Eh, plenty of people voiced issues with the racial (and gender) recast of the Ancient One when Doctor Strange came out.
Tilda Swinton is great btw.
Most people realized it was done mostly to skirt the Chinese market. I think the major problem with the other groups is the lack of major starpower. I don’t think I can even name a Romani actress.
This is a good point. Casting a genuine Tibetan actor would cause the house of mouse to lose all that sweet china money.
They could’ve still got someone vaguely Asian.
No I think people would have been more angry if they got someone Asian but not Tibetan to play the character. Changing an Asian Male character to a White Woman makes it more obvious and direct.
I don’t think anyone had an issue with Benedict Wong as one of the head monks so I think your theory is bad.
Supporting character
They have talked about that, and said they fucked up. The went with a white chick because they didn’t want to make it seem like Asian is just interchangeable
I don’t think I can identify a Romani phenotype. Which just goes to show how little representation they get on mass media.
I thought they were just slavicish. I know Romanian is different but the archetypical gypsy in my mind is a black haired slavic woman.
From what I read, there’s a North Indian ethnic component, especially their language. But that’s what I remember from reading Wikipedia years ago, so 🤷♂️
I think that this is making fun of the people who were upset at Ariel being black in the remake. The people this is making fun of don’t care about recasting race until it’s done from a white character to a black one. It’s pointing out hypocrisy.
True, but it is not done in a very genuine way. Each role had people complaining about the changes, the only real difference is the few times a white character is casted black the movie ends up being bad anyways.
only real difference is the few times a white character is casted black the movie ends up being bad anyways.
Shawshank Redemption. In the source novel, Morgan Freeman’ character was a white irish guy. The reasons nobody complained were probably that a. there was no Xitter when the movie hit theaters and b. nobody knows it’s an adaptation anyway.
Same with Samuel L. Jackson playing Nick Fury or whatever The Boys is doing with characters. When the adaptation is good no one really cares.
I have a feeling Hollywood companies intentionally do this to stir discourse and interest in the film when they know the script is weak. You never hear about these things when the movie is good, only when it’s the Ghostbusters reboot or The Little Mermaid.
Ultimate Nick Fury came first and was openly based on SLJ, so people actually liked it.
I’ll say that when people notice the white character is recasted as black, it generally means the source material was absurdly popular and any follow up is likely to be pretty meh. The live action disney adaptations. of their biggest animated properties have been generally bad.
Rinse and repeat for almost any reboot/remake of some iconic movie or show. The chances of getting it at least as right the second time around are slim. Even slimmer than bolted on sequels that generally do poorly even with the benefit of the original creative teams at the helm.
They could have preserved the race of every character and it still would have sucked.
You’re probably correct, however I believe Disney and everyone else knows this and are choosing to cast black actors in order to claim the movie failed due to racism and not a weak script.
I’m fully onboard with the “mean people are offended” smokescreen when they produce bad product that also is very visibly “progressive”. It also works because a lot of people do fixate on that when it’s the least of the problems in a reboot/remake.
Wasn’t it not just the casting of one character, but that they recast the movie to be all black? When I see something that looks like “recast the movie to be X”, I don’t expect very much and usually don’t bother watching. If this was one my favorite movies, I can see being upset that they would remake it just for race or gender (although now that I mention that, it could be hilarious to remake for gender)
That includes “recast the movie to be white”, now that we’re getting lots of well done videos that don’t start as white.
But I suppose it’s white privilege that I never saw an issue with most of these (but wtf, Johnny Depp?). They’re close enough and generally the character is not written overly specific anyway. Ms Marvel must be correct because the entire movie was based on her culture, ethnicity, history. If the movie was written about “generic American teenager” declared to be something other than white, would we care? Should we? Meanwhile, who cares about Scarlet Witch? Aside from”European”, there was nothing in the movie to make her anything specific. From the post about the comics, the source material is horribly muddled
I also thought Liam as ra’s al ghul was a really bizarre pick during the movie, too. But I guess I got over it quickly enough, because Liam Neeson.
