Try as I might, I can't figure out the point you are trying to make here.
The above posts mirror other conversations where if there is any event favoring non-white people over white people it's "okay," whereas any event favoring white people over non-white people is "not okay" without exception.
there are valid reasons for reimaginings and recastings in either direction
What's dumb is ignoring the broader cultural context.
To elaborate;
If you make a black character white, you're reinforcing people's perceptions that all characters are by default white, which is a little bit racist.
If you make a white character black, you're undermining those perceptions, which isn't racist.
If you made Spiderman black, the implied message would be 'race doesn't matter'. If you made the Falcon white, the implied message would be 'race matters'.
Cultural context.
This is of course a generalisation that will not be true in all cases.
This complaint about Prince of Persia always makes my head hurt. Guess why.
I knew an Iranian guy who was a dead ringer for Gyllenhall in that movie. I think a lot of people don't know what real Iranian people actually look like. They pretty much range from mildly indian/middle eastern looking to indistinguishable from white.
Personally, I can understand why they would make one of the Aesir black, political correct and all that jazz, even if I disagree with the decision.
That said, what does irk me is which Aesir specifically they decided to cast with a black actor. Really, don't you think they could have chosen a different Aesir? One that isn't the "Whitest" of the Aesir? Sure white is likely meant in a metaphorical sense, but even so.
I think they would have done better to cast perhaps Vidar or Njord with a black actor than Heimdall.
Course, if you really get down to it, I get rather annoyed at race changes in movies, be it making a black character white or vice versa. Just to me it seems like disrespecting the source material. It's just like how I was annoyed by The Last Airbender white washing the cast. Like I said, to me it just gives the impression of disrespect to the source material.
Why?
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?
I mean, Superman. If Superman was black, what difference would it make for the character? Do Kryptonians have to look caucasian?
Spider-Man. Are there no Black people in Queens?
Does it really matter if this crazy space alien demigod shapeshifter looks black? How is any of this integral to the character?
I mean, it's not like it erases the original comics where this character appears. It's just a different intepretation. It's not canon or anything if you want to be strickler about it. The point of an adaptation is not to copy the source material from page to page, otherwise there is no point in making the adaptation in the first place. Why is race more important then the hundreds of other things any adaptation changes?
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.
Actually, he has red hair in North Mythology. And a beard. One of the many deviations of the marvel mythos (though the movie is diverging from THAT by giving him a beard now.)
there are valid reasons for reimaginings and recastings in either direction
What's dumb is ignoring the broader cultural context.
To elaborate;
If you make a black character white, you're reinforcing people's perceptions that all characters are by default white, which is a little bit racist.
If you make a white character black, you're undermining those perceptions, which isn't racist.
If you made Spiderman black, the implied message would be 'race doesn't matter'. If you made the Falcon white, the implied message would be 'race matters'.
Cultural context.
This is of course a generalisation that will not be true in all cases.
I'm confused at how going through the effort to recreate the character as a minority sends the message 'race doesn't matter'. Going through the effort of changing a characters race says 'race matters, but nice guys that we are we made this one just like you'.
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.)
Maybe he really was the best choice for the job? Maybe the director owed him a favor? Maybe he's friends with someone at Marvel? Maybe the casting people felt he gave the character a more unique look? Who knows?
Undead Scottsman on
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
I'm betting Brannagh saw something that Elba did, and wanted that quality for his Heimdall. And that's probably all there is to this hoopla. Although I suppose it's not too bad that this is giving people something to talk about regarding the THOR MOVIE that's out next year, without really spoiling anything important about it either.
Maybe he really was the best choice for the job? Maybe the director owed him a favor? Maybe he's friends with someone at Marvel? Maybe the casting people felt he gave the character a more unique look? Who knows?
All I know is that the dude looks pretty bad-ass in his Heimdall costume, so I have no issues.
I mean, it's not like they cast Super-Badass Norse Macho Dude as a female albino conjoined-twin midget, or something.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
there are valid reasons for reimaginings and recastings in either direction
What's dumb is ignoring the broader cultural context.
Could you explain the broader cultural contextual difference between the two in simple, non-ambiguous terms?
I ask because I honestly want to know the difference based upon what you perceive as the broader cultural context. There are several ways I could take that, but I want to know what you mean. Often, we make sweeping statements like this because the group that we're part of all believe the same thing, so we think our ideas are universal when they are not. They are simply regional.
