Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2016 8:49:50 GMT -5
No, we're within the rules and on-topic. TL:DR We are getting more and more diverse. But as far as art goes, just ignore race/gender Go with who's right for the role. First off - I totally agree with the idea that casting should be based on whether or not an actor crushes the audition. To me, that's a big reason why I don't see A LOT of films - stunt casting hot properties or flavors of the week instead of actually getting great actors. I mean we had a whole chunk of time in the early 2000s where they tried to make Justin Timberlake seem like a real actor (he's good at comedy, but far far far far from the best choice for a dramatic lead). And that kind of gets to the heart of the matter. Like I've said before, Hollywood is not a meritocracy. I wish it were, but casting doesn't generally work like that. When a casting director brings in people for a role, that role is already set with age/gender/race/type. So if they're casting the next Wolverine the hypothetical of a black actor crushing the audition isn't likely to happen because they're not even gonna get the casting call because the director (or whomever) has already established that the character is a white male (and that's not even getting into the fact that most of the gatekeepers are white). I mean, it's a nice thought, it really is, I'm not being condescending. It's a nice thought that a noted Asian or Hispanic actor would get to even audition for Superman or Captain America, but really they wouldn't even get the call for the role. So the whole idea of "Go with who's right for the role" only gets us so far. And even when they DO get the call, the amount of backlash they'd receive from hardcore fans for taking the roll would probably scare them off. That's why Will Smith turned down Superman. Which is why I think people clamoring for a "black Bond" or a female Thor in movies isn't "diversity for diversity's sake" really, but more of a way of saying, "Hey - can we open up the casting potential for this role? Maybe see Shameik Moore or Edgar Ramierz for this role as well?" It's also trying to show studios - "HEY! WE'RE READY FOR A NON-WHITE ________ NOW! You can call all those talented actors you're not auditioning because you thought we'd boycott." Because to me THAT'S how you really find the best person for the role - you've got to open the casting up BIG TIME to allow for more talent to walk through your door.
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Aug 7, 2016 14:51:15 GMT -5
One more thing, a comparison if you will. I'm looking forweard tot he Nina Simone movie, because I love her music, the messages of her songs, her voice, and what she meant to music. Now the woman cast to play her was of Puerto Rican/Dominican descent, and there has been, frankly, complaints of "whitewashing" Nina's memory rather than "hey, here's someone who crushed the role, walked in and became Nina with her voice".
Compare that to Hamilton, which I loved, and we have (again) historical figures who really existed, not fiction, not comics, but real people, and what do we have? We have a diverse group brought together to either reimagine the founders or whatever, but they absolutely nailed it. They did great, and the performances made (as it should) race a non-factor for the viewer.
However, if one is a travesty and "whitewashing" (how someone of Puerto Rican and Dominican descent can be considered a whitewash, I have no clue), why is the other seen as a brilliant idea? Again, in both cases, I have seen (with the latter) and heard (with the former) that the actors and actresses in question showed up and nailed the part to where race shouldn't be a factor in the least, but the polar opposite results leave me puzzled.
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips on Aug 7, 2016 14:59:52 GMT -5
I'm going to guess the reason for that is that Nina Simone is heavily associated with the civil rights movement and is a figure in living memory, whereas the Founding Fathers are associated more with a generic "patriotic" culture rather than an ethnic one and have long since passed, thus dulling how emotional one can get about them.
