I'm wondering how many of these genetic paragons are descended from English, Scottish, or any other Europeans who were brutally slaughtered by the Vikings? Or perhaps the Christians who forcefully stripped the Norse of their pagan religion?
as an aside, i have heard that some white supremacist groups are trying to revive the norse gods as a pseudo-religion because they've pretty much had it with hearing how peaceful and semetic that hippy jesus was all the time.
I'm wondering how many of these genetic paragons are descended from English, Scottish, or any other Europeans who were brutally slaughtered by the Vikings? Or perhaps the Christians who forcefully stripped the Norse of their pagan religion?
as an aside, i have heard that some white supremacist groups are trying to revive the norse gods as a pseudo-religion because they've pretty much had it with hearing how peaceful and semetic that hippy jesus was all the time.
There are already people who believe in Norse mythology, aren't there? Asatru I believe? And I read somewhere else they were pissed people were trying to take their religion and make it into something racial.
Again, it's not as if the audience was fooled into believing that the black-faced actors were realllly black. It's not as if people didn't know that Viola was really a young man. That's not what made the plays work. It worked on the strength of the story instilling a willingness to suspend disbelief.
Do you think, in this regard, that the skin color was more important than either the story itself or the individual actor's abilities?
You wouldn't say that the original universe of Othello is a Moor with Black skin dealing with life in a White Society?
No, because it's already an alternate universe because Othello is a work of fiction. Its very nature is to be an alternative universe.
But if the author intends it to be an original universe in the work of fiction, can't we not ignore that?
Like Dragon Ball Z. In the cartoon, the original universe, Goku is Japanese. Then all of a sudden a movie based upon the original universe, not an adaption, made Goku, White.
It has roots in the secret societies that led to the Nazis, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
I just like trying to find the line where 'religion' becomes 'mythology'. Is it number of living practitioners? I think it may be related to the line where 'grave robbing' becomes 'archaeology'.
Again, it's not as if the audience was fooled into believing that the black-faced actors were realllly black. It's not as if people didn't know that Viola was really a young man. That's not what made the plays work. It worked on the strength of the story instilling a willingness to suspend disbelief.
Do you think, in this regard, that the skin color was more important than either the story itself or the individual actor's abilities?
They don't need to think he's actually black, thats not the issue. It just needs to look better when someone calls the guy a black Moor. Since its unacceptable to make a non-black actor look black that kind of leaves one option in most cases.
Of course not, you still have to be a good actor and if its a toss up between Daniel Craig and Tyler Perry go with Craig.
Roots with white people cast as the slaves and Mexicans as the slave owners (set in the future, of course) is something that I could see being shown unironically at neo-con get togethers
If they changed Nick Fury to a black guy, and the Green Lantern crew has a black guy... why would I care about fake Norse mythology?
I'm going super-geeky here, but the Sam Jackson Nick Fury is basically an alternate-universe version of the white Nick Fury. The Marvel movies are set in an alternate timeline from the Marvel comics.
Also, what's the issue with a black Green Lantern? There are probably tens of thousands of GL's out there. John Stewart is just one of several Earth GL's.
They're just set in the Ultimate universe, which is just a different universe than the original comics were in. They're still made by Marvel.
This seems so basic I'm having trouble suspending my disbelief on the sincerity of some of these arguments.
Clearly you could present Othello as written, but with a white actor in the title role. The more familiar your audience is with the play, the easier it would probably be for them to simply suspend disbelief and enjoy a good performance without skin color distracting.
If your audience were say a bunch of half educated high school students however, they're going to have enough to pay attention to and keep track of as it is, so casting a white actor as Othello could complicate things unnecessarily, and detract from the play.
That one seems pretty self evident to me. Does anyone disagree with that general idea?
Moving into somewhat less solid ground, I would say that suspension of disbelief relates to emotion, and to focus. Sure you can do a whole play with no set or props, but you'd better keep the focus on the performances of the actors. The more interaction they have with the non-set and non-props the more potentially distracting it is. You also gain leeway in suspending disbelief for the audience if you effectively engage them emotionally, and the more emotion the more leeway. However it's a balancing act because the deeper they're brought in the more jarring it is if something breaks.