Just like when they cast a lot of white people in The Last Airbender, I really don't care in the slightest that Heimdall is black. I only hope he acts better than they did in The Last Airbender.
there are valid reasons for reimaginings and recastings in either direction
What's dumb is ignoring the broader cultural context.
Could you explain the broader cultural contextual difference between the two in simple, non-ambiguous terms?
I ask because I honestly want to know the difference based upon what you perceive as the broader cultural context. There are several ways I could take that, but I want to know what you mean. Often, we make sweeping statements like this because the group that we're part of all believe the same thing, so we think our ideas are universal when they are not. They are simply regional.
I posted this earlier:
There seems to be complete disregard for societal context in people's analysis.
Othello can be played by a white character, but that goes against the whole idea of the original story, since it was contextual to a white European dominated world. By changing Othello to a white man, what societal context is it based on? It's pretty much going against the whole concept of Shakespeare's Othello as a play (offsetting real life racism against a people by making them the protagonist). Changing Othello to a white person at this point in time robs the play of it's real life progressive power.
In the case of Thor, there's very little societal context to the material (an American bastardization for entertainment purposes), and the casting is simply decreasing over representation of whites in Hollywood anyhow. There's a positive change in societal progress for the movie and little negative change to the source material's message when changing some secondhand character to a black guy.
However, in the case of say, Lord of The Rings, where there's a serious societal context to the movie (giving Brits a fictional mythology), keeping the casting consistent to the vision makes sense. It's an important piece of British lore, changing their races would be a negative change to its societal context and source material, which I think overrides the minor egalitarian progress in making the casting diverse
In the case of 21 or The Last Airbender, there's was no reason to change the race of the characters, especially since it devalues the already underrepresented Asian American population in Hollywood. That's a negative change in societal progress and egalitarianism with no positive change to the source material. Same would go for any other movie that whitewashes (not necessarily white, but in a general sense) characters over an underrepresented group.
You have to ask what benefits are there to changing the source material, and what societal benefits are there. If there's no benefit to the source, and no benefit socially, then why change it? That's the difference between white-washing and one off casting.
In some source material, race and culture is important. If the story was created with an emphasis on a certain people, it's quite disrespectful to both the creator and the people to change it. In some source material, the people and location are irrelevant, it's just an anchor for the story.
Airbender is an homage to Asian culture and Asians are underrepresented in Hollywood. You can't really remove the Asian-ness from Airbender. Why not give Asian Americans (emphasis on Americans) one of the very few chances they have at a big budget Hollywood picture with it? What was to be gained by casting white actors with little talent? I actually joked with my coworker before Patel was casted that the only thing worse they could do after whitewashing the cast is to make the bad guy a dark skinned Asian. And what do you know? Hollywood at its finest.
White people do have a culture. It's just been made invisible because it happens to be the dominant culture in the States. As much as I think a black Spider-Man would be an interesting idea to explore, I don't think it is accurate to say that Spidey's color doesn't matter. I can empathize with a white nerd fairly easily. A black nerd? Can't really say I'll ever know what it's like to be black. Replacing Toby Maguire with Donald Glover would produce something mostly the same, quite a bit more awesome, but a little bit less like Spider-Man.
White people do have a culture. It's just been made invisible because it happens to be the dominant culture in the States. As much as I think a black Spider-Man would be an interesting idea to explore, I don't think it is accurate to say that Spidey's color doesn't matter. I can empathize with a white nerd fairly easily. A black nerd? Can't really say I'll ever know what it's like to be black. Replacing Toby Maguire with Donald Glover would produce something mostly the same, quite a bit more awesome, but a little bit less like Spider-Man.
Well, right. And, as a black person, so can I. Because there aren't a lot of options in comics, really.
White people do have a culture. It's just been made invisible because it happens to be the dominant culture in the States. As much as I think a black Spider-Man would be an interesting idea to explore, I don't think it is accurate to say that Spidey's color doesn't matter. I can empathize with a white nerd fairly easily. A black nerd? Can't really say I'll ever know what it's like to be black. Replacing Toby Maguire with Donald Glover would produce something mostly the same, quite a bit more awesome, but a little bit less like Spider-Man.
What about Spider-man says white, though? There's emphasis on him being a city dwelling American, but America is not a homogeneous white culture. He also comes from New York city, not Kansas. I'd say it's pointless to change his race, but what harm would come to his persona in doing so?
