|
Post by politicidal on Jan 1, 2020 18:23:06 GMT
This is not the first martial arts movie with an Asian-majority cast. It’s not that unusual. But why does MCU Dictator Kevin Feige feel the need to advertise the movie as "90% Asian cast"? When Ang Lee made Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, he didn't go around advertising the movie as "all-Asian cast". Probably because Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was a good movie so Ang Lee didn't need to use race to advertise the movie. Feige knows the Eternals will probably suck so he's trying to advertise the movie using race/diversity. You pretend to not know what characters people are discussing so don’t pretend that you know what Feige is thinking.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jan 1, 2020 18:35:26 GMT
This is not the first martial arts movie with an Asian-majority cast. It’s not that unusual. When Ang Lee made Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, he didn't go around advertising the movie as "all-Asian cast". Probably because Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was a good movie so Ang Lee didn't need to use race to advertise the movie. Or more likely because it was mainly an Asian production, aiming for authenticity in both language, location and period, where Westerners would not be expected to be present. Not a film that is part of a huge Western franchise, produced entirely by Westerners, based on source material created in the West for an audience in the West, in English. Think before you post
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Jan 1, 2020 22:58:15 GMT
I guess that's not surprising, I doubt they want a Last Airbender situation.
TEXT:
During a recent New York Film Academy Guest Speaker event, Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige discussed Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings and revealed that 98% of the cast will be Asian.
Like the Ancient One in Doctor Strange? I think co-writer C. Robert Cargill (who will always be Carlyle to old-school Spillios) gave a good explanation: if they hired a Tibetan actor, they would piss off China; if they hired a Chinese actor, they'd piss off the Tibetan community; if they hired an actor from another Asian country, then people would complain that Marvel Studios thinks all Asian cultures are interchangeable. So the only logical thing was to cast a non-Asian actor.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jan 4, 2020 5:30:34 GMT
Oh, trust me. Perhaps Chinese themselves wouldn’t have minded, but if they hired an Asian descendant for Ancient One, there would’ve been a massive controversy broke out from some place else to a point where it would’ve been hard not to notice, and if they hired a Chinese, the controversy would’ve multiplied exponentially. Sorry, still not buying it. Hiring an old Asian man to portray an old Asian man can't possibly cause more controversy than casting a white female for the role instead. It's not like it's the first time someone of ambiguous Asian heritage got cast as a different Asian in a blockbuster after all, yet we don't get much backlash. Don't see what's so different with this role. Agreed. Sounds like a whole bunch of BS by MCU and a whole lot of hypocrisy. Brie Larson throws a huge hissy fit about lack of diversity in the movies, but when a studio she works for whitewashes a character and casts a Caucasian for a role that should've gone to an Asian actor, Brie Larson has nothing to say about it. Such hypocrisy by Larsen and MCU!
|
|
|
Post by blockbusted on Jan 4, 2020 6:45:21 GMT
Sorry, still not buying it. Hiring an old Asian man to portray an old Asian man can't possibly cause more controversy than casting a white female for the role instead. It's not like it's the first time someone of ambiguous Asian heritage got cast as a different Asian in a blockbuster after all, yet we don't get much backlash. Don't see what's so different with this role. Agreed. Sounds like a whole bunch of BS by MCU and a whole lot of hypocrisy. Brie Larson throws a huge hissy fit about lack of diversity in the movies, but when a studio she works for whitewashes a character and casts a Caucasian for a role that should've gone to an Asian actor, Brie Larson has nothing to say about it. Such hypocrisy by Larsen and MCU! Moron. Larson was hired 2 years after Doctor Strange. It would've been pointless to talk about it endlessly. Also, if MCU is really THAT racist, why did they hire an Asian guy for Wong? So far, the only MCU character who got "whitewashed" is Ancient One and even that's debatable since Ancient One in this film is Celtic and not Asian. If she was actually an Asian played by a white actress, THAT would've been a whitewashing for sure. And if MCU actually DID hire an Asian for Ancient One, you would've made some other pitiful excuses to trash the casting choice. I know this because I've seen way too much of your BS not to know this. Finally, the whole thing about Larson was comically blown out of proportions, so your point is moot to begin with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2020 23:38:06 GMT
Do you think you'd feel that way about Thompson and Elba if you weren't familiar with the characters already? I ask because as someone who wasn't, it didn't take anything away. I understand a base expectation around appearance, but all these things worked out in the movie.
