Madame Web

[battlewraith]

3 hours ago, Excraft said:

I wonder, would you have no issue at all were a film or films produced as period pieces during WW II where all of the Germans were cast with gay, black actors?  How about a biographical drama on the life of Nelson Mandela with an Asian man in the lead role as Mandela?  Would you be fine with a film set in Wakanda cast with all non-black actors?  Or a bio-pic of Queen Elizabeth with a latino man cast in the role of the Queen?  Do you honestly believe there wouldn't be massive backlash against movie studios were any of this to happen?

 

Depends on the context. I'm not like the people here complaining about casting as if it's this binary good or bad thing. You're the one complaining about it in principle, not me.

Colorblind casting is very common in theater. Part of the reason for this is that there are so many different productions of plays, and such a history of such productions, that nobody takes a representation of a character as some sort of historical document that must be accurate to some standard. Shakespeare nerds don't have a problem with it. Denzel Washington killed it as MacBeth. Lots of pop culture nerds are behind the curve in this regard sadly. 

 

5 hours ago, Excraft said:

I get that historically there wasn't as much opportunity for non-Caucasian actors and actresses, but that's not really true any more and hasn't been for quite some time.  There is a long and growing list of non-Caucasian actors and actresses winning the highest awards in the entertainment industry.  You talk about staples of the comic industry like Superman, Batman, Spider-Man and the like selling well because people want familiarity.  Isn't it understandable then for some people to question why race and/or gender swapping needs to take place if they want to see the characters they're familiar with?

 

The thing is these awards and opportunities you mention here are the result of activists in the industry setting standards for inclusiveness. The ability to do non-standard casting is the culmination of this effort, not some unrelated and unnecessary thing. 

 

Yeah it's understandable that people want the familiar. But that means we can't have anything else? Take the Little Mermaid. You have the original story and all the artistic depictions related to it. Then you have the original Disney version. Then you have the black version. If you don't like that version--don't watch it. You have all the other versions. All this pissing and moaning about companies selling a product boils down to people wanting that company to serve their interests in exactly the way they want, all the time. In other words, raw entitlement.

 

6 hours ago, Excraft said:

The LoTR trilogy brought in around 3 billion in box office.  The Hobbit trilogy brought in just over 2.9 billion.  Seems they replicated the success just fine.  You could argue that that the Hobbit films had a much higher budget for various reasons so all tallied it made less overall in terms of profit compared to LoTR, but it still brought in a ton of money.  But there again, it had fantastic source material to work with.

 

Ok so those movies were trash. Now, you're probably thinking that numbers don't lie and that my subjective opinion doesn't matter.

Here's the thing: the recent Little Mermaid film was a financial success. Numbers don't lie. So by your logic, all the complaints about the casting don't matter.

You're sitting on a limb, furiously sawing away it's connection to the tree.

[battlewraith]

4 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

So you're saying that "It's ok to change characters and rewrite history and do other bad things because of stuff that happened 70 years ago." I thought the entire point behind being progressive was to not repeat the mistakes or bad actions of the past.

 

"It's ok when we do it!" Right?

 

No, it goes more like this:

 

You have an industry that's dominated by one demographic throughout most of it's existence. Minorities are either not represented at all, relegated to minor often stereotyped portrayals, or are portrayed by white actors. The general audience is perfectly fine with this. Gradually attitudes change, demographics change, economics change and the industry slowly catches up. Then suddenly somebody from the original demographic discovers racism when (gasp) a role that they think should be cast a certain way simply isn't. My heart breaks at this injustice, truly. The wounded party is going to have to....watch something else. Or just get over the casting decision. Meanwhile, the actor that lost out in the casting is going to have to wander out into the desert of other similar mainstream roles that they would be a fit for.

 

[Excraft]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

Depends on the context. I'm not like the people here complaining about casting as if it's this binary good or bad thing.

 

If you honestly believe there would be no public outcry over a film where all gay black actors were cast as Germans in a WW II film or a remake of The Color Purple with an all white cast, you're delusional.  You also can't have this both ways.  You've suggested people like and are drawn to familiarity, then belittle them when they complain about arbitrary changes to what they find familiar. 

 

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

The thing is these awards and opportunities you mention here are the result of activists in the industry setting standards for inclusiveness.

