The Big Picture: Skin Deep

RanceJustice

New member
Feb 25, 2011
91
0
0
JDKJ said:
RanceJustice said:
JDKJ said:
RanceJustice said:
RBGmachine said:
Too true. If you have see"Birth of a Nation" you see a lot of African American Actors in roles that where horribly demeaning. Ever since then movies / games / comic books etc have been "white-centric" and there just aren't enough positive and good roles for minorities.
You do know that Birth of a Nation was originally a silent film from the 20s played by blackface actors, right? Its nowhere near a metric that should be used to say media is "white-centric". I'll contend that today media is multicultural in its truest form and this is a good thing. Exemplary non-white actors have all sorts of roles over their careers. Some of them are specifically written for a black actor, but many don't matter. Lawrence Fishburne's portrayal of Morpheus in "The Matrix" was not race-driven, nor was his early role as Cowboy Curtis on PeeWee's Playhouse. However, he's also played thugs and (typically more suave than hood) gangsters. Morgan Freeman was best known for Driving Miss Daisy making his early career, but his talent has landed him many prestigious roles, including that of God himself! As I said before, there are a lot of black actors who take sterotypical roles because they're basically character actors with limited range or because they want the money - same as any other race.

We're not at a place where media as a whole is "white focused". There's more access than ever to multicultural media. The difference is perspective.
Hollywood isn't a very welcoming place for black actors. "Hollywood Shuffle" is, I think, as poignant a piece of social commentary now as it was when it was released more than 20 years ago.

A good example: HBO's "The Wire." You know why "The Wire" never enjoyed the same success as "The Sopranos" despite being just as good -- if not better -- on all counts? Simply because it had too many black actors in the cast -- or, put differently, not enough white actors. This was revealed in focus group testing prior to airing the first season. On the results of that testing and by and large, it would appear that Americans (and I use the term in its broadest possible sense) aren't prepared to give No. 1 status to a series with a predominantly black cast. Nope. That ain't happening. All those black faces make them uncomfortable.
I'm really not sure how you can say this? The Wire is critically acclaimed as one of, if not the best series HBO has ever produced. There are entire college courses on it as a window into urban issues. If it didn't receive the numbers that The Sopranos did, there could be a multitude of reasons besides the fact that the cast was predominantly black. The shows were very different in other aspects. The pacing, complexity of the story, characterization, humor-or-lack-thereof, etc...were all completely different. Even the language itself, being much more authentic to the urban culture than typical "ghetto" stuff watered down, was complex and could be a barrier to adoption for the same reason that Shakespeare and French foreign films today attract a smaller audience than generic RomComs. The complexity alone was enough to be offputting, regardless of race, to a lot of people who don't watch TV to think. If the entire show was kept the same save for being replaced by white people "acting black", or even transposed into an element of white "redneck, trailer park" poverty while maintaining the same complexity, I doubt it would have a higher viewership.

Hollywood as a whole seems nothing but accessible to Black actors. Not only are they prominently featured in ethnicity-neutral roles, but there are also roles written by the black community for the black community (A la Tyler Perry, How Stella Got Her Groove Back, Waiting to Exhale, Diary of a Mad Black Woman and its counterpart, the awesome social commentary that is Diary of a Tired Black Man). There are a multitude of professional acting organizations that require black ancestry to be a part of them, and there are award shows that exclusively cater to black entertainers in media (which are in turn, hosted and created by blacks). I am aware that these were originally created because of under representation in the Hollywood of the past and a very real glass ceiling, but it bares little resemblance to the opportunities today. It could even be said that, much like a person searching for a college scholarship, being of certain ethnic background will give you additional avenues put in place to help your ascension, compared to a white individual today.

I didn't say it. The producers of the show said it based on the results of their focus group testing. And I didn't say the critics didn't like it. I said middle-America wasn't going to watch it in Soprano-like numbers. And that's true. They didn't. Not even close.
I agree that it won't post Soprano-like numbers. Did the producers say specifically it was because the actors were black? Even if they did, I can't believe that focus groups actually said "Too many black people. Sorry. No go", which means any inference that viewers were tuning out because of the actor's demographics, is just that an inference - one that could very well be flawed.