Height, size, color, aside from deviating from the tradition, it still all worked. Or at least none of it worked against itself. Thor's 1500 years old and he's the spitting image of a 36 year old. They don't exactly look their age. If that's what he looks like at 1500 I could see someone twice his age looking about the same. Cate Blanchett is 50, 14 years older than both of them, and it translates to thousands of years in age difference. Anthony Hopkins is 82, 32 years older than Blanchett and Odin's thousands of years older than her. Age is very kind to those people.
Could you not argue that even if doesn't make sense from a certain point of view, it worked out anyways?
It works only if you shut off your mind and don't think about it... which is pretty much what I did because I did enjoy Ragnarok. Even if you weren't familiar with the comics, most people would assume that the elite fighters of a tall, warrior-race would look their part. Or that someone who was already at their fighting peak to fight Hela way before Thor was born would be noticeably older than Thor. At least around Hela's age. Did it work nonetheless? Sure it did, that's because it was a good movie. The better question to ask would be, would it have been worse if Valkyrie was a tall, blonde, muscular Nordic-looking woman? One of the reasons I like science fiction (among many others) is because their social structures don't need to be modeled around contemporary hangups. That allows for more liberal casting, which is great because it's a rebuttal to the expectation that anybody in a given field, social standing or career needs to look a certain way.
In The Expanse (know it? Watch it?) it's set up just far enough in the future that a brown actor and a white actor could play characters who're on the same side of an hierarchy. If they cast a Chinese actor/actress who plays a character who's born on Mars, it sets the tone for what people from Mars could look like. Racism is a great subject for science fiction because it holds a mirror up to people who hold onto it because they're part of the power structure that stands to lose. A white and a brown actor could both be Martian supremacists who have nothing but contempt for characters from Earth who're also played by a white and brown actor.
Sexism too. Science fiction where a military operation is concerned is the only setting where I see female commanders addressed as Sir.
It goes doubly so for fantasy. A character like Valkyrie only looks like a human female. There's no such thing as Nordic looking on Asgard. Tessa Thompson is some combination of Mexican and Panamanian, but Valkyrie is from Asgard, therefore she's as Asgardian looking as Lady Sif. For the same reasons as The Expanse and Star Trek, different looking actresses like Tessa Thompson and Jaimie Alexander can play characters who have more in common than characters played by Jaimie Alexander and Natalie Portman whose skin color is the same.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 1, 2020 0:39:39 GMT
It works only if you shut off your mind and don't think about it... which is pretty much what I did because I did enjoy Ragnarok. Even if you weren't familiar with the comics, most people would assume that the elite fighters of a tall, warrior-race would look their part. Or that someone who was already at their fighting peak to fight Hela way before Thor was born would be noticeably older than Thor. At least around Hela's age. Did it work nonetheless? Sure it did, that's because it was a good movie. The better question to ask would be, would it have been worse if Valkyrie was a tall, blonde, muscular Nordic-looking woman? One of the reasons I like science fiction (among many others) is because their social structures don't need to be modeled around contemporary hangups. That allows for more liberal casting, which is great because it's a rebuttal to the expectation that anybody in a given field, social standing or career needs to look a certain way.
In The Expanse (know it? Watch it?) it's set up just far enough in the future that a brown actor and a white actor could play characters who're on the same side of an hierarchy. If they cast a Chinese actor/actress who plays a character who's born on Mars, it sets the tone for what people from Mars could look like. Racism is a great subject for science fiction because it holds a mirror up to people who hold onto it because they're part of the power structure that stands to lose. A white and a brown actor could both be Martian supremacists who have nothing but contempt for characters from Earth who're also played by a white and brown actor.
Sexism too. Science fiction where a military operation is concerned is the only setting where I see female commanders addressed as Sir.
It goes doubly so for fantasy. A character like Valkyrie only looks like a human female. There's no such thing as Nordic looking on Asgard. Tessa Thompson is some combination of Mexican and Panamanian, but Valkyrie is from Asgard, therefore she's as Asgardian looking as Lady Sif. For the same reasons as The Expanse and Star Trek, different looking actresses like Tessa Thompson and Jaimie Alexander can play characters who have more in common than characters played by Jaimie Alexander and Natalie Portman whose skin color is the same.
