The Big Picture: Skin Deep

[DearFilm]

So according to Bob, embracing double standards is the only real way to treat our popular culture's derth of interesting or complex minority characters. So changing a Norse god's race was preferable to creating a new character who is black. Thor had an entire Earth-based realm that was set in modern day America, and yet it was less culturally diverse than Asgard.
This strikes me as a kind of racism in and of itself. It is as though you do not trust minorities or those who write them to create a new and unique character on their own, so you have to "gift" them characters who have already been created. You are allowing them to "prove" their racial equity only through the appropriation of another race's character. It's like if a black African chef wanted to prove his worth in a French kitchen, but rather than let him make his own recipe, gave him a recipe already perfected by a white French cook. This betrays an astounding amount of condescention on the part of anyone who argues this way.
Honestly, some characters can be changed and can benefit from said change in the long run. I think Spider-Man as a young black kid from Queens makes a lot of sense and could be interesting because this is the real world, and that character is set to reflect modern ideas and experience. A Norse god, however, seems to resist this change. Instead, we should be trying to create characters grounded in a racial identity, so "appropriation" instead becomes "creation."

 

[Rabidkitten]

Let's be realistic. No one who isn't a little odd is still worshiping the ancient Norse Pantheon. It is in fact a dead religion. That being said the only people who should or could get offended, by turning the "god" into a depiction alternate of that it's was culturally assigned visage, is dead. And that same person would have probably taken offense if you turned his religion into a cheesetastic marvel comic about space vikings. And I'm pretty sure the entire cast of that movie is either British or American which means they AREN'T NORSE EITHER!!. That and it's a fucking Thor movie, about a space viking, who gets sent to AMERICA, not Norway.

Shall I go on?

 

[MolotoK]

I've not seen the movie and actually never read an American comic book (Like many Europeans I was raised on Franco-Belgian comics), but isn't it a bit weird to have a Norse God portrayed by a black man?
Would u cast a European or African for the role of a Hindu god?

I agree with Bob, that those people, who act like hundreds of years of slavery, segregation and discrimination never happened, are idiots, but I can see why comic book nerds get upset about a change to their beloved source material.

 

[rancher of monsters]

Does anyone else think that black superman is a great idea? Cause I sure as hell do

You know I had this exact arguement with my father on the way home from Thor and my answer is no. Since WWII Superman, Clark Kent, the main character of the DC universe, has been depicted with caucasian features. Now if krypton was written to also have black residents, and one of them worked along side, or took over for Superman, I'd be cool with that. But turning Clark Kent black is something I can't get behind.

 

[MB202]

I liked how you used My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic as the example for an ideal world! XD

Also, I was never really TOO bothered by the casting; the only thing that did bother me was how in the movie he's black, while in the comics, he's white. It's like how I felt about casting Michael Clarke Duncan as the Kingpin in the Daredevil movie. I was upset that they he was black rather then white like in the comics, but at the same time, I doubt they could find a big, husky, bald white man who was also a really strong fighter. Either way, his performance in the movie was good (if not great) and that's all that really matters, right?

 

[Bobic]

Is it ok that I, a British person, find the casting of a nordic god as black a bit daft because I am without all that slave owning history guilt? (Although I am sure Idris is awesome in Thor as he is a great actor. I saw his BBC series Luther and he kicked ass, you should all go watch it now)

 

[Sknyjdwb]

Generally I love you Bob, but you're kind of a racist. My entire race (creole/kreyol) was created from and because of slavery if that is any kind of qualifier. I loved the casting of Heimdall in this movie but I can see where it would irk some people. It's a cultural role switch equivalent to casting a white guy as a Wakandan(?) in a Black Panther movie, or what they did in last airbender (which wasn't the worst thing they did to butcher that movie *shudder*) When they made Nick Fury black (in the Ultimate series, before the movies) It didn't matter. Race was not a defined characteristic for him. Asgardian's are Norse, you know, blonde haired blue eyed fellows, and Heimdall is Sif's full brother which in itself creates a weird racial-continuity worm-hole. It's not a big deal though, no one should nerd rage over his excellent performance, but to defend double standards on some white guilt trip is pure racism, take that from a non-white guy.

 

[Nerf Ninja]

Really getting tired of your white guilt Bob.

NONE of us were around back then so quit acting like a black actor getting an "assumed" white role is somehow less to do with his ability as an actor so much as attempts at fairness towards his skin colour because of what happened back then. If that was me I'd be offended by your racism.