Race is as easy and erroneous a scapegoat for TV/Movies as piracy is for video games - both can be used as justification why they didn't get the viewers they wanted, but when it comes right down to it there's probably some more complex reason behind the lack of attention to the media.

Edit: In reference to the song lyrics, I'm well aware that some people may have those feelings, but I think the facts speak for themselves in today's hollywood. I don't dispute that things were once like Public Enemy stated, but when we're talking about something more than 30-50 years back, its in error to categorize as such today. Sure, those roles still exist, just as roles for "Good Ol Boys", Deliverance style, and "old Kung Fu Master or Wise Old Asian Man", exist, but overall there are plenty of roles outside of the stereotypes available.

When people are wronged, they have a tendency not to recognize improvements in the source that wronged them, especially when race/culture is involved. They then pass on those same biases to generations that operate in a completely new time, which serves only to keep old hatreds alive and starts the cycle again.
 

TheRealCJ

New member
Mar 28, 2009
1,831
0
0
DearFilm said:
TheRealCJ said:
DearFilm said:
TheRealCJ said:
DearFilm said:
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."
As a comic book fan, AND someone who is incredibly adverse to changes (Often the smallest incongruities between a book/comic and movie is enough to downright piss me off; it's just me), I'd much rather have a inconsequential character have a race lift rather than an entirely new character introduced into a years-long continuity.
So did you take umbridge with the inclusion of Lucius Fox or Rachel in The Dark Knight?
You mean the Lucius Fox that has been part of the Batman canon since the late 70s?
And just like that, I lose my geek cred.
Still. Rachel.
Actually, to begin with I didn't actually like the idea of Batman having an honest-to-god love interest. But the movie(s) were good enough that I could ignore the small discrepancies.

Also, you have to ask yourself: is it really worth getting worked up over a Batman movie that isn't directed by Joel Shumacher?
 

JDKJ

New member
Oct 23, 2010
2,065
0
0
RanceJustice said:
JDKJ said:
RanceJustice said:
JDKJ said:
RanceJustice said:
RBGmachine said:
Too true. If you have see"Birth of a Nation" you see a lot of African American Actors in roles that where horribly demeaning. Ever since then movies / games / comic books etc have been "white-centric" and there just aren't enough positive and good roles for minorities.
You do know that Birth of a Nation was originally a silent film from the 20s played by blackface actors, right? Its nowhere near a metric that should be used to say media is "white-centric". I'll contend that today media is multicultural in its truest form and this is a good thing. Exemplary non-white actors have all sorts of roles over their careers. Some of them are specifically written for a black actor, but many don't matter. Lawrence Fishburne's portrayal of Morpheus in "The Matrix" was not race-driven, nor was his early role as Cowboy Curtis on PeeWee's Playhouse. However, he's also played thugs and (typically more suave than hood) gangsters. Morgan Freeman was best known for Driving Miss Daisy making his early career, but his talent has landed him many prestigious roles, including that of God himself! As I said before, there are a lot of black actors who take sterotypical roles because they're basically character actors with limited range or because they want the money - same as any other race.

We're not at a place where media as a whole is "white focused". There's more access than ever to multicultural media. The difference is perspective.
Hollywood isn't a very welcoming place for black actors. "Hollywood Shuffle" is, I think, as poignant a piece of social commentary now as it was when it was released more than 20 years ago.