And this is where you're wrong. There's no such thing as Nordic-looking in MCU's Asgard maybe, but they were all definitely Nordic-looking in Marvel's Asgard. And Thor's character as well as the Valkyrie warriors and the rest of their ilk are all described with Nordic features in folklore... which is ultimately where Marvel's Thor is based on. Martians are not relevant comparisons since we have no existing basis on what martians should or shouldn't look like, so you can make them look whatever you want. Star Trek is especially not a good comparison since the Enterprise's crew is made up of completely different species. Also, there's no need to bring racism into this. Talking about race is not the same thing as talking about racism. There's a big difference between the two.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2020 1:01:24 GMT
One of the reasons I like science fiction (among many others) is because their social structures don't need to be modeled around contemporary hangups. That allows for more liberal casting, which is great because it's a rebuttal to the expectation that anybody in a given field, social standing or career needs to look a certain way.
In The Expanse (know it? Watch it?) it's set up just far enough in the future that a brown actor and a white actor could play characters who're on the same side of an hierarchy. If they cast a Chinese actor/actress who plays a character who's born on Mars, it sets the tone for what people from Mars could look like. Racism is a great subject for science fiction because it holds a mirror up to people who hold onto it because they're part of the power structure that stands to lose. A white and a brown actor could both be Martian supremacists who have nothing but contempt for characters from Earth who're also played by a white and brown actor.
Sexism too. Science fiction where a military operation is concerned is the only setting where I see female commanders addressed as Sir.
It goes doubly so for fantasy. A character like Valkyrie only looks like a human female. There's no such thing as Nordic looking on Asgard. Tessa Thompson is some combination of Mexican and Panamanian, but Valkyrie is from Asgard, therefore she's as Asgardian looking as Lady Sif. For the same reasons as The Expanse and Star Trek, different looking actresses like Tessa Thompson and Jaimie Alexander can play characters who have more in common than characters played by Jaimie Alexander and Natalie Portman whose skin color is the same.
And this is where you're wrong. There's no such thing as Nordic-looking in MCU's Asgard maybe, but they were all definitely Nordic-looking in Marvel's Asgard. And Thor's character as well as the Valkyrie warriors and the rest of their ilk are all described with Nordic features in folklore... which is ultimately where Marvel's Thor is based on. Martians are not relevant comparisons since we have no existing basis on what martians should or shouldn't look like, so you can make them look whatever you want. Star Trek is especially not a good comparison since the Enterprise's crew is made up of completely different species. Also, there's no need to bring racism into this. Talking about race is not the same thing as talking about racism. There's a big difference between the two. No maybe about it. There's not. There's no basis for Nordic looking that far out in either version of Asgard because it's not real. Besides, even in Thor Ragnarok, the Valkyries looked mostly Nordic looking to me, all but Tessa Thompson's character who was the sole survivor of the attack.
Artists and creators set the tone for what people from places that don't exist look like. Martians are a relevant comparison because there's no basis for what they look like until someone comes along and creates one. Depending on who's doing the writing, they could look like anybody from human colonists from Earth to a species that evolved from Martian primordial ooze like us. The only limit is imagination. Star Trek's probably the most apt example of them all precisely because the crew is made up of difference species. Norwegian looking people and Asgardians are different species.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 1, 2020 1:17:01 GMT
And this is where you're wrong. There's no such thing as Nordic-looking in MCU's Asgard maybe, but they were all definitely Nordic-looking in Marvel's Asgard. And Thor's character as well as the Valkyrie warriors and the rest of their ilk are all described with Nordic features in folklore... which is ultimately where Marvel's Thor is based on. Martians are not relevant comparisons since we have no existing basis on what martians should or shouldn't look like, so you can make them look whatever you want. Star Trek is especially not a good comparison since the Enterprise's crew is made up of completely different species. Also, there's no need to bring racism into this. Talking about race is not the same thing as talking about racism. There's a big difference between the two. No maybe about it. They don't. There's no basis for Nordic looking that far out in either version of Asgard because it's not real. Besides, even in Thor Ragnarok, the Valkyries looked mostly Nordic looking to me, all but Tessa Thompson's character who was the sole survivor of the attack.
Artists and creators set the tone for what people from places that don't exist look like. Martians are a relevant comparison because there's no basis for what they look like until someone comes along and creates one. Depending on who's doing the writing, they could look like anybody from human colonists from Earth to a species that evolved from Martian primordial ooze like us. The only limit is imagination. Star Trek's probably the most apt example of them all precisely because the crew is made up of difference species. Norwegian looking people and Asgardians are different species.
