Can I talk about this modern trend in "diversity casting in TV shows?"

[Silvanus]

Yes I'm sure he really likes the money he's being paid.

Ah yes, authorial intent is very meaningful riiiight up until the moment they say something you don't like.

GRRM did voice criticisms of artistic decisions made in GoT in the past, by the way; a show for which he was being paid significantly more. So he obviously doesn't let payment stifle his willingness to voice artistic POV.

He just has no particular problem with this. Because it's not fucking important. And he's right.

It's called pre-empting the obvious.

Whatever. You can at least not have the utter hypocrisy to then criticise others for "weaponising" something, when weaponising it is also your very first approach.

Well yeah that guy's the psycho villain, he's not meant to be relatable. I think your reaction is the normal one.

I wouldn't mind if it was a quote demonstrating psycho-ness, though. But it aint; it's just nicked and poorly paraphrased.

That's why I don't mind other "performative villain" stuff, like the Andrew Ryan opening monologue from Bioshock, or that pseudo-religious screed from Hargreave in Crysis 2. They're at least original, and say something about the characters themselves!

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Ah yes, authorial intent is very meaningful riiiight up until the moment they say something you don't like.

GRRM did voice criticisms of artistic decisions made in GoT in the past, by the way; a show for which he was being paid significantly more. So he obviously doesn't let payment stifle his willingness to voice artistic POV.

He just has no particular problem with this. Because it's not fucking important. And he's right.

Right up until it is seen to not be doing well he'll have no problem I'm sure lol.

In fairness to GRRM most of this is some weird alternative canon anyway not his core version.

Whatever. You can at least not have the utter hypocrisy to then criticise others for "weaponising" something, when weaponising it is also your very first approach.

Oh please.

Give the perfomrative outrage a rest. It's very clear you're just mad I addressed what you planned as a nice "Gotcha" before even getting to try it and gloat.

 

[Silvanus]

Right up until it is seen to not be doing well he'll have no problem I'm sure lol.

He's criticised adaptations that have done very well, and he's defended adaptations that haven't done very well at all.

It's very obvious to anyone who actually pays attention to his work that he doesn't tie his opinion to the financial success (or otherwise) of the material. He's always just given his opinion. You seemingly cannot conceive that the author himself doesn't share your bizarre fixation with the race of his characters, and that's basically all there is to this.

Oh please.

So to be clear: weaponisation is fine when you're... "pre-empting" something you believe someone else might possibly say in future? That's the line where it suddenly becomes OK, which conveniently covers your own ass?

 

[Trunkage]

When you're the creator sure.

When you're getting to add to part of some-one else's creation you don't get to just do whatever you want because oddly enough other people have to then deal with the franchise after you so if you Amber Heard it then people have to clean up the bed after.

No thank you. I dont want every Star Trek to have sex pests because Roddenberry kept putting sex pest characters into his shows

TNG was also better FOR have more diversity, rather than less. Keeping Roddenberry vision of only white males in command is ridiculous

I also didn't mind Judy Dench's M calling Bond a misogynistic dinosaur. I also don't mind Bond being moved away from being a misogynistic dinosaur gradually over the last 3 decades

 

[Trunkage]

So to be clear: weaponisation is fine when you're... "pre-empting" something you believe someone else might possibly say in future? That's the line where it suddenly becomes OK, which conveniently covers your own ass?

Yeah, DH has done the exact same thing to me plenty of times. It's one rule for them and a different one for everyone else

I'd also note that this is how they see conservatives and progressives. Conservatives can insult and cancel all they want but progressives can't. Buckle up for a wild ride

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I also didn't mind Judy Dench's M calling Bond a misogynistic dinosaur. I also don't mind Bond being moved away from being a misogynistic dinosaur gradually over the last 3 decades

I think the world is ready for Bollywood Bond.

 

[Elijin]

I'll give Rings of Power a shot, but any GoT spinoff is likely to be locked onto my nations incredibly overpriced cable service, so nah.

