Ooooh dear, a black actress is playing Live Action Ariel in the Little Mermaid movie.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Casual Shinji:

Hawki:

Casual Shinji:
Are they gonna do a live-action remake of Atlantis: The Lost Empire and Treasure Planet?

https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/treasure-planet-liveaction-remake-works-disney/?utm_source=vuukle&utm_medium=talk_of_town

Oh my god, I was fucking joking. Why the hell would they even bother, that movie was a complete box office flop.

It was also a critical success and (in my opinion) was arguably one of the most underrated Disney movies of its time. It literally came out on the heels of Lilo and Stitch and kind of was the last notably good Disney Animation Studios film for almost a decade[1] until they released the Princess and the Frog.

[1] I personally liked Chicken Little, but let's not pretend that was a good movie.

Batou667:

But you know what, evidently somebody (a whole room of somebodies, as I said before) decided it was "more important" to make Ariel black than to keep her white. There are obvious pros and cons for this; there are benefits to keeping Ariel white and there are benefits to making her black. People will have met, discussed, weighed up these two competing sets of benefits. And they evidently found it was "more important" to make Ariel black. Unless you think a multi-billion dollar, global corporation like Disney makes these kind of decisions by flipping a coin?

They didn't feel the need to 'make her black', they felt the need to give the role to an actress who best embodies her spirit, who happens to be black, and racists can't get past that one trait.

Kwak:

They didn't feel the need to 'make her black', they felt the need to give the role to an actress who best embodies her spirit, who happens to be black, and racists can't get past that one trait.

I don't buy the "blind casting" explanation for a nanosecond, and if you honestly believe it, then I envy your naive optimism.

Batou667:

Kwak:

They didn't feel the need to 'make her black', they felt the need to give the role to an actress who best embodies her spirit, who happens to be black, and racists can't get past that one trait.

I don't buy the "blind casting" explanation for a nanosecond, and if you honestly believe it, then I envy your naive optimism.

All you have to do is listen to the girl and watch her to see why she was chosen. If all you see is her color instead of her talents, that is on you to figure out. Her talents, mannerisms and the way she carries herself screams " Disney Princess". She has a way about her that makes her stand out in that manner, her tan is the least significant part here. I know I am not the only one who sees that in her, and I am not sure why you think her race is more important than the total package here. If any case is a " best person for the job" this would be it, and yes it is pretty insulting to her to assume that they just wanted her for her race casting aside the sheer amount of ability this woman actually has.

Batou667:

Kwak:

They didn't feel the need to 'make her black', they felt the need to give the role to an actress who best embodies her spirit, who happens to be black, and racists can't get past that one trait.

I don't buy the "blind casting" explanation for a nanosecond, and if you honestly believe it, then I envy your naive optimism.

I don't buy the "she only got the job because she's black" explanation for a nanosecond, and if you honestly believe it, then I envy your na?ve pessimism

trunkage:

Batou667:

Kwak:

They didn't feel the need to 'make her black', they felt the need to give the role to an actress who best embodies her spirit, who happens to be black, and racists can't get past that one trait.

I don't buy the "blind casting" explanation for a nanosecond, and if you honestly believe it, then I envy your naive optimism.

I don't buy the "she only got the job because she's black" explanation for a nanosecond, and if you honestly believe it, then I envy your na?ve pessimism

Racism isn't worth envying.

Batou667:

Kwak:

They didn't feel the need to 'make her black', they felt the need to give the role to an actress who best embodies her spirit, who happens to be black, and racists can't get past that one trait.

I don't buy the "blind casting" explanation for a nanosecond, and if you honestly believe it, then I envy your naive optimism.

Do you have any evidence that contradicts the blind casting other than a need to feel persecuted to justify your bigotry?

Batou667:

This is the point I'm probably getting too deep into the canon of fiction intended for young girls, but the Beast remake is set in what I assume is the 17th Century (they make reference to the Black Death)

The Black Death was in the 14th century, so not sure how we get to 17th from that unless I'm forgetting something. But IIRC, Gaston mentions fighting the Portugese, so that could correspond to the War of the Oranges or Peninsular War. That, and given Maurice's emphasis on Belle being "ahead of her time," it struck me as being more 19th century than anything earlier. I know plague takes Belle's mother, but I don't recall it ever being specified as the Black Plague or any other pandemic.

remember, the two "controversies" the film courted were 1) gay Lefou and 2) the first interracial kiss on a Disney movie

I only remember the first "controversy," and like most such controversies, it was making a mountain out of a molehill. Le Fou was stated to be gay, which amounted to him dancing with another man. Yay...

Tireseas:

It was also a critical success and (in my opinion) was arguably one of the most underrated Disney movies of its time.

Ain't just yours. I think TP is criminally underrated. It lurks somewhere around the top 5 of all the DAC movies I've seen.

Lil devils x:
All you have to do is listen to the girl and watch her to see why she was chosen. If all you see is her color instead of her talents, that is on you to figure out. Her talents, mannerisms and the way she carries herself screams " Disney Princess".

And Scarlett Johannson is recognised as a very talented actress, but that didn't make her immune to criticism for playing "the wrong race". If whitewashing a character is bad, then why is race-swapping a white character OK? Answer me that honestly and then perhaps we'll get somewhere.

trunkage:
I don't buy the "she only got the job because she's black" explanation for a nanosecond, and if you honestly believe it, then I envy your na?ve pessimism

Sick burn, bro.

Avnger:
Do you have any evidence that contradicts the blind casting other than a need to feel persecuted to justify your bigotry?

Nice projection. No, I don't have secret wiretaps of Disney meetings, but it's a casting decision that would have been condemned if it had happened in the other direction (see: Ghost in the Shell, Akira, a bunch of other examples people in this thread have mentioned).

Hawki:

The Black Death was in the 14th century, so not sure how we get to 17th from that unless I'm forgetting something.

