#hollywood whitewashing again

[jackies-nerd-corner]

Emerald Fennell casting Jacob Elordi as Heathcliff in her Wuthering Heights adaptation is so wild bc like,,, I haven't read the book, but isn't Heathcliff supposed to be,,, not white? And isn't one of the major plot points the racism and abuse he faces from the family that adopted him? Like are we just,,, ignoring that? Emerald??? Explain yourself???

[le-regrems]

MCU cast Romani actor to play Romani character challenge.

[maked-artyshenanigans]

So, I saw this image on Facebook, and it was supposedly showing what Queen Nefertiti would have looked like in real life:

Now, I thought this AI generated garbage was just truly terrible on a number of levels; first off, she looks wayyyyyy too modern - her makeup is very “Hollywood glamour”, she looks airbrushed and de-aged, and as far as I’m aware, Ancient Egyptians didn’t have mascara, glitter-based eyeshadows and lip gloss. Secondly, her features are exceptionally whitewashed in every sense - this is pretty standard for AI as racial bias is prevalent in feeding AI algorithms, but I genuinely thought a depiction of such a known individual would not exhibit such euro-centric features. Thirdly, the outfit was massively desaturated and didn’t take pigment loss into consideration, and while I *do* like the look of the neck attire, it's not at all accurate (plus, again, AI confusion on the detailing is evident).

So, this inspired me to alter the image on the left to be more accurate based off the sculpture’s features. I looked into Ancient Egyptian makeup and looked at references for kohl eyeliner and clay-based facial pigment (rouge was used on cheeks, charcoal-based powder/paste was used to darken and elongate eyebrows), and I looked at pre-existing images of Nefertiti, both her mummy and other reconstructions. While doing this, I found photos of a 3D scanned sculpture made by scientists at the University of Bristol and chose to collage the neck jewellery over the painting (and edited the lighting and shadows as best as I could).

Something I see a lot of in facial recreations of mummies is maintaining the elongated and skinny facial features as seen on preserved bodies - however, fat, muscle and cartilage shrink/disappear post mortem, regardless of preservation quality; Queen Nefertiti had art created of her in life, and these pieces are invaluable to developing an accurate portrayal of her, whether stylistic or realistic in nature.

And hey, while I don't think my adjustments are perfect (especially the neck area), I *do* believe it is a huge improvement to the original image I chose to work on top of.

I really liked working on this project for the last few days, and I think I may continue to work on it further to perfect it. But, until then, I hope you enjoy!

Remember, likes don't help artists but reblogs do!

[error501blog]

Race, Live-Action Casting, and Ninjago

I'll start by saying something everyone can agree on.

No Chris Pratt.

Now that's out of the way I want to state my purpose for this rant. It's to spark discussion. I want to hear other people's ideas and perspectives. I'm one Asian American out of literal billions. I know after typing everything out I'll feel bad, but this feels like a discussion the fandom needs to address. Every perspective is worth considering and thinking through.12

I'm not worried about the casting. Warner Bros. is a big studio that doesn't want any negative press. At least, Kai and Nya are going to be Asian. I'm worried about the other Ninja, mainly Lloyd. But I think the studio doesn't want to be cancelled, so that's not my number one worry. My number one worry is Garmadon. If Garmadon is in the movie, will his skin be literally black? his can be sidestepped if Garmadon isn't included period. But the Hagemans love their emo dad. Still, I don't want blackface Garmadon.

My theory is the casting will have a similar model to what Avatar did in it's live action. There were white voice actors, now they're played by a diverse cast. Kiawentiio is amazing, but not as tan as Katara was in the animated series. (That's a discussion within itself) There was a controversy with Ian Ousley. I'm not going to get into those topics, but they did happen.

However, the worry for many comes from the fact Ninjago is more racially ambiguous than Avatar: The Last Airbender. Almost all the characters-with exceptions being the Water Tribes and Sun Warriors-are Asian. Avatar: The Last Airbender has characters with a variety of skin tones and facial features. Ninjago has almost all of it's characters with yellow skin. Which is typical for LEGO, but feels iffy in an Asian inspired world. The fact everyone has yellow skin lends to an almost race blind world. However, names come from countries. Completely human characters have blond/ginger hair. Lloyd and Master Wu have blond hair. Master Wu is especially weird because he has the aesthetic of the Hollywood wise old Asian martial arts teacher there to help the protagonist. But he's blond.