Am I the only one who thinks the Ra’s Al Ghul in the Arrow series was perfectly cast?
She’s great in The Boys too.
“You will not replace us!” shouted the white supremacists after centuries of erasing a multitude of other cultures, histories, and societies.
It has always been about power.
Really shows you that their worldview leaves no room for multiculturalism lol. As soon as brown people are let into their country’s borders, bam, suddenly their whole identity and culture ceases to exist somehow, despite still being the majority.
Multicultural is different from multiethnic. One is clothing and holidays and norms, the other is just skin.
In fairness to Tilda Swinton, they decided to entirely rewrite the character to be a Celtic woman instead of a Tibetan man. This was probably to avoid being censored in China, but getting away from the racist 1930s, “oriental mysticism,” trope was probably a good idea. It’s certainly a lot better than letting Jonny Depp pretend to be a Native American because he’s one-eighth Cherokee.
I remember reading he was one third German and sometimes I cannot sleep at night because I am trying to figure out the math. This has been like 15 years ago and it still bugs me.
Sprinkle in a little incest and we are good to go.
I also have no idea, I thought it was all halves of halves.
You can get some odd fractions by two parents having similar lineages. Like, if your mother is Irish, and your great-grandmother on your father’s side is Irish, you would be five-eighths Irish. I’m having trouble finding a combination that gives you thirds, though.
deleted by creator
Gotcha. Three-eighths is roughly one-third, so I guess that? One-quarter German on one side, one-eighth on the other?
deleted by creator
It is a rounding and reduction of genetic markers.
21/64 Germanic markers equals 1/3 German in speech because everybody hates the twenty-one sixty-fourths German guy.
If it makes you feel better, “one third” is realistically a reduced precision approximation of something like 23/64 (from a genealogical perspective) or near 33% of certain markers on a genetic panel.
I mean I guess that’s what they referred to, some approximation, but it still breaks my brain every time I think about it
Just like I once watched a video titled something like “this boy did the unthinkable” and then he did something very thinkable (he just ate someone’s face) and I am still mad about that
Well, the Ariel thing is basically the same kind of ‘rewrite’.
Also Ariel isn’t even “white”… she’s a mermaid
Well, I think it’s a bit different. The Little Mermaid takes place in an unidentified kingdom on the surface (it seems vaguely Italian or Mediterranean, I guess?) and an underwater Atlantian kingdom, so race doesn’t matter. The original Dr. Strange comics have all sorts of uncomfortable racial and religious tropes; it’s about a white guy who finds magical order Tibetan monks, not only learns their magic, but becomes even better than them at it, and moves to New York with an Asian man-servant named Wong who serves him tea. Changing up the races and backstory on that one isn’t just acceptable, it’s advisable.
Exactly Ariel is basically fish,
Liam Neeson is also like Samual L Jackson.
I don’t give a shit was race the character was originally, the character is about to be transformed into a next level badass.
I have mixed feelings about Liam Neeson in that role. His performance is great, and given that they got rid of the whole, “immortal genius from the Islamic Golden Age,” backstory, I guess the character’s race is less important. It feels very strange that an Irish guy is somehow the leader of a group of Asian ninjas, though.
The Sam Jackson/Nick Fury story is pretty hilarious. When Marvel created the Ultimate Universe in the comics, they changed a lot of characters’ backstories. One of those changes was making Nick Fury black, and one of their artists started drawing him looking a lot like Sam Jackson. Jackson talked to his agents, and Marvel was basically like, “Well, instead of suing us, would Mr. Jackson like to play the character in any future projects?”
It feels very strange that an Irish guy is somehow the leader of a group of Asian ninjas, though.
I don’t think League of Shadows are Asian only. It’s an organization founded by an Arab, is headquartered in Himalayas, and uses techniques from Far East Asia. It’s clear it’s a diverse cult of terrorists.
