movieartman wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/movies/why-won-t-hollywood-let-180700413.html

Things the author doesn't take into account.
1.) Lupita requested a cgi character in TFA, after 12 years was so much about her being physically abused and doing a hundred photo shoots she wanted something that was about nothing but her performance.

2.) "You don’t see Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Cruise painting their faces to win roles"
J.Edgar? Tropic Thunder?

3.) Gamora is a established character, no matter who played her she would be green.

4.) Karen Gillan a white redhead actress was painted blue and shaved her head in the same film.

The choices of movies are weird: in Star Trek: Beyond Zoe Saldana's in a starring role as an ordinary human, while in Guardians of the Galaxy no one apart from the lead is human. And TFA . . . um, hello, Finn? As in, one of the three main characters?

I think it's pretty clear that that author is operating with some pretty impressive blinders on, because the arguments presented make no sense at all.

Chris Chapel, of China uncensored talks about the politics inherent to the casting of Tilda Swinton as the Ancient One. And some of the rules the CCP has when it comes to Hollywood portraying Asian actors.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1xP45IXbObU

Speaking of China, I have a question: why is it that we've listened to you whine, and whine, and whine, and whine about the seemingly positive portrayal of China in TF: Age of Extinction, a movie you've never even seen, but we haven't heard so much as a single word of complaint about China's positively magnanimous portrayal in The Martian? I saw it for the first time last week and thought "man, Ray should be ripping this apart." But no, not a peep. Why is that? Why is it that mainstream movies get a seal of approval while geek movies get torn to shreds? It just doesn't make any sense to me, on any level.

1) I never got around to watching it.

2) From what I've read. The Chinese Space Administration being involved In the rescue was in the original book, and not a result of Studio Mandates changing the source material to appease the Chinese Audience (like In the case if World War Z, or yes Transformers 4).

3) the real issue I have with the movie is that it whitewashed the two astronauts who were people of color in the original book.

Ray wrote:2) From what I've read. The Chinese Space Administration being involved In the rescue was in the original book, and not a result of Studio Mandates changing the source material to appease the Chinese Audience (like In the case if World War Z, or yes Transformers 4).

How does that matter? The studios are still making the decision to cater to Chinese audiences, so I don't see why the fact that the book gave them the perfect setup to do just that makes any difference.

3) the real issue I have with the movie is that it whitewashed the two astronauts who were people of color in the original book.

Only one astronaut (Martinez) was a PoC in the book, and that held true for the movie as well. The people who were changed were Mindy Park and Venkat Kapoor, though the question of whether or not this amounts to whitewashing is dubious at best:

The Media Action Network for Asian-Americans criticized the casting of white actor Mackenzie Davis as Mindy Park, who, it claimed, was described by Weir to be Korean-American. The group also criticized the casting of Chiwetel Ejiofor as Vincent Kapoor, who, the MANAA claimed, Weir described as an Asian-Indian character. In the novel, the character's name was Venkat Kapoor, and he identifies religiously as a Hindu. The group called the casting whitewashing and said that Asian actors, being under-represented in Hollywood, were deprived of acting opportunities. Author Andy Weir said in October 2015 he perceived Mindy Park as Korean but said he did not explicitly write her as Korean. He also dismissed criticism of Ejiofor's casting as Kapoor, "He's an American. Americans come from lots of different sources. You can be Venkat Kapoor and black." In the original novel Weir intentionally avoided including the physical descriptions of his characters.

I find it darkly amusing that the {correct) casting of Michael Peña has gone unnoticed, particularly given that Latinos are statistically underrepresented in film to a far greater degree than any other ethnic group. I also find it depressing that casting of PoCs has become a zero sum game -- "yeah yeah, you cast a talented black guy in that role, but that's bad because he should be an Indian." It basically amounts to "if it's not my group it doesn't matter!" which is a great example of why identity politics has become so damn toxic.

Bagheera wrote:How does that matter? The studios are still making the decision to cater to Chinese audiences, so I don't see why the fact that the book gave them the perfect setup to do just that makes any difference.

Is it still bad? Yeah, I think it is. But I personally think it's less bad than altering the content of what was already established in the source material.