A good example: HBO's "The Wire." You know why "The Wire" never enjoyed the same success as "The Sopranos" despite being just as good -- if not better -- on all counts? Simply because it had too many black actors in the cast -- or, put differently, not enough white actors. This was revealed in focus group testing prior to airing the first season. On the results of that testing and by and large, it would appear that Americans (and I use the term in its broadest possible sense) aren't prepared to give No. 1 status to a series with a predominantly black cast. Nope. That ain't happening. All those black faces make them uncomfortable.
I'm really not sure how you can say this? The Wire is critically acclaimed as one of, if not the best series HBO has ever produced. There are entire college courses on it as a window into urban issues. If it didn't receive the numbers that The Sopranos did, there could be a multitude of reasons besides the fact that the cast was predominantly black. The shows were very different in other aspects. The pacing, complexity of the story, characterization, humor-or-lack-thereof, etc...were all completely different. Even the language itself, being much more authentic to the urban culture than typical "ghetto" stuff watered down, was complex and could be a barrier to adoption for the same reason that Shakespeare and French foreign films today attract a smaller audience than generic RomComs. The complexity alone was enough to be offputting, regardless of race, to a lot of people who don't watch TV to think. If the entire show was kept the same save for being replaced by white people "acting black", or even transposed into an element of white "redneck, trailer park" poverty while maintaining the same complexity, I doubt it would have a higher viewership.

Hollywood as a whole seems nothing but accessible to Black actors. Not only are they prominently featured in ethnicity-neutral roles, but there are also roles written by the black community for the black community (A la Tyler Perry, How Stella Got Her Groove Back, Waiting to Exhale, Diary of a Mad Black Woman and its counterpart, the awesome social commentary that is Diary of a Tired Black Man). There are a multitude of professional acting organizations that require black ancestry to be a part of them, and there are award shows that exclusively cater to black entertainers in media (which are in turn, hosted and created by blacks). I am aware that these were originally created because of under representation in the Hollywood of the past and a very real glass ceiling, but it bares little resemblance to the opportunities today. It could even be said that, much like a person searching for a college scholarship, being of certain ethnic background will give you additional avenues put in place to help your ascension, compared to a white individual today.

I didn't say it. The producers of the show said it based on the results of their focus group testing. And I didn't say the critics didn't like it. I said middle-America wasn't going to watch it in Soprano-like numbers. And that's true. They didn't. Not even close.
I agree that it won't post Soprano-like numbers. Did the producers say specifically it was because the actors were black? Even if they did, I can't believe that focus groups actually said "Too many black people. Sorry. No go", which means any inference that viewers were tuning out because of the actor's demographics, is just that an inference - one that could very well be flawed.

Race is as easy and erroneous a scapegoat for TV/Movies as piracy is for video games - both can be used as justification why they didn't get the viewers they wanted, but when it comes right down to it there's probably some more complex reason behind the lack of attention to the media.
I heard David Simon say that with his own mouth on one of those "behind the scenes" clips on the official webpage. He was discussing the decision beforehand to only do a set number of seasons because they knew going in that the viewer numbers weren't going to be astronomical based on the early screenings. He goes as far as to state that once a cast gets beyond x% all-black, it's downhill from there (not his exact words, but close enough for government work).
 

TheRealCJ

New member
Mar 28, 2009
1,831
0
0
RanceJustice said:
RBGmachine said:
Too true. If you have see"Birth of a Nation" you see a lot of African American Actors in roles that where horribly demeaning. Ever since then movies / games / comic books etc have been "white-centric" and there just aren't enough positive and good roles for minorities.
You do know that Birth of a Nation was originally a silent film from the 20s played by blackface actors, right? Its nowhere near a metric that should be used to say media is "white-centric". I'll contend that today media is multicultural in its truest form and this is a good thing. Exemplary non-white actors have all sorts of roles over their careers. Some of them are specifically written for a black actor, but many don't matter. Lawrence Fishburne's portrayal of Morpheus in "The Matrix" was not race-driven, nor was his early role as Cowboy Curtis on PeeWee's Playhouse. However, he's also played thugs and (typically more suave than hood) gangsters. Morgan Freeman was best known for Driving Miss Daisy making his early career, but his talent has landed him many prestigious roles, including that of God himself! As I said before, there are a lot of black actors who take sterotypical roles because they're basically character actors with limited range or because they want the money - same as any other race.

We're not at a place where media as a whole is "white focused". There's more access than ever to multicultural media. The difference is perspective.
Morgan Freeman playing god in Bruce Almighty WAS actually stunt casting, even if they didn't explicitly mention it in-film.

Come on, it's a Jim Carrey comedy: "Haha, check it out here Audience! God be black! Isn't that weird and wacky?!"

