Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 06-14-2019, 02:12 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
My point was that a character is more than just what's inside that one person, but all of their interactions with the rest of the world. And skin color might or might not change that, depending on the setting. You could write about a green-skinned Superman in any setting, but he would definitely end up being a very different character than the one we have. You could write about a dark brown-skinned Superman in any setting, but in some settings he would end up being a very different character (though in other settings, he might only be a slightly different character).

And no, you don't have to make your version of Superman consistent with the versions of Superman who have come before. But it's certainly an option. And if you choose that option, then that constrains how the character can look.

Or, of course, you could write a story about a completely different character who flies and is bulletproof, but who looks like an Earthling human from Africa. Or you could write a story about a flying, bulletproof green alien.
And of course a black Superman might be set in a Metropolis where his race is inconsequential.

Plenty of movies have depicted New York with almost no minorities or as hell-holes of crime, or where there’s no racial tension, or as a place where people spontaneously burst into singing and dancing on spotless streets.

Realism has always been relative.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #102  
Old 06-14-2019, 02:38 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,463
Present-day Metropolis, sure, and I stated as much. Or in the past, if it's a fantasy aspirational version of Metropolis.

Heck, if we relax our requirements of realism enough, we could even have a Metropolis where green people are mainstream.
  #103  
Old 06-14-2019, 03:13 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Present-day Metropolis, sure, and I stated as much. Or in the past, if it's a fantasy aspirational version of Metropolis.

Heck, if we relax our requirements of realism enough, we could even have a Metropolis where green people are mainstream.
Yes, we certainly could. But a Metropolis in which a black Superman faces no negative racial consequences is somewhere between the green people Metropolis and an absolutely racially realistic Metropolis. And, as I said before, the movie business can certainly escape any accusation of having a history of being 100 percent realistic in terms of racial issues.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #104  
Old 06-14-2019, 03:17 PM
monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
And of course a black Superman might be set in a Metropolis where his race is inconsequential.



Plenty of movies have depicted New York with almost no minorities or as hell-holes of crime, or where there’s no racial tension, or as a place where people spontaneously burst into singing and dancing on spotless streets.



Realism has always been relative.
This really is an awesome point.

If I am watching a super hero movie, my disbelief is already suspended. If I can believe that the average Metropolite is uunfazed by a guy flying around in the air in his underwear, then it really isn't that hard for me to imagine that Metropolites could be enlightened enough not to be wigged out by his skin color. Just because we have that hang-up doesn't mean people in alternative universes have it too.


Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
__________________
What the hell is a signature?
  #105  
Old 06-14-2019, 03:36 PM
monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Yes, we certainly could. But a Metropolis in which a black Superman faces no negative racial consequences is somewhere between the green people Metropolis and an absolutely racially realistic Metropolis. And, as I said before, the movie business can certainly escape any accusation of having a history of being 100 percent realistic in terms of racial issues.
To add more to this...

It is not important for every hardship and challenge a character has faced in his life to be fleshed out in full detail. Because an audience has an imagination. Frequently it is more important just to know that the character has faced some hardship and challenges than to know the specifics of those hardships and challenges.

I just watched the movie "Ma" that is now playing in theaters. Spoiler:

SPOILER:
The hardships and challenges that Octavia Spencer's character has faced in life are shown in flashbacks, but we never find out why she was the target of such suffering. We just have to guess at it. Was it because of her race? Her physical appearance? Her nerdiness? We never know. No one ever calls her an ugly nigger nerd. All we know is that she was bullied by the popular kids in high school and that it made her crazy. Octavia could be white and skinny and her character could have had the same arc.



Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
__________________
What the hell is a signature?
  #106  
Old 06-14-2019, 03:46 PM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 24,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
So if Elves or Dwarves or Goblins or Klingons really existed, they wouldn't resemble any modern ethnicities except by coincidence. Sure, when JRR Tolkein imagined Elves, he probably imagined them as white people. But even if they were "fair", meaning pale skinned, that wouldn't mean they should look like northern Europeans, any more than dark skinned people from South Asia always look like dark skinned people from Africa. It's a failure of imagination. Just like Japanese people imagine mythological beings and aliens that look Japanese, Indians imagine Indians, and white Americans tend to imagine white people. But we all recognize that's a failure of imagination, right? .
I don't mid elves that look black, or elves that look Chinese, or elves that look Polynesian. Any or all of these would be cool, and relatively original. My problem is seeing a community of elves, some of whom look white, some of whom look black, and some of whom look Asian, because I'd have questions: are some of them immigrants? Are they different castes? Are elves racist (with other elves, I mean; obviously they're racist against humans, because, you know, elves)?

Because let's be honest: in many cases, race is evidence of racism. It's not normal for people of different races to live alongside each other, because in a normal society, everyone has sex with everyone, and within four or five generations, everyone looks more or less the same (within the normal range of human appearance). A multiracial society is either a society in flux, or a society that places social restrictions on people fucking. Either way, I want to know the story. Ignoring it is lazy worldbuilding.
  #107  
Old 06-14-2019, 04:02 PM
Snake_Plissken is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 85

Tarantino...


...had Pam Greer play 'Jackie Brown' in the movie of the same name. In Elmore Leonard's original novel, 'Rum Punch', Jackie is a blond white woman.

He didn't do it on purpose. He just didn't read the book.
  #108  
Old 06-14-2019, 04:35 PM
monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
I don't mid elves that look black, or elves that look Chinese, or elves that look Polynesian. Any or all of these would be cool, and relatively original. My problem is seeing a community of elves, some of whom look white, some of whom look black, and some of whom look Asian, because I'd have questions: are some of them immigrants? Are they different castes? Are elves racist (with other elves, I mean; obviously they're racist against humans, because, you know, elves)?



Because let's be honest: in many cases, race is evidence of racism. It's not normal for people of different races to live alongside each other, because in a normal society, everyone has sex with everyone, and within four or five generations, everyone looks more or less the same (within the normal range of human appearance). A multiracial society is either a society in flux, or a society that places social restrictions on people fucking. Either way, I want to know the story. Ignoring it is lazy worldbuilding.
The traits we associate with racial categories will continue to exist in a population even when everyone is fucking each other. Because we not talking about paint being mixed together. We are talking about genes.

So in another four-five generations, you will still find people who could be classified as "black", "Asian", and "white" according to today's standards. It is just that the "Asian" person will have curlier hair and the "white" will have a broader nose and the "black" will have more almond shaped eyes. People may stop categorizing themselves racially but that does not mean they will be so homogoneous that you couldn't classify them racially. To whit, a typical African American clan exhibits huge phenotype variation (blue-black skin all the way to damn-near-white). But chances everyone in thay family will be perceived as black according to the rando who looks at them.


