Let's not talk about the Blue Wizards, who definitely weren't the Blues Brothers, nor were they blue. A travesty!Well he was Gandalf The White wasn't he ?
The Black was likely some wizard on another job, this is quickly becoming like Reservoir Dogs
Importance of white representation in fiction
- Thread starter aelf
- Start date
I suppose you can set up a Patreon account and people can send you money because you're such a cool person and definitely not for reasons related to your fanfiction activities
I mean, yeah, you can try but those are matters of law and intellectual property as they pertain to commercial transactions. It's hard to balance artistic freedom versus intellectual property but that is a separate discussion to "you can't change a character's race in any circumstances because author intentions". Obviously when actual signed and enforceable contracts are involved then that's a bit different.
aelf
Ashen One
I'm actually seeing a lot more East Asians in small parts in various productions. Probably one of the people who are complained about whenever someone mentions "wokeness" ruining shows or immersion.
The Asian footprint on Western culture is much newer. Japan has made inroads for decades in the USA, but other cultures are slowly gaining ground. These days, you do get Hollywood productions with actually accurate pronunciation or native speakers (e.g., Shang Chi, John Wick 3), so much so that those that get it wrong stand out to me.
Still, whenever you get more representation, people will find ways to complain about it. Once you have a diverse cast or a gay character, you can be sure someone will dismiss it as "woke".
Senethro
Overlord
Aside: Has the creation of high fidelity recording technologies altered our expectations of fictional performances? Has something changed since the days of drama in theatre? Has the ability to mass produce a "faithful" performance lead to an expectation that a performance "should" be faithful? (i.e. all these bozos running about who can only imagine a character one way and expect it to be that way in details that should be trivial)
How will the adoption of technologies of high quality faking change it further?
How will the adoption of technologies of high quality faking change it further?
Senethro
Overlord
Like, the vibes I'm getting from some people is that they'd value a polaroid of the Mona Lisa more than their kids art on the fridge.
Senethro
Overlord
But not just in the viewing, or valuing of art. Has the ability to reproduce influenced the creation of the art, in ways that we don't expect? Some early 20th century abstract art was a rejection of easy reproducibility by photography.
In theatre, the casting of Hamilton was a conscious choice. In film, was the casting of LotR one? (since we're all talkin Tolkein here) Or was it an unconscious one? Was it a mythological epic that felt it had to aspire to the standards of the historical epic to be taken seriously? I can get trying to be true to history. (even as we acknowledge that plenty of history since Egypt has been whitewashed by the diggers and looters) So why are white people getting offended at the suggestion that a single Gondorian might have been other-than-white?
The fetishization of fidelity, or authenticity in a fictional setting.
If LotR as live action performance ran 10 performances a year simultaneously in a bunch of cities, they'd use whatever actors were available.
But when given the budget of a small nation (and indeed a compliant small nation to film in) why were only white actors cast?
In theatre, the casting of Hamilton was a conscious choice. In film, was the casting of LotR one? (since we're all talkin Tolkein here) Or was it an unconscious one? Was it a mythological epic that felt it had to aspire to the standards of the historical epic to be taken seriously? I can get trying to be true to history. (even as we acknowledge that plenty of history since Egypt has been whitewashed by the diggers and looters) So why are white people getting offended at the suggestion that a single Gondorian might have been other-than-white?
The fetishization of fidelity, or authenticity in a fictional setting.
If LotR as live action performance ran 10 performances a year simultaneously in a bunch of cities, they'd use whatever actors were available.
But when given the budget of a small nation (and indeed a compliant small nation to film in) why were only white actors cast?