 

This is absolutely positively 100% bullshit.  Actors and actresses like Sidney Poitier, Denzel Washington, Halle Berry, Jamie Fox, Forrest Whitaker, Viola Davis, Alfe Woodard all won Academy Awards and Emmys long before there were these modern "inclusivity" requirements.  They won because they were the best in their craft, not because of their skin color.  Trying to say they only won because of some arbitrary requirement is a huge insult to their talent.

 

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

Ok so those movies were trash. Now, you're probably thinking that numbers don't lie and that my subjective opinion doesn't matter.

Here's the thing: the recent Little Mermaid film was a financial success. Numbers don't lie. So by your logic, all the complaints about the casting don't matter.

You're sitting on a limb, furiously sawing away it's connection to the tree.

 

You're really struggling to understand the concepts and differences between the subjective (opinions/feelings) and the objective (facts).  You can dislike The Hobbit trilogy all you like.  That doesn't change the fact that it was a financial success.  As for the Little Mermaid, from what I understand it essentially broke even, maybe.  If it did manage to turn a profit, then yes, it's a success too, regardless if some people disliked the casting.  Numbers don't lie and facts are facts.  It's a very simple concept to grasp.  If you don't believe in facts, why don't you share with us what you believe is a better objective measure that isn't based on opinions or feelings? 

 

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

Minorities are either not represented at all, relegated to minor often stereotyped portrayals, or are portrayed by white actors.

 

This hasn't been the case for decades now. 

[PeregrineFalcon]

There's a reason why you can use google to see a ton of memes like this one. And it isn't because a handful of people on this forum are imagining this. It's because millions of people around the world have noticed this phenomenon.

 

[battlewraith]

33 minutes ago, Excraft said:

If you honestly believe there would be no public outcry over a film where all gay black actors were cast as Germans in a WW II film or a remake of The Color Purple with an all white cast, you're delusional.  You also can't have this both ways.  You've suggested people like and are drawn to familiarity, then belittle them when they complain about arbitrary changes to what they find familiar. 

 

I said it depends on the context. What is the reason for it?

And what you're doing here is saying that the things that rankle you are on a par with making an all white The Color Purple. Some casting choices, some deviation from a formula and you act like the sky is falling. 

 

47 minutes ago, Excraft said:

This is absolutely positively 100% bullshit. 

 

No you are just really confused. For example here's a write up of Sidney Poitier's career and what conditions were like:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-sidney-poitier-rewrote-the-script-for-black-actors-in-hollywood-180979333/

And a quote from the man himself:

 

“If the fabric of the society were different, I would scream to high heaven to play villains and to deal with different images of Negro life that would be more dimensional,” said the actor in the interview. “But I’ll be damned if I do that at this stage of the game. Not when there is only one Negro actor working in films with any degree of consistency, when there are thousands of actors in films, you follow?”

 

People like him paved the way for others. They opened the door for other types of portrayals. What the hell do you think inclusion means? You're the one who's insulting his talent and legacy, not me.

1 hour ago, Excraft said:

If you don't believe in facts, why don't you share with us what you believe is a better objective measure that isn't based on opinions or feelings? 

 

Why? I've given you so many examples already and you just don't get it. Imagine I go to a quality restaurant to get a good meal. The ratings for this place are all 5 star and there's a waitlist to get a table but I finally get in. I ask the waiter for a recommendation and he says the steak is excellent. But then I say "the hell with that, way more hotdogs are sold than steaks! Numbers don't lie!" And then it occurs to me: I shouldn't even be in this place. McDonald's serves way more customers every day. That's a fact Jack. Who cares about what people think is good food. Those are just feeeeeelings. 

 

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that garbage doesn't sell. It's quaint.

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

There's a reason why you can use google to see a ton of memes like this one. And it isn't because a handful of people on this forum are imagining this. It's because millions of people around the world have noticed this phenomenon.

 

 

Millions huh? I know Putin and Xi are pretty against this sort of thing. 

[Ghost]

[Ghost]

5 hours ago, battlewraith said:

 

 

Why? I've given you so many examples already and you just don't get it. Imagine I go to a quality restaurant to get a good meal. The ratings for this place are all 5 star and there's a waitlist to get a table but I finally get in. I ask the waiter for a recommendation and he says the steak is excellent. But then I say "the hell with that, way more hotdogs are sold than steaks! Numbers don't lie!" And then it occurs to me: I shouldn't even be in this place. McDonald's serves way more customers every day. That's a fact Jack. Who cares about what people think is good food. Those are just feeeeeelings. 

