Ghost in the Shell Film will cost co. $60 million in debt

[Edonis 28,950]

29 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I've not seen it and wasn't even aware of it beforehand, so I'm not talking from experience here. But I think there was more to it than just a whitewashing scandal. It was a very old anime, it first began in 1989. There was already an anime adaption in 1995. So, all this time later, why the need for a live action version? Who would have thought this was a remotely good idea. I've seen Hollywood make this mistake before. They made a movie out of the Vampire Academy series despite the book series ending just over 3 years ago and that film was an epic flop. It stands to reason that to base a movie off of a series that ended is going to pose some problems, but to not promote it well enough beforehand is an even bigger mistake. Part of the reason why the Harry Potter and Twilight series were so big was because they capitalised on the success at the time, when the books were still being published. If they had only been made into movies now, there would be nowhere near the same level of success. Hollywood has learned a bit but they don't always get a right. Anime doesn't exactly require a live action adaption anyway. Anime is anime for a reason and live action just doesn't translate well.

But in regards to the whitewashing thing, while, yes, I understand why some people were annoyed by it but notice how any justifications of it being down to commercial reasons of wanting a known name to lead it were dismissed? Yet, when white fictional characters races change, white people are just supposed to suck it up and anyone who has a problem is a racist? Double standards, much? Apparently, white characters can be changed however we see fit, their race can even be considered 'ambiguous,' and they can be changed purely as an excuse to get a role for a minority. But in reverse...it's racist? Huh? When a black woman got the role of Hermione in the stage play of the new Harry Potter spin-off, the decision was widely criticised by fans of the series. They were met with racism accusations including those from JK Rowling herself who even went so far as to say that she never made it clear that Hermione was white, that was just our interpretation. This is nonsense as there are actually segments of the book that definitely point to her being white and considering that Jo insisted on having a say in who was cast in the roles for the movies, the fact she picked a white girl to play Hermione confirms that Hermione is indeed white. It's like, it's not a crime to make a character white! Whites have just as a much a right to visibility as other races, not less! And while, yes, there were complaints that did sound racist, most of them were completely rational and some even additionally complained about the fact that the actor playing Ron didn't have red hair when that was a major character trait up until now. But that, apparently, did not even warrant an explanation, only complaints over a change in race are valid. And also, race doesn't play a role when we're talking about voices of animals, either. The live action Jungle Book had barely any Indians voicing any of the characters, they were instead taken by mainly white and black actors. Not a single complaint was made about that, which honestly surprised me. And let's not even get started on how having a white cast in a historical drama in line with historical accuracy is frowned upon...yet when a historical drama is made involving a non-white race, historical accuracy is considered of paramount importance.

It just bugs me that whites are always seen as the bad guys in this situation. And that they just have to accept whatever racial changes are made to white characters yet minorities are allowed to complain as much as they want over any white-washing. Ending racism involves making things equal, not better for one race over the other. If white-washing is bad, then doing the same in reverse for any white characters should be seen as equally bad. Yes, there are a lack of roles for minorities in Hollywood but the solution is to make original movies casting for minorities in mind, not changing the race of existing white characters who have already been established as white.

Well this is a nice essay but it's kind of moot for the film since the major was changed to a white woman. The big controversy was that originally she was still a Japanese woman, just played by a white actress, which is dumb lol. There are other issues in the film that I mentioned earlier (the Japanese woman trapped in a white womans body twist that happens in the film which was way weirder) than the whitewashing incident. 

[brownie 5]

8 minutes ago, Edonis said:

I agree with most of your statement but saying it would bomb internationally with an Asian lead would just be untrue. Maybe in Europe (however the movie is basically a nonevent there) but China and Japan (the biggest market for a live action adaption) would be fine I think. But I do agree with everything else. I just don't get why GitS was their first choice for a live action movie lol. 

Some issues: 

1) Yeah, Europe is a non-market really. They sell like 10% of the tickets America does. Still a big "market", but it's so segmented that it's moot here. 

2) China's government takes a LARGE percentage of non-Chinese film profits, and they're very shady and corrupt about it. If an American film makes 100 million there, they might be lucky to get 25 million of that back in profit. 

3) Japan, like Europe, is a tiny film market. 

I'm not trying to 'prove you wrong' or make you look bad -- i'm trying to say that making a film just for asian audiences is just not feasible / profitable. 