|
|
|
Post by Stone Cold Eleanor Shellstrop on Aug 7, 2016 15:16:29 GMT -5
One more thing, a comparison if you will. I'm looking forweard tot he Nina Simone movie, because I love her music, the messages of her songs, her voice, and what she meant to music. Now the woman cast to play her was of Puerto Rican/Dominican descent, and there has been, frankly, complaints of "whitewashing" Nina's memory rather than "hey, here's someone who crushed the role, walked in and became Nina with her voice". Compare that to Hamilton, which I loved, and we have (again) historical figures who really existed, not fiction, not comics, but real people, and what do we have? We have a diverse group brought together to either reimagine the founders or whatever, but they absolutely nailed it. They did great, and the performances made (as it should) race a non-factor for the viewer. However, if one is a travesty and "whitewashing" (how someone of Puerto Rican and Dominican descent can be considered a whitewash, I have no clue), why is the other seen as a brilliant idea? Again, in both cases, I have seen (with the latter) and heard (with the former) that the actors and actresses in question showed up and nailed the part to where race shouldn't be a factor in the least, but the polar opposite results leave me puzzled. With the Nina Simone movie, the whitewashing charge relates to the idea of colourism, that there is a bias in favour of people with lighter skin tone than those with darker skin tone, for which the casting of Zoe Saldana has been considered an example (as much as Saldana is a movie star, also ties in to the idea that Hollywood is economically conservative/risk averse). Colorism often converges with ideas of gender, especially how women are expected to perform femininity, with respect to how ideas about beauty are standardized as being 'white' (or 'Western') without having to be about skin colour and the meanings and values associated with skin colour.
|
|
Fade
Patti Mayonnaise
Posts: 38,331
|
Post by Fade on Aug 7, 2016 15:40:06 GMT -5
First off - I totally agree with the idea that casting should be based on whether or not an actor crushes the audition. To me, that's a big reason why I don't see A LOT of films - stunt casting hot properties or flavors of the week instead of actually getting great actors. I mean we had a whole chunk of time in the early 2000s where they tried to make Justin Timberlake seem like a real actor (he's good at comedy, but far far far far from the best choice for a dramatic lead). And that kind of gets to the heart of the matter. Like I've said before, Hollywood is not a meritocracy. I wish it were, but casting doesn't generally work like that. When a casting director brings in people for a role, that role is already set with age/gender/race/type. So if they're casting the next Wolverine the hypothetical of a black actor crushing the audition isn't likely to happen because they're not even gonna get the casting call because the director (or whomever) has already established that the character is a white male (and that's not even getting into the fact that most of the gatekeepers are white). I mean, it's a nice thought, it really is, I'm not being condescending. It's a nice thought that a noted Asian or Hispanic actor would get to even audition for Superman or Captain America, but really they wouldn't even get the call for the role. So the whole idea of "Go with who's right for the role" only gets us so far. And even when they DO get the call, the amount of backlash they'd receive from hardcore fans for taking the roll would probably scare them off. That's why Will Smith turned down Superman. Which is why I think people clamoring for a "black Bond" or a female Thor in movies isn't "diversity for diversity's sake" really, but more of a way of saying, "Hey - can we open up the casting potential for this role? Maybe see Shameik Moore or Edgar Ramierz for this role as well?" It's also trying to show studios - "HEY! WE'RE READY FOR A NON-WHITE ________ NOW! You can call all those talented actors you're not auditioning because you thought we'd boycott." Because to me THAT'S how you really find the best person for the role - you've got to open the casting up BIG TIME to allow for more talent to walk through your door. Hey. Timberlake KILLED it in Social Network. But thats credit to the Director.
|
|
Fade
Patti Mayonnaise
Posts: 38,331
|
Post by Fade on Aug 7, 2016 15:46:11 GMT -5
Compare that to Hamilton, which I loved, and we have (again) historical figures who really existed, not fiction, not comics, but real people, and what do we have? We have a diverse group brought together to either reimagine the founders or whatever, but they absolutely nailed it. They did great, and the performances made (as it should) race a non-factor for the viewer. One thing about Hamilton..just a few months back, they were having open auditions. To tour, or something, I dunno. And there was that controversy that they put "NO WHITES ALLOWED". Like. Thats pretty f***ed up. I am not White, have auditioned for parts and not gotten them precisely because I'm not White but turning the tables doesnt seem like the real answer. "An eye for an eye makes the world go blind"-sorta thing..