Senethro
Overlord
And funnily enough the DS9 avatars have reminded me that Avery Brooks as Ben Sisko talked about this, when talking about black people appearing in a holodeck program in 1950s America in roles they would not socially have been permitted. When is "incorrect" portrayal harmful?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Lol yeah I have an artist acquaintance who tells me that every single show he tries to watch these days pushes gay stuff in his face. My response to that was.. I've been watching a LOT of movies and TV shows over the last 2 years and I see occasionally gay characters, but that's about it. Heck, there was more gay content in shows like OZ and Six Feet Under from like 20-30 years ago.. (Please don't tell me how old these shows actually are, so I am not reminded how off I am in my memory of how much time has actually passed kthx)
I agree there have been more east Asian actors getting parts, but a lot of them are simple "token" roles, the same problem we used to have with African-American actors (or black Canadian or whatever). There's more movies with east Asian casts like that recent Marvel movie, but when I'm watching a big Hollywood production that focuses on drama, characters, etc. it just seems like the vast majority of the focus of the casting is on white and black characters these days, Latino, etc. Maybe it's just my perception, and maybe it is off, but when I see an east Asian character in a random movie or TV show chances are it'll end up being some stereotypical role like a Kung Fu master or office nerd or whatever. Just seems like we are 20-30 years behind diversity in casting when it comes to this particular group, while some of the other groups who used to get the shaft have been getting a lot more attention.
It seems like there is a decent pool of east Asian actors, so that shouldn't be a problem. It seems to me that the main problem is that when most directors (or whoever) looks to cast an east Asian character, they look to these stereotypical token roles first and foremost.. I can't remember many movies I've seen with an East Asian lead role that isn't a movie targeted at East Asians. It seems very blatant to me that this is happening, but nobody seems to really talk about it.
People will always complain about something as well, IMO, so it's best to just ignore those people. I've been watching Star Trek Discovery and there's complaints "like that" about this show too. I have no idea where these people have been for the past 60 years, Star Trek has always been progressive, it was always pushing the envelope in terms of embracing diversity and being inclusive. That's sort of the core message of the show.. so.. yeah.. The problems with Discovery are with the writing and perhaps story direction, and I am not a huge fan of Michael either, but it has nothing to do with her race or gender. She's an ok character who whispers and gets too emotional too much. That's sort of a problem with all the other characters on the show really. But instead of pointing out these problems, the people who complain that discovery is too "woke" lose all credibility. I mean, it's Star Trek, it's basically woke activists in space.
It's about time Tom Hanks paid for his crimes.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
I think you're onto something real. I haven't teased it out well myself. I get the general impression that outside of pornography, amateurism is sort of in decline and disfavor to begin with.
I don't know how to translate that zeitgeist. People who are just starting something are pretty boring, possibly offensive, maybe censure worthy, but not if they're getting ****ed over.
And some classics like Le Morte d'Arthur are retellings of older stories that added and/or changed characters, events and setting. Weren't any Saracens in the Welsh legends.
Berzerker
Deity
Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker
Someone tried that. They posted several chapters of a Harry Potter story on YouTube that consisted of pages of text that the audience reads, and it's a story about Sirius Black not going to Azkaban and instead being allowed to adopt Harry. I don't know if it's still going or if it got taken down due to a C&D (it would seem to violate the "fair use" clause that other YT videos have that review, explain, and analyze HP books and movies). Or I suppose the author could try to claim that it's a fan film (there are a few HP fan films on YT; the best one I've seen depicts the events of when Bellatrix Lestrange tortures Neville Longbottom's parents after what happened in Godric's Hollow with Harry and his parents). That one is a "fill in the blanks" short film of things referred to in the novels and movies but never actually shown.
The realm of legalities in fanfiction is a bit murky. Some argue that it falls under "fair use" as long as the author makes no attempt to profit. Others say all fanfiction is plagiarism and must be stamped out. In the case of Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover series, in the beginning she openly encouraged fanfiction and authorized a fanzine called Starstone. I have some issues of that and a couple of other Darkover print 'zines. The early Darkover anthologies contained fanfiction stories that were edited for professional publication.
