Black Thor Actor Talks About Racist Comic Book Fans

[fozzy360]

Would you be okay with Robert DeNiro playing Thor? I mean, he's a WONDERFUL actor. He's got good range. I'm sure he could play the part well, certainly as well as anyone, probably better than the current choice (whoever the hell he is). That'd be a great idea, right?

That comparison makes no sense. de Niro being cast in Thor would bring complaints that would have nothing to do with skin color. People don't want Elba as Heimdall merely because he's black.

Norse Gods. See, thing is, they should look like, I dunno, Norsemen? Maybe? Just a thought? Hell, if you wanna get all official about it why not just go ask the "Norse" church; I think they call it "Germanic Neopaganism" now.

How about we make a Black Panther movie and cast T'Challa as a blonde haired, blue eyed white man. Maybe a modern remake of Roots, starring Tom Cruise. Wtf?

It's not racist to expect a Norse deity to be white, it's common f'ing sense. What's next, black hobbits? /facepalm

If this movie was about the actual Norse mythology, then I could accept the complaints, but it isn't. The movie is based on a line of comic books that use that mythology as a base to create their own story and happenings. Your examples of Black Panther and, especially, Roots are bad ones because those stories specifically have to do with race. If white people were cast in these films for roles that specifically require black people, then people would actually have a damn good reason to complain.

 

[Scarlet Mongoose]

I've always been of the opinion that your race doesn't matter as long as you portray the character well enough.

Billy Dee Williams was a fine Harvey Dent in the '89 Batman film.
Michael Clark Duncan as Kingpin was one of the only good things about the Daredevil movie.

I say as long as they do justice to the role, skin tone isn't that big of a deal.
Though, I have a minor caveat with that statement. I feel that sort of thing should only really apply to the minor/supporting characters.
But even so, I'm not totally opposed to the idea of it happening to a main character. I guess it all depends on your willingness to accept changes.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

-snip-

You see what I just did there was construct an argument where my conclusion follows reasonably from my premises. Calling people pricks over and over again doesn't accomplish much.

And being kind only goes so far. There's no sense in skirting around it. This entire discussion has purely been an outcry over how the color of one's skin matters more than any of the other obvious issues this story has when compared to real Norse mythology. I can't be kind about that, because the people who feel it is an issue, regardless of which side they are on, aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. And frankly, I don't see why I should use "proper" language to explain this.

It's like the argument over using swear words. If you're using replacement words to try and soften the blow, it's still the same blow. You've just made it more palatable.

I think the real issue here is that everyone's so quick to be offended about -everything-. In your case, you agreed with the premise (either that or just felt like tidying up my post), but still felt the need to point out the words I used. Isn't it kind of funny that, in my argument to point out that bickering over the little things that don't matter, you picked out my use of the word "prick"?

I wasn't really even making a point about kindness or courtesy. Name-calling is an argument ad hominem and is therefore a fallacy. I think you're delusional if you think being angry and calling people pricks is going to accomplish anything. The best way to call somebody out is to objectively point out how they are wrong by forming a coherent argument around the given facts of the matter. What, do you think if you call somebody a prick you're going to do anything but make them angry and more solidified in their position? It might help you vent but by no means have you won an argument. You don't have to be nice, you just have to try to be reasoned.

 

[Nerf Ninja]

I saw Thor today (excellent film, I now want Kenneth Brannagh to direct Superman)

If I hadn't already known he was black it wouldn't have even registered with me. All I saw was a good actor.

(Kind of feel proud of myself for that)

Thinking about it though there should have been a lot more black guys in the Asgard army. Thousands of them and only one black guy?

 

[standokan]

He did a good job so I don't give a rat's ass wether it's right or wrong plus, I must say, gold DOES look alot more awesome on a 'black' person than it will ever do on a white man, not a bling joke.

 

[airrazor7]

So everyone crying foul over the movie casting in this forum, are you suggesting that this movie and Norse Mythology is largely defined by skin color? Are saying that unless every character is cast properly by the shades of their pigmentation, that we the potential viewers will miss a every integral part of the story? Whether you realize it or not, that is exactly what you're saying.

 

[electric discordian]

Okay they tried to make this less Racist by creating a Black Character. And they made him the Doorman! Oh I dispair, I was half expecting him to say "Can I open the Door massa!" It was fail on everything!

