"Asian guys in my show? Not gonna happen!"

[Sommerswerd]

I cannot fathom how Robert Downey Jr. got away with it with Tropic Thunder.

Yes, exactly... This statement perfectly illustrates my point... YOU cannot fathom it, because it directly contraditcs your worldview. The fact that YOU can not fathom the idea that blackface is still accepted and praised is because you have convinced yourself that "no one would ever do this to Blacks" and therefore "Asians have it worse than anyone else." But you are wrong and you refuse to believe it. That is precisely why you say "I can not fathom"... What you really can't fathom, is that you are wrong. Your whole argument is a house of cards built on a foundation of sand. This has been proven over and over, and you refuse to accept it. (ie cognitive dissonance).

Can anyone excuse blackface today when there are any number of actors to play a role written for an African-American?

According to wikipedia "Tropic Thunder "received generally positive reviews, with critics praising the film's characters, story, and faux trailers ... retained the number one position for the first three weekends of release. The film and its cast were nominated for several awards by various groups including the Screen Actors Guild, Broadcast Film Critics Association, and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences."

So it sounds like alot of people can excuse it... Your repeated argument that "Asians are treated worse" and "no one would do this to Blacks" is just flat out wrong. No matter how emotionally commited to it you are, and no matter how many different ways you try to say it over and over. You're just wrong.

Blackface is for the most part offensive due to the historical context of minstrel shows.

It's not offensive because you're taking a job away from a black actor/actress.

Correct.

The offensiveness has much more to do with dehumanization and exagerration of damaging and degrading (rather than helpful) stereotypes. For that reason, it is sometimes irrelevant what the race of the actor doing the role is. If the role smacks of minstrel show-esque depictions it will be labled as "Blaxploitation" or blackface. A pretty good movie that satires this concept is "Bamboozled" - directed by Spike Lee.

 

[aelf]

Jim Carrey at one point was paid twenty million for doing a movie with a total budget of thirty-eight million. The movie was crap. The script was crap. Every other actor in the movie was crap. The thing was shot with crappy equipment operated by second rate crews. At eighteen million everything else that went into the picture was overpriced. The movie made a fortune for all involved, because it was trailered, billed, and distributed as "Jim Carrey in..."

There is a vicious cycle at play here, and it isn't right...but the fact that breaking it would cost a fortune is going to keep anyone from breaking it in the near future. Here it is...tell me a name of an Asian American actor that will turn eighteen million worth of crap into a giant money maker of a picture. Failing that tell me a name that can be run in one of the top three billing slots that will add ten million in box office just on name recognition...because that's what those three slots are for. How about a name that we can put on the poster that's worth a million in box office. Actually, skip that, because I can name a couple myself...but there aren't enough to cast a picture.

I'm not asking about talent. I'm asking for the name recognition that brings in the revenue that pays for the production, and at the moment that is pretty hard to come by. Yes, it isn't the least bit fair, because yes, the only way to get name recognition is to have your name put out there in front to be recognized. As I said, vicious cycle...but it isn't a cycle constructed to 'keep the Asians down'. It's just the cycle of making money rather than dumping millions into a production that does not sell.

I think you're widely off the mark here.

It doesn't have to be designed to "keep the Asians down." It's like when a black guy gets passed on for a white collar job while another, equally qualified white guy gets it - there doesn't need to be malicious intent involved. It doesn't even need to be intentional. But it's nevertheless indicative of deep-seated prejudice and it deprives minorities of opportunities.

It's not always about getting that A-lister on screen either. That wasn't the case for The Last Airbender, I believe. Sometimes, it's just that the producers know or think that audiences want to see white actors on screen. In either case, it makes business sense, of course. But plenty of bad things can be justified by citing business sense or market economics. Unless you're a rabid conservative, that argument shouldn't fly for why a phenomenon is just the way it is and should be accepted.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

thats kind of an odd argument, since Jim Carrey himself wasn't born famous. He shouldn't have gotten that kind of name recognition in the first place. Everyone starts from obscurity. So why can't an asian actor be given a chance to rise just because he's not famous yet?

