I just found out last week that the movie 21 was really based on Asian students but Hollywood totally white-washed it and the movie still failed. My friend was explaining to me that their being Asian was actually an intergal part of their scheme. The movie still didn't make money so I'm tired of the usual bs Hollywood excuse that these movies won't do well if most of the cast are minorities.

TMS wrote:

bitty41 wrote:TMS,

I just found out last week that the movie 21 was really based on Asian students but Hollywood totally white-washed it and the movie still failed. My friend was explaining to me that their being Asian was actually an intergal part of their scheme. The movie still didn't make money so I'm tired of the usual bs Hollywood excuse that these movies won't do well if most of the cast are minorities.

i don't have a problem if the Director chooses to interpret the movie & change the plot around to incorporate white actors... that's artistic interpretation... lots of movies are re-made in other countries using native actors, both here in the US & in Asia... the movie "Departed" was originally a movie made in Asia but was reinterpreted in a Boston setting... no problem at all w/that stuff.

the problem i have is when you cast white actors wearing Inuit native gear growing up among other Inuit tribal members, but they're the only ones who can speak any English or have a speaking role... that's ridiculous IMO... the Asians in this movie were cast as either the primitive, illiterate & weak villagers living in straw & stone huts who got saved by the Avatar & his travelling posse of caucasian buddies, or as the evil villains in this movie (all of East Indian decent), while most of the speaking roles & the more advanced cultures were cast as caucasians speaking with an English accent... considering the fact that the director himself is of Asian descent, this is pretty surprising & highly disappointing that he wouldn't have shown a little more tact when casting these roles.

I think you misunderstood me 21 isn't based on a foreign film its based on real-life events. All the real-life characters from the movie 21 were Asian with the exception of Kate Bosworth's character. My point was that Hollywood probably casted an entirely white cast because they thought it would sell better than an all Asian cast. I find that offensive why even do a story on these individuals lives if your not even going to bother to represent them accurately. I think Hollywood is wrong on this front that casting certain ethnicities will lead to commercial failure. At one time the thought of casting black Americans was unheard of but now movie studios pay top dollar for Denzel Washington, Will Smith, and to a lesser degree Morgan Freeman/ Samuel Jackson' services. All these actors are very bankable and their movies have made billions. So I think it's more than possible that Asian actors could also become major draws at the box office in non stereotypical roles.

But I think you were speaking more of situations like Infernal Affairs vs the Departed. I have no problem with those types of remakes (though I don't understand why Hollywood has this compunction to remake foreign films). Movie remakes can work if they are done correctly. But book remakes/true-life event remakes is where I can see problems arising. Or in cases where it's blantant such as the Airbender or Prince of Persia. So for example if Hollywood co-opts a script from a foreign film about a middle-age woman in a romantic comedy. The Foreign film version casts a black women in the role; Hollywood remake casts Meryl Streep I don't have a problem with that for a couple of reasons: one the role was racially neutral meaning that the character's race has no real baring on the story line. Secondly I have no problem with Hollywood going with the best actress available in both critical acclaim and commercial success.

But Hollywood is stuck in this rutt where there is very little originality and risk-taking. I think casting white actors with no regard for whether it will truly bring forth the best artistic expression and accuracy to the script is just lazy and offensive.

And don't get me started on the so-called Historical films being made.

bitty41 wrote:

TMS wrote:

bitty41 wrote:TMS,

I just found out last week that the movie 21 was really based on Asian students but Hollywood totally white-washed it and the movie still failed. My friend was explaining to me that their being Asian was actually an intergal part of their scheme. The movie still didn't make money so I'm tired of the usual bs Hollywood excuse that these movies won't do well if most of the cast are minorities.

i don't have a problem if the Director chooses to interpret the movie & change the plot around to incorporate white actors... that's artistic interpretation... lots of movies are re-made in other countries using native actors, both here in the US & in Asia... the movie "Departed" was originally a movie made in Asia but was reinterpreted in a Boston setting... no problem at all w/that stuff.

the problem i have is when you cast white actors wearing Inuit native gear growing up among other Inuit tribal members, but they're the only ones who can speak any English or have a speaking role... that's ridiculous IMO... the Asians in this movie were cast as either the primitive, illiterate & weak villagers living in straw & stone huts who got saved by the Avatar & his travelling posse of caucasian buddies, or as the evil villains in this movie (all of East Indian decent), while most of the speaking roles & the more advanced cultures were cast as caucasians speaking with an English accent... considering the fact that the director himself is of Asian descent, this is pretty surprising & highly disappointing that he wouldn't have shown a little more tact when casting these roles.

