Wow. I just pictured Tom Hanks in black-face. Just... wow.Liquidacid23 said:eh I get the complains tho... You can't make that massive of a change to an established character, especially one that well known and of the religious nature and not expect to hear a lot of flack about it... I mean imagine if I made a movie and picked Tom Hanks to play Martin Luther King JR.... you can bet the backlash would be horrendous and the people who complained about me casting a white guy to play a well known black figure wouldn't get called "racist"
There's a huge difference between casting a character for a comic book movie and casting a historical figure for a Bio Pic. Casting Tom Hanks as Martin Luther King JR would be dumb because it changes Dr. King's entire message. Does casting Idris Alba really change Heimdall's message all-that much?Liquidacid23 said:imagine if I made a movie and picked Tom Hanks to play Martin Luther King JR.
I couldn't have said it any better. You, sir, have my sword.Atmos Duality said:So why not one of the Aesir too?
To quote Ghostbusters:
"It's a she."
"I thought Gozer was a man?"
"It's whatever it wants to be."
Aye, double standards are always lurking somewhere out there. Actually there's another example I have of casting similar to this one, except in a very less known movie (I assume). If you've seen the 2000 TV movie by Hallmark called Jason and the Argonauts, one thing that always stood out to me an that always irked me was the fact that Orpheus was black. Now I live in Bulgaria, I've been to Greece several times too and I am fairly sure we do not have a lot of black people between us, even less in ancient times. The actor wasn't all that good at his role either, so I don't think the "best actor for the job" card can be used.Logan Westbrook said:The key point, however, is that without the context is does look like a double standard, which is one of the biggest parts of the problem.
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.The Deadpool said: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?
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.Nicolaus99 said: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
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.Sudenak said: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.ReiverCorrupter said:-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.
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"?