Oh and by the way it wasn't just "people of colour" that were being enslaved, take a look at the Irish slave trade some day.

 

[gCrusher]

Outstanding show today. I don't think I can say anything more than others haven't already posted.

Also, on a much less sidenote, I would like to see an episode dedicated to Samurai Pizza Cats. Please.

 

[Lvl 64 Klutz]

Ah, dammit. Now I miss the BBC Robin Hood series all over again. Great episode, though, as usual.

 

[McMullen]

I disagree that the history of racism is relevant, as such. It's only the racism that exists in society now that matters. However, that's just a minor quibble.

In general, though, surely the main thrust of the argument is so blatantly obvious so as to not be worth saying? It's always staggering that entitlement can blind people to reality so thoroughly.

Relevant in some ways, not in others. The black guy who says he's entitled to money because of what happened to his ancestors is full of shit. The black guy who's asking for help because his family still hasn't recovered economically has more of a point. The black guy being dragged behind the pickup truck driven by guys who were taught by their fathers and grandfathers that this sort of thing is ok is a victim of both old and new racism at the same time.

The current situation did not arise from a vacuum, so history is still relevant. Addressing the aftereffects of the past, such as employment opportunities, is worthwhile. Addressing the injustices of the past, committed and experienced by people who are now all dead, is pointless, wasteful, and only serves to drag the whole process out longer.

 

[honestdiscussioner]

Am I upset about a black guy being cast in a white role? Nah. Don't care really. ESPECIALLY if he was as awesome as everyone says. I think they are allowed to change a character, especially through if they are modernizing it.

My only issue is that we shouldn't be allowing double standards at all. Sure, slavery was one HELL of a double standard that puts the "movie role" double standard to quintuple shame to the power of infinity, but a lesser injustice is still an injustice, and should not be allowed. Me robbing your store doesn't give you the right to step on my son's foot.

Am I being idealistic? Not exactly, because I'm not saying we shouldn't tolerate double standards, or that the only acceptable situation is when there are no double standards, only that we should constantly be aiming for as few as possible. We should not give free passes to a group who was fucked over centuries ago, simply because as long as they get that free pass, we as a society will never truly move on. It will continue to haunt and hurt both sides and I'd prefer we work towards that no longer happening.

 

[Ashcrexl]

Well the Hollywood thing is quite worse for asian than for black people. Just point me 3 movies where asian are not supposed to be a gang, a group of martial artists or both?

Challenge Accepted!
1)Monsters Inc. (and Up, but it's also Pixar, so I won't be cheap)
2)Lost in Translation
3)Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (counts because EVERYBODY is a martial artist)
Bonus: Fargo (one scene only)

But yeah, Asians are ridiculously underrepresented in Hollywood (i just noticed all the movies i mentioned have them in supporting roles). Also, Indians (not Native Americans) and Middle Easterners are even more ridiculously underrepresented.

 

[Stickfigure]

Honestly, I wasn't so caught up in the racial change of the character. I never read Thor and I don't think I ever really will. I know a bit of norse mythology, mostly disseminated through video games.

I think the reason the race change is so jarring here as opposed to, say, Nick Fury or Superman, is that Thor is essentially the co-opting of the rich mythos of a bygone culture for the sake of pop culture. That being said, generally the gods of a particular nation or culture are expected to represent the culture that it stems from. From that standpoint, a black Heimdall seems as patently ludicrous as... say... a Japanese Utu(sumerian god, for those in need of clarification).

The key word here is "ludicrous." Not "offensive." If we cast a white Vishnu, that would be offensive. But while the land mass and genetic heritage both exist to a degree, there are no vikings left. There are still, however, people who adhere to hinduism, and India is still very much alive and kicking. The people who are actually offended by the casting are the problem. The people who simply think it's sort of silly to see a black Viking god are not entirely wrong to think so, no matter how well-acted the role is. If Chow Yun Fat played the role of Otto Von Bismark, or if Will Smith played the role of Mao Zedong, or if Freddy Prince Jr. played Othello, it'd be pretty silly too.

Sometimes good acting can allow you to get away with that sort of thing with a lot of people. Other times people simply can't see past certain visual oddities, and racist or not, a black viking is something of a visual oddity.