Yeah, I was thinking of the Plague of London which was 17th Century. My bad.

Batou667:
And Scarlett Johannson is recognised as a very talented actress

This is something I never expected anyone to say.

Baffle2:

Batou667:
And Scarlett Johannson is recognised as a very talented actress

This is something I never expected anyone to say.

ScarJo has the acting talent of a coat hanger. The best she ever acted was in Endgame. That's not insult but it's not a compliment

Batou667:

And Scarlett Johannson is recognised as a very talented actress,

Um...she is?

I've seen ScarJo in a variety of roles, and not just in the MCU. I can't say she's ever struck me as being that special.

but that didn't make her immune to criticism for playing "the wrong race". If whitewashing a character is bad, then why is race-swapping a white character OK? Answer me that honestly and then perhaps we'll get somewhere.

Being extremely, EXTREMELY generous, you can point to GitS featuring humans, while mermaids aren't.

But the whole GitS whitewashing controversy was stupid then, and it's stupid now. It isn't helped by the fact that the movie was lacklustre and not worth the controversy in the first place.

Batou667:

Hawki:

The Black Death was in the 14th century, so not sure how we get to 17th from that unless I'm forgetting something.

Yeah, I was thinking of the Plague of London which was 17th Century. My bad.

For what its worth, the Great Plague of London was indeed an outbreak of bubonic plague, aka Black Death. Though its biggest death doll was in the 14th century, like Hawki says, it never properly went away and did indeed hit France (though not Paris) in the early 18th century. So you were close!

Tireseas:

Casual Shinji:

Hawki:

https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/treasure-planet-liveaction-remake-works-disney/?utm_source=vuukle&utm_medium=talk_of_town

Oh my god, I was fucking joking. Why the hell would they even bother, that movie was a complete box office flop.

It was also a critical success and (in my opinion) was arguably one of the most underrated Disney movies of its time. It literally came out on the heels of Lilo and Stitch and kind of was the last notably good Disney Animation Studios film for almost a decade until they released the Princess and the Frog.

I actually like the movie (well, the Jim Hawkins/John Silver bromance anyway), but it hardly set the world on fire. It's not like putting 'Treasure Planet' on a poster for a new live-action movie will have even a fraction of the response as something like 'The Little Mermaid' has. And considering the setting of this movie, why would they pump this much money into a remake of a financial failure (considering Disney is only doing these remakes to rake in those nostalgia bucks)?

Hawki:

Batou667:

And Scarlett Johannson is recognised as a very talented actress,

Um...she is?

I've seen ScarJo in a variety of roles, and not just in the MCU. I can't say she's ever struck me as being that special.

but that didn't make her immune to criticism for playing "the wrong race". If whitewashing a character is bad, then why is race-swapping a white character OK? Answer me that honestly and then perhaps we'll get somewhere.

Being extremely, EXTREMELY generous, you can point to GitS featuring humans, while mermaids aren't.

But the whole GitS whitewashing controversy was stupid then, and it's stupid now. It isn't helped by the fact that the movie was lacklustre and not worth the controversy in the first place.

Well, Ghost in the Shell though, nationality is very important. It is not set in a pure fantasy world, the series is very specifically political in nature and set in a future version of Earth. Kusanagi is specifically a Japanese woman. Its more in line with Mulan which is very specifically set in China. While Oldboy technically could be set in any country (though it has been pointed out that the hallway scene with the knives is due to being set in a place where you CANT just walk into Walmart and buy guns), Mulan and GitS actually has reasons the ethnicities are what they are, plus they are both also politically based.

The Little Mermaid mainly requires being set in the ocean during an age of ships.

Batou667:
If whitewashing a character is bad, then why is race-swapping a white character OK? Answer me that honestly and then perhaps we'll get somewhere.

Because white-washing is clearly done to appeal to the lowest common denominator among white audiences who might think 'Oh asian/foreign, no thanks'. Whether a misguided notion or not, having your lead actor in a movie be white is seen as way less risky than if they were black or asian. This is why most leads in movies are still white - it's meant to keep the status quo.

Changing a character from white to non-white gives actors an oppertunity who otherwise would not have it, while at the same time normalizing the presence of non-white lead actors so that the concept of having a non-white lead stops being seen as a risk.

Hawki:
But the whole GitS whitewashing controversy was stupid then, and it's stupid now. It isn't helped by the fact that the movie was lacklustre and not worth the controversy in the first place.

How's that? You have a clearly japanese looking character from Japan with a japanese name being played by a white american. It's pretty darn blatant. So blatant in fact that the movie apparently wrote in a plotline that's suppose to excuse it. It put a giant spotlight on how Hollywood wouldn't dare put an asian as the lead in a movie, even one where the protagonist is very clearly japanese.

Casual Shinji:
How's that? You have a clearly japanese looking character from Japan with a japanese name being played by a white american. It's pretty darn blatant. So blatant in fact that the movie apparently wrote in a plotline that's suppose to excuse it. It put a giant spotlight on how Hollywood wouldn't dare put an asian as the lead in a movie, even one where the protagonist is very clearly japanese.

-In the context of the movie itself, Japan's implied to be multi-ethnic, or at least more so than it is now.

-You mean the plotline where the Major's cyborg body is of a different ethnicity than her organic one?

Honestly, that's probably looking at it in too deep from both in-universe and out of universe. At the very most, I could attribute it to the film going for extra body horror, but I feel it's giving it too much credit.

-Even if an Asian lead had been, well, the lead, what would have actually changed? Not really anything as far as I can tell - no dialogue, no theme, no anything. And if you're really going down the route of "representation," congratulations, you'd have got someone headlining a lacklustre film where race/ethnicity is never relevant in plot, background, and ironically, the whitewashing arguably gives the movie slightly more oomph (though again, that's giving it too much credit).