 

[Sudenak]

I wasn't really even making a point about kindness or courtesy. Name-calling is an argument ad hominem and is therefore a fallacy. I think you're delusional if you think being angry and calling people pricks is going to accomplish anything. The best way to call somebody out is to objectively point out how they are wrong by forming a coherent argument around the given facts of the matter. What, do you think if you call somebody a prick you're going to do anything but make them angry and more solidified in their position? It might help you vent but by no means have you won an argument. You don't have to be nice, you just have to try to be reasoned.

What I'm saying is this: it's a word. I chose to use it, because the English language has it. You can choose to get hung up on it, or you can choose to read the message and move on. I think people are pricks who focus solely on race all the time. Me removing that wouldn't change that I think they are pricks.

And if I "lose" the argument by calling them pricks, then it's a pretty good sign that someone gets offended too easily and misses the entire point. I'm not gonna keep arguing this with you, because you're never going to agree with me on this. You attempting to tell me to stop using it isn't going to make me stop, because it's not "unreasonable" to call someone a prick. It's my honest opinion, and I see no point in backing away from my honest opinion.

Because it isn't a point in anyone's favor when they ignore my entire message because of the word "prick". That'd be like dismissing a Zero Punctuation because he used the word "twat". It's a word. It's an opinion. Take it or leave it, but don't try and pretend that it isn't valid just because it's not a nice word.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

I wasn't really even making a point about kindness or courtesy. Name-calling is an argument ad hominem and is therefore a fallacy. I think you're delusional if you think being angry and calling people pricks is going to accomplish anything. The best way to call somebody out is to objectively point out how they are wrong by forming a coherent argument around the given facts of the matter. What, do you think if you call somebody a prick you're going to do anything but make them angry and more solidified in their position? It might help you vent but by no means have you won an argument. You don't have to be nice, you just have to try to be reasoned.

What I'm saying is this: it's a word. I chose to use it, because the English language has it. You can choose to get hung up on it, or you can choose to read the message and move on. I think people are pricks who focus solely on race all the time. Me removing that wouldn't change that I think they are pricks.

And if I "lose" the argument by calling them pricks, then it's a pretty good sign that someone gets offended too easily and misses the entire point. I'm not gonna keep arguing this with you, because you're never going to agree with me on this. You attempting to tell me to stop using it isn't going to make me stop, because it's not "unreasonable" to call someone a prick. It's my honest opinion, and I see no point in backing away from my honest opinion.

Because it isn't a point in anyone's favor when they ignore my entire message because of the word "prick". That'd be like dismissing a Zero Punctuation because he used the word "twat". It's a word. It's an opinion. Take it or leave it, but don't try and pretend that it isn't valid just because it's not a nice word.

*Sigh* Once again, not my point. I'm not saying that you shouldn't call someone a prick. I'm saying that when you do you need to also explain why they are a prick. From what I recall you gave very little reasoning along this regard in your original post, you basically just said that if someone gets upset over this then they're a prick. Then I commented and gave an argument why they might be a prick for getting upset over the issue. Once again, I'm making a point about logical argumentation, not courtesy: just calling someone a prick isn't an argument by itself.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

Oh no, a Marvel property taking liberties with Norse mythology (or, for that matter, a ton of other myths/stories/theologies)? Say it ain't so!

Seriously, the ship sailed for whining about that several decades ago.

Also, before I forget, kudos to Branagh for managing to troll both racists and nerds so well and so easily.

 

[Sudenak]

-snip-

Alright. I could have sworn this went without needing to be said, but I guess meanie-pants words need to actually have their definition detailed.

Definition of prick: A man regarded as stupid, unpleasant, or contemptible.

So, if someone is ignoring all of the much larger issues with calling these Norse Gods the same as the Norse Gods of mythology because one of them was black in the comic book movie loosely based on the comic book that is very loosely based on the mythology, it's because they are being stupid. They are being unpleasant for arguing about it, and they're being contemptible for continuing to carry around the racism card.

Did that clear it up for you?

 

[Baresark]

LoL, in this case, the only difference is that in the source material he is white, and in this case they cast a black guy. People get attached to the source material. There was an identical conflict with that crappy Spawn movie back in the 90's. I was pissed because in the comic, Terry Fitzgerald was a black guy, and in the movie he was played by a white guy. No one screamed racism then, why is it racism now? Back then it was just people being attached to the source material, which is OK. I loves me a double standard or two.