People are more likely to have sex with the people who are in close proximity than people far away. So even when we do become racially enlightened, I would expect to find more darker-skinned Americans living in the Deep South than in New England and more Asiatic-looking folks on the West Coast than on the East. I would expect this pattern to last for a really long time, actually. Especially if the economy ever crumbles and people can't afford to travel as much.

At any rate, most societies--or at least the most interesting kind--are in flux. That is much more "normal" than a society that has remained homogenous for centuries. If I were to watch a movie with a motley-looking crew of elves, I would tell myself the same story I tell myself when I see Vulcans of different hues. "Oh, they have the same phenotypic diversity that Americans/humans do." Hell, maybe they have more diversity. Maybe elves are prone to more mutations than humans are. You don't need to have a world built for you. Just use some imagination.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
__________________
What the hell is a signature?
  #109  
Old 06-14-2019, 05:09 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by armedmonkey View Post
Ah, but you're missing my point regarding Susana. Race may not matter, but sometimes it does. Othello is ALL about race. That's the whole plot!
Yes, but Othello doesn't have to be black - he just has to be different than everyone else in the play. There has been at least one reversed-race Othello with a white man cast in the title role and everyone else in the play being African American (way back in 1997, so more than 20 years ago). You could have an Asian Othello and everyone else either white or black. A black Othello and everyone else Asian. The major point of the play would still work.

But an Othello with a cast all mixed up racially and ethnically? No, I don't think that would work, the primary message of the play would be diluted to meaninglessness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityChuck View Post
Historical figures have to be the correct race?

Tell that to Lin-Manuel Miranda.
What? Both Miranda and Hamilton are/were Puerto Rican... Oh, you mean the rest of the cast. Funny how no one seems to get their nickers in a twist over a black George Washington... but Hamilton works with casting that ignores historical race/ethnicity based on its popularity. I haven't personally seen it myself, but it would seem to be a production where musical and dance talent are primary requirements, and with the entire cast being all "mixed up" it seems to work because you don't expect the actor's race/ethnicity to match with the historical figure's. I think if the majority of the cast had been tightly selected for matching with the historical physical appearance of the people they portray with only one or two standing out that might be problematic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by N9IWP View Post
I thought Michael Clarke Duncan was a great choice to play Kingpin (since Kingpin's main physical attribute is bigness)
Vincent D'Onofrio was also a great choice - another big man, one who happens to be white just as Michael Clarke Duncan happened to be black.

Given that Kingpin is from New York, which has long been a multi-ethinic, multi-racial city with lots of people from all over the world "typical New Yorker" could really be any race or ethnicity or any combination of them. I think you're right - Kingpan's main physical attribute is that he is a big man - not a fat man, but a tall, strong, physically imposing man. His ethnicity/race really could be anything.

That's not true for all characters in all contexts, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
I think a black or Asian cast doing Fiddler on the Roof in a Russian village setting would be a bit jarring.
Actually, my father's family is from the part of the world portrayed in Fiddler on the Roof and looking at old photos of people in grandma's generation and further back on her side... it's very clear there's Asian in that family tree. There actually were/are Jews of both part Asian descent, and there used to a branch of Judaism in China that were very much ethinic Chinese.

Given the time and location someone of African ancestry as a random casting in that play would look odd to me. On the other hand, if you made the entire cast African-American I could probably go with it after the first few minutes. Yes, you'd know it wasn't precisely historically accurate, but if they were true to the character and the text/music (that is, it was done respectfully and not as a farce or a joke) and were good at their roles I frankly wouldn't have a problem with it. What, are you going to say kids in a high school drama class in a predominantly black neighborhood aren't allowed to do that play because they're the wrong ethnicity? How sad. And if kids in high school can do it why can't a group of live, professional actors?

Quote:
On the other hand, doing Fiddler on the Roof with a multi-racial cast in any setting would take a substantial amount away from the plot and reduce the musical to essentially a concert.
Or it could reflect the realty that Jews aren't all just one skin color - it depends on how it's done. I mean, sure, I'm Ashkenazi, but even the tiny little Jewish community in my neck of the woods have Jews of all sorts of backgrounds, from Ethiopia (CEO of the local Jewish Federation) to Argentina (the local Orthodox rabbi) to folks born and raised in the American Midwest to folks even more Russian than I am. The local Jewish-run nursery school looks like the United Nations.

Maybe if we had more multi-racial productions of Jewish themed stories it would sink in that not all Jews are European in appearance.

I'm sort of reminded of an on-line recreational outrage about the casting of Skye/Daisy Johnson in Agents of Shield, a character revealed to have an "Chinese" (actually Inhuman) mother - outrage! They cast a white girl as a half-Chinese girl! No, actually, they cast a half-Chinese, half-European actress to portray a half-Chinese, half European character. A lot of people don't seem to know what multi-ethnic people look like, or the possible range of variation. Seems you can't win no matter what you do.

"You can't have an X that's also a Y" - um, yeah, actually a lot of the time you can. It's just that we've had such a long history of stereotyped casting that we no longer remember, or never learned, that the past was not as "pure" as film and TV have portrayed things to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Context matters.

As mentioned already, you can cast our founding fathers as minorities (Hamilton) and not skip a beat. I'd say you could cast a black Superman, or James Bond, play it dead straight and it would work just fine.

However, if you're doing a serious Civil War drama, and cast black actors a slaves, white actors as slave owners and politicians and a historically accurate mix of other actors, you can't just throw in Denzel as Robert E. Lee and let it go at that. You can't really play that change straight and have it work, the casting pulls you out of the narrative.
Yeah, in a historical narrative like that I think it only works with
1) An ethnically accurate cast
2) A fully mixed cast (like Hamilton)
3) A "race reversed" cast, like that production of Othello I mentioned.

You have a cast that is almost entirely 1 or 3 then make an exception I think it pulls you out of the narrative in a was #2 doesn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WOOKINPANUB View Post
I'm almost as ignorant of superhero culture as I am of Christianity, but isn't the canon surrounding Thor steeped in Norse mythology? It seems like that aspect is a pretty crucial part of his character and, to my mind, yes, Norse = big, blonde white guy.
Except in the original myths Thor (and Loki) was portrayed as red-haired.... so your image of a "big blond white guy" is already deviating from the source material. Perhaps because Marvel's blond version in the comics set the image for a lot of folks who never went to the original source myths.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
I think Balder was described as handsome and fair, which I took as fair-skinned, aka white. That implies that Thor was also white since they were brothers. There were different “races” in Norse mythology, but the races were gods, men, dwarves, giants, and I’ve probably missed a couple. I don’t think any were portrayed as dark-skinned.
Hel was in some myths - but then, she was supposed to be half living woman and half dead woman. And her father, Loki, also fathered a giant wolf, a giant serpent, and gave birth to Odin's horse Sleipnir (which somehow never made it into the Marvel version, I just can't imagine getting that past the Comics Code back in the Silver Age of comics). Since Loki was a shape-shifter who could turn from humanoid into a fully functioning female horse there is absolutely no reason you couldn't cast anyone as Loki.

