The Big Picture: Skin Deep

Recommended Videos

blackwlf

New member
Mar 13, 2008
16
0
0
Davroth said:
The reason why I'm not happy with casting a black actor as a Norse God is that it makes no sense to me. Why is there only one? Why didn't the Vikings portrayed him as black? For that matter, what's up with Thor's Asian friend?

Was that seriously the only role in the entire movie that could be played by a black actor?
When you consider that they're actually alien beings who were worshiped by the Norse AS gods, there is the possibility that, since the Norse were white, they chose to depict their gods as white? Maybe the Asgardians were also worshiped by other societies under different names, who put their own ethnic spin on it?

When you consider how much of the currently living religions has been borrowed from older beliefs with new spins put on them, it's not hard to believe that such changes could have been made. Maybe there are other black Asgardians, we just don't see them in the movie. *shrugs*

And yeah, I kinda wondered who the Asian guy was too.
 

Nerf Ninja

New member
Dec 20, 2008
728
0
0
JDKJ said:
Nerf Ninja said:
JDKJ said:
Nerf Ninja said:
JDKJ said:
Nerf Ninja said:
JDKJ said:
Nerf Ninja said:
JDKJ said:
DUKENUK3M said:
I was born after slavery, Jim Crow, etc and I reject the idea that I owe some sort of historical debt.
If you're white and American, then you benefit from that history of slavery, Jim Crow, etc. Why shouldn't you owe a debt? You're benefiting at the expense of others.
And modern blacks haven't benefitted from that history of slavery?
By and large and as a group in the United States, no, they haven't. They've suffered and continue to suffer from those vestiges.
Apart from the fact that they're even in the United states in the first place, with a chance to make something of themselves?
You're kidding, right? I've never read the history where the West Africans lined up and fought each other for a berth on a slave ship headed to the New World. As I recall, they ended up here kicking and screaming.

Pretty sure I was talking about modern black Americans there, yep just checked, I was. I don't dispute that it was hell for those involved in the actual slavery part.
Do you understand what a "vestige" is? And why is your account of History stopping at the abolition of slavery? The unfair treatment of blacks in American wasn't legally abolished until the 1950s (see Brown v. Board of Education and related cases) and, in some cases, later than that (it was illegal for blacks to marry whites until the 1970s (see Virginia v. Loving) and the school desegregation cases, some of which festered on until the early 1980s)).
You were the one that mentioned about the slaves coming to America not me. I probably should say that I'm English so I'm not really inculcated in the history of America.

I do personally believe that racism in any form is wrong and yes I accept that it's only been recently that you could say it's even possibly on an even keel for all races (Probably not true as such) but as I said at the beginning, my statement wasn't so much that institutional racism no longer exists in America but that MODERN blacks have benefitted from slavery.

Not in any financial sense but rather in a sense that though their "people" have suffered, they themselves individually can achieve a great deal of things that would probably have been denied them had their ancestors not suffered so terribly.

I'm in danger of Godwinning myself here but do you think a German owes a Jew a debt because of the Terrible suffering of the Jewish during the war?

I think it should be acknowledged but it shouldn't be the defining character of those people.
The Germans obviously think they do.

Germany, by way of agreement with Israel, has paid $715 million in goods and services to the State of Israel as compensation for taking in survivors of the Holocaust; $110 million to the Claims Conference for programs to finance the relief, rehabilitation, and resettlement of Jewish Holocaust survivors; and direct reparations to selected individuals over a 12-year period amounting to several hundred million dollars and still counting.
So if America just decided one day to give all descendants of slavery or racial abuse in the past a few hundred million, that would be enough for you?

You're obviously much more well informed on this than I could hope to be, you probably had a better education than I did, mine was atrocious.

I will have to leave it here I'm afraid, as I have to be up early for work tomorrow and it's getting late here. I applaud your knowledge and hope for the best possible future for you.

I genuinely hope you didn't think I was attacking you or your beliefs. It's a sorry state of affairs that modern culture benefits from the miseries of the past, the best we can hope for is to acknowledge them but work to the future without forgetting their lessons.
 

Nate Corran

New member
Dec 26, 2009
130
0
0
My only disagreement with some of what is said here is that not just black people were slaves in history (gasp from some of you).
In fact the word "slave" comes from the root Slav, for the Slavs, present day middle europeans, who were defeated and taken as slaves by the Norse peoples (See what i did there? full circle). Every race and people have been slaves at some point or another and mostly when those places had been defeated in war, in which case it was almost expected. So, while yes we took Africans as slaves in America, many other cultures took many other races as slaves as well, in which case all of this is conditional.
*breathes deep*
Besides that, this was a really good episode I agreed with for the most part (Besides what is stated above.
 

