Black Thor Actor Talks About Racist Comic Book Fans

The Deadpool

New member
Dec 28, 2007
295
0
0
fozzy360 said:
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.
No, people have a problem with Elba because he doesn't look the part. Well, this is not to say that there AREN'T racists out there with a problem because he's black, but I'm betting the majority of the complaints stem from the fact that it's a change from the source FOR NO REASON.

He isn't the best possible actor for this role. I'm sure he did a fine job, but I'm also sure there's a whole slew of actors out there who could perform the role just as well, and actually look the part while they're at it.

There in lies the problem. He brings nothing unique to the role. He's a good actor, but nothing partocilarly amazing. Heimdall just isn't well defined enough to need a specific or unique acting style to play. You could grab half the C-listers from Lord of the Rings and they could perform the part just fine.

Same problem with Hogun...
 

Lead Herring

New member
Mar 14, 2011
53
0
0
People seem to forget that one of the warriors 3 was asian in the movie and some foreign ethnicity in the comic books.
 

Redd the Sock

New member
Apr 14, 2010
1,088
0
0
Dark Prophet said:
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.
Actually there was a lot of moaning about that one, and it was somewhat more justified.

I get the complains about changing The Kingpin's color. He's an iconic character most people are at least passingly familier with thanks to the old Spidy cartoon. Heimdal, let's face it, no one has ever read a Thor comic for this character. The complains are coming from a deeply misplaced principle rather than pragmatism, or even fanboyism. Change someone's skin color and you get backalsh, no matter how lttle anyone valued the character in the first place.

Of course maybe I'm just immune to this crap after over 15 years of reading something that portrays a few characters from norse mythology as Japanese girls.
 

Ren3004

In an unsuspicious cabin
Jul 22, 2009
28,357
0
0
It is outrageous that Marvel cast Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, but didn't give Thor the Ultimate Universe version of Mjölnir! That ruined the movie for me! /sarcasm

Now seriously, having a black Norse didn't bother me at all. I barely noticed it during the film and at least Heimdall was a badass. There are far worse discrepancies between comics and film, so if you really need to complain, complain about how Venom in Spider-Man 3 was about as physically imposing as a 12 year-old, always pulled down his mask during close-ups and looked like he was made of black Play-doh.

Of course, bitching because a person with too much melanin starred in a film is just wrong, but I guess there's always going to be racism around.
 

duchaked

New member
Dec 25, 2008
4,451
0
0
initially I felt inclined to side with the "purists" (NOT the racists, since there may be some in there), but I mean heck look at Nick Fury

wasn't he originally white? and of course modeling him after (and now portrayed by) Samuel L. motherf****king Jackson was bloody awesome
 

Oro44

New member
Jan 28, 2009
177
0
0
I thought it should be worth mentioning that Anthony Hopkins played Othello back in 1981. Thought that was pretty relevant here.
 

KirbyKrackle

New member
Apr 25, 2011
119
0
0
Desert Tiger said:
We should totally remake Zulu with only white people.
Man, people keep making "have x role played by y people" suggestions as if they're making some sort of point, or, in a colossal demonstration of ignorance, as if it's never been done before, and done well, whether through, race, class, age, or gender flips, etc. You have to be aware that sometimes it can change certain aspects of a production (though sometimes, as in the case of Thor, it really won't change much of anything), but that's usually exactly what these productions are relying on.

The Deadpool said:
fozzy360 said:
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.
No, people have a problem with Elba because he doesn't look the part.
Why/How doesn't he look the part?
 

The Deadpool

New member
Dec 28, 2007
295
0
0
Witwoud said:
The Deadpool said:
fozzy360 said:
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.
No, people have a problem with Elba because he doesn't look the part.
Why/How doesn't he look the part?
I think people have more of a problem with race on the side DEFENDING the decision, than people who are actually denouncing it.

If they had cast frigging Mickey Abbot for the role, I don't care how great a performance, everyone would have complained, and no one would be defending the decision.

But because the difference in appearance is race instead, so everyone rushes to defend it...