As for Heimdahl, I personally would prefer as much thematic continuity in the various Norse gods that appear in the film as possible, but not as much as I would prefer good performances. And having a black Norse god wouldn't have to break the theme either. Throw a smattering of diversity in there, give me one line of dialogue to explain why none of the old legends mention it, and I'm good.
Seriously? Hmm...I'll try. Roots would've been far, far more powerful if white people had been cast as the slaves, in the sense that it would've been an obvious attempt to provoke Black America into hysteria. I seriously doubt there is any way you can put your question into a context that is any less antagonistic. That film is considered by many historians to be a cultural and artistic milestone; a statement of recognition of the brutal history of American slavery.
Seriously? Hmm...I'll try. Roots would've been far, far more powerful if white people had been cast as the slaves, in the sense that it would've been an obvious attempt to provoke Black America into hysteria. I seriously doubt there is any way you can put your question into a context that is any less antagonistic. That film is considered by many historians to be a cultural and artistic milestone; a statement of recognition of the brutal history of American slavery.
Thor is a comic book movie.
I don't think you've been following this very well. We've been discussing placing actors and actresses of the correct race in roles where race is an important part of the story. Some disagree and think this isn't important. I picked a movie that I think show this isn't really the case.
As one from Denmark, I have no problem with marvels heimdall being black, now it coud be funny if their refere to him as being a blueman, as that was the name for black ppl at that time, why I dont know, vikings was color blind
Also Norway dont = norse myth, mostly becouse norse myth is part of most of Scandinavia, and the kingdom norway was not formet at the time those myths toke place/was created.
At that time Scandinavia was a loose tribe system with many kings.
for more info see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavia
and read how a loose group of ppl from one of the smallest countrys in the world became the terror and conquer of Europa.
Seriously? Hmm...I'll try. Roots would've been far, far more powerful if white people had been cast as the slaves, in the sense that it would've been an obvious attempt to provoke Black America into hysteria. I seriously doubt there is any way you can put your question into a context that is any less antagonistic. That film is considered by many historians to be a cultural and artistic milestone; a statement of recognition of the brutal history of American slavery.
Thor is a comic book movie.
He's not being antagonistic. He's saying that when race is integral to the plot, casting actors that look the part is the appropriate thing to do. You're kind of saying something similar, that casting white actors for the roles in Roots would have been inapropriate.
However you're assuming it would be some sort of attempted statement. Sammich is saying what if the plot was the same, the actors just happened to be white. Wouldn't it detract from the impact of the story having to remind ourselves all the time that these are black characters?
If this movie were set in Scandinavia, during the time of Vikings, and the character in question wasn't a god, and he was supposed to be playing a native Scandinavian, and no explanation or attention was given to his appearance, then I would have an objection. Since this is a superhero movie set in the modern USA starring a bunch of aliens, I can't grasp how it could be an issue.
Would Roots have been nearly as powerful if they had cast white people as the slaves?
Was this the Marvel Comics version of Roots sent in an alternate-reality American South where the slaves were not really slaves, but were an entirely nonhuman alien race disguised as Africans? You know, kind of like that alien baseball player in the X-Files episode?
Setting aside the inability to distinguish between Marvel Comics' re-invention of the Norse pantheon and the complete willingness to ignore all other head-scratching clashes between Marvel and The Real Vikings - I'm paralyzed with amusement over the stupid assumption that the followers of the Norse pantheon were all blonde-haired, blue-eyed "pure bloods". Vikings raided into France and Italy and Russia, for fuck's sake, let alone all the women they kidnapped from Britain (who still show up in the genetic background of modern-day Icelandics btw). They were about as "pure" as an animal-shelter puppy.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
A central tenent of movies and plays is that you show, don't tell. I don't have a problem with a white Othello, I just think you're piling on extra work for yourself because now you need to tell your audience instead of just show.
