The Big Picture: Orphan, Black? - A Look At The New Annie

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
Jacco said:
That's why it is all the more insulting when something like race is forced like this.
Firstly, can you explain how race is being "forced" here? And who exactly is it insulting?

I think that the "forced race" is something that you might be you projecting your feeling onto the movie.
 

cyvaris

New member
May 10, 2011
65
0
0
Am I the only one that now wants to see an Annie sequel where in she goes to Afghanistan?


Also, my aversion to this movie is born purely from repressed memories of being involved in the musical version in middle school.

No...stop the music....it won't stop...I can hear the singing still...
 

AdagioBoognish

Member?
Nov 5, 2013
244
0
0
The Gentleman said:
A part of me knows they'll steer clear of this, but I really want a commentary on the dynamics of money and politics and the need for the wealthy to be more engaged with the lower classes and to not treat the poor as a invasive species.
My mind would be seriously blown all over the place if anyone had the balls to focus on that idea in the new annie.
 

SnakeoilSage

New member
Sep 20, 2011
1,211
0
0
Makabriel said:
The new Karate Kid was a remake. The Wiz was a re-imagining. And yes, Eddie Murphy did a lot of re-imaginings.

YES I'M THAT PERSON! I admit it. My feathers got ruffled when I heard Little Orphan Annie was going to be recast in this manner. The same way I rolled my eyes at the recasting of Kingpin. And I absolutely love Michael Clarke Duncan (RIP big guy).

Though, I suppose I can temper my annoyance by seeing this as a re-imagining. The same way I'm looking at the casting of the Fantastic 4. I think I still have the red marks form the face-palm that caused...
I liked MCD as the Kingpin. His skin color was never a factor in him being an interesting villain. And I cared less about Johnny Storm being black than I do about the people they picked to play Mr. Fantastic and the Thing, though to be honest I've never been very excited about the Fantastic Four to begin with. People seem to be incapable of writing them properly. I can only imagine Marvel Films would do it better, but that's not likely to happen anytime soon.
 

Redd the Sock

New member
Apr 14, 2010
1,088
0
0
Admittedly, there is an element behind this level of color blind casting I have issue with. We endlessly hear complaints about everything being a sequel and / or a remake. We also get a lot of complaints about lack of diversity. I seems to me these two problems should start to cancel each other out as new IPs come out of creations made to broaden appeal. But instead of the black rival to superman (which was Icon) or the black Superman (which was John Henry Irons aka Steel) we seem to just want to cast a black Clark Kent. No new ideas. Just an attempt to leech off a popular name. Granted the Annie remake doesn't reek originality even without the name, coming off like every other family vs career comedy, so the whole damn thing annoys me on that front by existing no matter who got cast. Still, I'd find it nice to try for something new instead of trying to slip in desired diversity like a fanfic writer making little fixes.
 

Urameshi13

New member
Jan 18, 2011
79
0
0
PedroSteckecilo said:
Not gonna lie, the Ovaltine joke nearly killed me...

Honestly my first reaction was "Did the world really need a remake of Annie? Ah well... okay... whatever...not really my kind of movie no matter who they cast in it."
Pretty much this, though I might take my niece to see if if she wants.

BTW, literally face-palmed when you said what Foxx's character name was.
 

Jacco

New member
May 1, 2011
1,738
0
0
Aardvaarkman said:
Where he specifically mentioned "black versions." If he was concerned about originality rather than race, then he would have just referred to "remakes" - not black ones specifically.
I think instead of focusing on the semantics of his words, you should try to understand the meaning behind them.

Aardvaarkman said:
Also, the "fewer complaints" thing is telling, as people typically don't get as upset about remakes that don't switch race. It's essentially validating racist attitudes - the implication is; "if you don't want these complaints, keep everything white, as it should be."
Asinine. I don't even know how to respond to that. I think you're the one projecting.