Your comment about him being a nerd is off. He's not going to be speaking ebonics and rapping to Mary J just from a palette swap. He'll just look different. I don't read Spiderman, but from what I've seen, his race isn't what made him spidey.
falsedef on
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
I always thought the most important parts of the background of being Spider-Man are being into science, and growing up in New York.
White people do have a culture. It's just been made invisible because it happens to be the dominant culture in the States. As much as I think a black Spider-Man would be an interesting idea to explore, I don't think it is accurate to say that Spidey's color doesn't matter. I can empathize with a white nerd fairly easily. A black nerd? Can't really say I'll ever know what it's like to be black. Replacing Toby Maguire with Donald Glover would produce something mostly the same, quite a bit more awesome, but a little bit less like Spider-Man.
What about Spider-man says white, though? There's emphasis on him being a city dwelling American, but America is not a homogeneous white culture. He also comes from New York city, not Kansas. I'd say it's pointless to change his race, but what harm would come to his persona in doing so?
Your comment about him being a nerd is off. He's not going to be speaking ebonics and rapping to Mary J just from a palette swap. He'll just look different. I don't read Spiderman, but from what I've seen, his race isn't what made him spidey.
I didn't say it would harm the character, only that it would alter him. I'd still recognize him and think he was cool. He'd just have some extra depth that I'm not quite able to understand as a white guy. Like I said, I think it would be pretty rad seeing Donald Glover as Spider-Man, I just don't think that's the best idea if your intention is to faithfully recreate the character from the comics to the screen. If all you're after is a rad movie, then do it.
I always thought the most important parts of the background of being Spider-Man are being into science, and growing up in New York.
That's very true. And if all you want in a comic book movie is awesome webslinging action, nothing would change. For any kind of true character study, however, you are changing the subtext.
In the near future, each and every child from all walks of life and colors shall be given their own personal spiderman, and world peace will be declared soon thereafter.
In the near future, each and every child from all walks of life and colors shall be given their own personal spiderman, and world peace will be declared soon thereafter.
My concern lies in a few of the things you've said - I agree that Othello is defined by his race. That's what the play is about. Removing his race would be similar to making the Merchant of Venice about someone who wasn't Jewish. It wouldn't be the same play.
There are two things I would like to address, however:
The first is the overrepresentation of whites in Hollywood - There is a very simple reason for this. There is an overrepresentation of white writer/directors in Hollywood. There are far more Steven Spielbergs than there are Deon Taylor's and Spike Lee's. We write about what we know.
The second is the idea that forced multiculturalism is a step in the right direction. Deon Taylor started in BET doing horror, but has branched out in to 'Chain Letters'. Spike Lee began by doing things like Do the Right Thing and branched out in to Where the Wild Things Are. These directors felt stifled by being pigeon-holed in to the 'Black director' status. If you arbitrarily change the race of a Nordic deity(And, really, there can be no story-driven reason for his skin-color change), then you are actually stating that Race is important, and that we can not allow a little thing like 'Honesty to the source material' to stand in the way of forced multiculturalism. Can we and should we ignore our past in an attempt to look 'progressive'? Does that do anyone any favours other than to salve some wounded consciences?
There seems to be complete disregard for societal context in people's analysis.
Othello can be played by a white character, but that goes against the whole idea of the original story, since it was contextual to a white European dominated world. By changing Othello to a white man, what societal context is it based on? It's pretty much going against the whole concept of Shakespeare's Othello as a play (offsetting real life racism against a people by making them the protagonist). Changing Othello to a white person at this point in time robs the play of it's real life progressive power.
In the case of Thor, there's very little societal context to the material (an American bastardization for entertainment purposes), and the casting is simply decreasing over representation of whites in Hollywood anyhow. There's a positive change in societal progress for the movie and little negative change to the source material's message when changing some secondhand character to a black guy.
However, in the case of say, Lord of The Rings, where there's a serious societal context to the movie (giving Brits a fictional mythology), keeping the casting consistent to the vision makes sense. It's an important piece of British lore, changing their races would be a negative change to its societal context and source material, which I think overrides the minor egalitarian progress in making the casting diverse
In the case of 21 or The Last Airbender, there's was no reason to change the race of the characters, especially since it devalues the already underrepresented Asian American population in Hollywood. That's a negative change in societal progress and egalitarianism with no positive change to the source material. Same would go for any other movie that whitewashes (not necessarily white, but in a general sense) characters over an underrepresented group.
