are so terrible.

As for Aloha, for one thing, the character wasn't Japanese at all. I'm not even sure why you're mentioning it, other than stereotypes about a lot of Japanese nationals in Hawaii.
But the character's whole schtick is aggressively pitching Hawaiian culture at people- the character's ethnicity was central to her role in the film, so going to such great lengths to avoid it so completely in the actress is going to make even the densest audience member reviewer go, 'Wait, what?' It's an obvious talking point for a film that probably didn't have much else to discuss.

I mentioned Aloha because the female character is supposed to be a quarter chinese and a quarter hawaiian (other origins not specified) and the movie became controversial because of this alleged miscast. I don't think it was a miscast at all, Emma Stone was perfect for that role and she could pass for a woman with some asian origins. The movie should have been criticized because it's bland, not because of whitewashing. I'd always prefer someone that can do a better job instead of the politically correct option. That also involves the opposite case, for example I'd definitely prefer a talented black (or even asian or latino) actor for the role of James Bond over a white one that doesn't fit the part at all.

All the old westerns had mexicans and white actors in the role of indians, and yet they are masterpieces. Today it would be impossible to cast someone for the role of an indian who doesn't have real native blood. But are those recent western movies better than the old ones, just because they're more realistic? Also the fights and the death scenes are way more realistic now. The original "The magnificent seven" is miles ahead the remake despite having the white Charles Bronson in the role of a mexican and the german Horst Buchholz portraying a character named Chico.

Mikey Rooney in the role of a Japanese is another perfect example, he was amazing and I seriously doubt that a true asian looking guy would have done a better job. Racism behind his casting or not.

Considering american movies I think producers are too concerned about how their films look, their aesthetics rather than the most important parts: plot and acting. Being politically correct at any cost, not only about the matter I discussed, is one of the reasons why most modern movies suck.

You thought Mickey Rooney was amazing?? His performance is the go-to for cringeworthy stereotypes. When the Simpsons wanted to show that Krusty the Clown was both racist and unfunny, they had him imitate Mickey Rooney's Mr Yunioshi.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

But that's in an ideal world. In the real world, race matters because it has always mattered. The doors were closed on minority actors regardless of talent for generations. There is a huge history of minority characters being played by white actors: blackface, yellow face, all the way through the eighties with the actors I mentioned earlier, and now into the current generation with the whitewashing in movies like The Last Airbender, and whatever you call the need to cast a white protagonist into a movie that shouldn't have any white people in it. So for a lot of the people who feel on the receiving end of this practice, it matters very much. Does it matter more than talent? I don't think so, really. I think if Elba was a bad actor, everyone would have hated him as Heimdall and called it Tokenism. If Scarjo had just nailed the character, audiences would have been more forgiving, although there would still be more of a backlash for continuing what is seen as an unfair practice ingrained in the most visible field of society.

The Airbender is set in a fantastic world. If Elba-Heimdall is ok, a white kid there is ok too. If the white kid is not ok, Elba is not ok.
Sorry but if you think otherwise, in my humble opinion, you have a double standard.
And the storm concerning ScarJo happened BEFORE the (mediocre, in my opinion) movie came out. So the issue was clearly not the performance.

Now what I understand is that we had years of, say, John Wayne playing Genghis Khan. That is not ok. So when it can be avoided, whitewashing is worse than the other way around on an historical basis.
But if you want to change things, you change them for everyone. Two wrongs don't make one right. But I totally see your point.

For the record, Mickey Rooney as Mr Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany's is un-watchable.

I thought the issue with the Last Airbender was that all the good guys became white while all the bad guys remained brown. And Elba is one character, not the entire cast of Asgardians, so there is a difference in magnitude. However, yeah, I will admit there is a double standard. The world is not ideal, and past wrongs cast a shadow: minorities have a reason to be more sensitive to such recastings. Whether it's right or not, it's a fact, and one I can sympathize with. By the same justifications that get us Matt Damon in The Great Wall, movies also want to cast for diversity to boost ticket sales among specific markets and to avoid controversy.

As for Scarjo, I never saw the movie or the source material. All I can imagine is that a class of people saw a chance for more representation in the higher echelons of Stardom, perhaps to see someone they identitify more closely with have a shot at becoming the next household name, and then saw the role given to a safe, already famous white actress, and felt snubbed.