TV/Movie General Discussion

[Ryllharu]

Relevant considering some of the discussions we've been having in the TV/Movies section:

The 5 Most Insulting Defenses of Nerd Racism

[Abdula]

I can't believe someone actually said they should do a remake of roots and have all the slaves be white. Wow, now that dude needs to relax and take a break from the internet. Not even Animeniax and Y could be that bad.

Also, I'm pretty sure Abdula didn't even read the article.

Yep, I most definitely posted without reading. Who needs to read anything before posting about it?
>_<

[Buffalobiian]

Relevant considering some of the discussions we've been having in the TV/Movies section:

The 5 Most Insulting Defenses of Nerd Racism

I'm all for keeping to the source content. If the source has a white guy, it seems weird for anyone familiar with it to watch a black version. The brought up the Black Spiderman argument, but I have no reason to believe both arguments were made by the same person, even though I'm sure those who would argue for both exist.

Asians and blacks in Norse mythology also threw me off, and when I saw it I thought it was a Hollywood thing about trying to throw in different races. It just goes back to how things started out. Norse mythology was created by the Nordic, and they'd look Nordic unless specified otherwise. Likewise, gods in Asian mythology looked Asian. It is about race.

The "black sister" comment is.. reasonable. Unless the movie ignores their sibling relationship, or throws in a line to explain the difference in colour people aren't going to default to thinking "one's adopted / interracial marriage / step-sister". The same goes for you going "huh? - .. come again?" when someone introduces you to their two homosexual parents. There's nothing wrong with it, just outside expectations. Checking for confirmation when something is unexpected is completely normal.
So if the movie throws a curve-ball like that without the "conformational explanation", I can it rubbing people the wrong way.

The prior expectation isn't purely racial (though an element certainly exists). It's a combination of both physical alikeness (parents/siblings are expected to share resemblances, as they often do), likelihood of happening (adoptions and siblings of clearly different colour are a minority) and deviating from the source material.

[Animeniax]

I can't speak for these nerds or their reasons for not liking the changes made to these characters. For me, these are characters from comics that I grew up reading, so changes to them in pretty much any form is rough to handle. A change to something as basic as their race is just Hollywood pandering for more ticket sales.

Why is it ok to change white characters to black, yet they have white guys play Asian characters? I think it is a double standard to say one is ok or else you are racist, but the other isn't a problem because Hollywood is just trying to appeal to a wider audience.

[UChessmaster]

I don`t get your second paragraph at all, care to clarify?

Also, if you read the article: "The thing is, the only reason these characters were white in the first place was that comic books were created in a time when nobody would have printed a book about a non-white superhero (having female superheroes was difficult enough, and they were handled with something less than dignity). But nowadays, the people responsible for these characters are trying to make their properties as inclusive and welcoming as they possibly can, because everybody likes comic books, not just white people.

So actually, maybe racist nerds do have a good reason to be angry -- they're angry because the comic industry has outgrown them."

[Animeniax]

Also, if you read the article: "The thing is, the only reason these characters were white in the first place was that comic books were created in a time when nobody would have printed a book about a non-white superhero (having female superheroes was difficult enough, and they were handled with something less than dignity). But nowadays, the people responsible for these characters are trying to make their properties as inclusive and welcoming as they possibly can, because everybody likes comic books, not just white people.

So actually, maybe racist nerds do have a good reason to be angry -- they're angry because the comic industry has outgrown them."

I doubt that it's the creators themselves who are authorizing these changes, but the studios and corporate owners of the characters who are making them. The reason the characters were white was that white guys created them. Comic books weren't always such an inclusive medium. They were largely a hobby for dorks and nerds (ie white kids). When I used to go to comic stores on a daily basis in the 80s and 90s, it was almost always exclusively nerdy white guys there. I never complained that there were no/few yellow characters in the comics I read.

I understand that a lot of these characters were created in times of racial intolerance and could use some diversity, but I don't have to like the changes, and it's not for racial reasons. I think the studios are making it a race issue to maximize profits. McDonald's didn't start their afrocentric campaign to be more racially diverse, they just wanted to make money by targeting that demographic.

I don`t get your second paragraph at all, care to clarify?

What Ryllharu said. It's a double standard that Hollywood uses to remedy one form of racism while actively propagating another.

