| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand that the business isn't easy for non-white actors. It goes without saying that anyone with a soul supports gender/racial/whatever equality. In this specific case however, it appears a Japanese actress was never even on the table. Which makes sense to me. Just visually, Major has never screamed "JAPAN". Purple haired chick with red eyes, preference for leather jackets. She's the epitome of 'anime', of course, but not really a Japanese character in any way that the actress' ethnicity matters.
That being said, ScarJo isn't the best, Lucy was garbage from the get-go, and this will probably be another embarrassment. It has potential, but potential is worthless in Hollywood if you don't get results.
I only hope Togusa and his badass revolver get enough screentime.
|
I understand that the business isn't easy for non-white actors. It goes without saying that anyone with a soul supports gender/racial/whatever equality. In this specific case however, it appears a Japanese actress was never even on the table. Which makes sense to me. Just visually, Major has never screamed "JAPAN". Purple haired chick with red eyes, preference for leather jackets. She's the epitome of 'anime', of course, but not really a Japanese character in any way that the actress' ethnicity matters.
That being said, ScarJo isn't the best, Lucy was garbage from the get-go, and this will probably be another embarrassment. It has potential, but potential is worthless in Hollywood if you don't get results.
I only hope Togusa and his badass revolver get enough screentime.
Her name is Motoko Kusanagi, doesn't get much more Japanese than that. The fact that she is Japanese is all that matters, her Japanese ethnicity doesn't have to be the spotlight of the story for it to matter.
Its really using two wrong to make a right in a way but its a complicated issue and might be the best we can do atm then.Not really.
After decades of exclusion and whitewashing, allowing PoC to have more roles that were traditionally given to whites is not a "wrong correcting a wrong".
well wrong in theory that giving a race an advantage over another is wrong, but in this case it is giving an advantage to group X to offset another advantage that group Y already possesses.
If you can imagine a world without racial bias then the practice would be wrong but given circumstances its being used to off-set a already present bias.
|
|
Its really using two wrong to make a right in a way but its a complicated issue and might be the best we can do atm then.Not really.
After decades of exclusion and whitewashing, allowing PoC to have more roles that were traditionally given to whites is not a "wrong correcting a wrong".
well wrong in theory that giving a race an advantage over another is wrong, but in this case it is giving an advantage to group X to offset another advantage that group Y already possesses.
If you can imagine a world without racial bias then the practice would be wrong but given circumstances its being used to off-set a already present bias.
Exactly, until the field is evened it's not "wrong".
well then I think we are on the same page now. Thanks for helping me see it from your guys perspective. Gives me a better understanding. I have a tendency of thinking of things in absolutes. I feel a law or practice should generally be the same across the board for it to be right, but you guys make a good case. It still bothers me that it is done that way. flawed system makes flawed rules I suppose.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its really using two wrong to make a right in a way but its a complicated issue and might be the best we can do atm then.
Is giving people who are non-white a chance to participate a wrong?
Remember, it's not giving one race an advantage over another, it's removing the advantage one race had.
Let's put this is gaming terms. White actors used to have a +5 to their Diplomacy checks to get movie parts, resulting in them getting significantly more roles. To make the system fair, we'd need to either give everyone that +5 bonus, or remove the bonus completely.
Changing the race of characters isn't inherently bad. The problem is when it's done in a way that makes racial/ethnic groups disappear. If Asian actors were well represented in the movies, ScarJo as the Major would potentially be irrelevant. Cause then they could use the excuse "Due to scheduling conflicts, we couldn't get our top Asian choices, so we moved further down the list."
Consider Marvel's lineup on Netflix. If Ironfist were changed to Asian, would it be part of a trend of making it hard to find white actors on television? No, it would be easy to find white actors in other leading roles, not just on television, but in other Netflix series. Within the MCU series on Netflix alone you can find 3 other white male actors who are featured prominently (Daredevil, Punisher and Foggy Nelson). Ironfist isn't being changed though and will continue to be white (there's a different thread on that to debate it).