Fappy

\[T]/
Jan 4, 2010
12,010
0
41
Country
United States
While I don't take issue with it, I can understand why some hardcore fans do... but then, they take issue with any and all changes made against the source material.
 

iblis666

New member
Sep 8, 2008
1,106
0
0
MovieBob said:
Skin Deep

Sometimes embracing a double standard is the right thing to do.

Watch Video
really pulling the slavery card as a justification for all minorities to play what are usually considered white acting rolls is a bit lazy. Yes slavery happened in the united states and it was bad, but only a small minority of white people in the united states today even have an ancestor that owned slaves. To carry on as if all white people owe all minorities for things that they never did and more than likely their ancestors never did is not only unfair to white people but a great disservice to black people since it tells them that they are a broken people and that they cant stand up on their own.

I would have much rather you used other reasoning for justifying the casting of a black man in what is traditionally a white roll such as its fiction and as such just about anything could be changed and still make sense. For instance both the norse gods and superman are aliens and as such could be portrayed by any race or for that matter could be green and it wouldnt change the story(though superman would need some sort of disguise while kent). Hell a black frier tuck all that unbelievable he could have been taken as a boy to England to help the church or monistary that he was attached to.
 
Sep 17, 2009
2,851
0
0
MolotoK said:
I've not seen the movie and actually never read an American comic book (Like many Europeans I was raised on Franco-Belgian comics), but isn't it a bit weird to have a Norse God portrayed by a black man?
Would u cast a European or African for the role of a Hindu god?

I agree with Bob, that those people, who act like hundreds of years of slavery, segregation and discrimination never happened, are idiots, but I can see why comic book nerds get upset about a change to their beloved source material.
He isn't a norse god. He is a comic book character based on a mythological being. If Marvel gives permission to do non-traditional casting then the filmmakers are allowed to do non-traditional casting.

I don't get why this is a big deal. He is a comic book character, he is ficitional, let him be represented in anyway that those with the rights wants.
 

JDKJ

New member
Oct 23, 2010
2,065
0
0
DUKENUK3M said:
JDKJ said:
Father Time said:
Brinnmilo said:
JDKJ said:
Father Time said:
JDKJ said:
DUKENUK3M said:
I was born after slavery, Jim Crow, etc and I reject the idea that I owe some sort of historical debt.
If you're white and American, then you benefit from that history of slavery, Jim Crow, etc. Why shouldn't you owe a debt?
Because I didn't do anything. The fact that I benefited is not my fault and I cannot make the benefits go away.
JDKJ said:
You're benefiting at the expense of others.
You could argue that all of humanity benefited from slaves (not just African slaves, but any slave going back to ancient times).
No, but you can (a) recognize the fact that you have benefited and (b) don't claim that you don't owe that benefit to the burden of others.
JDKJ you are surely a troll. I bet you are sat there right now with your gleaming troll face smile, nice and fat from all the feeding that every one has given you this evening?

(a) He did recognise that he benefited - "The fact that I benefited"

(b) He actually went so far in the other direction to what you claim he is claiming... right that is hard to understand. To clarify, you seem to think that he doesn't think he owes any one for the "benefit" when in fact he says that every one owes the "benefits" to every one. He transcends the whole Black & White relationship extending the "racism and slavery is bad" to a much wider spectrum of social status and race. - "You could argue that all of humanity benefited from slaves (not just African slaves, but any slave going back to ancient times)"
I do not think I owe anyone for slavery (since I'm not a slaveowner and I never fought to keep slavery legal etc.). However if we're going to start doing this why stop at African slaves? Why not go back to the slaves of ancient times?
It's not that simple. If you're white and American, the long and, arguably, still continuing history of repression and oppression of racial minorities by the white majority better positions you to compete for scare resources and opportunities (e.g., schools, jobs, etc.) than the minorities who have historically been kept from the field of competition.
1. Yes but that is different from slavery, yet slavery is still invoked as a debt that all white people share.

2. Also in the past, before my time. That is last millennium's business. Not my responsibility.
No need to repeat yourself. I long ago understood your position on the matter and had stopped responding to you.
 