 

[i7omahawki]

I don't think this is just a race issue, I think the attack of the bland, straight, white, brown-haired male has gone on far too long. It's just so boring to see essentially the same figure standing in as protagonist in every movie ever, and the part being played by someone with substandard acting chops.

If this guy in Thor is anywhere near as good as you say, it justifies his place there to me.

Something like the odd racism debate in Prince of Persia, for instance, seems warranted not because of race but because the acting wasn't even good. There are thousands of talented actors out there, yet somehow bland, or just not suited actors get the part instead.

It just seems like having a brown-haired male at the centre of everything Hollywood is downright boring.

 

[Alfador_VII]

I agree with Bob on this one. We need some positive race-swapping to go some way towards making up for the horrors of the past.

But most of all

MAKE A SAMURAI PIZZA CATS EPISODE NOW!!!!

 

[chaos order]

So according to Bob, embracing double standards is the only real way to treat our popular culture's derth of interesting or complex minority characters. So changing a Norse god's race was preferable to creating a new character who is black. Thor had an entire Earth-based realm that was set in modern day America, and yet it was less culturally diverse than Asgard.
This strikes me as a kind of racism in and of itself. It is as though you do not trust minorities or those who write them to create a new and unique character on their own, so you have to "gift" them characters who have already been created. You are allowing them to "prove" their racial equity only through the appropriation of another race's character. It's like if a black African chef wanted to prove his worth in a French kitchen, but rather than let him make his own recipe, gave him a recipe already perfected by a white French cook. This betrays an astounding amount of condescention on the part of anyone who argues this way.
Honestly, some characters can be changed and can benefit from said change in the long run. I think Spider-Man as a young black kid from Queens makes a lot of sense and could be interesting because this is the real world, and that character is set to reflect modern ideas and experience. A Norse god, however, seems to resist this change. Instead, we should be trying to create characters grounded in a racial identity, so "appropriation" instead becomes "creation."

there have also been instances where a race swap to a white person has taken away from unique characters that fall into different ethnicities. foe example, the dragon ball movie where goku is white. The last airbender could have had both unique inuit and asian characters. (although i did like how the fire nation where brown lol )

 

[Wargamer]

I really approach this from many different angles.

First, would I take issue in a 'historically accurate' Viking being black? Yes. Why? The words 'historically accurate'. Hate to break it to the Black Power brigade, but there's plenty of historical situations where Black people were either not present, or were firmly on the bottom rung, and I feel completely entitled to protest at you re-writing MY history to suit your own agendas, irrespective of what the specific facts of those events are; just because history isn't nice doesn't mean it should be re-written.

However, let's take a reality check here; Thor is not a historical documentary. Thor isn't even CLOSE to being historically accurate. There is probably more historical accuracy in the Space Wolves of the Warhammer 40,000 Universe than there is in Marvel's Asgardian pantheon. In short, I really could not care less that this band of 'Vikings' included a character who was blatantly asian, or a gatekeeper whose genetic relation to northeastern Europe is little to none.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I disagree that the history of racism is relevant, as such. It's only the racism that exists in society now that matters. However, that's just a minor quibble.

In general, though, surely the main thrust of the argument is so blatantly obvious so as to not be worth saying? It's always staggering that entitlement can blind people to reality so thoroughly.

Relevant in some ways, not in others. The black guy who says he's entitled to money because of what happened to his ancestors is full of shit. The black guy who's asking for help because his family still hasn't recovered economically has more of a point. The black guy being dragged behind the pickup truck driven by guys who were taught by their fathers and grandfathers that this sort of thing is ok is a victim of both old and new racism at the same time.

The current situation did not arise from a vacuum, so history is still relevant. Addressing the aftereffects of the past, such as employment opportunities, is worthwhile. Addressing the injustices of the past, committed and experienced by people who are now all dead, is pointless, wasteful, and only serves to drag the whole process out longer.

Oh, yes, completely, I just meant that the cause of the current racism isn't that relevant, only its current effects.

 

[GiantRaven]

I wonder what Bob thinks about DC's 90s/00s trend of replacing white comic book characters with characters showing a wider range of ethnic diversity.

Blue Beetle (White Ted Kord -> Hispanic Jaime Reyes)
Firestorm (White Ronnie Raymond -> Black Jason Rusch)
The Atom (White Ray Palmer -> Asian Ryan Choi)
Green Arrow (White Oliver Queen -> Multi-racial Connor Hawke)

I'm probably forgetting a few others as well.