Actually, Marvel's version of the Norse deviates all over the place - in the original myths Odin and Loki were blood brothers and thus Loki was a sort of uncle to Thor and not his brother, Hel/Hela was Loki's daughter, not a sister to either Thor or Loki. Heimdall was described as "the whitest of the gods" on at least one occasion and had golden teeth and not one but nine mothers - a lot different from the Idris Elba portrayal with golden eyes. You know what? I'm totally OK with that - with Elba being Heimdall, Loki being a brunette, Thor being blond, Marvel's Asgard being multi-racial/ethinic. Why? Because they tell a good story. Because it's fun. You know, the reason entertainment like that exists in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by naita View Post
TAnd to be honest the only thing about it that really irks me is when someone thinks they know Norse myths and they've only got drips through the Marvel universe.
^ This.

I thoroughly enjoy the Marvel mythos, but I also know it's not the historical Norse mythos, which I also enjoy. It's fine to like both, but I think it's a good thing when people know the difference between historical accuracy and a modern re-imaging.
  #110  
Old 06-14-2019, 05:23 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,959
A for those responses that say, “but that’s different than race!,” it’s not because there’s something inherently different about race, but because we as a society have serious hangups about skin-color race.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.

Last edited by Acsenray; 06-14-2019 at 05:23 PM.
  #111  
Old 06-14-2019, 06:12 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omniscient View Post
But...
SPOILER:
...they basically made Sam the new Captain America at the end of Endgame

(Overly cautious spoiler which is hard not to give context on without spoiling it)
Yeah, that spoiler works because the change is made in 2019. It's a situation where context in time actually does matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
The svartálfar are dark skinned.
Um... maybe. "Dark" could have referred to hair color. Or maybe they're "dark elves" because they live in a dark place (underground).

Frankly, I loved the fact that Marvel just ripped up the preconceptions on that one and hired an actual dwarf to play a Dwarf then made him a member of a race of "Dwarves" that, apparently, average 10 foot tall or so, completely dwarfing (sorry) Thor. At this point, Marvel is having fun with casting decisions and they could hire a gecko to play a lion and I'd probably pay to see it because they seem to be able to make non-traditional casting work more often than not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
And that's not even going into whether a female Bond might be a womanizer, a man-izer, or an equal-opportunity-izer.
I could go for a lesbian Bond womanizer.. but you'd still wind up offending several categories of people. Hiring a man of any other ethnicity than Caucasian to play Bond is probably a safer "unsafe" choice.

Hmm... wonder if you could make a homosexual Bond "man-izer" work? Bisexual?

Is sexuality really THAT important to the character, or is Bond really more about spying, assassination, and cool gadgets?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
But when I saw they cast a black actor to play Johnny Storm I figured the producers weren't going to give a damn about making sure the latest Fantastic Four movie would be a good adaptation of the comic. I imagine having a little more diversity in Hollywood would help.
I would have been a lot happier with a black Johnny Storm if they had also had a black Susan Storm. Having an interracial Sue/Reed relationship isn't THAT outrageous in today's world. Making either Sue or Johnny adopted was a cop out - just hire two people who could conceivably be biological siblings without a lot of plot contortions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Let's look a bit more closely at the Superman question. Could he have green skin?
Well... then he'd be the Martian Manhunter

(While we're on the topic of trangressive casting and decisions - in the current TV version of the Martian Manhunter his human form is played by a black man and the character has imitated Supergirl, an alien who looks like a Caucasian human woman, and said male African-looking alien commenting that the miniskirt was surprisingly comfortable in a very mundane, ordinary manner might be missed by the inattentive but is delightful for someone with the cultural background to realize just how different such a thing is than what was permitted 50 years ago. Oh, and in the same multiverse on the Flash's version of Earth the police chief is a man married to a man and it's treated as so ordinary and normal - a good example of how to write a homosexual character that isn't a caricature)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Maybe a black Thor is a distraction to you and creates disbelief to you, or to some set of viewers. That doesn't mean it does to everyone. And the second time everyone views it, the distraction and disbelief goes away. Eventually, you have a generation of viewers for whom this is nothing unusual.
.... and that's how progress is made.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
For example, in Kindergarten Cop, Arnold Schwarzenegger plays a Los Angeles police detective named John Kimble. Schwarzenegger has a heavy Austrian accent. So far as I can recall, there is never any explanation given why John Kimble, an L.A. cop, would have an Austrian accent. Sure, they could have explained it. But really an explanation wouldn't have fundamentally changed anything about the story. Okay, an L.A. cop with a strong Austrian accent. Maybe it could happen.
Yeah, I mean, it's not like you're trying to sell the public on a character that's a California governor with a strong Austrian accent, how ridicu-- oh, wait....

I'm sure you could sift through the population of LA and find more than one person who speaks with a strong Austrian accent, even if Arnold is out of town that week. It's a very multi-racial, multi-ethnic city with people from all over the world living there, not just a mix of stereotypical white people with American accents and brown people with Spanish accents of one sort or another. Maybe if more white people in productions set in LA spoke with a variety of accents it would no longer stand out so much but just be part of the fabric of the setting and seen as authentic (which, in reality, it is).

(I mean, hell, where I live isn't nearly as cosmopolitan as LA and the owner of the laundromat down the road is a native German speaker which you can tell the moment he opens his mouth - don't know what particular brand of German-speaker he is but maybe he's Austrian. And my former landlord of 20 years is half-Austrian - German accents aren't THAT unheard of in the US on either coast or in fly-over country between those two.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Or, of course, you could write a story about a completely different character who flies and is bulletproof, but who looks like an Earthling human from Africa. Or you could write a story about a flying, bulletproof green alien.
Then he would be the Martian Manhunter.... who in at least one iteration spends quite a bit of time looking like a brown-skinned human of African descent... when he's not imitating a flying, bulletproof alien who looks like a human Caucasian woman...

And it works. It actually works pretty well.

The reason a green-skinned superman would not work is because it's part of Superman's backstory that by happenstance Kryptonians look enough like human beings to pass as one easily - and there are no green-skinned humans.

Now, if you set the Superman story in a future/alternate timeline where there ARE green-skinned Americans then a green-skinned Superman would work because he could blend in.

