The Big Picture: Skin Deep
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't think so, and similarly I expect British TV would be more self-conscious about issues sensitive in Britain.Bobic said:
What i got from this is everything would be awesome if we lived in Equestria and were all Ponies....
I definitely agree with you but when it comes to replacing a character, is there a descrpency to consider if it alters his continuity? For example I was fine with the idea of Donald Glover playing spider man, there is no real reason why the origins of Spiderman can't be fulfilled with a black actor, but what about making Thor non-Nordic?
Would be damn cool!Ampersand said:Does anyone else think that black superman is a great idea? Cause I sure as hell do
I think this is one of the few times I've really disagreed with Bob, at least on one point. When he brought up the fact that the changed the races of characters in the Airbender and Dragon Ball movies, I don't think that as many people would've really noticed if the actors and movies in question weren't completely horrible.
With Thor and Robin Hood, both the actors and the movies (Or TV show in the case of Robin Hood) were really good, so it's not really that big of a deal. But with Airbender and Dragon Ball the actors and the films were horrendous, so it became far more noticeable that, for example, Sokka and Katara were white as the driven snow. Something they were most definitly NOT in the TV show.
In fact that's something I've noticed alot in movies, whenever they change a white character into a non-white character (At least in my experience), they do it in a movie that's really good, and use an actor that's really good. But when they do the opposite, movie is usually a MASSIVE piece of shit (Again, that's just my own experience), anyone else find that kinda funny?
With Thor and Robin Hood, both the actors and the movies (Or TV show in the case of Robin Hood) were really good, so it's not really that big of a deal. But with Airbender and Dragon Ball the actors and the films were horrendous, so it became far more noticeable that, for example, Sokka and Katara were white as the driven snow. Something they were most definitly NOT in the TV show.
In fact that's something I've noticed alot in movies, whenever they change a white character into a non-white character (At least in my experience), they do it in a movie that's really good, and use an actor that's really good. But when they do the opposite, movie is usually a MASSIVE piece of shit (Again, that's just my own experience), anyone else find that kinda funny?
As a Non-American, bringing up the issue of race with my American friends is like bringing up the topic of masturbation in a convent...everyone instantly just gets super-WEIRD!
I like US television shows, and THOR all-out rocked, but some of the US culture is just plain perplexing.
I like US television shows, and THOR all-out rocked, but some of the US culture is just plain perplexing.
There are some characters that I believe should stay white, mostly those that lived in a white community or something. Most characters however, are racial interchangeable. That dude in Thor is, Superman is not. If a black alien baby was found in the southern states back when the comic was originally written, I guarantee that Clark Kent would be a different person altogether due to culture.
Also loved seeing MLP whenever Bob said perfect world, and I would love to see an episode on Samurai Pizza Cats
Also loved seeing MLP whenever Bob said perfect world, and I would love to see an episode on Samurai Pizza Cats
So... to put up with a double standard from Hollywood...we have to put up with a double standard from Hollywood?
I'm failing to see how Joe, Joshua or Jeremiah Q Public even gains any ground in this debate. We're getting Samuel L Jackson in a film to make it cooler for the black kids in exchange for having Mel Gibson in a film to make it cooler for the white kids?
How about, and this is only a thought, we cast towards character type and not to a damn chronomancy scale?
If we're trying to pay amends for the past, then how about it starts at the very place that the media-saturation started? In Hollywood.
Let's see what Safi Faye could do with Spielberg's budget. Let's give Star Wars racial castings to Samira Makhmalbaf.
Saying "Suck it up because your family did some bad things to get you where you are today" just creates another national debt, and boy, have we had enough of one.
I'm failing to see how Joe, Joshua or Jeremiah Q Public even gains any ground in this debate. We're getting Samuel L Jackson in a film to make it cooler for the black kids in exchange for having Mel Gibson in a film to make it cooler for the white kids?
How about, and this is only a thought, we cast towards character type and not to a damn chronomancy scale?
If we're trying to pay amends for the past, then how about it starts at the very place that the media-saturation started? In Hollywood.
