[Black Heimdall], or Does This Really Matter?

Drez

Glyph wrote: »

Drez wrote: »

edit: So, to be clear, I would say that the whitewashing in "21" was bad, but insofar as the quality of the movie is concerned, it was also irrelevant.

It's arguable that the quality might've turned out different if they'd stuck with an Asian cast and been more faithful to the original story about how race, and the model minority stereotype, played a role in their deception.

I'm also of the opinion that film adaptations of literature (or any adaptation from one medium to another) is, by necessity, almost always a different story. To what degree depends on the source and the director and the hoopy froods that finance it.

The Great Wayne

Hmmmm... US and their shenanigans...

No offense meant, but from Europe this seems a little... absurd ? Absurd that someone would want to cast a black dude to play a previously pictured white character. Absurd also to argue on any point other than fidelity to that original artwork source. I don't care about fidelity to the norse gods, as said before the comic isn't cannon with it in the first place.

But the movie based on a source, even such "popular" stuff as comics, as to be coherent with it - especially visually since we're talking about a very graphic source.

You want to change characters ? then just create an original material.

Nobody around here would think about casting a black metabaron (Jodorowski comic) or a black Thorgal (Van Hamme comic, which depicts a Viking - who is in fact formerly coming from the stars - so that's out of topic).

That'd not be "an interesting variation on the original source/theme/work" that'd just be a casting error. And everyone would agree with that, whatever their skin color is.

In fact, anyone not ok with that would be suspected of trying to make a political/ideological point.


And that's actually how it's seen around here. Pretty much like many other "free adaptations" made on source material in comics-based movies these last few years, it looks like it's made to appeal to a broader or younger audience, in detriment of the original theme.

Which frankly sucks, and contributes to make the comics appear as a sub par form of art, not worthy of fidelity and a disposable source able to be freely betrayed and transformed for the sake of marketing.

Sentry

Really? You should mention that to Kenneth Branagh, you know, the European who directed and cast this movie, who has done race changes in several previous films.

Or, yeah, you could just blame it on the U.S. I guess.

Hachface

The Great Wayne wrote: »

Hmmmm... US and their shenanigans...

No offense meant, but from Europe this seems a little... absurd ? Absurd that someone would want to cast a black dude to play a previously pictured white character. Absurd also to argue on any point other than fidelity to that original artwork source. I don't care about fidelity to the norse gods, as said before the comic isn't cannon with it in the first place.

Haha, right. Because Europeans would never cast an actor of one race as a character of another.

Spoiler:

Jacobkosh

I love all the incredible psychic people who know exactly why this change was made.

Got any handy stock tips for me, guys?

Darkewolfe

How the fuck is it in any way detrimental to the original theme? "Hey, we need a billy bad ass to play Heimdall." "Well, we have that guy, that guy and that guy. I like that dude's voice." "He's black." "Who gives a shit, they're from goddamn space." "Point."

And then you're done. They are goddamn space aliens from a COMIC BOOK. Comic books aren't exactly the most renowned material for never, ever deviating from something previously established. Isn't the term "retcon" originally FROM comic book fans? Comic book writers will change whether a character is DEAD with barely a blink or a narrative transition. Casting someone for a part without paying attention to whether they're the same skin color isn't even remotely important in the case of shapeshifting alien super heroes.

Psycho Internet Hawk

Jacobkosh wrote: »

Undead Scottsman wrote: »

Is it just me, or does it seem a little racist in itself that some people seem to think there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that the casting of a black Heimdall is anything OTHER than affirmative action, or sticking it to the white man, or just some general action of pity towards people of color. (Throwing them a bone, as it were.)

but but AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

it is pretty revealing how so many people immediately leapt to that conclusion, isn't it?

Why would this be unreasonable or a bad thing? Comic books and superheroes have a reasonably sized minority fanbase yet are overwhelmingly white. I don't see the problem in changing what is frankly a superfluous trait about this character to give some of your fanbase a little representation.

*edit* I think I misinterpreted your post. NEVERMIND.

Deebaser

Sentry wrote: »

Really? You should mention that to Kenneth Branagh, you know, the European who directed and cast this movie, who has done race changes in several previous films.

Or, yeah, you could just blame it on the U.S. I guess.

Thanks for reminding me, I gotta add Kenneth Branaugh to the [Art Jail] thread.

Not for this obviously, but he has been a fugitive of Art Justice since he cashed his paycheck for Wild Wild West, which to oddly go back on topic was another instance where a black man (Will Smith) was cast into a role previously held by a white dude, and that movie was terrible (not because of Will Smith, it was just fuckawful)

Thirith

Also, The Great Wayne, you may not want to pretend that you're speaking for The European Point Of View. That whole "everyone would agree" thing is silly.