I never agreed they aren't given a chance to rise. I have since actually pointed out an Asian American actor who is fairly well along the same path to name recognition that Bruce Willis, among others, traveled. I pointed out a valid reason why no producer is going to back the "Hey this film is based on Asian anime let's use an all Asian cast! Won't that be progressive!?"

Now, the questions you are actually pointing to are "Why do we not have, right now, an Asian American with name recognition like Jim Carrey has? Why do we not have, right now, enough recognizable Asian American actors to cast a film?" I blame Crackerbox (just kidding, let me explain).

Crackerbox, and our other Asian American posters, have made what I consider some valid observations on the parent-child relationships in Asian American families. Now, consider the story of just about any famous actor. What does it include? How many of them 'went off to Hollywood with stars in their eyes'...and a hearty blessing from their parents?

Let's face it, for every Bruce Willis there are ten thousand aging waiters who are in their thirtieth year of irritating their boss by taking days off for auditions. For every Angelina Jolie there are ten thousand soccer moms who wanted to be an actress and hope their kids never run across the three mattress films they got parts in before they gave up the 'dream' as a nightmare. Parents don't generally support the idea of their kids being actors. Asian American parents seem to be far more domineering than average, so there are a lot less potential Asian American actors.

Crackerbox, as an Asian American parent, says "where is the Asian American actor superstar?" and blames prejudice and bias for the fact that his kids 'don't have that chance'...but I believe that he would freak if his kid was 'wasting' years of their life doing three hundred shows a year in tiny comedy clubs that frequently paid barely enough to cover the gas money to the next gig, getting up most days before dawn to do a live radio call in promo, mooching from him when their car broke down. (the comic path, or did you think Jim Carrey was just walking down the street and someone said "hey, a white boy, let's make him a star!")

He would also, I suspect, freak if his kid said "yeah, skip the college thing, I'm gonna go live in a ghetto apartment that I can cover with a part time job and four roommates and have enough left over to pay my way into acting lessons and hire an agent to find me auditions". For those who don't know, the purpose of acting lessons is that the 'acting school' operates a theater the size of a suburban living room where they practically pay people to sit in the twenty seats and watch their productions. The schools have somewhat grand names and some even have a reputation and when you have twenty or thirty roles on your resume you are way better off than someone who doesn't, even if the roles are in 'The North Vine Theater's Production of...' and half the audience were homeless people who only came for the chocolate dipped strawberries that the cast had to pay for. (the traditional actor path, because again no one saw Michael J Fox walking down the street and said "hey, a white boy, let's put him in a TV series.")

 

[Borachio]

Link to video.

It's all a bit silly, imo. Why get Christopher Lee to play Fu Manchu?

What a lot of rubbish movies so often are!

 

[warpus]

Yes and no. It's a bit trickier, because while blackface performance were for the most part overtly mocking of black people, "yellowface" performances were often supposed to be straight depictions of stereotypical Asian characters. A blackface character was usually supposed to be recognised as a white performer in makeup, while for a yellowface character, the audience was supposed to suspend their awareness of the white performer and simply accept that the character is Asian. It's similar to "redface", the portrayal of Native Americans by non-Native actors, stereotypical but not necessarily overtly mocking.

Correct me if I'm way off, but it sounds to me like yellowface is then about as offensive as the Chicago Blackhawks name and logo. (Unless the actor goes out of his way to actually make the whole thing a mockery)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think you're widely off the mark here.

You make this "wildly off the mark" accusation and proceed to back it up...well...not at all.

It doesn't have to be designed to "keep the Asians down." It's like when a black guy gets passed on for a white collar job while another, equally qualified white guy gets it - there doesn't need to be malicious intent involved. It doesn't even need to be intentional. But it's nevertheless indicative of deep-seated prejudice and it deprives minorities of opportunities.

You might note, and I'm sure others will, that in my "wildly off the mark" post I also said it was wrong. I didn't try to say it was morally justifiable. I did mention that changing it is going to cost somebody a bloody fortune. I do not personally have a fortune, and I make a point of not making demands on people who do based on some lofty stance of 'what I would do if'.