[Edonis 28,950]

Just now, brownie said:

Some issues: 

1) Yeah, Europe is a non-market really. They sell like 10% of the tickets America does. 

2) China's government takes a LARGE percentage of non-Chinese film profits, and they're very shady and corrupt about it. If an American film makes 100 million there, they might be lucky to get 25 million of that back in profit. 

3) Japan, like Europe, is a tiny film market. 

I'm not trying to 'prove you wrong' or make you look bad -- i'm trying to say that making a film just for asian audiences is just not feasible / profitable. 

Oh no I agree. That's why producers don't do that  I was just mentioning why it wouldn't have worked regardless. The film was a bad choice to do as a live action from the beginning. Out of all the anime to produce as a live action, Ghost in the Shell is a strange choice to decide on. Parts of it are inherently way too Japanese and way too heavy for a mainstream film. 

[brownie 5]

5 minutes ago, Edonis said:

Oh no I agree. That's why producers don't do that  I was just mentioning why it wouldn't have worked regardless. The film was a bad choice to do as a live action from the beginning. Out of all the anime to produce as a live action, Ghost in the Shell is a strange choice to decide on. Parts of it are inherently way too Japanese and way too heavy for a mainstream film. 

I agree -- which is why I thought the trailers looked so cool! It looked so fresh and unique to me...and then all I see is "WHITEWASHING WHITEWASHING WHITEWASHING" and I'm here like "can't you guys wait and check out the movie first before you tear it to pieces...?" I'm inherently against remakes and reboots and stuff like this, but I followed the production and the director, Scarlett, and the original anime creators all seemed to be honestly trying to make the best thing they could.  Having worked on sets -- making a movie is HARD. Insanely hard. I'm about to make my first feature and I just have a great respect for anyone who can complete a film -- it's why seeing this film get treated so unfairly and bomb because of bad press irks me so much. 

(Although, yeah, I haven't seen it yet. Could end up being like Ghostbusters, which despite its female leads / diversity, was just a terrible script and terrible movie.)

[StrawberryBlond 14,884]

21 hours ago, Edonis said:

Well this is a nice essay but it's kind of moot for the film since the major was changed to a white woman. The big controversy was that originally she was still a Japanese woman, just played by a white actress, which is dumb lol. There are other issues in the film that I mentioned earlier (the Japanese woman trapped in a white womans body twist that happens in the film which was way weirder) than the whitewashing incident. 

Yes but the people complaining about this are the same ones that say whites are racist for making a big deal out of a minority playing a white character. They reason with: "As long as the character still has the same personality, why should you care what race they are?" But then they use this reasoning against any whites who say white-washing isn't a big deal. Make the choice - is race important or not? Is a character's visual appearance only paramount when it is a non-white character? Is the role of a non-white character strictly off-limits to white actors and vice versa? Is it sometimes valid to change a white character's race for whatever reason? This questions need to be ironed out because when it comes to casting choices, minorities seem to put forward real double standards if there's any race changing. It's either bad or it's not, but you can't say it's ok for one and not the other.

[Edonis 28,950]

1 minute ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Yes but the people complaining about this are the same ones that say whites are racist for making a big deal out of a minority playing a white character. They reason with: "As long as the character still has the same personality, why should you care what race they are?" But then they use this reasoning against any whites who say white-washing isn't a big deal. Make the choice - is race important or not? Is a character's visual appearance only paramount when it is a non-white character? Is the role of a non-white character strictly off-limits to white actors and vice versa? Is it sometimes valid to change a white character's race for whatever reason? This questions need to be ironed out because when it comes to casting choices, minorities seem to put forward real double standards if there's any race changing. It's either bad or it's not, but you can't say it's ok for one and not the other.

Well, there are a lot of layers to these kinds of questions and I certainly don't have all of the answers, however, in the case of GitS most of the people who were complaining were fans of the original work. GitS isn't a mainstream work, it's not a household name, so it's not fair to kind of generalize everyone who had an issue with the initial casting concept as those who jump on any race issue in films (though I will admit, there were some people who did bandwagon on the hate: these people were not fans).

Like I said, the big issue initially was that ScarJo would be playing a Japanese woman named Motoko Kusanagi who lived in Japan. It was only recently where staff mentioned that they changed her name (I think it was Mira? I'm not sure. That movie was a blur) and changed the story to a dystopian futuristic Asian city or whatever, probably in response to the negative reception from foreign fans. 

