Perhaps Ralph Fiennes?
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
It would be so shit and the backlash would be insane.
We already have plenty of female spy characters in recent years (atomic blonde, for example) there's no reason whatsoever to make Bond a woman. Just make new characters.
This is the list that the Radio Times compiled. I think most people would like to see Idris but he probably doesn't want the job.
https://www.radiotimes.com/news/film/2019-07-01/next-james-bond-daniel-craig-replacement/
I think this when I see people clamouring for a female doctor who, James Bond etc. There’s not really a good reason why they shouldn’t pick a woman as such, but why hijack an existing thing? Just make new stuff. That character happens to already be a man, so invent a new one who isn’t.
He's M ffs!
People are all the time but it rarely gets pass the studio executives/heads of production, who are worried about alienating audiences with anything different. Which in fairness they've got a point because audiences seem to be as thick as pig shit.
Yep he did. What else did you expect a Danish author in the 1800s to describe?
http://hca.gilead.org.il/li_merma.html
I do hope Halle Bailey kills it (in a positive sense) and it ends up being a good movie. She don't deserve being embroiled in a controversy and I hope it doesn't affect her. We all know what twitter trolls are like, Brie Larson got a ton of undue shit for example.
Then I take it back. Although she's still a make believe creature.
If the male protagonist doesn't have "coal-black eyes", will the same idiots complain about that as well?
Perhaps. Considering we're at an age where people complain about a black actor not being black enough for a role.
Behave.
We both know the answer is 'no'.
Prince Eric was blue-eyed in the animated movie.
Well, you behave. I'm sure you know that changing the race of characters in this day and age is way more controversial than changing hair or eye colour. And asking me whether people will be complain about by the eye colour was kind of a pointless comment to begin with.
I responded to a flippant comment with one of my own. As for the second point; hilarious, keep it up.
So you think there's a chance people will complain about Prince Eric not having coal-black eyes?
No of course not. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
In your own words.
Holy crap, groundhog day. Pal, I took your comment as a non-serious, mocking one and I responded in kind. If it wasn't obvious by the response itself that it wasn't meant to be serious, the following ones should have clarified that by now.
If you can't grasp that simple concept let's stop here. This is beyond boring.
First they came for the mermaids and I did nothing...
The trivialisation of this whole Ariel debacle ignores the fact that Halle Bailey is an internationally renowned singer & actress; she’s not some random ‘coloured’ person picked for the role that has no merits - this isn’t affirmative action.
She is more than qualified for this role as will be multiple white actresses & multiple other ‘coloured’ actresses.
How do we know that she isn’t just the best person for the job?
Anyone not seeing this film, or encouraging members of their family/friends group to see this film due to her melanin is quite simply an idiot. I would say racist but that would give too much credit.
Also, why is this topic raised in the Political Correctness thread? Are we saying that the reaction to a black woman playing a fictional character is valid & that believing it isn’t is ‘being pc’?
She is more than qualified for this role as will be multiple white actresses & multiple other ‘coloured’ actresses.
How do we know that she isn’t just the best person for the job?
Anyone not seeing this film, or encouraging members of their family/friends group to see this film due to her melanin is quite simply an idiot. I would say racist but that would give too much credit.
Also, why is this topic raised in the Political Correctness thread? Are we saying that the reaction to a black woman playing a fictional character is valid & that believing it isn’t is ‘being pc’?
Though I can't say I give much of a damn either way the two scenarios don't seem to be equivalent. There's no dearth of roles in Hollywood for white women the way there is for Asian Americans. In fact the more I think about it the further the two examples seem from each other. On the one hand you have a dominant culture being inclusive in its casting, the other - exclusive.
Yes, exactly this. It's not a binary thing.
Am I misunderstanding, you say the dominant culture is being inclusive & the non-dominant exclusive?
Halle Bailey being cast as Ariel in itself is indeed ‘inclusive’ but the fact she can’t be cast without this backlash is the issue.
I think we’re on the same page but It’s late here & I may be misreading.
Yep, people often try to equivocate topics like these without paying any attention to the stark differences in their entirety.
I dont think it’s affirmative action that’s the issue when some people complain(others just moan because, feck it). I think that what most non racists would say is that it’s the virtue signalling that’s annoying. It’s supposed to be “here’s this great actor we found for the part.” But it ends up coming across as “look, we hired a black person. Aren’t we great?”. Maybe that’s not the case in this instance(I’ve really not been paying attention) but I’d say that it was true in general.
Like the edris Elba for bond thing. The vast majority of pro edris are making it about his skin colour and not the fact he’s fecking awesome and would make a great bond. Not a great black bond, a great bond.
Yeah, you're misunderstanding me. I meant that in failing to cast an Asian American in a role that would traditionally be Asian they were excluding them from the industry in a way that just isn't the case if you give a traditionally white role to a black person.
Yep, the whole "positive discrimination" thing is stupid.