It's not always about getting that A-lister on screen either. That wasn't the case for The Last Airbender, I believe. Sometimes, it's just that the producers know or think that audiences want to see white actors on screen. In either case, it makes business sense, of course. But plenty of bad things can be justified by citing business sense or market economics. Unless you're a rabid conservative, that argument shouldn't fly for why a phenomenon is just the way it is and should be accepted.

Again, where in my "wildly off the mark" post did I say anything should just be accepted?

If you 'believe' that producers of a specific film, like The Last Airbender should have just ignored the affects their decisions would have on the return on their investment, make a movie. Make terrible decisions and go broke. More power to you.

I posted a reasoned statement of how things work. That might be useful in seeking a realistic way to change how things work, as opposed to the "oh it's just so unfair" foot stamping you seem to prefer. But if you are going to snap at anyone who doesn't just grab hands with you and join the foot stamping and sing kumbaya you aren't going to accomplish anything...and you can expect to be snapped back at.

 

[aelf]

You make this "wildly off the mark" accusation and proceed to back it up...well...not at all.

You might note, and I'm sure others will, that in my "wildly off the mark" post I also said it was wrong. I didn't try to say it was morally justifiable. I did mention that changing it is going to cost somebody a bloody fortune. I do not personally have a fortune, and I make a point of not making demands on people who do based on some lofty stance of 'what I would do if'.

Again, where in my "wildly off the mark" post did I say anything should just be accepted?

If you 'believe' that producers of a specific film, like The Last Airbender should have just ignored the affects their decisions would have on the return on their investment, make a movie. Make terrible decisions and go broke. More power to you.

I posted a reasoned statement of how things work. That might be useful in seeking a realistic way to change how things work, as opposed to the "oh it's just so unfair" foot stamping you seem to prefer. But if you are going to snap at anyone who doesn't just grab hands with you and join the foot stamping and sing kumbaya you aren't going to accomplish anything...and you can expect to be snapped back at.

Well, I think the extreme defensiveness is quite interesting.

Are you always like this in a discussion, or is there something you're sensitive about? Don't worry, I won't accuse you of racism, so you don't need to get ready to storm off in a huff.

You're widely off the mark because you think I was talking about people making decisions to try and keep Asians down. I think I argued why that is totally off the mark reasonably. You chose to ignore that and focus on other things that you think I'm wrong about and then tell me I'm talking nonsense. That's fine. People do that all the time.

I'm not sure what else to call it but acceptance when you think it's perfectly reasonable for producers not to risk their capital and so choose white actors all the time instead. And maybe you think that whenever minorities complain about that, it's "foot stamping". I'm not sure what you're looking to change, if that's the case. Sounds like you're just arguing for the status quo. I mean, people can't complain about it and there's no way to convince producers otherwise. So what then?

Well, yeah, it is perfectly reasonable from a business point of view. But do you also find it reasonable not to hire men in a day care because pedophiles tend to be men? Or not to hire women as CEOs because women tend not to be as aggressive as men? Some discriminatory practices might make for weaker cases, but they stem from the same kind of rationale - opportunities are denied to groups of people based on 'pragmatic' reasons based on contemporary perceptions. How many big-budget movies have you seen with breakout stars who were not famous before? There's plenty enough around. I don't see any reason why there can't be more Asian stars getting the same treatment except that producers think that's not what audiences want to see.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Crackerbox, as an Asian American parent, says "where is the Asian American actor superstar?" and blames prejudice and bias for the fact that his kids 'don't have that chance'...but I believe that he would freak if his kid was 'wasting' years of their life

Nail... Meet hammer ... How does it feel nail? Does it feel good? Does it feel like cognitive dissonance? Yes... yes it does

Another contradiction spotted in the sandcastle... You can't assert the stereotypical mantra that "Asians parents nurture their kids by stressing education, graduate school and professional licensing" and "All the med-schools in America would be 50% Asian if it werent for racial quotas!"... while simultaneously crying "where are all the Asian movie stars?" Where are all the Asian potential movie stars?? You just said that they were all in college studying to be doctors!

