Caporegime
And this is a perfect example of why we still need to have these discussions. I think Joss Whedon summed it up perfectly:
"So, why do you always write these strong women characters?"
"Because you're still asking me that question."
"whitewashing" garbage
- Thread starter wolfie138
- Start date
And this is a perfect example of why we still need to have these discussions. I think Joss Whedon summed it up perfectly:
"So, why do you always write these strong women characters?"
"Because you're still asking me that question."
Do you really think the casting director thought "I don't like Asian people therefore I'm going to cast a caucasian guy instead"?
If there's one thing I hate about these discussions is that everybody talks about it like the film industry is made up of 90% open racists, whereas the reality is there's a lot more at play. Perhaps not a single Asian person was put forward by their agent for the role? Then who do we blame?
I like that!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,886
None I think, it's unclear exactly when she changed her name, but her IMDB listed roles prior to being cast in Nashville in 2012 was just a host of a kids show and an unaired pilot
I can only go by what she's said - This interview is from 2014
https://www.thestar.com/entertainme...says_changing_her_name_changed_her_luck.html#
Soldato
Do you really think the casting director thought "I don't like Asian people therefore I'm going to cast a caucasian guy instead"?
If there's one thing I hate about these discussions is that everybody talks about it like the film industry is made up of 90% open racists, whereas the reality is there's a lot more at play. Perhaps not a single Asian person was put forward by their agent for the role? Then who do we blame?
You'd ask why no Asians were put forward for the part. Was it made explicitly clear that they were looking for a Caucasian? If so what was the rationale behind that? Are agents less willing to represent Asians, or, less willing to put effort in pushing them forward for non-stereotypical roles because the chance of success is disproportionately low. Is there a lack of Asian talent in Hollywood and is there a reason for that. Or is it just a case that no Asian actors really fancied the role?
The vast majority of individuals within Hollywood are not racist (in my opinion anyway), however I don't think it can really be denied that the industry as a whole has a problem with race, and by industry I'm talking decision making at all levels up to and including the consumer.
One of the issues is the traditional use of the word racism. This isn't a neo-Nazi jackboots and hatred kind of thing. It's institutional bias centred around race, and to be honest race isn't the only area where inequality and bias exists.
Soldato
This is a difficult one, in my opinion. She had some minor parts, and then got her big break and hasn't looked back. Prior to her break, she changed her name. Those are the facts.
Now, if she had been offered a few Asian based roles prior to a name change and when she turned up for casting the part fell through, then that would be clear evidence right there. If she had been told on the QT by her agent that her name was posing problems, then again that would be clear evidence.
I honestly don't think it beyond the realms of possibility that the reason she gets roles now is because she's had her exposure via a high profile part. It also isn't beyond the realms of possibility that the name change was a co-incidence, and she's now perfectly happy to believe otherwise because it suits her, either consciously or unconsciously.
She's certainly getting plenty of attention, and there's nothing like a bit of PR in that industry.
Man of Honour
Apart from those who don't. Like me, for example. You're assuming that everyone who disagrees with you has a position that is wrong, simple and hypocritical in order to rationalise your original assumption that people who disagree with you are wrong.
What I (and apparently many other people) dislike about the term "whitewashing" is that it's racist hypocrisy. Now that's a postion that is wrong, simple and hypocritical.
If they had made a Ghostbusters film in which the Ghostbusters were women, I wouldn't have cared. But that's not what they did. They remade the same film specifically for the purpose of changing the sex of the characters and heavily promoted it on that basis. It was purely an appeal to sexism (the wrong sex is being erased and replaced with the right sex, so you should watch this film!), hypocrisy and lies about both what sexual equality is and about anyone who objected to this sexist, hypocritical film.
To help shine a light on the issue, imagine some people doing remakes of the Aliens films mainly for the purpose of making Ripley a man in order to appeal to men who are offended by a woman in the lead role. What would you think of them? What would you think about a society in which such a thing was widely praised and anyone objecting to it was derided as being a pathetic man-hater?
Of course people who like the sexism will say "that's different". The same prejudice is always different to people who like it. People who approve of prejudice against the group(s) they're prejudiced against will always disapprove of the same prejudice against the group(s) they favour and say it's different. Maybe even believe it's different.
As for Bond, it's irrelevant in any film set after 1962 because that's when the original Bond would have been forced to retire. If someone did a remake of an existing Bond film set before 1962 for the purpose of changing the "race" of Bond, I'd object to it for the same reason as Ghostbusters. If someone made a new Bond film set after the last Bond film and made Bond not "white", I wouldn't care. If someone made a Bond film set before 1962 and hired an actor who wasn't "white" and used make-up to make them look "white" for the role, I wouldn't care. If someone made a film set in any time about another 00x agent, I wouldn't care about any irrelevant details like sex or imaginary details like "race". I'd care if the film makers/marketers made a big deal about those irrelevant details, but not about the details themselves.
It's not about an actor's sex or "race". It's about sticking with the source material. It's about motives and marketing. It's about sexism and racism and hypocrisy.
Last edited:
yeah i'm going to have to agree with this.
Sure, it might be racism, or it might just be a coincidence (they do happen you know).
A lot of actors struggle until they happen to get seen by the right person, who then gives them their big break and suddenly they are famous.
Correlation is not the same as causation, so changing her name doesn't mean it was the reason for getting the roles.
i mean, lets be honest, i watch AOS and she is good looking but extremely average in terms of acting ability - i bet she doesn't might being given a break purely on her looks!!