I think you misunderstood me 21 isn't based on a foreign film its based on real-life events. All the real-life characters from the movie 21 were Asian with the exception of Kate Bosworth's character. My point was that Hollywood probably casted an entirely white cast because they thought it would sell better than an all Asian cast. I find that offensive why even do a story on these individuals lives if your not even going to bother to represent them accurately. I think Hollywood is wrong on this front that casting certain ethnicities will lead to commercial failure. At one time the thought of casting black Americans was unheard of but now movie studios pay top dollar for Denzel Washington, Will Smith, and to a lesser degree Morgan Freeman/ Samuel Jackson' services. All these actors are very bankable and their movies have made billions. So I think it's more than possible that Asian actors could also become major draws at the box office in non stereotypical roles.

But I think you were speaking more of situations like Infernal Affairs vs the Departed. I have no problem with those types of remakes (though I don't understand why Hollywood has this compunction to remake foreign films). Movie remakes can work if they are done correctly. But book remakes/true-life event remakes is where I can see problems arising. Or in cases where it's blantant such as the Airbender or Prince of Persia. So for example if Hollywood co-opts a script from a foreign film about a middle-age woman in a romantic comedy. The Foreign film version casts a black women in the role; Hollywood remake casts Meryl Streep I don't have a problem with that for a couple of reasons: one the role was racially neutral meaning that the character's race has no real baring on the story line. Secondly I have no problem with Hollywood going with the best actress available in both critical acclaim and commercial success.

But Hollywood is stuck in this rutt where there is very little originality and risk-taking. I think casting white actors with no regard for whether it will truly bring forth the best artistic expression and accuracy to the script is just lazy and offensive.

And don't get me started on the so-called Historical films being made.

bitty, i completely agree with you on all points & appreciate you bringing up these points in this discussion... i think everything you're saying is completely valid... i can't believe that there aren't any capable Asian actors out there that can fill these roles & fill them well, it's just the Hollywood studios that are scared to invest in a movie with an Asian lead just like they used to be scared off casting African American leads in their movies... if it weren't for actors like Sidney Portier, guys like Denzell would not be receiving critical acclaim now... here's a snippet from an article i read online about the African American actors history in this country:

http://black-legacy.webs.com/actorsmovies.htm

Hollywood was not interested in making Positive Image Movies about African-Americans -- they saw them as "risky" undertakings; therefore the major roles available to black actors were maids, walkons, butlers, servants, or comics.

The roles of African-Americans during the 1929's thru 1940's saw the rise of black actors seeking work but only receiving roles dealing with light comedy, music, or dance.

alot of this same pattern is occuring now with Asian actors... they can't get any roles outside of the typical martial artist or yakuza gangster stereotype... we need some more positive Asian representation in the movies that transcends the typical stereotypes & cookie cutter casting roles.

TMS wrote:

bitty41 wrote:

TMS wrote:

bitty41 wrote:TMS,

I just found out last week that the movie 21 was really based on Asian students but Hollywood totally white-washed it and the movie still failed. My friend was explaining to me that their being Asian was actually an intergal part of their scheme. The movie still didn't make money so I'm tired of the usual bs Hollywood excuse that these movies won't do well if most of the cast are minorities.

i don't have a problem if the Director chooses to interpret the movie & change the plot around to incorporate white actors... that's artistic interpretation... lots of movies are re-made in other countries using native actors, both here in the US & in Asia... the movie "Departed" was originally a movie made in Asia but was reinterpreted in a Boston setting... no problem at all w/that stuff.

the problem i have is when you cast white actors wearing Inuit native gear growing up among other Inuit tribal members, but they're the only ones who can speak any English or have a speaking role... that's ridiculous IMO... the Asians in this movie were cast as either the primitive, illiterate & weak villagers living in straw & stone huts who got saved by the Avatar & his travelling posse of caucasian buddies, or as the evil villains in this movie (all of East Indian decent), while most of the speaking roles & the more advanced cultures were cast as caucasians speaking with an English accent... considering the fact that the director himself is of Asian descent, this is pretty surprising & highly disappointing that he wouldn't have shown a little more tact when casting these roles.