I would agree that whitewashing itself is always "bad," but believe that the act of whitewashing is bad for implications that have zilch to do with art or adaptation integrity.
This is what I was trying to explain before with the "21" example.
For instance, casting all white people in your remake of Roots 'cause you don't want blacks on your set? That's whitewashing. And it's bad.
Casting all white people in your remake of Roots and artfully subverting racial issues with your casting decision? NOT whitewashing. Could be good.
Whitewashing means that you cast white people specifically to appeal to a broader audience who will not pay to see movies where the protagonist(s), or a large percentage of the cast is not white. I don't believe the term applies when you are casting white people for legitimate artistic purposes.
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.
In the near future, each and every child from all walks of life and colors shall be given their own personal spiderman, and world peace will be declared soon thereafter.
I can see Spider-Man leading to world peace.
However... troll?
Just a joke, other countries already have localized versions of American superheroes.
Atlas has a valid point that young white Americans have a need for a nerdy superhero that fits their self image. Realistically, though, were not at the point where we have to worry about the extinction of a diverse set of white heroes in the media. They're everywhere.
My concern lies in a few of the things you've said - I agree that Othello is defined by his race. That's what the play is about. Removing his race would be similar to making the Merchant of Venice about someone who wasn't Jewish. It wouldn't be the same play.
There are two things I would like to address, however:
The first is the overrepresentation of whites in Hollywood - There is a very simple reason for this. There is an overrepresentation of white writer/directors in Hollywood. There are far more Steven Spielbergs than there are Deon Taylor's and Spike Lee's. We write about what we know.
The second is the idea that forced multiculturalism is a step in the right direction. Deon Taylor started in BET doing horror, but has branched out in to 'Chain Letters'. Spike Lee began by doing things like Do the Right Thing and branched out in to Where the Wild Things Are. These directors felt stifled by being pigeon-holed in to the 'Black director' status. If you arbitrarily change the race of a Nordic deity(And, really, there can be no story-driven reason for his skin-color change), then you are actually stating that Race is important, and that we can not allow a little thing like 'Honesty to the source material' to stand in the way of forced multiculturalism. Can we and should we ignore our past in an attempt to look 'progressive'? Does that do anyone any favours other than to salve some wounded consciences?
There seems to be complete disregard for societal context in people's analysis.
Othello can be played by a white character, but that goes against the whole idea of the original story, since it was contextual to a white European dominated world. By changing Othello to a white man, what societal context is it based on? It's pretty much going against the whole concept of Shakespeare's Othello as a play (offsetting real life racism against a people by making them the protagonist). Changing Othello to a white person at this point in time robs the play of it's real life progressive power.
In the case of Thor, there's very little societal context to the material (an American bastardization for entertainment purposes), and the casting is simply decreasing over representation of whites in Hollywood anyhow. There's a positive change in societal progress for the movie and little negative change to the source material's message when changing some secondhand character to a black guy.
However, in the case of say, Lord of The Rings, where there's a serious societal context to the movie (giving Brits a fictional mythology), keeping the casting consistent to the vision makes sense. It's an important piece of British lore, changing their races would be a negative change to its societal context and source material, which I think overrides the minor egalitarian progress in making the casting diverse
In the case of 21 or The Last Airbender, there's was no reason to change the race of the characters, especially since it devalues the already underrepresented Asian American population in Hollywood. That's a negative change in societal progress and egalitarianism with no positive change to the source material. Same would go for any other movie that whitewashes (not necessarily white, but in a general sense) characters over an underrepresented group.
I'm not that big of a fan of the practice of turning characters just for the sake of rainbowfying everything, but the small benefit is better than nothing, if the material is neutral to the issue to begin with.
I think a lot of source material is already fairly whitewashed from the get go, but it's not always intentional. You hinted at that yourself. A lot of writers live in multiethnic areas and have a diverse set of acquaintances, they just don't really think about it. I don't see much wrong with a producer down the line asking what happened to all the minorities, and asking if they can add some.
I get irked when I see movies set on college campuses, but there's no Asians. It's setting where there's really no valid reason for the exclusion of them, but it probably wasn't intentional. Firefly/serenity also suffers from invisibly present Chinese people. I think it could've used a bit of forced multiculturalism mid-production for the better.