Thor has been one of my top three favorite characters from Marvel for a long time, and I was perturbed, to say the least, when I saw a fundamental change in the source material. But, who really cares.

I also see racial favoritism happening with some comments.

I liked his character [Heimdall] the most

Or some derivative there of.....

I doubt his character was written the best, since he is a tertiary character next to Thor, the mortal allies, and the villain.

Edit: Clearly it's because he is a great actor. And it's always good to see someone get a roll down so well. But I don't dismiss my assessment of favoritism.

 

[darlarosa]

Well the core of the identity of Black Panther is his identity of being African, and in Roots its the core of African American struggles. Honestly you COULD have a white African, as a person of color, I would not have an issue so long as the core of his respecting African/Wakandan history. Though I truly understand the fact that it does not really have merit to have a black man as a Norse god, unless he was the best man for the part. It is an inaccuracy that is glaringly obvious, gods are created by men to resemble man. If you are blonde and blue eyed and so is everyone else around you, so will your gods. If you are tall and brown, so shall your gods be. If you have distinct facial features, long black wavy hair, and specific eye shapes, your gods shall have the same. The actor does not fit in with the world created by both the Thor comics nor the mythology.However,the directors must have felt he was a superb actor for the part. If he did really well in his auditions and stood out he deserves the part, but that goes for any role. Avater The Last Airbender's white washing would have been relatively ok so long as the actors had been good. Acting skill should be the skill by which they are judged first and foremost.

What matters is if the core of a character affected by the change. Is Heimdall completely different from the core of the character? I have not seen the movie thus I cannot answer.

White actors are cast as characters that are minority fairly often, and Pete Ross in Smallville was black without any ill affect. Truly what harm has been done to the integrity of the character? A truly good character should be able to be any ethnicity. Would you really think a poor kid, living with his aunt and uncle, in queens(I believe) would be Anglo Saxon? Without the pictures would you think Spider-man was white? Honestly the preconceived stereotypes of society have an effect, for I find it easy to imagine an Irish kin or a Puerto Rican kid. Daredevil could easily be black

Going onto the whole fan's being upset over the changes....don't go to the movie, that simple. I say this because you have already made up your mind to not like it. You have to separate the movies into a separate universe from the comics. No one wants to cram 20+ years of comics into a movie, and no writer or director wants to just do a rehash of a comic and put it on television. The purpose of producing a movie for the public is not only money but also to put new life into a story and draw in new fans. You cannot expect the film to be a rehashed version of your book. And I know you hate that. You just want to see your book in the talkies, to experience the exact same feeling you get when reading the comics, and to simply observe them in a different way. Well honestly there really is no point in watching a movie if you know the exact events? It loses some of its fun. Also rehashing comics and just throwing the book in the talkies,alienates the public. I know most of you do not care about the general non-comic reading populous, but hear me out. We all know that economic gain is the driver of society, and these movies take ALOT of money to be made. Studios want that money in return, and the only way to do so is to expand your audience. A builder can't sell his product to a fraction of a population and hope to make a mint. The only viable thing to do to draw in others is to make the film more approachable. A major issue in the comic book industry is its lack of approachability. For instance, I love comics, but I find it hard to buy stand alone issues or a continuing arch because if I miss one or two issues I am lost in the mire. Truly, the history of comics is vast and all encompassing. Oblique references to particular issues stuffed into the corners of panels, characters who are mentioned repeatedly but are never seen because they die 7+ years ago in the last cross over event, the sudden dropping of plots and frequent laziness of writers...all of this makes comics seemingly unapproachable. By using film as a medium with the intent of starting from scratch the younger generations of future fans, those who always wanted to read but were intimidated, and those old fans who just got back into reading are (re)introduced to a character in a new and exciting way. They do not have to rehash so many old stories so long as they have the core of the character within the movie.

Sif is Blonde but the actress if brunette. Wheres the uproar over that?

 

[Tarik94]

*ahem* To the people not liking this I say:

-STFU, YOU DON'T KNOW HOW HEIMDALL LOOKED LIKE! EVEN IF HE EXISTED YOU STILL WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE HIM.

That's all.

