If they keep it set in Japan, and keep the character's original Japanese name, then switching the ethnicity of the protagonist certainly is something to get incensed about. A Western-set adaptation with different character names is rather different.
Edge of Tomorrow is a different case, and not just in that it was re-written so as to not be set in Japan and Cage being a different character from Keiji in a number of ways beyond ethnicity.
More saliently, nothing in the original narrative of All You Need Is Kill was uniquely Japanese nor the character of Keiji was uniquely Japanese as people have explained and debated about here in this thread. If you disagree with that assertion, please elaborate, ideally with page numbers for the examples so I can look them up in my own copy of the novel.
I liked EoT, and The Departed, but they're so different from the material why bother connecting them to the licenses at all? Due to this conversation I'm starting to get ticked that they whitewashed the main role for Tom Cruise, and set it up as an American centric story - that's a story we've all seen before. It'd be far more interesting for the movie to remain Asian centric and have an Asian lead, but it looks like Cruise wasn't up for that. Was there a big Asian role in that movie? I can't think of one.
Neither movie was really promoted on the source material if I recall. Both were marketed on their own merits, under their own titles, after localization.
They licensed the stories because they made a good base for a film, and if you just make that adapted film without licensing the story you get sued.
If this was a korean story and you cast ... pretty much anybody but a korean, and especially a Japanese person, as the lead ... bad stuff would happen
I think cross casting asians to Japanese is safe, mainly because Japan Does Not Care.
Japanese Americans probably will.
Was there a lot of outrage when John Cho became the new Sulu? Iunno.
There was some IIRC.
I don't recall much. Think Takaei came out and said it was a legit pick, which helps.
Old Star Trek was pretty egregious about this too. Everyone loved Montalban, but I don't think you were convince anyone that a Mexican of Spanish descent was an Indian Sikh (as I recall Khan being?) besides, "Well, here's a brown person with an accent. Have fun!"
If this was a korean story and you cast ... pretty much anybody but a korean, and especially a Japanese person, as the lead ... bad stuff would happen
I think cross casting asians to Japanese is safe, mainly because Japan Does Not Care.
Japanese Americans probably will.
Was there a lot of outrage when John Cho became the new Sulu? Iunno.
There was some IIRC.
Well, if it was the other way round it would have been 20x worse. South Korea would have gotten involved
Yeah, but it's still a shitty thing to do. It's not like Hollywood is running out of japans actors to pick from.
They may be running into lots of Korean actors
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If this was a korean story and you cast ... pretty much anybody but a korean, and especially a Japanese person, as the lead ... bad stuff would happen
I think cross casting asians to Japanese is safe, mainly because Japan Does Not Care.
Japanese Americans probably will.
Was there a lot of outrage when John Cho became the new Sulu? Iunno.
There was some IIRC.
I don't recall much. Think Takaei came out and said it was a legit pick, which helps.
Old Star Trek was pretty egregious about this too. Everyone loved Montalban, but I don't think you were convince anyone that a Mexican of Spanish descent was an Indian Sikh (as I recall Khan being?) besides, "Well, here's a brown person with an accent. Have fun!"
If this was a korean story and you cast ... pretty much anybody but a korean, and especially a Japanese person, as the lead ... bad stuff would happen
I think cross casting asians to Japanese is safe, mainly because Japan Does Not Care.
Japanese Americans probably will.
Was there a lot of outrage when John Cho became the new Sulu? Iunno.
There was some IIRC.
Well, if it was the other way round it would have been 20x worse. South Korea would have gotten involved
Yeah, but it's still a shitty thing to do. It's not like Hollywood is running out of japans actors to pick from.
I mean aren't they? How many Japanese-American actors are there available, in the right age range, available for multiple films? That's your pool, then you still have to pick somebody you like from within that pool.
You could open it up to fluent Japanese actors, of course, depending what level of accent you're willing to accept.
But still, I think you may overestimate the size of the pool. A little googling suggests Abrams actually tried to find a Japanese actor, and couldn't.
The way she looks has nothing to do with the person she is.
Actually that's markedly incorrect in many portrayals of the character (including the TV series, which by virtue of length puts the most investment into her childhood) and other characters regularly remark on (or even tease her) regarding her insistence on secretly keeping "spare" bodies that closely resembled herself (she did have a male body in Solid State Society, but her female bodies blatantly resembled her service photographs from her military career). The Tachikomas (AI-driver multi-legged combat minitanks) remark that her own stubbornness probably weakened her disguise in one occasion.
That incarnation also gave her two long-term girlfriends who had a romantic attachment to her appearance, but that's another matter.
She was cyborged in childhood. Her entire Military career was spent as a cyborg.
Her appearance is consistent, but its not the one she was born with. Its the one she chose. Its still not the "real her" outside of a single episode of SAC 2GiG where she is so covered with bandages that you can't see her face.
It's the body she chose, so it's the "real her" in every way that's meaningful.
Which is why her appearance has nothing to do with her identity. She picked that body.
Its not the "real her" in the sense that she was born that way.
Her Identity is one she has chosen and maintained. This includes hows she looks, but you can't tell how her original identity from how she looks, nor can you trust that what she presents is true beyond her says so.
Edit: She made it her body, to the point that its how she sees herself, but its not who she is inside. The real "Motoko" would not look anything like The Major.
Edit:Edit: Or rather you can't prove that "Motoko" and The Major look alike.
The body you are born in has less to do with identity than how you choose to identify yourself. She chooses to identify herself that way, and she chooses that body, so it has a lot more to do with her identity than a body she didn't choose.
This is also the key concept with sex and gender identity. You don't have to identify with what you were born with or how you look, you can choose how you self identify.
Saying that it isn't her "real body" because it wasn't the one she's born with is problematic on multiple levels.
Well yes, because its a story about Identity and the identification of self.