In a cartoon I can suspend my disbelief. In the show I can't see facial features. Everyone in Ninjago has the same eyes, unless if you're a robot, one of the very few women, or Lloyd. I can live with this in an animated show from the 2010s.

In live action films, there are close-up shots. People will stand next to each other. I know what real life people look like when I'll see the movie. This shouldn't matter to me. I shouldn't care so much, but the history of whitewashing roles in media is too vast. We interpret the world through race.

White is the default in the US. Examples being Ghost in the Shell Warriors TV series. Asian roles for media set in Asia for Asian roles are cast by white people with white people since 1961.

What I want to know is the world of the live action going to be Asian inspired? And the better question: should it?

I don't know.

Ninjago since day 1 has had a tenuous at best relationship with race. It is clearly in an Asian inspired world. Everyone knows Ninjas come from Japan. However, it's just an aesthetic.

The worldbuilding is very Western. If we compare to Avatar again, there is no use of any Asian philosophy in Ninjago. Avatar is chalked full of allusions to Buddhism and Japanese Imperialism. But, Avatar is a more well thought out show than the show where one of the main characters gets sent into another dimension and becomes evil, violates the Geneva convention then is given no acknowledgement and I hate it.

Ninjago when giving us culture that seems Asian inspired to me fails spectacularly. (The Kabuki from Chen's Island. That's a Tumblr rant within itself) The most obvious example being the yin and yang marriage proposals. They have Google! The writers could've gone down an internet rabbit hole for a variety of cultures. But we have this clumsy, "Will you be the Yin to my Yang?" It's stupid and I hate it.

However, Ninjago in the Wildbrain era started to move away from the Asian aesthetic. One could make the argument it started in Rebooted, but I'm saying Wildbrain era to keep this post short. We go to a pyramid in Secrets of Forbidden Spinjitzu. We meet the Ice people from the Never Realm which I think are inspired by the Inuit. I'm not too sure.

Dragon's Rising has done away with any resemblance to Asian culture. Sora is Japanese name, so maybe? But all the resemblance is from the old show. It's a fantasy show. They are a soft reboot. They could make their dragons look like literally anything in this soft reboot and they stick to the Western style ones. It's this big fantasy world, why am I not seeing any allusions Asian folklore?

But can't I blame Ninjago when they fumble so hard when they try. It's a lose lose situation. But research isn't worth it. Is a culture too inconvenient to even research? Because everything seems absorbed from other pieces of American media. Yin Yang has nothing to do with marriage-at least to my knowledge. It has to do with Daoism. There is no research or attempt. The show hasn't done a legitimate attempt in it's full run and that's sad.

We're seeing that when the Hageman brothers write they don't shy away from the Asian aspects of the world. Or maybe there was less understanding of Asian representation when the show first aired so they could do whatever they wanted. (And Wildbrain and Dragons Rising are more popular so have higher stakes if they fuck up too bad) This is racist, but it isn't coming from hatred. It's coming from ignorance. If this came from hatred why make a show about ninjas?

The Hageman brothers have demonstrated ignorance in their writing. I've been saying Asian instead of specific countries because everything is so monolithic in the show. It would be amazing to have this world for a big franchise shown to kids around the globe. (Especially to Americans who might not watch a show with an authentic cultural world if it didn't tie to Ninjago) But that's not going to come from them. It's never going to come from them.

Authentic Asian representation was lost when the writers were picked. I have no doubt there'll be sensitivity readers, but there'll most likely be a cultural erasure. I'm not mad at the Hagemans. I'm not even mad at Hollywood. But I'm disappointed in Warner Bros.

Please respond with your own opinion. If you agree or disagree with any of my points. Hell, if I said something racist let me know. I want this post to get people thinking and talking about their own opinions on casting and writing.

[hobiebrownismygod]

Let's talk about Desi representation again!!

I don't talk about this stuff often but when I do, I have some strong ass opinions

and yes I'm gonna be talking about none other than Pavitr Prabhakar at the end cuz he's just special to me <3

Hollywood is lagging behind on Desi representation

You'd think one of the biggest film industries in the world would be able to represent us properly, considering the fact that we make up the largest group of South-Asian Americans and the second largest group of Asian-Americans in the US, but instead-

Western Television forces Indians to conform to harmful stereotypes

Some of the most popular Desi characters on screen are Raj Koothrappali from the Big Bang Theory, Devi Vishwakumar from Never Have I Ever and Kelly Kapoor from the Office.

