Change doesn't have to be forced by customers. It can come from within. We can organise on Facebook pages or make petitions, but like everyone loves to point out, Hollywood will still make money. I admit, maybe I am part of the problem. I see MCU movies pretty much without hesitation. But the idea we have the power to change this alone is silly. I still vote with my wallet when given the option. Until I have more details on the GitS remake, I am likely to skip it altogether. Again, I don't think the message of my not seeing it will convey to them why I dislike the idea. They will blame it on the property or the fans or but not on Scarjo or the white cast.
You aren't voting with your wallet at all, sorry.
When you go to one white washed film, but not another, all you are saying is you aren't interested in that second film. Everyone has to stop going to every movie, or nothing is going to change.
I honestly don't think that's how it works. And I don't specifically need to be held responsible to your ideals on this subject. Really, until only a few years ago I didn't even realise this was happening. Now that I can see it, I think it's fucked up. Do I think there's an easy solution? No. No one wants this concept to continue, I would imagine, and also no one wants to stop consuming media at large as well. If you are really suggesting I just stop watching literally everything in protest, I don't think that will work. Now maybe if there was a social movement, and I pledged along with others to say "I will not see these films" and sign it, I could get behind that. This isn't gonna be solved by just my actions, but the actions of many people.
There is a super easy solution, that you just re-outlined.
Everyone tells the studios why they aren't going to go to the movies anymore. Then stops.
But no one (even the ones most affected) are willing (myself included) to stop consuming media content in order to make that change.
Going into McDonalds and telling them I don't condone how they raise their cows, then buying a burger anyway, tells them it doesn't actually matter and will change nothing.
I am not saying this to specifically single you out, just anyone in general who claims they are voting with their wallet, when they are in fact not. Is not actually helping the issue.
e:
If we could actually get a majority of people to take action, it would probably take less than a year for positive change to start happening. But you are right that this most likely isn't something you or I will ever make happen. Someone at least semi famous like Takei needs to take the lead and make it happen. I doubt any of them would make a serious attempt at change though, since it is too likely to bite them.
Jay;
Because casting all white people has proven to not affect box office sales. Casting minorities has proven to not increase sales.
A bad movie is going to flop regardless of who they cast in it, so why add additional risk of breaking the status quo for casting.
Because by excluding minorities from your cast, you discourage future minorities from pursuing this career track, which means you have a very limited talent pool to work with.
Smaller talent pool = shittier movies.
Maybe there's an Asian version of the Coen Brothers out there, with stories depicting their Asian American heritage. But we'll never know if we keep telling them that they don't belong in Hollywood.
That a shit load of career tracks in Hollywood involve working for free (at least most of the time) to break in, you're already discouraging minorities by virtue of discouraging people who aren't wealthy or have family capable of paying their way while they work for free. This is the situation for pretty much all media.
Intersectionality makes it harder for minorities, and it's lame to dismiss that this isn't a real problem in Hollywood due to institutional racism. This isn't something minorities should sit on their hands on, it'll only get better by doing something about it.
We all agree here that writing good roles for minority actors is a desired action simply in and of itself. However it seems to have been lost in the last few pages that posters here aren't arguing that it's not the right thing to do, but that there's no profit motive to do it to more of a degree than it is done now.
That got debunked a few pages ago, actually. All the money I'm the world isn't going to change Hollywood's attitude on this, or this wouldn't have gotten this bad.
And that even if you do it realistically you're risking accusations of racism.
So what? They'll get charged with racism if they don't do anything too. That's not a good reason to not be inclusive.
Don't put words in my mouth. Nowhere did I write that it's okay to not allow more minority actors to get into more roles because other situations are racist, and it seems like the first thing posters in this thread have jumped to is to lump the poster they're responding to into some category of shitlord defending racism.
No, you will complain on the internet if they don't do anything. People will complain in the media if a representation (even a realistic representation because there is a limit for most people how realistically they like people being portrayed) they find a problem with happens.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Danny Rand is cast as white: "We have to stay true to the source material!"
The ancient one is cast as white: "We decided to completely reinvent the source material!"
Danny Rand cast as white: "Deviate from the source material and make him asian!"
Ancient one cast as white: "What about the source material!?"
Man, it's almost as if neither group has a consistent stance on whether or not to stick with the source material.
The difference is, you have one group that can avoid that argument in the first place by simply pointing out, "Asian actors have been denied opportunities even in storylines that deal primarily with Asian culture and Asian themes, which reinforces an idea of Yellow Face and Mightey Whitey where Asian Actors are considered unfit to portray their own heritage."
Where as the people defending Hollywood try to hide behind an argument regarding source material that they swiftly abandon the second the source material tells them to cast someone who isn't white.
+3
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Danny Rand is cast as white: "We have to stay true to the source material!"
The ancient one is cast as white: "We decided to completely reinvent the source material!"
Danny Rand cast as white: "Deviate from the source material and make him asian!"
Ancient one cast as white: "What about the source material!?"
Man, it's almost as if neither group has a consistent stance on whether or not to stick with the source material.
The difference is, you have one group that can avoid that argument in the first place by simply pointing out, "Asian actors have been denied opportunities even in storylines that deal primarily with Asian culture and Asian themes, which reinforces an idea of Yellow Face and Mightey Whitey where Asian Actors are considered unfit to portray their own heritage."
Where as the people defending Hollywood try to hide behind an argument regarding source material that they swiftly abandon the second the source material tells them to cast someone who isn't white.
Too easy.
Just stop casting asians in roles.
Problem solved, no more yellowface!
Which is how we got here in the first place. Why does nobody remember the horrible "diversity" thing that the 1990's thrust upon us?
Danny Rand is cast as white: "We have to stay true to the source material!"
The ancient one is cast as white: "We decided to completely reinvent the source material!"
Danny Rand cast as white: "Deviate from the source material and make him asian!"
Ancient one cast as white: "What about the source material!?"
Man, it's almost as if neither group has a consistent stance on whether or not to stick with the source material.
The difference is, you have one group that can avoid that argument in the first place by simply pointing out, "Asian actors have been denied opportunities even in storylines that deal primarily with Asian culture and Asian themes, which reinforces an idea of Yellow Face and Mightey Whitey where Asian Actors are considered unfit to portray their own heritage."