I use the word "real body" because there are several version of the Main character. There is the Artificial Cyborg body, there is the original meat body and there is the ghost that inhabits both. The cyborg is artificial, the meat body is born and the Ghost is mutable. Since Cyborg= Artificial it becomes natural to go Meat body=Real.
The meat body is the "real body" because its the original, its where the Ghost originated. The Cyborg body is the body the ghost chose when it lost the original. However that does not make it the same as the original meat body, after all none of us can do what the cyborg body can.
Her body is therefore a creation of her own choosing and its appearance is not an born one. The only thing that can be claimed to be original is the ghost. There is also nothing to suggest that her Cyborg body and her Original body would look the same. You therefore only have her word for that her cyborg body is a continuation of her original body. It may be real to her, but its not real in the original sense.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
If this was a korean story and you cast ... pretty much anybody but a korean, and especially a Japanese person, as the lead ... bad stuff would happen
I think cross casting asians to Japanese is safe, mainly because Japan Does Not Care.
Japanese Americans probably will.
Was there a lot of outrage when John Cho became the new Sulu? Iunno.
There was some IIRC.
I don't recall much. Think Takaei came out and said it was a legit pick, which helps.
Old Star Trek was pretty egregious about this too. Everyone loved Montalban, but I don't think you were convince anyone that a Mexican of Spanish descent was an Indian Sikh (as I recall Khan being?) besides, "Well, here's a brown person with an accent. Have fun!"
If this was a korean story and you cast ... pretty much anybody but a korean, and especially a Japanese person, as the lead ... bad stuff would happen
I think cross casting asians to Japanese is safe, mainly because Japan Does Not Care.
Japanese Americans probably will.
Was there a lot of outrage when John Cho became the new Sulu? Iunno.
There was some IIRC.
Well, if it was the other way round it would have been 20x worse. South Korea would have gotten involved
Yeah, but it's still a shitty thing to do. It's not like Hollywood is running out of japans actors to pick from.
I mean aren't they? How many Japanese-American actors are there available, in the right age range, available for multiple films? That's your pool, then you still have to pick somebody you like from within that pool.
You could open it up to fluent Japanese actors, of course, depending what level of accent you're willing to accept.
Your underestimating how shallow it is, and the more roles like this is accessible it will allow more Asian actors to get involved as well.
But still, I think you may overestimate the size of the pool. A little googling suggests Abrams actually tried to find a Japanses actor, and couldn't.
If they keep it set in Japan, and keep the character's original Japanese name, then switching the ethnicity of the protagonist certainly is something to get incensed about. A Western-set adaptation with different character names is rather different.
Edge of Tomorrow is a different case, and not just in that it was re-written so as to not be set in Japan and Cage being a different character from Keiji in a number of ways beyond ethnicity.
More saliently, nothing in the original narrative of All You Need Is Kill was uniquely Japanese nor the character of Keiji was uniquely Japanese as people have explained and debated about here in this thread. If you disagree with that assertion, please elaborate, ideally with page numbers for the examples so I can look them up in my own copy of the novel.
I liked EoT, and The Departed, but they're so different from the material why bother connecting them to the licenses at all? Due to this conversation I'm starting to get ticked that they whitewashed the main role for Tom Cruise, and set it up as an American centric story - that's a story we've all seen before. It'd be far more interesting for the movie to remain Asian centric and have an Asian lead, but it looks like Cruise wasn't up for that. Was there a big Asian role in that movie? I can't think of one.
Neither movie was really promoted on the source material if I recall. Both were marketed on their own merits, under their own titles, after localization.
Which is a terrible practice.
They licensed the stories because they made a good base for a film, and if you just make that adapted film without licensing the story you get sued.
Then they should have changed them enough or not made them.
If they keep it set in Japan, and keep the character's original Japanese name, then switching the ethnicity of the protagonist certainly is something to get incensed about. A Western-set adaptation with different character names is rather different.
Edge of Tomorrow is a different case, and not just in that it was re-written so as to not be set in Japan and Cage being a different character from Keiji in a number of ways beyond ethnicity.
More saliently, nothing in the original narrative of All You Need Is Kill was uniquely Japanese nor the character of Keiji was uniquely Japanese as people have explained and debated about here in this thread. If you disagree with that assertion, please elaborate, ideally with page numbers for the examples so I can look them up in my own copy of the novel.
I liked EoT, and The Departed, but they're so different from the material why bother connecting them to the licenses at all? Due to this conversation I'm starting to get ticked that they whitewashed the main role for Tom Cruise, and set it up as an American centric story - that's a story we've all seen before. It'd be far more interesting for the movie to remain Asian centric and have an Asian lead, but it looks like Cruise wasn't up for that. Was there a big Asian role in that movie? I can't think of one.
Because it's the right and proper thing to attribute credit where credit is due. Because you can take broad themes, narrative beats, and character traits from a previously existing work and use them to create something derivative, derivative not in a pejorative sense but in a literal sense. A work inspiried by an existing piece that is still its own work.
All You Need Is Kill was a sci-fi military action thriller. It did not have any major themes present in the story that were uniquely Japanese. Keiji in the novel was a raw recruit, not the cowardly PR mouthpiece that Cage was in the film. Interestingly, the original novel had a diverse cast of supporting characters, different but equally eclectic to those present in the film.
I've not seen The Departed but my understanding is that it took a tale of organized crime and undercover/corrupt police and applied it to those groups as familiar to American audiences while the original work (which had a different title) did so from a Asia-centric view towards those groups.
What exactly are you suggesting, that when Hollywood license any foreign property they must create a rote copy of the original work, down to having it set in the same geographical location and casting everyone of the same ethnicity as the country of origin? That because The Departed and Edge of Tomorrow weren't still set in Hong Kong/Japan with English-speaking Asian actors in all the appropriate roles, the films should be frowned upon?
That's not how film adaptations work and that's not how they should work.
Were there really no Indians in Star Trek? There must have been
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If they keep it set in Japan, and keep the character's original Japanese name, then switching the ethnicity of the protagonist certainly is something to get incensed about. A Western-set adaptation with different character names is rather different.