Horrible analogy based on what my gripe is.

It would be more like going to the 5-star restaurant and ordering a steak.  Only to be served chicken and preached to about the dangers of cholesterol. 

 

 

 

 

[TheOtherTed]

Arguing with analogies (even good ones) is a bad idea.  You end up chasing each others' tails and, in one poster's case, claiming victories that aren't.  And as strangely entertaining as this thread may be, I think all positions that could be stated have been stated.  IMO this thread has run its course.  Time to step away and/or start putting people on ignore.

 

 

Edited February 17 by TheOtherTed

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, Ghost said:

Horrible analogy based on what my gripe is.

It would be more like going to the 5-star restaurant and ordering a steak.  Only to be served chicken and preached to about the dangers of cholesterol. 

 

 

 

 

 

That response wasn't addressing you, that's why. You just don't like being preached to. Ok fine, but don't assume that everyone agree with you about what constitutes preaching or where it is appropriate in movies.

 

2 hours ago, Ghost said:

 

 

[ZacKing]

7 hours ago, battlewraith said:

I said it depends on the context. What is the reason for it?

And what you're doing here is saying that the things that rankle you are on a par with making an all white The Color Purple. Some casting choices, some deviation from a formula and you act like the sky is falling. 

 

See, now I know you're disingenuous and being contrarian just to argue.  On one hand, you're saying you don't care because it's done in theatre all the time, while at the same time trying to say it "depends on the context".  Which is it?  You either care or you don't.  What context are you going by?  Pure talent and charisma?  Ok, then let's put Leonardo DiCaprio as T'Challa in Black Panther III.  Let's replace Simu Liu with Christian Bale in the next Shang Chi.  They're both very talented and more than qualified, so putting them into those roles should be fine according to you.  How about casting Denzel Washington as Amon Goth in a remake of Schindler's List?  Or Margot Robbie as Cellie Harris-Johnson in The Color Purple?  Unless you don't think they're talented enough to pull off the roles?   That recasting happens in theatre all the time, so you shouldn't care. 

 

8 hours ago, battlewraith said:

People like him paved the way for others. They opened the door for other types of portrayals.

 

That's exactly correct AND he did it without any "inclusivity requirements" or other such rules.  That's a testament to his talent, and for you to be suggesting he and others only win these awards because of their skin color and "inclusivity requirements" is quite frankly disgusting. 

 

8 hours ago, battlewraith said:

I've given you so many examples already and you just don't get it.

 

We all get it just fine.  You've given plenty of examples based on opinion.  You can't provide any measure that's based on facts. 

 

8 hours ago, battlewraith said:

Imagine I go to a quality restaurant to get a good meal. The ratings for this place are all 5 star and there's a waitlist to get a table but I finally get in. I ask the waiter for a recommendation and he says the steak is excellent. But then I say "the hell with that, way more hotdogs are sold than steaks! Numbers don't lie!" 

 

See, you still don't get it.  If the hotdogs there are selling more than the steak, then that means a lot of people like them enough to spend money for that meal, which means that hotdog meal is a success by the objective measure of money made.

 

8 hours ago, battlewraith said:

McDonald's serves way more customers every day. That's a fact Jack. Who cares about what people think is good food. Those are just feeeeeelings. 

 

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that garbage doesn't sell. It's quaint.

 

Here again, you're analogy doesn't work.  You're attempting to say that McDonald's isn't a success because there are five star Michelin restaurants out there.  That's not even a remotely close comparison and I think you know that, but you're just desperate to try and prove that your opinions are facts.  They aren't.  And guess what?  Both McDonalds AND the five star Michelin restaurant can be successful. 

[Luminara]

Most of the ~300 DVDs and BluRays I own have unskippable anti-piracy nag ads before the menu will even come up, so I'm not the least bit surprised that Hollywood has decided to make entire films nag ads about other shit.  Nor am I surprised that people don't want to sit through them, especially when they're riddled with bad writing, poorly timed attempts at comedy and endless reboots and rehashes of stories.

 

Fuck 'em.  The whole industry can eat a bag of dicks.  Or would that be cannibalism?

[Excraft]

9 hours ago, battlewraith said:

No you are just really confused.

 

No, I'm not.  Here is what you said -

 

12 hours ago, battlewraith said:

The thing is these awards and opportunities you mention here are the result of activists in the industry setting standards for inclusiveness. The ability to do non-standard casting is the culmination of this effort, not some unrelated and unnecessary thing. 