It's kind of odd. I really hate being put on the same side as the racist lunatics who complain about this... But I think it's hillarious that everyone is up at arms at fans complaining about an appearance change in a casting decision...
 

remulean

New member
Mar 19, 2009
17
0
0
the guy is pretty good in the movie and he portrays heimdall well. as a casting decision it was a good job and i have no problem with him being black. that said, i'm from iceland and in iceland the old sagas and the ancient mythology is a pretty improtant part of the curriculum, this stuff is a big part of our cultural heritage. the guy is described as literally the "witest of the gods". so it burns me a little, but hey this is a comic book movie,and a damn good one.that said, i wonder what black people would say if anansi was portrayed by a white person.
 

Poofs

New member
Nov 16, 2009
594
0
0
Technicka said:
Poofs said:
It is a sad day when wanting something to stay true to it's source material is considered 'racist'
Considering that no waves were made when the news of an Asian was cast in a similar role, it raises a big red flag about what the true motivation is. Not to mention all the dozens of other inaccuracies between the movie and comics (or actual Norse mythology).
This may be true, however you must admit that an Asian person was much more likely to be found in Viking Civilization, for all we know Vikings could have been in contact with nations in China. They both possessed the technology, you also have to admit that White, and Asian skin tones are not all that different. However a Black Guy, would stand out, and does stand out, like, well, like a Black Guy in a Society of White Gods.
I just feel that people making movies, or any other form of media, should not be labeled as 'racist' for trying to create a more authentic experience.
 

KirbyKrackle

New member
Apr 25, 2011
119
0
0
The Deadpool said:
Witwoud said:
The Deadpool said:
fozzy360 said:
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.
No, people have a problem with Elba because he doesn't look the part.
Why/How doesn't he look the part?
I think people have more of a problem with race on the side DEFENDING the decision, than people who are actually denouncing it.

If they had cast frigging Mickey Abbot for the role, I don't care how great a performance, everyone would have complained, and no one would be defending the decision.

But because the difference in appearance is race instead, so everyone rushes to defend it...

It's kind of odd. I really hate being put on the same side as the racist lunatics who complain about this... But I think it's hillarious that everyone is up at arms at fans complaining about an appearance change in a casting decision...
Huh? Sorry, could you answer my question? I guess I'm kind of dumb, because I don't really feel you answered it. I don't quite get your comments like "I think people have more of a problem with race on the side DEFENDING the decision, than people who are actually denouncing it." Elba's defending it, so he has a problem with black people? Also, since many of the people denouncing the casting choice are out-right racists, your reasoning seems a bit unfounded. I'm really curious as to what your basis is for this line of argument, in fact.

Also, I think it's hilarious that the "fans" are up in arms and complaining about an appearance change in a casting decision. Obsessive comic nerds are an eternal font of entertainment, are they not? And so far as that goes, we're all forgetting the most important thing here: Does Loki have his ridiculous hat in the movie or not?
 

The Deadpool

New member
Dec 28, 2007
295
0
0
Witwoud said:
Huh? Sorry, could you answer my question? I guess I'm kind of dumb, because I don't really feel you answered it. I don't quite get your comments like "I think people have more of a problem with race on the side DEFENDING the decision, than people who are actually denouncing it." Elba's defending it, so he has a problem with black people? Also, since many of the people denouncing the casting choice are out-right racists, your reasoning seems a bit unfounded. I'm really curious as to what your basis is for this line of argument, in fact.
The difference is indeed race. But I postulate that were the difference anything else other than race, the fans would STILL complain (although the racists likely wouldn't), BUT there would not be this large influx of people DEFENDING this decision.

Witwoud said:
Does Loki have his ridiculous hat in the movie or not?
Yup...

Hogun is Japanese, while the character in the comics has always looked more like a Mongolian Charles Bronson. And Volstagg should reall be in a fat suit.

All three complaints have been brought up by fans, but only one gets defended...
 

ReiverCorrupter

New member
Jun 4, 2010
629
0
0
Thirsk said:
ReiverCorrupter said:
Cherry Cola said:
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.
Yes, I agree. I would by no means credit hospitality to Christians though, it is an extremely old Indoeuropean value, even Homer speaks of it in the Iliad and Odyssey.

Honestly the Vikings were more advanced in a lot of ways than the rest of Europe. They were probably the greatest explorers in human history, discovering the Americas several hundred years before Columbus. Not to mention they founded Russia, and had an incredibly complex network of trade that extended on to the middle east. Not only that, but the Althing is one of the oldest judicial systems still in existence. When they conquered a land they generally improved it.