Edge of Tomorrow is a different case, and not just in that it was re-written so as to not be set in Japan and Cage being a different character from Keiji in a number of ways beyond ethnicity.
More saliently, nothing in the original narrative of All You Need Is Kill was uniquely Japanese nor the character of Keiji was uniquely Japanese as people have explained and debated about here in this thread. If you disagree with that assertion, please elaborate, ideally with page numbers for the examples so I can look them up in my own copy of the novel.
I liked EoT, and The Departed, but they're so different from the material why bother connecting them to the licenses at all? Due to this conversation I'm starting to get ticked that they whitewashed the main role for Tom Cruise, and set it up as an American centric story - that's a story we've all seen before. It'd be far more interesting for the movie to remain Asian centric and have an Asian lead, but it looks like Cruise wasn't up for that. Was there a big Asian role in that movie? I can't think of one.
Neither movie was really promoted on the source material if I recall. Both were marketed on their own merits, under their own titles, after localization.
Which is a terrible practice.
They licensed the stories because they made a good base for a film, and if you just make that adapted film without licensing the story you get sued.
Then they should have changed them enough or not made them.
Oh okay, so that is your stance on adaptations/localizations. Either do a rote remake of the original in the new language or don't fucking bother at all, is it?
Where's your outrage over Christopher Nolan's remake of Insomnia? Over Let Me In?
If this was a korean story and you cast ... pretty much anybody but a korean, and especially a Japanese person, as the lead ... bad stuff would happen
I think cross casting asians to Japanese is safe, mainly because Japan Does Not Care.
Japanese Americans probably will.
Was there a lot of outrage when John Cho became the new Sulu? Iunno.
There was some IIRC.
Well, if it was the other way round it would have been 20x worse. South Korea would have gotten involved
Yeah, but it's still a shitty thing to do. It's not like Hollywood is running out of japans actors to pick from.
I mean aren't they? How many Japanese-American actors are there available, in the right age range, available for multiple films? That's your pool, then you still have to pick somebody you like from within that pool.
You could open it up to fluent Japanese actors, of course, depending what level of accent you're willing to accept.
Your underestimating how shallow it is, and the more roles like this is accessible it will allow more Asian actors to get involved as well.
But still, I think you may overestimate the size of the pool. A little googling suggests Abrams actually tried to find a Japanses actor, and couldn't.
How hard did his production try?
I don't know, ask him?
I will say that he either legitimately approached Takaei asking if the Cho pick would be okay, or that story was whipped up (and Takaei went along). Either way, it suggests that he realized a Korean actor would be controversial, and thus presumably put some non-trivial effort into avoiding that potential controversy.
Perhaps he had a particular fondness for Cho specifically and never ever considered finding a Japanese actor, but I kinda doubt it.
If this was a korean story and you cast ... pretty much anybody but a korean, and especially a Japanese person, as the lead ... bad stuff would happen
I think cross casting asians to Japanese is safe, mainly because Japan Does Not Care.
Japanese Americans probably will.
Was there a lot of outrage when John Cho became the new Sulu? Iunno.
There was some IIRC.
I don't recall much. Think Takaei came out and said it was a legit pick, which helps.
Old Star Trek was pretty egregious about this too. Everyone loved Montalban, but I don't think you were convince anyone that a Mexican of Spanish descent was an Indian Sikh (as I recall Khan being?) besides, "Well, here's a brown person with an accent. Have fun!"
But so was every TV serious of the time probably.
Montalban was bad casting. Cumberbatch was worse.
On what basis? I'm genuinely curious.
To start with he is white as in pure snow white for a character that has been established as being of color.
He is British instead of Indian.
Then there is the fact that it was 2013 and not 1969.
Add the fact that Actors of Indian descent are not nearly in as short a supply in 2013. Both in the US, India and the UK.
and finally there was the "he is totally not khan guys, like would I JJ Abrahams lie to you guys despite having done so several times before in order to hype up my movie marketing"? which did the movie no favors.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
If they keep it set in Japan, and keep the character's original Japanese name, then switching the ethnicity of the protagonist certainly is something to get incensed about. A Western-set adaptation with different character names is rather different.
Edge of Tomorrow is a different case, and not just in that it was re-written so as to not be set in Japan and Cage being a different character from Keiji in a number of ways beyond ethnicity.
More saliently, nothing in the original narrative of All You Need Is Kill was uniquely Japanese nor the character of Keiji was uniquely Japanese as people have explained and debated about here in this thread. If you disagree with that assertion, please elaborate, ideally with page numbers for the examples so I can look them up in my own copy of the novel.
I liked EoT, and The Departed, but they're so different from the material why bother connecting them to the licenses at all? Due to this conversation I'm starting to get ticked that they whitewashed the main role for Tom Cruise, and set it up as an American centric story - that's a story we've all seen before. It'd be far more interesting for the movie to remain Asian centric and have an Asian lead, but it looks like Cruise wasn't up for that. Was there a big Asian role in that movie? I can't think of one.
Neither movie was really promoted on the source material if I recall. Both were marketed on their own merits, under their own titles, after localization.
Which is a terrible practice.
They licensed the stories because they made a good base for a film, and if you just make that adapted film without licensing the story you get sued.
Then they should have changed them enough or not made them.
Oh okay, so that is your stance on adaptations/localizations. Either do a rote remake of the original in the new language or don't fucking bother at all, is it?
Where's your outrage over Christopher Nolan's remake of Insomnia? Over Let Me In?
Because it's the right and proper thing to attribute credit where credit is due. Because you can take broad themes, narrative beats, and character traits from a previously existing work and use them to create something derivative, derivative not in a pejorative sense but in a literal sense. A work inspiried by an existing piece that is still its own work.