 

[Thirsk]

PS: What is up with all the people feeling the need to point out that they are from Scandinavia? To anyone who does this: You have no, nor will you ever have, any connection to Norse Mythology in your entire existence. Your nationality doesn't suddenly make you higher above everyone else in this discussion.

Actually, we do. Norse-gods and religion still flavor our culture, our national holidays, and our common names.
As late as the 19th century, Rune-writing was still used in some parts of the country (Sweden), and paganism is alive and well.

So don't speak of things you don't know anything about.

These are not connections. These are conventions. People in England can be said to have as much of a connection to Nordic religion as Scandinavians. All of this is superficial. The names, the holidays, it's just a superficial link between contemporary Scandinavia and Nordic Mythology that might as well be doing-fuck-all-because-we-can days.

As for the culture, that's just false. Ignoring the fact that the culture of Scandinavia is pathetically insignificant as it is, there is nothing from Norse Mythology that support the social rules now in place. The popular Swedish mindset of everything having to be "lagom" came from Viking custom. Hell, Sweden could barely call itself a real country until far after Nordic Mythology was abolished.

As for the runes, you are once again applying Nordic Mythology to something it had absolutely nothing to do with.

Let me just put this as clearly as possible: Norse Mythology did not have any moral values to enforce. It had no messages to preach, it had nothing to teach. It is one of the most pointless religions ever to have existed.

So my point still stands: Nobody from Scandinavia has no reason to proclaim their national heritage.

LOL at bolded. If it had no value it wouldn't have existed in the first place. Norse mythology reflected the war-like attitude of the vikings, and like it or not, the vikings were one of the most influential forces in medieval history, not only as conquers but as world class merchants. In fact, despite depictions of them being mindless barbarians they were incredibly skilled craftsmen and actually worked to spread the advances of civilization, especially to Ireland. Britain would be unrecognizable without the vikings (I'm not sure if you're aware of this but the Normans were of viking decent as well).

Are you perchance a Christian, and if so, would I be out of line to assume that you think that Christianity is the only religion that has a worthwhile value system? I hate to break it to you, but it was exactly when Scandinavians became Christians that they stopped having much of an effect on European history.

The idea that the ethics of the norse religion was one of barbarity and bloodshed is quite a commom misconception. The idea that they had no moral values is just plain wrong. Even though the Norse were infamous for raiding and whatnot, they weren't mindless barbarians. The Eddas are full of ethical rules and guidelines, and most of the stories are highly allegorical for the Norse mindset, which actually weren't so far from the christian way of thinking in some ways.

For example, the Hávamál (the central poem regarding Norse morals) starts out by saying that a good man is a generous host to every guest who visits him. The Grimnirsmál tells the story of Odin who suffers at the hand of an evil king, until he is saved by the young prince, who is rewarded with divine knowledge. Replace "Odin" with "Jesus" and it wouldn't seem too out of place in the Bible.

Not to say that the norse religion is really just christianity in disguise, there are plenty of differences - the biggest of them being (in my mind) the fact that the norse heathen's relationship with the gods had roots in his own personal honor and renown, a personal religious view, if you will, whereas the christian values are defined from a collective, over-arching idea of sin and absolution, under which each man's qualities are assimilated. What the best form of religion is, I don't know, but it sure is a difference.

Now, I'm not trying to play clever here, don't get me wrong. ReiverCorrupter, I am sure you know most, if not all, of this already, it was more the blatant ignorance of Cherry Cola that called for a little education : )

...

That said, I agree that we scandinavians aren't any more "viking" than anyone else, as the traces of both blood and culture have been long since wiped and warped beyond reckognition. Not that that's necesarilly a bad thing, it's unavoidable, but the link between the modern scandinavian and the ancient viking is very thin indeed these days.

 

[MrGFunk]

I've not seen Thor, I've heard it's not too good. However, Idris Elba is a beast. I'd watch him playing Mary Poppins - Sure he'd nail it

This has raised for me the casting of Michael Clarke Duncan as Kingpin in Daredevil. Man that was a bad film.

 

[Dark Prophet]

I don't get what all the wuzz is about, yes it is a bit wierd that a black actor was casted in the role of a viking god, because well you can't get any whiter then a viking god, but it's a bloody comic book movie, I could understand the moaning over that subject matter if the movie would have claimed to have some historical accuracy, but it's not the case. And while we are here I don't remember any such moaning when Michael Clarke Duncan was cast as Kingpin in Daredevil.