I'm pretty sure having very different physical characteristics because you're of a different species (Star Trek) is vastly different from having very different physical characteristics despite being the same race. In any case, I don't think you're understanding my point. Of course fictional writers can write whatever they want and directors can cast whomever they want. The question is whether it makes sense or not. This becomes especially tricky if your fictional work is already based on someone else's fictional work. Here, let me ply you with an example: Would you be perfectly fine if they had cast Shia LaBeouf as T'Challa in Black Panther? How bout if they cast Scott Adkins as Shang Chi? Would you defend those casting choices as fervently as Heimdall's and Valkyrie's casting choices?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2020 5:27:56 GMT
No maybe about it. They don't. There's no basis for Nordic looking that far out in either version of Asgard because it's not real. Besides, even in Thor Ragnarok, the Valkyries looked mostly Nordic looking to me, all but Tessa Thompson's character who was the sole survivor of the attack.
Artists and creators set the tone for what people from places that don't exist look like. Martians are a relevant comparison because there's no basis for what they look like until someone comes along and creates one. Depending on who's doing the writing, they could look like anybody from human colonists from Earth to a species that evolved from Martian primordial ooze like us. The only limit is imagination. Star Trek's probably the most apt example of them all precisely because the crew is made up of difference species. Norwegian looking people and Asgardians are different species.
I'm pretty sure having very different physical characteristics because you're of a different species (Star Trek) is vastly different from having very different physical characteristics despite being the same race. In any case, I don't think you're understanding my point. Of course fictional writers can write whatever they want and directors can cast whomever they want. The question is whether it makes sense or not. This becomes especially tricky if your fictional work is already based on someone else's fictional work. Here, let me ply you with an example: Would you be perfectly fine if they had cast Shia LaBeouf as T'Challa in Black Panther? How bout if they cast Scott Adkins as Shang Chi? Would you defend those casting choices as fervently as Heimdall's and Valkyrie's casting choices? It's not my prerogative to figure out a way to make T'Challa white. If I were tasked with it, I'd probably do something similar to Spider Verse because if you asked me last year if Lily Tomlin could play any version of Doctor Octopus I'd have said no. I don't know who Scott Adkins is, but I'm guessing the fix is race-swapping two characters whose character revolves around what they look like. A more comparable casting choice is Samuel L Jackson as Nick Fury and my answer was already yes.
I'm understanding the point just fine. What you're not understanding is my answer to your question is yes, it makes sense. My arguments are everything you've repeated back to me. They're not real people from real places, ergo they look like what the producer says the look like. If their appearance isn't critical to their character, more liberties can be taken with the casting, hence my aside about the liberties of casting for science fiction and fantasy. You seem to agree with this then veer off to saying the real question is does it make sense, will it work, is it right, could someone else have done it better? And I'm saying yes, yes, yes, and possibly but now it's too late.
The direct answer to would Valkyrie have been played better if they cast a muscular Nordic looking actress is only if her audition was better than Tessa Thomspon's.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 1, 2020 6:32:35 GMT
I'm pretty sure having very different physical characteristics because you're of a different species (Star Trek) is vastly different from having very different physical characteristics despite being the same race. In any case, I don't think you're understanding my point. Of course fictional writers can write whatever they want and directors can cast whomever they want. The question is whether it makes sense or not. This becomes especially tricky if your fictional work is already based on someone else's fictional work. Here, let me ply you with an example: Would you be perfectly fine if they had cast Shia LaBeouf as T'Challa in Black Panther? How bout if they cast Scott Adkins as Shang Chi? Would you defend those casting choices as fervently as Heimdall's and Valkyrie's casting choices? It's not my prerogative to figure out a way to make T'Challa white. If I were tasked with it, I'd probably do something similar to Spider Verse because if you asked me last year if Lily Tomlin could play any version of Doctor Octopus I'd have said no. I don't know who Scott Adkins is, but I'm guessing the fix is race-swapping two characters whose character revolves around what they look like. A more comparable casting choice is Samuel L Jackson as Nick Fury and my answer was already yes.
I'm understanding the point just fine. What you're not understanding is my answer to your question is yes, it makes sense. My arguments are everything you've repeated back to me. They're not real people from real places, ergo they look like what the producer says the look like. If their appearance isn't critical to their character, more liberties can be taken with the casting, hence my aside about the liberties of casting for science fiction and fantasy. You seem to agree with this then veer off to saying the real question is does it make sense, will it work, is it right, could someone else have done it better? And I'm saying yes, yes, yes, and possibly but now it's too late.
The direct answer to would Valkyrie have been played better if they cast a muscular Nordic looking actress is only if her audition was better than Tessa Thomspon's.