All You Need Is Kill was a sci-fi military action thriller. It did not have any major themes present in the story that were uniquely Japanese. Keiji in the novel was a raw recruit, not the cowardly PR mouthpiece that Cage was in the film. Interestingly, the original novel had a diverse cast of supporting characters, different but equally eclectic to those present in the film.
I don't see why this wouldn't make for a good movie with an Asian lead, and it's not like Tom Cruise is desperate for work.
I've not seen The Departed but my understanding is that it took a tale of organized crime and undercover/corrupt police and applied it to those groups as familiar to American audiences while the original work (which had a different title) did so from a Asia-centric view towards those groups.
What's wrong with Hollywood trying to have more films with an Asia centric point of view? They can afford to do this, unlike Japan.
What exactly are you suggesting, that when Hollywood license any foreign property they must create a rote copy of the original work, down to having it set in the same geographical location and casting everyone of the same ethnicity as the country of origin? That because The Departed and Edge of Tomorrow weren't still set in Hong Kong/Japan with English-speaking Asian actors in all the appropriate roles, the films should be frowned upon?
That's not how film adaptations work and that's not how they should work.
Not entirely, but definitely more than what they did. Exactly what we be losing if it was close to the source material? They're adaptions, right? That term is very, very loose with these particular movies.
Also there are plenty of Japanese animated / comic titles where whitewashing is all but mandatory. Like, I'd be interested to see a US version of Attack on Titan. Or One Piece. Or Jojo's Bizarre Adventure. Gundam ____. Monster. If this is the new superhero movie trend, there are better places to start than GitS.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Let's continue with this train of thought. How incensed should we be over the American version of The Ring?
What about film adaptations of novels, such as All You Need Is Kill into Edge of Tomorrow? Are we only allowed to be mad about adaptations of foreign novels, or can we complain about domestic ones as well? I certainly didn't like how Henry Wu's character was cut down to almost nothing in the film version of Jurassic Park compared to the novel... or does that balance out because he died in the novel but got to show back up in Jurassic World? Help me out here.
If this was a korean story and you cast ... pretty much anybody but a korean, and especially a Japanese person, as the lead ... bad stuff would happen
I think cross casting asians to Japanese is safe, mainly because Japan Does Not Care.
Japanese Americans probably will.
Was there a lot of outrage when John Cho became the new Sulu? Iunno.
There was some IIRC.
I don't recall much. Think Takaei came out and said it was a legit pick, which helps.
Old Star Trek was pretty egregious about this too. Everyone loved Montalban, but I don't think you were convince anyone that a Mexican of Spanish descent was an Indian Sikh (as I recall Khan being?) besides, "Well, here's a brown person with an accent. Have fun!"
But so was every TV serious of the time probably.
Montalban was bad casting. Cumberbatch was worse.
On what basis? I'm genuinely curious.
To start with he is white as in pure snow white for a character that has been established as being of color.
He is British instead of Indian.
Then there is the fact that it was 2013 and not 1969.
Add the fact that Actors of Indian descent are not nearly in as short a supply in 2013. Both in the US, India and the UK.
and finally there was the "he is totally not khan guys, like would I JJ Abrahams lie to you guys despite having done so several times before in order to hype up my movie marketing"? which did the movie no favors.
Unless we're assuming the the interchangeability of non-white actors, I'm unsure if Briton Cumberbatch is worse than Mexican Montleban in terms of casting. There have historically been some British nationals in North India (where Khan was born apparently? Punjab?) at least.
Of course, there's the fact that Montleban played him first and set the character, but that's portrayal, rather than casting.
None of the novel versions of Jurassic Park, save for maybe Muldoon, should ever be anywhere near the big screen
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
What's wrong with Hollywood trying to have more films with an Asia centric point of view? They can afford to do this, unlike Japan.
They can afford up to a certain point. They still got to make a profit. Hollywood films are a brand in its own way. They would be at a disadvantage in competing directly with local films in story and tone.
of course these days making movies that can be big in China is a factor in making movies. Which leads to things like Tilda doing a Tibetan Monk impersonation and probably the Mandarin being an English imposter. Also Transformers 4, which is getting sued for not having enough Chinese product placement.
Irrespective of whitewashing, an adaptation is an adaptation and the filmmaker can change as much or as little as they like. Everyone gets to react to the film both as a whole and compared to the original (if they care to make that comparison).
The idea that there is some rule to adaptations that must be adhered to wrt how faithful it is is to the source is ridiculous. If the changes are good the film will be good. Bad changes will make it worse. Being extra faithful will please fans of the original, and being less than faithful may turn them off and these are complaints that the filmmaker may have to suffer if they chose poorly.
But at the end of the day, very few people other than Stephen King were annoyed by the changed ending to Kubrick's The Shining. Faithful though it wasn't.
If this was a korean story and you cast ... pretty much anybody but a korean, and especially a Japanese person, as the lead ... bad stuff would happen
I think cross casting asians to Japanese is safe, mainly because Japan Does Not Care.
Japanese Americans probably will.
Was there a lot of outrage when John Cho became the new Sulu? Iunno.
There was some IIRC.
I don't recall much. Think Takaei came out and said it was a legit pick, which helps.
Old Star Trek was pretty egregious about this too. Everyone loved Montalban, but I don't think you were convince anyone that a Mexican of Spanish descent was an Indian Sikh (as I recall Khan being?) besides, "Well, here's a brown person with an accent. Have fun!"
But so was every TV serious of the time probably.
Montalban was bad casting. Cumberbatch was worse.
On what basis? I'm genuinely curious.
To start with he is white as in pure snow white for a character that has been established as being of color.
He is British instead of Indian.
Then there is the fact that it was 2013 and not 1969.
Add the fact that Actors of Indian descent are not nearly in as short a supply in 2013. Both in the US, India and the UK.
and finally there was the "he is totally not khan guys, like would I JJ Abrahams lie to you guys despite having done so several times before in order to hype up my movie marketing"? which did the movie no favors.