Soldato
The problem actually is that "Hollywood are not looking for an Asian actor". That's the entire point.
For many (most, probably) roles, the race of the lead is irrelevant. Yet Asians, and other races, are automatically discarded because they "are not looking for an Asian actor".
The situation blows up when "Hollywood are not looking for an Asian actor" when they can't hide it behind a 'source material' argument. That leads some of you in this thread to think the problem is just that the small handful of Asian-written roles are sometimes given to white actors - which, you argue, is balanced by non-white actors sometimes getting 'white' roles.
Really, there is no inherent problem with a white actor playing a role that was non-white in the source material. The problem is that it's just the most obvious and egregious demonstration of Hollywood's white obsession, and also flies against the standard "we didn't see this as an Asian role" cop-out.
Im sorry why is that a problem? Its about making money, it always has been in Hollywood and any entertainment industry nowadays. Its not about being fair and it certainly isnt about evenly casting across all races.
Im sure there are stats out there that simply demonstrate that casting a White Caucasian Male as a lead in an action role makes the movie more money as the Asian guy would unless you were kicking ass as a martial arts expert and in that case they would be picking out the Chang name exclusively.
There is a simple reason for this. More White Caucasian Male watch those kind of movies so its easier for them to imagine themselves in that role. More males watch Star Wars so when the lead guy is a White Caucasian Male that main audience can imagine themselves in that role. Isnt that the main reason a lot of people watch these entertainment mediums? So they can imagine themselves doing that?
Ill concede that this is much less common nowadays but its still the meat of the reasoning behind casting certain races or sexes.
Have you every been to a Star Wars meet? I rest my case..... well until someone disagrees of course
Im sure that if Hollywood was based in China most roles would be filled by Asians. Its about appealing to the main majority of the audience and if 90% of that audience is going to be Asian, you cast an Asian actor.
Last edited:
Soldato
Im sorry why is that a problem? Its about making money, it always has been in Hollywood and any entertainment industry nowadays. Its not about being fair and it certainly isnt about evenly casting across all races.
Im sure there are stats out there that simply demonstrate that casting a White Caucasian Male as a lead in an action role makes the movie more money as the Asian guy would unless you were kicking ass as a martial arts expert and in that case they would be picking out the Chang name exclusively.
There is a simple reason for this. More White Caucasian Male watch those kind of movies so its easier for them to imagine themselves in that role. More males watch Star Wars so when the lead guy is a White Caucasian Male that main audience can imagine themselves in that role. Isnt that the main reason a lot of people watch these entertainment mediums? So they can imagine themselves doing that?
Ill concede that this is is much less common nowadays but its still the meat of the reasoning behind casting certain races or sexes.
Have you every been to a Star Wars meet? I rest my case..... well until someone disagrees of course
The movie industry is about making money, but that's not all that movies are about. At the end of the day people of all colours, races, religions and creeds watch movies, at the moment there's not equal representation across the sub groups. I'm not saying that the representation needs to be a spot on match for demography but to my eye it's not even close.
The argument about white caucasian males watching action movies suggests that they'd all refuse to watch an action film involving a lead who isn't a white male, I'm not sure that's true I think you need to give the movie going public more credit. Case in point use the Star Wars example you've cited, the last two films featured no white Caucasian male leads (Rey, Jyn and arguably Finn), people still watched them which implies at least in this case that the race and gender of the lead isn't necessarily such an issue for commercial appeal.
Im not saying that those males would refuse to watch the movies, im saying that a majority might enjoy them less as they could not directly relate to the main character, that includes myself. This means that later down the line they wont buy the DVD, they wont buy the action figure and may even not bother watching the next one.
The last 2 StarWars movies shouldnt really count anyway as we all know that these were made for children and adults that get upset easily over a bit of blood or a complicated plot/sub plot.
Last edited:
Soldato
Replace Star Wars with Alien if you'd prefer.
Maybe I just view movies differently to the rest of the populace, a good movie is a good movie, it doesn't matter if the main character looks like me, in fact given that the vast majority of lead actors are of the same race and to an extent cultural background as me is probably a bit of an issue. I'd much prefer to watch an action film with a lead that I wouldn't traditionally expect to see in the role than watch one with another Jason Statham type actor in it. Not that I don't like those films, but when I watch them I know that 99/100 I'm not going to see anything genuinely interesting, possibly entertaining but not interesting.
The characters entire demeanour is based on not enough female influence in youth. It's a bit of a moot point as movies these days are all about the money, if a female bond would get more bums on seats then we'll see one, but a female Bond doesn't sit with the characters backstory... at all.
A female Jason Bourne would be a better fit. That or just make a movie about 0013 etc.
Caporegime
Wait, what? Are you seriously suggesting that only the last two Star Wars films were made for children?
Caporegime
A female character would be a tougher sell as Bourne or Bond, simply because both those characters are supposed to be double hard, and once you put them up against men the odds shorten considerably. Short of casting the girl who plays Brienne of Tarth or some MMA fighter, that just isn't going to work. Even then, while Gina Carano is indeed double hard, she would still get destroyed by someone like Dave Bautista.
It certainly felt like it to me. Anyone over the age of 20 would have seen that they were just repeats of previous movies...... Admittedly Rouge One was a little more "adult" like but its clear to me that Disney are trying to appeal to the larger audience which is Children and their Parents going to the movies and watching it together and then going mental producing toys and a new theme in the Disney Land/Worlds
Finally, someone gets my point of view!
Caporegime
My point is that Star Wars has been for kids from the very start, and certainly from ROTJ onwards.