I'll repeat the sentiment from the top though, ending exclusionary practices is not a "wrong". Asking to be included and including people who have traditionally not been included is not a wrong.
Exactly, until the field is evened it's not "wrong".Its really using two wrong to make a right in a way but its a complicated issue and might be the best we can do atm then.Not really.
After decades of exclusion and whitewashing, allowing PoC to have more roles that were traditionally given to whites is not a "wrong correcting a wrong".
well wrong in theory that giving a race an advantage over another is wrong, but in this case it is giving an advantage to group X to offset another advantage that group Y already possesses.
If you can imagine a world without racial bias then the practice would be wrong but given circumstances its being used to off-set a already present bias.
But it IS wrong. You may want to see MORE Donald Trump's in the White House but I don't. Making uneven systems for employment just pisses off the people you are preventing from getting those jobs. We CANNOT afford to keep marginalizing one group to help another. We HAVE to find a way to help everyone. Why not just hire an advocate to talk to these white producers who inadvertently exclude non-whites and have him point out those roles which could benefit from a non-white actor? No sweeping law just helpful advice. The only way that could fall is if the producer is racist. And you aren't going to fix a racist anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to be THAT GUY but this is really something more for a Facebook petition or another thread entirely.
Or better yet, take the political b~+%!*$+ to another website entirely.
|
|
But it IS wrong. You may want to see MORE Donald Trump's in the White House but I don't.Exactly, until the field is evened it's not "wrong".Its really using two wrong to make a right in a way but its a complicated issue and might be the best we can do atm then.Not really.
After decades of exclusion and whitewashing, allowing PoC to have more roles that were traditionally given to whites is not a "wrong correcting a wrong".
well wrong in theory that giving a race an advantage over another is wrong, but in this case it is giving an advantage to group X to offset another advantage that group Y already possesses.
If you can imagine a world without racial bias then the practice would be wrong but given circumstances its being used to off-set a already present bias.
F+#~ING EXCUSE ME?
Allowing more PoC would FIX unemployment issues in cinema, not cause them. White people are NOT marginalized.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
TAKE IT ELSEWHERE.
|
|
Wiki says he served in the JSDF.its hard to tell from his augments but isn't Batou also Japanese?hmm, don't know. He did serve with the US Army Rangers and other than the name/title of Batou I don't think they really go into his history.
It also says he served in the US Army Rangers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But then it'll just keep going, someone has to speak up eventually.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But it IS wrong. You may want to see MORE Donald Trump's in the White House but I don't.Exactly, until the field is evened it's not "wrong".Its really using two wrong to make a right in a way but its a complicated issue and might be the best we can do atm then.Not really.
After decades of exclusion and whitewashing, allowing PoC to have more roles that were traditionally given to whites is not a "wrong correcting a wrong".
well wrong in theory that giving a race an advantage over another is wrong, but in this case it is giving an advantage to group X to offset another advantage that group Y already possesses.
If you can imagine a world without racial bias then the practice would be wrong but given circumstances its being used to off-set a already present bias.
F!*+ING EXCUSE ME?
Allowing more PoC would FIX unemployment issues in cinema, not cause them. White people are NOT marginalized.
I think we are seeing more of that equality is oppression mindset at work here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally have never seen the original Ghost In The Shell, so I can't wait to find out more. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ha! I smurfed you! I saw it!
By the way, I'm smurfing everyone during the holidays, just my way of spreading good cheer. :-)
It's nothing personal. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But it IS wrong. You may want to see MORE Donald Trump's in the White House but I don't. Making uneven systems for employment just pisses off the people you are preventing from getting those jobs. We CANNOT afford to keep marginalizing one group to help another. We HAVE to find a way to help everyone. Why not just hire an advocate to talk to these white producers who inadvertently exclude non-whites and have him point out those roles which could benefit from a non-white actor? No sweeping law just helpful advice. The only way that could fall is if the producer is racist. And you aren't going to fix a racist anyway.Exactly, until the field is evened it's not "wrong".Its really using two wrong to make a right in a way but its a complicated issue and might be the best we can do atm then.Not really.
