That is an interesting point too. I recall an episode from SAC that featured a character whose chosen body was essentially a box with sticks attached to it.Gethsemani said:
Ghost in the Shell is "international" story
- Thread starter MatParker116
- Start date
Well you are calling for more actors and actresses to be given positions regardless of the economic benefit of selecting someone specific like those with a name that is well known (which despite your claims is still something that is big for box office draws). Outside of a quota system there really isn't any other way to interpret it.Jux said:
So someone makes a claim, provides evidence that not only doesn't support that claim but actively refutes it, and pointing that out somehow doesn't do anything regarding that claim?
So you're ignoring the fact that this has nothing to do with race and everything to do with name recognition for the sake of your argument, an argument which makes the massively incorrect assumption that a no-name actress who is white could have just as easily gotten the role when that never would have happened.
Again it looks like someone didn't take basic economics or business [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance]. The reason I used the source was due to its chart, which, despite the rest of the article, shows that the representation of whites and blacks (who are both more likely to enter the entertainment industry then other minorities groups) have, given the size of the sample, a statistically appropriate presence.
Now, did the source throw away this fact to push politics? Sure, but then everyone seems to do that these days. Seems non-partisan is a term the media not only has forgotten but actively opposes.
Funny how those complaining about whitewashing for this role seem to have no overlap with fans of the property. It's almost as if people who are fans of the property realise that there's no connection between the character's race and the story.
Then again, the Japanese are also quite confused about the "only in America" reaction this is getting, so I guess the US has that going for it: literally every other country is confused as hell about why this non-issue is being treated like an issue.
You say that sarcastically, but it is, ironically, right on the nose.
It's like those trying to get more representation of gays in entertainment who then flip their shit when gay characters are treated like normal characters, then harass the staff of the shows/movies that treats them like normal characters, thus actively disincentivizing the very creation and use of such characters (ex: The 100).
That's the most perplexing thing to me, it shouldn't really matter who plays her in terms of appearance, as in-universe it's just a plastic body, who gives a shit if it's a white girl or asian girl so long as it's consistent and you can know who the character is.Gethsemani said:
Would I have preferred a Japanese actress? Sure, but that's mostly because I'm a massive weeb and I'd prefer an adaptation be as close to the source as possible, and that would help with that. Even though I"m not the biggest fan of GiTS. Appreciate the things it inspired same as anyone, but there's not alot all that interesting for me in the show's themes itself(music is amazing though, Kawai is a fucking genius).
Dude, cut the shit. MULTIPLE people have asked you who you'd replace her with that has anywhere near the same pull that Johanssen has, and have yet to answer it. The fact of the matter is, she's the name people want because it is this weird thing called an ADAPTATION. The whole point is to put a different spin on it and make it understandable and palatable for a new audience.Jux said:
There's going to be a bit of white-washing, just as if a movie was made in Japan got Japan-washed(hell, washing isn't even the right term honestly, implies maliciousness, but that's probably what you were going for, right?). Because there's a massive glut of a certain ethnicity in the casting pool there and a lack of others.
The studio wants to bring in as many people as they can, weebs are going to go see it, because it's an anime adaptation on a live-action screen, so that's honestly already covered, so long as it isn't complete trash, they're going to get a demographic to come in. It happens with videogame movies and comicbook movies all the damn time. The problem is everyone else. I know you keep saying GiTS isn't an unknown quality, but outside of the community, nobody knows about it or the things it inspired, though they have probably watched them.
Johanssen is the simplest way to do that. It's a big name, she's got quite a bit of action experience, and she's about the only choice for an action movie at the moment as a lead female. That is the extent of the "racism" you keep harping on about.
Except that 'the economic benefit' is questionable at best. And sure there are other ways to interpret it. I don't need to be for 'a quota system' to be against whitewashing. That's an absurd claim. I mean christ, you aren't even trying to argue she's the best fit for the role, only that she will bring it a bigger audience, which btw still has zero evidence to support it.Zontar said:
Are you referring to yourself here?
Um, except this does have pretty much everything to do with race, as evidenced by my argument.
Couple of things. First, unless you're examining why certain groups aren't entering the entertainment industry, noting that they're not is pointless. It could very well be that people are trying, and just being turned away for roles.
Second, from Race/Ethnicity in 600 popular films [http://annenberg.usc.edu/pages/~/media/MDSCI/Racial%20Inequality%20in%20Film%202007-2013%20Final.ashx].