Since Saelune's brought it up, I'll point to Mulan, which is set in a historical period in time, where we can say with reasonable authority what the characters should look like, among other things. Since GitS is set in the future in a Japan that isn't the same as ours, there's far more flexibility. So while GitS isn't like LMM (fictional creature), it isn't really comparable to Mulan either (fictional setting vs. historical setting).

Satinavian:

ObsidianJones:

We had a race flipped Othello with Patrick Stewart.

The whole cast was flipped there. Which means mostly traditionally white roles played buy black actors with Steward the sole exception. That is a theatre trying to gimmick up a performance but certainly not a caase of whitewashing.

I know. I specially said it was a race flipped Othello. I didn't call it white washing.

We had Major Kusanagi

Which was far more controversal than the mermaid or the nordic god or whatever.

And similar is true for most of the rest of the list. Either i have never heard about the production/source at all or people where extremely unhappy about that casting (Do you remember the rage about Avatar ?)

Umm. Yeah, that's actually a perception. You would have to have some type of Metric to quantify that. If you do have one, we can measure it and discern that.

I'm actually going to put in a pin for that for your next point.

Sarcasm aside, when it's a white person who takes a minority role, certain people come by and say that we should not think of anything but the story and it isn't a big deal. When a minority takes over a white role, Those same 'certain people' come through on a tear complaining that Diversity has gone too far and nothing is sacred any more.

Those people likely exist. But they seem to be quite rare compared to the "it does not match the source"-crowd (which is quite big for any IP that has a fandom to speak of) and the "get over it, it is a new interpretation and those are good actors" crowd.

Ok, pin taken out.

This point of view seems to be based on perception as well. You came up with a measurement of "Quite rare" without sourcing anything to give that stat. That's exactly the same as disproving an opinion. It's based on made up thoughts without any true way of measuring. Yes, I can definitely say Pepperoni is the Best topping for pizza and that everyone knows it. I can have people dissent, and I can say "Sure, a few people do as well. But it's quite rare".

Ignoring the mounds of people who like plain, BBQ chicken, bacon, onions, and/or pineapple.

Meanwhile, I'm addressing a certain group of people. My focus is on that. I understand the source material people. And I didn't mention them because that isn't an arguable act. Trying to convince people that a segment of the population will be harmed because a character is race swapped is.

And to quickly answer your nitpicking.

The first game was based on ancient Persia. I invite you to look at the Front and Back cover art of the game and think about maybe it was a graphical choice made based on the limit palette they had to deal with back in the 1989's.

Khan was apart of a Eugenics program that featured Selective Breeding and Genetic Augmentations. I've never seen splicing. He's specifically from Northern India. It was in the script, by the way.

MCCOY: We've triggered something, all right. His heart beat's increasing. Now passing eight beats per minute. There are some signs of respiration beginning.
SCOTT: This one was probably programmed to be triggered first.
KIRK: Could he be the leader? The leader. Lieutenant?
MARLA: (dragging herself back from just gazing at the man) Yes, sir. The leader was often set to revive first. This would allow him to decide whether the conditions warranted revival of the others.
MCCOY: Heart beat now approaching forty per minute. The respiration pattern is firming up.
MARLA: From the northern India area, I'd guess. Probably a Sikh. They were the most fantastic warriors.
MCCOY: Heart beat now fifty two and increasing.
KIRK: The others?
SCOTT: There's no change, and they're mixed types. Western, mid-European, Latin, Oriental.
MARLA: A man from the twentieth century coming alive.
MCCOY: Maybe. Heart beat dropping.
KIRK: Circuit shorting.
SCOTT: Probably some dust.
MCCOY: Heartbeat now thirty, dropping fast. It's a heart flutter. He's dying.
MARLA: Do something, Captain.
KIRK: Can we?
SCOTT: It'd take an hour to figure it out.
KIRK: What happens if we get him out of there?
MCCOY: He'll die in seconds if we don't.
(Kirk uses something metal in his hand to break the glass and open the compartment. The man is slid out on a trolley, gasping and awake. He tries to speak.)
KHAN: How long?

Two. I have two. Ben Affleck's character in Argo, and Emma Stone's character in Aloha.

Batou667:
Thanks, I appreciate it.

Hey, we're a community after all. We don't have to agree, just get along.

Yes I do, and I acknowledged it. My point was that they can't simultaneously be compelling arguments FOR black Ariel and at the same time ammunition to blast the "racists" arguing for white Ariel to remain unchanged.

That's your take on it. I think I fairly shown that they both can be used. Whether you agree on it, that's another thing. But I shown that they both could be used.

Dude, I sympathise and I accept there was/is an inequality. But let's not overstate the case to the point of dishonesty, OK? Unless you were reading comics in the 60s or earlier then you WOULD have seen black heroes. Not major heroes, I'll grant you, typically they were supporting or ensemble cast members. But black heroes have been appearing in comics and cartoons since the 70s.

What exactly did I overstate, really? I just told you my own experiences as a child. I thought I couldn't be a hero because I was black. I thought I couldn't survive because the black guy dies. To say I'm overstating my life experience is... baffling.

You're misrepresenting me. I'm saying "diversity shouldn't be achieved by simplistic quick fixes like sex- or race-swapping", you're hearing "everything's fine and should never change".

Actually, what I'm hearing is this.

Firstly the effective retconning of the last 30 years of Little Mermaid. That is sure to annoy, if not exactly upset, many fans.

Secondly, much is made of the need for characters children will associate with. Great, little back girls now have one extra princess they can dress up as at Halloween. Spare a thought for the little red-headed girls though; all they have is that girl from Brave now, and nobody wants to be her.

I won't deny, I've seen you say that. I've seen you say that up and down this thread. But Your Little Red-Headed girls are just as important as these up and coming little Black girls. I'll spare a thought for both.

And you're right. There should be representation for both. For all. But when I hear 'spare a thought for people who were already well represented', I tend to side with the ones who didn't get that same representation. It's a character flaw, I'll admit.