Remember that movie White Man's Burden? Me neither. But if you picked actors with no regard to race to cast in a play based on it, the message completely changes.
The only problem I have with black Hiemdall is that it feels like a decision made in a board room to increase profits. That's just me being cynical, though.
There are really two discussions going on here Mythago. One is a lot of people agreeing that the racist furor over the Thor movie is stupid, even if the casting decision is a little amusing.
The other one is about casting in roles where race is part of the story.
Why is Heimdall being black problematic? Because it's inaccurate?
The comic's gods are not Scandinavian, so it's well within the realm of interpretation.
How is an infinitesimal thing like pigment important, compared to the huge liberties they've taken with the original mythology AND the comic itself?
There is no logic to this objection; there is only a weird racially charged concern with skin colour.
Fact is, Elba is a really good actor and I'd cast him anywhere he wants.
Um, yeah, the gods ARE Scandinavian. In that they've been part of the Scandinavian mythos for hundreds if not thousands of years, and have pretty well conformed to the beliefs of their worshippers. Wild deviations for the sake of awesomeness are acceptable; wild deviations for the sake of wild deviations, not so much.
Frankly, the issues about a black Heimdall really do bother me, just because it seems like a deliberate slap in the face. Just 'HA HAA, we're doing this because we can!' Was Idris Elba the best available actor for the part? I'm not convinced that he was. And given how flippantly I saw him treating the role, I was seriously concerned that he wouldn't do it justice. (However, he is a damn good actor and after seeing his screenshot I'm interested in seeing how he does.)
Overall, I think this was a blatantly unnecessary move chosen to spark controversy, and that it shouldn't have been done; any more than the idiotically white casting in The Last Airbender, or than if a Martin Luther King biography had Malcom X played by Sammo Hung. Even though I LIKE Sammo Hung! It's just not appropriate for the part, and even fictional characters deserve some respect.
Would Roots have been nearly as powerful if they had cast white people as the slaves?
Was this the Marvel Comics version of Roots sent in an alternate-reality American South where the slaves were not really slaves, but were an entirely nonhuman alien race disguised as Africans? You know, kind of like that alien baseball player in the X-Files episode?
Setting aside the inability to distinguish between Marvel Comics' re-invention of the Norse pantheon and the complete willingness to ignore all other head-scratching clashes between Marvel and The Real Vikings - I'm paralyzed with amusement over the stupid assumption that the followers of the Norse pantheon were all blonde-haired, blue-eyed "pure bloods". Vikings raided into France and Italy and Russia, for fuck's sake, let alone all the women they kidnapped from Britain (who still show up in the genetic background of modern-day Icelandics btw). They were about as "pure" as an animal-shelter puppy.
Mythago. You. Sometimes we disagree (the once, really). But this makes me wanna have your babies.
I'll justify it by saying you should go for at least a minimum level of parity with reality if you're doing some stories, and Othello's skin color is part of that.
Othello being a Moor is part of that. If a pale actor plays Othello but everybody keeps calling him 'the Moor' and treating him as such per the original text of the play, does that work, or not?
In any case, whether in some cases race is essential has absolutely nothing to do with whether in this movie about Marvel Thor race is essential because, duh, it's not.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I'll justify it by saying you should go for at least a minimum level of parity with reality if you're doing some stories, and Othello's skin color is part of that.
Othello being a Moor is part of that. If a pale actor plays Othello but everybody keeps calling him 'the Moor' and treating him as such per the original text of the play, does that work, or not?
In any case, whether in some cases race is essential has absolutely nothing to do with whether in this movie about Marvel Thor race is essential because, duh, it's not.
Yeah I don't much care about the casting decision for Thor, especially once it was explained to me that it has little to do with the actual norse myths.
But there has been a long discussion regarding race in different roles and casting (at least until the other people randomly left).
The post about roots had little to do with Thor though. That topic is really a non issue.
This is the most amazing thing I've ever read.
?
I think there is a clear difference in replacing one single actor and the entire cast of the movie Roots.
