7 hours ago, Vestij Jai Galaar said:

THIS is exactly what I did NOT want to see from Disney!

Same here, but it is exactly what I expected them to do.

The best part is that every new movie and show is going to establish new realities and make subtle changes to old realities which will lead to all kinds of wonderful and civil discussions on this very forum about what is and isn't proper canon.

Yay.

The Lucasfilm story group seem to be doing a pretty good job of keeping the canon consistent so far; there's been no jarring canon contradictions since Disney took the wheel. The approach they're taking seems much more healthy for a cohesive canon than Lucas' approach ever was.

I mean, I'm sure some cracks will start to show eventually but so far they're doing a pretty admirable job.

8 hours ago, the mercenary said:

Uh, no. Lando was just Lando. There was no big deal made of him being black. He wasn't shoehorned in. There was no previous books, comics, movies, etc, where he was anything other than a black man, and then suddenly BAM, now he's the Equal Opportunity hire. Unlike....ugh, which comic book movie was it? It was a hero type character, which was reason enough not to see it. Not Green Lantern, though it was something similar. Something that surprises me the comic is still around, and even more surprising that a movie was made. Ah well, it's not important.

I wish I could remember the movie that makes me think of this kind of thing. There's been a few where a character was, for example, gay just because GAY. It had nothing to do with the story, it didn't advance the plot, nothing. It was just because reasons. If some certain aspect of a character is only there for the sake of political correctness, and it doesn't do anything for the plot, then what's the point of throwing it in there?

The Boondock Saints did an excellent job with Agent Smecker being gay. He played it up, he surprised the audience when he called other gay men derogatory names, and he dressed in drag to go to Papa Joe's house and save the McManus brothers from the trap that the mob had laid for them. And Willem DaFoe did an excellent job in the role.

I hear you. I feel like you're talking about the 2015 Fantastic Four movie, where they made the Human Torch black. Of course, that's not a great example for something that damaged a film. Breaking a porthole window isn't going to make a difference on the Titanic.

I've seen people (not just Cracked) bring up that we only complain about race swaps/tokenism when the movie is bad. Yes, Michael Duncan Clark playing Kingpin was problematic, but so was the whole movie. Nick Fury becoming black wasn't such an issue, if only because the Ultimate line rocked and so did the Avengers film. I'm not seeing many complaints about Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie either. Personally, I think that making a good film excuses a lot of sins, but also avoids more. Race swaps are problematic, but when you've cast a solid performer for a part and don't let it drive the story, then it works. If you cast Jackson because he rocks, and not because he's black, then what's the problem? Which I think is your point.

Billie Dee Williams was the perfect actor for Lando. Smooth talker, air of bad-boy-gone-good, rocked a cape, not many actors could have pulled it off. Not tokenism there. Now, if Lando wore an afro, buttoned his shirt down and spoke heavy jive, then that would have been tokenism. Fortunately, Star Wars seems to only bother with tokenism when they want racist-caricature aliens.

Another example of a gay character that works without being tokenism, by the way: the captain from Brooklyn Nine Nine.

3 hours ago, Genuine said:

I hear you. I feel like you're talking about the 2015 Fantastic Four movie, where they made the Human Torch black. Of course, that's not a great example for something that damaged a film. Breaking a porthole window isn't going to make a difference on the Titanic.

In what way is having a black actor playing a new interpretation of a character in a new medium worse than having a white actor play that new interpretation of a character in a new medium?

I thought they changed the wrong person.

If you want make a point about diversity how about casting Michael Jordan as Reed Richards?!

Jamie Bell as Johnny Storm with the guy who played Reed playing Ben Grimm instead, would that have worked better?

Now as for the new trilogy can they do better without relying rehashing either the other movies or misusing the no longer canon EU?

The Thrawn trilogy would have been nice but without the big three?

5 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

In what way is having a black actor playing a new interpretation of a character in a new medium worse than having a white actor play that new interpretation of a character in a new medium?

You left out an adjective: A black actor poorly playing a new interpretation of a character in a new medium is worse than...

Obviously there is a lot of subjective factors make up whether a performance is good or bad - race is one of them. Changing it for tokenism, or to add elements wholly foreign to the core story, or in a blatant attempt to attract a new audience generally are poor reasons. Not a movie, but Sarah Palin's inclusion in McCain's presidential run is a great example of all three things. "Look, we appreciate women!" "Look, now we have folksy ignorance in our official campaign platform!" "Maybe women will vote for me now!"