I admit that I am not a mathematician, or statistician but if Asians are only 5% of the US population and account for 50% (as has been asserted) of the potential grad-school students in America, then who is left to be actors? You can't have it both ways.

So you are acknowledging that:
1. Asians are underepresented in US population and then admitting, indeed asserting that
2. Asians are less marketable to mainstream audiences and
3. Asians are underepresented in the acting pool because they face higher cultural/societal pressure to pursue other fields

But then you are complaining that Hollywood should strive to boost/improve/prop-up Asians portrayals in movies. Essentially, what you are seeking is affirmative action in favor of Asians in Hollywood ... which is exactly what you claim "Asian's don't do" ... which is obviously baloney, because you're doing it right now... Yes you are.

And BTW... Since we are talking about Avatar: The Last Airbender... Did he even notice that there are no Blacks in that movie? Of course not because once again it disproves the "Asians are treated worse than everyone" ideology.

 

[aelf]

@Tim-

Spoiler :

You already know the M.O., we established it... don't get suckered in

I think that's unfair.

My "M.O." is to make people feel uncomfortable about some things they said. Sometimes it seems to press buttons, but that's not exactly shocking. And some people seem to have trouble separating the person from what the person said, especially if that person is themselves. Just because I like to talk about what the person said doesn't mean I want to talk about the person, at least not without some kind of past precedent.

Naturally, the topic is specific, but usually specific to what was said, not to the person. Some people tend to say things that I like to criticise, but that's not surprising either. I don't think the only way to make it not personal is to try and abstract it and apply my criticism to something else - I may not want to get dragged into another (long) discussion. You just have to not take it personally.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, I think the extreme defensiveness is quite interesting.

Are you always like this in a discussion, or is there something you're sensitive about? Don't worry, I won't accuse you of racism, so you don't need to get ready to storm off in a huff.

You're widely off the mark because you think I was talking about people making decisions to try and keep Asians down. I think I argued why that is totally off the mark reasonably. You chose to ignore that and focus on other things that you think I'm wrong about and then tell me I'm talking nonsense. That's fine. People do that all the time.

I'm not sure what else to call it but acceptance when you think it's perfectly reasonable for producers not to risk their capital and so choose white actors all the time instead. And maybe you think that whenever minorities complain about that, it's "foot stamping". I'm not sure what you're looking to change, if that's the case. Sounds like you're just arguing for the status quo. I mean, people can't complain about it and there's no way to convince producers otherwise. So what then?

Well, yeah, it is perfectly reasonable from a business point of view. But do you also find it reasonable not to hire men in a day care because pedophiles tend to be men? Or not to hire women as CEOs because women tend not to be as aggressive as men? Some discriminatory practices might make for weaker cases, but they stem from the same kind of rationale - opportunities are denied to groups of people based on 'pragmatic' reasons based on contemporary perceptions. How many big-budget movies have you seen with breakout stars who were not famous before? There's plenty enough around. I don't see any reason why there can't be more Asian stars getting the same treatment except that producers think that's not what audiences want to see.

Yep, when someone makes a blatantly false statement I call them on it every time, and not to worry I won't be storming off in a huff. I'll just keep calling you on it. If you add another blatantly false accusation I'll call you on that as well. Call that 'extreme defensiveness' if you like.

I never said that I think you were talking about an intentional 'keep Asians down' bit of bollocks. I said that there was no such bollocks going on. You chose to take that as me suggesting you believe there is, apparently so you could stamp your little feet and holler that you believe no such thing. Okay, great, you believe there is no such bollocks going on, and so do I, so please stop.

If a diverse group of people tell you all the time that you talk nonsense, perhaps you should examine what the diverse group have in common.

On to your furthering of the discussion...