Some writers think about this issue quite hard, and they intentionally make their characters not white, as to confirm that fact the world is diverse. Then along comes hollywood producer who decides to turn everyone white, spitting on the writer's original intention. I think that's wrong. There was a good reason for the character's racial choice, and it was a benevolent one.
On the opposite end, I certainly won't feel much sympathy for a maliciously racist writer getting his material butchered by the rainbow league. Ideally, that person's material wouldn't get recreated at all.
I agree with this. The question, then, becomes 'Is this truly a neutral choice?'
The argument comes down to: "They're an alien race with near omnipotence. They could be purple if they wanted to." vs "But they're based upon Nordic deities. In the same vein that we would expect Baron Samedi to be black or zombified, we expect Heimdall to be caucasian."
I fall in the latter camp. I see where you're going. I still think it's silly, but I understand your disagreement.
EDIT: I still think it's silly to change Heimdall, not I still think your argument is silly. I respect your opinion in this and think you make some excellent points.
I'm not that big of a fan of the practice of turning characters just for the sake of rainbowfying everything, but the small benefit is better than nothing, if the material is neutral to the issue to begin with.
I think a lot of source material is already fairly whitewashed from the get go, but it's not always intentional. You hinted at that yourself. A lot of writers live in multiethnic areas and have a diverse set of acquaintances, they just don't really think about it. I don't see much wrong with a producer down the line asking what happened to all the minorities, and asking if they can add some.
I get irked when I see movies set on college campuses, but there's no Asians. It's setting where there's really no valid reason for the exclusion of them, but it probably wasn't intentional. Firefly/serenity also suffers from invisibly present Chinese people. I think it could've used a bit of forced multiculturalism mid-production for the better.
Some writers think about this issue quite hard, and they intentionally make their characters not white, as to confirm that fact the world is diverse. Then along comes hollywood producer who decides to turn everyone white, spitting on the writer's original intention. I think that's wrong. There was a good reason for the character's racial choice, and it was a benevolent one.
On the opposite end, I certainly won't feel much sympathy for a maliciously racist writer getting his material butchered by the rainbow league. Ideally, that person's material wouldn't get recreated at all.
I'd say that when you're in the middle of casting the Nordic gods as a race of aliens who are about to pow-down with Tony Stark, it would be almost negligent to try and stick to real-world description of them since the entire basis of the whole superhero/conspiracy genre is usually "the truth is stranger then you thought it was".
I agree with this. The question, then, becomes 'Is this truly a neutral choice?'
The argument comes down to: "They're an alien race with near omnipotence. They could be purple if they wanted to." vs "But they're based upon Nordic deities. In the same vein that we would expect Baron Samedi to be black or zombified, we expect Heimdall to be caucasian."
I fall in the latter camp. I see where you're going. I still think it's silly, but I understand your disagreement.
Yeah, if it was Baron Samedi Baron Samedi and not some crazy comic book version of him that really shares nothing more then the name by now. Do you really want me start posting out comic book versions of various different gods and other supernatural beings? Black guy Heimdall would really fall under the smallest changes once we started delve into this shit.
This is not Heimdall from Edda. This is Heimdall from Marvel Comic books, and not even that character since it's a reimagining of a reimagining that has already been changed in a thousand different ways from the original comic book.
You only expect him to be caucasian if you are misinformed, which is where all problems with race generally fall down to.
DarkCrawler on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
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?
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.
You state that I am misinformed. Could you explain which part I'm misinformed upon? If you're saying they aren't brother and sister, please quote source. I am going to assume that you can see the lack of family resemblance, so I won't belabour the point, but can you see how some people would question that casting decision?
I agree with this. The question, then, becomes 'Is this truly a neutral choice?'
The argument comes down to: "They're an alien race with near omnipotence. They could be purple if they wanted to." vs "But they're based upon Nordic deities. In the same vein that we would expect Baron Samedi to be black or zombified, we expect Heimdall to be caucasian."
I fall in the latter camp. I see where you're going. I still think it's silly, but I understand your disagreement.
Yeah, if it was Baron Samedi Baron Samedi and not some crazy comic book version of him that really shares nothing more then the name by now. Do you really want me start posting out comic book versions of various different gods and other supernatural beings? Black guy Heimdall would really fall under the smallest changes once we started delve into this shit.