ObsidianJones:
You conflate "having some representation" as "more important".

Not true. I wish, I just WISH, people would read the words I type and take them at face value instead of running away with a narrative of their own making. I've said multiple times that I think representation is important, and that I hope we achieve MORE, and MORE DIVERSE, representation, by expanding the set of characters, settings, and stories being told.

But you know what, evidently somebody (a whole room of somebodies, as I said before) decided it was "more important" to make Ariel black than to keep her white. There are obvious pros and cons for this; there are benefits to keeping Ariel white and there are benefits to making her black. People will have met, discussed, weighed up these two competing sets of benefits. And they evidently found it was "more important" to make Ariel black. Unless you think a multi-billion dollar, global corporation like Disney makes these kind of decisions by flipping a coin?

The problem is, I am reading your words.

Batou667:
Representation is important for black and ethnic minority kids. It should logically follow that representation is important for white kids too.

It's not crucial for a character to exactly fit the same demographics of a white kid for them to be able to identify with them and enjoy the story. This should then apply to minority kids too, right?

I feel like the elephant in the room here is that everyone has decided that these considerations of principle, of what's good for the goose being good for the gander, of providing a level playing field - has all been discarded because "we" have decided that minority rights are more important. If it feels progressive or will please a historically marginalised group, then make the change, end of. Remarkably, I think Saelune gave one of the most honest contributions to this discussion: changing an established character is annoying, it messes with the canon, it upsets the fans, but it's gotta be done because White Man's Burden.

This is what I'm responding to. I agree that equal representation is healty for any child to grow up. I know that. You know that. But the difference is that I know that a Black Ariel doesn't remove from white kids representation. Not only is there a ton of other things coming down the pipeline with people that will look just like them, once again, Black Ariel does not remove Red-Head Ariel from Canon. Black kids aren't suddenly more represented that white kids. If a rain drop his a puddle, and doesn't go to the ocean, yeah, the puddle had one more drop of water... but it's still a puddle compared to the damn ocean.

Also, I already put up a list here about how common it's done for minorities. Not only in fiction, but in real life.

The most telling thing of all that I didn't want to touch at the time, but fuck it, in for a penny, in for a pound.

You do know the 'White Man's Burden' is from a Kipling Poem, right? It was used for a way to incite people to try to go along with Annexing the Phillipines. The White Man's Burden is to bring 'civilization' to those backwards enough not to have the inherent majesty of the White Man's Culture.

The Burden is 'Oh, how terrible is it to be so great and having to rid those backwards non-whites of their foolish ways'.

I'm sure you meant it in a different way, but you should know the origins of the terms you use.

And lastly, no need for unnecessary digs at Saelune. There's nothing remarkable about Saelune giving honest contributions. That's a regular thing.

We're going "meta" now, bear with me. You've heard of microaggressions, right? For a long time I assumed that was a coded way of minority groups tacitly admitting that the stuff annoying them was no longer a matter of life and death, or even outright hostility, but just first world problems like airplane seats not being designed for 600lb backsides or "flesh-coloured" band-aids not exactly matching your skin tone. My outlook on this has changed somewhat in the last few years and I now accept that some groups experience a background hum of suspicion, or hostility, or deprecation that plays out in a myriad of little ways in everyday life. It's my contention that "historically privileged" groups like males and white people are waking up the to the fact that they experience this too. A little inequality here. A small injustice (for the greater good, naturally) there. Another "dopey dad" trope going unchallenged in the media. Another "woke" columnist being applauded for saying "y'all whypipo is the devil" in 500 words. And, yeah, another character swapped out for an underrepresented gender or race, and if we don't clap and honk like seals we get called "angry internet racists" by Buzzfeed. At the end of the day, my beef is not about a gosh darn fictional mermaid - but it's emblematic.

You think I'm part of a small minority on this? That's the kind of hubris that got Trump elected in 2016. Don't believe for a minute that only a hardcore fringe could possibly disagree with you.

Here's the real problem again.

Minorities are still the puddle. White People are still the ocean in terms of representation and allocation of power. A few people wanted to add to the puddle for some reason and took a water can and poured it's contents into the Puddle. People who are for the ocean saw this and got enraged. They got fleets and fleets of water tankers, drained Lake Ontario and poured it into the Ocean... not realizing it's somewhat foolhardy as Lake Ontario is connected to the Ocean already.

THAT'S the thinking that got Trump Elected.

You have to understand something as something who's feeling repressed. It's up to you to figure out if you want to help the situation, or react to it.

With that comment about Trump, it's feeling like you're leaning towards reaction. That doesn't help. I once called myself a Black Militant back during the days of the Movie 'X'. I grew up in the ghetto. I saw the injustice and what people do when they have no other options. I wanted to speak out. I wanted to fight. People needed to know.

And they still do. You know what the problem is? People stopped listening after 'Black Militant'. Anyone who's reading this has an idea of what that term means, and tuned their attention accordingly. That's what happens when you have strong feelings and you reach for a strong reaction. The reaction might feel comfortable to house your strong feelings, but it doesn't mean it's the right action to take to effect change. We're feeling that with Trump.

As hard as it might be believed, I don't want anyone eroded. No culture, No Gender, no creed, no religion, no lack of religion. I don't want anything to happen to white people. This world would be lessened if that would to happen. As it would be for any race. Reaction is just to make other people's sorry for their actions, or to make one feel better about what they believed happen to them.

If we want change, we can't go out and try to hurt others. No matter how we perceive things. We have to always bring ourselves to the table, no matter how bruised and bloodied our egos are. And we need to talk. Without name calling, without hurt feelings, without trying to get back. We want to share this world. So we have to work for it with open hearts and minds. Some things we have to give. Because we simply can't share this world if we keep saying "But this is mine and no one else can have it".

ObsidianJones:

Umm. Yeah, that's actually a perception.