But I will agree that Freeman has played a lot of great colourblind roles over the years.
 

JDKJ

New member
Oct 23, 2010
2,065
0
0
DUKENUK3M said:
JDKJ said:
DUKENUK3M said:
JDKJ said:
DUKENUK3M said:
JDKJ said:
Next time, draw yourself some Venn diagrams to help you make your non-point.
You are being very evasive. Is that your only play at this point?
Yeah, I'm playless. You win.
Clever. We both know that you would lose.
Yep. You're right. You win. Now go play with your Venn diagrams.
Pussy
You can play with that, too, if you've got one. Whatever floats your boat.
 

JDKJ

New member
Oct 23, 2010
2,065
0
0
TheRealCJ said:
RanceJustice said:
RBGmachine said:
Too true. If you have see"Birth of a Nation" you see a lot of African American Actors in roles that where horribly demeaning. Ever since then movies / games / comic books etc have been "white-centric" and there just aren't enough positive and good roles for minorities.
You do know that Birth of a Nation was originally a silent film from the 20s played by blackface actors, right? Its nowhere near a metric that should be used to say media is "white-centric". I'll contend that today media is multicultural in its truest form and this is a good thing. Exemplary non-white actors have all sorts of roles over their careers. Some of them are specifically written for a black actor, but many don't matter. Lawrence Fishburne's portrayal of Morpheus in "The Matrix" was not race-driven, nor was his early role as Cowboy Curtis on PeeWee's Playhouse. However, he's also played thugs and (typically more suave than hood) gangsters. Morgan Freeman was best known for Driving Miss Daisy making his early career, but his talent has landed him many prestigious roles, including that of God himself! As I said before, there are a lot of black actors who take sterotypical roles because they're basically character actors with limited range or because they want the money - same as any other race.

We're not at a place where media as a whole is "white focused". There's more access than ever to multicultural media. The difference is perspective.
Morgan Freeman playing god in Bruce Almighty WAS actually stunt casting, even if they didn't explicitly mention it in-film.

Come on, it's a Jim Carrey comedy: "Haha, check it out here Audience! God be black! Isn't that weird and wacky?!"

But I will agree that Freeman has played a lot of great colourblind roles over the years.
Can't blame anyone for casting him as Frederick Douglass. He looks more like Frederick Douglass than Frederick Douglass looks like Frederick Douglass:




 

MatsVS

Tea & Grief
Nov 9, 2009
423
0
0
Chatney said:
You're claiming that we should solve inequality with more inequality, in other words fighting fire with fire. This is neither logical (which is ironic since you're accusing me of using poor logic) nor effective, as it would merely skew society's perspective in another direction instead of getting it on the right track. You don't build houses on impermanent foundations. Two wrongs don't make a right. This is really basic logic that both you and MovieBob fail to grasp.
As long as you insist on applying platitudes to what is an inextricably complex situation, I don't see this discussion going anywhere fruitful.

I do, however, wish thank you for staying civil and, perhaps more importantly, eloquent. It's been a rare pleasure.
 

SOCIALCONSTRUCT

New member
Apr 16, 2011
95
0
0
JDKJ said:
DUKENUK3M said:
JDKJ said:
DUKENUK3M said:
JDKJ said:
DUKENUK3M said:
JDKJ said:
Next time, draw yourself some Venn diagrams to help you make your non-point.
You are being very evasive. Is that your only play at this point?
Yeah, I'm playless. You win.
Clever. We both know that you would lose.
Yep. You're right. You win. Now go play with your Venn diagrams.
Pussy
You can play with that, too, if you've got one. Whatever floats your boat.
I used logic, guilty as charged. You win bro.
 

rddj623

"Breathe Deep, Seek Peace"
Sep 28, 2009
644
0
0
I generally approach movies I watch the same way as movies I'm casting. If the actor does a good believable job then I could really care less about race. There are some examples where this is met with some reservation, such as Avatar (the airbending variety). The characters are clearly supposed to be from different races. Arctic natives shouldn't be the same as others in the land, it just doesn't make sense. Plus the coming together of disparate parts is one of the themes of the series. Thor on the other hand is about a mystical culture where it totally makes sense to have a variety of people represented. One makes sense to switch, the other doesn't.