After decades of exclusion and whitewashing, allowing PoC to have more roles that were traditionally given to whites is not a "wrong correcting a wrong".
well wrong in theory that giving a race an advantage over another is wrong, but in this case it is giving an advantage to group X to offset another advantage that group Y already possesses.
If you can imagine a world without racial bias then the practice would be wrong but given circumstances its being used to off-set a already present bias.
Who is advocating for a law?
No one.
Who is advocating for quotas?
No one.
Who is advocating for a ban?
No one.
You keep jumping to the illogical conclusion that because people see something wrong, they want to make legal changes. No one is calling for that with this topic.
So take your righteous indignation about laws/bans/quotas and save them for when someone actually proposes it. Cause so far, no one has done that.
Studies show that people who aren't exposed to people of different cultures have a difficult time reading the facial expressions of those who are different. This is even true of someone of one race who is raised in an area with no other members of their own race (for example an adopted Asian child who is raised in a white community), though the white people would still have difficulty with the Asian child's facial expressions. The way to solve this is to increase exposure. People who are exposed to other races/cultures tend to be more tolerant of them, less fearful and more easily able to communicate with them.
Lastly, what % of actors being white would you consider marginalization? 50%? 60%? 70%?
In 2014, 73% of speaking roles went to white actors. Would you consider them "marginalized" if that went down to say... 65%? Or do you need that to go up past 80%? The US is currently 63% white BTW.
But then it'll just keep going, someone has to speak up eventually.
The same could be said for racism. I'm willing to let the issue drop, but not in the face of "racism doesn't exist, besides, it's good for white people" comments.
The movies and series are good. They certainly aren't great works of philosophy, but they pose interesting questions of identity and individuality in an ever more complicated and connected world.
For example: Stand Alone Complex is a term invented by the series. It describes a series of "copycats" without having an original, or the original being fictional (urban legend). The first season involves the main characters chasing down a hacker who is alleged to have done all sorts of crimes, but as they investigate, they find out more and more that they were all done by different people seeking to either emulate the crime, or take advantage of the perception of the original crime. A bunch of fanboys start an online discussion where the theories get wilder and wilder, feeding into each other, and having less and less relation to the original event.
The second season is a government official is inspired by those previous events decides to create his own stand alone complex. Through viruses and leaked information he creates the appearance of an organized terrorist organization bent on kicking out all the refugees. His goal is to stoke anti-refugee sentiment AND refugee reactions in order to set off a conflict between natives and refugees. The resulting conflict creating a rising tide of nationalism and push the country into a new era of glory.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then start a new thread about it. :-)
I agree it's an issue, but it's industry wide and not just with this movie.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry if it makes you uncomfortable, imagine how bad it might be to instead be the target of racism and not just having to skip over posts you don't want to read.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We CANNOT afford to keep marginalizing one group to help another.
No.
We cannot afford to tell a privileged group in society that they are being marginalised just because they are slowly losing said privilege.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there a japanese actress who the US studios would be comfortable risking the money with?If they had bothered to look.
Who specifically though? Name recognition is a powerful force when it comes to profiting off of entertainment. If people don't recognize the actors/actresses in a medium, then they're generally less likely to see it, barring extreme circumstances. The old fans of GitS (which doesn't include me, since I never watched it) would obviously see it regardless, but to reach a wider audience, the studio had to decide if casting someone that most people recognize would net them the most money. History supplied the answer to that.
On an only tangentially related note though, with the trend of old fan favorites coming to life with live-action adaptations, I pray to Asmodeus that nobody ever notices Cowboy Bebop and decides to ruin it with a live-action remake.
|
|
Is there a japanese actress who the US studios would be comfortable risking the money with?If they had bothered to look.Who specifically though? Name recognition is a powerful force when it comes to profiting off of entertainment. If people don't recognize the actors/actresses in a medium, then they're generally less likely to see it, barring extreme circumstances. The old fans of GitS (which doesn't include me, since I never watched it) would obviously see it regardless, but to reach a wider audience, the studio had to decide if casting someone that most people recognize would net them the most money. History supplied the answer to that.