Nomanslander

New member
Feb 21, 2009
2,963
0
0
Bobic said:
Is it ok that I, a British person, find the casting of a nordic god as black a bit daft because I am without all that slave owning history guilt? (Although I am sure Idris is awesome in Thor as he is a great actor. I saw his BBC series Luther and he kicked ass, you should all go watch it now)
Well, I guess that's just the bullshit you and everyone there, actually all over the world. Has to deal with since the majority of popular movies made comes from Hollywood, CA, USA.

:(
 

moosek

New member
Nov 5, 2009
261
0
0
"Even a black Superman..." well there is Steel...

Why the hell would that matter? Superman is from space. He's not human, he's a strikingly humanoid alien which laser eyes and the ability to fly. His skin color could be purple and it wouldn't make a difference based on his origin story. Now a black Batman, that would turn some heads.
 
Sep 17, 2009
2,851
0
0
Abandon4093 said:
The NORSE gods are exactly that, fucking Norse. They're the depiction of the archetypal European.
But he isn't a Norse god. He is a comic book character. He is one fictional being based on another ficitional being.

Sure if this was a history channel special then the actor in the recreation should be caucasion, but this is a comic book movie and this guy is not supposed to be an actual representation of a norse god.

Thor is not a representation of Norse mthyology, it is a comic series based upon the mythology, so the characters can be cast however Marvel studios/the director chooses to cast them.
 

Giest4life

The Saucepan Man
Feb 13, 2010
1,554
0
0
Nietzsche said FU to the "realists" and so now I say so, too: FU.
Not correcting a wrong using the justification that it's not a "perfect world" and that it isn't "realistic" is retarded.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Nerf Ninja said:
So if America just decided one day to give all descendants of slavery or racial abuse in the past a few hundred million, that would be enough for you?
Just following the topic; but debts should be held to the perpetrators, not the kin of said perpetrators (assuming said kin are not perpetrators themselves, obviously).

The presence of a debt indicates blame (or there would be no grounds for justified compensation), yes, but who? Blaming the great-great-grandson of a slave driver for crimes s/he didn't commit makes about as much sense as blaming the son (or brother) of a bank robber who was killed fleeing the scene.

There are some who would seek any excuse to use history as a mortgage book, which is no more fair than holding the innocent accountable. Sadly, some cultures take the bait, not realizing the fallacy.
 

metalmanky306

New member
Dec 30, 2010
23
0
0
i gotta say i totally disagree. (please insert "it's all my opinion" disclaimer...)

feeling sorry for minorities is just as racist as hating them. you're not gonna fix bad things that happened in the past by doing the opposite, you're not gonna fix them at all - they happened. even if the opposite is less harmful, it's just as bigoted. the best thing to do then is, if you ask me, just not to do them, move on. don't get me wrong, it shouldn't be forgotten, by any means, i just think it should simply be treated as past. horrible past, yes, but still past. how can we ever move on if we keep acting this way about it?

i'm not at all against them casting a black man in a white role, not even if it goes against continuity. it's just the fact that they obviously did it for the simple, pointlessly bigoted reason that they thought there weren't enough black people there.

i agree this is an imperfect world, and there are many things we can't change. but pointless bias is something we can change. so why don't we?
 

JDKJ

New member
Oct 23, 2010
2,065
0
0
Nautical Honors Society said:
Abandon4093 said:
The NORSE gods are exactly that, fucking Norse. They're the depiction of the archetypal European.
But he isn't a Norse god. He is a comic book character. He is one fictional being based on another ficitional being.

Sure if this was a history channel special then the actor in the recreation should be caucasion, but this is a comic book movie and this guy is not supposed to be an actual representation of a norse god.

Thor is not a representation of Norse mthyology, it is a comic series based upon the mythology, so the characters can be cast however Marvel studios/the director chooses to cast them.
Comic books aren't historically accurate?! Git outta here!
 

internetzealot1

New member
Aug 11, 2009
1,693
0
0
I don't think that we today should be concerned with making up for crimes of the past. The existence of slavery does not justify the double standard mentioned in this video. Not that I really care in this instance. I haven't seen Thor yet, but that guy looks supremely badass in all the pictures I've seen.

Also, is it objectionable to cast Goku as a white guy when he looks like a white guy? You said it yourself once, Bob, that even though anime comes from Japan, all its characters look Caucasian.
 