The last F4 movie is a bad example of this, mostly because nearly everything about that movie was bad. It's really hard to tell whether the Human Torch was stupid because of racial casting, or because of writing/directing/acting/chemistry/holy-crap-i've-blocked-out-a-lot-of-bad-about-this-movie. Tokenism alone is difficult to identify - without sitting in on discussions between directors, writers, producers, etc., it's hard to know whether Finn, for example, is black because black , or because they thought John Boyega is awesome.

There's nothing inherently wrong with casting a new race for a character. Think of it like giving someone a romantic interest; there's nothing wrong with that. But if it's foreign to the core story and executed poorly, don't complain if you get roasted over it. Imagine, for a moment, that someone wanted to remake the Professional. Because Hollywood. Lets say they decide to give Leon a long-distance girlfriend, someone he's looking forward to retiring with, and who gives him advice about his adopted cleaner. It could be a fun add to the story. It could also be a disaster. And you'd better believe that if it is a disaster, people are going to point out the romance as a cause. Same deal if they made Leon in a black Libyan immigrant.

Intent is difficult to read, so we mostly have to rely on execution.

Disney will milk this brand for every penny, but I doubt the product will be recognizable to old dogs like me Star Wars without Skywalkers will be like the Beatles without John Lennon

3 hours ago, Genuine said:

Obviously there is a lot of subjective factors make up whether a performance is good or bad - race is one of them.

I don't see how the actor's race would affect the quality of his performance. Can you elaborate?

Quote

Changing it for tokenism, or to add elements wholly foreign to the core story, or in a blatant attempt to attract a new audience generally are poor reasons.

Funny how these special considerations only apply to actors who aren't white heterosexuals.

Quote

it's hard to know whether Finn, for example, is black because black

What does this even mean?

23 hours ago, copperbell said:

How would you react if they retcon the end of Rogue One revealing Jyn & Cassian survived because what you saw was Jyn dreaming after both passed out in that elevator?

Since it's a reinforced Imperial Facility a safety override sent the elevator into the subterranean part of the facility protected from the Death Star blast should be reasonable and with Vader chasing the Tantive IV and Tarkin thoroughly checking out his new toy it wouldn't stretch much that they escape using an Imperial shuttle during the subsequent chaos going on outside.

How would you feel if Jyn turns up in that new trilogy?

Terrible, the actress was not very good and every subsequent time I’ve tried to rewatch the movie her inability to convey with the character and make me feel a connection to her rather than her just being the actor reading lines made it impossible.

16 minutes ago, Norr-Saba said:

Terrible, the actress was not very good and every subsequent time I’ve tried to rewatch the movie her inability to convey with the character and make me feel a connection to her rather than her just being the actor reading lines made it impossible.

From what I've read about the way her character shifted during reshoots and editing, I wouldn't blame the actress for that. I think she was asked to play one thing, and then marketing people decided to twist her performance into something else.

35 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

I don't see how the actor's race would affect the quality of his performance. Can you elaborate?

Funny how these special considerations only apply to actors who aren't white heterosexuals.

What does this even mean?

One of the postulates here is that blackface (or yellowface, or whitewashing) is bad in general. Not gonna get into, and will ignore any discussion on that point to avoid further derailment.

Now, a race doesn't affect the quality of the actor's performance, but it can affect the quality the portrayal and the show. If you bring in a blaxploitation Shaft-type character into a sci-fi film it will cheapen the quality of the entire show. He might be the most perfect afro-tastic Shaft ever, but it's utterly irrelevant and distracting to most serious drama. Same goes for lumberjack lesbians and flaming over-sexed gay guys. Compare, please, how Billy Dean plays Lando, to Mike Colter's Luke Cage, to the token black friend in nearly any teen rom-com from the nineties (10 things I Hate About You and She's All That come to mind).

This is admittedly subjective, but Billy Dean's race is utterly irrelevant to his character, and I'd argue that making Lando more 'black' would have damaged the movie. Luke Cage needed to be black: that culture/race is central to the character and plot. Having him played by a white guy would have hurt it badly. Those random black friends did nothing, and never served as more than an unchanging foil for the main characters, or maybe a one-liner or two.