It basically amounts to "if it's not my group it doesn't matter!" which is a great example of why identity politics has become so damn toxic.

Agreed.

Ray wrote:Is it still bad? Yeah, I think it is. But I personally think it's less bad than altering the content of what was already established in the source material.

And yet you've argued in favor of doing exactly that with e.g. Danny Rand in Iron Fist . . .

Agreed.

But that's exactly what you were doing here! Is this a case of you not doing your homework -- i.e., you didn't realize the guy who replaced the Indian character was Chiwetel Ejiofor instead of a white guy -- or what? Because seriously, I think casting the son of Nigerian immigrants in a role checks off a heck of a lot of diversity boxes, and complaining about the fact that he's not Asian seems awfully counterproductive. And that's exactly what the Media Action Network for Asian-Americans is doing.

Ray wrote:From what I've read, the Chinese Space Administration being involved in the rescue was in the original book, and not a result of Studio Mandates changing the source material to appease the Chinese Audience (like In the case if World War Z, or yes Transformers 4.)

Bagheera wrote:How does that matter? The studios are still making the decision to cater to Chinese audiences, so I don't see why the fact that the book gave them the perfect setup to do just that makes any difference.

What Ray is talking about is the decision to have China take a very prominent role in many films where there doesn't seem to be an apparent justification for it. He views the decision to base large portions of films in China when the source material did not do so as pandering, something to rake in money without any other reason for the change. (I'm not going to lend my opinion to whether this is good, bad, or neutral-- it's not something I'm inclined to debate about at the moment.

This notion of catering to the Chinese doesn't at all apply to the film adaptation of The Martian since China is already very present in the source material; to the claim that the book was pandering as well, China is one of the few nations with a space program that would make sense to include in The Martian's story, which hardly feels like pandering in any capacity.

Bagheera wrote:I also find it depressing that casting of PoCs has become a zero sum game -- "yeah yeah, you cast a talented black guy in that role, but that's bad because he should be an Indian." It basically amounts to "if it's not my group it doesn't matter!" which is a great example of why identity politics has become so damn toxic.

Bagheera wrote:Because seriously, I think casting the son of Nigerian immigrants in a role checks off a heck of a lot of diversity boxes, and complaining about the fact that he's not Asian seems awfully counterproductive.

Why for any reason would you suggest that a studio be more concerned with checking off diversity boxes than actually trying to correctly portray a character the way they were written? Describing casting non-white actors as a zero-sum game is a bizarre assertion-- that's saying that organizations are mad because they're losing work instead of not watching characters written as one race appearing as another. "If it's not my group it doesn't matter"? "Diversity boxes"? It sounds like you're treating movie casting as some sort of bingo game where all you have to do is match up any combination of non-white people and get the Diversity Seal of Approval®.

If somebody is truly trying to further diversity in film by casting characters of a particular ethnicity, I would at least hope that they actually cast correctly. From the way you're talking it only seems to matter that the actor isn't white. That's diversity in symbolism only, a chance to say "we gave all you non-white people a non-white actor, stop complaining."

I say all this as someone who actually doesn't care about the race/nationality of the actor as long as they're cast into a role they look like. I didn't give a hoot about the casting in The Martian. I'm more than happy to see Scarlett Johansson playing The Major in GiTS. I don't care when Americans are played by Englishmen. I don't care that Wolverine is played by an Australian. (Slice!) However, I support efforts to cast people whose nationality or race fits the character. I think it can make for a more engrossing film and certainly has the added benefit of that group of people getting to see one of their own represent a character meant to represent them. Then I see you talking about how all a studio has to do is check off the squares on a game of diversity bingo, and all I can think about is how that doesn't seem to represent any kind of respect for people to see themselves represented in film.

Nuclear Lunchbox wrote:What Ray is talking about is the decision to have China take a very prominent role in many films where there doesn't seem to be an apparent justification for it.

There isn't a justification for it in this one, either in the original book or in the film. It's one of the most hamfisted parts of the whole story, rivaled only by JPL guy actually taking a plane to Washington and doing his stupid demonstration rather than, y'know, sending an e-mail.