On an only tangentially related note though, with the trend of old fan favorites coming to life with live-action adaptations, I pray to Asmodeus that nobody ever notices Cowboy Bebop and decides to ruin it with a live-action remake.
Name recognition only does so much. And in most cases it doesn't work (Cowboys & Aliens, and Gods of Egypt for another whitewashing example)
But it IS wrong. You may want to see MORE Donald Trump's in the White House but I don't.Exactly, until the field is evened it's not "wrong".Its really using two wrong to make a right in a way but its a complicated issue and might be the best we can do atm then.Not really.
After decades of exclusion and whitewashing, allowing PoC to have more roles that were traditionally given to whites is not a "wrong correcting a wrong".
well wrong in theory that giving a race an advantage over another is wrong, but in this case it is giving an advantage to group X to offset another advantage that group Y already possesses.
If you can imagine a world without racial bias then the practice would be wrong but given circumstances its being used to off-set a already present bias.
F@%*ING EXCUSE ME?
Allowing more PoC would FIX unemployment issues in cinema, not cause them. White people are NOT marginalized.
No one said they were marginalized. But if you prevent them from getting that job that will hate you all the same.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Name recognition only does so much. And in most cases it doesn't work (Cowboys & Aliens, and Gods of Egypt for another whitewashing example)Is there a japanese actress who the US studios would be comfortable risking the money with?If they had bothered to look.Who specifically though? Name recognition is a powerful force when it comes to profiting off of entertainment. If people don't recognize the actors/actresses in a medium, then they're generally less likely to see it, barring extreme circumstances. The old fans of GitS (which doesn't include me, since I never watched it) would obviously see it regardless, but to reach a wider audience, the studio had to decide if casting someone that most people recognize would net them the most money. History supplied the answer to that.
On an only tangentially related note though, with the trend of old fan favorites coming to life with live-action adaptations, I pray to Asmodeus that nobody ever notices Cowboy Bebop and decides to ruin it with a live-action remake.
Well I didn't say that name recognition is a cure-all for an overall bad movie. It's hard to argue that it doesn't work though when we repeatedly see the same (often not very good, though popular) actors cast time and time again.
|
|
No one said they were marginalized. But if you prevent them from getting that job that will hate you all the same.But it IS wrong. You may want to see MORE Donald Trump's in the White House but I don't.Exactly, until the field is evened it's not "wrong".Its really using two wrong to make a right in a way but its a complicated issue and might be the best we can do atm then.Not really.
After decades of exclusion and whitewashing, allowing PoC to have more roles that were traditionally given to whites is not a "wrong correcting a wrong".
well wrong in theory that giving a race an advantage over another is wrong, but in this case it is giving an advantage to group X to offset another advantage that group Y already possesses.
If you can imagine a world without racial bias then the practice would be wrong but given circumstances its being used to off-set a already present bias.
F@%*ING EXCUSE ME?
Allowing more PoC would FIX unemployment issues in cinema, not cause them. White people are NOT marginalized.
They are not entitled to that job in the first place.
|
|
Is there a japanese actress who the US studios would be comfortable risking the money with?If they had bothered to look.
I can't think of a single japanese actress who is well known enough to have draw for American audiences.
It appears to be a money thing. Big studios don't want to risk money on unknowns (to an American audience). Many, many movies don't get made the way the fans might want them to because of business concerns,
Would you rather have Scarlett J or no big budget Hollywood movie? Studios aren't going to risk big money ($100 million plus production and advertising -my guess) on unknowns.
Vote with your wallet. Make sure you don't watch it. Green is the only color the big studios care about.
|
|
Is there a japanese actress who the US studios would be comfortable risking the money with?If they had bothered to look.I can't think of a single japanese actress who is well known enough to have draw for American audiences.