But years later... MZB read a fan novel someone sent to her that coincidentally covered the same events of the novel she was currently writing. Her agent and lawyers and the publisher insisted that she kill her book because the fanfic author was demanding equal writing credit when she found out that there were similar elements in both stories (considering they were about the same characters and same events, this was inevitable). There was no way MZB could prove she hadn't plagiarized the fanfic author's work, so the book was dead. The fanfic author tried to revive it later, but other fans shut her down cold, even though it's a story we would all have loved to read. It will never be told now, even by the pro authors MZB authorized to continue the Darkover books after her death back in the '90s.
So the outcome of this situation with MZB was that word went out from her estate and literary trust that Darkover fanfiction was forbidden, not to be sold in fanzine format, not to be posted online, and any Darkover stories in private collections were to be destroyed. Any current writing had to be either destroyed or changed so it was no longer recognizably Darkover-related.
Well, screw that. I am not destroying the fanzines, nor will I destroy my own writing (I've written some Darkover fanfiction and even a filksong - none of which has been shared with anyone, but it's still mine, dammit). There are Darkover stories on the fanfiction sites, but most are in non-English languages that I don't read.
This business of professional authors and fanfiction is one of legalities and liabilities and lawsuits. That's why there are separate subforums over at TrekBBS. Several pro authors hang out there and they never enter the fanfiction subforum. It's forbidden to discuss fanfiction or to even offer ideas or make requests for novels in the TrekLit subforum because that's where the professional authors hang out. One person forgot that rule, mentioned something, and next thing we knew there was an angry post from one of the authors who said he just had to trash the novel he was currently working on because it included elements of the idea the fan had just posted. He'd never be able to prove he hadn't plagiarized the fan's idea and couldn't risk being sued. So the book was killed, and weeks of work went poof.
There are a couple of the pro authors there who hang out in other subforums, and while it's not against the rules to mention fanfic in those areas, I do post a warning when I talk about it - something to the gist of "I am about to discuss fanfiction; pro authors should avoid the rest of this post". So far nobody has complained
Some pro authors get downright hypocritical over fanfiction. Diana Gabaldon is one. She ranted years ago in a blog post about people who posted Outlander fanfic. But she conveniently didn't mention that her Outlander series was originally based on Doctor Who, and the male protagonist (Jamie Fraser) is modeled on one of the male companions from the Second Doctor era (Jamie McCrimmon). At one point she was even in discussion with the actor who played Jamie McCrimmon as she wanted him to play Jamie Fraser in the upcoming Outlander TV series. The actor was too old for the part by the time the show did finally start production, but he had a guest part later on.
(The premise of Outlander is that a nurse named Claire returns from France after WWII, she and her historian husband go on a holiday to Scotland, and Claire accidentally time travels back to pre-Battle of Culloden times. She meets Jamie Fraser and the political situation forces her to marry him for her own protection from the British. Further complications ensue when Claire later returns to the 20th century, pregnant with Jamie's child. Her husband agrees to claim the child is his as he doesn't want the scandal of people thinking his wife had an affair with another man and it takes him a long time to accept her story that she actually traveled in time rather than just ran off with someone.)
Apparently there's some Harry Potter production in which Hermione is black. Rowling is okay with it. Emma Watson, who played Hermione in the movies, apparently wasn't.
I hadn't heard that, but I did read, that Lavender Brown, Ron Weasley's obsessed girlfriend, is played in earlier movies by two different black actresses, but is switched out for a blonde, blue eyed, white actress in the movie where she actually has a major part, ie her dating/romance with Ron. I haven't looked into exactly why a change in the character, from dark skinned black girl, to blonde, blue eyed white girl occurred, at exactly the point where the character went from minor to major, and became a main character's girlfriend with a significant speaking role.