Where as the people defending Hollywood try to hide behind an argument regarding source material that they swiftly abandon the second the source material tells them to cast someone who isn't white.
Too easy.
Just stop casting asians in roles.
Problem solved, no more yellowface!
I don't think you actually understand what the word "yellowface" entails.
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Danny Rand is cast as white: "We have to stay true to the source material!"
The ancient one is cast as white: "We decided to completely reinvent the source material!"
Danny Rand cast as white: "Deviate from the source material and make him asian!"
Ancient one cast as white: "What about the source material!?"
Man, it's almost as if neither group has a consistent stance on whether or not to stick with the source material.
The difference is, you have one group that can avoid that argument in the first place by simply pointing out, "Asian actors have been denied opportunities even in storylines that deal primarily with Asian culture and Asian themes, which reinforces an idea of Yellow Face and Mightey Whitey where Asian Actors are considered unfit to portray their own heritage."
Where as the people defending Hollywood try to hide behind an argument regarding source material that they swiftly abandon the second the source material tells them to cast someone who isn't white.
Too easy.
Just stop casting asians in roles.
Problem solved, no more yellowface!
I don't think you actually understand what the word "yellowface" entails.
I've never seen the Green Hornet and Kato in their 1960's show, nor have I seen Mr. Yunioshi.
No, you will complain on the internet if they don't do anything. People will complain in the media if a representation (even a realistic representation because there is a limit for most people how realistically they like people being portrayed) they find a problem with happens.
And what exactly are you basing this on?
What's the best example you can think of where this happened, where Asian people were treated respectfully but the producer still faced heavy complaint?
Mind you, "respectfully" does not mean "model minority." i.e., "Better Luck Tomorrow" portrays Asian kids as drug dealers, but it wasn't being disrespectful, and I can't recall the Asian community being upset by it.
Jay;
Because casting all white people has proven to not affect box office sales. Casting minorities has proven to not increase sales.
A bad movie is going to flop regardless of who they cast in it, so why add additional risk of breaking the status quo for casting.
Because by excluding minorities from your cast, you discourage future minorities from pursuing this career track, which means you have a very limited talent pool to work with.
Smaller talent pool = shittier movies.
Maybe there's an Asian version of the Coen Brothers out there, with stories depicting their Asian American heritage. But we'll never know if we keep telling them that they don't belong in Hollywood.
That a shit load of career tracks in Hollywood involve working for free (at least most of the time) to break in, you're already discouraging minorities by virtue of discouraging people who aren't wealthy or have family capable of paying their way while they work for free. This is the situation for pretty much all media.
We all agree here that writing good roles for minority actors is a desired action simply in and of itself. However it seems to have been lost in the last few pages that posters here aren't arguing that it's not the right thing to do, but that there's no profit motive to do it to more of a degree than it is done now. And that even if you do it realistically you're risking accusations of racism.
Except a page or two back I posted a lot of evidence to suggest this is untrue. Nobody has gone out of their way to address that, instead people keep insisting it's too risky or nonprofitable when we have demonstrated that A) Hollywood takes risks all the damn time and minorities spend more at the box office annually and movies like "Twelve Years a Slave" do well even in foreign markets.
It has been addressed.
There is no evidence showing a positive result for minority casting, because for every X there is a Y disproving the thing that Z is disproving. What we DO have evidence of is that Hollywood is casting white people, and they wouldn't be casting white people if there were a reason involved. Rolling out a few decently successful shows and movies with minority casting is really the height of anecdotal.
Except films fail all the time, and yet they never point to the white cast as the issue! You can't keep holding up white casting as more profitable or less risky when it's been demonstrated that isn't the case. The idea that a minority cast has to be MORE profitable to be even ventured as an idea is so ridiculous it is insulting.
The reason we only have a few examples is the exact issue in question! Do you see the hypocrisy in what you're saying? It's only an anecdote when it's convenient to your argument, but not against it. We have already been over this, it's a self fulfilling prophecy.
Or it's basic business risk management. You don't make changes unless there is a gain to be made in doing so.
You are basically yelling at Hollywood to try making New Coke.
Danny Rand is cast as white: "We have to stay true to the source material!"
The ancient one is cast as white: "We decided to completely reinvent the source material!"
Danny Rand cast as white: "Deviate from the source material and make him asian!"
Ancient one cast as white: "What about the source material!?"
Man, it's almost as if neither group has a consistent stance on whether or not to stick with the source material.
The difference is, you have one group that can avoid that argument in the first place by simply pointing out, "Asian actors have been denied opportunities even in storylines that deal primarily with Asian culture and Asian themes, which reinforces an idea of Yellow Face and Mightey Whitey where Asian Actors are considered unfit to portray their own heritage."
Where as the people defending Hollywood try to hide behind an argument regarding source material that they swiftly abandon the second the source material tells them to cast someone who isn't white.
As far as Marvel films go, this would be a non-issue if Marvel hadn't sold off their X-characters, because as has been noted repeatedly these characters came later and are not only more diverse, but have characters who consist of more than stereotypes. Lady Deathstrike was played by an asian lady in X-2 and no one blinked, commented, or really took note because Lady Deathstrike is just girl Wolverine who is a bad guy and happens to be an asian woman (although they wisely discarded all the mojo-verse nonsense in her backstory and had her just be a mutant).
The Avengers-related properties are older and there isn't a great deal of ethnic diversity in the characters. The ethnic characters are the very definition of problematic, and casting them as white people (as was done with Mandarin, and now, the Ancient One) dodges this.
If they didn't dodge it they would just be receiving different criticism from the exact same people complaining now, with a side benefit of whoops your movie might get banned in China costing you hundreds of millions of dollars.
Yeah they aren't being bold, progressive, or taking the risk.
And really, while we're on the subject of the MCU, given the ethnic make up of the U.S. Marvel doesn't even have an asian problem. They have a latino problem. As in: Where are they? It's an even larger demographic than black people.
Neither blacks nor latinos suffer from the near-invisibility issue that asian-americans do in general film, so that is a specific complaint that I do get. It is a much smaller demographic though, which does play into this, probably a lot.
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
A question is what would be a non-objectionable degree of representation?
One that reflects demographics? One that equally represents all demographics - i.e. an equal split between all demographic groups? One that allocates resources reflective of demographics?
