Sinbad is a middle eastern hero. Do we still live in the fifties where white actors play all ethnies? If the producers of this crap were going to hire a white actor, they could have at least renamed the movie "The 7 adventures of Bob" or something like this.
shareTotally agree with the OP - Sinbad is an Arab youth going on adventures somewhere in ancient times, NOT some jacked-up aging pretty-boy American shooting everything in sight in modern times - I mean wtf?!
I'm pretty sure that Syfy will have Patrick Muldoon be the main lead in their next magnum opus, 'Martin Luther King and The Raiders of The Lost Dream!'
Sinbad was a Persian, not an Arab. Persian's are very picky about this. Don't ever call a Persian an Arab. It's an insult. As far as Persian's are concerned, they are white.
§ Gordy
"No, I'm an accountant. I wear this *beeping* thing as a fashion statement, alright?"
WE ARENT ARABS. Has nothing to do with being white. 80% of Persians have olive skin, like Italians and Greeks. We have black Persians too, and I mean BLACK full on black, in Bandar Abbas. So skin tone various.
But just dont relate us to Arabs.
Well, excuse me. I was just repeating what a Iranian told me and he was quite adamant about it...a bit put out about it because someone had called him an Arab. So that was his reply on the subject. I personally have no opinion on the matter one way or the other.
§ Gordy
"I may be bad...but I feel gooood."
If we are olive skin today doesn't mean we were olive skin in ancient times. You can search greek and roman resources to see how they describe ancient iranian people. some of them like Ammianus Marcellinus describe one of iranian Tribe (Alans) as blond people:"Almost all of the Alans are tall and good looking; their hair is generally blond, and their eyes are frighteningly fierce" (Ammianus Marcellinus, XXX.2.21)
share
Gotta be a troll...No one in their right mind moans over crap like this anymore, Its a modern take of a classic, so in theory they could have had a woman as Sinbad if they wanted....People like you make me sick, cant just watch a film (no matter how bad it is) without moaning & finding fault & hidden racist messages, You're probably the same person who maoned about "300" being anti Muslim & "Equilibrium" being anti Christian...Bet your a bundle of fun to go to the cinema with!
"Put your clothes back on Carol I can't concentrate" The Great Father Dougal McGuire
Before telling me what I think about 300 and Equilibrium, I would like you to explain me why your modern take only applies in certain situations. Why were all the neo-nazis white in American History X. Why were all the slaves black in the movie Amistad? Why didn't Denzel Washington play Ed Norton's part for example? What about casting two white actors for a movie about inter-racial relationship?
Sinbad and the prince of persia were white because it's easier for the american audience to identify themselves with white heroes. Who's the racist? If only there were examples of colored people landing white people's hero role without anyone making a big deal out of it, I would believe in your post-racial argument. Spiderman? white. Batman? white. Superman? white. Shall I continue?
Funny you say that really ,the movie white chicks had black men dressing as white women and pretending to be such ,one proposed sequel to this was called black chicks and concerned two white cops dressing and behaving as black women ,the idea got canned as racist .Go figure ,as for Sinbad being white in this ,there is one point that would vilify it,and that is over the years since his ancestor his family married into other races as happens,so while he is of the same blood line and persian he can still appear white .
As for the beforehand comments about Equilibrium being anti christian ,i don't have any problem with that at all ,but my personal feelings about christianity and it's varying factions would offend those who are of that faith and no before you assume i am not muslim .
No need. You are transparent.
share"No one in their right mind moans over crap like this anymore..."
Actually if you scan the Tyler Perry and Spike Lee boards you'll read plenty of people moaning over 'crap like this' - funnily it's always white people whining the most ...
"Its a modern take of a classic, so in theory they could have had a woman as Sinbad if they wanted..."
Great idea, genius ... let's put a woman as Spiderman next! Or better yet cast a a woman as the President of the USA - but not a fictional one, let's have her play Abraham Lincoln - we'll paste a beard on her for 'historical accuracy'!
No, seriously modern takes on classic characters HAVE been done before - but they always have titles like 'The NEW adventures of The Pink Panther' or 'Dracula 1972 AD' to warn audiences that it's not the classic versions they're watching!