(The Martian Manhunter is a shape-shifter - that, more than his other Superman-like powers, defines the character. So he can blend in literally anywhere even if his real skin is green because he can change his skin color.)
  #112  
Old 06-14-2019, 06:21 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
I don't mid elves that look black, or elves that look Chinese, or elves that look Polynesian. Any or all of these would be cool, and relatively original.
Actually, the Marvel universe does have black-skinned elves

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
My problem is seeing a community of elves, some of whom look white, some of whom look black, and some of whom look Asian, because I'd have questions: are some of them immigrants? Are they different castes? Are elves racist (with other elves, I mean; obviously they're racist against humans, because, you know, elves)?
Or maybe for elves varying skin colors are about as big a deal as varying hair colors are for humans and while they have different skin colors they all have the same hair... like in that picture I linked to. Maybe they're hair-color bigots instead of skin-color bigots.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
Because let's be honest: in many cases, race is evidence of racism. It's not normal for people of different races to live alongside each other, because in a normal society, everyone has sex with everyone, and within four or five generations, everyone looks more or less the same (within the normal range of human appearance).
Except, as already noted, mixing human genes isn't like mixing paint. Even if in a 100 years most people are some intermediate shade of brown skin/brown hair/brown eyes the genes for things like blue eyes or red hair or really dark or really pale skin are still in the population and will manifest themselves from time to time when recessive traits or the required grouping of genes come together.

Last edited by Broomstick; 06-14-2019 at 06:22 PM.
  #113  
Old 06-14-2019, 08:41 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,463
For comparison, there's very little discrimination based on hair color, but you still see blond hair and brown hair and black hair and red hair (and shades in between all of those). And blue hair and green hair and pink hair and purple hair, because people have decided that hair colors shouldn't be restricted to those determined by genetics. Maybe, by the time the race-mixing has happened, people will similarly view skin color as a mere cosmetic detail that can be changed on a whim.

And yeah, I figured someone might mention Martian Manhunter, but I didn't want to get into the whole shapeshifter thing.
  #114  
Old 06-14-2019, 11:41 PM
armedmonkey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: St. Simon's Island, GA
Posts: 6,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Yes, but Othello doesn't have to be black - he just has to be different than everyone else in the play.
I agree, but I was referencing Susana from the Steven KIng's The Dark Tower series. She HAS to be black because so much of her character is about the crap she went through in 1960's America. So bad that she even lost her mind. Her character arc is to learn to trust people again - even if they are the same race that abused her. So, to make that work, they have to be of the same race of the ones she hates. That is my one and only problem with Idris Elba as The Gunslinger. He's perfect for the role in every way except for that subplot.
__________________
Cheeze it! It's the cops!

Last edited by armedmonkey; 06-14-2019 at 11:44 PM.
  #115  
Old 06-15-2019, 12:05 AM
armedmonkey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: St. Simon's Island, GA
Posts: 6,814
And another thing just to address the the thread in general. This is not "a lack of imagination". This is a question of how far you can take imagination and still have a cohesive story. Sure, you can have Thor be an actual frog or whatever, but what does that do to the world building? And the world stories are set in matters.

There's a corollary to that, though. If it's comedy or satire everything goes out the window. If it's an episode of say, Drunk History, then a black woman playing Abraham Lincoln is freaking PERFECT.
__________________
Cheeze it! It's the cops!
  #116  
Old 06-15-2019, 01:04 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
You state this like it's a universal truth. It's not.
The idea that plots need to be focused, and that storylines should support the plot and avoid useless diversions, while not a universal truth, is a fairly decent general principle.

Quote:
Maybe a black Thor is a distraction to you and creates disbelief to you, or to some set of viewers. That doesn't mean it does to everyone. And the second time everyone views it, the distraction and disbelief goes away. Eventually, you have a generation of viewers for whom this is nothing unusual.
Or maybe viewers evaluate the work on its artistic merit, and decide that a black Thor was a confusing element that added nothing to the plot, the movie is derided, and nobody tries that idea again because it's already been done and failed.

Quote:
It needs to be explained? Maybe to Wrenching Spanners of 20 minutes ago it needed to be explained. Now that Wrenching Spanners has read Mr. Dibble and Little Nemo's posts does the Wrenching Spanners of now need it to be explained? And what about all the other people who might never have needed an explanation?

The human mind is perfectly capable of understanding and accepting stories that have unexplained elements that might seem strange or incongruous. You just note it and move on.

For example, in Kindergarten Cop, Arnold Schwarzenegger plays a Los Angeles police detective named John Kimble. Schwarzenegger has a heavy Austrian accent. So far as I can recall, there is never any explanation given why John Kimble, an L.A. cop, would have an Austrian accent. Sure, they could have explained it. But really an explanation wouldn't have fundamentally changed anything about the story. Okay, an L.A. cop with a strong Austrian accent. Maybe it could happen. Ultimately, it doesn't matter to the story.
Schwarzenegger was playing Schwarzenegger. For a better example, Dwayne Johnson did Hercules. But he didn't really play Hercules, he played Dwayne Johnson. And he certainly didn't play Hercules as a Greek or Roman. Keep in mind, I'm not arguing against a black Thor regardless of setting. I'm arguing against a black Thor in a 9th century Norse setting with strong Viking imagery. Is that an example where switching the race of a character is a bad idea? I believe it is.
  #117  
Old 06-15-2019, 03:45 AM
Ellis Dee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 14,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
I haven’t seen any episodes of the recent TV series Vikings. Were there any non-white Vikings in that production? Would non-white actors have fit in, or would they have caused a suspension of belief that took away from the plot?
There were none that I recall but there could have been with little issue. Vikings in the show had a habit of capturing people during raids and bringing them back home as slaves. They didn't particularly "other" these slaves, and some were given their freedom. Mostly the slaves were white (from England), but some were Asian.

The main stumbling block would be that the show depicts the first ever Viking trips to England. It's a plot point in the first few episodes of season 1 that Ragnar Lothbrak comes up with a new way to navigate on the open sea so they can explore new lands farther away than they'd ever gone before, and then we see them make their first ever raids on England. (Wessex.)

Several seasons later we see what is implied to be the first ever Viking raids in Africa. Thus it would be weird if they already had African slaves when the show started, but only because of geography. But even then, they could have been found in the East, I suppose. The attitude and community of the Vikings wouldn't have batted an eye about black Vikings.

As far as I recall, there isn't a single Viking in the entire series who cares a lick about race. As far as I can tell, the attitude seems to be that skin color is equivalent to hair color: Wholly irrelevant.

Last edited by Ellis Dee; 06-15-2019 at 03:46 AM.
  #118  
Old 06-15-2019, 04:03 AM
Ellis Dee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 14,277
Missed edit window:

Actually, in addition to slaves they captured on raids, they were also quite accepting of travelers regardless of race. I think some of the Asians on the show were travelers who decided to stay on for a while, so African travelers who decided to settle with the Vikings would have been welcomed and been perfectly normal to them.