That’s definitely the impression I got in the third movie. In the first one, we only see the Himalayan headquarters, and it seems like there’s a white guy inexplicably in charge of an all Asian team of ninja assassins (although I think I remember one black guy being there when they burned Wayne manor).
deleted by creator
Only if it turns our he is a distant cause of Black Panther or has ties to so.e super rich people. Disney does not care about the poors.
Can I be upset at all of them? The little mermaid should probably be
DutchDanish, and all the rest should be their canon ethnicities. White Disney princesses don’t bother me because most of those stories are European folktales, but that cuts both ways.Dutch not Danish?
Danish would be my guess
Yeah it’d be a similar reaction if Jasmine & Aladdin were recast as northern Europeans. Sure it’s a fantasy tale, but the story is set in a fantasy version of Arabia.
If it’s bad to use white actors for black (or other colored) roles then it’s bad for black actors to do white roles. If it’s okay to do those switches then it’s okay for all. Forget colors it shouldn’t matter.
Having said that, Disney just did the Ariel thing ffor the “look at us being sooooo progressive, please give us your money for this utterly shit movie” instead of trying to just make a great movie
deleted by creator
But Ariel wasn’t white. She was a fish person. So they were free to do whatever.
Real mermaids rise up
Obligatory
deleted by creator
The virtue signaling just backfires. “Rainbow washing” is a thing now. Companies never gave a fuck about a progressive message, they care about trendy things to cash in on.
I get the impression Ben and Jerry’s does actually care bout progressive issues, but they are that rare exception.
deleted by creator
The original actress/singer for Ariel absolutely dominated that role as well, and really the whole cast was damn near perfect. It’s one of the few Disney Princess movies that should have been left alone.
deleted by creator
I enjoyed Beauty and the Beast. shrug
deleted by creator
I personally think it isn’t wise to use an actor of any race in substitute of another, if that character’s race is part of the story. The only reason I could think of to change the character’s race, gender, status, etc. would perhaps be to tell a different story, but then it should be renamed and be a different story. But if a character’s race, gender, status, etc. is tied to that character’s story, then it shouldn’t be discarded frivolously.
From what I see, I feel that a lot of the disconnect is based on whether people find an attribute (in this case, race) important or not as part of the character’s story.
I feel I half agree with you. The other half of me thinks, there’s a lot of things we change for an actor acting a character. After all, it’s an actor, playing a character. Someone called Ben can play a guy called John; your grumpiest aunt can play a sweet grandma; often we have actors in their 30s and 40s playing ternagers and 20s; and men playing women even used to be a thing.
I think you have a good point, but I also think it’s okay to have an acceptable disconnect of, this is people acting out a story, not the real thing happening in front of me.
So what is white if Romani isn’t? I really do not understand the American concept of race, for me they are all humans.
Hating Romani is more a European thing.
Whiteness, at least from a racist perspective, isn’t really about skin color, it’s more like a club for ‘approved’ ethnicities. There’s many Italians with darker skin than Mexicans, but Italians are considered ‘white’ and Mexicans are not. Same for large parts of the Middle East and Asia.
Romani are white skinned Europeans, but they’re not ‘racist approved’, so they make up rumors they’re actually from Egypt and omit them from the White Club.
The determination for what counts as white is highly inconsistent. Before the 1700s Germans were not considered white. Before the 1800s Irish were not considered white. For a time in the 1900s Finnish people were considered Asian (while many Finns were striking for better working conditions, what an odd coincidence). Italians weren’t considered white until about a hundred years ago. It goes on and on.
Roma people have historically been very persecuted because of racism and ethnocentrism. Case in point: the holocaust killed up to 500,000 Romani people, but the actual figures are not known. Roma people are among the groups that are rarely talked about when the Holocaust is mentioned, despite losing up to 50% of their total population at the time.
Arab and North African folks are usually considered white on the US census but that isn’t really an accurate picture.