P.S. Putting a woman is no big deal - as long as the title reflects that - that's why you have movies like 'Daughter of Dracula' or 'Supergirl'.
THIS piece of filmic excrement is titled 'The 7 Adventures of Sinbad (2010)' - so naturally I assume that I'm going to watch a sword and sorcery tale set in ancient times (especially since the channel that produced this dreck, SyFy produces quite a few of them - for example 'Cyclops'!). Instead I get something that does NOT RESEMBLE THE SOURCE MATERIAL AT ALL in any way shape or form. This is like ordering a salad at restaurant and getting a steak instead (which will tick me off big time as I avoid red meat for health reasons!) or more accurately, renting 'Dracula' but getting a slapstick comedy instead. IT'S MISLEADING THE AUDIENCE.
They didn't even give it an accurate sounding title like 'The Adventures of Sinbad's annoying aging pretty-boy Yankee descendant who battles bad CGI on a vague quest to fill a two hour timeslot' or something! They could have easily called it 'Oklahoma Jake and The Mysterious Island of Worn Out Cliches' but nobody would have watched that now, right?
"....You're probably the same person who maoned about "300" being anti Muslim & "Equilibrium" being anti Christian"
Um, the writer of '300' (Frank Miller) himself has admitted to it being a piece of racist western propaganda - so you're crap out of luck there boy! Funnily enough, the same people who grumble about movies like 300 being criticized will themselves post critical stuff on the imdb boards of people like Mel Gibson and Spike Lee! And please learn to spell 'moaned' properly!
'...Bet your a bundle of fun to go to the cinema with!'
This movie debuted on cable ... so you're wrong again bro! Sheesh!
"THIS piece of filmic excrement is titled 'The 7 Adventures of Sinbad (2010)' - so naturally I assume that I'm going to watch a sword and sorcery tale set in ancient times "
The (2010) is not a part of the title. It is written on iMDB next to the title to inform you of the release year. And if you consider it a part of the title, it's funny you expect swords and sorcery in this day and age.
""Its a modern take of a classic, so in theory they could have had a woman as Sinbad if they wanted..."
Great idea, genius ..."
Well, Sinbad was the main characters last name of Adrian, so it could as well have been a woman. It's not the same as substituting spiderMAN with a woman. Hence, why they called it Supergirl, not Superman 2.
"P.S. Putting a woman is no big deal - as long as the title reflects that"
So it's not okay to be racist (which this movie isn't), but it's okay to be sexist? You can't make a movie with a female protagonist without the title saying so? Pretty doublestandard and politically incorrect there, buddy...
"They didn't even give it an accurate sounding title like [...]"
While I didn't like the movie and hoped for some interesting viewing, I wouldn't call the title inaccurate.
"And please learn to spell 'moaned' properly! "
You must be bored a lot. It's an obvious typo. Even if he just misspelled it, is it realy worth whining about?
"This movie debuted on cable ... so you're wrong again bro! Sheesh!"
The statement is saying it wouldn't be fun to go to the cinema with him in general, not just this movie, which is why your comment is invalid, as movies in the cinema are not perfect, and the previous poster believes OP would nitpick about any movie being seen.
"The (2010) is not a part of the title. It is written on iMDB next to the title to inform you of the release year. And if you consider it a part of the title, it's funny you expect swords and sorcery in this day and age."
The 2010 was written to differentiate this move from the other versions of Sinbad including a recent animated version. Do you NOT have enough common sense to realize that? As far as expecting ;swords and sorcery' in 'this' day and age - get with the program bud, the majority of the SyFy channel's (the channel that produces drek like this movie) consist of some mythical beast set loose on the modern world, OK? In short, NO, it's not funny to assume things which are quite common indeed....
"Great idea, genius ..."
At least you acknowledge my intellectual superiority over you ...
"So it's not okay to be racist (which this movie isn't), but it's okay to be sexist? You can't make a movie with a female protagonist without the title saying so? Pretty doublestandard and politically incorrect there, buddy.."