One of the more interesting aspects of the show (to me) was the Viking attitude toward religion. They believed their gods to be literally real, but they also believed that everyone else's gods were equally real. They were somewhat hostile to Christianity, but mainly because Christianity itself is somewhat hostile to other religions. (Thou shalt have no other gods...)

One of Ragnar's sons becomes interested in Buddha, for example, and Ragnar himself loved his Christian slave so much he almost wished he would go to Heaven instead of Valhalla so he might be reunited with him in the afterlife. (Not in a gay way, but not NOT in a gay way either.) Generally speaking, their view of other religions was that of interest and curiosity. They generally wouldn't disavow their gods for fear of reprisal, but I get the sense that they wouldn't care at all if their neighbors worshiped different gods.

Last edited by Ellis Dee; 06-15-2019 at 04:06 AM.
  #119  
Old 06-15-2019, 10:11 AM
Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by armedmonkey View Post
And another thing just to address the the thread in general. This is not "a lack of imagination". This is a question of how far you can take imagination and still have a cohesive story. Sure, you can have Thor be an actual frog or whatever, but what does that do to the world building? And the world stories are set in matters.

There's a corollary to that, though. If it's comedy or satire everything goes out the window. If it's an episode of say, Drunk History, then a black woman playing Abraham Lincoln is freaking PERFECT.
Derek also makes sure in some eps to cast exactly according to themes. See the ep about disabled or the Natives on Alcatraz ep.

Love me some Derek Waters
  #120  
Old 06-15-2019, 11:35 AM
armedmonkey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: St. Simon's Island, GA
Posts: 6,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Sams View Post
Love me some Derek Waters
I'll drink to that.

But to get back to thread at large, I thought of another character that I really don't think should be played by a black guy. It's the Incredible Hulk. I was thinking about how in the first Avengers movie Hulk has that scene with Loki where Loki tries to do the mind control thing, but Hulk, well, he just grabs Loki's ankle like a gorilla and swings/ smashes him back and forth. It was cool as Hell, but, well, he moved like a gorilla. Unfortunately, a black guy who turns into a giant rage monster that moves like a gorilla is problematic for I think should be obvious reasons.
__________________
Cheeze it! It's the cops!

Last edited by armedmonkey; 06-15-2019 at 11:36 AM.
  #121  
Old 06-15-2019, 11:53 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
The idea that plots need to be focused, and that storylines should support the plot and avoid useless diversions, while not a universal truth, is a fairly decent general principle.



Or maybe viewers evaluate the work on its artistic merit, and decide that a black Thor was a confusing element that added nothing to the plot, the movie is derided, and nobody tries that idea again because it's already been done and failed.
That you believe that an actor's skin color is an essential element of plot and storyline is something you're bringing to the discussion. It's not inherent in consideration of artistic merit.

Quote:
Schwarzenegger was playing Schwarzenegger. For a better example, Dwayne Johnson did Hercules. But he didn't really play Hercules, he played Dwayne Johnson. And he certainly didn't play Hercules as a Greek or Roman.
This is just special pleading. You're creating exceptions for instances that you don't want to object to.

Quote:
Keep in mind, I'm not arguing against a black Thor regardless of setting. I'm arguing against a black Thor in a 9th century Norse setting with strong Viking imagery. Is that an example where switching the race of a character is a bad idea? I believe it is.
What is a "9th century Norse setting with strong Viking imagery"? There's no hard definition of it. None of us have lived in even one such setting, not to mention every possible one. Even historical scholarship can't give us a 100 percent accurate picture of what such a setting would have been like in real life (again, not to mention every actual real life setting).

So, either because of limitations of actual knowledge, or limitations of individual knowledge, every single 9th century Norse setting with strong Viking imagery ever made has been necessarily or intentionally or neglectfully historically inaccurate. That has never been a critical factor in judging the artistic merit of a particular Norse-themed story.

And, yet, this one thing--the skin color of an actor--is suddenly such a critical factor.
[QUOTE=armedmonkey;21699265]I'll drink to that.

Quote:
It was cool as Hell, but, well, he moved like a gorilla. Unfortunately, a black guy who turns into a giant rage monster that moves like a gorilla is problematic for I think should be obvious reasons.
So maybe a future Hulk with a black actor won't look so gorilla-like. There's nothing about this that is mandatory.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #122  
Old 06-15-2019, 12:04 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,463
Maybe not like a gorilla specifically, but Hulk being a brutish, uncivilized rage monster is inherent to the character, and portraying a black man as turning into any sort of brutish, uncivilized rage monster is going to be problematic.
  #123  
Old 06-15-2019, 12:06 PM
armedmonkey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: St. Simon's Island, GA
Posts: 6,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
So maybe a future Hulk with a black actor won't look so gorilla-like. There's nothing about this that is mandatory.
I'd argue no. The Hulk kinda has to be a big gorilla rage monster. I know in the comics they've had him a bit cerebral at times but the best version is always going to be "HULK SMASH!" Imagining characters as different is fun, but if you go too far afield it's not the same character anymore.
__________________
Cheeze it! It's the cops!

Last edited by armedmonkey; 06-15-2019 at 12:08 PM.
  #124  
Old 06-15-2019, 03:58 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Um... maybe. "Dark" could have referred to hair color. Or maybe they're "dark elves" because they live in a dark place (underground).
No, literally "blacker than pitch" in the Prose Edda vs "fairer than the sun to look at" for the Ljósálfar - that isn't just hair colour.
  #125  
Old 06-15-2019, 04:43 PM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by armedmonkey View Post
As much as I hate the racist trolls who lose there minds when something like a black Spiderman comes out, I am similarly annoyed when people on the other side of the coin panic about "white-washing".
I haven't read all the previous posts, so sorry if this has been covered but I think it's worth appreciating that situations like this are not symmetrical.

For example, considered those with a disability.
For them, it might be frustrating to see a disabled character being played by an able-bodied actor -- because such roles are few and far between, and are often played in a stereotypical way by actors that may have misconceptions of what being disabled is like (and the directing / script may be at fault...but anyway, a genuinely disabled actor might be more inclined to push back against these).
Meanwhile a disabled actor playing an able-bodied role (let's say a character that is seated throughout, being played by an actor that cannot walk)...yeah...why not? Why would anyone be annoyed by that? It's not the same.

Obviously race is not a disability, it was just a clear example to illustrate my point.
The issues regarding the lack of roles, and stereotyping are similar however.
  #126  
Old 06-15-2019, 06:07 PM
carrps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 689
What about the other side of this issue where a black character in a book is played by a black actor in the movie, and fans of the book get all upset because that (very sympathetic) character was played by an n-word?
  #127  
Old 06-15-2019, 07:35 PM
Derleth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 21,182
Eh, don't mind me, I'm just waiting on the Black Robert E. Lee...