And when they did raid people, they were not just a bunch of disorganized looters, but rather well organized and extremely clever tacticians. They were known for their triangular shield wall which was part of what gave them their military advantage as well as the vastly superior design of their longships which allowed them to not only travel at amazing speeds, but to do so within only a few feet of water, thus allowing them to quickly strike well inland behind enemy defenses by following rivers. Far from being mindless raiders they were a military force so formidable as to hold the entire kingdom of France, (which had an entire army at its disposal), for ransom.

So yeah, I think Scandinavians have a lot to be proud of, and if I were them I wouldn't try to distance myself from my amazing ancestors just because they had some war-like tendencies. Hell, the phrase 'war-like' in the context of history is more or less synonymous with 'winner'. Just adding to your point, I'm sure you know all of this as well.
 

KirbyKrackle

New member
Apr 25, 2011
119
0
0
The Deadpool said:
Witwoud said:
Huh? Sorry, could you answer my question? I guess I'm kind of dumb, because I don't really feel you answered it. I don't quite get your comments like "I think people have more of a problem with race on the side DEFENDING the decision, than people who are actually denouncing it." Elba's defending it, so he has a problem with black people? Also, since many of the people denouncing the casting choice are out-right racists, your reasoning seems a bit unfounded. I'm really curious as to what your basis is for this line of argument, in fact.
The difference is indeed race. But I postulate that were the difference anything else other than race, the fans would STILL complain (although the racists likely wouldn't), BUT there would not be this large influx of people DEFENDING this decision.

Witwoud said:
Does Loki have his ridiculous hat in the movie or not?
Yup...

Hogun is Japanese, while the character in the comics has always looked more like a Mongolian Charles Bronson. And Volstagg should reall be in a fat suit.

All three complaints have been brought up by fans, but only one gets defended...
I'm sorry, he kept the hat, yet people are complaining about the movie not being faithful? What more could anyone ask for?

Also, one gets defended more than the other because one decision gets attacked more than the others, and, as has been pointed out, is attacked by far nastier than your usual comic book guy (hard to imagine, I know), which means it gets more attention. I'm sure most normal people have long since learned to ignore the petulant whining of obsessive "fans" in favour of dealing with actual societal problems (e.g., racism), which is why, other than as a source of derisive laughter, no, no one would care about some comic nerd's hand-wringing over an appearance change being "wrong".
 

Clankenbeard

Clerical Error
Mar 29, 2009
544
0
0
Hamster at Dawn said:
I'm pretty sure that Nick Fury was originally white. I know that he was black in comics before the movies but he was definitely white first. It's not exactly a new thing, is all I'm saying. Also, Elba was awesome in Thor and I wouldn't change him just to fit in a little bit better with the traditional canon. Things don't always have to change for the worse.
I never liked Nick Fury in the comics as an eyepatched non-stretchy Reed Richards clone. I did wonder "Why is Samuel Jackson playing Nick Fury?" out of preservation of my precious comic book satiated upbringing. But I have to say, I like him in the role.

My kids saw the trailer with Hal Jordan as the Green Lantern and went all "WTF?!? Why isn't Green Lantern black, like on Justice League? That's not John Stewart!" It's weird. Where I live (Houston), young people mostly don't give a rat's ass about color. (There are the exceptions.) Adults are all still twisted up about equality and racism. Kids don't care about skin color or heritage. They just care if their friends are cool.

Marvel should just recast Roadie (War Machine) or Storm with white people for any impending sequels. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. Atoned!

(Maybe recast the White Queen as a black person as well, just to shake things up? Beta Ray Bill should be played by an eskimo in Thor II! These are all fee ideas for anybody.)
 

JediMB

New member
Oct 25, 2008
3,094
0
0
ReiverCorrupter said:
Hell, the phrase 'war-like' in the context of history is more or less synonymous with 'winner'.
We were banging seven gram rocks. That's how we rolled.

<_<
 

ReiverCorrupter

New member
Jun 4, 2010
629
0
0
Sudenak said:
ReiverCorrupter said:
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.

...

Did that clear it up for you?
I don't care about the word. I never did. It was never my point in the first place.

Sudenak said:
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.
You have, however, now given an argument so I'm satisfied.
 

L-J-F

New member
Jun 22, 2008
302
0
0
Logan Westbrook said:
"whitewashing [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/91423-Avatar-Protest-Shut-Down-By-Viacom-Copyright-Claim]" in The Last Airbender movie - which is the casting of white actors as characters of color
That was stupid too :|