It's hilarious though that you're trying to toss aside the rest of the article because it doesn't support your ideological slant, instead focusing on a single graph that says something about black actors being represented, which isn't even the issue at hand here. While whitewashing and under representation are linked, you're comparing squares and rectangles.
And if you want to show me the math, go ahead, but I'd wager that a group composing 65% of the population getting 85% of the top roles is statistically significant.
Are you the gatekeeper now for who is a fan of GITS? And bullshit, it's pretty well documented in this thread that the GITS story is heavily influenced, and I would argue, inextricable, from being Japanese. I wonder how well Aramaki using 'individualist' as a pejorative would go over with American audiences.
'I totally have this black friend that doesn't care if I use the N word, so theres nothing wrong with it!'
Edit: Oh, and I assume your evidence for 'Japanese people don't care' is based off that youtube video. For someone so concerned with statistics, don't you find it worrying to make that claim based on a half dozen people being interviewed, who were given a 20 second crash course on what white washing even is? And still, not all the people interviewed said they were ok with it. Hardly compelling evidence.
This is so silly I'm not even sure how to respond to it.
No, it's not, in fact it's anti-intellectual to imply the results where anything but a the exact opposite of what the article's righter was trying to claim the conclusion was. Even his own findings make it clear that 4/5 movies that succeed that are not sequels or animated have star power behind them, and that's before we take into account that of the 100 movies he looked at the number is likely closer to 97-98 given the ration of movies without stars he gave vs how many of those examples actually don't star a known actor.Jux said:
I suppose that could be the case given the Economist doesn't seem to have many economists these days, but it does apply to you as well given your own source posted.
So you are, in fact, claiming that a no-name actress who happens to be white would have been considered for the role.
US demographics:
White: 72.4%
Black: 12.6%
Hispanic: 16.3%
Asian and Middle Eastern: 4.8%
Native: 0.9%
Roles:
White: 74.1%
Black: 14.1%
Hispanic: 4.9%
Asian and Middle Eastern: 5.5%
Native: <1%
Apart from Hispanics, I don't see any significant difference in level of representation.
Well given how the entire beginning and end of the whitewashing complain stems from claims of under-representation by those who don't have a grasp of basic economics, I'd say that it is relevant on the grounds that it's a massive part of the flawed basis for the entire underlying argument.
It's 74% actually, and given how the sample size is of around 200 people, I'd take that bet on account it's a sucker's bet as anyone who has taken a stats course will tell you.
Wrong, the argument has been made that elements secondary to the movie and series where important to being from Japan, however the main one (which, in the case of the movie, was the only one) was not, to the point where many mistook the setting for Hong Kong (which, given how the design was based on it and the story of the movie not connected to Japan, is understandable).
As for Aramki's use of the term 'individualist', given how his character and the organisation itself are painted as in the movie and the series, he'd probably be interpreted as the same: a person who is only not a villain by virtue of being on the same side as our protagonist.
People seem to forget that Section 9 are not the good guys and aren't heroes, and their job includes extrajudicial assassination.
See this comment would actually have a bit of validity if the response from Japan wasn't overwhelmingly on one side, and not the side you've taken. This isn't me saying 'I totally have this black friend that doesn't care if I use the N word, so theres nothing wrong with it!', this is you saying 'well I don't care that everyone in the black community doesn't care about this and are legitimately confused as to why anyone takes issue with this, I'm getting offended on their behalf anyway!'
Well you did, dismissal. Which isn't surprising, but I was hoping for more then that since that was a controversy which embodied the issue perfectly of "the people who are pushing for X are the very reason it isn't happening".
4/5 of the hits having star power isn't evidence that star power was what drove them to be hits. Conversely, he also showed plenty of movies with stars that flopped, and plenty of movies without stars driving them that succeeded. Causation of said star power making the movie succeed has not been established, and disingenuously conflating correlation and causation is what's truly anti intellectual here.Zontar said:
Given how there is still a pretty big problem with racism in casting, I'd wager a no name white actress would probably have as a good as or better shot than any asian actress.
Let me highlight that again for you:
*scoffs* 'Not only do they want to be in the film, but they want to talk too?! Outrageous!'
You know, it looks like you're the one obsessed with quotas with this fixation on whether their % of the population matches the rate they appear in films.
And in the conclusion from 'Race/Ethnicity in 600 popular films':
That's about as plainly spoken as one can get.