[Ryllharu]

Well, Ani does have a point. There is a significant double standard in Hollywood today. While black people aren't allowed to headline a movie unless they are Will Smith or Denzel Washington, it's not like they are changing black characters to white people left and right for movie adaptations.

But what they do quite frequently is whitewash Asians out of their roles (and Middle-Easterners and Native Americans to a lesser degree). It was done for decades well after blackface was no longer considered acceptable. They don't do it as offensively as they used to in the 60s with movies like Breakfast at Tiffany's, but if it was a prominent role, and what they do today, they would just outright change the role. Famously, Bruce Lee on two prominent occasions, and more recently, 21 and Avatar The Last Airbender.

It's as much of a problem as racism in Hollywood against blacks or latinos, but the issue is always silently pushed to the side. Kung-fu movies are the obvious exception, but those are always treated as niche cinema.

edit 2: Though there are movies like 1962's My Geisha starring Shirley MacLaine that play off on the idea in ultimately a good way, showing the racism behind the practice in a very negative light as an extremely selfish act for the film's moral conclusion.

[Sapphire]

Holy shit, people just love to super read into race and spin any deviation from what's expected in the worst way possible.

Casting isn't some "conspiracy" by the distributor to target to certain race demographics. It's like you people completely obliterate the notion that casting directors/directors (who don't really even answer to distributors to THAT extent) are INDIVIDUALS and normal ass people just like you and you twist it into some huge social conspiracy, as if the people who work their asses off to create their vision of the movie owe you something. This is hilarious due to the great financial risk and hard work it takes to even make a movie (of which you're not even obligated to watch), and the fact that the movie will prolly fall into obscurity in 2 years due to a remake anyway.

Actually, from what I've seen of casting calls (and I read Actor's Access and Backstage daily while living in NYC), they probably had the lead role as a "Caucasian, 20s" description, or whatever the comic book says. They still audition a variety people and it's actually pretty cool that Jordan got cast even though they were looking for someone else. It means he had great cast chemistry or something great about him that made the producers pick him over others (even the white ones OMGGG). It's amazing how people who know nothing of the casting process take everything as a personal affront without informing themselves.

[Animeniax]

Holy shit, people just love to super read into race and spin any deviation from what's expected in the worst way possible.

It's like you people completely obliterate the notion that casting directors/directors (who don't really even answer to distributors to THAT extent) are INDIVIDUALS and normal ass people just like you and you twist it into some huge social conspiracy, as if the people who work their asses off to create their vision of the movie owe you something. This is hilarious due to the great financial risk and hard work it takes to even make a movie (of which you're not even obligated to watch), and the fact that the movie will prolly fall into obscurity in 2 years due to a remake anyway.

...It means he had great cast chemistry or something great about him that made the producers pick him over others (even the white ones OMGGG). It's amazing how people who know nothing of the casting process take everything as a personal affront without informing themselves.

"You people"? Whacchu mean, "you people"?

Movie makers don't "owe" anything to the audience beyond an entertaining/moving experience, but they do owe it to the creators/source material to be honest to and respectful of their creations. Superheroes eventually become the "property" of everyone. They become part of the social fabric and history of a people (like any national and iconic hero). Changing them for whatever reason is a bastardization to some degree.

I think you're giving too much credit to the casting process as some sort of pure art form devoid of external factors. A black guy getting a role for a white character isn't some color-blind ephemeral moment of harmony and artistry. You can't be so naive as to completely dismiss any ulterior motives of the casting crew for making their selection. This is Hollywood we're talking about, where the creative process is 5th or 6th in importance to making money, satisfying advertisers, etc.

[Abdula]

That is quite ridiculous. There is no point to remaking something if you are going to painfully adhere to the source material out of some deluded sense of honesty or respect. Comic book movies are boring, repetitive and cliched enough as it is already. This isn't Watchmen, this is a Fantastic Four reboot. These things have to be considered on a case by case basis, in this case I don't think the source material is all that good and considering how bad the movies were if they were not going to make any major changes there would be no point to rebooting the series. It is funny you mention the creative process taking a back seat to making money, supporting advertisers when you seem to want them to basically make a live action version of something you read in the 80's or 90's when that requires no creativity at all.