Or... does Nelson Mandela really need to be that dark-skinned?
  #128  
Old 06-15-2019, 08:08 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,463
carrps, in one of Heinlein's books (Tunnel in the Sky), he decided that the main character was black (though it wasn't actually relevant to the story at all), and slipped in subtle but unambiguous clues to his race, that could be missed on a casual read but not once they were pointed out. His editor at the time was a racist, and wouldn't have agreed to publish a book about a black character, and he wanted to rub his nose in getting away with it.

And along the lines of a black Robert E. Lee, Neil Gaiman tells of a producer once being interested in making a screen adaptation of Anansi Boys, but wanting to make the main character white. The main character who is literally the son of an African trickster god.
  #129  
Old 06-15-2019, 09:32 PM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by carrps View Post
What about the other side of this issue where a black character in a book is played by a black actor in the movie, and fans of the book get all upset because that (very sympathetic) character was played by an n-word?
The last time I remember that happening was with the character Rue from The Hunger Games. (In the book I thought it was clear she wasn't white but perhaps not as dark skinned as the actress in the movie.) I remember reading about the uproar over the actor's skin color online but I can't recall ever hearing someone complain about it in real life. Whenever I see an article about people being outraged about something online I really wonder how many people are really upset. I don't believe many people were at all upset about the skin color of the actress who played Rue.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #130  
Old 06-17-2019, 12:47 AM
Derleth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 21,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
Whenever I see an article about people being outraged about something online I really wonder how many people are really upset. I don't believe many people were at all upset about the skin color of the actress who played Rue.
"Let's you and him fight." — Wimpy

This is something the media is not only loath to talk about, it's practically impossible to get anyone to admit it as a concept. It's a great conceptual gap for the obvious reason that admitting it would bring down the whole notion of "outrage tourism" as a journalistic staple. In short, the Internet is huge. You can therefore find literally any opinion on it if you try hard enough, especially if you stop trying and just look for groups of trolls trying to stir shit up for their own amusement. (It would be beneath you to suggest the journalists sometimes were the trolls.) Therefore, a quick way to get an audience is to find trolls saying "MOVIE BAD BECAUSE ACTOR BLACK" and build a story around no, movie good because cast diverse and you're on the side of the angels, assuming angels are in the habit of elevating demons to the heavens so their bile can flow over a larger area.
__________________
"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
If you don't stop to analyze the snot spray, you are missing that which is best in life. - Miller
I'm not sure why this is, but I actually find this idea grosser than cannibalism. - Excalibre, after reading one of my surefire million-seller business plans.
  #131  
Old 06-17-2019, 10:40 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 55,482
It takes 131 posts for someone to mention The Shawshank Redemption. If someone has only seen the movie starring Morgan Freeman, inform them in that the original Stephen King novella [i]Rita Haywood and the Shawshank Redemption[i/] Red was a middle aged white Irish guy, but Freeman wanted the role so badly he was willing to audition for it. And then watch the person's jaw drop.
  #132  
Old 06-17-2019, 10:46 AM
CalMeacham's Avatar
CalMeacham is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 44,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
carrps, in one of Heinlein's books (Tunnel in the Sky), he decided that the main character was black (though it wasn't actually relevant to the story at all), and slipped in subtle but unambiguous clues to his race, that could be missed on a casual read but not once they were pointed out. His editor at the time was a racist, and wouldn't have agreed to publish a book about a black character, and he wanted to rub his nose in getting away with it.

.
"subtle but unambiguous"???

I found the clues to be pretty damned vague, myself, and am not entirely convinced that this is a genuine case of hidden race. It's not like Starship Troopers, where there's no doubt of it. This seems to me more like Rowling claiming, after the fact, that Dumbledore is gay.
__________________
Who is the Calypso Singer that rides Pegasus?
Harry Bellerophonte
  #133  
Old 06-17-2019, 01:35 PM
SCAdian is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I think the problem with Fantastic 4 (well, that particular problem, at least: The movie had plenty of others) wasn't so much that Johnny was black, but that Johnny was black while Sue was white. They're siblings. And yes, it's possible that one or both of them were adopted, but adoption is something of a Chekov's Gun: You don't introduce that a character is adopted unless it's going to somehow become relevant.

Now, they could have made both of the Storm siblings black. But that would make Reed and Sue an interracial couple, and Hollywood still has taboos about that. Apparently, they consider interracial siblings more reasonable than interracial marriages.
The Biggs twins....
  #134  
Old 06-17-2019, 01:54 PM
WOOKINPANUB's Avatar
WOOKINPANUB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: St Petersburg, Floriduhhh
Posts: 7,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
It takes 131 posts for someone to mention The Shawshank Redemption. If someone has only seen the movie starring Morgan Freeman, inform them in that the original Stephen King novella [i]Rita Haywood and the Shawshank Redemption[i/] Red was a middle aged white Irish guy, but Freeman wanted the role so badly he was willing to audition for it. And then watch the person's jaw drop.
It's been so long since I first saw the film, not to mention read the story, I don't recall what I thought about that. I don't remember if I was a big MF fan by that time or even what I pictured the character Red to look like (though obviously it would have been however SK painted him; white Irish looking dude with red hair.)

It's a good illustration of a character deviating from the original characterization. Still, I hope no ones going to try and say a woman could play that part (without changing the story to be setting in a women's prison)
  #135  
Old 06-17-2019, 01:57 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,959
All this reminds me of an episode of the Imaginary Worlds podcast, in which non-white cosplayers talked about how often white people around them demand to know whether they're portraying "alternative" versions of their favorite heroes.

https://www.imaginaryworldspodcast.o...k-cosplay.html
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #136  
Old 06-17-2019, 02:24 PM
Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by WOOKINPANUB View Post
It's been so long since I first saw the film, not to mention read the story, I don't recall what I thought about that. I don't remember if I was a big MF fan by that time or even what I pictured the character Red to look like (though obviously it would have been however SK painted him; white Irish looking dude with red hair.)

It's a good illustration of a character deviating from the original characterization. Still, I hope no ones going to try and say a woman could play that part (without changing the story to be setting in a women's prison)
Nope....its a 'band of brothers movie.'

There's a certain quality to films that....basically...have no female roles. It simply wouldn't be the same movie if one of the roles were female.
  #137  
Old 06-17-2019, 03:12 PM
Omniscient is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 17,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
What's Bond, at base? A spy and an assassin who works for a major power, who uses cool gadgets, has many sexual encounters, and is terrible at concealing es identity. Everything else can be easily changed. And even these few elements can be played with to recreate Bond.
You say this like it's the only way people would define his "base".

I think a majority of consumers would instead described him as "A spy and an assassin who works for a major power, who uses cool gadgets, who is a playboy, and is terrible at concealing his identity."