You posed a lot of questions that do have a significant impact in Hollywood casting and things that directors and movie companies should question when adapting films, etc. I would make the general rule that if one is adapting a foreign work into an Americanized piece, it would be wise to either 1) keep the races of the original work or 2) Go all out and Americanize the film. Don't have the character still be a Japanese person but played by a white actress. That's just weird and unnecessary imo. (And don't go the route that this movie went where you tackle the race issue by making the major a Japanese woman trapped in an white androids body. That's equally bizarre and proven to be uncomfortable to some viewers.) 

All in all, I don't even get why this film was picked to be live action adapted. The original work is a metaphor for the Japanese philosophy regarding human transcendence masked as a cyberpunk action film. It wasn't necessary to dumb it down so it appeals to the mass consumerism that is Hollywood. GitS is way too complicated and the reviews of the movie's plot showed. Just pick a different anime or manga instead. 

[StrawberryBlond 14,884]

1 hour ago, Edonis said:

Well, there are a lot of layers to these kinds of questions and I certainly don't have all of the answers, however, in the case of GitS most of the people who were complaining were fans of the original work. GitS isn't a mainstream work, it's not a household name, so it's not fair to kind of generalize everyone who had an issue with the initial casting concept as those who jump on any race issue in films (though I will admit, there were some people who did bandwagon on the hate: these people were not fans).

Like I said, the big issue initially was that ScarJo would be playing a Japanese woman named Motoko Kusanagi who lived in Japan. It was only recently where staff mentioned that they changed her name (I think it was Mira? I'm not sure. That movie was a blur) and changed the story to a dystopian futuristic Asian city or whatever, probably in response to the negative reception from foreign fans. 

You posed a lot of questions that do have a significant impact in Hollywood casting and things that directors and movie companies should question when adapting films, etc. I would make the general rule that if one is adapting a foreign work into an Americanized piece, it would be wise to either 1) keep the races of the original work or 2) Go all out and Americanize the film. Don't have the character still be a Japanese person but played by a white actress. That's just weird and unnecessary imo. (And don't go the route that this movie went where you tackle the race issue by making the major a Japanese woman trapped in an white androids body. That's equally bizarre and proven to be uncomfortable to some viewers.) 

All in all, I don't even get why this film was picked to be live action adapted. The original work is a metaphor for the Japanese philosophy regarding human transcendence masked as a cyberpunk action film. It wasn't necessary to dumb it down so it appeals to the mass consumerism that is Hollywood. GitS is way too complicated and the reviews of the movie's plot showed. Just pick a different anime or manga instead. 

Does it really matter if they were fans or not, though? I don't think being annoyed at racial casting is a piece of offence that can only be felt by fans.

Again, how is that any different from a white character being played by a black actor but maintaining their traditionally white name (and potentially, historic era)? Again, why is it bad for one, but not the other?

Your ideas are fine, but note that you are only speaking about this happening to non-whites. What would your reaction be to a white character being played by an Asian actor? Would the same rules still apply?

[Edonis 28,950]

18 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Does it really matter if they were fans or not, though? I don't think being annoyed at racial casting is a piece of offence that can only be felt by fans.

Again, how is that any different from a white character being played by a black actor but maintaining their traditionally white name (and potentially, historic era)? Again, why is it bad for one, but not the other?

Your ideas are fine, but note that you are only speaking about this happening to non-whites. What would your reaction be to a white character being played by an Asian actor? Would the same rules still apply?

Yes it does matter, in this case, that it were fans. Fans hold their favorite works closer to heart than just casual people who are upset about social injustices. There is a difference. 

So casting non-white actors for a "White role" really depends on the situation and context. And I should add that casting a white person for a nonwhite role is also specific to context. If the character's racial identity is specified for a reason (like Black Panther, the superhero, who is black because his storyline is very much integral to his blackness) then it should not be changed. This is applicable to white roles who are white for a specific reason according to the creator. I personally am not fond of when scenarios like that are changed for the sake of racial diversity, etc. It's unnecessary and ruins the point of the character, etc. 