It appears to be a money thing. Big studios don't want to risk money on unknowns (to an American audience). Many, many movies don't get made the way the fans might want them to because of business concerns,
Would you rather have Scarlett J or no bug budget Hollywood movie? Studios aren't going to risk big money ($100 million plus production and advertising) on unknowns.
Vote with your wallet. Make sure you don't watch it. Green is the only color the big studios care about.
You're correct I would have preferred no movie at all. And I'm not going to watch it.,
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there a japanese actress who the US studios would be comfortable risking the money with?If they had bothered to look.Who specifically though? Name recognition is a powerful force when it comes to profiting off of entertainment. If people don't recognize the actors/actresses in a medium, then they're generally less likely to see it, barring extreme circumstances. The old fans of GitS (which doesn't include me, since I never watched it) would obviously see it regardless, but to reach a wider audience, the studio had to decide if casting someone that most people recognize would net them the most money. History supplied the answer to that.
On an only tangentially related note though, with the trend of old fan favorites coming to life with live-action adaptations, I pray to Asmodeus that nobody ever notices Cowboy Bebop and decides to ruin it with a live-action remake.
Every star has a breakout role. No star has experience being the lead in a big budget movie until they have experience being in a big budget movie. Hollywood routinely makes movies that star barely known actors.
One need only look at the most recent Star Wars movie which is lead by TWO actors who were previously unknown to most audiences, one was a woman, the other a black man. It's only the 3rd highest grossing movie of all time. It's not like Star Wars: The Force Awakens was a low budget movie either.
So the idea that Hollywood doesn't put unknown actors in front of major budget films is b!+!&~%@.
The idea that audiences won't go see minorities (or women) as main characters is also b~&@+++$.
Chris Hemsworth, not very well known until he made Thor.
Matthew McConaughey's biggest movie was a low budget slasher before he got the lead in A Time to Kill.
Nobody heard of Hayden Christiansen before Attack of the Clones (or since).
Matt Damon got his start in another big budget movie, Rainmaker (filmed before Good Will Hunting put him and Affleck on the map).
Shia Lebouf has pretty much only starred in Transformer movies.
But yes, let's proceed pushing the myth that only known and established actors get cast in the leads of big budget movies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there a japanese actress who the US studios would be comfortable risking the money with?If they had bothered to look.Who specifically though? Name recognition is a powerful force when it comes to profiting off of entertainment. If people don't recognize the actors/actresses in a medium, then they're generally less likely to see it, barring extreme circumstances. The old fans of GitS (which doesn't include me, since I never watched it) would obviously see it regardless, but to reach a wider audience, the studio had to decide if casting someone that most people recognize would net them the most money. History supplied the answer to that.
On an only tangentially related note though, with the trend of old fan favorites coming to life with live-action adaptations, I pray to Asmodeus that nobody ever notices Cowboy Bebop and decides to ruin it with a live-action remake.
Every star has a breakout role. No star has experience being the lead in a big budget movie until they have experience being in a big budget movie. Hollywood routinely makes movies that star barely known actors.
One need only look at the most recent Star Wars movie which is lead by TWO actors who were previously unknown to most audiences, one was a woman, the other a black man. It's only the 3rd highest grossing movie of all time. It's not like Star Wars: The Force Awakens was a low budget movie either.
So the idea that Hollywood doesn't put unknown actors in front of major budget films is b@#%*+!*.
The idea that audiences won't go see minorities (or women) as main characters is also b!&$$*#%.
Chris Hemsworth, not very well known until he made Thor.
Matthew McConaughey's biggest movie was a low budget slasher before he got the lead in A Time to Kill.
Nobody heard of Hayden Christiansen before Attack of the Clones (or since).
Matt Damon got his start in another big budget movie, Rainmaker (filmed before Good Will Hunting put...
Calm down, chief. I very explicitly said "barring extreme circumstances". I would easily consider being in a Star Wars movie (which is going to reach enormous audiences no matter who's in it) to be an extreme circumstance. Comparing that to GitS which isn't going to reach anywhere near the same audience size (GitS fans < Star Wars fans by a LOT) if they don't have some added push that's going to make it more familiar to that huge group of people that aren't already familiar with or fans of the title is disingenuous.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except in the movies you're noting there were supporting stars that had name star status .. or do you think they cast Anthony Hopkins as Odin on a lark?