JDKJ

New member
Oct 23, 2010
2,065
0
0
metalmanky306 said:
i gotta say i totally disagree. (please insert "it's all my opinion" disclaimer...)

feeling sorry for minorities is just as racist as hating them. you're not gonna fix bad things that happened in the past by doing the opposite, you're not gonna fix them at all - they happened. even if the opposite is less harmful, it's just as bigoted. the best thing to do then is, if you ask me, just not to do them, move on. don't get me wrong, it shouldn't be forgotten, by any means, i just think it should simply be treated as past. horrible past, yes, but still past. how can we ever move on if we keep acting this way about it?

i'm not at all against them casting a black man in a white role, not even if it goes against continuity. it's just the fact that they obviously did it for the simple, pointlessly bigoted reason that they thought there weren't enough black people there.

i agree this is an imperfect world, and there are many things we can't change. but pointless bias is something we can change. so why don't we?
Because that "bais" isn't pointless. It serves the purpose, as you claim, of ensuring that there were some blacks cast in the movie. That's pointed, not pointless.
 
Sep 17, 2009
2,851
0
0
JDKJ said:
Nautical Honors Society said:
Abandon4093 said:
The NORSE gods are exactly that, fucking Norse. They're the depiction of the archetypal European.
But he isn't a Norse god. He is a comic book character. He is one fictional being based on another ficitional being.

Sure if this was a history channel special then the actor in the recreation should be caucasion, but this is a comic book movie and this guy is not supposed to be an actual representation of a norse god.

Thor is not a representation of Norse mthyology, it is a comic series based upon the mythology, so the characters can be cast however Marvel studios/the director chooses to cast them.
Comic books aren't historically accurate?! Git outta here!
I am assuming that is sarcasm :p
 

Gralian

Me, I'm Counting
Sep 24, 2008
1,789
0
0
I believe the show Merlin here actually cast a black woman as... Guinevere, who i think was meant to be someone historically real. ( Arthur's lover, i think? ) Anyway, i remember noting my parents' reaction after they'd seen the show. "How can they cast a black woman as Lady Guinevere! She was historically white" and even "Black people weren't even around at the time of Arthurian legends". I didn't understand why they were so up in arms. After all, i doubt they had make-up or American Crew hair gel either, but the actors are still all sporting it anyway. I thought she did an apt job of filling the role and didn't really get why her race was such a big issue. Where it might be an issue is if the thing they're portraying claims to be a factual portrayal. "This IS how this character would have looked back when they were alive", like in the Thor movie, if they claimed that the Heimdall they choose to portray would look like the exact Heimdall that people used to worship and speak of in legend. I take it as the director's choice of portrayal rather than factual representation. If they want to choose to portray Merlin as a weedy teenager, they can. If they want to choose to portray Heimdall as black, they can. It's entirely up to the director how they interpret the source material they're given and how they want to portray it and inject their own vision into it.

That said, regarding the whole "black people were slaves and we should allow double standards because of it" needs to be put to bed. We can't keep bringing that issue up forever and i think people have or are rapidly getting to the stage where we really don't need to keep bringing it up because racism isn't really tolerated publically anymore. You will still get racists, of course, but from what i see they mostly keep themselves to themselves. Should we start giving casting privaleges to women and homosexuals too? They were oppressed as well, after all. How about Japanese? Or Russians? You know, to make up for the McCarthyism period.

My point is that the world has put its nasty past behind us and we should accept that. We don't pick on Germany for starting two world wars, even though the last one ended only 66 years ago and we shouldn't be apologetic because slavery ended 146 years ago. I suppose you are right though, ideal world and all that. Until Hollywood drops its Caucasian-centric preferential treatment there isn't really any wiggle-room. I have to ask though, is it purely this Caucasian centricism, or is there a genuine lack of good actors of an ethnic minority? For example, is there one good black / asian / other minority actor for every ten white actors purely because ethnic minorities don't often choose to try and get into Hollywood? It'd be really good to see some actual figures and sort of 'survey data' on this to see.
 

Android2137

New member
Feb 2, 2010
813
0
0
Haven't seen the movie yet myself, but the primary reason why my eyebrows raised upon hearing the controversy over casting was simply because I was under the impression that all Norse Gods are Caucasian... Y'know... Being from Norway and all...

Don't get me wrong. I have no issues with racial changes. My eyebrows had little reaction over Nick Fury's. (Admittedly I didn't know much about Iron Man prior to the movie, but I don't know anything about Marvel's Thor either.) But the fact is that Nick Fury is a mortal man in modern America. "Gods" implies immortal (and thus being there since the beginning of time or at least creation of the people weaving the folklore), and Norse means from Norway. I'm sure he's a good actor, but it was beyond my suspension of disbelief.

Oh well. Maybe if I see the movie, the borders of my suspension of disbelief will expand.