I'd like to see what that bar graph looks like when the percentages are accurately represented then. Looking at the 100 top grossing films of 2013 [http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2013], I see 17 movies where a PoC is either the lead of in a co-lead spot. This doesn't even meet proportional representation. We can take more years into account, but it isn't going to help your case.
I would argue that those elements you deem secondary were pivotal in how both the characters and the story were driven and developed.
How many people from Japan have weighed in on this issue?
Ok, please demonstrate the entirety of Japan doesn't care about this.
Dismissal is about all it warrants. It's as ludicrous as saying 'the real problem of racism is the people that keep pointing out other people are being racist! all you're doing is driving people away!'
editted for formatting
You're right, but my point was that his flawed metric that gave 4/5 instead of the more accurate 97-98/100 still demonstrated that the vast majority of successful movies had star power behind them, and when one actually looks at what he considers to be lacking star power that actually did have it the number goes down to statistically insignificant levels.Jux said:
Well that's a high claim, especially given how part of your entire argument relies on Hollywood not wanting to cast no-names for big roles. You're argument is starting to have contradictions in it.
Funny, because I'm the only one taking the stance here that forcing more people into roles because of their race (which is quotas no matter how one looks at it).
So you're saying movies should almost exclusively have white and East Asian actors to the exclusion of all other ethnic groups? Because if we're focusing on the audiences that are targeted, that's what the near totality of the market becomes due to how significant the predominately white North American market, the almost exclusively white European market, and the virtually exclusively East Asian far east market are, and when compared to them African Americans, black Brazilians and Africa are insignificant.
So are you and the article you quoted really arguing that only whites and East Asians should be given lead roles in internationally distributed movies? For some reason I don't think that's the case.
A difference of 8 out of 25 may seem large, but that forgets the fact you have a small sample size (in this case 100). Anyone who has taken a statistics class will tell you why such a small sample size is invalid due to its size alone.
You could argue that, but I'd argue against it given the politics of Japan and its place in a fictional world that resembles nothing of our own has little relation to the question of what it means to be human.
Admittedly I've only seen a few hundred responses, but as of yet not a single one was of offence or seeing it as a problem.
See half the problem is that people think this is what they're doing, which is what makes dealing with it all the harder because people who genuinely think they're working towards the betterment of society are making things that much harder for those who actually are.
There are a shocking number of people who want it both ways, who want equality but also want special treatment. Those who where part of the nontroversy regarding The 100 or who hate any female lead in either video games or movies who isn't a Mary Sue are a perfect example of this, as they want the equality of fair representation while also having the special treatment of having 'their' characters not be treated like actual characters.
To paraphrase William Shatner, there isn't anything that's going to make writers stop making such characters faster then those who want them who then attack said creators for not giving them special treatment.
Are you actually going to demonstrate his numbers were wrong, or are you just going to claim it and leave it at that? And if you're admitting that star power behind a movie isn't causation for success, are you still going to stick with that argument as justification for ScarJo being cast as Kusanagi?Zontar said:
I'd say my argument lies more with the claim that hollywood doesn't want to cast PoC. I would say that because they don't, you end up with a self feeding cycle that you have fewer PoC that actually become leading stars. Your argument is the one claiming hollywood doesn't want to cast no names because money.
Where is the rest of this thought? That said, I'll repeat myself again, this wouldn't be an issue if not for the long history hollywood has of whitewashing.
How many years would you like to look at then?
Credit given where it is due, to Jon Tsuei in this case:
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/15/11438080/ghost-in-the-shell-white-washing-johansson
So then your analogy was in error?
What makes you qualified to judge who is and isn't 'making things better' exactly? And this looks like a strawman of the highest order.
Funny, this applies to you as well. What good are people doing throwing a fit over a white woman being cast as a cyborg character with no defined ethnicity? And even more so, call it racism. I haven't seen any proof that this is true, and you insist on throwing this around like it's fact, yet it isn't.Jux said:
It doesn't matter that Johannson's Black Widow character has shown she can do action scenes, and at least act as a character who doesn't quite show emotion all of the time. Things that should be kept in mind when portraying a character such as The Major. Even more so, when given the hair, she actually resembles the character. She is a good choice for the role, there is merit to this.