P.S. Black superman would be awesome, in fact any race would be work so long as the actor represents Sup's character well. He's Kryptonian, who the heck is there to say there weren't different races or they were all a different race! Plus you could just match the Kent's to his race and make the story about fitting in that much more poignant! Such a dang cool idea to bounce around!
 

JDKJ

New member
Oct 23, 2010
2,065
0
0
DUKENUK3M said:
JDKJ said:
DUKENUK3M said:
JDKJ said:
DUKENUK3M said:
JDKJ said:
DUKENUK3M said:
JDKJ said:
Next time, draw yourself some Venn diagrams to help you make your non-point.
You are being very evasive. Is that your only play at this point?
Yeah, I'm playless. You win.
Clever. We both know that you would lose.
Yep. You're right. You win. Now go play with your Venn diagrams.
Pussy
You can play with that, too, if you've got one. Whatever floats your boat.
I used logic, guilty as charged. You win bro.
Great. We both win. It's a win-win situation.
 

freakonaleash

Wheat field gazer
Jan 3, 2009
329
0
0
I don't understand, Bob was only speaking for North America. Why are all the Europeans asserting how innocent they are on the whole subject when he was clearly not talking about Europe?
 

The Deadpool

New member
Dec 28, 2007
295
0
0
MovieBob said:
Sometimes embracing a double standard is the right thing to do.
There's four things wrong with the argument proposed in the video:

1) There were options for minority casting WITHOUT changing the appearance of the original character. Say, Darcy, who wasn't a comic character at all, could've been whatever race, gender, ethnicity anyone wanted without making a change to the original material or hurting the movie. Of course, there would be no controversy and free publicity.

2) It implies that this casting helps race relations in any way, shape or form. Hate to tell you, but we aren't taking to the streets, hand in hand, chanting and shooting fireworks. Nor will we, in the future, look back at the turning point in race relations when Heimdall was a black man.

3) A double standard is NEVER the right thing to do. The moment you let someone's appearance affect your actions, you're on the wrong side of the fight. Treating someone "better" because of their race implies they're inferior just the same. It implies the poor, worthless minorities need the hand outs of the mighty and generous white people.

4) While the world isn't perfect, it does not mean we should not aspire to be. It doesn't excuse any wrongdoing just because there's been worse before or elsewhere. Two wrongs don't make a right, and no amount of guilt over the first wrong is going to change that. I get that you Americans feel a TON of guilt over the slavery thing, but it doesn't excuse acting a fool NOW...

In the end of the day, this is a simple situation: For some reason (Free publicity? Friendship? Polical correctness? Probably all of the above. Irrelevant really) they decided to cast an actor that does not fit the physical description of the character. Some of the fans dislike that. The whole thing was then blown WAY out of proportion...
 

Tinybear

New member
Aug 27, 2010
74
0
0
DSQ said:
Tell that to Jimmy Boyle.

He is a scottish artist who when to prison for murder and when he came out became a respected artist.

There is a saying that: "if you fly with the crows you get tarred with the same brush"
witch means that if live around bad people you will get blamed for there actions. This is a really good way of analysing your little essay there.

You say that forced immgration you done all sorts of bad things to you city. My dad is an Immagration lawyer and TRUST ME immagration is never'forced'. You are implying that the higher crime rate among somalian and middle easten immagrants. This may be true, although crime rates are a flawed way of measuring such a thing.

If we went by you standards and stopped all immagration you would be punnishing all those who need to come or those who have done nothing wrong.

An exaple is in my community, Black carrbian in the UK, we have one of the highest crime rates and lowest schools scores. From what your saying the government in my country should just give up on people like me since we are all stupid apparently. But because they didn't I got into University.