This is not Heimdall from Edda. This is Heimdall from Marvel Comic books, and not even that character since it's a reimagining of a reimagining that has already been changed in a thousand different ways from the original comic book.
You only expect him to be caucasian if you are misinformed, which is where all problems with race generally fall down to.
I just finished up "The 4th Panel" where this issue was being discussed and I feel I must correct the boys and say it is not "Heym-dall" and it is what they were originally saying.
Heimdall is pronounced just like one who speaks English would assume. They made the comment "we see 'ei' and we [pronounce it one way]." Well, there is a reason that's the right way in this case. That's the Germanic way to pronounce those vowels when in concert with one another, and as English is a Germanic language --as is Norwegian, and Icelandic, and the other Scandinavian dialects-- it follows suit.
Thank you! That was like an itch I just couldn't scratch. Or a sneeze not able to get out. Carry on.
Myd Lyfe Crysis on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Loki is also the father of Hel, Fenrir and Jormungandr. One of these is a big wolf, and one is the world-serpent. You would be looking at either for a long time before they reminded you of Loki.
Oh! I understand your argument, now. So I can confirm: Your argument is that it's not silly because Heimdall is a shapeshifter who has taken the form of a black man? Could you quote source on that?
I would disagree with your assessment. On the other hand, if that wasn't your argument, please state your argument. I must be missing something.
As an aside, Zeus was a shapeshifter and Athena has usually been portrayed as humanoid, in the same manner that Zeus is usually portrayed as human.
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.
FunkyTown on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited December 2010
Odin's grandfather was created by a great celestial cow licking salty ice.
We are not dealing with normal genetics here.
Hachface on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Oh! I understand your argument, now. So I can confirm: Your argument is that it's not silly because Heimdall is a shapeshifter who has taken the form of a black man? Could you quote source on that?
JOURNEY INTO MYSTERY, THE MIGHTY THOR (v1-4), OFFICIAL HANDBOOK OF THE MARVEL UNIVERSE, etc etc
Jacobkosh on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
I don't have a problem with Heimdall being black, I have a problem with Heimdall being Stringer Bell. I was kinda hoping that the actor that plays Stringer Bell would be type cast as Stringer Bell for the rest of his career, starting with my spinoff screenplay The Wire Nights.
Posts
The above posts mirror other conversations where if there is any event favoring non-white people over white people it's "okay," whereas any event favoring white people over non-white people is "not okay" without exception.
See:
To elaborate;
If you make a black character white, you're reinforcing people's perceptions that all characters are by default white, which is a little bit racist.
If you make a white character black, you're undermining those perceptions, which isn't racist.
If you made Spiderman black, the implied message would be 'race doesn't matter'. If you made the Falcon white, the implied message would be 'race matters'.
Cultural context.
This is of course a generalisation that will not be true in all cases.
I knew an Iranian guy who was a dead ringer for Gyllenhall in that movie. I think a lot of people don't know what real Iranian people actually look like. They pretty much range from mildly indian/middle eastern looking to indistinguishable from white.
I'm confused at how going through the effort to recreate the character as a minority sends the message 'race doesn't matter'. Going through the effort of changing a characters race says 'race matters, but nice guys that we are we made this one just like you'.
That said, I think Idris Elba looks badass portraying Heimdal, regardless of what race mythology/source material/racists thinks he should be.
Maybe he really was the best choice for the job? Maybe the director owed him a favor? Maybe he's friends with someone at Marvel? Maybe the casting people felt he gave the character a more unique look? Who knows?
All I know is that the dude looks pretty bad-ass in his Heimdall costume, so I have no issues.
I mean, it's not like they cast Super-Badass Norse Macho Dude as a female albino conjoined-twin midget, or something.
Could you explain the broader cultural contextual difference between the two in simple, non-ambiguous terms?
I ask because I honestly want to know the difference based upon what you perceive as the broader cultural context. There are several ways I could take that, but I want to know what you mean. Often, we make sweeping statements like this because the group that we're part of all believe the same thing, so we think our ideas are universal when they are not. They are simply regional.
I posted this earlier:
Othello can be played by a white character, but that goes against the whole idea of the original story, since it was contextual to a white European dominated world. By changing Othello to a white man, what societal context is it based on? It's pretty much going against the whole concept of Shakespeare's Othello as a play (offsetting real life racism against a people by making them the protagonist). Changing Othello to a white person at this point in time robs the play of it's real life progressive power.
