Poll: Whitewashing, yay!!!

[Skull Bearer]

I think Moviebob covered the topic pretty well: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/3183-Skin-Deep

tl;dr: There are 10,000,000 white male leads in cinema. Not so many POC leads, turning POC leads white means you are taking away from a tiny stable of characters to add to a MASSIVE one. Thus; unfair.

 

[Mr.Squishy]

Either changing race bothers you or doesn't. If you were OK with making Heimdall black, what's wrong with making (character) white?

I'll just step up and say that yeah, this is a pretty fucking valid point.
"Cultural appropriation" or whatever always gets blown way outta proportion when it's something like what OP describes, but apparently it's "genius", "new thinking", "a societal breakthrough" etc. to do something like take the ONE GOD in norse mythology whose fucking title is "The White God", and turn him black.
Totally fine.
Because double standards are A-okay so long as those perceived to be in a position of privilege are the ones being fucked.
Yes, I sort of mad.

 

[Someone Depressing]

If it's important to the story, and that aspect/plot point/arc/entire character is suddenly non-existent, then yes, I'll have a problem, and most likely ignore the adaption.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Well I guess it really depend on if the characters race is a key aspect of the story or just a product of the setting.

I've never heard of the movie or book you mentioned but it sounds to me like you're saying the source material is Japanese so the main character should be Japanese.

By that logic you could just as easily say the source material is Japanese so it should be filmed in japan and have a Japanese director and the dialogue should be Japanese. saying all that just seems silly though.

At what point are you just saying go home tom cruise you're not the right race for this movie.

Adaptions are sometimes made more interesting by changes. It's not at all uncommon either for a character's race to change in an adaption. Morgan Freeman's character in the Shawshank Redemption, Red, was originally a red-haired Irish guy in the short story version but the film makers decided to change that because they could (they even included a reference in the film to his original story as a joke). If race or gender was really important to the story then I could understand, but if it's a story where the kid is Japanese because it was written in Japan and for no other reason then his ethnicity doesn't sound that vital to the plot.

this and this. I would hope (doesn't always happen, because backroom politics) that whichever actor is picked is because they would play the role the best (at least from auditions or whatever) regardless of race or gender, unless it was extremely critical to the plot that *insert gender/race here* is relevant.


I loved heimdall in the thor movies, and even if I don't care for tom cruise, I wouldn't throw a hissy fit over him being cast for a part if the director thought he was best for it.

This seems a bit odd to throw a hissy fit over something that was fine before hand, only to rage over it after you learned the source material was japanese; even then, are they saying this is a direct telling of the book? probably not.

 

[Blue Hero]

I want Jackie Chan to play Martin Luther King in the next Martin Luther King movie.

(I have a dream, that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ?We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men want no trabble.?)

 

[Canadish]

I can't lie, it's a real pet peeve of mine as well.

It's cool when you get a retelling of a classic story in a new setting/culture sometimes, like with West Side Story. When they're just adapting it for the first major release and they start messing with characters/setting for marketing reasons though, it bugs me. The author made them Japanese, so leave them Japanese, don't insult the work and start pandering to your safe demographics.
It's a two-way street though, either with cases like this/Dragonball/The Lone Ranger or when you get situations where minority quotas come up in extras casting/Heimdall's casting in Thor/Guinevere in the BBC King Arther series etc etc

It's hardly a great cinematic sin, but I feel it usually robs work of their flavor rather than adds anything to it(other than a steady baseline of profit, which is sadly hard to argue against really). I'm not convinced by the acceptable-double-standards argument or lumping people into groups and keeping score, it's shite when it happens no matter what.

I want Jackie Chan to play Martin Luther King in the next Martin Luther King movie.

I'd be very tempted to make an exception here though. I don't there is any role that Jackie Chan wouldn't make better.

 

[HalfTangible]

If the actor is good and the exact race doesn't matter, then I don't mind all that much.

Like, for Heimdall in thor, I was... less than pleased, since making the character black just felt like a minority quota kinda thing. Then I actually saw the movie, and... well, the guy owned the part. Granted, I didn't really like the character, but the actor portrayed him perfectly, so I didn't mind. Especially in an age that will point out a cast member's race change faster than it takes to actually see the dang movie

This argument goes both ways. If you're changing the race of a character, it had better damn well be because you couldn't find an actor of the same race that was just as good.