I expect that this isn't a simple question to answer in a way that doesn't produce odd economic effects and/or unpleasant conclusions for those advocating change.
The Avengers-related properties are older and there isn't a great deal of ethnic diversity in the characters. The ethnic characters are the very definition of problematic, and casting them as white people (as was done with Mandarin, and now, the Ancient One) dodges this.
Except there's no reason you couldn't have an Asian American Actor couldn't have done the same thing.
Why does "we decided to do something different with the character's background" automatically mean "This character isn't allowed to be Asian anymore"?
Edwin Jarvis is Tony Stark's British Butler. In the movie, they decide to make him an AI. Also, the precursor for "The Vision." That's a huge change in character. It's no longer even a person!
But somehow, despite all these changes, they still decided to hire a British actor to play him.
If they didn't dodge it they would just be receiving different criticism from the exact same people complaining now, with a side benefit of whoops your movie might get banned in China costing you hundreds of millions of dollars.
Again, we keep hearing this counterfactual with nothing to back it up.
And really, while we're on the subject of the MCU, given the ethnic make up of the U.S. Marvel doesn't even have an asian problem. They have a latino problem. As in: Where are they? It's an even larger demographic than black people.
That's a separate issue. The lack of Hispanic characters is, in large part, because Marvel isn't drawing much from Hispanic culture to begin with.
Where as Americans might appreciate Asian culture, but not Asian actors.
The Avengers-related properties are older and there isn't a great deal of ethnic diversity in the characters. The ethnic characters are the very definition of problematic, and casting them as white people (as was done with Mandarin, and now, the Ancient One) dodges this.
Except there's no reason you couldn't have an Asian American Actor couldn't have done the same thing.
Why does "we decided to do something different with the character's background" automatically mean "This character isn't allowed to be Asian anymore"?
Edwin Jarvis is Tony Stark's British Butler. In the movie, they decide to make him an AI. Also, the precursor for "The Vision." That's a huge change in character. It's no longer even a person!
But somehow, despite all these changes, they still decided to hire a British actor to play him.
If they didn't dodge it they would just be receiving different criticism from the exact same people complaining now, with a side benefit of whoops your movie might get banned in China costing you hundreds of millions of dollars.
Again, we keep hearing this counterfactual with nothing to back it up.
And really, while we're on the subject of the MCU, given the ethnic make up of the U.S. Marvel doesn't even have an asian problem. They have a latino problem. As in: Where are they? It's an even larger demographic than black people.
That's a separate issue. The lack of Hispanic characters is, in large part, because Marvel isn't drawing much from Hispanic culture to begin with.
Where as Americans might appreciate Asian culture, but not Asian actors.
Counterfactual? Sorry no, there's ample evidence provided by the posters in this thread that they will indeed complain regardless.
Counterfactual? Sorry no, there's ample evidence provided by the posters in this thread that they will indeed complain regardless.
So show me the single best example you can think of where this happened with what you view as a respectful portrayal of Asians.
Because right now, you sound like "Amy's Baking Company," complaining that the Yelpers will tear you apart no matter what so there's no sense in trying to change your business model. Without actually considering that maybe your service really does suck and some of those Yelpers actually have a valid point.
No, you will complain on the internet if they don't do anything. People will complain in the media if a representation (even a realistic representation because there is a limit for most people how realistically they like people being portrayed) they find a problem with happens.
And what exactly are you basing this on?
What's the best example you can think of where this happened, where Asian people were treated respectfully but the producer still faced heavy complaint?
Mind you, "respectfully" does not mean "model minority." i.e., "Better Luck Tomorrow" portrays Asian kids as drug dealers, but it wasn't being disrespectful, and I can't recall the Asian community being upset by it.
The links that have already been posted in this thread.
Hey, does anyone remember that time when Pixar decided to portray the boy scout in the movie "Up" as an Asian kid, and the Asian community protested that movie for months and months about how it was a completely racist depiction of Asians?
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.
Counterfactual? Sorry no, there's ample evidence provided by the posters in this thread that they will indeed complain regardless.
So show me the single best example you can think of where this happened with what you view as arespectful portrayal of Asians.
Because right now, you sound like "Amy's Baking Company," complaining that the Yelpers will tear you apart no matter what so there's no sense in trying to change your business model. Without actually considering that maybe your service really does suck and some of those Yelpers actually have a valid point.
This is loaded. Because a (we weren't talking about Asians specifically, or at least I wasn't, but all minority representation) respectful representation is subjective (beyond explicitly throwing stereotypes out). As I posted earlier when Creed was brought up as a good representation of a minority character, if you took the kids I grew up with that were in the actual position that the character was in (future dependent on athletic endeavor, black, low income, father not in the picture, trouble with law as a juvenile) and put them in the place of Micheal B. Jordan with instructions to portray that character in a way that they actually are in real life, you would set this forum on fire with your disdain for that "disrespectful" representation.
That kid is a perfect role for what the people here actually want. A normal average person of whatever background who could be any American. And cast an asian person to play it. I agree!
The Mandarin is not that role, and the evasive whitewash of the character is totally understandable, and yes, yes very much people will complain either way.
The Mandarin in IM3 was amazing because not only did they avoid the stereotype, the movie actively confronted the issue with the comic's original portrayal in a interesting manner as part of the larger point it was making.
That kid is a perfect role for what the people here actually want. A normal average person of whatever background who could be any American. And cast an asian person to play it. I agree!
The Mandarin is not that role, and the evasive whitewash of the character is totally understandable, and yes, yes very much people will complain either way.
So why exactly couldn't you depict the Mandarin as a Asian person reading the exact same lines with the exact same story?
Is there some rule that Asian people can't play failed actors?
Is there some rule saying that Asian people can't play opium addicts?
If your argument is, "They had to change his background," then I agree.
If your argument is, "They had to make him not Asian," then you still haven't explained that part.
Heck, they could even have Ben Kingsley still do a dub for the "you'll never see me coming" speech, and then explain that he used software to make his voice sound scarier.
That kid is a perfect role for what the people here actually want. A normal average person of whatever background who could be any American. And cast an asian person to play it. I agree!
The Mandarin is not that role, and the evasive whitewash of the character is totally understandable, and yes, yes very much people will complain either way.