Aardvaarkman said:
So, what's wrong with that? It doesn't do any harm. And it does increase diversity, because it gives more leading roles to black actors.
That is not increasing diversity. That is giving something to someone because of the color of their skin. By intentionally making a character a certain for the sake of "diversity," you are, by nature, taking that opportunity away from others who are not that race. The coin flips two ways, friendo.
No one is arguing that black people shouldn't be able to act. But if you are going to make characters a certain race, have a reason for it. If you were telling a story about slavery in the 19th century, you need black actors to play the slaves. If you are telling a story about immigration in the 21st, you need hispanic actors to play the immigrants. Arbitrarily changing a race in the name of diversity is just another form of racism.

Aardvaarkman said:
So, casting a white person wouldn't be a racial issue, but casting a black person is? Hmmm.
Not sure where you're going with this....

Aardvaarkman said:
And why should there be no attention paid to race and racial differences?
You tell me. You're the one harping on about diversity and racism. And the other guy who apparently shares your views was talking about how there are no differences between white and black people.

Aardvaarkman said:
Why not? Characters can be whatever their writers and directors want them to be.
Yes. But they have the fit the story. As I said above. That's one of the first rules of characterization and writing. Your characters need to be at home in their environment. If they aren't, then you aren't doing your job as a writer.

Aardvaarkman said:
Firstly, can you explain how race is being "forced" here? And who exactly is it insulting?

I think that the "forced race" is something that you might be you projecting your feeling onto the movie.
It is being forced because someone arbitrarily decided to make an iconic character who's most defining characteristics are her race and hair color the very opposite of that. There was simply no reason to do it, hence race being "forced." Why is that difficult to understand?
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Redd the Sock said:
Admittedly, there is an element behind this level of color blind casting I have issue with. We endlessly hear complaints about everything being a sequel and / or a remake. We also get a lot of complaints about lack of diversity. I seems to me these two problems should start to cancel each other out as new IPs come out of creations made to broaden appeal. But instead of the black rival to superman (which was Icon) or the black Superman (which was John Henry Irons aka Steel) we seem to just want to cast a black Clark Kent. No new ideas. Just an attempt to leech off a popular name. Granted the Annie remake doesn't reek originality even without the name, coming off like every other family vs career comedy, so the whole damn thing annoys me on that front by existing no matter who got cast. Still, I'd find it nice to try for something new instead of trying to slip in desired diversity like a fanfic writer making little fixes.
Similar to my attitudes about it. Especially seeing as this is more a political statement intended to get attention more than anything really addressing diversity issues. This is something "Black America" is being given as a way of selling a product, in part by annoying purist fans of the material who can be re-cast as racists to try and make it seem even more controversial and like "social progress" when it isn't. To really matter you need to see "Black America" *earn* these things, which means either promoting existing black IPs, or creating new ones. In the latter case that means black culture needing to adjust itself and start producing more people who say aspire to be writers, artists, etc... most of those people will fail, but given enough people involved and enough time some will succeed and the IPs will succeed on their own and become genuine victories.

To put things into perspective they could always tell a different story along a similar line, if they wanted to do "Black Annie". Just as there are child-hero properties like "Abadazad" which include those elements already and could be promoted on a large scale and perhaps succeed. In response to the "Boston Legal" bit people referenced, while actually making a black "Spider Man" annoyed a lot of fans of the character (even in a spin off universe), it can be said there are already black super heroes just waiting to be developed without needing to "racially diversify"
existing properties. Half the problem with say "Heimdall" in Thor was with the dark-skinned deities already out there, there was no real point to do that for the sake of diversity anyway, it was all about the attention garnered from comic fans who didn't want to see comic movies turned into this kind of a political platform.

Also congrats on your comics knowledge and the superman points (that it had been done and was out there already) I was considering that but forgot.

That said "Annie" doesn't bug me as much as a lot of things, as I pointed out we've seen this kind of thing before. Sort of like when they did "The Wiz" which was "Wizard Of Oz" with pretty much an all black cast. It seems like they are less going for a long term reboot, as much as another musical, and at the end for what they are doing it all comes down to whether they can dance or sing. Sure on an academic level one can ask "why Annie" but at the end of the day it's probably because they want to do those particular songs/numbers. If your not going for the weird "kid adventure fiction" vibe that's really the only thing of value associated with the IP.
 