Unless we're assuming the the interchangeability of non-white actors, I'm unsure if Briton Cumberbatch is worse than Mexican Montleban in terms of casting. There have historically been some British nationals in North India (where Khan was born apparently? Punjab?) at least.
Of course, there's the fact that Montleban played him first and set the character, but that's portrayal, rather than casting.
Ok. so I should have put that it was 2013 first.
A Mexican in 1969 was acceptable because it was 1969 and having a non white person was a victory in itself.
Times have changed. we demand more now.
This is good.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Honestly, the only way any kind of change is going to happen is for everyone to stop going to or buying movies, and mail every studio telling them why they are doing that.
They are ultimately a business, all of their decisions are going to be, rightly, what either makes them the most, or what their research tells them will make them the most money.
Just skipping movies that have been whitewashed, just tells them that no one is interested in that genre/niche. Public outrage is free publicity.
Past that, it is simply waiting for the people in charge to retire out, and be replaced by a generation with different beliefs.
If this was a korean story and you cast ... pretty much anybody but a korean, and especially a Japanese person, as the lead ... bad stuff would happen
I think cross casting asians to Japanese is safe, mainly because Japan Does Not Care.
Japanese Americans probably will.
Was there a lot of outrage when John Cho became the new Sulu? Iunno.
There was some IIRC.
I don't recall much. Think Takaei came out and said it was a legit pick, which helps.
Old Star Trek was pretty egregious about this too. Everyone loved Montalban, but I don't think you were convince anyone that a Mexican of Spanish descent was an Indian Sikh (as I recall Khan being?) besides, "Well, here's a brown person with an accent. Have fun!"
But so was every TV serious of the time probably.
Montalban was bad casting. Cumberbatch was worse.
On what basis? I'm genuinely curious.
To start with he is white as in pure snow white for a character that has been established as being of color.
He is British instead of Indian.
Then there is the fact that it was 2013 and not 1969.
Add the fact that Actors of Indian descent are not nearly in as short a supply in 2013. Both in the US, India and the UK.
and finally there was the "he is totally not khan guys, like would I JJ Abrahams lie to you guys despite having done so several times before in order to hype up my movie marketing"? which did the movie no favors.
Unless we're assuming the the interchangeability of non-white actors, I'm unsure if Briton Cumberbatch is worse than Mexican Montleban in terms of casting. There have historically been some British nationals in North India (where Khan was born apparently? Punjab?) at least.
Of course, there's the fact that Montleban played him first and set the character, but that's portrayal, rather than casting.
Ok. so I should have put that it was 2013 first.
A Mexican in 1969 was acceptable because it was 1969 and having a non white person was a victory in itself.
Times have changed. we demand more now.
This is good.
Fair enough. I wouldn't argue that in the context of the casting in 1969, the American audiences probably couldn't care less.
What's wrong with Hollywood trying to have more films with an Asia centric point of view? They can afford to do this, unlike Japan.
They can afford up to a certain point. They still got to make a profit. Hollywood films are a brand in its own way. They would be at a disadvantage in competing directly with local films in story and tone.
of course these days making movies that can be big in China is a factor in making movies. Which leads to things like Tilda doing a Tibetan Monk impersonation and probably the Mandarin being an English imposter. Also Transformers 4, which is getting sued for not having enough Chinese product placement.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
So now we're going to be offended that the American film industry sets adaptations of works in America when making movies for American audiences?
I may not be progressive enough, but that seems absurd. The Departed was fine. The Magnificent Seven is fine.
It looks like the alternative is a lot worse.
Maybe Hollywood could spare us these particular remakes, but that's an unreasonable request apparently.
But...I liked Edge of Tomorrow. It was good.
I liked it too, I even own it. Though I don't think it was world changing either. That's why I said the alternative is worse.
The Departed is a good adaptation. I've praised it in the past. Ghost in the Shell looks like it's going to be a pretty bad one.
I agree that GitS seems like it might be garbage.
I just see the goalposts getting dragged towards "why wasn't EoT kept in Asia? Or The Departed?" That's ridiculous to me. Local movie industries localize properties for their target market. So an American rewrite of Internal Affairs is gonna be in Boston, not Hong Kong. That's how it works.
If you want to see more Asian-centric films set in Asia, what's wrong with watching movies made in that market?
I don't see any issue with EoT being localized for this market. Maybe it would have been better with an Asian lead, it a black lead, or any other minority lead. Even another female lead. But why shouldn't the last name still be Cage regardless? Nothing wrong with that. It's an American movie.
Though that movie in particular I think would have suffered with a different lead. It's the first Tom Cruise movie Id seen in years I actually liked him in.
What's wrong with Hollywood trying to have more films with an Asia centric point of view? They can afford to do this, unlike Japan.
They can afford up to a certain point. They still got to make a profit. Hollywood films are a brand in its own way. They would be at a disadvantage in competing directly with local films in story and tone.
of course these days making movies that can be big in China is a factor in making movies. Which leads to things like Tilda doing a Tibetan Monk impersonation and probably the Mandarin being an English imposter. Also Transformers 4, which is getting sued for not having enough Chinese product placement.
Oh okay, so that is your stance on adaptations/localizations. Either do a rote remake of the original in the new language or don't fucking bother at all, is it?
Why is it that an Asian centric take on the material is rote? Like they can't have a good movie with that direction? And yeah, America does have a huge problem adapting things and Americanizing it. That's why they'd prefer remaking a foreign tv show from scratch rather than airing it. Sometimes this works, sometimes it's awful. America would definitely benefit by accessing foreign material like that instead of adaptions.
Where's your outrage over Christopher Nolan's remake of Insomnia? Over Let Me In?
I knew LMI was an adoption, not Insomnia. I'll have to research it before commenting.
If this was a korean story and you cast ... pretty much anybody but a korean, and especially a Japanese person, as the lead ... bad stuff would happen
I think cross casting asians to Japanese is safe, mainly because Japan Does Not Care.
Japanese Americans probably will.
Was there a lot of outrage when John Cho became the new Sulu? Iunno.