So why exactly couldn't you depict the Mandarin as a Asian person reading the exact same lines with the exact same story?
Is there some rule that Asian people can't play failed actors?
Is there some rule saying that Asian people can't play opium addicts?
If your argument is, "They had to change his background," then I agree.
If your argument is, "They had to make him not Asian," then you still haven't explained that part.
Heck, they could even have Ben Kingsley still do a dub for the "you'll never see me coming" speech, and then explain that he used software to make his voice sound scarier.
cause it's ben kingsley; he plays all races
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.
The Mandarin in IM3 was amazing because not only did they avoid the stereotype, the movie actively confronted the issue with the comic's original portrayal in a interesting manner as part of the larger point it was making.
Little known fact: Apparently Hollywood tried to create a sitcom adaptation of "Gung Ho" in the 1980s.
There's pretty much no information about this show anywhere, so I don't know what to make of it. But kudos to Hollywood for taking a risk back then.
It's interesting that this is probably the only TV show adaptation in history where most of the movie talent were also available to do the show. And by "most," I mean "all the Asian actors, plus Clint Howard."
The Mandarin in IM3 was amazing because not only did they avoid the stereotype, the movie actively confronted the issue with the comic's original portrayal in a interesting manner as part of the larger point it was making.
Kingsley was born Krishna Bhanji in Snainton, North Riding of Yorkshire. He is the son of Anna Lyna Mary (born Goodman; 1914–2010), an actress and model who appeared in films in the 1920s and 1930s, and Rahimtulla Harji Bhanji (1914–1968), a medical doctor.[6][7]
Hahahaha oh man.
The last couple pages take on all kinds of extra shades of stupid now.
tinwhiskers on
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Hey, does anyone remember that time when Pixar decided to portray the boy scout in the movie "Up" as an Asian kid, and the Asian community protested that movie for months and months about how it was a completely racist depiction of Asians?
That kid is a perfect role for what the people here actually want. A normal average person of whatever background who could be any American. And cast an asian person to play it. I agree!
The Mandarin is not that role, and the evasive whitewash of the character is totally understandable, and yes, yes very much people will complain either way.
So why exactly couldn't you depict the Mandarin as a Asian person reading the exact same lines with the exact same story?
Is there some rule that Asian people can't play failed actors?
Is there some rule saying that Asian people can't play opium addicts?
If your argument is, "They had to change his background," then I agree.
If your argument is, "They had to make him not Asian," then you still haven't explained that part.
Heck, they could even have Ben Kingsley still do a dub for the "you'll never see me coming" speech, and then explain that he used software to make his voice sound scarier.
Yeah, Asians... Arabs... almost indistinguishable.
Let's just throw random Asians into films for no discernable reason.
"And here's the new leader of the Black Panthers, Tommy Lee."
Trevor Slattery grew up in England with his mother; his dream was always to be a world renowned stage actor and his mother often took him to the theatre to help fuel his passion for the stage. Although Slattery and his mother were very close, with Slattery noting that she was everything to him, he failed to be with her when she passed away in 1986 as Slattery was still continuing to pursue his dream as an actor in America.
As Slattery continued to pursue his dream, he grew up to be a small-time actor whose biggest claim to fame was the lead role in an unsold 1985 CBS pilot called "Caged Heat" in which he portrayed an aggressive Russian police officer. The pilot was never picked up as it was of poor quality and featured an alcoholic monkey. Slattery, however, insisted that it was too sophisticated for the networks. To push the idea of his successful career, Slattery later insisted that he had worked with and been flirted with by actor Sean Connery, although this was likely a lie.[1]
Down on his luck and with a serious drug addiction, Slattery was approached by the wealthy scientist Aldrich Killian, the founder of the Advanced Idea Mechanics ,with a job offer. Killian needed to masquerade his failed experiments with the Extremis virus as terrorist attacks. So he needed someone, a feared terrorist who would publicly take responsibility for those attacks. Killian gave Slattery plastic surgery so no one could recognize him, and from that day on, Slattery posed as the Mandarin, a terrorist leader affiliated with the Ten Rings organization.
You change "Slattery" to a different last name and "Russian" to "LA," and then you could cast that exact same character with any actor you want.
That kid is a perfect role for what the people here actually want. A normal average person of whatever background who could be any American. And cast an asian person to play it. I agree!
The Mandarin is not that role, and the evasive whitewash of the character is totally understandable, and yes, yes very much people will complain either way.
So why exactly couldn't you depict the Mandarin as a Asian person reading the exact same lines with the exact same story?
Is there some rule that Asian people can't play failed actors?
Is there some rule saying that Asian people can't play opium addicts?
If your argument is, "They had to change his background," then I agree.
If your argument is, "They had to make him not Asian," then you still haven't explained that part.
Heck, they could even have Ben Kingsley still do a dub for the "you'll never see me coming" speech, and then explain that he used software to make his voice sound scarier.
Yeah, Asians... Arabs... almost indistinguishable.
Let's just throw random Asians into films for no discernable reason.
"And here's the new leader of the Black Panthers, Tommy Lee."
Again, your assumption here is that whiteness is always the default that requires no explanation, but "Asian" requires special justification.
this has gotten confusing, because if the role could be played by anybody, and yet they chose a multiracial person, that's ... admirable?
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.
Jay;
Because casting all white people has proven to not affect box office sales. Casting minorities has proven to not increase sales.
A bad movie is going to flop regardless of who they cast in it, so why add additional risk of breaking the status quo for casting.
Because by excluding minorities from your cast, you discourage future minorities from pursuing this career track, which means you have a very limited talent pool to work with.
Smaller talent pool = shittier movies.
Maybe there's an Asian version of the Coen Brothers out there, with stories depicting their Asian American heritage. But we'll never know if we keep telling them that they don't belong in Hollywood.
That a shit load of career tracks in Hollywood involve working for free (at least most of the time) to break in, you're already discouraging minorities by virtue of discouraging people who aren't wealthy or have family capable of paying their way while they work for free. This is the situation for pretty much all media.
We all agree here that writing good roles for minority actors is a desired action simply in and of itself. However it seems to have been lost in the last few pages that posters here aren't arguing that it's not the right thing to do, but that there's no profit motive to do it to more of a degree than it is done now. And that even if you do it realistically you're risking accusations of racism.