(as to why it's hamfisted: all the Chinese rocket ultimately does is send a batch of supplies into Earth orbit. There are any of a number of nations that can do that on very short notice, which means China's involvement is by no means a necessity.)

If pandering to the Chinese is an issue both the book and movie are major offenders. I just find it curious that a mainstream movie like this doesn't generate any buzz when it does so while geek movies generate tons of outrage for doing the same thing. It's almost as if the internet outrage machine knows better than to bite off more than it can chew, and instead goes for softer targets. That's certainly how it looks when a mindless action flick like TF: AoE gets slammed for such (despite the fact that it is the source material) while a well-regarded movie like The Martian does not (even though the sin is exactly the same).

Why for any reason would you suggest that a studio be more concerned with checking off diversity boxes than actually trying to correctly portray a character the way they were written?

I didn't suggest that. I suggested that if diversity was an issue the movie's already covered several times over, and that kvetching because particular ethnic groups were not included is counterproductive (particularly since the author has explicitly said that he purposely avoided physical descriptions in the book).

If somebody is truly trying to further diversity in film by casting characters of a particular ethnicity, I would at least hope that they actually cast correctly.

How do you cast "correctly" when nobody's ethnicity in the story is actually known? That doesn't make any sense (a point the author himself made, if you bother to read the quoted bit a few posts back).

Bagheera wrote:(as to why it's hamfisted: all the Chinese rocket ultimately does is send a batch of supplies into Earth orbit. There are any of a number of nations that can do that on very short notice, which means China's involvement is by no means a necessity.)

Would it have been hamfisted for any other nation to do it? I've said that I don't feel like China's involvement was unjustified, any more than Russia or some other nation doing it. I'm of the opinion that fussing about China being the country involved is needless hand-wringing, fussing that wouldn't be happening were it to have been any other country.

Bagheera wrote:I didn't suggest that. I suggested that if diversity was an issue the movie's already covered several times over, and that kvetching because particular ethnic groups were not included is counterproductive (particularly since the author has explicitly said that he purposely avoided physical descriptions in the book).

Then what is it that you mean when you talk about checking off diversity boxes? That's an awfully specific phrase, and seems to imply that the race of an actor doesn't matter so as long as they're not white.

Bagheera wrote:How do you cast "correctly" when nobody's ethnicity in the story is actually known? That doesn't make any sense (a point the author himself made, if you bother to read the quoted bit a few posts back).

As I've said, I don't really care all that much about The Martian's casting in particular. (In fact, I quite like it.) However, when you have a name and you have information about the character, you can extrapolate a possible appearance-- cultural identity is embedded in a name. However, in your opinion, could a white man have played Venkat? Or, for a different example, would you take issue with a Korean actress playing the role of a character named Mikiko Tanaka if that character's appearance was never described?

Nuclear Lunchbox wrote:Would it have been hamfisted for any other nation to do it?

Given that the U.S. can sent manned missions to Mars on a regular basis, yes.

Then what is it that you mean when you talk about checking off diversity boxes? That's an awfully specific phrase, and seems to imply that the race of an actor doesn't matter so as long as they're not white.

That's the argument I'm lampooning, not the one I'm making. If Hollywood's actually fostering diversity that's a good thing, and the specifics don't really matter since such efforts ultimately benefit everyone. That doesn't mean any given character can be any given gender or race (although that's largely true, and is one of the reasons Ellen Ripley worked as well as she did), it just means that so long as there is diversity in film things are getting better. That means that complaining about how films are diverse is self-defeating.

You have a name and you have information about the character from which you can extrapolate a possible appearance-- cultural identity is embedded in a name. Would you take issue with a Korean actress playing the role of a character named Mikiko Tanaka if that character's appearance was never described?