 

My response to this was that there were actors and actresses earning the highest awards and honors in the industry long before there were any "standards for inclusiveness" being mandated, and all of them earned those awards and accolades based on their talent.  They didn't need "standards for inclusiveness".  You trying to claim that's why they are able to win these awards, not because of their talent, is flat out wrong.  Why don't you do some research and provide links to the "standards for inclusiveness" that existed in the industry when Sidney Poitier won his oscar?  Good luck.

 

9 hours ago, battlewraith said:

People like him paved the way for others. They opened the door for other types of portrayals.

 

Yes, he did and he did it through his incredible talent, not by having some arbitrary rule put in place.

 

9 hours ago, battlewraith said:

Why? I've given you so many examples already and you just don't get it. Imagine I go to a quality restaurant to get a good meal. The ratings for this place are all 5 star and there's a waitlist to get a table but I finally get in. I ask the waiter for a recommendation and he says the steak is excellent. But then I say "the hell with that, way more hotdogs are sold than steaks! Numbers don't lie!" And then it occurs to me: I shouldn't even be in this place. McDonald's serves way more customers every day. That's a fact Jack. Who cares about what people think is good food. Those are just feeeeeelings. 

 

Right so you don't have any suggestions for objective measures. 

 

9 hours ago, battlewraith said:

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that garbage doesn't sell. It's quaint.

 

Define "garbage".  What's "quaint" and quite hysterical is you desperately trying (and failing) to prove opinions are facts.  

[Excraft]

50 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

How about casting Denzel Washington as Amon Goth in a remake of Schindler's List?

 

You'd be condemned as a racist for casting him in that role or for not going to see the movie.

[battlewraith]

23 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

That recasting happens in theatre all the time, so you shouldn't care.

 

Maybe I wouldn't care. What is the rationale for it? You're desperately trying to paint this as an either or situation. It's not.

I could be be in favor of some legal drug use--maybe alcohol or marijuana. That doesn't mean I'm committed to supporting legal use of all drugs.

It also doesn't mean that I approve of every casting choice done for some the sake of something of like inclusivity to the exclusion of all other reasons.

 

40 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

That's exactly correct AND he did it without any "inclusivity requirements" or other such rules.  That's a testament to his talent, and for you to be suggesting he and others only win these awards because of their skin color and "inclusivity requirements" is quite frankly disgusting. 

 

I never said that. Stop getting disgusted over the strawman you keep knocking over. 

And these inclusivity requirements that you keep complaining about--you know they aren't actual requirements. It's just people that don't agree with you that you don't support. You have other options. Maybe check out the content being developed by the Daily Wire. I'm sure you won't get any of that inclusiveness nonsense there.

49 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

We all get it just fine.  You've given plenty of examples based on opinion.  You can't provide any measure that's based on facts.

 

No. Amazingly you don't get it, at all. Any assessment of quality is going to be based on opinion. You think that an objective metric--how many things were sold--can serve that function. Well I've given you a bunch of examples how ridiculous that standard is in application. The porn industry is undeniably a financial success. Show me someone that argues, based on those financial numbers, that this content is "quality film making." The point is not that McDonald's isn't a financial success because of the existence of Michelin restaurants. The point is that no intelligent person is going to seriously argue that fast food is comparable to a Michelin restaurant because McDonald's sells more food. 

 

The irony is that your blanket dismissal of opinion is utterly self-defeating. The facts are these: People in the segments of film industry are progressive and applying their standards to the writing and casting of movies. You can't offer any convincing reason for why this is a bad thing because.....well that's just your opinion man.

[battlewraith]

32 minutes ago, Excraft said:

My response to this was that there were actors and actresses earning the highest awards and honors in the industry long before there were any "standards for inclusiveness" being mandated, and all of them earned those awards and accolades based on their talent.  They didn't need "standards for inclusiveness".  You trying to claim that's why they are able to win these awards, not because of their talent, is flat out wrong.  Why don't you do some research and provide links to the "standards for inclusiveness" that existed in the industry when Sidney Poitier won his oscar?  Good luck.