I think you misunderstood me 21 isn't based on a foreign film its based on real-life events. All the real-life characters from the movie 21 were Asian with the exception of Kate Bosworth's character. My point was that Hollywood probably casted an entirely white cast because they thought it would sell better than an all Asian cast. I find that offensive why even do a story on these individuals lives if your not even going to bother to represent them accurately. I think Hollywood is wrong on this front that casting certain ethnicities will lead to commercial failure. At one time the thought of casting black Americans was unheard of but now movie studios pay top dollar for Denzel Washington, Will Smith, and to a lesser degree Morgan Freeman/ Samuel Jackson' services. All these actors are very bankable and their movies have made billions. So I think it's more than possible that Asian actors could also become major draws at the box office in non stereotypical roles.

But I think you were speaking more of situations like Infernal Affairs vs the Departed. I have no problem with those types of remakes (though I don't understand why Hollywood has this compunction to remake foreign films). Movie remakes can work if they are done correctly. But book remakes/true-life event remakes is where I can see problems arising. Or in cases where it's blantant such as the Airbender or Prince of Persia. So for example if Hollywood co-opts a script from a foreign film about a middle-age woman in a romantic comedy. The Foreign film version casts a black women in the role; Hollywood remake casts Meryl Streep I don't have a problem with that for a couple of reasons: one the role was racially neutral meaning that the character's race has no real baring on the story line. Secondly I have no problem with Hollywood going with the best actress available in both critical acclaim and commercial success.

But Hollywood is stuck in this rutt where there is very little originality and risk-taking. I think casting white actors with no regard for whether it will truly bring forth the best artistic expression and accuracy to the script is just lazy and offensive.

And don't get me started on the so-called Historical films being made.

bitty, i completely agree with you on all points & appreciate you bringing up these points in this discussion... i think everything you're saying is completely valid... i can't believe that there aren't any capable Asian actors out there that can fill these roles & fill them well, it's just the Hollywood studios that are scared to invest in a movie with an Asian lead just like they used to be scared off casting African American leads in their movies... if it weren't for actors like Sidney Portier, guys like Denzell would not be receiving critical acclaim now... here's a snippet from an article i read online about the African American actors history in this country:

http://black-legacy.webs.com/actorsmovies.htm

Hollywood was not interested in making Positive Image Movies about African-Americans -- they saw them as "risky" undertakings; therefore the major roles available to black actors were maids, walkons, butlers, servants, or comics.

The roles of African-Americans during the 1929's thru 1940's saw the rise of black actors seeking work but only receiving roles dealing with light comedy, music, or dance.

alot of this same pattern is occuring now with Asian actors... they can't get any roles outside of the typical martial artist or yakuza gangster stereotype... we need some more positive Asian representation in the movies that transcends the typical stereotypes & cookie cutter casting roles.

It's really unfortunate that Hollywood will not make this leap and cast an Asian lead in a non-traditional role. Because there are some incredibly talented, attractive, actors/actresses who I think have the ability to make the cross-over appeal.

Do Non Gay men want to see Gay leading men? Is it wrong to not want to see that in a movie? Gay men want to see Gay leading roles or Gay men playing non gay rols?

If a Gay actor is portraying a non gay character is that wrong?

I'd like to see more diversity also and being one who does not go to many movies but rents a lot of indie movies or lower buget films I see a lot more diversity and risk taking.

Superhero movies are retro based on comic charactors so Other than "hancock" and "men in black" we don't get too many.

Most movies are crap anyway. My take is big money films are not the proving grounds. Its about return on investment.