That really depends on the character's background. One of the pharmacists at my local grocery is named Jessica Wong, and -- surprise! -- she's not Chinese (nor even of Asian extraction). I work with two people having the surname Lee, and one is white and one is Hmong (neither are related to Bruce). When I was trying to figure out what was up with the character of Ryoko I came across someone on the net who had a childhood friend named Mariko, even though her parents were British and Polish. Turns out they fell in love with the name while visiting Japan, which probably created all manner of confusion for their daughter! I can actually list plenty of other examples, but you get the point -- with multiethnic marriages working as they do in the modern world virtually any combination of ethnicity and name is possible, and if an author doesn't physically describe his characters you can't legitimately make claims about their "proper" ethnicity. You can make educated guesses, certainly, but that's as far as it goes.

So why is Mindy Park played by a white actress? I can think of half a dozen reasons, and that's before I start getting creative. But the more important question is this: why is anyone who's concerned with Asian characters in film fussing about that instead of celebrating the fact that Benedict Wong, Eddy Ko, and Chen Shu all landed roles for this film? That's actually pretty good given the size of the cast, and that's not counting the tons of extras for the China scenes. But instead all they can see is the fact that a British Nigerian was cast in the role of someone they thought should be ethnically Indian (which fails for the above reasons, but is even more hilarious given the existence of these people.).

(and heck, same question for TF: AoE: why are people so outraged at the film's "selling out" to China when that very decision ensures that many, many Asian actors have significant roles in the film? If someone cared about Asians in cinema I'd expect them to be overjoyed at anything that brings Asians work, but instead politics seems to get in the way. That makes for some confused priorities IMO.)

Bagheera wrote:
(and heck, same question for TF: AoE: why are people so outraged at the film's "selling out" to China when that very decision ensures that many, many Asian actors have significant roles in the film? If someone cared about Asians in cinema I'd expect them to be overjoyed at anything that brings Asians work, but instead politics seems to get in the way. That makes for some confused priorities IMO.)

Because all of the Asian characters in AOE are either glorified props/background scenery to the white characters, or unnuanced stereotypes (both positive and negative).

Like the Chinese Victoria's Secret model that beats up a bunch of Men in in black with Kung-fu in a scene that is totally out of place in a movie that should be about Giant Robots? Or the central government officer that shows up in a scene that is specifically catered to appease the CCP censors in how a government official is to be portrayed.

On top of that. they're CHINESE Actors, not Chinese American actors. They aren't there to showcase Asian talent, they're in the movie to appease the CCP's delicate sensibilities. They'll ONLY star in big budget movies in unnuanced roles because of the budget of the movie making their inclusion necessary.

movieartman wrote: I just immeasurably violently hate this notion that we can't have villains that happen to be of a foreign culture and unless we have a good guy from that culture we are racist and implying that all people of that race are like that.

The problem isn't that the villain is of a certain ethnicity, the problem is that the majority of movies with villains who happen to be non-white are rarely given any nuance. A hero is only as good as his villain, and if the Villain isn't allowed to be complex or deep then the impact is lessened.

Take for example, Pat Morita as Mr Miyagi from the Karate Kid (not a villain, but I have a point). When we first meet him, he seems like a stereotypical Martial Arts Master. But then the kid comes back from training to find him drunk on the floor, crying. He then pours out his heart to Daniel, crying about how his wife died in while giving birth at Manzanar, and died due to lackluster medical care. In that moment, Mr. Miyagi goes from being just another Asian stereotype (albeit a relatively positive one), to being a human character, flawed and vulnerable as the rest of us.

and that scene was NOT necessary! In fact, the director had to fight to get it included! It's pretty much just a standard 80's Sports movie aside from that scene.

A minority character doesn't have to be the focus of the whole movie to make us feel for the character, you just have to include a few moments in the greater whole acknowledging that the character is more than just a stereotype.

There are BILLIONS upon billions of Chinese that will never have anything to do with Ninja death cults, the notion that we are implying such is ludicrous.

We're not saying the Chinese people would have a problem with a Chinese villain, the problem is the CCP, the censors who run the show in China wouldn't allow a Chinese villain.

The communists say you have to portray a Chinese character in a flawless positive light, and if you don't? Sorry bub, the communists wont allow this movie, or ( if it's really offends the CCP) any of your future movies into their theaters for the foreseeable future.