You're ducking the question. Would you be perfectly fine if they had cast Shia LaBeouf as T'Challa in Black Panther? How bout if they cast Scott Adkins as Shang Chi? I'm not asking you to figure out how to make them white. I'm saying the director had already cast these two in their respective roles. No explanations given. Would you defend those casting choices as fervently as Heimdall's and Valkyrie's casting choices?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2020 6:56:47 GMT
It's not my prerogative to figure out a way to make T'Challa white. If I were tasked with it, I'd probably do something similar to Spider Verse because if you asked me last year if Lily Tomlin could play any version of Doctor Octopus I'd have said no. I don't know who Scott Adkins is, but I'm guessing the fix is race-swapping two characters whose character revolves around what they look like. A more comparable casting choice is Samuel L Jackson as Nick Fury and my answer was already yes.
I'm understanding the point just fine. What you're not understanding is my answer to your question is yes, it makes sense. My arguments are everything you've repeated back to me. They're not real people from real places, ergo they look like what the producer says the look like. If their appearance isn't critical to their character, more liberties can be taken with the casting, hence my aside about the liberties of casting for science fiction and fantasy. You seem to agree with this then veer off to saying the real question is does it make sense, will it work, is it right, could someone else have done it better? And I'm saying yes, yes, yes, and possibly but now it's too late.
The direct answer to would Valkyrie have been played better if they cast a muscular Nordic looking actress is only if her audition was better than Tessa Thomspon's.
You're ducking the question. Would you be perfectly fine if they had cast Shia LaBeouf as T'Challa in Black Panther? How bout if they cast Scott Adkins as Shang Chi? I'm not asking you to figure out how to make them white. I'm saying the director had already cast these two in their respective roles. No explanations given. Would you defend those casting choices as fervently as Heimdall's and Valkyrie's casting choices? Give me the script and we'll see. Pitch me a white Black Panther and make it work. You sell me on it.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 1, 2020 7:01:04 GMT
You're ducking the question. Would you be perfectly fine if they had cast Shia LaBeouf as T'Challa in Black Panther? How bout if they cast Scott Adkins as Shang Chi? I'm not asking you to figure out how to make them white. I'm saying the director had already cast these two in their respective roles. No explanations given. Would you defend those casting choices as fervently as Heimdall's and Valkyrie's casting choices? Give me the script and we'll see. Pitch me a white Black Panther and make it work. You sell me on it. You're still ducking the question. The script is exactly the same. The Black Panther movie is exactly the same. The only change is Shia is cast as BP. Would you be fine with that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2020 7:15:16 GMT
Give me the script and we'll see. Pitch me a white Black Panther and make it work. You sell me on it. You're still ducking the question. The script is exactly the same. The Black Panther movie is exactly the same. The only change is Shia is cast as BP. Would you be fine with that? I don't duck anything. You didn't say the script was the same. You asked if I'd cast Shia Laboofy as T'Challa. Knowing what I do now, I don't think Chadwick Boseman was miscast at all, so no. No interest.
Convince me the point you're trying to make is worth it, because my guess is you're no more interested in casting Shia Labeouf than I am.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2020 13:08:42 GMT
That's good to know. I was watching The Witcher recently and was a bit irked by all the racial bending despite the series originally being based off a medieval Polish setting. Glad to know that they're not doing it with Shang Chi. The MCU already kinda did it with Thor and Dr. Strange. The black elf especially annoyed me. Absolutely no reason to do it. Just like Watchmen or the final season of Man in the High Castle. Im getting really tired of forced political messages about diversity and racism. It ruins the immersive experience of the story. You're meant to be in a fantasy, not suddenly thinking about today's political crap. It just takes you out of the world these stories are trying to build
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 1, 2020 16:11:58 GMT
You're still ducking the question. The script is exactly the same. The Black Panther movie is exactly the same. The only change is Shia is cast as BP. Would you be fine with that? I don't duck anything. You didn't say the script was the same. You asked if I'd cast Shia Laboofy as T'Challa. Knowing what I do now, I don't think Chadwick Boseman was miscast at all, so no. No interest.
Convince me the point you're trying to make is worth it, because my guess is you're no more interested in casting Shia Labeouf than I am.