Except a page or two back I posted a lot of evidence to suggest this is untrue. Nobody has gone out of their way to address that, instead people keep insisting it's too risky or nonprofitable when we have demonstrated that A) Hollywood takes risks all the damn time and minorities spend more at the box office annually and movies like "Twelve Years a Slave" do well even in foreign markets.
It has been addressed.
There is no evidence showing a positive result for minority casting, because for every X there is a Y disproving the thing that Z is disproving. What we DO have evidence of is that Hollywood is casting white people, and they wouldn't be casting white people if there were a reason involved. Rolling out a few decently successful shows and movies with minority casting is really the height of anecdotal.
Except films fail all the time, and yet they never point to the white cast as the issue! You can't keep holding up white casting as more profitable or less risky when it's been demonstrated that isn't the case. The idea that a minority cast has to be MORE profitable to be even ventured as an idea is so ridiculous it is insulting.
The reason we only have a few examples is the exact issue in question! Do you see the hypocrisy in what you're saying? It's only an anecdote when it's convenient to your argument, but not against it. We have already been over this, it's a self fulfilling prophecy.
Or it's basic business risk management. You don't make changes unless there is a gain to be made in doing so.
You are basically yelling at Hollywood to try making New Coke.
No, we're yelling at Hollywood for being racist douches.
Change doesn't have to be forced by customers. It can come from within. We can organise on Facebook pages or make petitions, but like everyone loves to point out, Hollywood will still make money. I admit, maybe I am part of the problem. I see MCU movies pretty much without hesitation. But the idea we have the power to change this alone is silly. I still vote with my wallet when given the option. Until I have more details on the GitS remake, I am likely to skip it altogether. Again, I don't think the message of my not seeing it will convey to them why I dislike the idea. They will blame it on the property or the fans or but not on Scarjo or the white cast.
You aren't voting with your wallet at all, sorry.
When you go to one white washed film, but not another, all you are saying is you aren't interested in that second film. Everyone has to stop going to every movie, or nothing is going to change.
I honestly don't think that's how it works. And I don't specifically need to be held responsible to your ideals on this subject. Really, until only a few years ago I didn't even realise this was happening. Now that I can see it, I think it's fucked up. Do I think there's an easy solution? No. No one wants this concept to continue, I would imagine, and also no one wants to stop consuming media at large as well. If you are really suggesting I just stop watching literally everything in protest, I don't think that will work. Now maybe if there was a social movement, and I pledged along with others to say "I will not see these films" and sign it, I could get behind that. This isn't gonna be solved by just my actions, but the actions of many people.
There is a super easy solution, that you just re-outlined.
Everyone tells the studios why they aren't going to go to the movies anymore. Then stops.
But no one (even the ones most affected) are willing (myself included) to stop consuming media content in order to make that change.
Going into McDonalds and telling them I don't condone how they raise their cows, then buying a burger anyway, tells them it doesn't actually matter and will change nothing.
I am not saying this to specifically single you out, just anyone in general who claims they are voting with their wallet, when they are in fact not. Is not actually helping the issue.
e:
If we could actually get a majority of people to take action, it would probably take less than a year for positive change to start happening. But you are right that this most likely isn't something you or I will ever make happen. Someone at least semi famous like Takei needs to take the lead and make it happen. I doubt any of them would make a serious attempt at change though, since it is too likely to bite them.
When has this ever worked?
This is not that simple to solve or we'd be half way there by now.
The Mandarin in IM3 was amazing because not only did they avoid the stereotype, the movie actively confronted the issue with the comic's original portrayal in a interesting manner as part of the larger point it was making.
Also that Ben Kingsley is actually Asian
Also, Ben Kingsley wasn't actually Mandarin - he was playing the Mandarin on tv. Guy Pearce was the Mandarin. Which was then retconned out later with a Marvel One Shot.
Counterfactual? Sorry no, there's ample evidence provided by the posters in this thread that they will indeed complain regardless.
So show me the single best example you can think of where this happened with what you view as arespectful portrayal of Asians.
Because right now, you sound like "Amy's Baking Company," complaining that the Yelpers will tear you apart no matter what so there's no sense in trying to change your business model. Without actually considering that maybe your service really does suck and some of those Yelpers actually have a valid point.
This is loaded. Because a (we weren't talking about Asians specifically, or at least I wasn't, but all minority representation) respectful representation is subjective (beyond explicitly throwing stereotypes out). As I posted earlier when Creed was brought up as a good representation of a minority character, if you took the kids I grew up with that were in the actual position that the character was in (future dependent on athletic endeavor, black, low income, father not in the picture, trouble with law as a juvenile) and put them in the place of Micheal B. Jordan with instructions to portray that character in a way that they actually are in real life, you would set this forum on fire with your disdain for that "disrespectful" representation.
It's all about the execution, since Creed was done well it worked, note lack of complaints with that movie. Hollywood hiring Michel B. Jordan for a role like didn't make him a bad stereotype. The actor being hired isn't where bad stereotypes come from, it's how they're written. Something the MCU has done plenty of before, except apparently when it comes to the Ancient One - then suddenly casting an Asian actor in the role makes it a bad stereotype before the first word is written.
That kid is a perfect role for what the people here actually want. A normal average person of whatever background who could be any American. And cast an asian person to play it. I agree!
The Mandarin is not that role, and the evasive whitewash of the character is totally understandable, and yes, yes very much people will complain either way.
So why exactly couldn't you depict the Mandarin as a Asian person reading the exact same lines with the exact same story?
Is there some rule that Asian people can't play failed actors?
Is there some rule saying that Asian people can't play opium addicts?
If your argument is, "They had to change his background," then I agree.
If your argument is, "They had to make him not Asian," then you still haven't explained that part.
Heck, they could even have Ben Kingsley still do a dub for the "you'll never see me coming" speech, and then explain that he used software to make his voice sound scarier.
Yeah, Asians... Arabs... almost indistinguishable.
Let's just throw random Asians into films for no discernable reason.
"And here's the new leader of the Black Panthers, Tommy Lee."
Except nobody has suggested that. There's absolutely no rule that the character has to be Tibetan (because he sure as hell isn't in the comics) or that where s/he trains Dr. Strange has to be in the Himalayas/pseudo Tibet. Which I've gone over in excruciating detail in prior posts.
this has gotten confusing, because if the role could be played by anybody, and yet they chose a multiracial person, that's ... admirable?