The problem with Shang Chi, is that he'll probably be unnuanced overtly bland, when compared to Danny Rand. Because if you gave him depth and character, that could potentially make the CCP very angry with the studio if you did anything wrong. Even if the movie/TV show was never intended to be shown in China!

Ray wrote:Because all of the Asian characters in AOE are either glorified props/background scenery to the white characters, or unnuanced stereotypes (both positive and negative).

Ray, you still haven't even seen the movie, so how would you even know?

On top of that. they're CHINESE Actors, not Chinese American actors. They aren't there to showcase Asian talent, they're in the movie to appease the CCP's delicate sensibilities. They'll ONLY star in big budget movies in unnuanced roles because of the budget of the movie making their inclusion necessary.

So, what, Chinese people don't count? Are you even serious?!? Do you realize how ridiculous, how obscene, that sentiment is?

Edit: I really don't think you've thought this through. Do you realize that your reasoning here eliminates actors like Jet Li, Michelle Yeoh, Jackie Chan, and Chow Yun Fat from consideration? Do you realize that, by your logic, Rinko Kikuchi should not be considered for the U.S. Ghost in the Shell movie since she's Japanese and not Japanese American? Doesn't that seem a little bizarre to you?

The problem isn't that the villain is of a certain ethnicity, the problem is that the majority of movies with villains who happen to be non-white are rarely given any nuance. A hero is only as good as his villain, and if the Villain isn't allowed to be complex or deep then the impact is lessened.

Just yesterday I watched The Jungle Book, wherein the main villain was portrayed by a black dude and had plenty of nuance. Granted, he was playing a tiger, but it's still enough to make me call "bullshit!" on your entire premise. Maybe it was because Kipling was just that damn good, maybe it's because Idris Elma is just that damn good (okay, probably), but Shere Khan had plenty of nuance, and he managed to make his hero (not a white guy) shine pretty damn brightly.

The problem isn't that most non-white villains lack nuance, but rather that most villains, period, lack nuance. Ever seen Deadpool? Decent movie, with the main problem being its lackluster villain -- a white guy. Sometimes we get a Wilson Fisk or a Purple Man, but usually we're not so lucky.

The problem with Shang Chi, is that he'll probably be unnuanced overtly bland, when compared to Danny Rand. Because if you gave him depth and character, that could potentially make the CCP very angry with the studio if you did anything wrong. Even if the movie/TV show was never intended to be shown in China!

You're giving the CCP way, way too much power and influence here. Marvel ultimately wants to play nice with Chinese audiences, because hey, free money, but the notion that they're somehow slavishly subservient to the whims of the Chinese censors is absolute bollocks. Get past your blinders, man, and stare reality in the face! It's not the fucking dystopia you make it out to be.

If TF: AoE stands for Trans4mers than I'm out. I know I haven't seen it yet, and I'm having a rocking time avoiding it. Sometimes cutting ties to a tired filmmaker is its own reward, no matter how "good" things were for his movies afterwards.

Though, I will say this: Michael Bay has admitted that he doesn't even like the concept of Transformers. When he was first presented with the opportunity to direct, his initial response was "Why would I want to make a toy movie?" When seen in that light, I find it really weird to accuse him of using Asian actors as glorified props/background scenery, especially seeing as how that's Michael Bay's default approach to everyone and everything on that set to begin with. He didn't care about the robots, he didn't care about the characters, he just didn't care. He's an egalitarian in that regard. Sure, his Asian/female/CGI/minority characters may not have that much depth to them, but I can't recall Shia LaBeouf's character as having any depth either. And he was the white straight cis male main character. (In fact, "white straight cis male" is the only integral part of Shia's character in those first three movies. Fuck those movies.)

Most of Micheal Bay's movies are entirely glorified props/background scenery. There's no point in focusing on many of them, and if they are to be watched at all it's best done as background noise while you focus your attention on more interesting things. So I find it a bit odd to single out one aspect of his films as a glorified props/background scenery when that's all Michael Bay knows how to handle anything he touches.

A journalist from VICE. Who is also of Tibetan ancestry, gives his two cents on the whitewashing of The Ancient One.

http://www.vice.com/read/hollywoods-lat ... nton-means

The Transformers movies are satires. The first one particularly, it's ire is targeted at the adults in the audience who still play with toys.