Star Wars: The Force Awakens is one of your examples. No one went to see the two unknowns. Oh, they liked them afterwards (for the most part), but people went for the nostalgia, for Han and Leia and Luke and R2D2 and Chewy (member Chewbacca? /Soutpark) and for continuing the Star Wars mythos. They could have cast a potted plant as the lead and it would have made money. Same goes for Jake Llyod and Hayden Christensen in their respective movies, only they were not anywhere near as well received as Daisy and John.
You can call it a myth, but it is something that the studios seem to believe in given that they are willing to pay millions to get the hot names in their movies, whether or not they might fit into the fan base's idea of what the character should look like.
If the lead is going to be unknown or untested, they often load the cast with well-known actors and actresses in the supporting parts, have an acclaimed director or producer, or otherwise try to tilt the odds in their favor. There's a reason why (other than as a dire warning to future humans) that movies have things like "Produced by Michael Bay" above the title.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is, as I said before, Asian stars not having name recognition is a problem Hollywood created.
They can't then turn around and throw their hands in the air and say "shucks! Nothing we can do!" and absolve themselves of guilt.
Furthermore, Star Wars benefited a lot from nostalgia and big actors in supporting roles, but what about Hunger Games? Did that movie make bank on the blistering star power of Woody Harrelson and Donald Sutherland?
I would argue no.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is, as I said before, Asian stars not having name recognition is a problem Hollywood created.
They can't then turn around and throw their hands in the air and say "shucks! Nothing we can do!" and absolve themselves of guilt.
Furthermore, Star Wars benefited a lot from nostalgia and big actors in supporting roles, but what about Hunger Games? Did that movie make bank on the blistering star power of Woody Harrelson and Donald Sutherland?
I would argue no.
They can't say "there's nothing we can do", but it's perfectly reasonable for them to say "why change our formula when it works". As for The Hunger Games, it drew in lots of people from the book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is a problem that Hollywood created and is working to change and needs to work harder on it. But trying to ignore the reason that it exists is also not a winning solution.
There isn't a pressing need for a live action GitS. But to get one made there were sacrifices that had to be made and ScarJo was one of them. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't (47 Ronin, for example, which I liked but apparently no one else did.)
Heck, The Great Wall was getting clobbered by online posters because it has Matt Damon in it before anyone knew what it was about. Just the mere fact that some white guy was in the movie was enough to provoke outrage despite the director mentioning that Damon wasn't taking any Chinese actor's role.
GitS might be great or it might be trash, but it doubt it will come down to whether or not ScarJo carries the movie or if a Japanese actress would have done better. Some movies are good regardless or in spite of the lead.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is no one getting riled up about movies coming out of France? or the U.K.? or China? or Japan? What about unions and actors guilds people... do studios have complete freedom over what they do? or are they bound by certain laws and regulations about staffing and filming locations? does casting a movie in the USA come with certain obligations to give parts to American actors?
I don't know the answers to all this, but I know there's an entire industry thriving on making movies - just look at the credits at the end of any movie. Legal is a huge part of the equation. I just don't have enough information to base an informed opinion on this subject.
I agree with the above posters that money is probably the biggest, number one reason for casting though. When the casting of a Japanese or African or European or Russian or [...+n_Ethnicity] character goes to an actor of a different ethnicity, are reparations or compensations made to the authors or creators of the said characters? do they have a say in it, or did they sign that privilege away when the studio bought their intellectual property? I don't know. Maybe someone from the movie industry that's on this thread can comment, but this appears to be a complex issue that would benefit from such facts and a dreaded backstory to understand all ramifications...
Why is no one getting riled up about movies coming out of France? or the U.K.? or China? or Japan? What about unions and actors guilds people... do studios have complete freedom over what they do? or are they bound by certain laws and regulations about staffing and filming locations? does casting a movie in the USA come with certain obligations to give parts to American actors?