Also either Crabbe or Goyle (Malfoy's sidekicks) is changed from a white actor to a black actor... just in time for the movie where they die in a fire in the room of requirement. I'm don't remember whether it is Crabbe or Goyle that dies or both. I do know that in the book it was supposed to be Crabbe that starts the fire that he accidentally kills himself in, and I do remember that it is Goyle that starts the fire in the movie, but I don't remember whether one or both sidekicks end up dying and which one the black actor ends up playing.
In any case, they changed Lavender from black to white and then to Ron's girlfriend, and they also changed Crabbe or Goyle from white to black and then, again IIRC, killed him off... the point is... nobody gaf about those changes. No outcries about "adherence to source material" and similar. Leads me to be more convinced, that its all about individual, personal, preference, rather than "source material", when it comes to who is featured, who lives, dies, get the romance, etc.
There are a couple of YT videos about casting changes in Harry Potter. One catalogues every difference between the books and the movies, and the other lists all the roles that were recast.
I've seen the first video, but not the second. I'll hunt them up and post them. Be aware that the first one is over an hour long. I think the second is a bit less than half an hour.
I've already mentioned the issue of the actors playing the Marauders being about 15 years older than they should have been, but once Alan Rickman was cast, the others had to be in a comparable age range for it to be plausible that they had all been in the same year at Hogwarts.
Fun fact: Timothee Chalomet (pronounced "Tee-mo-tay Sha-lo-may" for those who may have difficulty with French names), who plays Paul in the new Dune movie, appears in movie clips that some people have used to create a "music video" fan film about the House of Black. I don't know what actual productions the clips are from, but the two actors who are meant to represent teenage Sirius and Regulus are much more like the novel descriptions than Gary Oldman (brown-haired and blue-eyed vs. black-haired and silver-grey-eyed). We never see Regulus in the movies, as he's already dead.
Akka
Moody old mage.
It doesn't fit at all how he was described in the book.
You've this strange argument that somehow "the plot" and its mechanisms are important, but the whole explicit descriptions in the books and the entire setting aren't.
Though in general the entire thread has been an exercise in frustration, and I have a pretty hard time getting when people have a fundamental but valid disagreement, when they are contrarian just to "win" the argument and when they are full into nonsense.
The black actor ends up continuing to play Blaise, but takes on some of the original Goyle's role; Crabbe isn't in the movie because his actor was arrested, so Goyle dies instead.
Different things are important to different people. I know it's relativism, sorry, but we all have different breaking points for immersion for any particular fictional setting.
Gandalf can still have the robes, the staff, the beard, the hair, and the penchant for blowing smoke rings if he happens to be black. Nothing about his character changes about from his skin tone, and how often is that referred to? From memory I want to say not that much. I can't think of a single piece of dialogue or interaction with another character that makes his skin tone relevant. It's not like his race is even important in this example (unlike something like hobbits) because he's a literal demigod from the unreachable realm beyond the ocean.
That said, I understand that this is, for you, detrimental to the value you referred to earlier in the thread (even if I don't understand what that value is personally).
There are often things changed in adaptations from the source material. Some of these are more acceptable, and some of these are less, depending on your threshold. But if you're something of a purist, then basically no deviation will be acceptable. I understand that, but that makes that a personal qualifier. It doesn't make the adaptation inherently bad by itself - it's just not something you get on with. Hence why I was asking the other poster if it was a problem just for them, when they claimed a black Gandalf would be a problem for 90% of us. I'm not mocking you for being a purist, if you are. I just don't see it as a strong argument for not doing something like making Gandalf black.
In the case of Gandalf hes a Maiar, his form was a matter of choice, not something he was born with. In earlier ages he walked in the guise of an elf. Its in no way innate to his character that he be an elderly white male with a beard.
I noticed Maureen Lipmann has suggested Helen Mirren isn't a good choice to play Golda Meir as she isn't Jewish. Part of her argument was you wouldn't get Ben Kingsley to play Nelson Mandala which I thought ironic given he has played Gandhi. He is part Indian but I don't think many people would realise that from his other performances.
Similar threads