Let's see what Safi Faye could do with Spielberg's budget. Let's give Star Wars racial castings to Samira Makhmalbaf.
Saying "Suck it up because your family did some bad things to get you where you are today" just creates another national debt, and boy, have we had enough of one.
But it's only because of the history of racism that racism is still prevelent today, like Bob said, not a perfect world.thaluikhain said:
You can only learn from the past, and hopefully not repeat your mistakes in the future. This is a small step, but one that I feel is working towards a (hopefully) less stupid future.
But the comparison can kind of be drawn between this and Victorian England. It just makes more sense for a Nordic god to be Nordic. Race is kinda integral to that part. I know this isn't quite the same, the Nordic god's don't actually exist and all that. But still, I'm sure most of the detractors wouldn't have a problem with, say, Spiderman being black. Or hell Nick Fury's change from a white guy to a black guy. Race isn't part of their roles. It is the part of a Nordic god's.Hayekian said:
I find any accepted ?double standard? to be a bad thing, no matter how noble.
It may have good intentions, but we all know what those pave the road to.
That being said, this was a good episode, traces of white-guilt not withsdanding. This was the best way to tackle the issue.
It may have good intentions, but we all know what those pave the road to.
That being said, this was a good episode, traces of white-guilt not withsdanding. This was the best way to tackle the issue.
Quoted for truth.Satosuke said:
I'm not sure where I stand personally on what Bob said here. I think he makes a fair point, articulates a viable opinion that is worthy of discussion, but the only thing I can say I agree with for sure is that Hollywood is fucking stupid and needs to stop putting Black people in shitty roles. All the rest . . . I haven't though much about it in the context of the "double standard" thing he's talking about.
See, comic book characters get reinterpreted all the time, giving them different back stories, different abilities, sometimes even different races (and once, I think there was a comic book character that actually changed sex, but I'm not certain). It never bothered me for this movie for that reason.
See, comic book characters get reinterpreted all the time, giving them different back stories, different abilities, sometimes even different races (and once, I think there was a comic book character that actually changed sex, but I'm not certain). It never bothered me for this movie for that reason.
Hmm. The double standard points make the most sense in this episode, but as a counter to that, and the issue of Tyler Perry movies, I have to ask these two questions...
1. - To what extent are claims of minority glass ceilings, and past/current grievances affecting them in the present day, legitimate? When do they cross from reasonable into abusive, or downright leeching?
I'm of the opinion that if you flaunt a grievance that does not directly affect your own chances of moving up in the world, as a means of moving up in the world or getting an advantage you do not deserve, then you have no one to blame but yourself for making yourself look bad, or giving your race a bad name.
2. - There are good writers within and without Hollywood who are black/asian/hispanic/ect. Why don't these people write their own works, and work to bring it to the world?
Who said you NEED Hollywood to make a movie, or write a script, or produce a film, long or short, for others to enjoy? We now have blip.tv, Machinima, YouTube, Vievo, and a host of other video sharing sites.
Even better, if these folks embrace the Internet, like the crew of TGWTG or other such regular video producers, they can make films without wasting time with Hollywood's big budgets and red tape.
1. - To what extent are claims of minority glass ceilings, and past/current grievances affecting them in the present day, legitimate? When do they cross from reasonable into abusive, or downright leeching?
I'm of the opinion that if you flaunt a grievance that does not directly affect your own chances of moving up in the world, as a means of moving up in the world or getting an advantage you do not deserve, then you have no one to blame but yourself for making yourself look bad, or giving your race a bad name.
2. - There are good writers within and without Hollywood who are black/asian/hispanic/ect. Why don't these people write their own works, and work to bring it to the world?
Who said you NEED Hollywood to make a movie, or write a script, or produce a film, long or short, for others to enjoy? We now have blip.tv, Machinima, YouTube, Vievo, and a host of other video sharing sites.
Even better, if these folks embrace the Internet, like the crew of TGWTG or other such regular video producers, they can make films without wasting time with Hollywood's big budgets and red tape.