Yes, it is a perception. And i am aware of the fact that there are several factors that might skew my perception like :
- Not living in the US with its neverending race related problems
- Not taking part in any white supremist forums/meet-ups etc. and thus rarely encountering their nonsense.
- Being part of fandoms of stuff i like and thus regularly being exposed to the "not true to the source" crowd (which i sometimes even take part in)

But be that as it may, i still have no reason to assume that my perception is giving the wrong picture here. Sure, actual would be nice but to get them you would have to track a representative sample of complainers over several controversities to find out if their behavior is different for white->non white and non white->white changes. I am not aware that this ever has been attampted because it is difficult.

Meanwhile, I'm addressing a certain group of people. My focus is on that. I understand the source material people. And I didn't mention them because that isn't an arguable act. Trying to convince people that a segment of the population will be harmed because a character is race swapped is.

Ok, if that is the case, then go ahead. Not sure whot kind of discussion can be had about that though, because that is also not particularly aguable, at least for me. I mean, i could complain that international entertainment is ridiculously US-centric to the point american culture bleeds into other cultures everywhere, but i can't really blame Hollywood for being successful and valueing their home-market.

And to quickly answer your nitpicking.

The first game was based on ancient Persia. I invite you to look at the Front and Back cover art of the game and think about maybe it was a graphical choice made based on the limit palette they had to deal with back in the 1989's.

"Ancient Persia" was full of white people. The box art also depicts white people. And if you had a device with some more colors (it was released as multiplatform), it looked like this (yes, that is still the original, not the SNES remastered version ):
image

Khan was apart of a Eugenics program that featured Selective Breeding and Genetic Augmentations. I've never seen splicing. He's specifically from Northern India. It was in the script, by the way.

Not sure how augmentation is suppossed to work without splicing but even if we treat him as pure northern Indian descent, this does still not make him actually non-white.

Satinavian:

ObsidianJones:

Umm. Yeah, that's actually a perception.

Yes, it is a perception. And i am aware of the fact that there are several factors that might skew my perception like :
- Not living in the US with its neverending race related problems
- Not taking part in any white supremist forums/meet-ups etc. and thus rarely encountering their nonsense.
- Being part of fandoms of stuff i like and thus regularly being exposed to the "not true to the source" crowd (which i sometimes even take part in)

But be that as it may, i still have no reason to assume that my perception is giving the wrong picture here. Sure, actual would be nice but to get them you would have to track a representative sample of complainers over several controversities to find out if their behavior is different for white->non white and non white->white changes. I am not aware that this ever has been attampted because it is difficult.

Meanwhile, I'm addressing a certain group of people. My focus is on that. I understand the source material people. And I didn't mention them because that isn't an arguable act. Trying to convince people that a segment of the population will be harmed because a character is race swapped is.

Ok, if that is the case, then go ahead. Not sure whot kind of discussion can be had about that though, because that is also not particularly aguable, at least for me. I mean, i could complain that international entertainment is ridiculously US-centric to the point american culture bleeds into other cultures everywhere, but i can't really blame Hollywood for being successful and valueing their home-market.

And to quickly answer your nitpicking.

The first game was based on ancient Persia. I invite you to look at the Front and Back cover art of the game and think about maybe it was a graphical choice made based on the limit palette they had to deal with back in the 1989's.

"Ancient Persia" was full of white people. The box art also depicts white people. And if you had a device with some more colors (it was released as multiplatform), it looked like this (yes, that is still the original, not the SNES remastered version ):
image

Khan was apart of a Eugenics program that featured Selective Breeding and Genetic Augmentations. I've never seen splicing. He's specifically from Northern India. It was in the script, by the way.

Not sure how augmentation is suppossed to work without splicing but even if we treat him as pure northern Indian descent, this does still not make him actually non-white.

The way they define " white" here, they do not consider Persian, Indian or Arabic people to be white. They also do not consider people from Mediterranean or some French to be white, so yea there is definitely a difference in perception. They do not consider the people depicted on the box art or in the game clip you are showing here to be white. They have a pretty narrow definition of what they consider to be white here.

Hawki:
Even if an Asian lead had been, well, the lead, what would have actually changed? Not really anything as far as I can tell - no dialogue, no theme, no anything. And if you're really going down the route of "representation," congratulations, you'd have got someone headlining a lacklustre film where race/ethnicity is never relevant in plot, background, and ironically, the whitewashing arguably gives the movie slightly more oomph (though again, that's giving it too much credit).

Why does it need to be relevant to the plot or background? Why can't it just be because the character is japanese? And what that would change is that it would give the role some credibility, instead of Scarlet Johansson sticking out like a sore thumb as the obvious famous, and safe, white casting choice. There doesn't need to be a plot or thematic reason for a character to not be white. And in this case it doesn't have anything to do with the plot or themes either, but with the simple fact that a rather iconic japanese character got represented by a white american. As underrepresented as asian actors already are in Hollywood, a clearly japanese character -- a chance to finally maybe have an asian actor take a bit of the spotlight and make a name for themselves.. is played by a white actor. Even if the movie sucks, it's still a chance for actors other than the usual white people to leave their mark. And this rare clear advantage that an asian actor would have over a white actor to play the lead is again ignored in favor of the status quo.

Casual Shinji:
Why does it need to be relevant to the plot or background? Why can't it just be because the character is japanese?

If you want to apply the logic of "character was X in the source material, so keep them as X," fine, but at least keep the rationale consistent.

And what that would change is that it would give the role some credibility, instead of Scarlet Johansson sticking out like a sore thumb as the obvious famous, and safe, white casting choice. There doesn't need to be a plot or thematic reason for a character to not be white. And in this case it doesn't have anything to do with the plot or themes either, but with the simple fact that a rather iconic japanese character got represented by a white american. As underrepresented as asian actors already are in Hollywood, a clearly japanese character -- a chance to finally maybe have an asian actor take a bit of the spotlight and make a name for themselves.. is played by a white actor. Even if the movie sucks, it's still a chance for actors other than the usual white people to leave their mark. And this rare clear advantage that an asian actor would have over a white actor to play the lead is again ignored in favor of the status quo.