In the case of Thor, there's very little societal context to the material (an American bastardization for entertainment purposes), and the casting is simply decreasing over representation of whites in Hollywood anyhow. There's a positive change in societal progress for the movie and little negative change to the source material's message when changing some secondhand character to a black guy.
However, in the case of say, Lord of The Rings, where there's a serious societal context to the movie (giving Brits a fictional mythology), keeping the casting consistent to the vision makes sense. It's an important piece of British lore, changing their races would be a negative change to its societal context and source material, which I think overrides the minor egalitarian progress in making the casting diverse
In the case of 21 or The Last Airbender, there's was no reason to change the race of the characters, especially since it devalues the already underrepresented Asian American population in Hollywood. That's a negative change in societal progress and egalitarianism with no positive change to the source material. Same would go for any other movie that whitewashes (not necessarily white, but in a general sense) characters over an underrepresented group.
You have to ask what benefits are there to changing the source material, and what societal benefits are there. If there's no benefit to the source, and no benefit socially, then why change it? That's the difference between white-washing and one off casting.
In some source material, race and culture is important. If the story was created with an emphasis on a certain people, it's quite disrespectful to both the creator and the people to change it. In some source material, the people and location are irrelevant, it's just an anchor for the story.
Airbender is an homage to Asian culture and Asians are underrepresented in Hollywood. You can't really remove the Asian-ness from Airbender. Why not give Asian Americans (emphasis on Americans) one of the very few chances they have at a big budget Hollywood picture with it? What was to be gained by casting white actors with little talent? I actually joked with my coworker before Patel was casted that the only thing worse they could do after whitewashing the cast is to make the bad guy a dark skinned Asian. And what do you know? Hollywood at its finest.
Well, right. And, as a black person, so can I. Because there aren't a lot of options in comics, really.
What about Spider-man says white, though? There's emphasis on him being a city dwelling American, but America is not a homogeneous white culture. He also comes from New York city, not Kansas. I'd say it's pointless to change his race, but what harm would come to his persona in doing so?
Your comment about him being a nerd is off. He's not going to be speaking ebonics and rapping to Mary J just from a palette swap. He'll just look different. I don't read Spiderman, but from what I've seen, his race isn't what made him spidey.
I didn't say it would harm the character, only that it would alter him. I'd still recognize him and think he was cool. He'd just have some extra depth that I'm not quite able to understand as a white guy. Like I said, I think it would be pretty rad seeing Donald Glover as Spider-Man, I just don't think that's the best idea if your intention is to faithfully recreate the character from the comics to the screen. If all you're after is a rad movie, then do it.
That's very true. And if all you want in a comic book movie is awesome webslinging action, nothing would change. For any kind of true character study, however, you are changing the subtext.
I can see Spider-Man leading to world peace.
However... troll?
My concern lies in a few of the things you've said - I agree that Othello is defined by his race. That's what the play is about. Removing his race would be similar to making the Merchant of Venice about someone who wasn't Jewish. It wouldn't be the same play.
There are two things I would like to address, however:
The first is the overrepresentation of whites in Hollywood - There is a very simple reason for this. There is an overrepresentation of white writer/directors in Hollywood. There are far more Steven Spielbergs than there are Deon Taylor's and Spike Lee's. We write about what we know.
The second is the idea that forced multiculturalism is a step in the right direction. Deon Taylor started in BET doing horror, but has branched out in to 'Chain Letters'. Spike Lee began by doing things like Do the Right Thing and branched out in to Where the Wild Things Are. These directors felt stifled by being pigeon-holed in to the 'Black director' status. If you arbitrarily change the race of a Nordic deity(And, really, there can be no story-driven reason for his skin-color change), then you are actually stating that Race is important, and that we can not allow a little thing like 'Honesty to the source material' to stand in the way of forced multiculturalism. Can we and should we ignore our past in an attempt to look 'progressive'? Does that do anyone any favours other than to salve some wounded consciences?
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
This is what I was trying to explain before with the "21" example.
For instance, casting all white people in your remake of Roots 'cause you don't want blacks on your set? That's whitewashing. And it's bad.
Casting all white people in your remake of Roots and artfully subverting racial issues with your casting decision? NOT whitewashing. Could be good.
Whitewashing means that you cast white people specifically to appeal to a broader audience who will not pay to see movies where the protagonist(s), or a large percentage of the cast is not white. I don't believe the term applies when you are casting white people for legitimate artistic purposes.
