The casting issue


The unnecessary sexism against male characters and forced 'color spectrum' into these movies is totally obvious and nauseating.

Since this is a "c-level" group of comic book characters we can let it slide in this one. If this is just the burgeoning tip of the iceberg, which it appears to be, then Marvel could be shooting itself in the foot with the bulk of it's fans. Sure, the younger crowd won't mind, since they never collected the original comic books and don't have a true awareness of the history of the characters. The hardcore fans, however, will begin to check out...if they haven't already.

My fear is they will reboot Ghost Rider as a transgendered black woman or cast an Asian female as Namor ...good grief!

reply

What are you talking about?

"The unnecessary sexism against male characters" Which ones? The hell you saying?

"forced 'color spectrum'"? Is that kuku's new word of the day to not sound as racist as he normally does?

"we can let it slide in this one." Or what? You'll boycott?

The butthurt in this thread is almost like a parody.

reply

^another clueless generation snowflake (#LBGTQxyz, #womanpower, #ethnicreboot)

Please note another part of my post:

Sure, the younger crowd won't mind, since they never collected the original comic books and don't have a true awareness of the history of the characters.


Tell me Harlem, how would you like it if Black Panther had been changed to a Persian dude or an Eskimo? F*** you for acting all indignant when charlatans like you are typically the most racist people around.

reply

Nice deflection there. “Original comic books”? “True awareness”? Pretty sure the comics are all still ongoing and are you aware that all these characters you’re butthurt about are all from the comics?

reply

Whatever snowflake.

reply

I too would like an answer about a white or persian Black Panther.

reply

Don't hold your breath ...snowflakes typically ignore requests for logical comparisons.

They won't touch the Black Panther played by (someone other than a black actor) topic.

They only want to see white characters bastardized.

reply

They're comic book characters, you fucking nerd.

reply

Kingswood is Kuku's other account, so of course they share terminology. Wait until he busts out a post about diversifarianism.

reply

Not true ...but since you can't prove a negative you'll hide behind #fakeaccusations instead of the stupidity and one-sided assault of the "diversifarianism" movement.

reply

It isn't an argument, it's make-believe, just like his/your belief that Marvel's films are flops, and Disney sends people out to buy tickets so they appear to make money.

reply

The first time i saw the cast. I though i was looking one of those stock photo for a workplace diversity program or something. I don't know enough about the Eternals to care. But this seems more like tokenism than anything else.

reply

BINGO!!!

Again, this is a C-level group, even below GotG in prestige....so this casting abomination can be forgiven.

However, if they decide to jack around with the FF in the next reboot, like they did in the last one with Human Torch, it will literally kill any remaining credibility Feige has.

reply

Oh yeah the black Human Torch ruined an otherwise great FF movie. And by the way, "Casting abomination"? I think your dog whistle is broken.

reply

Cheap stunts like that in an attempt to lure in a more ethnically diverse audience is obvious and insulting...to everyone.

Create some new characters if that's the ultimate goal...don't bastardize the existing ones just to appease the SJW thugs.



reply

Race-swapping is equal to bastardization? I'm surprised you didn't just say "mongrel".

reply

Race swapping has always been done in movies its not a big deal its more about the story than the race of the actor.

I bet the special snowflake Kingswood didnt mind the ancient one being played by a white chick in Dr Strange

reply

It isn't a big deal. So changing someones skin colour for no other reason than that is ok. Lets see what happens when a black character is turned white, will you still say that is "ok", i am pretty sure you wil be the first screaming racism. You are blind to your own racism and hypocrisy.

It is the exact same with gender swapping. Yuu will never see a female character changed to male but the other way is fine and in no way sexist, strange how it follows the same pattern isn't it.

Sexist and racist towards white men, it would seem there is a double standard going on but you keep white knighting, see how far that gets you.

Please reply with the usual insults that the SJW's come up with because they have no counter argument. Go for it.

reply

Changing someones skin color in film has been done since the beginning of film. If the creater of these Marvel properties not only didnt have a problem with it and encouraged it why should anyone else really care.

Many black, indian and hispanic characters have been changed to white over the years in film hell they even changed Jesus to a white man in almost every film he is depicted in.