From The Hollywood Reporter:

In 2017, 70.7 percent of the 4,454 speaking characters were white, 12.1 percent were black, 6.2 percent were Hispanic, 4.8 percent were Asian, 3.9 percent were mixed-race, 1.7 percent were of Middle Eastern descent and less than 1 percent each were coded as Native American or Native Hawaiian.

Those are the most recent statistics I got. As of the 2010 census, 4.8% of the US population is Asian. Even if we assume that percentage has gone up, is that really going to count as being "grossly under-represented? when as of 8 years ago, the percentage was in sync with the population figure? That's not even going into how many ways you can sub-divide "Asian" or really anything else by country of origin. Or gender, or sexuality, or everything else. And that's if we're including just the population of the US. If we factor in world population, then things get even more complicated.

Whole problem with "representation" is that it can be sub-divided ad infinitum. So when people complain about "forced diversity," that's an eyeroll, but at times, the other side rings true. And what's irritating in this particular case is that it's giving GitS more attention than it deserves, and that I don't believe for a moment that anyone in Hollywood really cares about it if not for how there's money to be made in catering to as wide a base as possible.

Casual Shinji:

Caramel Frappe:
I'm not even remotely upset that a black actress got the role of the Little Mermaid, i'm more vividly disappointed in the fact they're making a live action version when the original cartoon one is perfect.

There's nothing wrong with remaking it, even if it is live-action. I'd totally be up for a Little Mermaid remake that actually remains faithfull to the fairy tale and that creates some new interesting visuals. But we all know Disney is doing this just to sell us the same movie again.

I'm interested to see where they're gonna go once the renaissance well is tapped out -- Are they gonna do a live-action remake of Atlantis: The Lost Empire and Treasure Planet? Or are they going to jump right to Frozen?

I'm always down for a remake- if their heart is in the right place when making these. But Disney is honestly riding the live-action band wagon, knowing full well regardless of how the movie is, people will see it for nostalgic reasons.

I mean, they're releasing 4 live action movies ... within the same year. That doesn't sound very, good to me. One or even two would suffice, giving enough space in between for people to appreciate the remakes more but, 4 of them? Just cries cash grab to me.

I would like to see a live action atlantis or treasure planet, but those movies didnt make enough money for disney.

Hawki:

Casual Shinji:
Why does it need to be relevant to the plot or background? Why can't it just be because the character is japanese?

If you want to apply the logic of "character was X in the source material, so keep them as X," fine, but at least keep the rationale consistent.

I like to view that on a case-by-case basis. See, if they decided to just transport GitS over to America and remake it with american characters, I'd have no real problem with them making Kusanagi (or whatever her name would be) white (though it would still serve them to diversify). But they didn't, and in this case it bugged me.

From The Hollywood Reporter:

In 2017, 70.7 percent of the 4,454 speaking characters were white, 12.1 percent were black, 6.2 percent were Hispanic, 4.8 percent were Asian, 3.9 percent were mixed-race, 1.7 percent were of Middle Eastern descent and less than 1 percent each were coded as Native American or Native Hawaiian.

Those are the most recent statistics I got. As of the 2010 census, 4.8% of the US population is Asian. Even if we assume that percentage has gone up, is that really going to count as being "grossly under-represented? when as of 8 years ago, the percentage was in sync with the population figure? That's not even going into how many ways you can sub-divide "Asian" or really anything else by country of origin. Or gender, or sexuality, or everything else. And that's if we're including just the population of the US. If we factor in world population, then things get even more complicated.

If we're purely speaking representing the percentage of asian people in America it's still extremely underrepresented. That would mean at least 4.8% of, let's say a 1000, movies in America feature asian leads. And while I don't have the numbers I find that highly unlikely. Not that it would need to be upheld this strict, but if it's in sync with how the population is structured this should naturally be the case.

And then there's just the simple question of it being healthy for people to be exposed to things they aren't familiar with, but are definitely part of society, no matter how small it may be.

Whole problem with "representation" is that it can be sub-divided ad infinitum. So when people complain about "forced diversity," that's an eyeroll, but at times, the other side rings true. And what's irritating in this particular case is that it's giving GitS more attention than it deserves, and that I don't believe for a moment that anyone in Hollywood really cares about it if not for how there's money to be made in catering to as wide a base as possible.

GitS being undeserving of attention doesn't mean real world issues surrounding the movie aren't deserving of attention.

Hawki:

Marik2:
I would like to see a live action atlantis or treasure planet,

https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/treasure-planet-liveaction-remake-works-disney/?utm_source=vuukle&utm_medium=talk_of_town

heres hoping it would look cool like the cartoon. i liked all the space pirate ships and the black hole scene.

Casual Shinji:

Hawki:

Casual Shinji:
Are they gonna do a live-action remake of Atlantis: The Lost Empire and Treasure Planet?

https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/treasure-planet-liveaction-remake-works-disney/?utm_source=vuukle&utm_medium=talk_of_town

Oh my god, I was fucking joking. Why the hell would they even bother, that movie was a complete box office flop.

Maybe because people keep complaining that the other remakes are "soulless cash grabs" so they wanted to prove them wrong.

Agent_Z:

Casual Shinji:

Hawki:

https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/treasure-planet-liveaction-remake-works-disney/?utm_source=vuukle&utm_medium=talk_of_town

Oh my god, I was fucking joking. Why the hell would they even bother, that movie was a complete box office flop.

Maybe because people keep complaining that the other remakes are "soulless cash grabs" so they wanted to prove them wrong.