To the point where it's ridiculous to even address your claim.
Fine. Replace the main character (Toby as I recall) and then tell me if the scene where he's whipped and forced to accept a new name is half as strong.
There are really two discussions going on here Mythago. One is a lot of people agreeing that the racist furor over the Thor movie is stupid, even if the casting decision is a little amusing.
The other one is about casting in roles where race is part of the story.
C'mon. Don't tell me you didn't pick Roots to be a little inflammatory.
That said, I don't entirely agree with your characterization of the second there, but that aside, the bigger issue is when "race is part of the story". The True History of Robin Hood? No, that's probably not a role you can credibly put Jackie Chan in.
But the Thor in the original Norse myths was a big dumb bruiser (Neil Gaiman got that right). Loki should have been played by a redhead, not a brunette. And none of this weird comic-booky armor stuff, either. Plus, they speak English for crissakes. Compared to all the other violence Marvel's done to the source material a black Heimdall is way down the list.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
It sounds like you are comparing Thor - on which the skin color of the characters is only relevant in a adaptation distillation perspective - and Roots, a movie where race is an integral part of the story.
I mean why not compare it to a remake of Malcolm X, played by Tom Hanks.
It sounds like you are comparing Thor - on which the skin color of the characters is only relevant in a adaptation distillation perspective - and Roots, a movie where race is an integral part of the story.
I mean why not compare it to a remake of Malcolm X, played by Tom Hanks.
For like the 10th time already Wazilla and I aren't discussing the Thor movie so much as we're discussing whether its important to cast actors to match character's race.
Pretty much everyone agrees the Thor thing is a nonissue drummed up by racists.
Um, yeah, the gods ARE Scandinavian. In that they've been part of the Scandinavian mythos for hundreds if not thousands of years, and have pretty well conformed to the beliefs of their worshippers. Wild deviations for the sake of awesomeness are acceptable; wild deviations for the sake of wild deviations, not so much.
Frankly, the issues about a black Heimdall really do bother me, just because it seems like a deliberate slap in the face. Just 'HA HAA, we're doing this because we can!' Was Idris Elba the best available actor for the part? I'm not convinced that he was. And given how flippantly I saw him treating the role, I was seriously concerned that he wouldn't do it justice. (However, he is a damn good actor and after seeing his screenshot I'm interested in seeing how he does.)
Overall, I think this was a blatantly unnecessary move chosen to spark controversy, and that it shouldn't have been done; any more than the idiotically white casting in The Last Airbender, or than if a Martin Luther King biography had Malcom X played by Sammo Hung. Even though I LIKE Sammo Hung! It's just not appropriate for the part, and even fictional characters deserve some respect.
This isn't a movie about the Scandinavian gods. This is a movie about a bunch of Marvel comic characters that bear little resemblance to the Norse gods, and aren't even Scandinavian. Thor wasn't blonde, didn't wear tights, wasn't an alien and didn't fight supervillains in modern America. I feel pretty comfortable in saying there are far, far more differences between the mythology and the comic book than there are between the comic book and the upcoming film, let alone this inconsequential casting choice. If you actually cared about fidelity to Scandinavian myths, you would be addressing those differences rather than complaining that they cast a black guy as a superhero.
Nope. It was selected as the first movie where an importance of race came to mind. I'm not even sure how using it as a hypothetical is offensive.
I'll take your word for it. But racists like the CCC like to minimize slavery by blathering about how there were white slaves TOO in the colonies and blacks sold other blacks into slavery and wharrgarbl.
I don't think anybody was arguing that perceived race* is never, ever relevant in a casting decision - just that it's often a lot less important than people imagine, and its relevance is hard to justify unless the movie is attempting to be faithful to source material where that information is quite clear (e.g., Sherlock Holmes) and/or to be historically accurate (e.g., Orlando Bloom cast in a biopic about Shaka Zulu).