One African tribe capture another African tribe and sold them to the Spaniards who treated the captured Africans worse than any slave holder.
That's all I really have to say about racism in history.
I do, however, acknowledge the fact that there aren't alot of minority roles, and thus taking what there is, away, isn't fair. It's not an aspect of the argument I had thought of before, but it makes sense.
That's all I really have to say about racism in history.
I do, however, acknowledge the fact that there aren't alot of minority roles, and thus taking what there is, away, isn't fair. It's not an aspect of the argument I had thought of before, but it makes sense.
I have to agree whole heartedly and I can't say it any better than Bob did. So instead I will just say that a black superman is a totally awesome idea and I'd love to read about it if it didn't days and days (not to mention tons of cash) of comic back reading to understand what was going in the story.
Oh! Also, considering he is playing a GOD I don't see why anyone has any say as to what the colour of a God's skin would be anyway. Gods and Goddesses are always the product of the society that dreams them up. Norse people created Gods that looked like them just like all the other cultures of the world that decided anthropomorphic personification was a good route for worship. If you wanted to be technically accurate to establish mythological facts (hilarious statement that it is) then Norse God/ess should look like Norse men/women. But this is a story happening in a fictional universe that includes supermen, magic, robots and even dinosaurs all running around and being crazy.
But if a God/ess did really exist I don't see what stops him/her from changing their appearance whenever they darn well feel like it and infact they do exactly that in lots of stories.
Oh! Also, considering he is playing a GOD I don't see why anyone has any say as to what the colour of a God's skin would be anyway. Gods and Goddesses are always the product of the society that dreams them up. Norse people created Gods that looked like them just like all the other cultures of the world that decided anthropomorphic personification was a good route for worship. If you wanted to be technically accurate to establish mythological facts (hilarious statement that it is) then Norse God/ess should look like Norse men/women. But this is a story happening in a fictional universe that includes supermen, magic, robots and even dinosaurs all running around and being crazy.
But if a God/ess did really exist I don't see what stops him/her from changing their appearance whenever they darn well feel like it and infact they do exactly that in lots of stories.
The idea of allowing slavery to serve as a justification for future "correction" to modern day disparities in popular culture is that it makes slavery a kind of law, a defensive legal precident that can be applied to certain situations. By never allowing the spectre of slavery to recede, and in fact encouraging it to remain, we are both keeping old wounds from healing, and creating a situation wherein sooner or later someone will have to ask:
If we are not allowed to forgive the horrors of the European slave trade of Africans organically, at what point should the statute of limitations be put into play.
Will we, for all hypothetical millenia to follow, always be yoked to the distant sins of those who came before us?
And what of people like my family, the Italians and Irish who came here in the early 1920s, who never had any part in America-based slavery? Why am I being yoked to the crimes of the same culture that killed my father's ancestors?
By allowing the past to dictate and rule our present, we are denying ourselves the chance to naturally heal from the wounds inflicted in that past. We are instead turning everything into a fabrication, a balance which we are constantly adding tabulations to.
Not to mention, by keeping slavery in the fore of our race relations consciousness, we are failing to address more modern problems like educational and economic disparity. We are so busy trying to earn forgiveness for the crimes already done, we are failing to effectively prevent those crimes still being perpetrated.
If we are not allowed to forgive the horrors of the European slave trade of Africans organically, at what point should the statute of limitations be put into play.
Will we, for all hypothetical millenia to follow, always be yoked to the distant sins of those who came before us?
And what of people like my family, the Italians and Irish who came here in the early 1920s, who never had any part in America-based slavery? Why am I being yoked to the crimes of the same culture that killed my father's ancestors?
By allowing the past to dictate and rule our present, we are denying ourselves the chance to naturally heal from the wounds inflicted in that past. We are instead turning everything into a fabrication, a balance which we are constantly adding tabulations to.
Not to mention, by keeping slavery in the fore of our race relations consciousness, we are failing to address more modern problems like educational and economic disparity. We are so busy trying to earn forgiveness for the crimes already done, we are failing to effectively prevent those crimes still being perpetrated.