If we judge a whole group of people by the action of a few, everyone loses.
A lot of valid points, and although my post only pointed out the bad stuff that comes with the "multicultural project", I do not mean that all who come are bad. I got a bit carried away as well from the rage I felt as yet again, a moron misquoted my post and took it way out of line (the one I was quoting in the part you quoted from me). Although, this time it was my way of saying things that was out of line, so I'll try to modify a bit.

First off: "forced immigration". Great Britain has had a quite different view and history on this than Norway, so I'll keep it to be about Norway. In Norway, we needed more hands in the late 70's, early 80's, and were happy to have people come and work, and settle. But these were people who we accepted in to work, and who had to adapt to our country. The problem didn't start until the 90's, when we suddenly got the idea that we needed to "save" all the poor people in the world by letting them come to us. But we did so without any proper concept of a sustainable progress, without any jobs to offer them, and we made ghettoes funded by welfare. And after 9/11, well, things didn't get better. Religious conflicts flamed up, and segregated the sides even more.

The reason I called it "forced immigration" was because it was a project started by a cultural elite on the "best west-side" as we call it in Oslo. It wasn't started to meet any needs, nor was it started after a proper public debate on the issue. It was started without any proper introduction, and now the problems have started to show.

And the Norwegian bureaucrats responsible for deciding who gets to stay were for a long time, and in a very large degree still are ideological extremists who has attempted to get in as many as possible. They accepted many members of a radical islamic group who are classified as terrorists in their home country, but because they fight for "their religious beliefs", which is to introduce sharia and create a totalitarian state. But because they face a death sentence for basically wanting to remove all civil rights from their people, they can stay. Not kidding. However, an African albino, who has to avoid being hunted down for having his organs prepared by a witch doctor, gets declined and "mysteriously leaked to the press", so that an image of strict immigration is preserved. I am not exaggerating, that has happened.

The sad fact is that very few people realize what these bureaucrats have been doing, and this misinformation has very bad side effects. One thing is that the integration effort has gone to hell. But what is worse is that racism is spreading like wildfire.

The problem, isn't what I think, it is what the people who see this from afar think. People who lack statistical understanding. People who don't see that what can be said of an average, is rarely applicable on an individual. I think an episode of Scrubs said it best: "You see patients who come in with a cold die on the spot, and you see people with 5% chance live to be 80. There's no use in believing that statistics will shape an individual." The problem is, that while medicine can be quite simple with just saying "bad luck I suppose" when answering to why someone died, when people ask for the reason why crime is sky high, the worst possible answer they can get is "you're racist!". All this does is give the impression that there isn't a good reason for it, and this thought leads to racism.

The correct answer is more of the lines of : "because integration has failed to some degree, and this has resulted in a stronger subculture much closer to the culture of their country of origin, which rejects many of the values of the modern democracy, and until we manage to break the evil cycle, the sad fact is that many boys will be drawn to such environments where they discard the respect for the law, and form their own norms."

I will admit, that your point of people being forced by their environments is a valid one, and quite often the case. But there are also those who because of their upbringing in such environments have become "crows" themselves. For every man walking out of a prison redeemed, there's at least one who has learned nothing but the fact that prisons suck.
 

Zydrate

New member
Apr 1, 2009
1,914
0
0
I wonder if he had that disclaimer because of everyone being pissed at insulting us directly in his recent videos.

His last few (give or take a couple, this seems to be an on/off thing) were pretty much "If you disagree with me, then you're an idiot. And a dogfight sympathizer. You should all die."
 

Tinybear

New member
Aug 27, 2010
74
0
0
RanceJustice said:
People seem to paint these issues as only having two extremes "Kick them all out" or "Let them all come and do what they please", but that is a fallacy, often perpetrated by advocacy groups. There's nothing wrong with crafting median solutions.
The last sentence says it perfectly. (and I generally liked the entire post, good stuff)
 