If an all Asian remake of Mary Poppins could make money, Hollywood be on it in a minute!

bitty41 wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:Yeah, it's inexplicable that there is an all white cast for that movie. Another reason to boycott the movie. I was going to boycott it originally because M. Night hasn't made a decent movie since 6th sense and it's gotten worse and worse.

^THIS how this guy still gets his scripts green-lighted is beyond me. All of his movies are complete failures and I've given chance after chance but every movie of his I've walked away disappointed except 6th sense and Signs (which was tolerable).

Nalod wrote:T, so basically you think hollywood influence's the public perception and I tend to think its the other way around.

Cool. Not sure if there is a right or wrong here.

My real point it its not balls to make a social statement but the balls to win financially. If you look at how movies are financed its not in most budgets to have a loss leader to make a statement.

Smaller indie films really do this and when the tempeture there dictates a larger investment then hollywood steps it and puts both its balls and money on the table.

I think for the most part most ethnic groups are treated stereoptypically in mainstreem movies. Its stupid I agree. But reality is really boring in a two hour movie. Fantasy sells.

Get a netflix subscription and get the streaming instant acess. Many small movies and foriegn ones. Some suck, some are great. I think they do a much better job.

Remember, the general public is really stupid. They won't eat asian food cuz they think its cat, or fear Curry in Indian food cuz they never had it, etc etc.

Yeah, its getting better but don't forget Sara Palin still has many followers. Populist ranting sells. Fear sells, ignorance is comfortable.

People go to movies to escape reality not engage in cutural experiences.

i think it works both ways... the ignorant public carries their own misperceptions of minorities around with them & those misperceptions of minorities are then fed & nurtured by what they see in the media (Hollywood, television, radio shock jocks, popular advertising, etc.)... we are bombarded by images of dominant white males taking lead roles in this society... we are fed the notion that the image of the successful good guy = attractive, intelligent & capable white males from our childhood to now, that that is the role model we should all aspire to... the only exception to this that i can point to lies in athletic sports, where players of multiple nationalities & races are able to cast a positive role model for youth to want to emulate.

you're right about Indie films being better at taking risks because they are based on smaller budgets... & economics does drive casting decisions in some respects, i acknowledge that, but until someone takes the step to break the chain of spreading ignorance in this country, it will continue to linger... like i pointed out with the African American example earlier, the same can hold true with Asian American actors getting better roles, but that won't happen if Hollywood continues to stick to the same old stereotypical casting... someone's gotta take the first step... boycotting movies like Airbender may seem trivial to some, but doing so may in some small way send that message to the Hollywood casting directors that this type of continued stereotyping in films is unacceptable by hitting them in their pockets.

Nalod wrote:Its offensive to portray ethnic groups in stereotype images but its done with many. Jews, Arabs, French, etc are all extreme. Its the Movies!

Really, why? I don't get that.

If my people's culture involved loving foods and a movie portrayed that stereotype, I am not offended. I am proud that they got it kinda right.

I don't get this "stereotypes are always wrong" line of reasoning.

Is is just bad stereotypes? or am i missing something.

martin wrote:

Nalod wrote:Its offensive to portray ethnic groups in stereotype images but its done with many. Jews, Arabs, French, etc are all extreme. Its the Movies!

Really, why? I don't get that.

If my people's culture involved loving foods and a movie portrayed that stereotype, I am not offended. I am proud that they got it kinda right.

I don't get this "stereotypes are always wrong" line of reasoning.

Is is just bad stereotypes? or am i missing something.

*sigh*

Yes you are missing something a very big something. Stereotypes in most cases are inaccurate when describing cultures, ethnic groups, races. If you used stereotypes from the media to view a certain ethnic group I would go around being very ignorant and probably very prejudice. For example the entertainment routinely portrays people of Middle Eastern descent as terrorists and Islamic religious zealots. You think this is a good stereotype you think this is remotely accurate or fair for people of Middle Eastern descent to be viewed this way. You don't think the stereotype of the illegal alien/drug cartel isn't hurtful to Latino Americans? I could do this all night about hurtful stereotypes and even the benign ones again they are still a detriment to communities because than we all become boxed into one viewpoint.

At this point Americans should really be doing better than this we have one of the most diverse countries in the world and have been for awhile yet we still don't get it about stereotypes.