As for names, in North America and parts of the the U.K., there aren't very many specific names given to just white people. That's due to assimilation of cultures, years and years of racial integration into societies, etc. In Europe, this is a different story. And there are instances where it is an issue when a "white role" is played by  a nonwhite actor. 

There is a movie called "The Promise" currently in the stages of being released in theaters. It's about the Armenian war and one of the characters who is supposed to be Armenian (considered racially white) is played by a Hispanic actor. This has caused controversy amongst Armenians (and Middle Eastern and North African people who often experience this type of casting for roles of characters who originate from MENA nations). This is an example where casting a POC in a nonPOC role is ignorant and unnecessary and disastrous to the cultural context of the character and film. Further examples include films that take place in the Middle East or North Africa where characters are MENA people but are routinely played by Anglo Saxon, black, Pakistani/South East Asian, or Hispanic actors/actresses. The same rules should apply to those situations as do the rules in Ghost in the Shell. 

Racial casting is obviously very complex and should be considered carefully. Unfortunately it isn't and most Hollywood film companies don't care. 

[StrawberryBlond 14,884]

28 minutes ago, Edonis said:

Yes it does matter, in this case, that it were fans. Fans hold their favorite works closer to heart than just casual people who are upset about social injustices. There is a difference. 

So casting non-white actors for a "White role" really depends on the situation and context. And I should add that casting a white person for a nonwhite role is also specific to context. If the character's racial identity is specified for a reason (like Black Panther, the superhero, who is black because his storyline is very much integral to his blackness) then it should not be changed. This is applicable to white roles who are white for a specific reason according to the creator. I personally am not fond of when scenarios like that are changed for the sake of racial diversity, etc. It's unnecessary and ruins the point of the character, etc. 

As for names, in North America and parts of the the U.K., there aren't very many specific names given to just white people. That's due to assimilation of cultures, years and years of racial integration into societies, etc. In Europe, this is a different story. And there are instances where it is an issue when a "white role" is played by  a nonwhite actor. 

There is a movie called "The Promise" currently in the stages of being released in theaters. It's about the Armenian war and one of the characters who is supposed to be Armenian (considered racially white) is played by a Hispanic actor. This has caused controversy amongst Armenians (and Middle Eastern and North African people who often experience this type of casting for roles of characters who originate from MENA nations). This is an example where casting a POC in a nonPOC role is ignorant and unnecessary and disastrous to the cultural context of the character and film. Further examples include films that take place in the Middle East or North Africa where characters are MENA people but are routinely played by Anglo Saxon, black, Pakistani/South East Asian, or Hispanic actors/actresses. The same rules should apply to those situations as do the rules in Ghost in the Shell. 

Racial casting is obviously very complex and should be considered carefully. Unfortunately it isn't and most Hollywood film companies don't care. 

It's still the same reasoning at the end of the day, though. Different intentions but the same point.

Yes, it's harder and harder to find names that are 100% specific to certain races in certain parts of the world now. I mean, I'm white and called Rachel but as I've found, Rachel, particularly my spelling of it, is a very popular name in the black community. But usually, surname changes things a little. In the UK, it's quite common to encounter black people with African based surnames, even if their first name is Westernised. This isn't quite as common in America, although names like Carter, Williams and Johnson are very common in the black community (again, in the UK, the exact opposite is true, Carter excluded). If there's been a mixed race union, racialised full names are less common, but you can sometimes tell race alone based on name. Certainly, the time period that the movie occurs in can ensure what race someone can be based on their name. A black American from the 1920's would not have a name resembling a black American in this day and age.

Indeed, if the role involves someone being a specific race, that is very important to keep the same. But why must a white person only remain white if they are white "for a specific reason"? What if they're just...described as white? No reason, just a description. Is that not a good enough validation to keep it that way? Especially if it's a true story we're dealing with. If someone made a story of my life, I would want everyone's race to remain intact. I know, "based" on a true story, but if you can't even get the race right, then what else does that leave open for you to change? By the way, could you give me examples of instances where it was an issue when a minority played a white role?