Exactly WHAT part of my post was sexist? I just want the titles of movies to accurately reflect their content, that's all - you seem to think that it's perfectly OK for crappy cable channels to cheat their customers, pal! You also make a LOT of assumptions bud - perhaps you didn't quite comprehend what I was getting at. And please don't talk about political correctness when YOU don't think this movie is racist ...
"While I didn't like the movie and hoped for some interesting viewing, I wouldn't call the title inaccurate."
I wouldn't exactly call you reasonably intelligent or even well-read enough to get upset at the bastardization of the title character's misappropriation into this steaming pile of fecal matter undemanding sorts like you call a movie ...
"You must be bored a lot. It's an obvious typo. Even if he just misspelled it, is it realy worth whining about?"
You must be on of those self-centered twats who gets upset when people start to nod off at your 'interesting stories' else you wouldn't call me bored. Look, if you are going to present a reasonable argument, would it seem too much effort to at least check the spelling of your post in order to appear intelligent to those reading it? Yes, I am the Grammar police - lucky for you, I'm not the debate police, or else you'd be behind bars by now!
"The statement is saying it wouldn't be fun to go to the cinema with him in general, not just this movie, which is why your comment is invalid, as movies in the cinema are not perfect, and the previous poster believes OP would nitpick about any movie being seen."
I'm picking apart the previous poster's argument by pointing out his inaccuracies - the fact that the OP's criticism of this movie is valid while the poster I was responding to was full of incorrect statements and opinions masquerading as facts just made my job easier. The fact that you think he is correct while claiming that he is a 'nitpicker' by not accepting any garbage dished out in front of him negates your viewpoint and seriously calls into question your IQ and your sanity. Seriously, the majority of people posting here think the movie sucks. I'm pretty sure that the stars of the movie think it sucks as well. Do you seriously think that Patrick Muldoon would have accepted the lead role if he didn't have bills to pay? For someone who thinks the OP is a 'nitpicker' you sure did plenty of 'nitpicking' yourself when you critiqued my post...
Yeahh.. you seem too full of yourself for me to even attempt a semi-polite debate, considering you can't stay calm when opposed to conflicting views.
But I will say this: How can someone's opinion be incorrect? hahaha.
Let me know the day you don't get up on the wrong side of the bed, alright sunshine?
Cheers.
Maybe they could not get a actor of middle eastern appearance due to none of them being so desperate for work as this guy.
Lets face it this movie is just another craptacular film from asylum films. I think their policy is to deliberately avoid making a movie that could be as high quality as below average.
How dumb are you? Persians are white. There is a difference between Iranians/Arabs and Persians. Before you start with your racist agenda, read basic facts up first.
shareAnd Will Smith played James West. Halle Berry played Catwoman. Who CARES?? People are people. I couldn't care less if a african american played snow white or an albino plays Malcolm X. I am sick of whiny chip on the shoulder ACLU wannabees calling every movie rascist.
I think you are looking too far into this. Keep in mind that this is a movie produced by The Asylum. Anything they make has zero credibility. Also, I am sure the only reason that Richard Muldoon was cast in the role of Sinbad was because he was a somewhat known actor at one point. For a low-budget film it helps casting someone that people are familiar with or recognize. And besides, he was probably perfectly available as well. If this were a movie done on a multi-million dollar budget and was being produced by Warner Bros, than I could see what your point would be. But this is a movie made by The Asylum on a 500,000 dollar budget with Sinbad set in a modern time and using guns fighting with hilarious fake looking CGI monsters while yelling out horrible one-liners like "CRAAAAAAB". Yeah, anyone that takes anything The Asylum makes seriously should possibly have their head examined.
I'm just a guy that likes horror flicks.
I agree with maitre-miyamoto. I bet some whites would have fits if Hercules was played by Jackie Chan.
shareyour right, it is racist crap, this is the same kinda of *beep* that makes Americans think god is a white honky with an american accent. didnt they make a *beep* song about that? no wonder everyones athiest
shareWhat are you people talking about ? Lol, ...........he was called Adrian sinbad he's not meant to be from there, he ended up there after the crash, it's just a play on the name. FFS get over yourself
share