Sure.
But you have some people in this thread saying, "This role as written could have been played by anyone based on how it was written, but given how there are so few roles given to East Asian people, and given how this character derives his code name from East Asian culture, it should would have been nice if the casting agents considered casting someone of East Asian descent."
And you have other people in this thread saying, "This role as written absolutely could not have been played by an Asian actor, even though the actor who played it was technically half-Asian."
Schrodinger on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
this has gotten confusing, because if the role could be played by anybody, and yet they chose a multiracial person, that's ... admirable?
Yes.
But you have some people in this thread saying, "This role as written could have been played by anyone based on how it was written, but given how there are so few roles given to East Asian people, and given how this character derives his code name from East Asian culture, it should would have been nice if the casting agents considered casting someone of East Asian descent."
And you have other people in this thread saying, "This role as written absolutely could not have been played by an Asian actor, even though the actor who played it was technically half-Asian."
Having an Asian man leading a group of Afghan terrorists makes absolutely no sense, especially the angle that they're playing in IM3. In the MCU, the Ten Rings are based nearly entirely in Afghanistan and they're setting up the veil for a rope-a-dope by playing on the (fairly correct) supposition that the leader of a middle-eastern based terrorist group is probably going to be a local yokel, not an import.
Kingsley is fairly famous for being able to morph his face and become somewhat unrecognizable, and for being a cornball. It was perfect. And he's only technically an asian in the same way Vladmir Putin is technically an asian.
Counterfactual? Sorry no, there's ample evidence provided by the posters in this thread that they will indeed complain regardless.
So show me the single best example you can think of where this happened with what you view as arespectful portrayal of Asians.
Because right now, you sound like "Amy's Baking Company," complaining that the Yelpers will tear you apart no matter what so there's no sense in trying to change your business model. Without actually considering that maybe your service really does suck and some of those Yelpers actually have a valid point.
This is loaded. Because a (we weren't talking about Asians specifically, or at least I wasn't, but all minority representation) respectful representation is subjective (beyond explicitly throwing stereotypes out). As I posted earlier when Creed was brought up as a good representation of a minority character, if you took the kids I grew up with that were in the actual position that the character was in (future dependent on athletic endeavor, black, low income, father not in the picture, trouble with law as a juvenile) and put them in the place of Micheal B. Jordan with instructions to portray that character in a way that they actually are in real life, you would set this forum on fire with your disdain for that "disrespectful" representation.
It's all about the execution, since Creed was done well it worked, note lack of complaints with that movie. Hollywood hiring Michel B. Jordan for a role like didn't make him a bad stereotype. The actor being hired isn't where bad stereotypes come from, it's how they're written. Something the MCU has done plenty of before, except apparently when it comes to the Ancient One - then suddenly casting an Asian actor in the role makes it a bad stereotype before the first word is written.
That's not my point.
My point was that a real portrayal of how a real person is could itself be construed as offensive and racist, as the links that were posted earlier in the thread attested to. Because the way Michael B. Jordan portrayed Creed is not representative of real people I know who met all of the actual characteristics of that character. I don't know if you misunderstood what I wrote or you just didn't read it.
this has gotten confusing, because if the role could be played by anybody, and yet they chose a multiracial person, that's ... admirable?
Yes.
But you have some people in this thread saying, "This role as written could have been played by anyone based on how it was written, but given how there are so few roles given to East Asian people, and given how this character derives his code name from East Asian culture, it should would have been nice if the casting agents considered casting someone of East Asian descent."
And you have other people in this thread saying, "This role as written absolutely could not have been played by an Asian actor, even though the actor who played it was technically half-Asian."
Having an Asian man leading a group of Afghan terrorists makes absolutely no sense, especially the angle that they're playing in IM3. In the MCU, the Ten Rings are based nearly entirely in Afghanistan and they're setting up the veil for a rope-a-dope by playing on the (fairly correct) supposition that the leader of a middle-eastern based terrorist group is probably going to be a local yokel, not an import.
Kingsley is fairly famous for being able to morph his face and become somewhat unrecognizable, and for being a cornball. It was perfect. And he's only technically an asian in the same way Vladmir Putin is technically an asian.
I think it's important to recognize that Ben Kingsley (whose father, while born in Africa, was of Indian ethnicity) is objectively of Asian (Indian) descent.
However the argument that he wasn't the "right kind of Asian" (East Asian) to play this character brings up another interesting intersection of the Chinese movie market and political considerations for the PRC: They probably wouldn't like the idea of someone Mandarin playing a terrorist in Afghanistan considering their security concerns with the Uighurs in Xinjiang province and their interaction with Afghan based militant groups.
this has gotten confusing, because if the role could be played by anybody, and yet they chose a multiracial person, that's ... admirable?
Sure.
But you have some people in this thread saying, "This role as written could have been played by anyone based on how it was written, but given how there are so few roles given to East Asian people, and given how this character derives his code name from East Asian culture, it should would have been nice if the casting agents considered casting someone of East Asian descent."
Ohhh no no no. Stop the bullshit train right there.
You had a bunch of people saying "they should have cast an Asian, rather than a white person".
Now after finding out they did cast a (half) Asian actor, the goal post is shifted to an East Asian.
Diversity might just be the name of the opium dragon.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
this has gotten confusing, because if the role could be played by anybody, and yet they chose a multiracial person, that's ... admirable?
Yes.
But you have some people in this thread saying, "This role as written could have been played by anyone based on how it was written, but given how there are so few roles given to East Asian people, and given how this character derives his code name from East Asian culture, it should would have been nice if the casting agents considered casting someone of East Asian descent."
And you have other people in this thread saying, "This role as written absolutely could not have been played by an Asian actor, even though the actor who played it was technically half-Asian."
Having an Asian man leading a group of Afghan terrorists makes absolutely no sense, especially the angle that they're playing in IM3. In the MCU, the Ten Rings are based nearly entirely in Afghanistan and they're setting up the veil for a rope-a-dope by playing on the (fairly correct) supposition that the leader of a middle-eastern based terrorist group is probably going to be a local yokel, not an import.