Thing is, I'm sure it must be quite hard to find Armenians to cast in film in America. You have to consider demographics. And not all Armenians living in America will be interested in trying out for a role in a film. Funnily enough, I remember a Greek comedian once said that she tried out for a role of a slave girl in Troy and she was told by the casting agents that she was too fair to be Greek. And she was all: "I'm the only Greek in this room! And Brad Pitt's playing the role of Achilles anyway!" In the end, an Armenian girl got the role. So, there is all-round bias in the casting room, for all races and ethnicities. I'm Scottish and frequently have to see Scottish roles being played by English and Irish actors or sometimes American, like Mel Gibson as William Wallace and Johnny Depp as JM Barrie. Less Scottish actors to choose from, names aren't A-list, etc. I understand it perfectly and am fine with it. I only get annoyed when their accent is terrible.

[Rock Jock 993]

Visuals were awesome. That's it

 

[Edonis 28,950]

1 hour ago, StrawberryBlond said:

It's still the same reasoning at the end of the day, though. Different intentions but the same point.

Yes, it's harder and harder to find names that are 100% specific to certain races in certain parts of the world now. I mean, I'm white and called Rachel but as I've found, Rachel, particularly my spelling of it, is a very popular name in the black community. But usually, surname changes things a little. In the UK, it's quite common to encounter black people with African based surnames, even if their first name is Westernised. This isn't quite as common in America, although names like Carter, Williams and Johnson are very common in the black community (again, in the UK, the exact opposite is true, Carter excluded). If there's been a mixed race union, racialised full names are less common, but you can sometimes tell race alone based on name. Certainly, the time period that the movie occurs in can ensure what race someone can be based on their name. A black American from the 1920's would not have a name resembling a black American in this day and age.

Indeed, if the role involves someone being a specific race, that is very important to keep the same. But why must a white person only remain white if they are white "for a specific reason"? What if they're just...described as white? No reason, just a description. Is that not a good enough validation to keep it that way? Especially if it's a true story we're dealing with. If someone made a story of my life, I would want everyone's race to remain intact. I know, "based" on a true story, but if you can't even get the race right, then what else does that leave open for you to change? By the way, could you give me examples of instances where it was an issue when a minority played a white role?

Thing is, I'm sure it must be quite hard to find Armenians to cast in film in America. You have to consider demographics. And not all Armenians living in America will be interested in trying out for a role in a film. Funnily enough, I remember a Greek comedian once said that she tried out for a role of a slave girl in Troy and she was told by the casting agents that she was too fair to be Greek. And she was all: "I'm the only Greek in this room! And Brad Pitt's playing the role of Achilles anyway!" In the end, an Armenian girl got the role. So, there is all-round bias in the casting room, for all races and ethnicities. I'm Scottish and frequently have to see Scottish roles being played by English and Irish actors or sometimes American, like Mel Gibson as William Wallace and Johnny Depp as JM Barrie. Less Scottish actors to choose from, names aren't A-list, etc. I understand it perfectly and am fine with it. I only get annoyed when their accent is terrible.

I agree about the namesake stuff. As for the "what if it were a white character turned into a different race", I said previously, if it were a character who is portrayed by a different race and it no way affects the film's plot line it shouldn't really matter. It goes for any race or minority group imo: white, back, Latino, etc. It only really matters to the author or source material if the race is important for the context of the story or inclusion of whatever the author or creator intended, hence why it's often specified. 

The Armenian example is an example of a POC playing a white character and causing outcry in the Armenian community. And in cases where a film is a historical drama, historical accuracy should be kept to the highest standard. They should've cast or held a casting call for Armenian actors and actresses rather than just go the other route of picking a Hispanic person because their skin color could be seen as similar. The film was a multinational effort; you can find people of at least armenian decent. And the worst part is, the accents, the pseudo-Armenian language, all of it is historically and culturally wrong  It's a bad decision. 

[StrawberryBlond 14,884]

19 hours ago, Edonis said:

I agree about the namesake stuff. As for the "what if it were a white character turned into a different race", I said previously, if it were a character who is portrayed by a different race and it no way affects the film's plot line it shouldn't really matter. It goes for any race or minority group imo: white, back, Latino, etc. It only really matters to the author or source material if the race is important for the context of the story or inclusion of whatever the author or creator intended, hence why it's often specified. 

The Armenian example is an example of a POC playing a white character and causing outcry in the Armenian community. And in cases where a film is a historical drama, historical accuracy should be kept to the highest standard. They should've cast or held a casting call for Armenian actors and actresses rather than just go the other route of picking a Hispanic person because their skin color could be seen as similar. The film was a multinational effort; you can find people of at least armenian decent. And the worst part is, the accents, the pseudo-Armenian language, all of it is historically and culturally wrong  It's a bad decision. 