If I was planning to do a remake, I'd probably pick a property that doesn't have a whole heap of baggage tied to it. All this Disney only picking it's good stuff when they could improve some of the bad and actually make a difference

Casual Shinji:

I like to view that on a case-by-case basis. See, if they decided to just transport GitS over to America and remake it with american characters, I'd have no real problem with them making Kusanagi (or whatever her name would be) white (though it would still serve them to diversify). But they didn't, and in this case it bugged me.

Wait, so, transporting the setting to the US is a non-issue, but giving the character a white android body is?

Um, okay. But if that happened, I can only imagine that the controversy would just be that much more controversial.

If we're purely speaking representing the percentage of asian people in America it's still extremely underrepresented.

4.8% representation for 4.8% representation of the populace. How is that "extremely underrepresented?" Even with the current estimate of 5.6%, we're talking less than 1% of difference between on-screen presence and real-world presence.

And then there's just the simple question of it being healthy for people to be exposed to things they aren't familiar with, but are definitely part of society, no matter how small it may be.

I pity anyone for whom watching a lead that doesn't correspond to their ethnicity is a "thing they aren't familiar with."

If people want to broaden their horizons in film, there's plenty of ways to do it, whether it be 'arthouse' films or films made outside their country/culture. If we're keeping with the question of Asian leads, there's a world of difference between something like Crazy Rich Asians and, say, Hero. "Broadening horizons" based solely on skin colour is a very low bar to clear.

GitS[/i] being undeserving of attention doesn't mean real world issues surrounding the movie aren't deserving of attention.

Even in the scope of real-world issues, who plays whom based on ethnicity is pretty low regardless.

Hawki:

Casual Shinji:

I like to view that on a case-by-case basis. See, if they decided to just transport GitS over to America and remake it with american characters, I'd have no real problem with them making Kusanagi (or whatever her name would be) white (though it would still serve them to diversify). But they didn't, and in this case it bugged me.

Wait, so, transporting the setting to the US is a non-issue, but giving the character a white android body is?

Um, okay. But if that happened, I can only imagine that the controversy would just be that much more controversial.

It wasn't a controversy for The Departed. If they had remade Infernal Affairs in Hong Kong, the main character(s) still having the same asian name, but cast as white people.. that would be a bit silly. Just as it is with GtiS.

If we're purely speaking representing the percentage of asian people in America it's still extremely underrepresented.

4.8% representation for 4.8% representation of the populace. How is that "extremely underrepresented?" Even with the current estimate of 5.6%, we're talking less than 1% of difference between on-screen presence and real-world presence.

That's not what I said. I said that if 4.8% of the population is asian and if this is properly represented in movies, then 4.8% of most american movies should star (not just a speaking role) an asian actor. And is this the case? Because I can't think of too many Hollywood movies that have an asian lead. Well, GitS could've been one, but you know..

And then there's just the simple question of it being healthy for people to be exposed to things they aren't familiar with, but are definitely part of society, no matter how small it may be.

I pity anyone for whom watching a lead that doesn't correspond to their ethnicity is a "thing they aren't familiar with."

If people want to broaden their horizons in film, there's plenty of ways to do it, whether it be 'arthouse' films or films made outside their country/culture. If we're keeping with the question of Asian leads, there's a world of difference between something like Crazy Rich Asians and, say, Hero. "Broadening horizons" based solely on skin colour is a very low bar to clear.

And yet that bar is still very much there in Hollywood.

GitS[/i] being undeserving of attention doesn't mean real world issues surrounding the movie aren't deserving of attention.

Even in the scope of real-world issues, who plays whom based on ethnicity is pretty low regardless.

It's still part of a larger problem, and every little victory helps.

ObsidianJones:

What exactly did I overstate, really? I just told you my own experiences as a child. I thought I couldn't be a hero because I was black. I thought I couldn't survive because the black guy dies. To say I'm overstating my life experience is... baffling.

If that's what you felt at the time, that's tragic. But - to paraphrase what you said to me earlier - that's on you. The idea that there weren't any black superheroes or fictional role models in general, now or even 20 years ago, is false.

ObsidianJones:
And you're right. There should be representation for both. For all. But when I hear 'spare a thought for people who were already well represented', I tend to side with the ones who didn't get that same representation. It's a character flaw, I'll admit.

I see the angle you're approaching this from and I'll give my response a bit later on.

ObsidianJones:
This is what I'm responding to. I agree that equal representation is healty for any child to grow up. I know that. You know that. But the difference is that I know that a Black Ariel doesn't remove from white kids representation. Not only is there a ton of other things coming down the pipeline with people that will look just like them, once again, Black Ariel does not remove Red-Head Ariel from Canon.

Allow me a small "gotcha". If that's true, then it's equally true that Jewish Kusanagi and White Goku don't remove their original depictions from canon. People were still pissed though, weren't they?

ObsidianJones:
You do know the 'White Man's Burden' is from a Kipling Poem, right? It was used for a way to incite people to try to go along with Annexing the Phillipines. The White Man's Burden is to bring 'civilization' to those backwards enough not to have the inherent majesty of the White Man's Culture.

The Burden is 'Oh, how terrible is it to be so great and having to rid those backwards non-whites of their foolish ways'.

I'm sure you meant it in a different way, but you should know the origins of the terms you use.

Sure, I was using it in the sense of a White-specific Obligation or even White Guilt. You seem to have got my meaning at any rate.

ObsidianJones:
And lastly, no need for unnecessary digs at Saelune. There's nothing remarkable about Saelune giving honest contributions. That's a regular thing.

It was a backhanded compliment to a poster that I usually disagree with so fundamentally that I sometimes wonder whether it's a deliberately provocative persona.

ObsidianJones:
Minorities are still the puddle. White People are still the ocean in terms of representation and allocation of power. A few people wanted to add to the puddle for some reason and took a water can and poured it's contents into the Puddle. People who are for the ocean saw this and got enraged. They got fleets and fleets of water tankers, drained Lake Ontario and poured it into the Ocean... not realizing it's somewhat foolhardy as Lake Ontario is connected to the Ocean already.