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.
Just a joke, other countries already have localized versions of American superheroes.
Atlas has a valid point that young white Americans have a need for a nerdy superhero that fits their self image. Realistically, though, were not at the point where we have to worry about the extinction of a diverse set of white heroes in the media. They're everywhere.
I'm not that big of a fan of the practice of turning characters just for the sake of rainbowfying everything, but the small benefit is better than nothing, if the material is neutral to the issue to begin with.
I think a lot of source material is already fairly whitewashed from the get go, but it's not always intentional. You hinted at that yourself. A lot of writers live in multiethnic areas and have a diverse set of acquaintances, they just don't really think about it. I don't see much wrong with a producer down the line asking what happened to all the minorities, and asking if they can add some.
I get irked when I see movies set on college campuses, but there's no Asians. It's setting where there's really no valid reason for the exclusion of them, but it probably wasn't intentional. Firefly/serenity also suffers from invisibly present Chinese people. I think it could've used a bit of forced multiculturalism mid-production for the better.
Some writers think about this issue quite hard, and they intentionally make their characters not white, as to confirm that fact the world is diverse. Then along comes hollywood producer who decides to turn everyone white, spitting on the writer's original intention. I think that's wrong. There was a good reason for the character's racial choice, and it was a benevolent one.
On the opposite end, I certainly won't feel much sympathy for a maliciously racist writer getting his material butchered by the rainbow league. Ideally, that person's material wouldn't get recreated at all.
The argument comes down to: "They're an alien race with near omnipotence. They could be purple if they wanted to." vs "But they're based upon Nordic deities. In the same vein that we would expect Baron Samedi to be black or zombified, we expect Heimdall to be caucasian."
I fall in the latter camp. I see where you're going. I still think it's silly, but I understand your disagreement.
EDIT: I still think it's silly to change Heimdall, not I still think your argument is silly. I respect your opinion in this and think you make some excellent points.
And again, guy looks awesome.
Yeah, if it was Baron Samedi Baron Samedi and not some crazy comic book version of him that really shares nothing more then the name by now. Do you really want me start posting out comic book versions of various different gods and other supernatural beings? Black guy Heimdall would really fall under the smallest changes once we started delve into this shit.
This is not Heimdall from Edda. This is Heimdall from Marvel Comic books, and not even that character since it's a reimagining of a reimagining that has already been changed in a thousand different ways from the original comic book.
You only expect him to be caucasian if you are misinformed, which is where all problems with race generally fall down to.
but but AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
it is pretty revealing how so many people immediately leapt to that conclusion, isn't it?
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.
This is Sif:
This is Heimdall:
And this is the Marvel Wiki entry that says they're brother and sister:
http://marvel.wikia.com/Sif_%28Earth-616%29
You state that I am misinformed. Could you explain which part I'm misinformed upon? If you're saying they aren't brother and sister, please quote source. I am going to assume that you can see the lack of family resemblance, so I won't belabour the point, but can you see how some people would question that casting decision?
I just finished up "The 4th Panel" where this issue was being discussed and I feel I must correct the boys and say it is not "Heym-dall" and it is what they were originally saying.
Heimdall is pronounced just like one who speaks English would assume. They made the comment "we see 'ei' and we [pronounce it one way]." Well, there is a reason that's the right way in this case. That's the Germanic way to pronounce those vowels when in concert with one another, and as English is a Germanic language --as is Norwegian, and Icelandic, and the other Scandinavian dialects-- it follows suit.
Thank you! That was like an itch I just couldn't scratch. Or a sneeze not able to get out. Carry on.
this dude, Zeus
is the father of this girl, Athena
and yet they look NOTHING ALIKE
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Oh! I understand your argument, now. So I can confirm: Your argument is that it's not silly because Heimdall is a shapeshifter who has taken the form of a black man? Could you quote source on that?
I would disagree with your assessment. On the other hand, if that wasn't your argument, please state your argument. I must be missing something.
As an aside, Zeus was a shapeshifter and Athena has usually been portrayed as humanoid, in the same manner that Zeus is usually portrayed as human.
I respect your opinion.
We are not dealing with normal genetics here.
JOURNEY INTO MYSTERY, THE MIGHTY THOR (v1-4), OFFICIAL HANDBOOK OF THE MARVEL UNIVERSE, etc etc