*"Perceived" because it's not as though skin color and ethnicity exactly map. Nobody screams if a native Russian actor plays Louis Riel in a movie because they're both "white guys", and nobody notices when an Iranian plays a Mexican guy.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Nope. It was selected as the first movie where an importance of race came to mind. I'm not even sure how using it as a hypothetical is offensive.
I'll take your word for it. But racists like the CCC like to minimize slavery by blathering about how there were white slaves TOO in the colonies and blacks sold other blacks into slavery and wharrgarbl.
I don't think anybody was arguing that perceived race* is never, ever relevant in a casting decision - just that it's often a lot less important than people imagine, and its relevance is hard to justify unless the movie is attempting to be faithful to source material where that information is quite clear (e.g., Sherlock Holmes) and/or to be historically accurate (e.g., Orlando Bloom cast in a biopic about Shaka Zulu).
*"Perceived" because it's not as though skin color and ethnicity exactly map. Nobody screams if a native Russian actor plays Louis Riel in a movie because they're both "white guys", and nobody notices when an Iranian plays a Mexican guy.
The original example was Othello, a story where the main characters race is vitally important to the story.
It sounds like you are comparing Thor - on which the skin color of the characters is only relevant in a adaptation distillation perspective - and Roots, a movie where race is an integral part of the story.
I mean why not compare it to a remake of Malcolm X, played by Tom Hanks.
For like the 10th time already Wazilla and I aren't discussing the Thor movie so much as we're discussing whether its important to cast actors to match character's race.
Pretty much everyone agrees the Thor thing is a nonissue drummed up by racists.
So what's the discussion? Sometimes race matters. A Time to Kill and A Lesson Before Dying and Kid n Play's House Party 3 wouldn't make a lick of sense if all the actors were white.
It sounds like you are comparing Thor - on which the skin color of the characters is only relevant in a adaptation distillation perspective - and Roots, a movie where race is an integral part of the story.
I mean why not compare it to a remake of Malcolm X, played by Tom Hanks.
Cause it Roots is an actual movie that we've actually seen and had an emotional reaction to, so it makes for a better example. I think so anyway.
It sounds like you are comparing Thor - on which the skin color of the characters is only relevant in a adaptation distillation perspective - and Roots, a movie where race is an integral part of the story.
I mean why not compare it to a remake of Malcolm X, played by Tom Hanks.
For like the 10th time already Wazilla and I aren't discussing the Thor movie so much as we're discussing whether its important to cast actors to match character's race.
Pretty much everyone agrees the Thor thing is a nonissue drummed up by racists.
So what's the discussion? Sometimes race matters. A Time to Kill and A Lesson Before Dying and Kid n Play's House Party 3 wouldn't make a lick of sense if all the actors were white.
And sometimes it doesn't matter.
Senju and possibly some others saying it doesn't matter at all.
Posts
Well you have to respect consistency at least.
There are already people who believe in Norse mythology, aren't there? Asatru I believe? And I read somewhere else they were pissed people were trying to take their religion and make it into something racial.
Do you think, in this regard, that the skin color was more important than either the story itself or the individual actor's abilities?
But if the author intends it to be an original universe in the work of fiction, can't we not ignore that?
Like Dragon Ball Z. In the cartoon, the original universe, Goku is Japanese. Then all of a sudden a movie based upon the original universe, not an adaption, made Goku, White.
I just like trying to find the line where 'religion' becomes 'mythology'. Is it number of living practitioners? I think it may be related to the line where 'grave robbing' becomes 'archaeology'.
They don't need to think he's actually black, thats not the issue. It just needs to look better when someone calls the guy a black Moor. Since its unacceptable to make a non-black actor look black that kind of leaves one option in most cases.
Of course not, you still have to be a good actor and if its a toss up between Daniel Craig and Tyler Perry go with Craig.
Would Roots have been nearly as powerful if they had cast white people as the slaves?
Care to elaborate?
"What's your name? Say it!"
"JOHN... SMITH"
They're just set in the Ultimate universe, which is just a different universe than the original comics were in. They're still made by Marvel.