|
|
J
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,915
|
Post by J on Aug 7, 2016 15:48:36 GMT -5
Also the problem with the Nina Simone movie is this ![](http://www.madeinhollywood.tv/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/zoe-saldana-nina-simone-movie-side-by-side-photo-1024x487.jpg) Considering who Nina Simone was and what she stood for you can't make a movie about her life (one the family wasn't cool with to start) and darken up your lead actress. That shit just isn't going to fly. Of course I can't speak for everyone but to me the most egregious decision wasn't casting Saldana. You just can't darken her up, throw on a prosthetic nose and coarse wig and think that's ok.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2016 16:32:03 GMT -5
First off - I totally agree with the idea that casting should be based on whether or not an actor crushes the audition. To me, that's a big reason why I don't see A LOT of films - stunt casting hot properties or flavors of the week instead of actually getting great actors. I mean we had a whole chunk of time in the early 2000s where they tried to make Justin Timberlake seem like a real actor (he's good at comedy, but far far far far from the best choice for a dramatic lead). And that kind of gets to the heart of the matter. Like I've said before, Hollywood is not a meritocracy. I wish it were, but casting doesn't generally work like that. When a casting director brings in people for a role, that role is already set with age/gender/race/type. So if they're casting the next Wolverine the hypothetical of a black actor crushing the audition isn't likely to happen because they're not even gonna get the casting call because the director (or whomever) has already established that the character is a white male (and that's not even getting into the fact that most of the gatekeepers are white). I mean, it's a nice thought, it really is, I'm not being condescending. It's a nice thought that a noted Asian or Hispanic actor would get to even audition for Superman or Captain America, but really they wouldn't even get the call for the role. So the whole idea of "Go with who's right for the role" only gets us so far. And even when they DO get the call, the amount of backlash they'd receive from hardcore fans for taking the roll would probably scare them off. That's why Will Smith turned down Superman. Which is why I think people clamoring for a "black Bond" or a female Thor in movies isn't "diversity for diversity's sake" really, but more of a way of saying, "Hey - can we open up the casting potential for this role? Maybe see Shameik Moore or Edgar Ramierz for this role as well?" It's also trying to show studios - "HEY! WE'RE READY FOR A NON-WHITE ________ NOW! You can call all those talented actors you're not auditioning because you thought we'd boycott." Because to me THAT'S how you really find the best person for the role - you've got to open the casting up BIG TIME to allow for more talent to walk through your door. Hey. Timberlake KILLED it in Social Network. But thats credit to the Director. Considering who led that film, a piece of driftwood in a polo shirt would have killed it in that movie by comparison.
|
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 48,043
|
Post by Dub H on Aug 7, 2016 16:46:31 GMT -5
Now an interesting question.
Would a even distribution on movies be the equality? Or does the fact that America is still majorly White(and therefore mathematically,more roles will have white people) means it doesnt need to be completely the same number?
|
|
agent817
Fry's dog Seymour
Doesn't Know Whose Ring It Is
Posts: 21,439
|
Post by agent817 on Aug 7, 2016 16:56:39 GMT -5
Okay, let's go back a bit. I remember a lot of people bitching about Khan being white in Star Trek Into Darkness because in The Wrath of Khan, he was played by Ricardo Montalban, a Latino. I have not seen too many of the original Star Trek movies (Although I need to change that), but I didn't have a problem with Benedict Cumberbatch playing Khan.
|
|
Fade
Patti Mayonnaise
Posts: 38,331
|
Post by Fade on Aug 7, 2016 17:09:49 GMT -5
Okay, let's go back a bit. I remember a lot of people bitching about Khan being white in Star Trek Into Darkness because in The Wrath of Khan, he was played by Ricardo Montalban, a Latino. I have not seen too many of the original Star Trek movies (Although I need to change that), but I didn't have a problem with Benedict Cumberbatch playing Khan. Got blown off in the wind what with Abrams incredibly stupid move of denying the character was Khan in the first place. I mean, it seemed a bit silly. I think Khan I don't think "Latino!", I think "mastermind that beat Kirk". Cumberbatch is a great actor so I think the prospect of him playing one of Star Treks greatest villains would excite most.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Aug 7, 2016 17:11:18 GMT -5
Ricardo Montalban at least looked like he could pass for an Indian, albeit a genetically engineered super Indian. Benedict Cumberbatch was just a white guy with an English accent who had none of the history with Kirk to make his appearance in the story meaningful or profound in any way. He may as well have played an entire different character. I think Gary Mitchell would have made more sense.
|
|
CMWaters
Ozymandius
Rolled a Seven, Beat the Ads.
