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.

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

Oh...

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

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

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

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

 LordofHats wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

Bran Dawri wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:


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

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

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

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


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

 Skinnereal wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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

Huh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

He paid a steep price for that role.

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

 sebster wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

thisisanoutrage.jpg

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because to Feminism, all males are Literally Hitler.

That's some pretty low quality bait

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Yodhrin wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

 Yodhrin wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

-Loki- wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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

Huh?

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

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

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

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

Manchu wrote:

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

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

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

Mario wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:


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

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

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

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

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