[UChessmaster]

If they make F4 just like in the early comics I fear for the invisible woman.

[Animeniax]

Reproducing something in a new medium has its own intrinsic value that if done right can reawaken interest in the original material. There's a reason the original comic books tend to increase in value when they are made into TV shows and movies. Live action movie versions of anything from comics, cartoons, and TV generate big interest for fans of the original material. Saying it's pointless to make live action versions unless some changes are made is ridiculous.

You don't have to strictly adhere to source material or follow a story verbatim in order to do the originals justice and honor them. But major changes can take someone else's creation and bastardize it. Does the director/producer want to tell a new story with these characters, or do they just want to tweak it to make some money off an existing product? I say it's the latter.

Were the original FF4 movies flops because of the characters or because of the weak storylines and promotion? I think any superhero movie done correctly could be a hit. So what the franchise needs is better writing and production, not some trivial change to one of the characters to satisfy PC demographics.

[UChessmaster]

F4 wasn`t a flop, rise was.

[Animeniax]

It looks like they were both equally successful, though not on Iron Man levels:

http://boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=fantastic%20four

Both opened at #1 for their weekends earning ~$57 million. Surfer didn't do as well globally, earning ~$298m during its run, while FF4 earned ~$330m.

Considering this, why do they feel they need to make such a change to the character? Understandably Chris Evans might be too big a name to want to reprise the role of Johnny Storm, but that doesn't mean the character needs to be re-written.

edit: Plus Evans is busy with Captain America/Avengers 2.

edit 2: While reading up on the potential casting of Jordan as Johnny Storm, I see that Jamie Foxx is most likely getting the role of Electro in the 2nd Amazing Spider-man movie. When will some yellow people get roles? Hollywood is a bunch of racists.

[Kraco]

After thinking about it, I have no problems with this issue despite the fact I read a thick pile of those comics in 80's and early 90's. As long as the actor can pull off the role, of course. Like Nick Fury by Samuel L. Jackson. In fact I doubt anybody could have made that role any better, but then again, Samuel L. Jackson kicks ass in any role he accepts. I reckon the only exceptions would be those characters that I've really liked in these adaptations, like Magneto by Ian McKellen or Wolverine by Hugh Jackman. But in those cases I'd be sad if they were suddenly played by any other actor, regardless of any racial details. Considering Magneto, his role has certain requirements as he's a Jewish survivor from a Nazi concentration camp, so I doubt just anybody could be cast into the role.

Fantastic Four was such a sucky movie that I couldn't care less. All I remember is that it had Jessica Alba.

[Animeniax]

Fantastic Four was such a sucky movie that I couldn't care less. All I remember is that it had Jessica Alba.

Even with the gorgeous Jessica Alba I didn't bother watching either FF4 movie (I don't like her as a blonde, though that's not the reason I didn't see the movies). The new movie will have a new Invisible Woman as well.

[Buffalobiian]

Read around from Ryll's link, and came across:

6 Insane Stereotypes That Movies Can't Seem to Get Over
(#4 onwards is relevant to this discussion)

I don't watch enough movies to point out if he's cherry picking, but I'm not at all surprised about Hollywood warping reality to suit their needs. My wake-up call was their depiction of gun suppressors and fuel tank explosions.

[Animeniax]

Read around from Ryll's link, and came across:

6 Insane Stereotypes That Movies Can't Seem to Get Over
(#4 onwards is relevant to this discussion)

I don't watch enough movies to point out if he's cherry picking, but I'm not at all surprised about Hollywood warping reality to suit their needs. My wake-up call was their depiction of gun suppressors and fuel tank explosions.

Considering some of the recent genocides center in African countries like Somalia, Rwanda, the Congo, Sudan, etc, committed by military warlords, the first stereotype they list isn't that unfair. Hollywood is always looking for a good villain for moviegoers to hate. Personally I'm tired of North Korea and China as the enemy in movies, tv, and video games.

[Ryllharu]

I'm tired of it being posh caucasian Europeans (frequently just British) lately, because anything else would be insensitive.

But the DPRK and China bashing is all part of the great propaganda machine. Just like how they always used to be Russians, and then always generic-Arabs.

[Animeniax]

Yeah but at least Caucasian Euros are portrayed as criminal masterminds bent on world domination through means other than military might.