There was some IIRC.
Well, if it was the other way round it would have been 20x worse. South Korea would have gotten involved
Yeah, but it's still a shitty thing to do. It's not like Hollywood is running out of japans actors to pick from.
I mean aren't they? How many Japanese-American actors are there available, in the right age range, available for multiple films? That's your pool, then you still have to pick somebody you like from within that pool.
You could open it up to fluent Japanese actors, of course, depending what level of accent you're willing to accept.
Your underestimating how shallow it is, and the more roles like this is accessible it will allow more Asian actors to get involved as well.
But still, I think you may overestimate the size of the pool. A little googling suggests Abrams actually tried to find a Japanses actor, and couldn't.
How hard did his production try?
I don't know, ask him?
That wasn't a question, it was a statement.
I will say that he either legitimately approached Takaei asking if the Cho pick would be okay, or that story was whipped up (and Takaei went along). Either way, it suggests that he realized a Korean actor would be controversial, and thus presumably put some non-trivial effort into avoiding that potential controversy.
Perhaps he had a particular fondness for Cho specifically and never ever considered finding a Japanese actor, but I kinda doubt it.
This isn't as big an issue, but it is a thing in Hollywood with casting minorities.
Also, to the bolded, Cho IS Asian.
Yes, I know, but not all Asians are alike. They're not interchangable.
Let's continue with this train of thought. How incensed should we be over the American version of The Ring?
I'm not the one being incensed here. I was merely saying it'd be great if more adaptions were more recognizable rather than the trite Hollywood formula where America is the only county that matters. America is not restricted by other countries with the film industry and it can cause enormous change with its influence. Would it really be that bad for Hollywood to make an All You Need is Kill movie?
What about film adaptations of novels, such as All You Need Is Kill into Edge of Tomorrow? Are we only allowed to be mad about adaptations of foreign novels, or can we complain about domestic ones as well? I certainly didn't like how Henry Wu's character was cut down to almost nothing in the film version of Jurassic Park compared to the novel... or does that balance out because he died in the novel but got to show back up in Jurassic World? Help me out here.
You're ignoring the nuance in my argument, I wasn't saying it's all or nothing. Surely it'd be ok with more foreign adaptions to have minority protagonists and diverse casts and in places more than America? America all the time, every time is boring. Pacific Rim may not be an adaption, but at least it tried something new by setting it in Hong Kong.
So now we're going to be offended that the American film industry sets adaptations of works in America when making movies for American audiences?
I may not be progressive enough, but that seems absurd. The Departed was fine. The Magnificent Seven is fine.
It looks like the alternative is a lot worse.
Maybe Hollywood could spare us these particular remakes, but that's an unreasonable request apparently.
But...I liked Edge of Tomorrow. It was good.
I liked it too, I even own it. Though I don't think it was world changing either. That's why I said the alternative is worse.
The Departed is a good adaptation. I've praised it in the past. Ghost in the Shell looks like it's going to be a pretty bad one.
I agree that GitS seems like it might be garbage.
I just see the goalposts getting dragged towards "why wasn't EoT kept in Asia? Or The Departed?" That's ridiculous to me. Local movie industries localize properties for their target market. So an American rewrite of Internal Affairs is gonna be in Boston, not Hong Kong. That's how it works.
If you want to see more Asian-centric films set in Asia, what's wrong with watching movies made in that market?
I don't see any issue with EoT being localized for this market. Maybe it would have been better with an Asian lead, it a black lead, or any other minority lead. Even another female lead. But why shouldn't the last name still be Cage regardless? Nothing wrong with that. It's an American movie.
Though that movie in particular I think would have suffered with a different lead. It's the first Tom Cruise movie Id seen in years I actually liked him in.
Given the enormity of the problems we're seeing now--like using CG to try and make Caucasian actors look "more Asian"--yeah, I don't really have a problem with Scorsese giving his take on Hong Kong police drama like he did in The Departed. That's just me personally--I don't think everyone shares that opinion, and honestly, I'm kind of glad for that.
In truth, if it took a moratorium on all Hollywood adaptations, even good ones, to stop the Ghost in the Shells coming down the pipe, I'd personally support it. There are good films and books for those original properties. They're more likely to be available in English than ever before--not just Japanese, but Chinese and Korean cinema. We don't need a Hollywood production of every single series or film of note to introduce it to English-speaking audiences, they can watch the real thing (and support the original creators), good and bad. Because for every Live. Die. Repeat. it looks like we're getting multiple Speed Racers and Dragonball: Evolutions.
Of course, that's an imaginary solution to an actual problem. I wish someone could gather all the big-shots who make these decisions in a room, smack them over the heads with rolled-up newspapers and go "NO! NO! BAD PRODUCER! GO BUTCHER YOUR OWN COUNTRY'S PROPERTIES FIRST!" if that's what it took.
Tried something new, and underperformed domestically. Hollywood may be racist but perhaps they aren't as dumb as they are frequently portrayed as. I'd wager that there's a reason their American adaptations tend to focus on, well, America. Money is the bottom line for Hollywood and any solutions that don't address money are basically just oral farts.
(Which is why I said if a film bothers you don't see it. Shopping with your dollars isn't the end all be all, but it is more effective than complaining on the internet)
So now we're going to be offended that the American film industry sets adaptations of works in America when making movies for American audiences?
I may not be progressive enough, but that seems absurd. The Departed was fine. The Magnificent Seven is fine.
It looks like the alternative is a lot worse.
Maybe Hollywood could spare us these particular remakes, but that's an unreasonable request apparently.
But...I liked Edge of Tomorrow. It was good.
I liked it too, I even own it. Though I don't think it was world changing either. That's why I said the alternative is worse.
The Departed is a good adaptation. I've praised it in the past. Ghost in the Shell looks like it's going to be a pretty bad one.
I agree that GitS seems like it might be garbage.