Yes, making a character that's been portrayed as white black is a change - but there are always changes when original material is adapted. Changing a character's colour is a very *visible* change, but that's not automatically the same as saying that it's a big change. Was the Kingpin changed in any fundamental way by casting a black guy?

It's possible that they'll make race an issue with this change, but until we know more about the film it may simply be a case of, "This guy is an awesome actor and would do a brilliant job with the character. So what if he's black."

The Great Wayne, can you specify how casting a black actor in the part is by definition of "detriment to the original theme" other than "He's different, oh my god!", at least any more than any other change? (In specific cases it can be a stupid, wrongheaded decision, but I'm talking about this specific case.)

Drez

The Great Wayne wrote: »

Hmmmm... US and their shenanigans...

No offense meant, but from Europe this seems a little... absurd ? Absurd that someone would want to cast a black dude to play a previously pictured white character. Absurd also to argue on any point other than fidelity to that original artwork source. I don't care about fidelity to the norse gods, as said before the comic isn't cannon with it in the first place.

But the movie based on a source, even such "popular" stuff as comics, as to be coherent with it - especially visually since we're talking about a very graphic source.

You want to change characters ? then just create an original material.

Nobody around here would think about casting a black metabaron (Jodorowski comic) or a black Thorgal (Van Hamme comic, which depicts a Viking - who is in fact formerly coming from the stars - so that's out of topic).

That'd not be "an interesting variation on the original source/theme/work" that'd just be a casting error. And everyone would agree with that, whatever their skin color is.

In fact, anyone not ok with that would be suspected of trying to make a political/ideological point.


And that's actually how it's seen around here. Pretty much like many other "free adaptations" made on source material in comics-based movies these last few years, it looks like it's made to appeal to a broader or younger audience, in detriment of the original theme.

Which frankly sucks, and contributes to make the comics appear as a sub par form of art, not worthy of fidelity and a disposable source able to be freely betrayed and transformed for the sake of marketing.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.

This is poorly-written satire of European elitist wankery, right?

Hachface

Deebaser wrote: »

Sentry wrote: »

Really? You should mention that to Kenneth Branagh, you know, the European who directed and cast this movie, who has done race changes in several previous films.

Or, yeah, you could just blame it on the U.S. I guess.

Thanks for reminding me, I gotta add Kenneth Branaugh to the [Art Jail] thread.

Not for this obviously, but he has been a fugitive of Art Justice since he cashed his paycheck for Wild Wild West, which to oddly go back on topic was another instance where a black man (Will Smith) was cast into a role previously held by a white dude, and that movie was terrible (not because of Will Smith, it was just fuckawful)

The full-length Hamlet was also pretty mediocre. Good performances but totally unimaginative directing.

Bogart

We had a vote here in Europestan, and The Great Wayne is now our spokesperson on these matters.

Deebaser

I liked his Hamlet. Of course the only movie versions of Hamlet I've seen were the Lawrence Olivier (sp?) which I didn't care for, the Mad Max one, which was fuckawful, and Kenny B's, whose was the best o the bunch.

Drez

Hachface wrote: »

Deebaser wrote: »

Sentry wrote: »

Really? You should mention that to Kenneth Branagh, you know, the European who directed and cast this movie, who has done race changes in several previous films.

Or, yeah, you could just blame it on the U.S. I guess.

Thanks for reminding me, I gotta add Kenneth Branaugh to the [Art Jail] thread.

Not for this obviously, but he has been a fugitive of Art Justice since he cashed his paycheck for Wild Wild West, which to oddly go back on topic was another instance where a black man (Will Smith) was cast into a role previously held by a white dude, and that movie was terrible (not because of Will Smith, it was just fuckawful)

The full-length Hamlet was also pretty mediocre. Good performances but totally unimaginative directing.

And a poor interpretation of the text, in my opinion.

Bogart

It was a very fathful adaptation of Hamlet, which took few risks risks in direction, casting or setting, but so what? It's a theatrical kind of movie, but so what?

I think Branagh's version of Hamlet is a damned brilliant movie, and will fight anyone who disagrees in an arena of their choice.

Bogart

Drez, pick up a trident and a net and take a number.

Drez

Deebaser wrote: »

I liked his Hamlet. Of course the only movie versions of Hamlet I've seen were the Lawrence Olivier (sp?) which I didn't care for, the Mad Max one, which was fuckawful, and Kenny B's, whose was the best o the bunch.

I'm in a minority here I know, especially among Hamlet enthusiasts (it is my favorite play) but I much prefer the Zeffirelli/Gibson Hamlet to Branagh"s.