 

[Atrocious Joystick]

Isn´t it the story that matters mostly in the is kind of thing, why does race matter so much to you? I´d get it if it was some sort of historical retelling, like making the emperor of Japan during WW2 an italian dude but this is fiction. Does every adaption always have to be true to the source material?

Do you get equally upset every time the romans or the ancient greeks or medieval nords (vikings) are presented as english speaking anglo-americans?

 

[In Search of Username]

Er, no, I would not ignore an adaptation for that reason, if I'd heard it was a good adaptation. But I still think the whole whitewashing thing is bad, it's just nothing's going to put me off seeing a film that interests me.

Also, I don't get annoyed about changes made to the source material if they're good changes. Fight Club the film had a better ending than Fight Club the book, for example. It's just when it's in the services of making the plot LESS interesting or more, I guess, homogenised, that it's a problem. Like all these people getting angry that the new Spiderman is gay or something, I don't get at all. New versions of old stories can and should change things if it's not just in the service of whitewashing.

 

[Psychobabble]

Pure and simple what's going on is Hollywood doing what Hollywood always does, banking on star power being the the biggest audience draw, not the story or intellectual property. In this case I think they are correct.

"Hey everyone, come see our movie based off a Japanese tween sci/fi novel most of you have never heard of" ..... "Anyone?" ....... "Okay just the three of you then?" .... "It's stars Tom Cruise" .... "Whoa hey settle down, there's plenty of room for everyone. Damn we'd better open a few more thousand screenings so people don't riot."

 

[Asita]

Let me put it this way: I have absolutely no problem with race changes if it seems that the actor was simply the best choice for the role (see Morgan Freeman as Red in the Shawshank Redemption) and take particular exception to it if it's obvious that the actor's abilities had nothing to do with the change (see the Last Airbender). Changing the race 'just because' is arguably justifiable due to how much everything else can be adapted[footnote]I've seen Macbeth performed with sets and costumes designed to evoke the trenches of World War I, so it would seem rather petty to object to a race chance if that change works for the performance[/footnote], but at the end of the day the choice has to be made because it adds something to the performance rather than trying to enforce an ultimately arbitrary change to the detriment of the performance (Looking at you again, Last Airbender).

 

[Burgers2013]

While I think it's totally reasonable to change a character's race if race isn't important in the story, it still seems a little odd that all of the characters are white. The great examples already mentioned involve making a very specific change to one character. This seems like a broad-stroked white washing in order not to alienate the white male (or female for that matter) audience, as mentioned above. I lean in this direction because white washing does happen for marketing reasons. From a marketer's perspective, casting all Asians might make the movie look like a kung-fu movie or some such non-sense.

Although, now that I think of it, what about movies like The Ring, The Grudge, and Oldboy? There are many of these English adaptations of foreign films. Should the characters have all been Japanese/Korean? I've never really thought about those. In the American version of The Grudge, the setting is actually in Tokyo, but the main characters are white. That's kind of odd.

What do you guys think of this? Are these examples different because they are movie adaptations of other movies?

Edit: I meant foreign films not Japanese horror.

 

[SOCIALCONSTRUCT]

I think its fair to point out that these changes can also go in the other direction. For example, here is a trailer for the film [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Ass_(film)"]Bad Ass[/a]. In the trailer, we have Danny Trejo of Machete fame confronting two belligerent white guys and becoming the eponymous folk hero "Bad Ass".


This is of course based on the semi-famous [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_Transit_Bus_fight"]AC transit fight[/a], AKA the epic beard man internet sensation.

 

[blackrave]

From a marketer's perspective, casting all Asians might make the movie look like a kung-fu movie or some such non-sense.

Yeah, thing is that in novel represented army was more or less international, so casting all japanese/asian crew was unnecessary in the first place.
From main characters they just totally replaced protagonist
So, yeah, smooth move.

 

[Amethyst Wind]

OP, do you perhaps like The Lion King?

Should you be bothered that the main character is named Simba, rather than Kimba?

Should you be bothered that neither of them is named Hamlet?

 

[RedDeadFred]

If the movie looks really good I'll go see it. Adaptations don't need to be the exact same. Race changes aren't a big deal as long as the actor is capable.

 

[Lieju]

Either changing race bothers you or doesn't. If you were OK with making Heimdall black, what's wrong with making (character) white?

