Escape to the Movies: The Lone Ranger

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

CharlesCarmichael:

The Dubya:

Why did The Lone Ranger HAVE to be similar to Pirates of The Caribbean? Why COULDN'T it have its own distinct framework to tell its own story? Why couldn't have actually been about, ya know, THE LONE RANGER doing distinct Lone Ranger stuff? Why do we have to bring in elements of other properties instead of relying on what made Lone Ranger uniquely the Lone Ranger in the first place? Keep the heart of The Lone Ranger intact, update it a bit if you want to fit modern times or have a fun throwback homage, and just have a simple tale like that. What's the point of trying to combine two distinctly different franchises together for little to no apparent reason (other than the obvious: well it's KINDA like _____ so you'll like us naow, right?!")

Hmm, I think we may be approaching the heart of the issue. I have no experience with the Lone Ranger, beyond being aware of the characters' names, the silver bullets, and the William Tell Overture. So coming into it I had no conception of what a Lone Ranger movie 'should' be. So POTC meets Spaghetti Western with shades of Chinatown was 100% fine with me. You, apparently, have in your mind what 'Lone Ranger: The Movie' should be (most likely based on the TV show), and when you got themes of POTC you rejected the disparity.

That's a perfectly valid perspective, especially nowadays with lots of games following the same trajectory of taking the themes old games and slapping them on new mechanics; Syndicate is an example of a game that does this poorly, Fallout 3 is an example of a game that does it well. But like Fallout, just because it's a bad 'Lone Ranger Movie' (whatever that means) doesn't mean it's a bad movie.

It's not like I'm anything resembling a Lone Ranger fan, either. But the point is, whatever WAS there to make the Lone Ranger isn't here anymore. What COULD have made me a Lone Ranger fan, what COULD have shown me something distinctly Lone Ranger to make me go "Hmm, I wanna go check more LR stuff out now" has been wiped out. Heck You could have even done something else COMPLETELY different than Lone Ranger or Pirates of the Caribbean all together (and most people probably wouldn't have noticed either way). Instead it's just a pastiche of painfully telegraphed bullshit I've already seen before done better elsewhere for no reason. I can just go down to Target and get Pirates of The Caribbean for 5 bucks if I want to see Pirates of The Caribbean, so again, what's supposed to entice me to spend upwards of $20 on an inferior knock-off?

We're smart enough to see through that kind of bullshit, hence why it's bombing so hard.

The Last Of Us has similar elements to other post-apocalyptic/wasteland stories, but it's execution is on SUCH an amazing level that it feels distinctively TLOU and I find it worthy of my dollars. That's what the difference is; TLOU wants its own identity to tell its own story and does it by using this thing we called EFFORT. Lone Ranger doesn't.

And you are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO not envoking the name of freakin CHINATOWN with this forgettable piece of nothing...

and i really wanted this movie to be good, despite depp in a part he really didnt need to be in :(

some one needs to pick up all these broken super hero ips and either put them down or do good work with them

edit: and i do remember watching some reruns of the old lone ranger show as well as some others way back in time

wolf thing:

Seldon2639:
Actual Native American Tribes on Johnny Depp playing Tanto: "kinda weird, but we'll induct him into our tribes and be happy that Native Americans are getting a positive character in a movie, rather than caring who was cast; so congratulations to the newest Comanche."

That's cherry picking, there have been many Native American Groups speaking out against the casting of Johnny Depp.

I don't think the Comanche take on Johnny Depp playing a Comanche qualifies as cherry-picking.

Seldon2639:
So, let me make sure I understand this:

Actual Native American Tribes on Johnny Depp playing Tanto: "kinda weird, but we'll induct him into our tribes and be happy that Native Americans are getting a positive character in a movie, rather than caring who was cast; so congratulations to the newest Comanche."

Movie Bob: "It is wrong on so many levels for Johnny Depp to be playing Tanto."

When the actual Native Americans have less objection than you do, perhaps your position is less reasonable than you think.

Not only that, but Tonto was seen as very racist in his first incarnations. He spoke in broken english, it was actually called Tontoisim for a style of haiku used with few articles.

Tonto is a very racist character, and Bob is bitching about the racist Indian not being 'properly' acted by a Nativer American. Bob, what self respecting Native American would actually play Tonto? You can't have a double standards about this. Why? You made an entire show how Idris Elba playing Heimdall was perfectly fine, and people need to grow up. You know what? That's you right now.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, Bob. If Idris can play a white role, then Johnny can do the same thing for Tonto. Unless you want to make an argument how movies need to be racist by restricting roles to certain races for the sake of 'accuracy'. Black man can play white role, but White man can't play Red man's role? Is that the logic train you are riding on? You just crossed on the Political Correctness line, and you better get off to the next station if any sort of sanity remains with you.