I'm not saying it's morally or technically wrong to do a female Bond, but doing so would be a colossal failure.
  #138  
Old 06-17-2019, 03:27 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omniscient View Post
You say this like it's the only way people would define his "base".
At least one of the points I'm making is that there is more than one way to define a character, and there aren't a lot of elements that are absolutely indispensable.

Quote:
I think a majority of consumers would instead described him as "A spy and an assassin who works for a major power, who uses cool gadgets, who is a playboy, and is terrible at concealing his identity."
(1) The artistic validity of a statement isn't dependent on "a majority of consumers." Consumers often don't know what they like until it's shown to them.

(2) Maybe. Maybe not. A woman can easily be cast as a playboy-type.

(3) But I'm not even sure that that is an accurate statement. A playboy is someone who is sufficiently wealthy to work little and live a life of ease and frivolity, which includes sexual promiscuity. Remember, Batman pretends to be a playboy in his Bruce Wayne identity. That doesn't make Batman qua Batman a playboy.

Bond is not a man of leisure who includes sexual escapades in his That's not really what Bond does. Bond is a very busy spy whose undercover assignments often (but not always) include glamorous settings and who happens also to be sexually promiscuous. All these things are translatable to a female character.

(4) The Daniel Craig version of Bond, arguably one of the most successful depictions of Bond, broke through a lot of the boxes that perhaps "a majority of consumers" might previously have put the character in. You still hear some people complain about how Craig's Bond isn't really Bond, because Bond wouldn't suffer from PTSD or feel remorse or whatever.

Quote:
but doing so would be a colossal failure.
You might not like the idea, but that's not equivalent to the idea being doomed to artistic failure from the outset.

Art is meant to break what previously were thought of as unbreakable rules.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #139  
Old 06-17-2019, 03:29 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Sams View Post
Nope....its a 'band of brothers movie.'

There's a certain quality to films that....basically...have no female roles. It simply wouldn't be the same movie if one of the roles were female.
Yes, sure, it might not be "the same." Art isn't obligated to be "the same." That's the whole point. Keeping things the same is what pushes us into these cultural corners.

Arguing for sameness amounts to a circular argument.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #140  
Old 06-17-2019, 03:43 PM
Ellis Dee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 14,277
If you think he was arguing for "sameness," I don't think you understood what he was saying.
  #141  
Old 06-17-2019, 04:16 PM
Omniscient is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 17,498
Keep talking about "art" in high-minded terms all you want. The entire premise of the thread is discussing public reaction to changing the race of broad, commercial properties.

An "artist" can challenge the status quo and question preconceived notions about what a character is all he wants, but those choices will be subject to criticism and will ultimately be tested by the market.

Most of us agree that there are some characters or some types of changes that will be accepted by the market and some that will not. Maybe there's a definable rule of thumb here, maybe there's not. That's the discussion I suppose.

If you think my assessment that a female Bond falls outside of that "rule" we can discuss it I suppose, but if your position is that any change is acceptable because that's "art's job", then discussing it is pointless because we're having two totally different discussions.
  #142  
Old 06-17-2019, 04:40 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Dee View Post
If you think he was arguing for "sameness," I don't think you understood what he was saying.
Oh, yes, I do understand what he was saying. And my reaction to it absolutely applies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omniscient View Post
Most of us agree that there are some characters or some types of changes that will be accepted by the market and some that will not.
I'm not talking about art in "high-minded" terms. I'm talking about art in the sense that all these things are art. Popular art is still art, and good art is good whether it's popular or not.

Nobody knew that Star Wars was going to be the most popular thing ever, until George Lucas made Star Wars. Or Raiders of the Lost Ark. Or Star Trek (in fact, people didn't realize how popular it was until years after it had been cancelled.)

Anybody who thinks that they know for sure what kinds of changes will accepted by the market and what will not is fooling emself. Time after time people have disproved the conventional wisdom about what will travel and what won't.

Make a good movie, and everyone will forget that a character was portrayed by an actor of the "wrong" race or sex or gender. That's the only thing there is to know. Taking Fantastic Four for example. That movie was terrible. Had it been good, the race casting wouldn't have made a difference.

And this is all tied up in the arrogance of the status quo, the prejudices of those currently holding power. And that's all about racism in society and the racism of the people who have the power to make decisions. Those who think that the race of a character, or the sex or gender, can fundamentally never be changed or that the race of an actor portraying a character is an insurmountable hurdle is doing so from a position of being steeped in a culture of racism and sexism.

(And, of course, white men never suffer when one white man fails while every non-white, non-man is pasted with failure when one non-white, non-male person fails.)
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #143  
Old 06-17-2019, 05:53 PM
Ellis Dee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 14,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Oh, yes, I do understand what he was saying. And my reaction to it absolutely applies.
Okay, then, I'll bite: When you say "sameness", what exactly are you talking about?
  #144  
Old 06-17-2019, 06:17 PM
Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Yes, sure, it might not be "the same." Art isn't obligated to be "the same." That's the whole point. Keeping things the same is what pushes us into these cultural corners.

Arguing for sameness amounts to a circular argument.
Strawman.
  #145  
Old 06-17-2019, 06:21 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Dee View Post
Okay, then, I'll bite: When you say "sameness", what exactly are you talking about?
Exactly what he said:

Quote:
Nope....its a 'band of brothers movie.'

There's a certain quality to films that....basically...have no female roles. It simply wouldn't be the same movie if one of the roles were female.
E has set some kind of boundary around the "band of brothers" quality that e is familiar with that requires there to be no female characters. But:

(1) It's an arbitrary boundary. There's nothing inherent about it and one could easily draw other boundaries. Why focus on the absence of female characters?

(2) It's seldom that any two movies have exactly the same "X quality" anyway. Everything moves a bit this way and that way.

(3) So what if it doesn't have exactly the same quality? With every tick of the clock we're all experiencing all kinds of different qualities. That old "band of brothers" movie has "X quality." This next one will have "X +/- (Y * 10 ^ Z)" quality. Meanwhile, we might learn that the "band of brothers" quality is either (1) much more flexible than we thought, or (2) not really all that interesting, or (3) a mistaken category in the first place.

(4) You can go around until the end of time saying that "nothing's the same if we don't keep this thing purely X." It's just not the same if we start allowing girls in our club. It's just not the same if we start allowing Jews in our club. It's just not the same if we start allowing non-whites in our club. It's just not the same if we start allowing Eastern Europeans and Southern Europeans in our club, or Irish people.

That just becomes a crutch to prevent progress. In the end it serves nothing but to preserve the institutional prejudices of (in this case) the entertainment industry.

Again, the racial issue in the entertainment industry is the systematic exclusion of non-white people from and the over-representation of white men on-camera, and behind-the-camera roles. It's not because non-white people can't play certain roles. It's simply because they're not being given the opportunity to play them. And any argument that allows that to be perpetuated is disregardable.