But you can look at what people are trying for, and easily recognize when people aren't making things better. 3rd Wave Feminists for example are actually advocating for non-equal treatment for men and women, in benefit of women over men, even at times to their detriment. But then... they're not taking actions to help women in countries where women are fairly worse off, and may harass other Feminists who do attempt those things and talk about those things.
It's not rocket science.
I already did, by showing the only examples he gave for movies without star power and extrapolating how many actually didn't have star power to determine how many of those he didn't mention actually did not. It's way back when you first brought it up, when I pointed out that of the only examples he gave of movies without star power only one can have that argument actually be made.Jux said:
Which is an argument neither you nor anyone else has actually attempted to counter, just as your own argument is one that no one has provided any evidence to support.
Though I will be honest, I would love for someone to prove that the liberal bastion of smug self satisfaction that is Hollywood is actually racist. If someone could actually do it I'd probably pull something with how hard I'd laugh.
In Japan, South Korea, China, India and Nigeria when works from or derived from those of other cultures are made (and they are legion) they also recast the cast with locals, and have been doing so since the start of their respective industries. What makes Hollywood so exceptional? Why does it need to be held to a higher standard?
Enough to make a statistically significant sample size (1500 or more). Though then even with that you'd still have to make an argument if the numbers are off due to false causality potentially being at play.
Wait, so Vox is suddenly a sousece and not a rag? Though I'll say this, now I've seen one single objection to the casting by someone who isn't American. Still only about 0.2% of responses I've seen though, and even then the argument has a massive flaw given the entire logic behind it is "Japan was a world leader in technology at the time, and the story is about technology, therefor it's inherently Japanese" even though the movie that the adaptation will likely use as its core was so disconnected from anything inherently Japanese many who watched it thought it was set in a different country.
Well, yes and no. More like too general.
To be honest, the answer for me is like that for you: nothing at all, only the strength of my arguments.
And given how the social backlash of not using such characters is the equivalent to a flick while using them wrong is the equivalent to a gut punch, as we've seen the backlashes against doing them 'wrong' is far worst then not doing them at all, it would be irrational to not expect writers and creators to want to make less of such characters. That's just how rational human beings respond to such stimuli.
You mean when he listed this?Zontar said:
And your claim is that only one of those movies was actually starless? You're going to have to argue why his list was wrong, not just state that it was and leave it at that.
So your own source that states racism happens in casting offices isn't evidence to support my argument? Continued whitewashing of asian characters isn't evidence to support that? It's already been shown [http://www.bunchecenter.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2015-Hollywood-Diversity-Report-2-25-15.pdf] that diversity sells. Using the 'I only see green' argument is hogwash.
Well when you stop dismissing evidence...
I mean, at the very least, this is just 'but other people do it too' argument, it's not actually trying to refute anything. At most, it ignores that the US is a diverse nation and that we have the option to not whitewash our characters, but choose not to. I have no idea how many 'white characters' in other nations are being recast as locals, but that completely ignores that we have locals here that fit those roles perfectly.
So what you're saying is don't even bother doing the research, because you're just going to ignore it.
I could just link straight to the guy on twitter instead of an intermediary next time, would that make you happy? And I mean, when you don't look for people that are upset with the casting choices, you're less likely to find them.
http://www.indiewire.com/2016/04/hollywoods-asian-whitewashing-why-it-happens-so-often-and-why-it-must-be-stopped-291587/
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/apr/15/scarlett-johanssons-role-in-ghost-in-the-shell-ignites-twitter-storm
I find them lacking.
Evidence that 'they're just being rational'?
tl;dr: whitewashing has been going on for a long damn time, and people are tired of it
Alright, here's the reason why his list is wrong: of Thor, Planet of the Apes, Captain America, The Help, Bridesmaids, Super 8, Immortals, War Horse, and Dolphin Tale, only Super 8 is one that doesn't have star power behind it in the form of actors (though if we're including directors, which for the sake of argument I'm not, then the number goes does to 0).Jux said:
That was one of the most shockingly cherry picking articles I've ever seen. The "I only see green" (which, is someone can prove isn't what liberal Hollywood operates on, would be doing a great service for putting smug limousine liberals down) then why are the top grossing movies of all time (when excluding sequels and animated movies) ones which have about as much diversity as a student union's political descent (re: pretty much none)?
Oh please, if you call that evidence I'll start posting Fox as a source given where the bar is being set.
So you're saying Hollywood, for whatever reason, does need to be held to a higher standard then the rest of the world.