Deebaser

Bogart wrote: »

It was a very fathful adaptation of Hamlet, which took few risks risks in direction, casting or setting, but so what? It's a theatrical kind of movie, but so what?

I think Branagh's version of Hamlet is a damned brilliant movie, and will fight anyone who disagrees in an arena of their choice.

I agree, but more importantly what is Great Wayne's opinion on the matter? Is Europe behind it or not?

Deebaser

Drez wrote: »

Deebaser wrote: »

I liked his Hamlet. Of course the only movie versions of Hamlet I've seen were the Lawrence Olivier (sp?) which I didn't care for, the Mad Max one, which was fuckawful, and Kenny B's, whose was the best o the bunch.

I'm in a minority here I know, especially among Hamlet enthusiasts (it is my favorite play) but I much prefer the Zeffirelli/Gibson Hamlet to Branagh"s.

pistols at motherfucking dawn. Oh and for our duel the part of Deebaser will be played by Samuel L. Jackson.

The Great Wayne

@Sentry:

You misunderstood my reference to the US shenanigans. What I find to be absurd is the whole arguments related to CCC pro/con, racism or anything not revolving around the simple fact that it's not faithful to the original source.

You can cast a black dude to play King Arthur, or a blond, pulpous woman to play Carmen, but hell you'll not be accused of being an active progressist or a pro-aryan, you'll just be accused of being an idiot who made a casting error.

And sorry if I'm not being clear, english isn't my first language.


Edit: don't pull the Othello crap on me please, or any other theatre art ftm. Othello isn't about visuals, it's about the story, the play and the ideas behind it. I've not seen the film with hopkins but I'm pretty sure the director came out with something to translate the "racism" aspect of the play, and if not then it'd have to be a poor adaptation.

You can actually "read" a play, like a book. I wonder how a comic book would translate in this form. Yeah, that'd not come out well. Visuals are what matter in comics, which isn't the case with theater plays.

Modern Man

Matrias wrote: »

Being a big Thor fan, I keep trying to formulate a reply for this topic, but any response I can come up with makes me feel conflicted.

That said, I think Idris Elba looks badass portraying Heimdal, regardless of what race mythology/source material/racists thinks he should be.

At the end of the day, casting Elba probably went something like this:

Producer #1: I really like that Stringer Bell guy from the Wire. Can we cast him in Thor?

Producer #2: Heimdall's still open.

Producer #1: Isn't he a white dude in the comic?

Producer #2: Eh. You want him in the movie or not?

Basically, we're probably overthinking this whole thing.

Drez

Bogart wrote: »

It was a very fathful adaptation of Hamlet, which took few risks risks in direction, casting or setting, but so what? It's a theatrical kind of movie, but so what?

I think Branagh's version of Hamlet is a damned brilliant movie, and will fight anyone who disagrees in an arena of their choice.

Any interpretation that includes Ophelia and Hamlet actually sleeping together is dead to me. Any version that actually has a sex scene between them is ridiculous.

Modern Man

Darkewolfe wrote: »

How the fuck is it in any way detrimental to the original theme? "Hey, we need a billy bad ass to play Heimdall." "Well, we have that guy, that guy and that guy. I like that dude's voice." "He's black." "Who gives a shit, they're from goddamn space." "Point."

And then you're done. They are goddamn space aliens from a COMIC BOOK. Comic books aren't exactly the most renowned material for never, ever deviating from something previously established. Isn't the term "retcon" originally FROM comic book fans? Comic book writers will change whether a character is DEAD with barely a blink or a narrative transition. Casting someone for a part without paying attention to whether they're the same skin color isn't even remotely important in the case of shapeshifting alien super heroes.

Considering how comic book companies routinely rape their own back stories and change everything on a whim (wait, everyone's been a Skrull for years? Peter Parker is a clone, wait now he isn't? Ben Grimm suddenly remembers he's Jewish?), changing the skin color of a supporting character seems like a minor thing.

I can't even remember who Thor is anymore. Didn't he used to be a doctor with a limp in his original incarnation, or something? And for a while there, it seemed that the Ultimates Thor was a mental patient who got his hands on weapons being developed as part of an EU super-soldier program.

And let me just repeat: Asgard is now in fucking Oklahoma.

If you think too hard about comic book continuity, you'll end up shitting yourself in despair.

Jacobkosh

Bogart wrote: »

It was a very fathful adaptation of Hamlet, which took few risks risks in direction, casting or setting, but so what? It's a theatrical kind of movie, but so what?

I think Branagh's version of Hamlet is a damned brilliant movie, and will fight anyone who disagrees in an arena of their choice.