Indian men are almost always portrayed as robotics engineers and computer whizzes, but with terrible social intellect, making them seem like awkward nerds.

Indian women are almost always portrayed as "whitewashed", or wanting to appear more western, with zero understanding of their own culture or language along with an unrelenting need for attention from white friends/colleagues.

These are both based on stereotypes that Indian culture is "toxic" and "too traditional" and that Indians are only interested in studies.

Most Desi characters in western media have stories that are solely based around their ethnicity and/or racial stereotypes.

British television actually showcases a lot more representation than Hollywood does

I was watching Polite Society, a movie starring two Pakistani characters as the main leads, and there was a dance scene where both the leads are wearing traditional desi attire. My mom turned over, looked at me, and asked, "Is this Hollywood? It can't be."

And she was right. It's a British movie with British-Pakistani actors.

The reason she didn't believe that it could've been Hollywood was because the dresses the two leads were wearing were traditional and beautiful and the song playing in the background was authentic Hindi music, not some random westernized DJ version of it.

A Hollywood movie would've never dressed up their Desi actors in actually flattering attire (*cough cough the Patel twins from Harry Potter) or have used real, popular Desi music in the background.

You see my point?

It is so uncommon to see well-thought-out Desi representation in TV nowadays, where to see real diversity we have to watch movies made by the same country that colonized us.

Ironic.

British movies/shows with desi leads have far better South Asian representation than anything I've seen in Hollywood recently.

The Hollywood movies starring Indian leads, like Slumdog Millionaire or Bend it like Beckham were filmed in the UK, and because they were filmed in the UK, they had fantastic South Asian representation.

Not only does Hollywood refuse to create shows and movies about real problems that South Asians face, but they also don't cast South Asian actors in good roles.

When's the last time you saw a South Asian actor playing a character that wasn't a walking stereotype? When's the last time you saw a South Asian actor playing a character that was a genuine part of the story rather than just comedic relief or a random smart kid in the classroom?

Not often, right?

Me, personally, I didn't grow up with a lot of South Asian characters or actors in shows/movies that I watched. In fact, every time someone even close to my skin color showed up on TV, I was on the edge of my seat because it was just so rare to see it.

This is why representation matters.

You've heard about all the young girls with braids being so excited when the new little mermaid with Halle Bailey came out. Well, us desi kids wanted that too.

I wanted to see a Telugu speaking girl with wavy hair and dark skin who would wear traditional clothing to Desi get-togethers and parties, go to the temple with her family, eat vegetarian Indian meals, etc...

I wanted to see a character who was a representation of me and my experiences as an Indian-American. I wanted to see a character that was at least a representation of Indians or just South Asians in general.

Instead, we were given characters that ridiculed their own culture, were extreme stereotypes and furthered the existence of casual racism in western society today. So many Desi kids experience small acts of racism on a daily basis because people have been so desensitized to the existence of these stereotypes.

Telling South Asians that their culture is a joke and feeding non-asian children media which pokes fun at other cultures is harmful, not only to us South Asians but also communities that could end up being targeted next.

Pavitr Prabhakar; Representation Matters

If you've been following me or if we're mutuals, you probably know I have a tiny obsession with Pavitr Prabhakar. But why?

Because of all the reasons I just listed.

There are few South Asian characters us Desis can look up to these days, and Pavitr Prabhakar is one of the maybe two or three characters who have great writing, magnificent representation, and overall a fun vibe.

He's likable, funny, smart and best of all, unapologetically Desi.

He's just like all the other side characters, with a little bit of his own culture mixed in. He's not being shoved down our throats to further an agenda about fake diversity, he's not a walking stereotype and best of all, he was designed by Indian creators.

He's refreshing and exciting to follow in a world full of a demand for half-hearted representations and the people who created him were obviously putting their hearts and souls into it.

He's awoken a love for Indian culture amongst, not only Desi children themselves but also among westerners who, prior to this, had thought of India as a "3rd world" country, because that's the agenda that Hollywood pushes onto many South Asian countries today.

WE LOVE PAVITR PRABHAKAR!!

This was kinda all over the place but I just had to get this off my chest <3

Sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/06/10/discrimination-against-indian-americans-happens-more-than-you-might-think/

[blackghostm2o]

On this new episode of Phantom Ramblings (jokes aside I might actually start to call these as such) I’ll yap about Poto 1925.