FYI I am not racist to white men, I am a white man, catholic, combat veteran, republican with 2 kids. I just dont care if they swap race or gender on a fictional character as long as the story is good. There are much bigger things in the world to get upset about.

reply

Why's this guy been deleted and the Proud Boys are still permitted to post here?

reply

They didnt delete my account just my screen name guess it was not very nice and people complaned.

reply

Who you calling "boy" ...boy?

reply

Go sit in the corner, short pants.

reply

Changing someones skin color in film has been done since the beginning of film.

Changing systematically race and gender to fit some ideological agenda hasn't been done until now, at least in western cinema.

reply

Wrong kid lets look at some facts of film history.

African American
The film industry of the United States grew slowly at first. Over time, plots began to develop and movies became better produced. In 1915, the film The Birth of a Nation by D.W. Griffith was released. The plot of the film basically showed that Ku Klux Klansmen were the saviors to the nation and that they would help to bring back a stable government.[1] The movie also included the use of actors in blackface. Over time, racism became embedded into the film of Hollywood. In 1927, the film The Jazz Singer was released. One of the central themes was the use of blackface by character Jack Robins. Scholar Corin Willis said about the movie:

In contrast to the racial jokes and innuendo brought out in its subsequent persistence in early sound film, blackface imagery in The Jazz Singer is at the core of the film's central theme, an expressive and artistic exploration of the notion of duplicity and ethnic hybridity within American identity. Of the more than seventy examples of blackface in early sound film 1927–53 that I have viewed (including the nine blackface appearances Jolson subsequently made), The Jazz Singer is unique in that it is the only film where blackface is central to the narrative development and thematic expression.


reply

In 1915, the film The Birth of a Nation by D.W. Griffith was released. The plot of the film basically showed that Ku Klux Klansmen were the saviors to the nation and that they would help to bring back a stable government.

Well, after the fall the South in the Civil War, former black slaves often gathered as bandit groups that killed and raped. And there were a lot of them. No matter the ideology, the historical fact is that the KKK actually did brought stability.

People confuse moral judgement and consequences, they use to think that any ideology they dislike should have necessarily negative consequences. But that's a fallacy. Facts and moral are two different elements.

The movie also included the use of actors in blackface. Over time, racism became embedded into the film of Hollywood. In 1927, the film The Jazz Singer was released. One of the central themes was the use of blackface by character Jack Robins

So what?

It's true that character was played by a white actor with a blackface, so what? Back then movie industry was a much more local industry. Cinema was based in theater, and the tradition was (and is) that actors would represent characters from other races too. And that was the common use in the western world, in Japan, in China, in Africa, and everywhere.

And the character's race wasn't swapped. Would have been it swapped, the actor wouldn't have used a blackface, would he?

It's logical that early movies imported the way things were done in theater. Now... you wanna state that beyond the common use in theater there was some additional political motive? That's up to you to prove, but you need to provide a solid argument, you just can't make up some imaginary political motives based in something that has some simple and logical explanation.

reply

Arab
In 1921, Paramount Pictures released the Rudolph Valentino movie The Sheik. The movie itself was a box office success but showed Arabs as savage beasts who auction off their own women. The film was followed up a few years later with The Son of the Sheik, which also portrayed racist overtones. Rudolph was even asked by a New York Times reporter once whether or not his well-off character could fall for a savage (an Arab woman). To Valentino's credit, he responded by saying: "People are not savages because they have dark skins. The Arabian civilization is one of the oldest in the world...the Arabs are dignified and keen brained."[3] In his essay "Arabs in Hollywood: An Undeserved Image", Scott J. Simon argues that of all the ethnic groups portrayed in Hollywood films, "Arab culture has been the most misunderstood and supplied with the worst stereotypes":

Rudolph Valentino's roles in The Sheik (1921) and The Son of the Sheik (1926) set the stage for the exploration and negative portrayal of Arabs in Hollywood films. Both The Sheik and The Son of the Sheik represented Arab characters as thieves, charlatans, murderers, and brutes.[4]

He also singled out A Son of the Sahara (1924) as "the strongest subconscious attack on the Arab culture of all the Arab movies of the 1920s"

reply

Same answer as above

reply

Asian
Racism against East Asian peoples in Hollywood roles also began in the 1920s. Charlie Chan (actually based on the real Chang Apana), a supposed "good Asian" was used as an antithesis to Fu Manchu, the so-called "bad Asian". In 1923, the British silent film serial The Mystery of Dr. Fu-Manchu came out. This movie ushered in the beginning of decades of movies with the Fu Manchu theme. In 1929, the American film The Mysterious Dr. Fu Manchu starring Warner Oland came out. The Show of Shows was released the same year and featured a stereotypical setting with Nick Lucas and Myrna Loy.