 

[BrawlMan]

That being said, I am reminded when Ghost in the Shell became an American movie starring Scarlett Johansson. There were people displeased with that casting, and I followed a bit of that debate. My understanding is that people in Japan was pleased with that casting, since that was adding a certain level of prestige to the adaptation with having a major Hollywood star in the leading role while acknowledging that as a cultural adaptation some changes made sense, whereas the Asian-Americans of the US was not not pleased, since it was an example of their group being white-washed and denying one of them a rare opportunity for a leading role.

What I'm saying is that the perspective is dependent on your position in society.

And the crazier thing: the Japanese love the live action Ghost in the Shell movie, yet hated the original 1995 version for the exact "same" reason. "Slow, meandering, too philosophical". I still say the 2017 version is worse. Even the director of the first two animated movies, Phil they were copying him too much into do enough to differentiate themselves. Alita is better anyway.

Me in 2017 pretty much had this reaction going on:

​

I already accepted at a certain point, but it still felt depressing that's how most of the Japanese felt. I'm like "how are you all not noticing this?!". They're allowed to like whatever they like, but it still feel kind of hypocritical that they were loving the remake for the exact same reasons they hated the 95 original. The original animated movie did not do well on its home country (perception was barely lukewarm at best), but sold like gangbusters in the States & UK.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I never played Far Cry 3, but that quote bloody annoys me-- mostly because he acts as if its some insight that he's come up with ("Did I ever tell you?"), or the game is framing it as if he's being smart or insightful by coming out with it.

But it's just a quote nicked from elsewhere (usually attributed to Einstein) that he's parroting, & now more people will associate it with edgelord villain instead.

To be fair, Vaas does use it as an indirect quote; he says "the first time somebody told me that" suggesting it was indeed "nicked from elsewhere." I think this scene is so memorable because Vaas is a well-written character and genuinely scary at times. Just saying, don't blame a job well done for the ignorance of some of those who might appreciate it; it's a game with a famous quote woven in, not a history lesson.

 

[BrawlMan]

To be fair, Vaas does use it as an indirect quote; he says "the first time somebody told me that" suggesting it was indeed "nicked from elsewhere." I think this scene is so memorable because Vaas is a well-written character and genuinely scary at times. Just saying, don't blame a job well done for the ignorance of some of those who might appreciate it; it's a game with a famous quote woven in, not a history lesson.

I was going to bring it up to Silvanus, but you already beat me to the punch. Still thank you. It's pretty obvious, you're not supposed to 100% agree with them, and realize he stole the quote from somebody else. Plus, like I mentioned before, I knew about that since middle school.

 

[Eacaraxe]

This is a compelling and valid interpretation of the events of the movies as they're presented, but... I very much doubt that a lot of that was actually intended by the writers and directors.

I think it was very intentional. Case in point, the famous Cap monologue from the Civil War comic. And, I'll toss in these couple video essays that make some key points. This on the Russo brothers, Markus, and McFeely exploring the conflict of postmodernism versus traditionalism, identity and politics, and patriotism versus nationalism, in post-9/11 and post-social media America:


And, this one discussing the trilogy from a broader perspective:


...and I really, really wish I could find the video essay by a cinematographer, who makes some damned good points about the visual storytelling in the Russo brothers films. Chiefly, the shots, angles, and desaturation of the latter two (but also key mention on costuming) creating more visually claustrophobic and darker films to implicitly reference Rogers' mindset and worldview of having gone from an idealistic army volunteer in World War II, to a disillusioned, frustrated, and socially isolated operator in post-9/11 America fighting for shit he doesn't really believe in, on behalf of a country that either moved on from (or never believed in) what he did believe in. In such granularization and stark detail that even the action scenes were intentionally shot differently -- from Joe Johnston's nostalgic golden era war film cinematography, to the Russo brothers' Bourne-inspired shots, angles, pacing and editing, and shaky-cam.