I really enjoyed it, the music is sooo good (wasn’t expecting it) and the sets are really beautiful. I was afraid of not liking it because it was a silent movie, but I was wrong.

The actors did a great job, Lon Chaney is a fantastic phantom! I loved how he acted with his whole body and hands, really similar vibes to Leroux!Erik, pretty creepy too. How they did his deformity was perfect, really liked it and the unmasking is great, I like how aggressive he is (not like the novel, but close). Now… His backstory: basically inexistent… He HAD ESCAPED AN ASYLUM! I HATE THAT DETAIL! “Oh, you see this mad brute? He was confined in an asylum for the criminals.” Come on… Shitty backstory… They don’t want us to sympathise with him, so they have cut every info about his life. I really like the mask design, btw.

I’m mad that they whitewashed The Persian (here he is Ledoux), come on! Another really annoying thing is how he doesn’t have any backstory with Erik, ffs… He has been investigating him only for a couple of MONTHS, their relationship is completely absent. At least he exists… I guess…

I really like how close this movie is to the novel, the torture chamber, the death of Philippe, the siren (and actually showing her), the SCORPION AND THE GRASSHOPPER. Really great stuff, but they OBVIOUSLY HAD TO RUIN THE ENDING! Now… I know that it was 1925 and Hollywood (not only) hated having characters that aren’t either completely good or completely bad… What makes Erik’s character really compelling is his redemption, how he was not fully evil… How constant shunning and prejudice from society made him a monster… How, as Leroux himself wrote, if he didn’t look like that he would have been one of the fairest souls and how Erik just wanted to be an ordinary person living a normal life, the novel makes us sympathise with him… Here he is just a deformed madman who killed people, so he gets what he “deserves” and gets beaten to death and thrown into the river by a mob… I really hated the mob chasing him… This ending made me sad ngl…

This ending also makes me think about The penalty (1920) (another movie with Lon Chaney as villain) in which he isn’t truly evil, but a FUCKING CONCUSSION made him like that so the doctor’s brain operation made him good again… The same fucking doctor that cut Blizzard’s legs (Lon Chaney) when it wasn’t needed (ruining the life of a 16 y.o. that was then abandoned by his parents and started living in the streets), because GOD FORBID WE SHUN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE and SHOW HOW THE BAD GUY HAS AN ACTUAL REASON FOR BEING BAD.

I saw someone in the comments of the movie saying that they were glad Christine was actually afraid of the phantom and how the relationship isn’t romanticised, but still having a part that loved him, etc… The thing is… There’s no concept of pity nor love here… She is just afraid (which is understandable)… This ending just feels like an oversimplification and “playing it safe” for both of them. In the novel Christine is the one that wants to sing for Erik before disappearing, here she just wants to go away…

Bye :)

I’ll try to draw his lovely mug and his mask :)

[arttrampbelle]

THE ONLY SHANG TSUNGS I WILL ACCEPT tbh any other one is unacceptable.

Like don't get me wrong mk12/mk1 shang tsung looks good and had potential but i just don't feel it's a version worthy to be called SHANG TSUNG. (The script hold mr. Lee back. And i felt the same with artt butler as shang in the mk legends movies. But unlike artt butler,alan lee still while a valid take on the character. Doesn't really speak to me as SHANG TSUNG,the soul stealing sorcerer. More like an asian wannabe mcu loki copycat . And it's boring,and i hate it. It's whitewashed Hollywood schlock lvls of writing. Anyone who can't see that is hopeless. Like y'all at nrs wanna copycat mainstream shit so damn bad to stay relevant huh? When you know your competitors are doing better than you. So you gouge prices on a half baked game and hire random celebs to try to make it seem like you got shit. But you dont. You really dont. But anyways.

Again no shade. But it's not shang tsung. It's a fun and entertaining performance,and certainly a take on the character. Valid in its own right. But it's not shang tsung.

Outside of alan Lee's shang tsung being cute and funny and entertaining compared to everything else. What does his shang tsung really have to offer? Like legitimately,persuade me,woo me with your shang tsung. So far I've been interested but not sold anything. It's lukewarm. And the story narrative holds him back. And it sucks.

Because i wanna like mk12/mk1 shang tsung. But i can't 100% get into him. Outside of aesthetics and a tiny few things about him that's ok. But because of what he's attached to. It's hard to genuinely like that iteration.