Yes, it ultimately only matters if the race was an integral part of the story. But if it is a really long-running series with a big fanbase and there's been visual representations of the characters before, changing the race is really bad form, regardless of acting ability or bankability. When Harry Potter fans think of Hermione Granger, they unquestionably envision a white girl, namely, Emma Watson. Even before the movies, Hermione was visually represented in art before and she was white and clearly, JK Rowling had a say in how she looked, as she did in the movie casting. Therefore, fans had built up a relationship with this character and had solid ideas about her appearance, meaning that to see her represented as someone completely different would result in disconnect. Choosing to make a black woman play her as an adult in a stage adaption, regardless of acting ability, was a clear attempt at diversity casting and to start a conversation, nothing more. Sure, the acting ability reasoning is sound but when there's obviously an abundance of white actors to choose from, you really want me to believe that none of them could act as good? Whatever your intention is, be honest, don't try to BS people and insult their intelligence. The only thing is, that isn't fair on the diversity-cast actors to tell them that they are there as a token, essentially. But that's a problem in itself. Tokenism should be discouraged. Unless your movie's about race, there's no need to be worried about creating a racially diverse cast. We need to start looking at people as people, not the race they are or what groups they represent and if this group is over/under represented. Personally, if I wrote original film ideas, I wouldn't have any racial requirements unless there was a specific racial reason behind it and the roles would be open to all. I want to write people, not races or stereotypes.

But as I said, how is a non-Armenian playing an Armenian character any different from anyone else playing a role of someone from the country they're not originally from? As long as they visually look like someone from that culture, what's the problem? My Big Fat Greek Wedding had quite a varied cast, not all of them Greek or Greek American. The woman who played the mother was of Russian Jewish descent, the aunt was Turkish/Armenian descent (with a really extensive family tree) and the cousins were Italian American and Greek Australian. Probably more diversity that I'm unsure of. I don't remember anyone being up in arms about that, probably because all these people looked Greek regardless of their real ethnicity, so what was the problem? Thing is, if your race is quite ambiguous, should you be allowed to play different races and ethnicities? I mean, I've seen white people that I thought were Hispanic (though I consider white Hispanics to be just as white as white people, I see it more of an ethnicity), Greeks who I thought were middle eastern, Hispanics who I thought were black, Native Americans who I thought were white and Hispanics with blonde hair and blue eyes. Hell, before I knew about the part Armenian parentage of the Kardashian sisters back in the day, I assumed they were all part-black. I've heard the phrase: "Who can tell what race anyone is these days?" more than once in my time. And it's quite true. As racial mixing has expanded, people are becoming more and more diverse in their appearance to the point where you sometimes have to ask or find out from someone else to be absolutely sure in case you assume something that unintentionally offends.

[Edonis 28,950]

7 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Yes, it ultimately only matters if the race was an integral part of the story. But if it is a really long-running series with a big fanbase and there's been visual representations of the characters before, changing the race is really bad form, regardless of acting ability or bankability. When Harry Potter fans think of Hermione Granger, they unquestionably envision a white girl, namely, Emma Watson. Even before the movies, Hermione was visually represented in art before and she was white and clearly, JK Rowling had a say in how she looked, as she did in the movie casting. Therefore, fans had built up a relationship with this character and had solid ideas about her appearance, meaning that to see her represented as someone completely different would result in disconnect. Choosing to make a black woman play her as an adult in a stage adaption, regardless of acting ability, was a clear attempt at diversity casting and to start a conversation, nothing more. Sure, the acting ability reasoning is sound but when there's obviously an abundance of white actors to choose from, you really want me to believe that none of them could act as good? Whatever your intention is, be honest, don't try to BS people and insult their intelligence. The only thing is, that isn't fair on the diversity-cast actors to tell them that they are there as a token, essentially. But that's a problem in itself. Tokenism should be discouraged. Unless your movie's about race, there's no need to be worried about creating a racially diverse cast. We need to start looking at people as people, not the race they are or what groups they represent and if this group is over/under represented. Personally, if I wrote original film ideas, I wouldn't have any racial requirements unless there was a specific racial reason behind it and the roles would be open to all. I want to write people, not races or stereotypes.