Clearly you could present Othello as written, but with a white actor in the title role. The more familiar your audience is with the play, the easier it would probably be for them to simply suspend disbelief and enjoy a good performance without skin color distracting.
If your audience were say a bunch of half educated high school students however, they're going to have enough to pay attention to and keep track of as it is, so casting a white actor as Othello could complicate things unnecessarily, and detract from the play.
That one seems pretty self evident to me. Does anyone disagree with that general idea?
Moving into somewhat less solid ground, I would say that suspension of disbelief relates to emotion, and to focus. Sure you can do a whole play with no set or props, but you'd better keep the focus on the performances of the actors. The more interaction they have with the non-set and non-props the more potentially distracting it is. You also gain leeway in suspending disbelief for the audience if you effectively engage them emotionally, and the more emotion the more leeway. However it's a balancing act because the deeper they're brought in the more jarring it is if something breaks.
As for Heimdahl, I personally would prefer as much thematic continuity in the various Norse gods that appear in the film as possible, but not as much as I would prefer good performances. And having a black Norse god wouldn't have to break the theme either. Throw a smattering of diversity in there, give me one line of dialogue to explain why none of the old legends mention it, and I'm good.
--LeVar Burton
Thor is a comic book movie.
I don't think you've been following this very well. We've been discussing placing actors and actresses of the correct race in roles where race is an important part of the story. Some disagree and think this isn't important. I picked a movie that I think show this isn't really the case.
They since stopped posting it seems.
Also Norway dont = norse myth, mostly becouse norse myth is part of most of Scandinavia, and the kingdom norway was not formet at the time those myths toke place/was created.
At that time Scandinavia was a loose tribe system with many kings.
for more info see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavia
and read how a loose group of ppl from one of the smallest countrys in the world became the terror and conquer of Europa.
He's not being antagonistic. He's saying that when race is integral to the plot, casting actors that look the part is the appropriate thing to do. You're kind of saying something similar, that casting white actors for the roles in Roots would have been inapropriate.
However you're assuming it would be some sort of attempted statement. Sammich is saying what if the plot was the same, the actors just happened to be white. Wouldn't it detract from the impact of the story having to remind ourselves all the time that these are black characters?
--LeVar Burton
Was this the Marvel Comics version of Roots sent in an alternate-reality American South where the slaves were not really slaves, but were an entirely nonhuman alien race disguised as Africans? You know, kind of like that alien baseball player in the X-Files episode?
Setting aside the inability to distinguish between Marvel Comics' re-invention of the Norse pantheon and the complete willingness to ignore all other head-scratching clashes between Marvel and The Real Vikings - I'm paralyzed with amusement over the stupid assumption that the followers of the Norse pantheon were all blonde-haired, blue-eyed "pure bloods". Vikings raided into France and Italy and Russia, for fuck's sake, let alone all the women they kidnapped from Britain (who still show up in the genetic background of modern-day Icelandics btw). They were about as "pure" as an animal-shelter puppy.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Remember that movie White Man's Burden? Me neither. But if you picked actors with no regard to race to cast in a play based on it, the message completely changes.
The only problem I have with black Hiemdall is that it feels like a decision made in a board room to increase profits. That's just me being cynical, though.
The other one is about casting in roles where race is part of the story.
Um, yeah, the gods ARE Scandinavian. In that they've been part of the Scandinavian mythos for hundreds if not thousands of years, and have pretty well conformed to the beliefs of their worshippers. Wild deviations for the sake of awesomeness are acceptable; wild deviations for the sake of wild deviations, not so much.
Frankly, the issues about a black Heimdall really do bother me, just because it seems like a deliberate slap in the face. Just 'HA HAA, we're doing this because we can!' Was Idris Elba the best available actor for the part? I'm not convinced that he was. And given how flippantly I saw him treating the role, I was seriously concerned that he wouldn't do it justice. (However, he is a damn good actor and after seeing his screenshot I'm interested in seeing how he does.)