Bonus Honorable mention: deadly alliance shang tsung.

Cary hiroyuki tagawa IS SHANG TSUNG.

The others are good as shang tsung but deserves their flowers just the same.

Alan Lee's shang has yet to convince me that he's truly earned his flowers. He's good at imitating but not convincing me his shang is SHANG TSUNG. Or worthy truly of being one without copycatting tagawa in infliction only.

(Again. Not a bad performance just it doesn't have any oomf that shang tsung both needs to be and needs to convey. Smug smarmyness can only do so much before it's annoying. He has potential but only if his shang no longer is attracted to a main game. And i doubt they will ever truly give him said potential)

[maibluemen]

🌵🍄 and 🔪!

writers’ truth or dare asks!

🌵: share the link to a playlist you love

big fan of @doomspiral ‘s gil playlist!

🍄: share a headcanon for one of your favourite ships or pairings

hmm modern day, gil definitely has a key to tolys’s house but almost never uses it, he pretty much always just breaks in sfdfd

🔪: what's the weirdest topic you researched for a writing project?

amusingly i don’t think this qualifies as weird by writer standards so much, but i am always interested in reading about drugs lol. it started the first time i read catch-22, there was a passing mention of ether and i didn’t know what it was…less interested in inhalants these days but i can tell you about pervitin. make of that what you will. (i mean i can also tell you about inhalants and how wrong hollywood gets them sfdfd but)

hypothermia is probably the most uhh environmentally-induced danger i’ve researched in depth. again idt it’s that weird, but i do know a fair amount about it lol

and i tend to get caught on looking up really mundane things like “when was whitewash invented” “what did the transit of [city] look like in [year]” “how many pieces of fabric would it take to construct this garment” etc (that last one can be surprisingly hard to find info on for modern—post industrialization—western fashion btw! but it can tell you a lot about the resources available at the time and such, and can testify to how old certain garments are eg hanfu, the body of which is traditionally only made with one piece of fabric—so there will only be one seam down one side of it—which indicates it’s pretty old. kimono likewise the main body is made with two pieces of fabric, and there is a seam down the center back which will usually be covered by the obi…etc…)

[invisibletripwire]

The last two years 4 movies came out that I saw in the cinema that I really liked, The Green Knight, The Last Duel, The Northman and Devotion. They all reminded me of movies like they used to be, before franchises and superheroes took over the big screen. Except for The Green Knight (who slightly over-performed in the box office) they all ended up flopping. Sure, the pandemic and bad marketing played a role (Ridley Scott really need to stop blaming millennials and their phones) but another thing is happening as well. People are bad-mouthing these movies before they even see them. Let’s take two examples:

The Last Duel is about a very sensitive subject matter (that’s why it’s rated R) but the film acknowledges this, it is not just ‘’two men butchering each other over the honor of a woman’’, as I heard said (by people who did not watch the film), and no, the woman in question is not just a prop in the story. Her story matters here. 

Devotion is not ‘’whitewashing’’ the Korean war. It is less of a warfilm and more of a character drama about Jesse Brown, who was the first black naval aviator. Only at the end of the movie do you see any war at all. And the movie is pretty accurate to the true story, especially considering they had to condense it down to a 2 hour runtime. It’s a good movie, and very moving at times. 

I really whish more people saw these movies, so original stand-alone movies is seen as less of a risk for Hollywood and more are made. Sure, The Last Duel has violence (including sexual violence) and Devotion tells of racism and grief, totally understand if you want to avoid them for that reason, but they don’t deserve the bad rep they get. Again, mostly by people who have not bothered to see them. 

Stories deserves to seen on the big screen even if they have a sensitive subject matter. 

[phil-lestifer]

Sorry ti bring this onto the DnP blog why tf did they whitewash Steve AGAIN I fucking hate Hollywood

[zalrb]

Oppenheimer Review

OK let’s start with things I didn’t quite care for:

1. The exclusion of Indigenous and Japanese people, which has been a well-detailed criticism on Twitter and in articles:  

“The Pajarito Plateau, where Los Alamos is located, was indigenous homeland for multiple villages of Pueblo people, as well as more than 30 Mexican American families who owned ranches and farms[...]”

