I like this joke. I like this joke a lot. Well played, sir.JackgarPrime said:Sounds like the only "Gods and Kings" I should bother with is playing another round of Civilization V.
Christian Bale isn't the best person for the job, more the person who gets the movie funded.... For some reason he's a star despite him being (IMO) a boring blowhard in every scene he's in. The real question Joel Edgerington.... Really? That B-lister Australian? You couldn't have found someone plausibly North African to cast because Joel Edgerington is so important?Rellik San said:I don't see the issue with the supposed "white washing" yes Christian Bale doesn't look like our preconceived notions of what someone from that time looks like, but surely this should be a case of best man for the job, whatever you think of Bale, he got through the casting process was obviously what the production want.
Best person for the job, pretty sure that's what true equality is about. Not to mention the difficulties in securing funding, because lets be honest, how many Arabic actors have the cultural caché that would be required to secure funding for a project like this? It's a reality of the business, is it a reality that sucks? Abso-fucking-lutely it is. This isn't an issue of Scott's casting being on the nose of a hot button issue, instead of demonising him, perhaps we should turn our attentions to the studios that created that atmosphere or y'know... maybe actually turn up to movies with relatively unknown Arabic actors to show the movie industry we are interested in seeing movies starring them.
Do these considerations stop this being a bad movie? Not in the least. But it's perhaps food for thought and enough to make you turn your ire not against the Director or Actors, but against the studios that promote this behaviour with the way they award funding.
*PS. I'm not sure if Arabic would be the politically correct term here, but it would seem to be. If I'm wrong feel free to let me know (preferably without calling me a racist).
Well, the historical accuracy won't matter anyway once the continental congress breaks into a huge musical number during the signing. At that point, the entire cast being Indian really is hardly going to be the most immersion breaking thing in the film.Ihateregistering1 said:If Bollywood wants to make a movie about the signing of the declaration of independence and the Revolutionary War with an entirely Indian cast, and then release it worldwide, they can knock themselves out, no one is forcing me (or anyone else) to watch it.
And while we're at it, an adaptation of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Why hasn't that been made yet?Nixou said:The film looks kind of bland but that crocodile thing actually sounds kind of bad-ass.
Pfff, I'm still waiting for Hollywood to make an adaptation of the Epic of Sundiata, preferably one with no pretense of historical accuracy and completely embrace the Crippled Warlock King side of the story and display all the completely out-there chapters of the tale. (Crocodiles eating people? badass? put to film the Charge of the Hippopotamus Legions and we'll talk)
Zachary Amaranth said:I'm pretty sure that's a choice of the writers; the doctor TECHNICALLY could be a female, but as far as the audience and writers seem to go, the man's a man. Sure, they could theoretically turn his gender around, but there's no real reason to; the established man can stay a man. The show is comfortable with the gender of its main, there's nothing wrong with that. Doctor who doesn't strike me as the best case for picking onPhasmal said:And then there's Doctor Who, where the recent topics on the show have had the same "best actor for the job" thing, but outside of that comedy sketch in the 80s, when's the last time a woman actually auditioned for the role of The Doctor? It just seems so damn hollow when "the right person" might actually be precluded.
.
I think you're both missing the point and the context here. There's a larger picture, but this came up specifically because of recent events where people have become butthurt that Steven Moffat has spoken to the possibility of a female Doctor and others (maybe the same people) have become butthurt that there was a female regeneration of The Master.cantthinkofaname1029 said:I'm pretty sure that's a choice of the writers; the doctor TECHNICALLY could be a female, but as far as the audience and writers seem to go, the man's a man. Sure, they could theoretically turn his gender around, but there's no real reason to; the established man can stay a man. The show is comfortable with the gender of its main, there's nothing wrong with that. Doctor who doesn't strike me as the best case for picking on
Oddly enough, there is a movie about the signing of the declaration of independence, that breaks into musical numbers. One of the songs being about the sexual virility of one of the signers (I forget which). It was actually pretty interesting to watch, up to the point they started singing. The only actor I can recall from it, was the guy who played the voice for K.I.T. from Knight Rider.Dalisclock said:Well, the historical accuracy won't matter anyway once the continental congress breaks into a huge musical number during the signing. At that point, the entire cast being Indian really is hardly going to be the most immersion breaking thing in the film.Ihateregistering1 said:If Bollywood wants to make a movie about the signing of the declaration of independence and the Revolutionary War with an entirely Indian cast, and then release it worldwide, they can knock themselves out, no one is forcing me (or anyone else) to watch it.