Originally Posted by The Prankster
By the way, it's kind of hilarious to see all the manboy fanboys rushing in to defend the movie by saying that the original cartoon was "culturally ambiguous". How dumb do you have to be to think that?
Perhaps they're chanting the gospel of Shyamalan, who said in defense of the casting:"Here's the thing. The great thing about anime is that it's ambiguous. The features of the characters are an intentional mix of all features. It's intended to be ambiguous. That is completely its point. So when we watch Katara, my oldest daughter is literally a photo double of Katara in the cartoon. So that means that Katara is Indian, correct? No that's just in our house. And her friends who watch it, they see themselves in it. And that's what's so beautiful about anime."
Originally Posted by Cuchulain
Personally, I'm more offended by shit like casting Ben Kingsley as Gandhi in Gandhi than casting Gylenhaal as a videogame Aladdin knockoff. The former kind of directly fucks up the entire point of the narrative and has consequence. The latter is getting a hunky guy who basically has no qualms imitating the videogame's voice actor, i.e. getting a person who is fap fodder to fat housewives and teenage girls and inoffensive to male nerds.
This is a fair point to address I think. I think it's indicative of the fact that there are two issues.
The first is how the casting actually hurts the narrative and themes of a film as an artistic expression.
The other issue is what the casting says about and how at affects society. And while movies like Prince of Persia and The Last Airbender may be fluff, they are still widespread fluff. Even if you don't see these movies, the consequences of them are inescapable. Consequences that Diva made a thread about here:Show me the dumb kid
From what I'm reading elsewhere, it seems like people who worked on the animated series are very disappointed about the way the live-action movie has been cast and have spoken out about it
, which seems like something the original creators of the series (listed as executive producers) cannot openly discuss except to say that he had nothing to do with the casting for the film and presenting the following image once the white leads were cast.
Turns out the movie is also doing away with the use of Chinese calligraphy that was heavily present in the series and replacing it with a made-up one.I just received words from the movie producers. They are not going to use Chinese calligraphy at all, replacing it with unreadable symbols. I won’t be participating in the movie.
It is not only a disappointment on the cast. They are removing all the successful elements of the original TV series. I think that would keep a lot of Asian audience away.
I am disappointed to learn that the Avatar movie has removed the successful cultural elements of the original Avatar TV series. Whether this is a right decision will be seen in the box office.
- Professor Siu-Leung Lee, cultural consultant, Avatar: The Last Airbender
Also, here's what the casting director for The Last Airbender was reported to have said when it came to casting the extras in the film... roles where caucasian candidates were not singled out for. In fact, in this cast they seemed to only want minorities to provide color in the background.“We want you to dress in traditional cultural ethnic attire,” [Deedee Ricketts, the casting director for the film] said. “If you’re Korean, wear a kimono. If you’re from Belgium, wear lederhosen.”
One middle-aged black woman, clad in a denim jacket and black slacks, raised her hand. “Are you at a disadvantage if you didn’t wear a costume?” she asked, evidently concerned about her “non-ethnic” outfit.
“Absolutely not!” Ricketts reassured her. “It doesn’t mean you’re at a disadvantage if you didn’t come in a big African thing. But guys, even if you came with a scarf today, put it over your head so you’ll look like a Ukrainian villager or whatever.”