We can get into a discussion about which movies are made and how studios would rather fund movie after movie about the ‘tortured white male genius’ than a movie about the Pueblo people or the effects of the bomb on Japan. We can talk about the general boredom of seeing these movies over and over again. But I think that’s a larger conversation. That’s a conversation about which stories TPTB determine get told, that’s a conversation about the systemic racism and barriers in Hollywood and filmmaking because it’s not surprising that a Nolan film didn’t feature BIPOC or nuanced depictions of BIPOC. Nolan is going to Nolan. Dunkirk is an entirely whitewashed film. It is so typical of a Nolan film that I was surprised John David Washington was in Tenet (which I have not seen) and this isn’t to defend him or to let him off the hook, this is just to say that conversation is about the systems in place that allow for Oppenheimer to be a movie while not showcasing other stories, which this person has also indicated

The defense for Nolan’s omission has been Oppenheimer is about Oppenheimer but I don’t think that defense holds.

Considering that it is first and foremost a character study about a man with conflicting morals, a man who “famously” told Truman that he feels like he has blood on his hands. Considering the movie is meant to take us into the mind of this man, we’re supposed to see what tortures him, what lies heavy on him, considering that there is a scene where he is confronted with the carnage and the destruction of his invention, considering  that in the movie Oppenheimer told Truman they should give the land back to the Indigenous peoples, glossing over the injustices and the atrocities undercuts the fact that this is supposed to be deep dive character study, because Oppenheimer helped cause these things. That’s the point. A pivotal point in the movie comes when Oppenheimer is being asked over and over again when he had moral qualms about the H bomb considering that he made the atomic bomb and whether or not he had quandaries then and the fact that there was a history of people suffering because of this bomb before it dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would emphasize that question. It’s not a full character study.

Another defense has been that the omission was purposeful as a condemnation of what they did and how they didn’t think about the consequences or thought about the consequences and ignored them/didn’t care about them but there are ways to do that. We can see people being displaced from the land and then afterwards Oppenheimer going to Los Alamos declaring there’s nothing around. If this movie is also about his ego and his tunnel vision and about the dangers of building weapons of mass destruction and their consequences, we can see what the testing of the bomb did to communities while they celebrate the success of the test, it would simply drive the point the movie is making home, it would make it more poignant and complete. When Oppenheimer gives that victory speech after the bomb was dropped, he keeps seeing the people around him burned or dead or crying, there’s no reason why his speech couldn’t at least be intercut with the realities happening in Japan at the time.

Outside of it is simply right for these stories to be showcased and acknowledged, there are too many reasons why Oppenheimer could’ve and should’ve shown these aspects for me to really find any defense viable.

2. I also don’t expect nuanced depictions of women in a Nolan movie but the female characters in this movie are so laughably one-dimensional that I feel like it would’ve been less offensive for him to just not include women at all. Emily Blunt and Florence Pugh do as much as they can with the material they’re given but they’re really not given much and when we’re meant to gain insight into Kitty’s (Emily Blunt) emotional state and to see what the hearing of Robert is doing to her, it’s when he admits on record to sleeping with his ex-wife Jean (Florence Pugh) when he was with Kitty so it’s Kitty imagining him having sex with Jean in a very uncomfortable and entirely unnecessary sex scene. So it’s actually quite funny talking about Oppenheimer and Barbie at the same time because Oppenheimer proves one of Barbie’s points about the way women are perceived and treated through the way the Kens are portrayed in the first 30 minutes of the movie because Kitty and Jean are around to serve Oppenheimer’s plot and Jean actually dies, she commits suicide, and the implication is that while she was suffering from mental health issues, Oppenheimer cutting ties with her led to her death so in the movie anyway, a female character literally dies because the male protagonist is no longer in her life.

Alright, things I liked.

1. Cillian Murphy. Cillian was magnetic onscreen. The beauty of what he can convey with his eyes, it was mesmerizing and he does such a good job playing the charismatic womanizing egocentric asshole but does an equally good job portraying depth, portraying vulnerability and betrayal and guilt and remorse. He inhabited this role, it was great watching.

2. RDJ! RDJ is indeed an actor so watching him in the few Marvel movies that I did watch just always had me like *sigh* they’ve flattened you so it was really fun seeing him really dig his teeth into a role and also seeing the way he changes throughout the movie, particularly the third act when you realize his personal vendetta against Oppenheimer and how his true colours kind of start bleeding through, it was very well done.