Bald and busy
Posts: 63,197
|
Post by CMWaters on Aug 7, 2016 18:04:12 GMT -5
Ricardo Montalban at least looked like he could pass for an Indian, albeit a genetically engineered super Indian. Benedict Cumberbatch was just a white guy with an English accent who had none of the history with Kirk to make his appearance in the story meaningful or profound in any way. He may as well have played an entire different character. I think Gary Mitchell would have made more sense. They do explain that in the prequel comic that Starfleet or Section 31 did cosmetic surgery so he would fit their ideal role better.
|
|
the2ndevil
Grimlock
Super Seducer Survivor
Where Is Your Santa, Now?
Posts: 13,635
|
Post by the2ndevil on Aug 7, 2016 21:18:52 GMT -5
The issue I had with Benndict Cabbage Patch Kid being Khan is primarily that the movie just did not need Khan in it at all. They had a good, interesting story going with the corrupt admiral, but they just threw that all away, so they could be a bunch of "clever references" to Wrath Of Khan that just fell flat. Also, Khan was an attempt by Gene Roddenberry to reconnect with a friend from India from World War II. Khan's full name was an anagram of the name of friend he was trying to reconnect with. He tried again, in The Next Generation with the name of Data and Lore's creator being a slightly different anagram. They never reconnected. Ricardo Montalban at least looked like he could pass for an Indian, albeit a genetically engineered super Indian. Benedict Cumberbatch was just a white guy with an English accent who had none of the history with Kirk to make his appearance in the story meaningful or profound in any way. He may as well have played an entire different character. I think Gary Mitchell would have made more sense. They do explain that in the prequel comic that Starfleet or Section 31 did cosmetic surgery so he would fit their ideal role better. If it's not in the movie, it doesn't count.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Aug 7, 2016 21:41:34 GMT -5
Gotta be honest; finally saw Ghostbusters last week, and I don't see where the "Girl Power" angle was outside of one line during the credits. I didnt see it,and not even saying i agree.But from what i read it stems of from of course 1- all girls team and marketing 2- All Male characters are assholes or dumbasses 3- They defeat the final ghost by shooting it on the dick For #1: the marketing made no mention of "girl power" or anything like it, unless I missed a random commercial somewhere. For #2: just Hemsworth, which is kind of the joke, and obviously the villain is an asshole. There are other male and female characters who are jerks. For #3: seemed more like just a dick joke to me (and a play off of the original team shooting downward at Mr. Stay Puft's neck, while they shot upward, instead), not any sort of statement of "girl power". Think some people were stretching for things to get upset about.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Aug 7, 2016 21:46:40 GMT -5
One more thing, a comparison if you will. I'm looking forweard tot he Nina Simone movie, because I love her music, the messages of her songs, her voice, and what she meant to music. Now the woman cast to play her was of Puerto Rican/Dominican descent, and there has been, frankly, complaints of "whitewashing" Nina's memory rather than "hey, here's someone who crushed the role, walked in and became Nina with her voice". Compare that to Hamilton, which I loved, and we have (again) historical figures who really existed, not fiction, not comics, but real people, and what do we have? We have a diverse group brought together to either reimagine the founders or whatever, but they absolutely nailed it. They did great, and the performances made (as it should) race a non-factor for the viewer. However, if one is a travesty and "whitewashing" (how someone of Puerto Rican and Dominican descent can be considered a whitewash, I have no clue), why is the other seen as a brilliant idea? Again, in both cases, I have seen (with the latter) and heard (with the former) that the actors and actresses in question showed up and nailed the part to where race shouldn't be a factor in the least, but the polar opposite results leave me puzzled. The above answer about media's trouble with depicting darker skinned people handled the one part better than I think I could have, but with Hamilton I think it goes back to the fact that going the other way with it really doesn't have any negative impact on the white population; one Broadway musical, even one as massively huge as Hamilton, doesn't put a dent into the overrepresentation of white characters and actors that persists, so there's really no harm done...plus, Hamilton was from the Caribbean, anyway, so I admit I thought it was a cool move to play off the idea that he likely had "mixed" heritage. ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png)
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Aug 8, 2016 10:53:43 GMT -5
The Khan thing is interesting cuz technically you could make some hay with him being eugenically altered/created and that being the reason for him to look racially however you'd choose him to be.