Hell, Markus and McFeely wrote the entire Cap trilogy, and proceeded to write IW and Endgame. If anyone would have brought Rogers' nature as a patriotic critical thinker opposed to nationalist, to his final appearance, it was them -- and they did.

I have zero interest in these shows, but I just saw the trailers for House of the Dragon and Rings of Power, then I checked their IMDb pages to make sure. It's just more of the same, but the new Legolas is black now, that's about it...

The problem isn't so much that non-white, non-male, actors are cast in traditionally white and/or male roles, it's those actors are used as shields by shitty writers and producers against rightful criticism. That criticism generally being shitty writers and producers use fictional IP's as personal soapboxes to write political manifestos, not compelling stories.

Nearly everyone else is white. Oh no, Klingonarnia isn't 100% white like the books. It's all fantasy nonsense. The Fast and Furious movies are more "woke" than this.

Now, here's the irony particularly about Rings of Power and Tolkien.

That whole "elves are Nazis" trope came from Tolkien. Specifically, the Noldori tendency in the First Age to oppress and/or exterminatus other elf clans not particularly into seeing trees or getting themselves killed over rocks. To the point they -- literally -- were told to get the fuck out of elf-heaven and never return by their own gods after shitting up the place with betrayal and murder.

Galadriel herself was one of the biggest shitheads on Arda, for chrissake. Literally the only reason she left Aman in the first place was some manifest destiny bullshit, wanting to make her own elven empire, and she ignored multiple kinslayings, lied right to literal gods' faces about it, and nope'd right out of a war that destroyed a continent to do it. Any appearance by her in a First and Second Age series or film that doesn't involve her talking mad shit right up until the point people start getting stabbed, then "stepping out for a pack of smokes", is basically a massive 180 on the character. Cobra Commander had a stronger stomach for a tough fight than fuckin' Galadriel in the First and Second Age.

Meanwhile there are 100% dark-skinned "free peoples" in the damned books. And not the "Tolkien's racist, tee-hee, the only dark-skinned characters are evil" way. It also happens to be the case that of the...three?...controversially-cast characters in the series, only one of them happens to be correct while it would have taken zero effort by writers who knew what the fuck they were doing, to integrate dark-skinned characters while remaining consistent with Tolkien's work.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Yeah, DH has done the exact same thing to me plenty of times. It's one rule for them and a different one for everyone else

I'd also note that this is how they see conservatives and progressives. Conservatives can insult and cancel all they want but progressives can't. Buckle up for a wild ride

it's called making a solid argument. You and Silvanus might want to try it some time.

 

[Silvanus]

I think it was very intentional. Case in point, the famous Cap monologue from the Civil War comic. And, I'll toss in these couple video essays that make some key points. This on the Russo brothers, Markus, and McFeely exploring the conflict of postmodernism versus traditionalism, identity and politics, and patriotism versus nationalism, in post-9/11 and post-social media America

Well, if it was the intention, then I doubt you could identify 1 in 100 viewers of the films who actually took that away from it.

...and I really, really wish I could find the video essay by a cinematographer, who makes some damned good points about the visual storytelling in the Russo brothers films. Chiefly, the shots, angles, and desaturation of the latter two (but also key mention on costuming) creating more visually claustrophobic and darker films to implicitly reference Rogers' mindset and worldview of having gone from an idealistic army volunteer in World War II, to a disillusioned, frustrated, and socially isolated operator in post-9/11 America fighting for shit he doesn't really believe in, on behalf of a country that either moved on from (or never believed in) what he did believe in. In such granularization and stark detail that even the action scenes were intentionally shot differently -- from Joe Johnston's nostalgic golden era war film cinematography, to the Russo brothers' Bourne-inspired shots, angles, pacing and editing, and shaky-cam.