Kingsley is fairly famous for being able to morph his face and become somewhat unrecognizable, and for being a cornball. It was perfect. And he's only technically an asian in the same way Vladmir Putin is technically an asian.
I think it's important to recognize that Ben Kingsley (whose father, while born in Africa, was of Indian ethnicity) is objectively of Asian (Indian) descent.
However the argument that he wasn't the "right kind of Asian" (East Asian) to play this character brings up another interesting intersection of the Chinese movie market and political considerations for the PRC: They probably wouldn't like the idea of someone Mandarin playing a terrorist in Afghanistan considering their security concerns with the Uighurs in Xinjiang province and their interaction with Afghan based militant groups.
Yes, he is from the continent of Asia, but the argument here is he isn't Chinese*, so it doesn't count.
But the terrorist cells in the middle-east are fairly localized and homogenized, but they love to bring in Americans due to the ideological nut kick it gives.
*extrapolation based on the whole "mandarin" point
Having an Asian man leading a group of Afghan terrorists makes absolutely no sense, especially the angle that they're playing in IM3. In the MCU, the Ten Rings are based nearly entirely in Afghanistan and they're setting up the veil for a rope-a-dope by playing on the (fairly correct) supposition that the leader of a middle-eastern based terrorist group is probably going to be a local yokel, not an import.
You seem to be forgetting the part where Slattery was never actually in charge of the Ten Rings.
However the argument that he wasn't the "right kind of Asian" (East Asian) to play this character brings up another interesting intersection of the Chinese movie market and political considerations for the PRC: They probably wouldn't like the idea of someone Mandarin playing a terrorist in Afghanistan considering their security concerns with the Uighurs in Xinjiang province and their interaction with Afghan based militant groups.
That's like being worried that Americans will protest Iron Man 1 because the main villain is from America.
Posts
There is a super easy solution, that you just re-outlined.
Everyone tells the studios why they aren't going to go to the movies anymore. Then stops.
But no one (even the ones most affected) are willing (myself included) to stop consuming media content in order to make that change.
Going into McDonalds and telling them I don't condone how they raise their cows, then buying a burger anyway, tells them it doesn't actually matter and will change nothing.
I am not saying this to specifically single you out, just anyone in general who claims they are voting with their wallet, when they are in fact not. Is not actually helping the issue.
e:
If we could actually get a majority of people to take action, it would probably take less than a year for positive change to start happening. But you are right that this most likely isn't something you or I will ever make happen. Someone at least semi famous like Takei needs to take the lead and make it happen. I doubt any of them would make a serious attempt at change though, since it is too likely to bite them.
Don't put words in my mouth. Nowhere did I write that it's okay to not allow more minority actors to get into more roles because other situations are racist, and it seems like the first thing posters in this thread have jumped to is to lump the poster they're responding to into some category of shitlord defending racism.
No, you will complain on the internet if they don't do anything. People will complain in the media if a representation (even a realistic representation because there is a limit for most people how realistically they like people being portrayed) they find a problem with happens.
Can Djimon Hounsou be the other half?
That guy is fucking rad.
"Who?"
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Man, it's almost as if neither group has a consistent stance on whether or not to stick with the source material.
The difference is, you have one group that can avoid that argument in the first place by simply pointing out, "Asian actors have been denied opportunities even in storylines that deal primarily with Asian culture and Asian themes, which reinforces an idea of Yellow Face and Mightey Whitey where Asian Actors are considered unfit to portray their own heritage."
Where as the people defending Hollywood try to hide behind an argument regarding source material that they swiftly abandon the second the source material tells them to cast someone who isn't white.
Too easy.
Just stop casting asians in roles.
Problem solved, no more yellowface!
Which is how we got here in the first place. Why does nobody remember the horrible "diversity" thing that the 1990's thrust upon us?
I don't think you actually understand what the word "yellowface" entails.
I've never seen the Green Hornet and Kato in their 1960's show, nor have I seen Mr. Yunioshi.
And what exactly are you basing this on?
What's the best example you can think of where this happened, where Asian people were treated respectfully but the producer still faced heavy complaint?
Mind you, "respectfully" does not mean "model minority." i.e., "Better Luck Tomorrow" portrays Asian kids as drug dealers, but it wasn't being disrespectful, and I can't recall the Asian community being upset by it.
Or it's basic business risk management. You don't make changes unless there is a gain to be made in doing so.
You are basically yelling at Hollywood to try making New Coke.
As far as Marvel films go, this would be a non-issue if Marvel hadn't sold off their X-characters, because as has been noted repeatedly these characters came later and are not only more diverse, but have characters who consist of more than stereotypes. Lady Deathstrike was played by an asian lady in X-2 and no one blinked, commented, or really took note because Lady Deathstrike is just girl Wolverine who is a bad guy and happens to be an asian woman (although they wisely discarded all the mojo-verse nonsense in her backstory and had her just be a mutant).
The Avengers-related properties are older and there isn't a great deal of ethnic diversity in the characters. The ethnic characters are the very definition of problematic, and casting them as white people (as was done with Mandarin, and now, the Ancient One) dodges this.
If they didn't dodge it they would just be receiving different criticism from the exact same people complaining now, with a side benefit of whoops your movie might get banned in China costing you hundreds of millions of dollars.
Yeah they aren't being bold, progressive, or taking the risk.
And really, while we're on the subject of the MCU, given the ethnic make up of the U.S. Marvel doesn't even have an asian problem. They have a latino problem. As in: Where are they? It's an even larger demographic than black people.
Neither blacks nor latinos suffer from the near-invisibility issue that asian-americans do in general film, so that is a specific complaint that I do get. It is a much smaller demographic though, which does play into this, probably a lot.
One that reflects demographics? One that equally represents all demographics - i.e. an equal split between all demographic groups? One that allocates resources reflective of demographics?
I expect that this isn't a simple question to answer in a way that doesn't produce odd economic effects and/or unpleasant conclusions for those advocating change.
Except there's no reason you couldn't have an Asian American Actor couldn't have done the same thing.
Why does "we decided to do something different with the character's background" automatically mean "This character isn't allowed to be Asian anymore"?
Edwin Jarvis is Tony Stark's British Butler. In the movie, they decide to make him an AI. Also, the precursor for "The Vision." That's a huge change in character. It's no longer even a person!