I've seen plenty of big budget pictures with breakout stars. There's actually a casting directive called "we need a fresh face". Very seldom is a big budget picture entrusted to "let's use an entire cast of fresh faces". Now, here's a reprise of my argument that you apparently choose to ignore:

We need a fresh face is not a directive to go grab a white guy off the street. That 'previously unknown' breakout star has been on a known path to success for a long time. That path is literally lined with the ten thousand failures who aren't in the right place at the right time to be the breakout star. An audition call prefaced with "we are looking for a fresh face" is going to run for days, maybe weeks, to dig through all the prospects that answer it. There are very very few Asian Americans on that path...anywhere along that path including at that audition...at any given time. I have provided some reasoning for how I think those numbers are limited below even the small representation one would expect based on general population.

Now, do you think that someone should search the path for the rare Asian so that they can 'do right by the Asians'? Do you think that among the thousands of auditions for that 'fresh face' role some preference should be given to the Asians who showed up? Is that correct? Because if it is then the racist in this conversation is you, not me. Feel free to storm off in a huff, or you can just say that isn't what you meant because I'm not saying whether it is or isn't, I'm just asking the question.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think that's unfair.

My "M.O." is to make people feel uncomfortable about some things they said.

After I posted it, but before you made this comment I spoilered the statement because I relaized it was a little harsh. Then I thought about it some more, and decided it was mean spirited, and also a little condescending to Tim (as in he can't decide who to talk/argue with). So I just deleted the whole statement, but you had already seen it by then.

So I was wrong to post that, and I apologize to both you and Tim. I already removed it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

After I posted it, but before you made this comment I spoilered the statement because I relaized it was a little harsh. Then I thought about it some more, and decided it was mean spirited, and also a little condescending to Tim (as in he can't decide who to talk/argue with). So I just deleted the whole statement, but you had already seen it by then.

So I was wrong to post that, and I apologize to both you and Tim. I already removed it.

As we can see I was busily ignoring the advice anyway!

 

[Crackerbox]

Yes, exactly... This statement perfectly illustrates my point... YOU cannot fathom it, because it directly contraditcs your worldview. The fact that YOU can not fathom the idea that blackface is still accepted and praised is because you have convinced yourself that "no one would ever do this to Blacks" and therefore "Asians have it worse than anyone else." But you are wrong and you refuse to believe it. That is precisely why you say "I can not fathom"... What you really can't fathom, is that you are wrong. Your whole argument is a house of cards built on a foundation of sand. This has been proven over and over, and you refuse to accept it. (ie cognitive dissonance).

According to wikipedia "Tropic Thunder "received generally positive reviews, with critics praising the film's characters, story, and faux trailers ... retained the number one position for the first three weekends of release. The film and its cast were nominated for several awards by various groups including the Screen Actors Guild, Broadcast Film Critics Association, and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences."

So it sounds like alot of people can excuse it... Your repeated argument that "Asians are treated worse" and "no one would do this to Blacks" is just flat out wrong. No matter how emotionally commited to it you are, and no matter how many different ways you try to say it over and over. You're just wrong. Correct.

The offensiveness has much more to do with dehumanization and exagerration of damaging and degrading (rather than helpful) stereotypes. For that reason, it is sometimes irrelevant what the race of the actor doing the role is. If the role smacks of minstrel show-esque depictions it will be labled as "Blaxploitation" or blackface. A pretty good movie that satires this concept is "Bamboozled" - directed by Spike Lee.

Nail... Meet hammer ... How does it feel nail? Does it feel good? Does it feel like cognitive dissonance? Yes... yes it does

Another contradiction spotted in the sandcastle... You can't assert the stereotypical mantra that "Asians parents nurture their kids by stressing education, graduate school and professional licensing" and "All the med-schools in America would be 50% Asian if it werent for racial quotas!"... while simultaneously crying "where are all the Asian movie stars?" Where are all the Asian potential movie stars?? You just said that they were all in college studying to be doctors!

I admit that I am not a mathematician, or statistician but if Asians are only 5% of the US population and account for 50% (as has been asserted) of the potential grad-school students in America, then who is left to be actors? You can't have it both ways.