That'd be compelling in isolation, but the darker tone (and all the accompanying cinematographic tricks-of-the-trade) also made that transition across the board. Not even just in the Marvel franchises; it's been a broad trend in the genre, and even adjacent genres.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I'm really only bothered by the actual race swapping if it makes no damn sense like casting a known historical figure as a race they very obviously were not, because it's just dumb. I otherwise take issue with someone's reasons for doing it but not with changing race in itself.

As an example, I thought the race swaps in the new Dune movie were perfectly fine. The actors did a good job and there wasn't (as far as I'm aware, correct me if I'm wrong) any problems with in world lore. I also have zero problems with changing genders or races in stage plays since so much already requires imagination and they have a cast based on who works at that theater.

My two cents, peace out.

 

[Silvanus]

I'm really only bothered by the actual race swapping if it makes no damn sense like casting a known historical figure as a race they very obviously were not, because it's just dumb. I otherwise take issue with someone's reasons for doing it but not with changing race in itself.

What if that's kind of the point, like Hamilton?

 

[thebobmaster]

What if that's kind of the point, like Hamilton?

Or Bubba Ho-Tep. Those are very rare exceptions, but there are cases where racial flipping even historical figures can work...but it can't just be done at random.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

What if that's kind of the point, like Hamilton?

There's a lot of things called Hamilton, I need you to be more specific as to what you're talking about.

Edit: But at to your question of whether I'm ok with it if "that's the point", it depends. There's this version of '12 Angry Men' I saw on tv a long while ago that seemed to only have been made on the premise of race swapping everyone to be black and nothing else because either everyone they got for the roles couldn't act or whoever was in charge of directing them took the title of the movie too seriously and just told them to "be very angry". It was bad.

On the other hand, I love the movie 'The Wiz' which is The Wizard of Oz but with black actors because it's not just a rendition of the 1939 movie with black actors but instead has a lot of changes to make the story its own thing. Love that movie, music and visuals and acting are great.

 

[Trunkage]

it's called making a solid argument. You and Silvanus might want to try it some time.

The argument wasnt in question. You can have your argument all you want

You just apply the logic of the argument to specific people and not to others. If you did, you might realise that the problem is universal or, **shock horror**, it being way worse on the right. 90% of my criticisms of your arguments is you not apply your own logic to people on your side

Dont worry, this is just how conservatives are. It's not specific to you. Generally, Conservatives just want laws to apply to others and not to themselves

 

[Eacaraxe]

Well, if it was the intention, then I doubt you could identify 1 in 100 viewers of the films who actually took that away from it.

You can't identify one in a hundred people who saw Black Panther and noticed the US policy critique, in a woke movie, that was right there in the film's actual dialogue, during the movie's most important expository dumps, which everyone who saw the movie from beginning to end could not have helped to hear. Literally, page 76-77 of the movie's script:



...and on page 97-98...



i.e., exactly what Killmonger was doing in Wakanda to begin with. Provided anyone noticed that little throwaway line to begin with, it's rather...left to inference whether or not Killmonger was still "on the payroll", and actually sent there to destabilize the Wakandan government on behalf of the US.

Y'know, in about the same way it was left to inference whether Killmonger died at the end.

That'd be compelling in isolation, but the darker tone (and all the accompanying cinematographic tricks-of-the-trade) also made that transition across the board. Not even just in the Marvel franchises; it's been a broad trend in the genre, and even adjacent genres.

I mean you're probably right with that being a trend in comic book films, but especially Marvel. Just like that other 2014 MCU release...

 

[Eacaraxe]

What if that's kind of the point, like Hamilton?

The point of Hamilton was anything other than being Lin-Manuel Miranda's vanity project, based on 800 pages of poorly-written whitewash and sloppy neoliberal blowjob to America's worst founding father, that happened to get a better reception than it deserved because bougie shitlibs needed something to wank off to during The Bad Orange Man Times?

Aaron Burr's bullet was one of the greatest things to happen to America, and it's a goddamn shame it hadn't hit its mark twenty years earlier. If it had, the country might've turned out worth a damn.