I just see the goalposts getting dragged towards "why wasn't EoT kept in Asia? Or The Departed?" That's ridiculous to me. Local movie industries localize properties for their target market. So an American rewrite of Internal Affairs is gonna be in Boston, not Hong Kong. That's how it works.
If you want to see more Asian-centric films set in Asia, what's wrong with watching movies made in that market?
I don't see any issue with EoT being localized for this market. Maybe it would have been better with an Asian lead, it a black lead, or any other minority lead. Even another female lead. But why shouldn't the last name still be Cage regardless? Nothing wrong with that. It's an American movie.
Though that movie in particular I think would have suffered with a different lead. It's the first Tom Cruise movie Id seen in years I actually liked him in.
America isn't exclusively local, it's worldwide. Plus it wants access to new markets like China too.
Posts
I don't recall much. Think Takaei came out and said it was a legit pick, which helps.
Yeah, but it's still a shitty thing to do. It's not like Hollywood is running out of japans actors to pick from.
Neither movie was really promoted on the source material if I recall. Both were marketed on their own merits, under their own titles, after localization.
They licensed the stories because they made a good base for a film, and if you just make that adapted film without licensing the story you get sued.
Old Star Trek was pretty egregious about this too. Everyone loved Montalban, but I don't think you were convince anyone that a Mexican of Spanish descent was an Indian Sikh (as I recall Khan being?) besides, "Well, here's a brown person with an accent. Have fun!"
But so was every TV serious of the time probably.
They may be running into lots of Korean actors
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Montalban was bad casting. Cumberbatch was worse.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
I mean aren't they? How many Japanese-American actors are there available, in the right age range, available for multiple films? That's your pool, then you still have to pick somebody you like from within that pool.
You could open it up to fluent Japanese actors, of course, depending what level of accent you're willing to accept.
But still, I think you may overestimate the size of the pool. A little googling suggests Abrams actually tried to find a Japanese actor, and couldn't.
I did a google image search for "Japanese actors Hollywood" and like half the guys on the page were Korean.
Well yes, because its a story about Identity and the identification of self.
I use the word "real body" because there are several version of the Main character. There is the Artificial Cyborg body, there is the original meat body and there is the ghost that inhabits both. The cyborg is artificial, the meat body is born and the Ghost is mutable. Since Cyborg= Artificial it becomes natural to go Meat body=Real.
The meat body is the "real body" because its the original, its where the Ghost originated. The Cyborg body is the body the ghost chose when it lost the original. However that does not make it the same as the original meat body, after all none of us can do what the cyborg body can.
Her body is therefore a creation of her own choosing and its appearance is not an born one. The only thing that can be claimed to be original is the ghost. There is also nothing to suggest that her Cyborg body and her Original body would look the same. You therefore only have her word for that her cyborg body is a continuation of her original body. It may be real to her, but its not real in the original sense.
On what basis? I'm genuinely curious.
Your underestimating how shallow it is, and the more roles like this is accessible it will allow more Asian actors to get involved as well.
How hard did his production try?
Which is a terrible practice.
Then they should have changed them enough or not made them.
Because it's the right and proper thing to attribute credit where credit is due. Because you can take broad themes, narrative beats, and character traits from a previously existing work and use them to create something derivative, derivative not in a pejorative sense but in a literal sense. A work inspiried by an existing piece that is still its own work.
All You Need Is Kill was a sci-fi military action thriller. It did not have any major themes present in the story that were uniquely Japanese. Keiji in the novel was a raw recruit, not the cowardly PR mouthpiece that Cage was in the film. Interestingly, the original novel had a diverse cast of supporting characters, different but equally eclectic to those present in the film.
I've not seen The Departed but my understanding is that it took a tale of organized crime and undercover/corrupt police and applied it to those groups as familiar to American audiences while the original work (which had a different title) did so from a Asia-centric view towards those groups.
What exactly are you suggesting, that when Hollywood license any foreign property they must create a rote copy of the original work, down to having it set in the same geographical location and casting everyone of the same ethnicity as the country of origin? That because The Departed and Edge of Tomorrow weren't still set in Hong Kong/Japan with English-speaking Asian actors in all the appropriate roles, the films should be frowned upon?
That's not how film adaptations work and that's not how they should work.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Oh okay, so that is your stance on adaptations/localizations. Either do a rote remake of the original in the new language or don't fucking bother at all, is it?
Where's your outrage over Christopher Nolan's remake of Insomnia? Over Let Me In?
I don't know, ask him?
I will say that he either legitimately approached Takaei asking if the Cho pick would be okay, or that story was whipped up (and Takaei went along). Either way, it suggests that he realized a Korean actor would be controversial, and thus presumably put some non-trivial effort into avoiding that potential controversy.
Perhaps he had a particular fondness for Cho specifically and never ever considered finding a Japanese actor, but I kinda doubt it.
Also, to the bolded, Cho IS Asian.
To start with he is white as in pure snow white for a character that has been established as being of color.
He is British instead of Indian.
Then there is the fact that it was 2013 and not 1969.
Add the fact that Actors of Indian descent are not nearly in as short a supply in 2013. Both in the US, India and the UK.
and finally there was the "he is totally not khan guys, like would I JJ Abrahams lie to you guys despite having done so several times before in order to hype up my movie marketing"? which did the movie no favors.
Can I be outraged over Nolan's Insomnia?
That movie was legit awful.
I don't see why this wouldn't make for a good movie with an Asian lead, and it's not like Tom Cruise is desperate for work.
What's wrong with Hollywood trying to have more films with an Asia centric point of view? They can afford to do this, unlike Japan.
Not entirely, but definitely more than what they did. Exactly what we be losing if it was close to the source material? They're adaptions, right? That term is very, very loose with these particular movies.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
What about film adaptations of novels, such as All You Need Is Kill into Edge of Tomorrow? Are we only allowed to be mad about adaptations of foreign novels, or can we complain about domestic ones as well? I certainly didn't like how Henry Wu's character was cut down to almost nothing in the film version of Jurassic Park compared to the novel... or does that balance out because he died in the novel but got to show back up in Jurassic World? Help me out here.