I don't know the answers to all this, but I know there's an entire industry thriving on making movies - just look at the credits at the end of any movie. Legal is a huge part of the equation. I just don't have enough information to base an informed opinion on this subject.
I agree with the above posters that money is probably the biggest, number one reason for casting though. When the casting of a Japanese or African or European or Russian or [...+n_Ethnicity] character goes to an actor of a different ethnicity, are reparations or compensations made to the authors or creators of the said characters? do they have a say in it, or did they sign that privilege away when the studio bought their intellectual property? I don't know. Maybe someone from the movie industry that's on this thread can comment, but this appears to be a complex issue that would benefit from such facts and a dreaded backstory to understand all ramifications...
From what I've read in the past, the amount of control the creator has depends. Many get a credit and a paycheck and don't have a lot of say, whereas JK Rowling was adamant about only UK actors for the Potter movies. I'd guess that is something that you'd work out ahead of time and how much control they give is how much they want the property, and whether you can leverage that for more creative control decisions. IIRC, Alan Moore routinely hates everything about all his movies, so I'd guess he just gets paid.
Except in the movies you're noting there were supporting stars that had name star status .. or do you think they cast Anthony Hopkins as Odin on a lark?
Star Wars: The Force Awakens is one of your examples. No one went to see the two unknowns. Oh, they liked them afterwards (for the most part), but people went for the nostalgia, for Han and Leia and Luke and R2D2 and Chewy (member Chewbacca? /Soutpark) and for continuing the Star Wars mythos. They could have cast a potted plant as the lead and it would have made money. Same goes for Jake Llyod and Hayden Christensen in their respective movies, only they were not anywhere near as well received as Daisy and John.
You can call it a myth, but it is something that the studios seem to believe in given that they are willing to pay millions to get the hot names in their movies, whether or not they might fit into the fan base's idea of what the character should look like.
If the lead is going to be unknown or untested, they often load the cast with well-known actors and actresses in the supporting parts, have an acclaimed director or producer, or otherwise try to tilt the odds in their favor. There's a reason why (other than as a dire warning to future humans) that movies have things like "Produced by Michael Bay" above the title.
You're addressing other issues, not the one I was responding to.
The claim is that Hollywood doesn't cast unknown actors in major movies.
I provided evidence that it does. Your rebuttal doesn't actually prove me wrong, since you're actually affirming that I'm right by pointing out that Hollywood can balance out unknown leads with big name supporting actors and directors.
But you cannot use your points as evidence without first admitting that Hollywood casts unknown actors as leads in big budget films. To prove me wrong, you need to show that those actors had long careers and a history of starring in big budget films prior to those movies and were famous, household names.
For example, you could pull the google trend data for Chris Hemsworth, and try to show that he was very famous prior to the release of Thor. Except that looking at the data it's pretty obvious that he was not well known prior to the 2011 release of that movie. If you isolate the data to US trends, he was actually at 0 interest prior to 2009, with about 8% of his peak in searchs/mentions from 2009-2011. If you look at the spikes, they all matchup with Marvel movies (Rush had a minor spike, but it was quickly eclipsed by The Dark World).
Except in the movies you're noting there were supporting stars that had name star status .. or do you think they cast Anthony Hopkins as Odin on a lark?
Star Wars: The Force Awakens is one of your examples. No one went to see the two unknowns. Oh, they liked them afterwards (for the most part), but people went for the nostalgia, for Han and Leia and Luke and R2D2 and Chewy (member Chewbacca? /Soutpark) and for continuing the Star Wars mythos. They could have cast a potted plant as the lead and it would have made money. Same goes for Jake Llyod and Hayden Christensen in their respective movies, only they were not anywhere near as well received as Daisy and John.
You can call it a myth, but it is something that the studios seem to believe in given that they are willing to pay millions to get the hot names in their movies, whether or not they might fit into the fan base's idea of what the character should look like.