A tl/dr: It's not the race that affects the performance, it's the portrayal and use of race that affects the performance. I'm not usually going to blame an actor for this, it's really on the director, writers, and producers.

Second question: This doesn't apply to white heterosexuals. First, it really does: if you tried to play Luke Cage, or Blade, or Nelson Mandela, or Genghis Khan, you'd better believe there'd be complaints and outcry. Second, people don't worry about tokenism for white hetero folk because they're already well represented, over represented. Sure, you gotta worry about not over correcting, but the dominant group doesn't need to worry about being represented.

Third question: What do I even mean by referring to Finn as possible tokenism? I was referring people complaining that Finn was only played by a black guy because 'black.' But there was no real stereotyping involved, no heavily 'black' mannerisms, and his performance was a solid as anyone else's in TFA. So who knows? It could be a matter of tokenism, producers insisting on a black actor to try and get more seats in the theater, but who knows?

27 minutes ago, Genuine said:

A tl/dr: It's not the race that affects the performance, it's the portrayal and use of race that affects the performance. I'm not usually going to blame an actor for this, it's really on the director, writers, and producers.

I can agree with that. The original complaint here was about the mere presence of a black or gay actor in a Star Wars movie being tokenism, as if people of color or LGBT people needed an extra super special reason to be allowed on film.

27 minutes ago, Genuine said:

Second question: This doesn't apply to white heterosexuals. First, it really does: if you tried to play Luke Cage, or Blade, or Nelson Mandela, or Genghis Khan, you'd better believe there'd be complaints and outcry. Second, people don't worry about tokenism for white hetero folk because they're already well represented, over represented. Sure, you gotta worry about not over correcting, but the dominant group doesn't need to worry about being represented.

Your second point is saying that in practice it doesn't apply to white straight people, though. And the first is kind of irrelevant, because there are already so many more roles for white actors that their choices aren't noticeably limited by the presence of a few non-white roles.

27 minutes ago, Genuine said:

Third question: What do I even mean by referring to Finn as possible tokenism? I was referring people complaining that Finn was only played by a black guy because 'black.'

I mean, what does this even mean: because 'black'?

The big problem I had with the choice of actor who played Johnny Storm being black was because his sister was white . That just doesn't happen, particularly if they are blood siblings as Johhny and Susan Storm are. They needed to have actors playing both siblings be either both black or both white, not one of each.

I think the problem with changing beloved character's gender/race/orientation in any IP is that there are fans who have constructed a universe in their minds with the information they were given. These people love these settings and characters, and when suddenly they're told "Well, that's not how it is, THIS is how it is!" it causes an conflict in their minds (why do you think we have such heated "Canon" debates?!?) As hard as it may to believe for their detractors, these people aren't necessarily sexist/racist/homophobic because they're uncomfortable with the "new Truth". In addition, I find that how close someone is with the IP indicates how accepting of these changes they are.

For example, my dad (who grew up watching the original Battlestar Galactica) didn't really care for the reboot, where there were several gender/racial swaps of leading characters. While I (never having seen the original) found a female Starbuck to be a great element in the show (and own all 4 seasons), my dad never could get over the "Starbuck is a girl?" phase, and, as a result, never watched more than a few episodes.

I think people (and science fiction enthusiasts in general, not to play to a stereotype), build the worlds they're familiar with in their minds. When suddenly, these worlds they have been building for years (or decades, depending on the IP) are suddenly turned on their heads (gender/race/orientation change for their favorite character), it is not unreasonable for them to be upset, especially when some of these decisions to be seemingly arbitrary from a storytelling standpoint (IE, they add nothing to the story or plot).



*AHEM*

That all being said. I will reserve my excitement for this new trilogy until I've seen the Last Jedi. I will, however, say that I'm 100X more excited about this (unknown and undiscovered corners of the galaxy) than I am about news reports of new Rey, Poe, and Finn movies beyond ep 9. Don't get me wrong, I love Rey , Poe and Finn (for all of their faults, and non-faults), but I think the Skywalker trilogies should be laid to rest after 9. There's plenty of galaxy to explore before, during and after their stories. But that's just me.