Unless we're assuming the the interchangeability of non-white actors, I'm unsure if Briton Cumberbatch is worse than Mexican Montleban in terms of casting. There have historically been some British nationals in North India (where Khan was born apparently? Punjab?) at least.
Of course, there's the fact that Montleban played him first and set the character, but that's portrayal, rather than casting.
I may not be progressive enough, but that seems absurd. The Departed was fine. The Magnificent Seven is fine.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It looks like the alternative is a lot worse.
Maybe Hollywood could spare us these particular remakes, but that's an unreasonable request apparently.
They can afford up to a certain point. They still got to make a profit. Hollywood films are a brand in its own way. They would be at a disadvantage in competing directly with local films in story and tone.
of course these days making movies that can be big in China is a factor in making movies. Which leads to things like Tilda doing a Tibetan Monk impersonation and probably the Mandarin being an English imposter. Also Transformers 4, which is getting sued for not having enough Chinese product placement.
http://io9.gizmodo.com/paramount-is-being-sued-for-not-having-enough-product-p-1773376707
The idea that there is some rule to adaptations that must be adhered to wrt how faithful it is is to the source is ridiculous. If the changes are good the film will be good. Bad changes will make it worse. Being extra faithful will please fans of the original, and being less than faithful may turn them off and these are complaints that the filmmaker may have to suffer if they chose poorly.
But at the end of the day, very few people other than Stephen King were annoyed by the changed ending to Kubrick's The Shining. Faithful though it wasn't.
But...I liked Edge of Tomorrow. It was good.
I liked it too, I even own it. Though I don't think it was world changing either. That's why I said the alternative is worse.
The Departed is a good adaptation. I've praised it in the past. Ghost in the Shell looks like it's going to be a pretty bad one.
Ok. so I should have put that it was 2013 first.
A Mexican in 1969 was acceptable because it was 1969 and having a non white person was a victory in itself.
Times have changed. we demand more now.
This is good.
They are ultimately a business, all of their decisions are going to be, rightly, what either makes them the most, or what their research tells them will make them the most money.
Just skipping movies that have been whitewashed, just tells them that no one is interested in that genre/niche. Public outrage is free publicity.
Past that, it is simply waiting for the people in charge to retire out, and be replaced by a generation with different beliefs.
Fair enough. I wouldn't argue that in the context of the casting in 1969, the American audiences probably couldn't care less.
Maybe that's why Scarlett Johansson was cast?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I agree that GitS seems like it might be garbage.
I just see the goalposts getting dragged towards "why wasn't EoT kept in Asia? Or The Departed?" That's ridiculous to me. Local movie industries localize properties for their target market. So an American rewrite of Internal Affairs is gonna be in Boston, not Hong Kong. That's how it works.
If you want to see more Asian-centric films set in Asia, what's wrong with watching movies made in that market?
I don't see any issue with EoT being localized for this market. Maybe it would have been better with an Asian lead, it a black lead, or any other minority lead. Even another female lead. But why shouldn't the last name still be Cage regardless? Nothing wrong with that. It's an American movie.
Though that movie in particular I think would have suffered with a different lead. It's the first Tom Cruise movie Id seen in years I actually liked him in.
Surely this has come up, but maybe the importance of the Chinese market has to do with not casting a Japanese actress in GitS?
Why is it that an Asian centric take on the material is rote? Like they can't have a good movie with that direction? And yeah, America does have a huge problem adapting things and Americanizing it. That's why they'd prefer remaking a foreign tv show from scratch rather than airing it. Sometimes this works, sometimes it's awful. America would definitely benefit by accessing foreign material like that instead of adaptions.
I knew LMI was an adoption, not Insomnia. I'll have to research it before commenting.
That wasn't a question, it was a statement.
This isn't as big an issue, but it is a thing in Hollywood with casting minorities.
Yes, I know, but not all Asians are alike. They're not interchangable.
I'm not the one being incensed here. I was merely saying it'd be great if more adaptions were more recognizable rather than the trite Hollywood formula where America is the only county that matters. America is not restricted by other countries with the film industry and it can cause enormous change with its influence. Would it really be that bad for Hollywood to make an All You Need is Kill movie?
You're ignoring the nuance in my argument, I wasn't saying it's all or nothing. Surely it'd be ok with more foreign adaptions to have minority protagonists and diverse casts and in places more than America? America all the time, every time is boring. Pacific Rim may not be an adaption, but at least it tried something new by setting it in Hong Kong.
Given the enormity of the problems we're seeing now--like using CG to try and make Caucasian actors look "more Asian"--yeah, I don't really have a problem with Scorsese giving his take on Hong Kong police drama like he did in The Departed. That's just me personally--I don't think everyone shares that opinion, and honestly, I'm kind of glad for that.
In truth, if it took a moratorium on all Hollywood adaptations, even good ones, to stop the Ghost in the Shells coming down the pipe, I'd personally support it. There are good films and books for those original properties. They're more likely to be available in English than ever before--not just Japanese, but Chinese and Korean cinema. We don't need a Hollywood production of every single series or film of note to introduce it to English-speaking audiences, they can watch the real thing (and support the original creators), good and bad. Because for every Live. Die. Repeat. it looks like we're getting multiple Speed Racers and Dragonball: Evolutions.
Of course, that's an imaginary solution to an actual problem. I wish someone could gather all the big-shots who make these decisions in a room, smack them over the heads with rolled-up newspapers and go "NO! NO! BAD PRODUCER! GO BUTCHER YOUR OWN COUNTRY'S PROPERTIES FIRST!" if that's what it took.
(Which is why I said if a film bothers you don't see it. Shopping with your dollars isn't the end all be all, but it is more effective than complaining on the internet)
America isn't exclusively local, it's worldwide. Plus it wants access to new markets like China too.