3. It was surprisingly funny? Like not laugh out loud funny even though there were moments where I did indeed LOL i.e. “I’m a self-made man.” “I can relate to that.” “Really?” “Yes, my father was one.” the wit and the back and forth and the riffing I quite enjoyed. Seeing all the scientists place bets and get into arguments, I quite enjoyed that.

4. I don’t care for Matt Damon, he annoys me, so when I saw him in the trailer I rolled my eyes and when I saw his introduction to the movie I also rolled my eyes but he and Cillian had a good chemistry so over the course of the movie, I ended up enjoying his scenes with Cillian because they worked so well together and they establish a lot of about that dynamic and they feel comfortable with each other. Although I think my favourite dynamic was Oppenheimer and Isidor. I don’t like Casey Affleck though so that “reveal” just had me like ugh, why.

5. The score. The SCORE. Ludwig Göransson did a beautiful job with the music, giving the movie a sense of scale and tension, it was fantastic.

6. It felt like three hours but it felt like a three hours well spent.

[shadowmaat]

Hollywoodification strikes again

I'll say it right now: I'm very interested in seeing what the Murderbot miniseries will look like. I love the books and MB itself holds a special place in my heart.

I'm disappointed, if not surprised, at the actor they chose for the role. Alexander Skarsgård is... very white, and leans heavily into the masculine spectrum. Which is exactly what I'd expect from Hollywood even if the hints we've been given about Murderbot's appearance don't entirely line up with that.

Hiring an actual nonbinary or genderfluid or agender actor for the role would be an impossibility, from Hollywood's perspective. I do wish they'd tried for someone less obviously masculine, but again, I can see why the execs would be against that. I also understand why they went so white white white, even if I hate it and find it counter to expectations.

Understanding doesn't stop me from being disappointed, though, especially when I can think of several actors with star power who'd be equal to the role even if they aren't white and extra testosterone-y. Bah.

Will the rest of the cast be just as whitewashed? Probably. Martha Wells did a great job of making her universe very diverse, but I think diversity still gives studio execs hives.

Ah well. Having an "official" look for everyone won't have to affect headcanons, and most fans will ignore the visual inaccuracies and focus on the portrayals.

In that vein, at least, the show should be hella fun. Murderbot is a goddamn delight of a personality and seeing the rest of the Preservation crew will be likewise fun to watch. Plus! Maybe we'll get to see clips of Sanctuary Moon! That would be fucking amazing. I always love show-within-a-show stuff.

Yep. Ultimately looking forward to it. I can probably ignore the visual incongruities as long as they don't deviate completely from the story and characterizations.

[troythecatfish]

the more we learn or speculate about how advanced the ancient Egyptian civilisations were, the more Hollywood needs to whitewash.

The first film depicted all Gods as European but kept all slaves African, that is a purposeful casting decision. (I haven’t seen it, i recommend you don’t either)

the second, though Cleopatra indeed was part European (and part Persian) is using an pro-apartheid, anti-indigenous European Israeli to depict her. (again, boycott this nonsense)

this level of racist propaganda is so lazy it’s almost funny.

[bookishfeylin]

And again as someone who has literally discussed how Cleopatra wasn't Black before: Hollywood has a nasty habit of doing it THE OTHER WAY AROUND, of whitewashing everything, which is why there's this (incorrect) pushback in the first place. Because people DIDN'T take enough of an issue with Hollywood whitewashing history, so there's been an (incorrect) attempt to correct said whitewashing.

Taking issue with the pushback to racism but not the initial racism is the height of hypocrisy.

[ghostkingdoesstuff]

Hey you're the ONLY person I have seen complain about whitewashing of Percy and you are so valid for that lol.

There's absolutely nothing weird about Black Annabeth, it's her race that is never stated in the books.

But whitewashed Percy is still pissing me off; and no, I'm not mad at the kid for getting a job - I hope he has fucking fun! But Riordan and whoever else was in charge of casting are ABSOLUTELY the ones whose fault it is that the main character of a book based on Mediterranean mythology is.... a blond white boy.

Dark-haired, "bronze skinned" Percy that looks like "a Roman God" was like. A giant part of the story. They could find an actor who looks like that, but now it looks like they casted a bunch of POC for secondary roles only to center - yet again - a white boy that Percy Jackson never was.

I feel you.