Race is a social construct that doesn’t have clear borders. Racial categories mostly exist as a way of creating division and limiting access to resources, to flatten the diversity of individual cultures represented by a racial category… or to inflict direct and systemic violence. The experience of being a racialized person is entirely the creation of the society that a person lives within; for example, African folks usually don’t self-identify as “black,” within Africa, but that’s an important racialized experience that people can speak to in a place like the US.
Holocaust killed Russian and Jews as well, which are white. In fact I would say the Holocaust killed mainly white people.
Racism is not limited to skin color
That wasn’t the point. It’s not the suffering Olympics.
Yes, the point I’m trying to make is that people’s color is only tangent is racism (but of course it helps to highlight differences between different group of people). That’s why Roma, even if white, are still discriminated against. Sorry if I misunderstood your point, or not made mine clear
Okay well if you want to get into that, the concept of whiteness is very selective to racists. Roma, Jews, and (until recently) Russians are not considered white. The very fact that they were targeted the way they were tells us that. They may have white skin but that doesn’t matter to the concept because they aren’t in the club.
“Not white enough” would be my guess.
So what is white if Romani isn’t?
Race science is less a formal science and more a series of excuses for doing social murder and war crimes.
Romani people are Indo-Aryan, more closely related to modern day Indian people than Europeans. They typically have darker skin than Europeans as well. It’s not really an American concept either; I’ve generally seen a lot more anti-Romani sentiment in Europe than the US.
Other people have longer explanations which are great. I just wanted to point out Romani people are not Romanian even though many Romani people have settled in Romania. It’s just a coincidence.
The American concept is deceptively complex. At first it’s just literally skin color. The Simpsons meme with the cop holding the color swatches is absolutely true. Then it’s about stereotypes. So yeah your skin is light, but are you anything they have a stereotype about? Their entire concept of self relies on stereotypes being true. Otherwise they can’t be smarter just because they’re of pure European descent.
Family Guy, if it was Simpsons they’d be yellow instead of white/pink
Hah, don’t know how I switched that one up.
To me, the weirdest one was Johnny Depp as a Native American. Like I couldn’t wrap my head around it in the movie. I kept thinking the plot was that he was a delusional person who believed he was Native American.
I only watched the German version, but I never knew that the character was based on a real person.
Would’ve been funny
I though he was some kind of “ally”, like a white guy that jumped the fence and joined the Native cause or raised by natives.
I also thought it was basically Jack Sparrow 2.0
I only care when it’s stupid, like Medieval Poland being full of black people, not even modern day Poland has that many black people.
You can call me racist if you want but casting a black guy to play the president of the USA in like 1910 would be as stupid as casting a white guy to play Nebuchadnezzar.
Meanwhile middle age fantasy had black knights and it was fine.
Racists are gonna be racists is all there is.
The actual Middle Ages had black knights in Northern Europe and Scandinavians in the Middle East. Forget fantasy. That actually happened.
That depends on what you’re doing with it. If Abraham Lincoln is a vampire hunter by night then I don’t think anybody’s going to care who plays the character. It’s obviously beyond reality. If you’re doing the story of Black World War 1 veterans fighting the KKK then you’re going to want representation before the NAACP starts picketing your studio.
sounds like some men in black 3 setting
You can call me racist
As tone deaf as it gets.
Representation matters. Giving the few traditionally non-white roles that get written in Hollywood to white actors is an actual problem.
Getting mad about the existence of black characters in fiction fucking stupid. Really fucking stupid. Unjustifiably fucking stupid. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
100% agree, but what should be done would be to green light projects by writers of other races based on different cultures and folklores diversifying the pop culture space (for lack of a better term).
What is done instead is treating minorities as a checklist that needs to be checked in every piece of art even when it doesn’t make sense for them to be in that story.
Getting mad sure, but it is definitely a dumb creative decision to have characters be random races that don’t make sense in the historical context and it’s fine to criticize it. If it’s a purely fictional world with no basis in reality then no one should care.