 

I already have. I quoted him. The standard of inclusiveness on the part of the industry back in his day was NOT to include minorities. People like him were trailblazers. They were struggling to get representations of minorities on the big screen. And even someone like Poitier who was immensely talented and successful, admitted to being severely constrained by what types of characterizations they could present to the white audience for fear of how those characterization would impact other black performers. Did you even read it?  Here in 2024, you have your panties in a wad over progressives in the entertainment industry lecturing to you--so you wipe away the actual significance of Poitier's achievements and say "See! Talented black actors were getting awards and didn't need these politics!" Utterly reductive. Utterly wrong.

 

My previous post addresses (again) your conflation of commerce with quality. If you don't get it by now I can't help you.

 

 

 

[The Tsaurian]

Going to see it with some friends tomorrow night after getting a little sloshed.  If nothing else, it'll at least be fun to have a giggle at.

[ZacKing]

35 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Maybe I wouldn't care. What is the rationale for it? You're desperately trying to paint this as an either or situation. It's not.

 

Well no, you're the one arguing that this happens in theatre all the time and that "Shakespeare nerds are ahead of the curve".  You're also criticizing others for asking the same question - what's the rationale for it?

 

37 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

I never said that. Stop getting disgusted over the strawman you keep knocking over. 

 

That's literally what you said lol.

 

38 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

And these inclusivity requirements that you keep complaining about--you know they aren't actual requirements.

 

Yes, they are in fact rules.  Please educate yourself.  From the linked article -

 

Quote

Also, in 2024, the Academy implemented a new rule: Films must complete a confidential Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry form (RAISE) that meets two of four standards in order to be eligible to be nominated.

 

 

41 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

You have other options. Maybe check out the content being developed by the Daily Wire. I'm sure you won't get any of that inclusiveness nonsense there.

 

See, here's where you're wrong and really very ignorant.  You're stupidly lumping anyone who questions casting choices and how a message is being delivered into the "deplorables" or white evangelical conservative pile.  That speaks volumes to your ignorance and intolerance.  For your information, I don't listen to the Daily Wire or any of that other crap.  You're way, way off base there.  I could also take a page out of Brie Larson's book and say the same thing right back at you.  You don't like that the Disney princesses were all white?  Ok, well there's other options out there for you now.  They weren't made for you.  Go watch something else.

 

45 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

No. Amazingly you don't get it, at all. Any assessment of quality is going to be based on opinion. You think that an objective metric--how many things were sold--can serve that function. Well I've given you a bunch of examples how ridiculous that standard is in application. The porn industry is undeniably a financial success. Show me someone that argues, based on those financial numbers, that this content is "quality film making." The point is not that McDonald's isn't a financial success because of the existence of Michelin restaurants. The point is that no intelligent person is going to seriously argue that fast food is comparable to a Michelin restaurant because McDonald's sells more food. 

 

Of FFS are you honestly going to say that movies that are financial successes aren't considered to be of good enough quality that people went to see them and spent money on them?  Like I said before, I didn't like Titanic at all.  I think it's a stupid movie.  That's not changing it's financial success at all.  Of course I think filet mignon from a 5 star Michelin restaurant is a better quality meal than a Big Mac from McDonalds.  That doesn't change the fact that McDonalds is financially successful.  Opinions are great, but they're subjective.  Numbers are facts.   What you're trying to do is suggest people are saying that filet mignon is bad and a Big Mac is superior because McDonalds sells more.  That's not at all true and not what anyone is saying at all.  You're just arguing to argue at this point.

 

[ZacKing]

22 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

The standard of inclusiveness on the part of the industry back in his day was NOT to include minorities.

 

Right.  And he and others like him won anyway.  

[battlewraith]

2 hours ago, ZacKing said:

Well no, you're the one arguing that this happens in theatre all the time and that "Shakespeare nerds are ahead of the curve".  You're also criticizing others for asking the same question - what's the rationale for it?

 

No, as I've said, I am criticizing people who reject such practices in principle.

 

2 hours ago, ZacKing said:

Please educate yourself.

 

Lol. I did. I just read the whole thing on the academy's website. There are four standards. For a film to be considered for one type of award--Best Picture--it has to check a box in two of the standards. Each of the standards has several individual criteria that can be met. Two of those standards don't even involve actors or characters in the film, they're behind the scenes jobs, training opportunities, or marketing. The ones that do involve performances are trivially easy to satisfy. For example, "At least 30% of all actors in secondary and more minor roles are from at least two of the following underrepresented groups." One of the underrepresented groups is women--half the population of the planet!