So you are acknowledging that:
1. Asians are underepresented in US population and then admitting, indeed asserting that
2. Asians are less marketable to mainstream audiences and
3. Asians are underepresented in the acting pool because they face higher cultural/societal pressure to pursue other fields

But then you are complaining that Hollywood should strive to boost/improve/prop-up Asians portrayals in movies. Essentially, what you are seeking is affirmative action in favor of Asians in Hollywood ... which is exactly what you claim "Asian's don't do" ... which is obviously baloney, because you're doing it right now... Yes you are.

And BTW... Since we are talking about Avatar: The Last Airbender... Did he even notice that there are no Blacks in that movie? Of course not because once again it disproves the "Asians are treated worse than everyone" ideology.

This is hysterical. Someone who I presume is African-American is promoting blackface. What more can I say? Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Booker T Washington, W.E.B. Du Bois, George Washington Carver, and Malcolm X must be turning over in their grave.

Is this a topic on Crackerbox's parenting and children, or the depiction of Asians in media? How very bizarre that you think it's appropriate to discuss what you presume I do or what my children do.

As far as I know, what I have asked for is NORMALCY of Asians in media. Not affirmative action which I loathe. Nice spin job there. Try re-reading post #342, #455, or #505 again. Is a normal depiction too much to ask for, instead of stereotypes and yellowface? Gee what a monumental unreasonable request made since the onset of cinema in America.

 

[Traitorfish]

Correct me if I'm way off, but it sounds to me like yellowface is then about as offensive as the Chicago Blackhawks name and logo. (Unless the actor goes out of his way to actually make the whole thing a mockery)

I'd say that's being generous. In some cases, yes, it's more cringey than actively offensive, usually when the role is played by some big Hollwood star who was basically playing themselves in Asian costume. But in most cases, the practice involves the use of make-up (and sometimes prosthetics), costume, speech and manners to portray a stereotypically "Asian" character. It wasn't usually malicious in the same way that a minstrel show was- although it certainly could be- but was still a bunch of white people prancing around and saying to Asian people: "this is who you are".

The issue is somewhat complicated by the fact that, like Native Americans and Hispanic characters, the roles were usually written in a very stereotypical way before the actors got anywhere near them. Fu Manchu was going to be a "yellow peril" stereotype whether he was played by a white or Asian actor. The whole point of blackface was white performers pretending to be black characters, but with yellow/red/brownface what we're seeing is more the intersection of stereotypical writing and discriminatory hiring practices. As a result, it tends to be less overtly offensive, because the producers and actors aren't just flatly stating "we hate you", but it can be more pernicious, because it's less overt and therefore more enduring. Blackface hasn't really been acceptable for a few decades, but yellow-, red- and brownfacing still happens today, because it's much easier for people to convince themselves that any specific instance is not a problem.

But then you are complaining that Hollywood should strive to boost/improve/prop-up Asians portrayals in movies. Essentially, what you are seeking is affirmative action in favor of Asians in Hollywood ... which is exactly what you claim "Asian's don't do" ... which is obviously baloney, because you're doing it right now... Yes you are..

Well, that depends what you mean by "Affirmative Action". He's not asking that Asian actors be given artificial advantage over non-Asian actors, he's asking that writers and producers make a proportional number of non-stereotypical roles open to Asian actors. If that's "affirmative action", then, well, fair enough, what legitimate argument could there be against such a demand?

And BTW... Since we are talking about Avatar: The Last Airbender... Did he even notice that there are no Blacks in that movie? Of course not because once again it disproves the "Asians are treated worse than everyone" ideology.

There were no black people in the source material. The cultures in the series are based on East Asian and Inuit cultures. The complaint isn't that the producers of the film didn't insert Asian actors, because they should have made up most of the cast anyway, in the same way that the Lord of Rings naturally has an overwhelmingly white cast because of its pseudo-European setting.* The complain is that somebody made a deliberate decision to hire white actors instead, that somebody was presented with a list of character who should by all rights have been portrayed by Asian actors and thought "let's Aryan this up a bit".

 

[aelf]

Yep, when someone makes a blatantly false statement I call them on it every time, and not to worry I won't be storming off in a huff. I'll just keep calling you on it. If you add another blatantly false accusation I'll call you on that as well. Call that 'extreme defensiveness' if you like.