SAMAS

New member
Aug 27, 2009
337
0
0
Therumancer said:
My basic argument is simply why do they need to make Annie black. Why not simply create a black child-hero and try and see if it can succeed on it's own. My basic attitude is that this kind of thing, whether it's Heimdall or Annie is just a political statement for the sake of causing controversy and getting attention.
In Heimdall's case, I'm with Moviebob. Idris Elba got the job because he was damn good at it.

In this case, it could be a case of Executive orders. Why make Annie black? Because "Annie" is a name, and might put more butts into theater seats than another name. That's why the movie that was written with the title "Hardwired" was released in theaters under then title "I, Robot".

But honestly, I don't care. Sure, making Annie and Daddy black doesn't add anything, but it doesn't take anything away, either. So why complain about it?
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,959
0
0
Its kinda like raping high fiction to fit the big screen, it dose not make much sense. They tried this with Kung Fu kid and Gone with the wind and neither got anywhere its a novelty that can ware off quickly. Tho unlike those this looks to be a bit different but I will have to watch it before I can fully grasp what its trying to do.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
SAMAS said:
Therumancer said:
My basic argument is simply why do they need to make Annie black. Why not simply create a black child-hero and try and see if it can succeed on it's own. My basic attitude is that this kind of thing, whether it's Heimdall or Annie is just a political statement for the sake of causing controversy and getting attention.
In Heimdall's case, I'm with Moviebob. Idris Elba got the job because he was damn good at it.

In this case, it could be a case of Executive orders. Why make Annie black? Because "Annie" is a name, and might put more butts into theater seats than another name. That's why the movie that was written with the title "Hardwired" was released in theaters under then title "I, Robot".

But honestly, I don't care. Sure, making Annie and Daddy black doesn't add anything, but it doesn't take anything away, either. So why complain about it?
In my case it's a situation where I feel that if your going to use an established IP, you should use the established IP properly, and pick actors that look the part, or as close as you can. In these cases I feel the reason for doing it was because the controversy it generates from hardcore fans of the source material will put butts in seat far more reliably than the source material would on it's own, by making the product edgy and controversial, and of course being able to present those who disagree with the choices as being racists and promote supporting it as some kind of civil liberties victory.

In the case of Heimdall I cared more, because I am more invested in the IP. Not to mention that as Bob pointed out Annie alresdy got warped beyond recognition and any battles that could have been fought there are long since over. In the end they are making a counterfeit version of something that was already a counterfit version of a counterfeit version of the original vision and it's point. As I said they seem to pretty much want the musical numbers, more than the actual IP, though that might prove to not be the case in the long run.

Of course if I had the rights to little orphan Annie at this point I would have rebooted it back to the 1920s/1930s and turned into a horror story, and have her run into Cthulhu, with the cult ultimately being run by Mrs. Warbucks. The final heroic sacrifice of Daddy Warbucks would save the world, but his sheer wealth and the destabilization of his empire after the loss of himself and his wife would be the eventual cause of "The Great Depression". I'd plant seeds that Punjab would be the early descendent of Haji from Johnny Quest, with the intent of later doing "Johnny Quest Vs. Cthulhu" in which he'd team up with Tom Swift.... :)


In other words not only am I a little warped, but I think this property has been beaten to death so much, I'm not sure if even a "mostly black reboot" is going to do muchexcept perhaps carry some song sales, and that depends on how well the cast can sing. I mean, can Jaimie Foxx sing? He's got to do at least one duet with Annie I'd imagine. Truthfully I wouldn't be surprised if this goes the way of Les Miserabes due to uneven performances.
 

Pebkio

The Purple Mage
Nov 9, 2009
780
0
0
Hehehe... now if the new Annie movie doesn't have the little girl dropped into Afghanistan, I will be severely disappointed...