I am on your side on this.

Also I think Branagh's film is sumptuously gorgeous. I love that whole czarist, Nutcracker aesthetic.

Drez

To avoid this mess in the future, I suggest that every movie role from now on be played by a member of the Blue Man Group.

Jacobkosh

Also holy shit. "Nobody would even think of casting a black Metabaron."

that is just amazing

nexuscrawler

Drez wrote: »

To avoid this mess in the future, I suggest that every movie role from now on be played by a member of the Blue Man Group.

Let me just blue myself

DarkCrawler

FunkyTown wrote: »

All right. Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree. The classical image of Heimdall is not that of Idra. I think it's a silly casting choice and I stand by what I say.

I respect your opinion.

Yeah, but you are actually objectively wrong here because the "classical image of Heimdall" has nothing do to with what he is in Marvel comics or the further adaptation based on it, and actual genetics have nothing to do with fucking gods even if we are going with the original thing.

This guy:



is the mommy of all these:



and the guy's mommy is a goddamn frost giant

The Great Wayne wrote: »

Edit: don't pull the Othello crap on me please, or any other theatre art ftm. Othello isn't about visuals, it's about the story, the play and the ideas behind it. I've not seen the film with hopkins but I'm pretty sure the director came out with something to translate the "racism" aspect of the play, and if not then it'd have to be a poor adaptation.

You can actually "read" a play, like a book. I wonder how a comic book would translate in this form. Yeah, that'd not come out well. Visuals are what matter in comics, which isn't the case with theater plays.

And in the end Heimdall in comics is a shapeshifting alien-pseudo-demigod who can look whatever he wants to. So you defeat your own point right there.

You also realize that there is no point in making an adaptation if you can't change something as minor as the skin color of someone or something where the skin color doesn't matter?

And casting a white guy to play Othello, a Moor, is suddenly not a casting error but crap someone is trying to pull?

And if visuals are what matter and this doesn't matter in stuff like plays or books...you realize that even if you were going by the original myths, they are...books. Poems, actually.

Tanolen

Were people angry at star gate norse gods being grey aliens.

FunkyTown

Actual genetics have nothing to do with the Gods even if we are going with the original thing?

You've quoted Loki. Please quote source - Any source prior to this film - That suggests Heimdall - In the comics or in history - Was of African descent, or had dark skin.

DarkCrawler wrote: »

FunkyTown wrote: »

All right. Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree. The classical image of Heimdall is not that of Idra. I think it's a silly casting choice and I stand by what I say.

I respect your opinion.

Yeah, but you are actually objectively wrong here because the "classical image of Heimdall" has nothing do to with what he is in Marvel comics or the further adaptation based on it, and actual genetics have nothing to do with fucking gods even if we are going with the original thing.

Jacobkosh

It's not that complicated, FunkyTown.

You don't need to be "of African descent" when you're a shapeshifting space god - or even just a regular god!

OptimusZed

Zeus was a goddamn swan at one point.

Looking like a black guy would be a parlor trick by comparison.

Modern Man

OptimusZed wrote: »

Zeus was a goddamn swan at one point.

Looking like a black guy would be a parlor trick by comparison.

And a bull in one story where he seduced a human woman.

The gods were into some really kinky sexual practices.

Bogart

Funky, provide a source that states Odin was Welsh or that Thor was Australian. If not, I guess those are two other casting decisions that need rethinking.

Tanolen

Exactly he felt like being black, so he was.

FunkyTown

OptimusZed wrote: »

Zeus was a goddamn swan at one point.

Looking like a black guy would be a parlor trick by comparison.

True. And is the point of the opposition that he chose it for some aesthetic reason? That would definitely be a reason. If you can honestly say that you believe that Heimdall chose to look different to all the other deities for a real, aesthetic reason, then that would be a story-driven reason.

I haven't seen any evidence of that, but as I have said before: If the movie shows an honest, thought-out reason for his appearance, I will come on here and apologize.

Deebaser

OptimusZed wrote: »

Zeus was a goddamn swan at one point.

Looking like a black guy would be a parlor trick by comparison.

Zeus is the silliest goose

valiance

DarkCrawler wrote: »

tinwhiskers wrote: »

So you supported making all the Chinese(I'm assuming didn't watch it) Airbenders white kids? And the Prince of Persia a Swedish-Jewish American was alright?

I don't know, were the races integral to either characters? I'm assuming that the Prince of Persia happens in...Persia. If he is a Prince of the Kingdom of Persia, yeah, that seems pretty important part of the character and he should be Persian if he is presented as such. Does Avatar happen in China?