32 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The big problem I had with the choice of actor who played Johnny Storm being black was because his sister was white . That just doesn't happen, particularly if they are blood siblings as Johhny and Susan Storm are. They needed to have actors playing both siblings be either both black or both white, not one of each.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-10697682

" A white baby girl with a mop of blonde hair and blue eyes has been born to black parents living in London. How is this possible? "

But IIRC in the movie they're a blended family and Susan is either adopted or a step-sibling.

10 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-10697682

" A white baby girl with a mop of blonde hair and blue eyes has been born to black parents living in London. How is this possible? "

But IIRC in the movie they're a blended family and Susan is either adopted or a step-sibling.

If you look at the photo in that article, the "white" skinned child still has predominantly African features, not European.

15 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

If you look at the photo in that article, the "white" skinned child still has predominantly African features, not European.

Look at the size of the two kids. Those aren't newborns in that photo.

This article has a photo of her:

http://nypost.com/2010/07/21/blond-bombshell/

8 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Look at the size of the two kids. Those aren't newborns in that photo.

This article has a photo of her:

http://nypost.com/2010/07/21/blond-bombshell/

Yeah, and, if you look at her facial structure , it still has very African characteristics, not Caucasian. This is particularly true of her nose which is broad and relatively flat, rather than narrow and more pronounced. Her brow structure and lips are also more akin to African features not Caucasian.

Dude those are different kids in those two photos, you get that? Just let it go. You were wrong, and now you're doubling down again in the manner that you do which always leaves you embarrassing yourself.

57 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Dude those are different kids in those two photos, you get that? Just let it go. You were wrong, and now you're doubling down again in the manner that you do which always leaves you embarrassing yourself.

Yes, I know they're different. I'm specifically referring to the second article you posted, the one with the newborn . If you look at the newborn's facial features they are still very African, not Caucasian. The only thing "white" about her is the colors of the skin, hair, and eyes, which the article specifically could be a result of any number of factors. But the actual facial structure of that infant is very African.

So cool: my thread about a new trilogy has devolved into ignorant ravings about acting and race. Do you guys possess any impulse control at all?

Hopefully to get this back on track, as @whafrog pointed out, it was very blatantly highjacked,

news of a new trilogy, espeacially one deals in something unrelated to preestablished canon is very interesting to me. I echo the feelings of some peoples above that some times when Disney expands on the franchise they take a bit of the wonder away from it, espeacially when they seemingly alter concepts we’ve already grown accustomed to through the EU or define things specifically that until now has been left up so the individual imagination.

going into new territory and parts of the galaxy not yet explored, which to me means creating new content not covered so far in either canon or legends, potentially provides something very interesting without the added effect of infringing on what people already enjoyed. I’m choosing not to have such an abysmal outlook on the potential of it, since even though I did not enjoy rogue one due to some of the acting, I’m not going to take that as a total indication of everything I can expect from future lines from this franchise, espeacially after seeing the new Thor movie the other day, also done by Disney, which despite having had some of the most boring of the marvel cu movies managed to just put out the best marvel movie yet, so fingers crossed the writing team and director for whatever comes is as good as the ones Disney used for Thor ragnarok.

22 minutes ago, Norr-Saba said:

news of a new trilogy, espeacially one deals in something unrelated to preestablished canon is very interesting to me

I'm fine with the idea of a new trilogy, I just don't know enough yet. Kathleen Kennedy seems to have taken a shine to Rian Johnson, but I can't say yet whether I trust her sense of where to take SW, never mind his. There were rumours of "discontent" among some of the old-timers about where the Last Jedi is going, so ...we'll have to wait and see.

Frankly, the only person I trust among the current Star Wars crew is Dave Filoni. As long as they keep him busy producing more, and give him free reign, I'll probably be content.

I was kinda hoping with them winding down Rebels that he might be involved in the TV show idea.

30 minutes ago, whafrog said:

Frankly, the only person I trust among the current Star Wars crew is Dave Filoni

will have to agree to disagree on this one, i have a great dislike for filoni, he does good work but as i said above i don't enjoy it when people completely alter concepts that were pre-established in the eu, and the parts of filoni's work where he takes things like the witches of danthomir and the mandalorians just leave a bad taste in my mouth.

which is why i'm happy about the new trilogy covering things not covered yet, so i don't have any preexisting biases that might cause me to not like it and i can just enjoy a good star wars movie.

and if i'm being honest then i would likely very much enjoy seeing some work of filonis within star wars if it was something original rather than adaptations of preexisting stuff.