I don't know about that, I tend to think you might be finding what you're looking for. Most of the arguments in favour of Idris Elba have been about his acting abilities. Yes, some of it is framed in the fact that he's black, but that's only natural since that's where most of the arguments against him as Bond are (the other somewhat common argument being his age).
This is a rather disingenuous way to describe it. It's possible for directors to have two thoughts in their heads at once. And it's not like "box-ticking" often (if ever) takes precedence; usually there will be many appropriate candidates. That's also why affirmative action works. It's not the old trope of picking a worse candidate for their colour/gender, but giving equally good candidates opportunities to counter the often unconscious prejudice in the system (in this case: the film industry).
That would be true if I was ever looking for it. I don’t. I avoid social media like the plague, I don’t search for things to be annoyed at.
Just give Bond to this Halle woman and kill two birds with one stone.
I'm not saying you're actively scouring social media for "make James Bond a black man". I think you're seeing "Idris Elba would make a good James Bond, and it doesn't matter that James Bond has always been white", but what you hear is "Idris Elba would make a good James Bond because he's black".
Motoko can be considered race-neutral because she's a cyborg and Japanese studios revert to anime default features that blur apparent racial lines, so her race doesn't really matter at the end of the day...however, there is quite simply no comparison between this Ariel casting (because white actors/actresses can get a million other representations in Hollywood) and Scarlet Johansson as Motoko Kusanagi (or making Miguel from Coco and Suzy Song from Smoke Signals and Mowgli from The Jungle Book white for score-keeping purposes).
Asians as a whole (encompassing all subgroups: from the Middle East to Central and South and East and South East Asia), Mexicans (who now make up ~12% of the American population), Native Americans (who were portrayed by white actors with minstrelized red faces not too long ago), etc. have precious little representation in meaty acting roles in blockbuster “Hollywood” — even in the age of unparalleled media diversity — one can make double standard arguments between two somewhat equal things, not stuff that is at the opposite end of the spectrum.
Casting Johansson as Motoko or Emma Stone as Allison Ng in Aloha or Nat Wolff as Light in Netflix's awful Death Note adaptation proved to be controversial in certain parts of the Asian community precisely because East Asians typically get caricatured crumbles and roles with zero relevance or depth (that are further divided along gendered lines to further popularized stereotypes), and could stand to be cast in more roles...
Maybe you should watch this to get a sense of Hollywood's historical biases: http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/films/reel-injun/
It is kind of fun watching people melt down over stuff like that. Give it to Gillian I say.
This term needs to die. Why get triggered by people doing... positive things (usually)? I'd rather not personally....
I’m fairness...they’re western adaptations of eastern films. It’s not really a surprise to me that they’d have American leads or whatever. It’s like complaining that the US remake of the inbetweeners didn’t stay true to the original by casting James Buckley.
Yes, but this comes with the indirect implication that certain types of people can't be “American leads” in Western adaptations, even though Mexicans and Asians and Native Americans are about 20% of the U.S. population. And those were only a couple of examples — Hollywood has a massive, massive problem with whitewashing characters: Aang from Avatar could be Tibetian and Katara/Soka could be Inuit/Aboriginal...nope, The Ancient One could be Asian but was portrayed by Tilda Swinton, Goku by Justin Chatwin, two prominent Asian characters that were central to the story in Authority/Annihilation were portrayed by Portman and Jennifer Jason Leigh, on and on and on — this is very much a deliberate systemic issue. It's quite startling that trying to engage people and maybe effecting a bit of positive/inclusive change is considered complaining, and activists have to fight tooth and nail over simple stuff, instead of Hollywood boffins developing a basic barometer and learning from the historic marginalization/misrepresentation of Native Americans in media, for example...
https://deadline.com/2017/09/adam-b...sting-native-american-open-letter-1202169836/
Disney may or may not as you say be going for, “Aren’t we great we hired a black person” but all they did was a press release which incidentally named a black actress. If ‘non-racists’ first reaction isn’t congrats on the role ‘person’ but to question why the actress isn’t white then i’m not sure I’d call it racism but it’s something odd.
With that mindset hiring anybody that isn’t white would appear to be virtue signalling. The woman has released albums internationally & appeared on internationally syndicated shows/films. My thoughts as a black man/parent is, if she isn’t good enough to be accepted without even ‘non-racists’ creating a stir then who is.
By ‘non-racists’, do you mean white people who consider themselves intellectuals but still find a black actress being chosen for a fictional role ‘annoying’?
Even if the pro-Idris brigade wanted to see him as bond because he’s black; he’s still a very popular [& decorated - though imo overrated] actor.
I personally think he’d make a terrible bond; a key part of the role is espionage & black people don’t move in a number of the spaces the character ventures [but that’s another debate.] and I like Bond films regardless.
Are ‘non racists’ telling people they can’t be proud of an actors culture/background as well as said actor being worthy of the opportunity.
I guess because I dont see it as actual change. Its just playing up to the audience without actual progress in how we treat each other.