But somehow, despite all these changes, they still decided to hire a British actor to play him.
Again, we keep hearing this counterfactual with nothing to back it up.
That's a separate issue. The lack of Hispanic characters is, in large part, because Marvel isn't drawing much from Hispanic culture to begin with.
Where as Americans might appreciate Asian culture, but not Asian actors.
Counterfactual? Sorry no, there's ample evidence provided by the posters in this thread that they will indeed complain regardless.
So show me the single best example you can think of where this happened with what you view as a respectful portrayal of Asians.
Because right now, you sound like "Amy's Baking Company," complaining that the Yelpers will tear you apart no matter what so there's no sense in trying to change your business model. Without actually considering that maybe your service really does suck and some of those Yelpers actually have a valid point.
The links that have already been posted in this thread.
Oh, right, that didn't happen.
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.
This is loaded. Because a (we weren't talking about Asians specifically, or at least I wasn't, but all minority representation) respectful representation is subjective (beyond explicitly throwing stereotypes out). As I posted earlier when Creed was brought up as a good representation of a minority character, if you took the kids I grew up with that were in the actual position that the character was in (future dependent on athletic endeavor, black, low income, father not in the picture, trouble with law as a juvenile) and put them in the place of Micheal B. Jordan with instructions to portray that character in a way that they actually are in real life, you would set this forum on fire with your disdain for that "disrespectful" representation.
The Mandarin is not that role, and the evasive whitewash of the character is totally understandable, and yes, yes very much people will complain either way.
So why exactly couldn't you depict the Mandarin as a Asian person reading the exact same lines with the exact same story?
Is there some rule that Asian people can't play failed actors?
Is there some rule saying that Asian people can't play opium addicts?
If your argument is, "They had to change his background," then I agree.
If your argument is, "They had to make him not Asian," then you still haven't explained that part.
Heck, they could even have Ben Kingsley still do a dub for the "you'll never see me coming" speech, and then explain that he used software to make his voice sound scarier.
cause it's ben kingsley; he plays all races
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.
Also that Ben Kingsley is actually Asian
Little known fact: Apparently Hollywood tried to create a sitcom adaptation of "Gung Ho" in the 1980s.
There's pretty much no information about this show anywhere, so I don't know what to make of it. But kudos to Hollywood for taking a risk back then.
It's interesting that this is probably the only TV show adaptation in history where most of the movie talent were also available to do the show. And by "most," I mean "all the Asian actors, plus Clint Howard."
Hahahaha oh man.
The last couple pages take on all kinds of extra shades of stupid now.
No, but again, someone sure didn't like it.
Yeah, Asians... Arabs... almost indistinguishable.
Let's just throw random Asians into films for no discernable reason.
"And here's the new leader of the Black Panthers, Tommy Lee."
You change "Slattery" to a different last name and "Russian" to "LA," and then you could cast that exact same character with any actor you want.
Again, your assumption here is that whiteness is always the default that requires no explanation, but "Asian" requires special justification.
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.
No, we're yelling at Hollywood for being racist douches.
When has this ever worked?
This is not that simple to solve or we'd be half way there by now.
Also, Ben Kingsley wasn't actually Mandarin - he was playing the Mandarin on tv. Guy Pearce was the Mandarin. Which was then retconned out later with a Marvel One Shot.
It's all about the execution, since Creed was done well it worked, note lack of complaints with that movie. Hollywood hiring Michel B. Jordan for a role like didn't make him a bad stereotype. The actor being hired isn't where bad stereotypes come from, it's how they're written. Something the MCU has done plenty of before, except apparently when it comes to the Ancient One - then suddenly casting an Asian actor in the role makes it a bad stereotype before the first word is written.
Except nobody has suggested that. There's absolutely no rule that the character has to be Tibetan (because he sure as hell isn't in the comics) or that where s/he trains Dr. Strange has to be in the Himalayas/pseudo Tibet. Which I've gone over in excruciating detail in prior posts.
Sure.
But you have some people in this thread saying, "This role as written could have been played by anyone based on how it was written, but given how there are so few roles given to East Asian people, and given how this character derives his code name from East Asian culture, it should would have been nice if the casting agents considered casting someone of East Asian descent."
And you have other people in this thread saying, "This role as written absolutely could not have been played by an Asian actor, even though the actor who played it was technically half-Asian."
Having an Asian man leading a group of Afghan terrorists makes absolutely no sense, especially the angle that they're playing in IM3. In the MCU, the Ten Rings are based nearly entirely in Afghanistan and they're setting up the veil for a rope-a-dope by playing on the (fairly correct) supposition that the leader of a middle-eastern based terrorist group is probably going to be a local yokel, not an import.
Kingsley is fairly famous for being able to morph his face and become somewhat unrecognizable, and for being a cornball. It was perfect. And he's only technically an asian in the same way Vladmir Putin is technically an asian.
My point was that a real portrayal of how a real person is could itself be construed as offensive and racist, as the links that were posted earlier in the thread attested to. Because the way Michael B. Jordan portrayed Creed is not representative of real people I know who met all of the actual characteristics of that character. I don't know if you misunderstood what I wrote or you just didn't read it.
I think it's important to recognize that Ben Kingsley (whose father, while born in Africa, was of Indian ethnicity) is objectively of Asian (Indian) descent.
However the argument that he wasn't the "right kind of Asian" (East Asian) to play this character brings up another interesting intersection of the Chinese movie market and political considerations for the PRC: They probably wouldn't like the idea of someone Mandarin playing a terrorist in Afghanistan considering their security concerns with the Uighurs in Xinjiang province and their interaction with Afghan based militant groups.
Ohhh no no no. Stop the bullshit train right there.
You had a bunch of people saying "they should have cast an Asian, rather than a white person".
Now after finding out they did cast a (half) Asian actor, the goal post is shifted to an East Asian.
Diversity might just be the name of the opium dragon.
Yes, he is from the continent of Asia, but the argument here is he isn't Chinese*, so it doesn't count.
But the terrorist cells in the middle-east are fairly localized and homogenized, but they love to bring in Americans due to the ideological nut kick it gives.
*extrapolation based on the whole "mandarin" point
You seem to be forgetting the part where Slattery was never actually in charge of the Ten Rings.
That's like being worried that Americans will protest Iron Man 1 because the main villain is from America.