TheRealCJ

New member
Mar 28, 2009
1,831
0
0
JDKJ said:
TheRealCJ said:
RanceJustice said:
RBGmachine said:
Too true. If you have see"Birth of a Nation" you see a lot of African American Actors in roles that where horribly demeaning. Ever since then movies / games / comic books etc have been "white-centric" and there just aren't enough positive and good roles for minorities.
You do know that Birth of a Nation was originally a silent film from the 20s played by blackface actors, right? Its nowhere near a metric that should be used to say media is "white-centric". I'll contend that today media is multicultural in its truest form and this is a good thing. Exemplary non-white actors have all sorts of roles over their careers. Some of them are specifically written for a black actor, but many don't matter. Lawrence Fishburne's portrayal of Morpheus in "The Matrix" was not race-driven, nor was his early role as Cowboy Curtis on PeeWee's Playhouse. However, he's also played thugs and (typically more suave than hood) gangsters. Morgan Freeman was best known for Driving Miss Daisy making his early career, but his talent has landed him many prestigious roles, including that of God himself! As I said before, there are a lot of black actors who take sterotypical roles because they're basically character actors with limited range or because they want the money - same as any other race.

We're not at a place where media as a whole is "white focused". There's more access than ever to multicultural media. The difference is perspective.
Morgan Freeman playing god in Bruce Almighty WAS actually stunt casting, even if they didn't explicitly mention it in-film.

Come on, it's a Jim Carrey comedy: "Haha, check it out here Audience! God be black! Isn't that weird and wacky?!"

But I will agree that Freeman has played a lot of great colourblind roles over the years.
Can't blame anyone for casting him as Frederick Douglass. He looks more like Frederick Douglass than Frederick Douglass looks like Frederick Douglass:




I smell a time-traveling conspiracy.
 

Steve the Pocket

New member
Mar 30, 2009
1,649
0
0
I don't have time to read this whole thread, but I'll offer my two cents anyway:

At first I was going to say it was a bit dumb to cast a black actor as a Norse god ? the invention of a culture that had likely never even heard of Africa, much less knew what its inhabitants looked like. I would actually be totally open to the idea of a black Superman, since he's from another planet and could literally be any color in the sRGB field for all the difference it would make. Keeping a Norse god white would make more sense than most of the casting choices in Hollywood these days.

That's what I was going to say. But then I remembered two words: White. Jesus.

Casting white people as Yahweh? Casting black people as Yahweh? Sure, why not. Unlike the Norse pantheon, tons of non-Jewish people did and still do worship him (and not just the Christian version; there are black people and white people who have converted to Judaism), so his public image has changed with the times. But Jesus? There's absolutely no argument as what race his earthy form was. Yet even in the 21st century we have him being played almost exclusively by Caucasian actors. And, frankly, I'm genuinely concerned about the motivation behind it ? more than I will ever be by the casting choices of a guy named "Shyamalan."

So yeah. I'll start complaining about black Norse gods when Hollywood stops casting white guys as Jesus forever.

I still think the majority of your video was just a fancy way of saying "BAWWWWWWWW I have white guilt and you should too" though. Feel free to take either or both of these points as a qualification against the other.
 

sgtwisky

New member
Apr 3, 2010
10
0
0
well pretty much agree with bob on this one. also... glad to know im not the only one imbued with special powers on Bastille day.
 

Shodan1980

New member
Mar 29, 2010
148
0
0
Thread is TL:DR, but I'm disappointed by the Escapist's inability to provide an equal platform for armour wearing cats that deliver Italian food while being fired from a giant gun. Movie Bob should redress this issue I feel.

As for the episode, I wasn't aware there had been such a furore when I watched Thor, thought it a bit odd to have a black Norse guy for all of two seconds then I got more concerned working out just how big the Frost Giants were meant to be (human sized? way bigger than human sized? Pick one!) And then Heimdall proved to be one of the better characters in the movie, completely didn't care from then on. Idris and Natalie were the best things in Thor for me
 

Blunderman

New member
Jun 24, 2009
219
0
0
MatsVS said:
As long as you insist on applying platitudes to what is an inextricably complex situation, I don't see this discussion going anywhere fruitful.

I do, however, wish thank you for staying civil and, perhaps more importantly, eloquent. It's been a rare pleasure.
I consider no subject to be too complicated to abide by any verifiable logic, however we shall have to agree to disagree on this matter.

Yes, you too. Thank you for the discussion.