I can't find anyone else talking about it either, but I think it's fair to acknowledge Hollywood's pattern of casting white actors in leading roles, even when it doesn't fit the sorce material (looking at you Ghost in the Shell). And it's always supplemented by filling the supporting cast with POC actors (Looking at you Netflix Death Note live action), which is great and I love that POC actors are being given job opportunities, but it feels like you only see a POC lead when the story is about them being POC.

Don't get me wrong, from what we've seen, Walker is playing Percy really well, and the cast is great. Aryan as Grover, has captured my heart (and him singing Rolling in the Deep as a kid is impressive as shit GIMMI THE INEXPLICABLE MUSICAL EPISODE). Percy Jackson being "sunshine" white isn't going to ruin the show, and it shouldn't. The cast and crew have put so much love behind this production to let what's likely Disney overlords looking out for the bottom line ruin this show for me. It's just frustrating when you see the same thing play out time and again in these kinda productions.

My proposed solution, you might ask? Watch media with diverse casting to show the overlords that diversity and representation matters. Or just burn it all down. Idk, this tumbler blog will not be held liable for your acts of arson.

[lemonluvgirl]

What do you think about the way character appearance being portrayed or narrated in THG novels?

What's your opinion about THG movies casting? Especially Katniss' and The Seam residents casting?

Is it important that Seam and Merchant residents of District 12 have different appearance in the screen? Yes/No? Why?

What do you think about division /dynamics between Seam and Merchants in District 12?

Thank you :)

@curiousnonny

Well, I think the narration of the main character being a POC is important because that's the way the book was written. The author specifically chose to tap into certain ethnic images, and mindsets in order to create a picture and build a world in which the story plays out. It helps the reader relate to the character or to learn to see a different perspective and appreciate or empathize with her on a deeper level.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, one of the biggest disappointments for me when I saw the Hunger Games movies was the white-washing of the cast. I mean no disrespect to J-Law because she delivered a wonderful performance as Katniss. But it really saddened me to see Hollywood fail to deliver a female POC protagonist at the time the movies were made (2013-2015).

It's one of the biggest bones I have to pick with the movies. Because Katniss wasn't supposed to be white, neither was Gale or most of the people in the Seam.

I know some people are of the mindset that the whitewashing wasn't intentional and that the studio/director/casting people simply picked the actors they thought would do the job best, but at the end of the day, it takes away from the conflict of the story and the struggle of the characters from the books.

The reason why The Hunger Games books are so fascinating is because of the way the author unravels the struggles of the characters and gets them to rethink their preconceived prejudices and mindsets.

There's a really awesome post out there that talks about how Katniss distrusts the Merchants (they don't look like the ppl of the Seam, dress like Seam, eat like Seam, etc.) at the beginning of the first book and then throughout the story after getting to know Peeta, during the Games she realizes that her distrust and her misconceptions about him and the Merchants are based on lies and Capitol manipulation to keep District 12 at odds with each other so they don't band together and rebel against the Capitol.

She goes through this process several times in all three books with different people but it starts clearly from a place of ethnic identity and grows from there until she reevaluates her ideas about everyone including people from the Capitol and realizes, as Haymitch aptly says, "Who the real enemy is", and it's not the blond-haired merchants of District 12 that are barely better fed and clothed than many of the Seam.

That's one of the things I admire about the writing of The Hunger Games because the ideas inside the wiring find a way to transcend race, without ignoring injustice and prejudice.

I know a lot of tik-tok users are of the impression that Collins dropped the ball with her depiction of Peeta (white-blue-eyed messiah-savior imagery is tossed around a lot) at the end of Mockingjay when she had Katniss end up with Peeta instead of Gale but I think that's an incredibly narrowminded view. Everything in Collins' writing suggests that the struggle toward freedom for the people of Panem was one that crossed all races and genders. Part of Katniss' internal struggle was to shed her own mindset that people who were not like her (Merchants, other Tributes from different Districts, the other Victors, the Capitolites, etc.) were the enemy. Which is the struggle at the heart of every form of racism.

So having Katniss engage in a relationship with someone of a different race, different class, have mixed race children with them, and build a life after the events of the books was really poetic and bold.

And we didn't get any of that satisfying conclusion in the movies because Hollywood took it away by making Katniss, Peeta, and Gale white.

I think the different ethnicities between the Seam and Merchants would have made for a more real and interesting story than the one presented in the movies. I think that it would have resonated with a lot of people because it would have been more honest with the source material and would have added to the growth of the characters.

But that's just my opinion.