I never said that I think you were talking about an intentional 'keep Asians down' bit of bollocks. I said that there was no such bollocks going on. You chose to take that as me suggesting you believe there is, apparently so you could stamp your little feet and holler that you believe no such thing. Okay, great, you believe there is no such bollocks going on, and so do I, so please stop.

Still on the warpath, I see?

It seems like it isn't me who is doing the "hollering" and "foot stamping" here. I was arguing against a mischaracterisation of my position, but if you weren't doing that, then I misunderstood and I apologise. Still, it's good to make it clear, even if it seems to have lit your fuse.

If a diverse group of people tell you all the time that you talk nonsense, perhaps you should examine what the diverse group have in common.

I don't think it's such a diverse group. It's about the same topic and you're arguing more or less the same kind of things.

Racism is a sensitive topic, and recently that has been true for both 'sides'. You think Crackerbox is easily set off in this discussion, but people on the other 'side' is the same, as I'm seeing now.

On to your furthering of the discussion...

I've seen plenty of big budget pictures with breakout stars. There's actually a casting directive called "we need a fresh face". Very seldom is a big budget picture entrusted to "let's use an entire cast of fresh faces". Now, here's a reprise of my argument that you apparently choose to ignore:

We need a fresh face is not a directive to go grab a white guy off the street. That 'previously unknown' breakout star has been on a known path to success for a long time. That path is literally lined with the ten thousand failures who aren't in the right place at the right time to be the breakout star. An audition call prefaced with "we are looking for a fresh face" is going to run for days, maybe weeks, to dig through all the prospects that answer it. There are very very few Asian Americans on that path...anywhere along that path including at that audition...at any given time. I have provided some reasoning for how I think those numbers are limited below even the small representation one would expect based on general population.

Now, do you think that someone should search the path for the rare Asian so that they can 'do right by the Asians'? Do you think that among the thousands of auditions for that 'fresh face' role some preference should be given to the Asians who showed up? Is that correct? Because if it is then the racist in this conversation is you, not me. Feel free to storm off in a huff, or you can just say that isn't what you meant because I'm not saying whether it is or isn't, I'm just asking the question.

Firstly, do you think affirmative action is racist?

Secondly, do you think this is simply due to the rarity of Asian actors and not due to audience preferences, perceived or otherwise? This problem isn't just something happening in the movie world, but also on TV, which AFAIK does have a supply of Asian actors in small(er) roles.

And I've never argued that the entire cast needs to be made up of minorities. Not sure where you got that.

 

[Sommerswerd]

As a result, it tends to be less overtly offensive, because the producers and actors aren't just flatly stating "we hate you", it can be more pernicious, because it's less overt and therefore more enduring.

The role never says "I hate you", rather it says, "This is how I percieve you." Asian stereotypes are as you say "less overtly offensive" because they are not as obviously damaging. Saying "I percieve you as thugs and gansta rappers" is obviously damaging, while saying "I percieve you as nerds and math geniuses, and super-students" is not, in fact it is arguably beneficial. And that is why you find the depictions "more pernicious", because since they are positive stereotypes, it seems easier to accept, internalize and imitate them. But the reality is that the stereotyped group always partially internalizes the stereotypes no matter how overt, or negative the sterotypes are. That is why negative ones are so much more damaging than positive ones, because many in the targeted group will imitate them regardless, and mainstream society will believe them regardless.

Blackface hasn't really been acceptable for a few decades

Again... Tropic Thunder. This statement is just incorrect and plays into the "Asians have it worse" myth.

Well, that depends what you mean by "Affirmative Action". He's not asking that Asian actors be given artificial advantage over non-Asian actors, he's asking that writers and producers make a proportional number of non-stereotypical roles open to Asian actors.

A "proportional number of roles" set-aside specifically for Asian actors? Yes, that is exactly what affirmative action is. Affirmative action attempts to encourage a more proportional representation of women and minorities in institutions to counterract the numerous imbeded psychological, ideological, economic, historical, and market-based biases against them.