 

You have got to be shitting me.  This is a concern for you? Most contemporary films are just going to fit within these guidelines. You would have to go out of your way to disqualify yourself by only involving straight white men. And the fallout would just be not getting a best picture award. That's it.

 

2 hours ago, ZacKing said:

You don't like that the Disney princesses were all white?  Ok, well there's other options out there for you now.  They weren't made for you.  Go watch something else.

 

Wait, is this intended to be some sort of rebuttal? Because that's exactly what I do. If something doesn't appeal to me, I do go watch something else. 

Disney princesses were all white. Then the company decided they could make money by changing the formula. I'm not the one crying about it.

 

2 hours ago, ZacKing said:

Right.  And he and others like him won anyway. 

 

Right so Poitier says that he's the only black actor consistently getting work in the industry. But it's all good because he got an award. Sounds exactly like what someone on the Daily Wire would say. If you can't see that, maybe take a step back.

 

2 hours ago, ZacKing said:

Of FFS are you honestly going to say

 

You can go back and read what I said from the beginning. It's already all been spelled out. You just keep circling back to financial success--which it not the point. And you just gloss over counter examples. Pornographic films make a lot of money. Does this mean that they are well written and well produced?

 

I'm not asking you if they are financially successful, that's already assumed. 

Can I say that they are poor quality films, despite the fact that they make a lot of money?

Or are we simply stuck with "the facts"?

Edited February 17 by battlewraith

[Coyotedancer]

Context matters, so some unexpected casting choices would just work better than others given those contextual differences.... Black actors playing German soldiers in a serious WW2 drama would be weird, yes. A black actor cast to play Don Pedro, or a white actor to play Othello? Not so much. (And yes, I could totally imagine a Hispanic guy playing Queen Elizabeth. Given the elaborate costuming and the half-inch thick layer of white makeup that the character would require to look at all like her portraits, any stage actor with experience cross-playing could probably pull that one off-)

 

Like someone else mentioned up-thread, pop culture really is behind the curve here. That kind of thing just isn't seen as so unusual in theater. It's even more common in opera, where "trouser roles" (Male characters played by female singers. Octavian from Der Rosenkavalier, for instance, or Cherubino in The Marriage of Figaro) are pretty common. There are quite a few traditional Shakespearian companies and kabuki troupes that are all-male as well, with guys routinely playing the female roles. In kabuki, it's even a trained specialty... Onnagata.

 

When it comes to opera parts (and often musicals in general-), they're almost always cast for voice rather than for ethnicity, so basically anybody can end up playing a particular character... White Othello? Yep. Black Papageno? You bet'cha. South African Jean Valjean? Yeah. And he was awesome. The best Mimi (Le Boheme) I've ever heard was sung by an actress from Japan. 

 

So... yeah. Sometimes the historical or social context of a role is going to mean that the ethnicity of the actor is going to matter, but that's not universal and in those cases where it ISN'T all that important, there's nothing wrong with casting "outside the lines" so to speak. It works just fine on the stage and in the opera house. It can work in films and on TV. 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 17 by Coyotedancer

[PeregrineFalcon]

2 hours ago, Coyotedancer said:

Context matters, so some unexpected casting choices would just work better than others given those contextual differences....

You are correct.

 

Can you tell me why no one had a problem with Samuel L Jackson being cast as Nick Fury?

[battlewraith]

21 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

You are correct.

 

Can you tell me why no one had a problem with Samuel L Jackson being cast as Nick Fury?

 

Um excuse me? No one had a problem? I can think of someone who probably had a problem with it:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Fury:_Agent_of_S.H.I.E.L.D._(film)

 

Edited February 17 by battlewraith

[PeregrineFalcon]

Well now, this is interesting:

 

 

[Coyotedancer]

33 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

You are correct.

 

Can you tell me why no one had a problem with Samuel L Jackson being cast as Nick Fury?

 

I'm not sure what sort of snarky "got'cha"-statement you expected that to be... but aside from some of the usual comic book grognard grumping you'd hear about ANY change made to an established character ("What?!? The Ancient One is a WOMAN?!? What?!? Nova Prime is a PERSON?!?!?!" And so on and so forth-) about the worst I recall hearing re: Fury's casting was some doubt about how Jackson would play him in terms of tone. But then, a black guy playing a spymaster character just wouldn't strike most people going to see a superhero action movie as all that off the wall.

 

The black Nazis would.