It might actually add a more disturbing component to his backstory if you wanted to take it that way.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Aug 8, 2016 10:55:08 GMT -5
There is an alarming lack of awareness of the difference between being white and being literally any other race in this thread. Bull. Absolute bull. The vast majority of race changes are changing a minority group to a white person to make it more palatable for the American ticket-buying public. That has recently started to change a little, but mainstream cinema is overwhelmingly white. I remember reading stuff many years ago how Will Smith was approached to play Superman, and I also think he was approached to play Captain America, too. I am not so sure if there was an uproar regarding that, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was. Will Smith is one of a precious few black Hollywood actors who can play characters that are black, but can be described without using the word 'black.' Slightly off topic, but still connected. When it comes to race swapping, I just ask for consistency. If Idris Elba is praised for playing a Norse god, but Gerard Butler is vilified for playing an Egyptian one. Or Hamilton being the greatest show in Broadway History with a large cast of minorities playing founding fathers, while Emma Stone playing someone who apparently looked a lot like Emma Stone in Aloha is a career torpedo. Something screwy is going on. However, if the actor is the only reason the movie is made. Angelina Jolie in A Mighty Heart, Ben Affleck in Argo, etc... go for it. If Denzel Washington wants to do a movie where he's Ghengis Khan, and drops 40 million to do so. Sweet. Because we are talking about racism and whitewashing. Casting white people instead of minorities is completely different to casting minorities instead of white people. They are called minorities for a reason, yet even by the standard of being minorities they are grossly under-represented. Never mind the millennia of cultural appropriation on the part of white people when it comes to the cultures and traditions of the countries they invaded and destroyed. I tuned out for a bit but is one side really arguing: "f*** originality. Too hard. To promote diversity we should change established characters". Really, y'all? Nope, y'all. Nobody is arguing that, anywhere. Also the problem with the Nina Simone movie is this ![](http://www.madeinhollywood.tv/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/zoe-saldana-nina-simone-movie-side-by-side-photo-1024x487.jpg) Considering who Nina Simone was and what she stood for you can't make a movie about her life (one the family wasn't cool with to start) and darken up your lead actress. That shit just isn't going to fly. Of course I can't speak for everyone but to me the most egregious decision wasn't casting Saldana. You just can't darken her up, throw on a prosthetic nose and coarse wig and think that's ok. Jesus that is horrifying. They've literally put a black woman in blackface.
|
|
Fade
Patti Mayonnaise
Posts: 38,331
|
Post by Fade on Aug 8, 2016 13:12:38 GMT -5
I'd hope not. We should strive to be original.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2016 19:19:50 GMT -5
I never got the counter argument of if we change the race or sex of a fictional character, are real life people next when it comes to biopics? Ummmm nope even though it oddly has happened like Danny DeVito playing Andy Kaufmans manager who was Asian in real life who makes a cameo in the movie. Or John Wayne as Genghis Khan. Or Ben Affleck as a Latino in Argo.
But if there is a fictional character where there character has nothing to do remotely with there race or based on the time period and setting, it's fair game. Like if you were to remake Inglorious Basterds you can't cast Hans Landa as anything but a white guy the same reason why you can't cast Django amything else but a black guy.
Plus there's a difference between fictional characters and real people.
|
|