I'll just step up and say that yeah, this is a pretty fucking valid point.
"Cultural appropriation" or whatever always gets blown way outta proportion when it's something like what OP describes, but apparently it's "genius", "new thinking", "a societal breakthrough" etc. to do something like take the ONE GOD in norse mythology whose fucking title is "The White God", and turn him black.
Totally fine.
Because double standards are A-okay so long as those perceived to be in a position of privilege are the ones being fucked.
Yes, I sort of mad.

It's not a double standard.
What people who complain about stuff like changing an asian character into white but not about the Heimdall thing want is more diversity. (Also Heimdall in the movie was not the same as the mythological Heimdall)

In that case, not being okay when a minority gets removed but being fine with more minority parts being added is not a double standard, it's a logical conclusion.

That's like if you want everyone to be economically equal, it makes sense to want the rich to get less money and the poor to have more money.

As for whitewashing, depends on the subject.

If you're adapting a book for example where everyone is Japanese because it takes place in Japan, it makes more sense to ignore that if your version takes place in another country.

But if your character is specifically a certain race in a similar setting, then it's a different matter.

 

[Whytewulf]

I think you picked the wrong movie to use as your example. The story isn't presented as historically Japanese reality. Many movie or tv adaptations of books can have changes to race or even gender. In many cases this is for financial reasons, as the majority of the US movie paying audience is young white males, but that's not to say that couldn't change. There are many fine actors of many races that can perform any role. But movie companies are in this to make money, it's a business, not a cultural remembrance. Now if it was a real historical figure it wouldn't work. I think this is less of, we need a white person in this role, as we want a big actor in this role. Again this is a US adaption, go to other countries, Japan and China and they find local actors to fill roles, historically filled by Anglo actors. The interesting thing about the US, is we are a very diverse country of inhabitants, unlike Japan, or China, which have a much higher Asian populace.

Examples, like the Last Airbender, they didn't even pick a huge actor to bank on. And that had a lot of history visually of being Asian themed and they tried it in the movie, with mostly white actors. Outside of the movie being awful, that backfired. But take Will Smith, playing Jim West in Wild Wild West (though again an awful movie), I suspect movie studios would be fine with Will Smith playing any character as he is bankable (mostly...). Or look at Irdis Elba potentially being the next James Bond.. I think that would be fantastic. And I don't think anyone would really care.

There are plenty of examples with changes in characters to try a different take on things. Let's re-do that plot but with female leads. Or let's take that plot and make it in space. Or let's take Dances with Wolves and make them Stupid Blue people who instead of offering beef jerky to animals, connect with the animals via (never mind it still is weird).

Point is, the US has a very low Asian population, and we've done a poor job or portraying Asians, in something other than Kung Fu or Doctor roles. Action movies, typically have a strong male lead, and someone like the Dwayne Johnson, Diesel, Smith, can perform those roles, just like Tatum, Jackman, or a Stallone could today. But I look forward to the day to seeing another top actor, say of Hispanic or Asian decent take command of the screen.

 

[Something Amyss]

Question is
Do you think it's justified to skip piece of adaptation media, if it makes unnecessary changes to race/nationality of main characters?

It's entertainment. It's just a fucking movie.

And hear me out, because I'm probably not going where you think I'm going.

Honestly, I can't think of a single reason that isn't justified[footnote]Well, as justified as anyone's taste in movies can be[/footnote] about not seeing a movie. Whether we agree with you, if it can impact your enjoyment, then roll with it. I mean, frankly, Tom Cruise is kind of a turn off to me, period.

I'm not a fan of whitewashing, but I'm not sure it would impact my interest in the movie. But if it bugs some people, that's fine. If they're going to be bothered and not entertained, also fine.

EDIT: Just watched the trailer. Looked alright. Not into the time travel-esque business (I detest time travel in stories) but I'm certainly up for some folks in weaponized exo-suits engaging in a wholesale wrecking of shit.

See, the trailer did something amazing to me. It made me bored with a bunch of dudes in military exo-suits. That practically made me question if everything I know might be a lie.

SEE WHAT YOU'VE DONE, TOM CRUISE?

Though that part's not really Tom Cruise's fault. IT just looked..Meh.

Maybe that's just me, though. But is it really me? I'm no longer sure.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

I don't mind changes in ethnicity or gender, as long as it increases the overall diversity in movies. Example, Nick Fury being changed from white to black. If it makes the movies even whiter than they are now, it is not acceptable.