Overall, I think this was a blatantly unnecessary move chosen to spark controversy, and that it shouldn't have been done; any more than the idiotically white casting in The Last Airbender, or than if a Martin Luther King biography had Malcom X played by Sammo Hung. Even though I LIKE Sammo Hung! It's just not appropriate for the part, and even fictional characters deserve some respect.
Mythago. You. Sometimes we disagree (the once, really). But this makes me wanna have your babies.
Othello being a Moor is part of that. If a pale actor plays Othello but everybody keeps calling him 'the Moor' and treating him as such per the original text of the play, does that work, or not?
In any case, whether in some cases race is essential has absolutely nothing to do with whether in this movie about Marvel Thor race is essential because, duh, it's not.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
This is the most amazing thing I've ever read.
To the point where it's ridiculous to even address your claim.
Yeah I don't much care about the casting decision for Thor, especially once it was explained to me that it has little to do with the actual norse myths.
But there has been a long discussion regarding race in different roles and casting (at least until the other people randomly left).
The post about roots had little to do with Thor though. That topic is really a non issue.
?
Fine. Replace the main character (Toby as I recall) and then tell me if the scene where he's whipped and forced to accept a new name is half as strong.
C'mon. Don't tell me you didn't pick Roots to be a little inflammatory.
That said, I don't entirely agree with your characterization of the second there, but that aside, the bigger issue is when "race is part of the story". The True History of Robin Hood? No, that's probably not a role you can credibly put Jackie Chan in.
But the Thor in the original Norse myths was a big dumb bruiser (Neil Gaiman got that right). Loki should have been played by a redhead, not a brunette. And none of this weird comic-booky armor stuff, either. Plus, they speak English for crissakes. Compared to all the other violence Marvel's done to the source material a black Heimdall is way down the list.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
It sounds like you are comparing Thor - on which the skin color of the characters is only relevant in a adaptation distillation perspective - and Roots, a movie where race is an integral part of the story.
I mean why not compare it to a remake of Malcolm X, played by Tom Hanks.
For like the 10th time already Wazilla and I aren't discussing the Thor movie so much as we're discussing whether its important to cast actors to match character's race.
Pretty much everyone agrees the Thor thing is a nonissue drummed up by racists.
Thor? Yeah, its not an issue.
We started discussing it in cases like Othello a long time ago though, and people are jumping in outraged with out reading the thread.
This isn't a movie about the Scandinavian gods. This is a movie about a bunch of Marvel comic characters that bear little resemblance to the Norse gods, and aren't even Scandinavian. Thor wasn't blonde, didn't wear tights, wasn't an alien and didn't fight supervillains in modern America. I feel pretty comfortable in saying there are far, far more differences between the mythology and the comic book than there are between the comic book and the upcoming film, let alone this inconsequential casting choice. If you actually cared about fidelity to Scandinavian myths, you would be addressing those differences rather than complaining that they cast a black guy as a superhero.
I'll take your word for it. But racists like the CCC like to minimize slavery by blathering about how there were white slaves TOO in the colonies and blacks sold other blacks into slavery and wharrgarbl.
I don't think anybody was arguing that perceived race* is never, ever relevant in a casting decision - just that it's often a lot less important than people imagine, and its relevance is hard to justify unless the movie is attempting to be faithful to source material where that information is quite clear (e.g., Sherlock Holmes) and/or to be historically accurate (e.g., Orlando Bloom cast in a biopic about Shaka Zulu).
*"Perceived" because it's not as though skin color and ethnicity exactly map. Nobody screams if a native Russian actor plays Louis Riel in a movie because they're both "white guys", and nobody notices when an Iranian plays a Mexican guy.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
The original example was Othello, a story where the main characters race is vitally important to the story.
So what's the discussion? Sometimes race matters. A Time to Kill and A Lesson Before Dying and Kid n Play's House Party 3 wouldn't make a lick of sense if all the actors were white.
And sometimes it doesn't matter.
Cause it Roots is an actual movie that we've actually seen and had an emotional reaction to, so it makes for a better example. I think so anyway.
--LeVar Burton
Senju and possibly some others saying it doesn't matter at all.