Hey, do you mind Aladdin being Middle Eastern? Because he was actually Chinese. How did that affect your enjoyment of the classic Disney movie?

If it happens in some mythical universe with no relation to Earth's nationalities or countries, why the fuck not? If the race or nationality has nothing to do with the character's basic concepts, again, who gives a shit? I wouldn't say I support it, like I actively want people to change it just because, but I don't care either way.

tinwhiskers wrote: »

And as much as people are trying to separate the Norse Mythos Vs Marvel sourced IP...he's still a blonde haired blue eyed Norseman in both.

He's not blonde (brunette for most of the time when the colorist feels like giving a fuck), he doesn't really have a defined eye color or even eyes as we consider them to be, and I don't know what the fuck you can call him right now but he sure as fuck isn't Norwegian or Homo Sapiens, so you are actually wrong there.

Druk wrote: »

DarkCrawler wrote: »

If the character's race has nothing to do with what is essential to this fictional character or his background, then who gives a fuck?
...if Superman was black...
...Spider-Man...

A large percentage of your viewing audience, whom you depend on to get a return on your investment for filming the movie. Just sayin'

Well that's their problem. I'm posting my own viewpoint.

Chinese Aladdin just blew my mind. Thanks for that!

Casual Eddy wrote: »

CanisAquilus wrote: »

HamHamJ wrote: »

tinwhiskers wrote: »

So you supported making all the Chinese(I'm assuming didn't watch it) Airbenders white kids? And the Prince of Persia a Swedish-Jewish American was alright?

And as much as people are trying to separate the Norse Mythos Vs Marvel sourced IP...he's still a blonde haired blue eyed Norseman in both.

You're drawing a false equivalency between white-washing and this.

So you're saying its okay when it happens with one character, but not more than one character?

Just so I understand.

ok look at it this way. Is the race extremely significant to the character? What if they made william wallace a black dude in braveheart? The fact that he is scottish and thus probably white is pretty important in that movie.

Now take that movie they made about the MIT students who developed the system to cheat vegas. My understanding is that most of the students were asian in real life. Now if they made the group say half and half in the movie I would understand, frankly it would broaden the appeal. However I also understand that movie made the remaining asian characters standard issue wacky stereotypical asians. Now there's a problem.

Felix in the new james bond movies is black. samuel l jackson in the avengers is black. some of this is the simple recoginition that these intellectual properties are very old and are from a time when black people were either cartoonish villians or servants. If you kept it super faithful then it would be mainly white people. Instead the director is trying to inject some diversity into characters whose race is not extremely important.

heimdall would be a bigger issue if they got flav o flav to play him. instead they have a respected actor doing so. I don't see the issue.

why would it broaden the appeal? white people can't identify with asian characters? isn't changing an asian person to a white person for fear that white audiences couldn't identify with an asian person just pandering to racists?

All the Shakespeare examples give good support for the idea that race is a lot less important than we think. That said, the very universality of Shakespeare makes it easier to change races and keep the theme of the work, whereas I think more specific stories lose coherence if the races are changed. As Fartacus/Modern Man said, there's definitely some benefit to using racial signifiers for certain characters.

I think there are some characters like Spiderman or Superman (see Red Son) or Wonder Woman or Catwoman (Eartha Kitt), who are canonically White but could very easily have their race/place of origin changed. They're universal like dinosaur lesbians and Romeo and Juliet. Race just isn't that important to characters like that. For example Michael Clarke Duncan's Kingpin was excellent. Who cares what his canonical race is? It's not important to the character and MCD nailed all the other important visual/aural aspects of the character.

But other characters have race integrally tied to their character/backstory like Captain America (Steve Rogers has to be white due to his WWII origins) or Black Panther. And some characters it's redundant to change the race of: why make Hal Jordan black when you can just do a John Stewart story?

OptimusZed

FunkyTown wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

Zeus was a goddamn swan at one point.

Looking like a black guy would be a parlor trick by comparison.

True. And is the point of the opposition that he chose it for some aesthetic reason? That would definitely be a reason. If you can honestly say that you believe that Heimdall chose to look different to all the other deities for a real, aesthetic reason, then that would be a story-driven reason.

I haven't seen any evidence of that, but as I have said before: If the movie shows an honest, thought-out reason for his appearance, I will come on here and apologize.

But what would constitute "an honest, thought-out reason" is completely subjective. And even if he does have a reason it could be implied without being directly addressed.

If they're going to have to specifically lampshade every single divergence with either Norse Myth and Marvel canon, that's all they're going to spend the two hours doing.

Bogart

I doubt that "Thor, why, as a norse god, do you speak in a cod-English accent with a faint Australian twang?" is a question we'll be hearing.