OK, this is the philosophical basis for social justice that I completely disagree with. This idea that we make things fair by tallying up grievances and injustices on both sides and then attempt to either punish the more privileged side or give the aggrieved side some kind of reparations. I think that stinks because - quite aside from the fact that civilised society doesn't usually punish the son for the crimes of the father - it's such a broad strokes solution that the undeserving benefit and the innocent are punished. Not just occasionally, but routinely. Positive discrimination, quota systems, gender or race-specific education grants, "progressive" gender or race-swapping.

Then you have the school of thought that says two wrongs don't make a right, and what's more it's the principle that matters. Stealing a hundred dollars from a rich man is still a crime even if he can handle the loss better than a poor man. Dumping a barrel of toxic waste in the Pacific is still bad, even if dumping the same barrel of waste in your swimming pool would be worse to you. And, putting arguments of scale to bed for a minute, injustice is still injustice. Discrimination is still discrimination. Just because we have nice politically hot words to describe injustice in one direction - whitewashing! Blackface! Misogyny! Colonialism! - doesn't imply that the same act in the other direction is just or benign. When I make this point I usually get plenty of comments along the lines of "Boo hoo, male tears" or "Oh no, it must be terrible to be white in the West" but very few people able to point out where the error lies in my reasoning. Ultimately, all I'm advocating is a level playing field and the rules applied fairly.

The first, "corrective" version of social justice can never succeed, in my opinion. Firstly because some historical injustices are so great they can never be repaid in a simplistic, transactional way. How do we repay the debt for slavery, for example? 300 years of white slaves and black slave owners, maybe; whose conscience would that satisfy? Reparations, maybe? Who pays? All white people? What, even those who arrived in America after abolition? Secondly - you don't heal division by actively perpetuating that division, even in what is apparently a well-intentioned or progressive manner. Pragmatically, because people get naturally suspicious when they know the dice are loaded. Positive discrimination both denies minorities the ability to be judged on their own merits and fosters a bigotry of lowered expectations.

It's especially damaging when one group is made to feel another group is benefiting at their expense. How do you think Asian students feel when they have to outperform Latino and Black applicants to get on the same courses, and what do you think that does for sentiments of equality? Back to Ariel; how convincing is the explanation that "black viewers just need the character more than white viewers do"?

ObsidianJones:
With that comment about Trump, it's feeling like you're leaning towards reaction. That doesn't help. I once called myself a Black Militant back during the days of the Movie 'X'. I grew up in the ghetto. I saw the injustice and what people do when they have no other options. I wanted to speak out. I wanted to fight. People needed to know.

And they still do. You know what the problem is? People stopped listening after 'Black Militant'. Anyone who's reading this has an idea of what that term means, and tuned their attention accordingly. That's what happens when you have strong feelings and you reach for a strong reaction. The reaction might feel comfortable to house your strong feelings, but it doesn't mean it's the right action to take to effect change. We're feeling that with Trump.

As hard as it might be believed, I don't want anyone eroded. No culture, No Gender, no creed, no religion, no lack of religion. I don't want anything to happen to white people. This world would be lessened if that would to happen. As it would be for any race. Reaction is just to make other people's sorry for their actions, or to make one feel better about what they believed happen to them.

If we want change, we can't go out and try to hurt others. No matter how we perceive things. We have to always bring ourselves to the table, no matter how bruised and bloodied our egos are. And we need to talk. Without name calling, without hurt feelings, without trying to get back. We want to share this world. So we have to work for it with open hearts and minds. Some things we have to give. Because we simply can't share this world if we keep saying "But this is mine and no one else can have it".

Well, it sounds like we broadly want the same thing even if we disagree on the methodology. But to address some of your points here - don't worry, I'm not sliding toward extremism. I have my views but I think they're reasonable, if based in an egalitarian conservatism, and in fact it kind of alarms me when people read me saying things like "let's treat people equally" or "perhaps if you would find this shitty if done to you, don't do it to others" and conclude that I must be furiously dog-whistling out of both sides of my mouth - and my butt hole.

And just to really expound on the Trump thing, I've found that although both sides of the political spectrum simplify and demonise their opposition instead of attempting dialogue, this is especially prevalent on the Left (even in the mainstream) and has recently seen ENORMOUS real-world backlash in the examples of Trump 2016 and Brexit. Both were huge, narrative-destroying indications of the voting public's true sentiments, which the Left for years had been willfully deaf and blind to. It's one thing to have partisan leanings, we all do, but it's quite another thing to hold such a bad-faith opinion of your opponents and their motivations that you get caught with your pants down on polling day. On both sides of the Atlantic, liberals convinced themselves that only a fringe minority of unspeakable bigots would actually vote against them. They were wrong both times. Reasonable, intelligent, only just right-of-centre people have cause to oppose liberal policies, too. If we were to learn from recent history perhaps people would not be so quick to demonise their opponents and immediately ascribe the worst possible motivations to them. The right-on progressive denouncement of anybody brave enough to publicly say they preferred white Ariel suggests no such lessons have been learned.

This guy says it best:

Also, do we really need politics in this topic?

CrazyGirl17:
This guy says it best:

Also, do we really need politics in this topic?

Racist backlash against hiring a black woman for what they deem a "white job" IS political at it's core.

Sadly yes, due to the current racial tensions in politics, equal opportunity employment is still considered political at this point and not just what should be expected. When you have the president of the United States own staff members telling people he wants to start a race war, while Trump is out promoting racist BS, it pretty much creates a hostile race environment and you can expect an increased level of political racial outrage. Until we actually have racial equality, we will have people pissed about racial equality. When we actually do have racial equality, people will no longer be outraged about a fictional creature being played by a black woman.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here