Kevin Spacey's character in "Pay it Forward" was black in the book. Stanley Tucci's character in "The Devil Wears Prada" also was black in the novel. Yet I hear no foot-stamping and pouting over this by anyone, not even fans of the books. Hmmmmm....
The revolution will now be televised. Sundays on Adult Swim.
I've posted this a couple of times and have yet to receive one answer. Not even a "F you". Nothing. Maybe because you don't have an answer, do you? Well, if you're gonna answer "F you" is already taken.
The revolution will now be televised. Sundays on Adult Swim.
There's a reason for this: the characters you've mentioned aren't broadly-established. Ralph Kramden... Ed Norton... The Kingpin (Daredevil)... these are all characters who have been around for decades, in a more popular - and, more importantly, visual - media, have become considerably more develped over that time, and have far more fans. It isn't even remotely an even comparison. It would be stronger if someone complained about Morgan Freeman playing "Red" in Shawshank Redemption, when the character is supposed to be a red-headed Irishman. If you aren't finding any complaints from fans of the books you mentioned, then you aren't looking hard enough. There are ALWAYS fans so wrapped up in the details that they can't help but bitch when the slightest change is made in an adaptation. As these aren't books which have a massive following, nor have they been around for decades, it will be harder to find fans who care that much. Of course it helps if the character is well-acted in the adaptation... as in the case of Kevin Spacey's performance.
Now, if a movie version of Sanford & Son came out, in which Fred Sanford is played by Don Rickles, or if Ben Stiller & Janeane Garofalo played The Jeffersons, then you might have a better argument.
Noticeably, MrBlondNYC was incapable of uttering a reply to your thoughtful post, despite his bold taunts that implied his brilliant arguments were rock solid and impenetrable. So much for the weak arguments of MrBlond.
shareThings change stop crying!
shareI totally forgot about this thread until I just read itshappyfunball's reply. Ccr1633, I never said or implied my "arguments" were "brilliant" or "impenetrable" nor did I "taunt" anyone. I really didn't make any argument at all. All I was seeking for was an answer...ANY answer so we could spark some kind of healthy debate. I had posted the same question before and in other boards in which white actors had played black characters from books and never got an answer. That's why I said something like "not even a F You or anything". Since I never got one it lead me to wonder is there really a problem with a black actor playing a previously white character or vice versa? Either I didn't see MarkoOhNo's response in my inbox or I probably did see it and planned to read it later and unfortunately didn't get around to it.
MarkoOhNo made excellent points which I agree with to an extent. But I do disagree a bit because I feel when a book is adapted to film, even though it doesn't have pictures, the fans have their mental picture of the character based on the description in the book. If the film's producers feel that a white actor is the best choice to play a character described as black in the book, they run the risk of disappointing the book's fans whom they certainly want to see the film. Therefore, I feel the castings of Kevin Spacey in Pay it Forward and Stanley Tucci in the Devil Wears Prada came down to their performances and not his race or ethnicity. When I searched message boards about Devil I didn't see one objection to the casting of Stanley Tucci by the book's fans. Maybe there's been a few since but not when I looked. Yet this board is flooded with complaints about the actor's race but not so much their performances. I haven't seen either The Honeymooners nor The Devil Wears Prada but I feel the actors should be judged on their performances alone. If Cedric the Entertainer and Mike Epps gave crap performances then they deserve all the bashing they get. NOT because they have dark skin. You may find this disappointing, ccr1633, but I don't go around looking for fights on imdb, but I do hope for good debate which very rarely get around here. Mainly, I was hoping for any response and I finally did get one after trying many times.
The revolution will now be televised. Sundays on Adult Swim.
I have to mention to you that Sanford and Son is a remake of a british comedy starring two white guys called Steptoe and Son. So there.
shareIt proves how sad Hollywood is, They think that having the very unfunny Cedric the Entertainer play Ralph and having a black Honeymooners is a great idea. I have a idea let remake Roots with a all white cast.
shareAll of you have points. But the utmost thing on the peoples minds that make these films is....MONEY. The prodution company for this film figured they can turn a buck by casting blacks to potray traditional white roles and they made it so. I personally don't know if it was a success or a flop. I really don't care. I for one do like the idea. I think it is degrading for Mr. Entertainer and Mr. Epps to have to play these roles but lets face it, it's all about a paycheck for them too. Wil Smith, a fine actor, was cast to play James West. Even though his performance was good, how could one watch that film without gritting there teeth. I'm aware that many historical black roles have been filled by whites especially during the era of westerns. Alas, you wouldn't dream of casting Penn & Teller to star in a remake of Amos n' Andy without making everyone black or white go W T F. Or no one would consider casting Tom Cruise as Shaft. It boils down to making green, and if race reversals will make a buck we will not see the end of it. Hollywood production companies as well as TV networks have always underestimated the intellegence of the average American.
shareI actually kinda liked Wild Wild West. Although... it's hard to sit through the middle of the movie. I'm usually fine with just catching the beginning and the end of that one.
share