Several Hollywood movies continue to portray Asian destinations as underdeveloped or of being lived in by savages. This includes showing elephant as a primary mode of transport in modern India or any of the similar stereotypes that has no resemblance to reality.

reply

Same answer as above.

reply

Native Americans

Throughout the early 1900s, many films that perpetuate stereotypes about Native Americans were made, in particular the stereotype of the "Noble Savage". The roles of Native Americans were usually reserved for Caucasian actors. The portrayal of indigenous Americans of the silent era most notably remains The Last of the Mohicans (1920).[why?]

In 1936, the Three Stooges mocked Native Americans in the comedy short, "Whoops, I'm an Indian!"

reply

Same answer as above.

reply

Whitewshing in film
In the early 20th century, white actors caricatured different races by wearing blackface or yellowface, commonly exaggerating the perceived stereotypes of other races. For example, Swedish born white actor Warner Oland played the Chinese detective Charlie Chan in Charlie Chan Carries On (1931) and subsequent films. Because of the lack of characters of color in the film industry, these roles were well received at the time by minorities.[3] Other non-Asian actors to portray Chinese detective Charlie Chan include Manuel Arbó, Sidney Toler, Roland Winters, Ross Martin and Peter Ustinov.

Films became more racially integrated by the mid-20th-century, and blackface mostly disappeared from the film industry. The film Othello (1965) was an exception, as the white actor Laurence Olivier was cast as "the Moor." He wore blackface as the title character. In Soul Man and Tropic Thunder white actors portray white characters that use blackface.

The practice of "yellowface" extended into the 1960s. For instance, Mickey Rooney played a Japanese[4] landlord in Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961).[3] Professor David A. Schlossman said of Asian characters in particular, "Many of the Asian roles portrayed by White actors also contributed to the pantheon of racial stereotypes in US national discourse."[5] At the start of the 21st century, minorities were still under-represented in the film industry at different stages. While historically black roles are now generally cast with black actors, the practice of whitewashing applied to other minorities.

Guy Aoki said African Americans "have long felt the full brunt of the 'whitewashing' of roles" and that Asians have experienced it as well.Native Americans have also had their historic leaders and warriors portrayed by whites.

reply

Examples of associated cases

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewashing_in_film

reply

Same answer as above.

And by the way, this definition of 'whitewashing' doesn't involve race swapping. The character's race is not changed. You just have a white actor playing a character that is not white. When we talk about modern blackwashing, we're talking about changing the character's race. It's not about some black actor playing a character that's supposed to be white. It's about the character himself being race-changed. It's a different concept.

reply

Actually, I did.

Why do snowflakes like you always try to force a false narrative to fit your pathetic agendas?

reply

The thing is there is no need to create one.If something comic book has is diversity in every range.

They don’t have to make Tony Stark black because the comics already have a black Iron Man in Rhodey or a women with Pepper and now Iron Heart.

There is no need for gender or race swap famous characters because marvel has a lot of characters of different races.

reply

Who care about all that? There's only one thing that matter: wether the movie is good or not.

reply

If there wasn't an agenda, if wouldn't matter.

However, the moment some racial political agenda is applied systematically, up to the point that you can guess the role of each character and even his behavior checking his race and gender... well, then it matters. And it matters a lot.

reply

Don't get me wrong, i understand what you mean and i see how annoying this can be. But at this moment, the quality of the movie is still the one thing that matter the most to me.

reply

Here is a perfect example of why casting matters: you choose a Pakistani actor/comedian to play a character that is based on a Japanese samurai, so now you have to change the back story of the character in order to fit your diversity forced narrative.

They seriously couldn't find a good Japanese actor to cast in the role Kingo?

They could have (should have) given the role of Ajax to Nanjiani, since that character has a more ambiguous racial background. JMO

reply

I see no one has had the cohones to step up and address my comment above...where are you snowflakes??

reply