It's all very convenient for the white men who represent the status quo power structure to say, well, if we don't preserve X, Y, Z exclusivity for white men, then you just won't get the same feeling from the next band of brothers story.

And they get to ride that argument on the back of people who combine their biases with their failures of imagination to say "oh, believe me, it just won't work."

No, actually, there's no reason to believe you.

A black man just can't be a leading man. Will Smith leads some fairly successful action films. (But!but!but! Will Smith is the only black leading man who will travel! )

A superhero movie can't be headlined a black man. Black Panther becomes the second highest grossing superhero movies of all time.

A superhero movie can't be headlined by a woman. Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel are the 9th and 10th highest grossing superhero movies of all time.

Can't can't can't. Until it can. Oh, that's an exception. Meanwhile all the bombs that were led by white men somehow are always exceptions.

It'll be the same thing. You can't have a black James Bond. You can't have a woman James Bond. You can't have a "band of brothers" movie if one of the characters is a woman. Until someone finally is allowed to make one that works.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #146  
Old 06-17-2019, 06:57 PM
Omniscient is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 17,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
And this is all tied up in the arrogance of the status quo, the prejudices of those currently holding power. And that's all about racism in society and the racism of the people who have the power to make decisions. Those who think that the race of a character, or the sex or gender, can fundamentally never be changed or that the race of an actor portraying a character is an insurmountable hurdle is doing so from a position of being steeped in a culture of racism and sexism.

(And, of course, white men never suffer when one white man fails while every non-white, non-man is pasted with failure when one non-white, non-male person fails.)
  #147  
Old 06-17-2019, 07:03 PM
Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Exactly what he said:



E has set some kind of boundary around the "band of brothers" quality that e is familiar with that requires there to be no female characters. But:

(1) It's an arbitrary boundary. There's nothing inherent about it and one could easily draw other boundaries. Why focus on the absence of female characters?

(2) It's seldom that any two movies have exactly the same "X quality" anyway. Everything moves a bit this way and that way.

(3) So what if it doesn't have exactly the same quality? With every tick of the clock we're all experiencing all kinds of different qualities. That old "band of brothers" movie has "X quality." This next one will have "X +/- (Y * 10 ^ Z)" quality. Meanwhile, we might learn that the "band of brothers" quality is either (1) much more flexible than we thought, or (2) not really all that interesting, or (3) a mistaken category in the first place.

(4) You can go around until the end of time saying that "nothing's the same if we don't keep this thing purely X." It's just not the same if we start allowing girls in our club. It's just not the same if we start allowing Jews in our club. It's just not the same if we start allowing non-whites in our club. It's just not the same if we start allowing Eastern Europeans and Southern Europeans in our club, or Irish people.

That just becomes a crutch to prevent progress. In the end it serves nothing but to preserve the institutional prejudices of (in this case) the entertainment industry.

Again, the racial issue in the entertainment industry is the systematic exclusion of non-white people from and the over-representation of white men on-camera, and behind-the-camera roles. It's not because non-white people can't play certain roles. It's simply because they're not being given the opportunity to play them. And any argument that allows that to be perpetuated is disregardable.

It's all very convenient for the white men who represent the status quo power structure to say, well, if we don't preserve X, Y, Z exclusivity for white men, then you just won't get the same feeling from the next band of brothers story.

And they get to ride that argument on the back of people who combine their biases with their failures of imagination to say "oh, believe me, it just won't work."

No, actually, there's no reason to believe you.

A black man just can't be a leading man. Will Smith leads some fairly successful action films. (But!but!but! Will Smith is the only black leading man who will travel! )

A superhero movie can't be headlined a black man. Black Panther becomes the second highest grossing superhero movies of all time.

A superhero movie can't be headlined by a woman. Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel are the 9th and 10th highest grossing superhero movies of all time.

Can't can't can't. Until it can. Oh, that's an exception. Meanwhile all the bombs that were led by white men somehow are always exceptions.

It'll be the same thing. You can't have a black James Bond. You can't have a woman James Bond. You can't have a "band of brothers" movie if one of the characters is a woman. Until someone finally is allowed to make one that works.
LOL. All that for a drop of blood.

Still doesn't change the fact that Shawshank is a period piece 'band of brothers' movie. And it doesn't work if one of Red or Andy are switched to a female role.

Which (Along with 'theres a certain quality to intentionally female-less films') is all I said.
  #148  
Old 06-17-2019, 07:04 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCAdian View Post
The Biggs twins....
The thing is, though, that those two girls, for all the difference in their complexions, still share some common features of bone structure that make them actually look related to each other. "Sibling of different races" have that quality, in my experience. Even if the hair/skin/eye colors are different they still share other features.

The casting of Johnny and Sue Storm in that execrable version of Fantastic Four clearly were not biological relations (except in the sense that both actors are human beings). In which case, yes, presenting them as siblings by adoption was more plausible.

Even so, I would have been happier with the unambiguously black actors cast in those roles as full siblings. But then, there was a lot to NOT like about that movie and that casting choice turned out to be one of more minor flaws.
  #149  
Old 06-17-2019, 07:34 PM
Ellis Dee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 14,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Exactly what he said:
In response to your numbered points:

(1) (there is no difference between all-male stories and other types of stories)

Let A = the way men relate to each other in the absence of women
Let B = the way women relate to each other in the absence of men
Let C = the way men and women relate to each other in mixed groups

It is absolutely inherent that all three are different from each other. The fact that you're essentially arguing that A = B = C is, quite frankly, bizarre. It's not woke or novel or fighting the power; it's just plain wrong.

(2) (no two movies are exactly identical)

Tautology.

(3) So what if it doesn't have exactly the same quality?

This directly concedes the original point you were trying to rebut.

(4) You can go around until the end of time saying that "nothing's the same if we don't keep this thing purely X."

Irrelevant soapbox rant. Bonus points for being a strawman. It's on-topic for the thread, but has nothing to do with the fact that "band of brothers" stories are inherently changed when you add women, because men relate to women differently than they relate to other men.

It feels weird that I have to explain this.

Last edited by Ellis Dee; 06-17-2019 at 07:34 PM.
  #150  
Old 06-17-2019, 07:36 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omniscient View Post
Yeah, I know you can roll your eyes and walk away because you don’t actually have face accountability.

It’s just soooo convenient how all these so-called immutable laws of commerce or art or whatever just happen to support the status quo hierarchy.

I saw how some folks squealed bloody murder when a non-white actor was cast as M.J. in a Spider-Man movie (“Mary Jane is a red-head! Period!”). That movie was pretty successful.

Then I saw people squealing when Miles Morales was written as a new Spider-Man. (It’s just politically correct pandering.). Well that made to the big screen it’s all kinds of Spider-people and it wa successful too.

I don’t think there any reason to take the word of people who just know what the public will accept when it comes to race and casting.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017