Or taking down a big action-movie alien ship, Independence Day style.
 

tzimize

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,391
0
0
Very nice episode. Always a joy to hear about the (to me) more obscure facets of (pop)culture. Thanks Bob :)
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
Jacco said:
I think instead of focusing on the semantics of his words, you should try to understand the meaning behind them.
Uh, you do know that is what semantics is, right? The study of the meaning of words.

If he didn't mean to oppose "black versions" specifically, then why would he write that? This is a written medium. We don't have anything to go on, besides the words.

Jacco said:
Aardvaarkman said:
Also, the "fewer complaints" thing is telling, as people typically don't get as upset about remakes that don't switch race. It's essentially validating racist attitudes - the implication is; "if you don't want these complaints, keep everything white, as it should be."
Asinine. I don't even know how to respond to that. I think you're the one projecting.
What's asinine about it?

The complaints referred to in the article are racist in nature. The author of that comment said he doesn't want to see "black versions" and that there wouldn't be so many of those kind of complaints if they didn't do black versions. How is it a leap of logic to see this as providing cover for racism?

Jacco said:
That is not increasing diversity. That is giving something to someone because of the color of their skin. By intentionally making a character a certain for the sake of "diversity," you are, by nature, taking that opportunity away from others who are not that race. The coin flips two ways, friendo.
But white actors already have more opportunity. And you are assuming this one done specifically to give black actors jobs, rather than as a simple creative or casting choice.

And how does making the character white also not deprive others of the opportunity?

Jacco said:
No one is arguing that black people shouldn't be able to act.
Actually, you are, in this case.

Jacco said:
But if you are going to make characters a certain race, have a reason for it.
Why? If race is not important to the character, then why not make them any race?

Jacco said:
If you were telling a story about slavery in the 19th century, you need black actors to play the slaves. If you are telling a story about immigration in the 21st, you need hispanic actors to play the immigrants. Arbitrarily changing a race in the name of diversity is just another form of racism.
This isn't a documentary or a historical piece, it's fiction. And how exactly do you know that the characters were made black "in the name of diversity"? Do you have any quotes from the director or writers saying that that was the reason?

Why can't a character just happen to be black?

Jacco said:
Aardvaarkman said:
So, casting a white person wouldn't be a racial issue, but casting a black person is? Hmmm.
Not sure where you're going with this....
It's simple. Why wouldn't casting a white actor be just as much a racial issue as casting a black one?

Jacco said:
Aardvaarkman said:
And why should there be no attention paid to race and racial differences?
You tell me. You're the one harping on about diversity and racism. And the other guy who apparently shares your views was talking about how there are no differences between white and black people.
No, you were the one who claimed that there should be no attention paid to race and racial differences. So, you should probably explain why that should be so. Do you just ignore race and pretend it doesn't exist, Stephen Colbert style?

(Apparently you don't, because you say it's important for Annie to be white - but then turn around and say that race shouldn't matter. So, which is it?)

Jacco said:
Aardvaarkman said:
Why not? Characters can be whatever their writers and directors want them to be.
Yes. But they have the fit the story. As I said above. That's one of the first rules of characterization and writing. Your characters need to be at home in their environment. If they aren't, then you aren't doing your job as a writer.
So, what's your reasoning behind the argument that the Annie in this remake doesn't fit the story?

Jacco said:
It is being forced because someone arbitrarily decided to make an iconic character who's most defining characteristics are her race and hair color the very opposite of that. There was simply no reason to do it, hence race being "forced." Why is that difficult to understand?
It's difficult to understand, because that image doesn't have to be the image of the character forever. What's wrong with making different versions of a character? Should Batman still be wearing campy outfits and mincing around with Robin?

I also think you're wrong. Annie's most defining characteristics is that she's a happy-go-luck orphan who was taken from poverty into wealth. If you think her character is just about red hair and race then you have probably missed the point.
 

irani_che

New member
Jan 28, 2010
630
0
0
Cant we admit that we hate this movie because its another lazy reboot of something that wholeheartedly does not need one
 

InvisibleMan

New member
Mar 26, 2009
93
0
0
"They probably won't drop this Annie into Afghanistan to take care of some Al-qaeda guys..."

No, but maybe they could do that for the sequel!