Michael Bay is both incredibly shallow and incredibly incisive. TF1 is a nihilist condemnation of modern masculinity. It says: You pick toys over Megan Fox? The hell is wrong with you?

I genuinely believe that they could have cast a one-legged half-Tibetan half-black Transwoman with a claw arm and no legs to play the Ancient One and they'd still get shit over it. The minute they decided to keep "White doctor travels to the Mysterious East to learn magic" they stepped into the minefield and started dancing a jig. There's no navigating that.

Maybe since the built the character of the Mandarin in Iron Man 3 to specifically avoid accusations of racism from using a Fu Manchu ripoff and got shit on for it they decided to just go fuck it, let's make an entertaining movie.

I expect it will be amazing by the way.

Thinking about about it.. the fact all this "white washing" happening in Hollywood, California, which as far as I know is one of the most PC, Diversity preaching, "Progessive" states in the US, is such delightful Irony.

I'm no fan of arbitrarily changing a character's race/gender just for the sake of it. Though if the performance given is a really good one, does it really matter in the end? Coming off of Doug Walkers video of it, I can't help but feel there a double standard at work here where we're suppose to get upset if A white person is cast in the the role of an otherwise ethnic character, but not the other way around.

Speaking of Transformers, I remember flak being thrown around about Drift despite being voiced by Ken Watanabe, Not a white person faking a Japanese accent.

There's a lot of virtue proofing and genuine liberalism among actors and actresses but the Hollywood business establishment is corrupt, conservative, and perverted.

I think that's why so many big name actors are so invested in causes. They're trying to balance being part of an industry that's full of evil shit.

Kaminoyouni wrote:Speaking of Transformers, I remember flak being thrown around about Drift despite being voiced by Ken Watanabe, Not a white person faking a Japanese accent.

Which is funny, since Drift's character has always been presented as a total weeaboo. If anyone could justify whitewashing it'd be Drift, since he was never Japanese to begin with!

Chuckman wrote:There's a lot of virtue proofing and genuine liberalism among actors and actresses but the Hollywood business establishment is corrupt, conservative, and perverted.

I think that's why so many big name actors are so invested in causes. They're trying to balance being part of an industry that's full of evil shit.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. (I.E. a term used in a completely negative context) liberalism ain't so pure and just either and has plenty of it's own corrupt, evil shit. Perversion I don't see really having a place here.. nothing about this is kinky.

I'd say it's corrupt in it's abusive of copyright and going against Fair use policy, so I'm fully aware the Hollywood business is wrong in places.

Like I'm genuinely baffled that some people believe that some where out there in the movie industry there some nefarious pro-white scheme at work to recast ethic characters with white actors.. cause... reasons? Like seriously... whats the gain here?

It's already been said they changed the casting of the person in Dr. Strange to avoid conflict with their market share from China who really, really are not fans of Tibet atm. So you tell me who's being ethnically evil right there (hint, it's not whitey Hollywood business guy).

I'll say my piece my piece that I think you should always hire the best person for the job, regardless of you know, race, gender (identity), sexual orientation. But that should be the real reason, because they're the BEST AT THE JOB. If you hire them because of race, gender (identity), sexual orientation, then it's just as offensive in my book.

With Acting jobs though... eh you should really try to get close to the source material if it's an adaptation (which really is the only place this is really an issue), and not change the character unless it's absolutely positively necessary.

It should also be said that when interviewing folks in Japan. They're ... not upset that SJH has been cast and Mjr. Kunsanagi, so... if they're not upset... should we be...?

I mean folks throw around Diversity a lot.. I mean a lot... like... it's important... but it's not a huge focus of what something should be about? More often then not I see "diversity" used as a monkey wretch to be thrown into things were race/gender is a wholly non-issue, and more as an agenda piece rather then actually being meaningful in some way.

Bagheera wrote:
Which is funny, since Drift's character has always been presented as a total weeaboo. If anyone could justify whitewashing it'd be Drift, since he was never Japanese to begin with!

I think it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.