No. Fuckin stop it. Its unbearably stupid.
Historical fiction has existed for a long time.
Y’all ain’t out here throwing a pouty parade when someone adds technology or magic or monsters into historical fiction.
But black people? Existing? If that’s where you draw the line, it’s really clear why. Make all the excuses you want.
Historical or alternate history fiction falls under pure fiction imo. That’s fine as long as it makes sense. If it’s meant to be some super grounded realistic historical slice-of-life then it would just make me think “when are they going to bring up the fact that there’s X type of person walking around here” for the whole story.
Not exclusive to black people. If there were a story that took place in 12th century Mongolia and there was some Nordic guy walking around I would be like “huh, what’s his story” and then be confused when it was never mentioned. That’s how I feel about a lot of these creative choices.
That’s literally just a longer way of saying that it’s okay if it’s magic but it’s not okay if it’s black people.
& yeah, I’ll hold my breath for people getting equally upset about white people in fiction. Any day now. I’m sure.
I can’t disapprove a hypothetical, I guess, but a hypothetical isn’t proof of anything either.
But magic doesn’t have any grounding or association with the world as we know it. Neither does aliens. We can only use the world as we know it as a frame of reference for a story.
I’d argue in lbaudia’s example that it is confusing if in 12th century Mongolia, there was some Nordic guy walking around, I’d imagine there to be a backstory of some kind. If there wasn’t, then that would definitely be an example where I’d be annoyed at white people in fiction.
I thought a great example of casting was the TV show “The Expanse”. To be able to cast someone as specific as Bobbie Draper so well - these studios have no excuse to whitewash as they do except laziness.
People made these exact same arguments about the inclusion of a black samurai in an Assassin’s Creed game.
A black samurai who was based on a real person who actually existed in history.
The game they’re playing is very obvious to anyone who’s actually paying an ounce of attention, and it has nothing to do with caring about historical accuracy.
It’s bullshit. It’s an excuse. It’s foolish. I do not suffer it gladly.
Oh the sweet voice of a reason, they don’t take well to that around here. Good on you.
“Here are three examples I made up to prove how not racist I am!”
I think in case of Ra’s Al Ghul in Nolan movies, the title is passed from one leader to another. He’s not a 1000 year old warrior.
I really don’t think it would have hurt to cast an Arab actor as Ra’s Al Ghul. And then you wouldn’t need a convoluted explanation like that.
That’s true. But I wonder if the creative team thought it would be in bad taste to have an Arab guy as head of global terrorist organization so soon after 9/11
In that case, maybe choose a different villain.
Bruh. Since it is a title, it doesn’t matter who is holding it. Even comics Ra’s Al Ghul doesn’t mind that considering he wants Bruce Wayne to be his heir.
Yes, again, you can come up with that convoluted after-the-fact explanation that wasn’t in the movie or you can not piss off Arab people.
Why?
For the same reason the excuse of a white character being named Mitsimu Hashimori is that it’s just a title being passed down is something people might find offensive.
I think artists can make whatever they want (within the bounds of the law) and that it’s up to the consumers to decide whether they like it or not with their wallets.
When did this become about what people can do and not about whether or not they’re being highly offensive?
It is legal to make and distribute a movie where a guy just yells the N-word for 90 minutes. I assume you would find that offensive. Most people would.
No, I don’t thinking would work since his daughter’s called Thalia Al Ghul, indicating Al Ghul is a family name.
Also,we don’t need to make up apologies for whitewashing.
-
He literally says 'we have been around for 1000 years and since Nolanverse is devoid of any fantastical elements, passing the torch is the only possible explanation.
-
Her name is Talia Al Ghul from Doylist perspective but not from Watsonian.
For all we know, she doesn’t have any last name/family name in-universe and uses the alias of Miranda when she’s globetrotting for a bit of terrorism.
- He literally says 'we have been around for 1000 years and since Nolanverse is devoid of any fantastical elements, passing the torch is the only possible explanation.