As an aside... It is so ironic, and a little amazing to me how fair affirmative action seems to people when it is applied to the disadvantages that their group suffers, but it seems so unfair when the same principle is applied to other groups Just curious... What did you think affirmative action was? Stealing things from Asians and giving it to Blacks instead? Trying to make institutions 50% Black?

There were no black people in the source material.

Yes, I watched the entire Anime (which was far better than the movie BTW). This is exactly my point. They added a "European" nation but not an "African" one, once again disproving the "Asians get treated worse" myth.

 

[Crackerbox]

Well since most Asians who appear in film or television are little more than background cutouts (they have no lines and make no actions), then there's no point in them being there, truly.

When a character appears and it's a white actor in yellowface playing a despicable stereotype, then how could one possibly say it wasn't just as bad as minstrel shows of African-Americans?

When a white actor plays a role that was written to be an Asian part, isn't this discriminatory?

Could it be possible to just have some normal Asian parts within a show as we make up a growing percentage of the viewership of these shows? Wouldn't that make better business sense to reach a niche market? Would perpetuating rotten stereotypes be prudent in 2015?

I would hope by the time I draw my last breath that we finally see some normal Asians on television, particularly Asian males who are not of the Yellow Peril ilk, not nerds, not sexual deviants, not eunuchs, but typical citizens you'd encounter within that depiction of reality.

 

[Sommerswerd]

If that's "affirmative action", then, well, fair enough, what legitimate argument could there be against such a demand?

And I favor affirmative Action because when a group is 1. underepresented in US population 2. less marketable to mainstream customers/clients and 3. underepresented in the pool of potentials for the position because they face higher cultural/societal pressure keeping them out of the field... You need affirmative action or else the principle of snowballing (which we all, as Civ players are acutely aware of) will make it impossible for the group to gain significant entry without affirmative action. That is why I am pointing out the irony of people condemning affirmative action while simultaneously calling for it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, that depends what you mean by "Affirmative Action". He's not asking that Asian actors be given artificial advantage over non-Asian actors, he's asking that writers and producers make a proportional number of non-stereotypical roles open to Asian actors. If that's "affirmative action", then, well, fair enough, what legitimate argument could there be against such a demand?

Proportional to what? The number of Asians in the world? In America?

How about we go with among the qualified actors who auditioned.

Oh, wait, they may very well have done that since the number of qualified Asian American actors is actually quite small.

There were no black people in the source material. The cultures in the series are based on East Asian and Inuit cultures. The complaint isn't that the producers of the film didn't insert Asian actors, because they should have made up most of the cast anyway, in the same way that the Lord of Rings naturally has an overwhelmingly white cast because of its pseudo-European setting.* The complain is that somebody made a deliberate decision to hire white actors instead, that somebody was presented with a list of character who should by all rights have been portrayed by Asian actors and thought "let's Aryan this up a bit".

"By all rights" characters in both those films could have been played by anyone. A 'pseudo-European' fantasy setting doesn't need an all white cast, since there is nothing inherently 'white' about the actions of an elf. And AFAIK know there is nothing intrinsically Asian about the activities of characters in Airbender.

If there was a decision to "Aryan this up" it was a wrongheaded decision, but that's a big if. If the actual decision was to give roles to whoever auditioned best that fit the promotional needs (ie had name recognition) that's a much different thing. If a white guy is cast in the role of 'Jeb the slave' or a black guy is cast as 'Jeb Smith, rebel soldier' in a civil war drama there is clearly something stupid at play. That's not the case here.

 

[aelf]

And I favor affirmative Action because when a group is 1. underepresented in US population 2. less marketable to mainstream customers/clients and 3. underepresented in the pool of potentials for the position because they face higher cultural/societal pressure keeping them out of the field... You need affirmative action or else the principle of snowballing (which we all, as Civ players are acutely aware of) will make it impossible for the group to gain significant entry without affirmative action. That is why I am pointing out the irony of people condemning affirmative action while simultaneously calling for it.

I'm all for affirmative action for every underrepresented group.