Burnouts3s3 said:
Back in the 1990's, Roger Ebert said that Aladdin has features like an American High Schooler while Jafar had more stereotypical features like a crooked nose, darker skin, etc.
Which was accurate. And not really just for Al, but for the lead cast.
Then there's the paradox where if you go the other way, you make the supposedly ethnic character have too many features similar to a supposed 'Caucausin culture', they're suddenly 'Oreos' (black on the outside, white on the inside).
Which you won't hear from a mainstream audience.
I mean, there are legit concerns with both. The latter may not be as big of a deal, but there's a tendency to try and weed out any potentially alienating elements of black culture (or any other culture, really) in order to make black people less threatening.
I'm more forgiving in live action versions of this because a majority of Hollywood are white actors (which is a problem that we should discuss another time) and the producers want big names.
But it's rare that black actors are even considered (unless they're Will Smith or Morgan Freeman) and they tend to not get to be big because of that exact same reason. Hollywood logic is that black people can't carry this kind of movie. Or basically anything other than goofy comedies or prestige films on a larger level. Hell, George Lucas met resistance over Red Tails even though the same industry greenlit Episodes 1-3.
Sleekit said:
im just wondering but if a Norse god can be black why can't moses be white ?...
Aside from one being a myhtological figure and one being a supposed figure in history? Or one being portrayed as an alien in a comic book movie while the other one is supposed to be accurate (at least as far as a Bible movie can be)?
Well, strictly speaking, there's no reason Moses can't be white. That doesn't make the comparison an accurate or honest one, though.
Though I wouldn't say Moses is so much the issue as "almost the entire primary cast" is. So maybe I'm disqualified from answering?
hermes200 said:
One important point that Bob doesn't address (at least, not directly), is that the Egyptian Emperors were pretty much white. The ones we mostly associate with ancient Egypt is the Ptolemaic dynasty, named after Ptolemy I, a Macedonian general of Alexander the Great
This is more or less not important, as the movie uses the historical Pharoah Ramesses II as the Biblical Pharoah, who died roughly a thousand years before Ptolemy's time.
UberPubert said:
You could just as easily argue Heimdall shouldn't exist, or could do so under a different name, and that the Scandinavians didn't know about him either (which would make sense, being the gatekeeper and all). But they didn't, they chose to keep the name, and all the implications therein, but proceeded with a black actor anyway, and that's fine - but don't try to handwave it away as an unimportant detail then and cry foul about it now.
What implications? The implications that already exist in Marvel comics is that those silly savages were too primitive to know that they were telling stories about super-advanced aliens who live in grand technological expanses. I've always failed to understand specifically why it's specifically an issue that the aliens who
loosely inspired Norse myth include a black guy or that Thor is now going to be a chick when they have sci-fi cities and can be whooped by the Green Goblin.
Exodus, however, is apparently embracing history. Granted, it is on dubious grounds by doing so through a series of oral traditions now codified in the Old Testament or Tanakh, (though in this country I have no doubt it is probably intended to be the former), but it's not portraying the Bible as a fairy tail, let alone filtering it through the lens of a comic book. Honestly, I'd love it if they did. These are not historical stories being told. But really? That ain't gonna happen.