But as I said, how is a non-Armenian playing an Armenian character any different from anyone else playing a role of someone from the country they're not originally from? As long as they visually look like someone from that culture, what's the problem? My Big Fat Greek Wedding had quite a varied cast, not all of them Greek or Greek American. The woman who played the mother was of Russian Jewish descent, the aunt was Turkish/Armenian descent (with a really extensive family tree) and the cousins were Italian American and Greek Australian. Probably more diversity that I'm unsure of. I don't remember anyone being up in arms about that, probably because all these people looked Greek regardless of their real ethnicity, so what was the problem? Thing is, if your race is quite ambiguous, should you be allowed to play different races and ethnicities? I mean, I've seen white people that I thought were Hispanic (though I consider white Hispanics to be just as white as white people, I see it more of an ethnicity), Greeks who I thought were middle eastern, Hispanics who I thought were black, Native Americans who I thought were white and Hispanics with blonde hair and blue eyes. Hell, before I knew about the part Armenian parentage of the Kardashian sisters back in the day, I assumed they were all part-black. I've heard the phrase: "Who can tell what race anyone is these days?" more than once in my time. And it's quite true. As racial mixing has expanded, people are becoming more and more diverse in their appearance to the point where you sometimes have to ask or find out from someone else to be absolutely sure in case you assume something that unintentionally offends.

I agree with source material. Unless it's a piece that requires the mention of a race for a specific character, blind writing and casting should be done. I know that shows like Grey's Anatomy (even though that show is a mess) did happen to do blind casting for most of the earlier seasons. Instead of visual representations, actors who auditioned were given descriptions of the characters mannerisms and personality; which actually resulted in one of the most diverse shows on prime time TV at the time. 

I personally think it does matter when it comes to casting actors that match the race of the character in works that depend on that (like historic films, etc.) It allows for a sense of authenticity, provides a group of actors who normally are typecast or denied roles based on their skin color or ethnicity to take part in projects about their culture, as well as allows the audience to be exposed to a variety of cultures in a film. Thats basically it. There's a larger discussion that could and should be made regarding race and audience perception, the politics behind casting, and whether or not Hollywood should even cover some topics in film. It's an interesting discussion and I'm sure there's more to it that you could find online and in scholarly research. It's quite complex to say the least. 

[StrawberryBlond 14,884]

47 minutes ago, Edonis said:

I agree with source material. Unless it's a piece that requires the mention of a race for a specific character, blind writing and casting should be done. I know that shows like Grey's Anatomy (even though that show is a mess) did happen to do blind casting for most of the earlier seasons. Instead of visual representations, actors who auditioned were given descriptions of the characters mannerisms and personality; which actually resulted in one of the most diverse shows on prime time TV at the time. 

I personally think it does matter when it comes to casting actors that match the race of the character in works that depend on that (like historic films, etc.) It allows for a sense of authenticity, provides a group of actors who normally are typecast or denied roles based on their skin color or ethnicity to take part in projects about their culture, as well as allows the audience to be exposed to a variety of cultures in a film. Thats basically it. There's a larger discussion that could and should be made regarding race and audience perception, the politics behind casting, and whether or not Hollywood should even cover some topics in film. It's an interesting discussion and I'm sure there's more to it that you could find online and in scholarly research. It's quite complex to say the least. 

I've heard that Will Smith's casting for Independence Day was also the result of a role that had no race in mind. According to the director, he faced a lot of opposition for wanting to cast a black man in the leading role as well. I know this was a while back, when race relations weren't where they are now but even so, that's disgusting.

Only thing is, it's not like every audience member will actually research the nationality, race and ethnicity of every actor they see portrayed on film. They're just characters to them. As long as they look and sound like the type of person they're trying to be, the audience isn't going to think twice about how much of this person is real and fake. It's calling acting for a reason. The whole point of acting is pretending to be someone you're not and have it be as convincing as possible. I mean, where do you draw the line? Can married parents only play the roles of married parents? Can only real racists and homophobes play the roles of racists and homophobes? Can only genuine serial killers play the roles of serial killers? Extreme, I know, but you get my point. To what point is not just simply acting?

[The Fame Joanne 5,985]

But it's only running for 9 days now and already grossed more than its budget. If it runs a few more weeks, they should also gain the money for its promo back. How would they lose that much