You're still ducking the question. I wasn't asking if you're interested, I wasn't asking you to cast Shia, I'm asking if you'd be fine if he was cast as BP. Simple yes or no. There is no Chadwick Boseman in this question.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 1, 2020 16:59:38 GMT
I'm pretty sure having very different physical characteristics because you're of a different species (Star Trek) is vastly different from having very different physical characteristics despite being the same race. In any case, I don't think you're understanding my point. Of course fictional writers can write whatever they want and directors can cast whomever they want. The question is whether it makes sense or not. This becomes especially tricky if your fictional work is already based on someone else's fictional work. Here, let me ply you with an example: Would you be perfectly fine if they had cast Shia LaBeouf as T'Challa in Black Panther? How bout if they cast Scott Adkins as Shang Chi? Would you defend those casting choices as fervently as Heimdall's and Valkyrie's casting choices? In any case, I don't think you're understanding my point. Of course fictional writers can write whatever they want and directors can cast whomever they want. The question is whether it makes sense or not. This becomes especially tricky if your fictional work is already based on someone else's fictional work.
You're talking about not just fictional characters, but comic book ones at that. And Marvel doesn’t base their characters on fictional ones; they own the characters. They can recreate Thor or Captain Marvel to be whatever they want. If you don’t like this, then don’t go see the movie. What does Captain Marvel got to do with this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2020 18:24:33 GMT
I don't duck anything. You didn't say the script was the same. You asked if I'd cast Shia Laboofy as T'Challa. Knowing what I do now, I don't think Chadwick Boseman was miscast at all, so no. No interest.
Convince me the point you're trying to make is worth it, because my guess is you're no more interested in casting Shia Labeouf than I am.
You're still ducking the question. I wasn't asking if you're interested, I wasn't asking you to cast Shia, I'm asking if you'd be fine if he was cast as BP. Simple yes or no. There is no Chadwick Boseman in this question. That's the same as asking if I'm interested in casting Shia Laboof, and I'm not interested in casting Shia Laboof as Shia Laboof in the Shia Laboof story. This is the problem with hypothetical situations. No to Shia Laboof because I'd go to great lengths to avoid him, yes to Sam Jackson as Nick Fury because it makes sense, yes to Tessa Thompson and Idris Elba because they make sense and no to Black Panther because it doesn't make sense.
I don't duck anything. I answered these already. Saying no to Shia Laboof isn't the contradiction you think it is. Most onscreen characters could be anybody, especially in science fiction and fantasy. An argument could be made some characters are an exception, and I'm about 99% certain you know Black Panther's one of them. An exception to the rule doesn't disprove the rule.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 1, 2020 22:05:30 GMT
What does Captain Marvel got to do with this? The original Captain Marvel is male, but they decided to make her female. And gender-bending has been common in superhero comic books and now they are employing racial-bending for probably several reasons. The most important one is to get the largest number of eyes on their product, thus gaining the largest amount of profit they can. This end game for MCU means making movies that appeal to the largest audience possible and this audience is no longer majority white males. Actually Asia is the largest market. And it’s growing as that part of the world has an emerging middle-class. You can directly blame the immediate source, but Marvel is foremost a capitalist enterprise. All their decisions will hinge on that. I don't understand why exactly you're responding to me, as I originally stated I'm glad that the Shang Chi cast is primarily Asian. Rather my question to you since you seem so pro-bending is, following your logic that Marvel can do whatever they want with their intellectual properties, would you be perfectly happy had Eddie Redmayne been cast as Shang Chi?
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 1, 2020 22:08:08 GMT
You're still ducking the question. I wasn't asking if you're interested, I wasn't asking you to cast Shia, I'm asking if you'd be fine if he was cast as BP. Simple yes or no. There is no Chadwick Boseman in this question. That's the same as asking if I'm interested in casting Shia Laboof, and I'm not interested in casting Shia Laboof as Shia Laboof in the Shia Laboof story. This is the problem with hypothetical situations. No to Shia Laboof because I'd go to great lengths to avoid him, yes to Sam Jackson as Nick Fury because it makes sense, yes to Tessa Thompson and Idris Elba because they make sense and no to Black Panther because it doesn't make sense.
I don't duck anything. I answered these already. Saying no to Shia Laboof isn't the contradiction you think it is. Most onscreen characters could be anybody, especially in science fiction and fantasy. An argument could be made some characters are an exception, and I'm about 99% certain you know Black Panther's one of them. An exception to the rule doesn't disprove the rule.
It's called hedging the question. Casting Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie makes no more or less sense than casting Shia as T'Challa. Why exactly is Black Panther an exception? He's a fictional character from a fictional land. From your logic, that means he can be portrayed by any actor the studio chooses. So why would he be an exception?
|
|