If the lead is going to be unknown or untested, they often load the cast with well-known actors and actresses in the supporting parts, have an acclaimed director or producer, or otherwise try to tilt the odds in their favor. There's a reason why (other than as a dire warning to future humans) that movies have things like "Produced by Michael Bay" above the title.
You're addressing other issues, not the one I was responding to.
The claim is that Hollywood doesn't cast unknown actors in major movies.
I provided evidence that it does. Your rebuttal doesn't actually prove me wrong, since you're actually affirming that I'm right by pointing out that Hollywood can balance out unknown leads with big name supporting actors and directors.
But you cannot use your points as evidence without first admitting that Hollywood casts unknown actors as leads in big budget films.
Well, as this isn't a formal debate class I can pretty much do whatever, as can anyone else. But sure, they cast unknowns (which I affirmed) and then I explained why they do it. You are in a hurry to be "right" rather than have a discussion, I fear. So if it makes you feel somehow better, you can be right. They cast unknowns.
As a note? I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I don't care if you are wrong, or right, or blue. I'm idly pointing out what's been going on in Hollywood since Hollywood was a thing. The fans can WANT a no-name actor(ress) for their movies, or even a cast of no names. That doesn't mean that the studio will pony up big dollars for a movie, however.
Tangentially, which of and how many of the supporting roles are people willing to give up to "big name" stars in order to have the Major played a virtual unknown?
It just depends on what you are willing to give up to get the movie. Special effects? Actor? Costumes? Advertising?
Maybe I am wrong and money isn't their concern. Maybe a movie of virtual unknowns will be able to carry the movie on the big screen as opposed to being the ScyFy channel movie of the week. It's been that sort of year, after all. ;)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They can't say "there's nothing we can do", but it's perfectly reasonable for them to say "why change our formula when it works". As for The Hunger Games, it drew in lots of people from the book.The issue is, as I said before, Asian stars not having name recognition is a problem Hollywood created.
They can't then turn around and throw their hands in the air and say "shucks! Nothing we can do!" and absolve themselves of guilt.
Furthermore, Star Wars benefited a lot from nostalgia and big actors in supporting roles, but what about Hunger Games? Did that movie make bank on the blistering star power of Woody Harrelson and Donald Sutherland?
I would argue no.
The thing is, it's not a formula that works. Movies with big name stars flop all the time. Many, I would argue, flop because they spend more money and effort chasing big names and less on developing a good script or finding the right people to work on the film (actors or otherwise).
And yes, Hunger Games was a popular book, but it wasn't that popular. I bet the movie drove more people to the book than vice versa.
For that matter, Ghost in the Shell is a popularge media franchise--spanning books, movies, TV shows, and video games--so why are we not expecting it's fans to turn out as well?
|
|
Why is no one getting riled up about movies coming out of France? or the U.K.? or China? or Japan? What about unions and actors guilds people... do studios have complete freedom over what they do? or are they bound by certain laws and regulations about staffing and filming locations? does casting a movie in the USA come with certain obligations to give parts to American actors?
I don't know the answers to all this, but I know there's an entire industry thriving on making movies - just look at the credits at the end of any movie. Legal is a huge part of the equation. I just don't have enough information to base an informed opinion on this subject.
I agree with the above posters that money is probably the biggest, number one reason for casting though. When the casting of a Japanese or African or European or Russian or [...+n_Ethnicity] character goes to an actor of a different ethnicity, are reparations or compensations made to the authors or creators of the said characters? do they have a say in it, or did they sign that privilege away when the studio bought their intellectual property? I don't know. Maybe someone from the movie industry that's on this thread can comment, but this appears to be a complex issue that would benefit from such facts and a dreaded backstory to understand all ramifications...
The Japanese creators of Ghost in the Shell are perfectly happy with the race change. They've stated such multiple times in multiple media formats.
Pretty much, this is entirely an American argument. The rest of the world doesn't care, and likely never will. A lot of them, from what I've seen, would prefer it if we'd just shut up about this issue. After all, as several of them have put to me bluntly when I've asked about it, "you can't steal culture."
Which is complete and total b@$*~##@.
It's called appropriation.