I always thought he meant the League of Shadows, not a single position.
- Her name is Talia Al Ghul from Doylist perspective but not from Watsonian.
She calls Ra’s Al Ghul her father. It may be an interpretation that Al Ghul is a name, but so is the title interpretation. And imho the name is far less of a stretch.
Yes. He is referring to League of Shadows. However, very early in the movie he says “If you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, you become something else entirely” so it seems obvious in hindsight that this applies to Ra’s as well as if applies to Batman.
Hell, I always thought Ken Watanabe was Ra’s Al Ghul and the title passed on to Liam Neeson after the former died.
However, very early in the movie he says “If you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, you become something else entirely” so it seems obvious in hindsight that this applies to Ra’s as well as if applies to Batman.
But that doesn’t mean Henri Ducard became a Ra’s Al Ghul or Ra’s Al Ghul became the League of Shadows. It’s like a religious thing, like christians consider themselves reborn after baptism.
Hell, I always thought Ken Watanabe was Ra’s Al Ghul and the title passed on to Liam Neeson after the former died.
I can see where you’re coming from, I’d expect some quote like “I am Ra’s Al Ghul now” or something.
Again, I can see your interpretation, but I think Ra’s Al Ghul simply being a name is far less a stretch and requires fewer assumptions.
Ra’s al Ghul translates to demon’s head. Do you still think it’s just a name?
-
I absolutely remember people being mad about the first one.
The others not so much. The fantasy movies don’t really matter the same way as a historical movie about slavery does. The fantasy characters are even gender swapped without a problem at conventions.
And yes that means the racists who got mad about Ariel are dumb.
I think people were mad about the avatar one or whatever that movie is.
Yeah Marvel characters’ identities don’t usually feel important. Nick Fury was race swapped for the movies and it was well-received.
Yup. Characters should remain consistent if it’s important.
Tonto should not have been played by Johnny Depp. Gross.
The original Ancient One was a poor stereotype of a Tibetan person and Tilda Swinton is cool so I’m ok with this one.
Liam Neeson is a great actor with a ton of gravitas and he pulled off the role well, but yeah shoulda found a middle eastern dude. Maybe that hot Djin dude from American Gods can be the next Ras Al Ghul.
Anything to do with Scarlet Witch’s background is a retcon, she was originally introduced as Magneto’s moustache twirling daughter. Despite her tan in the referenced photo she’s more often depicted as white, but I could see her being middle eastern, but it would make sense that she’s half Jewish at least, given her father’s background.
Lastly, she’s a fucking mermaid. Who gives a shit? How many of the dude bros bitching even watched it?
Lastly, she’s a fucking mermaid. Who gives a shit? How many of the dude bros bitching even watched it?
They also chose to set the entire movie in the Caribbean because there’s not fuckin colorful tropical fish off the coast of Denmark, it’s not like they randomly made her black for no reason
Shoulda gone with something like this
Some Romani people have white skin, and in rare cases, even blonde hair and blue eyes.
TBH I think the bird and in general the music score ruined TLM more than anything
But I’m against the very concept of using Live Action films to perpetuate Intellectual Property rights while skirting any requirement to pay royalties to the original teams who made the animated films from which the remake was adapted 1:1 script and scene composition.
A lot of the other examples here did give really weak or bland performances, I even think the Lone Ranger would have been better without Depp in it.
The only one of these that is remotely acceptable, to me, is Tilda Swindon, because they explicitly detached themselves from the character to avoid getting shat on by the CCP for casting a Tibetan and from Americans for casting a Chinese person.
The others are all crap, IMO.
Every time a character is <color>washed we lose the chance to be exposed to global actors that would fit their profile.
Wait until you tell extremist, right-wing Christians that Jesus wasn’t a white guy! Oooohhh boyyy!
Also, I think it’s important to not forget that in the internet age, a very small minority of hateful asshats can appear to have a very large voice. They are still a very small, minority group of asshats.