Why does this seem to be a repeated theme for the US in general?
Except you don't. The Us has quite a few Chinese, Vietnamese and Koreans, but given how strongly ethnicity is tied to nationalism in East and South East Asia that still leaves most of the continent without a noteworthy level of presence within the country. If we're using the 'problematic' scale, casting a Korean or Chinese actor in a Japanese role is, in the eyes of many (particularly in Japan) quite a bit higher then whites taking issue with a white person getting that same role.
What I'm saying is the level of world required to make that argument requires legitimate research into the topic, which most people don't have the free time to do.
Oh boy, the number is now 3 non-whites who complained about it. Or about 1% of the comments I've seen (assuming those 3 are all Japanese).
I do find it funny that of the three sources you've posted thus far, two of them had to use the same person for their examples of outrage that doesn't seem to exist outside of LA, San Francisco and New York.
Yes, when the social injustice outrage machine gives a 2/10 negative response for not writing such characters at all, but a 7/10 negative response for not making a Mary Sue that no sane writer wants to make, the choice is as obvious as it is self evident.
People can work against their own interests, modern internet slacktivists are a perfect example of this.
TIL that the entirety of the world is only New York, LA and San Francisco and that the opinions and perspectives of the entire rest of the country and the world have no effect on reality.
Very interesting video detailing accurately the plight of Asian actors in Hollywood, who, along with Hispanics, are pretty much invisible outside of stereotypically restricted roles.Jux said:
My only nitpick would be its mention of Cloud Atlas as an example of yellowface, it completely misses the point of the movie. Race and gender are not barriers for the soul in this movie, which means that they keep the same actors for every segment of the story while ignoring their race/gender. It means that you end up with actors like Doona Bae, Hale Berry, or Jim Sturgess playing both White, Hispanic, Black, and Asian roles.
I feel like this is less of a racist decision and more a " we think people will pay us hella money to see naked Scarlet Johansen fighting robots with an anime haircut" kinda decision.
I mean not to be crass, but if you told 12 year old me that there was gonna be a live action Ghost in the Shell my first thought would be "which actress are we gonna get to see naked?"
Not to justify that juvenile line of thinking at all, but i just think that the people in charge of this adaption, being cold calculating movie execs, are aware that folks think like that and are more banking on Scarjo's sex appeal and her proven ability to be in a popular action movie franchise (the avengers) more so than her whiteness.
Not really a more artistically or thematically sound reason for casting a white actress, but if they're doing it for a mere asthetic reason ( boobs + butt + anime robots = $$$)
then i can see why they picked Scarjo.
And who knows it could be fun to watch, she's a good actress who can do good stunt work and if the effects have decent money behind them then it could at least a fun ride if not a more heavily thematic kinda thing like the original.
I mean not to be crass, but if you told 12 year old me that there was gonna be a live action Ghost in the Shell my first thought would be "which actress are we gonna get to see naked?"
Not to justify that juvenile line of thinking at all, but i just think that the people in charge of this adaption, being cold calculating movie execs, are aware that folks think like that and are more banking on Scarjo's sex appeal and her proven ability to be in a popular action movie franchise (the avengers) more so than her whiteness.
Not really a more artistically or thematically sound reason for casting a white actress, but if they're doing it for a mere asthetic reason ( boobs + butt + anime robots = $$$)
then i can see why they picked Scarjo.
And who knows it could be fun to watch, she's a good actress who can do good stunt work and if the effects have decent money behind them then it could at least a fun ride if not a more heavily thematic kinda thing like the original.
That's not even the coasts being sliced off, just those three cities. But I have a feeling that the people living in those three cities wouldn't be happy about Chicago or Texas becoming the new "only place who's opinions matter" part of the country given how the pendulum would swing to the opposite extreme.Setec Astronomy said:
More info on ScarJos character:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/susancheng/ghost-in-the-shell-producer-defends-scarlett-johanssons-role?utm_term=.ut3jKRZDBG#.fiE2x0dZ9a
1. Definitely The Major
2. Kaori Momoi plays her mother, speaking strictly creatively her character probably either uses that particular body or was simply adopted.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/susancheng/ghost-in-the-shell-producer-defends-scarlett-johanssons-role?utm_term=.ut3jKRZDBG#.fiE2x0dZ9a
1. Definitely The Major
2. Kaori Momoi plays her mother, speaking strictly creatively her character probably either uses that particular body or was simply adopted.