The Dubya:
Heck You could have even done something else COMPLETELY different than Lone Ranger or Pirates of the Caribbean all together (and most people probably wouldn't have noticed either way).

I believe there's a saying about things being broke and fixing them. Yes, Johnny Depp's playing essentially the same role in a different movie, but so what? There's dozens of actors that do the same thing, it's just that Johnny is in the rare subset that gets to do it with a large budget behind him. Is the plot similar to POTC? Sure, but if you boil it down to 'A crazy guy and a straight man go after bad guys who have kidnapped someone important to the straight man,' then a bunch of other movies fall into it as well (Lethal Weapon, off the top of my head). It ain't Shakespeare, but there's a common simple theme that gives them the bones to hang their performance off of.

The Dubya:

And you are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO not envoking the name of freakin CHINATOWN with this forgettable piece of nothing...

I'm sorry, I thought I'd invoke the name because it evoked some of the same themes of a powerful and respected man using his power and position to rob property from the innocent. Like the Crazy Guy/Straight Man it's a common theme that is used in MANY different movies.

Hollywood, I ask this out of genuine curiosity, how did you fuck this up? An adaptation of The Lone Ranger is one of the simplest, most idiot proof ideas I can think of, Cowboy, Native American sidekick, they beat up bad guys together. How hard is that?

I never expected this movie to be good, I figured it'd be 'so bad it's good' at best, 'utterly forgettable' at worst, but god damn I never expected it to be this terrible. Even putting aside the absolutely horrible idea of casting Johnny Depp as Tonto, something this simple should not be that hard!

tdylan:
I feel compelled to ask:

People complained about Idris Elba playing Heimdall. They were greeted with "stop being so closed-minded! it's just a movie and Idris is a great actor."

Johnny Depp plays Tonto, and it's extremely racist. Please don't get me wrong. When I heard Idris was playing Hemidall I knew people would get offended, but I didn't see anything wrong with it. Some made the argument "what if they got a white man to play John Shaft?" and I think it's valid.

With Depp playing Tonto, I again expected this negativity, but can anyone explain the double standard?

I'm not bothered by Depp playing Tonto, and it honestly gives me pause. I ask myself "shouldn't this be something that offends you?" But then I answer myself "You weren't offended when they hired a black man to play the whitest of the gods, so why would a white man playing a native american offend you?

image

My thoughts exactly, because it seems all well and good when movies look "progressive" but heaven forbid that the tables are turned and a White guy does the exact same thing that Idris Elba did.

OP:Ignoring the political correctness commentary in the beginning, this video basically confirmed what I thought about the movie when I first saw it. That said, I would like to see more movies that explore Native American culture, specifically horror movies about the Windigo.

BabySinclair:

tdylan:
I feel compelled to ask:

People complained about Idris Elba playing Heimdall. They were greeted with "stop being so closed-minded! it's just a movie and Idris is a great actor."

Johnny Depp plays Tonto, and it's extremely racist. Please don't get me wrong. When I heard Idris was playing Hemidall I knew people would get offended, but I didn't see anything wrong with it. Some made the argument "what if they got a white man to play John Shaft?" and I think it's valid.

With Depp playing Tonto, I again expected this negativity, but can anyone explain the double standard?

Heimdall's character is not defined by his race/skin tone. He is the guardian of the Bifrost and Asgard. Tonto on the other hand is defined partially by his ethnicity as a Native American, like how the Prince of Persia is you know, Persian. John Shaft is defined by his race. It's central to understanding him as a character as a inner-city cop at the crossroad of the economic struggles by those in the black community and the system dictated/created by white people. Those last three each share a part of their cultural heritage as a fragment of their character. Heimdall is Asgardian, an alien, skin tone is rather less important.

And the whole for every minority role in the media today there are dozens of white roles, even when the character's skin color doesn't matter so shifting in favor of a minority is far less important than shifting away from roles for actors in the minority.

Tell me again on how being a Norse God wouldn't make you look like the Norse people(see:Scandinavia)? You really think that the ancient Scandinavians believed that one of their gods looks like a Black Guy? Tell me, do you also think that the ancient Greeks thought that Aries looked like an Chinese guy? Get serious, Idris playing Hemidall makes about as much sense as Jackie Chan playing Aries.

*shrugs* I didn't care about the Lone Ranger anyway, honestly the worst part of the whole review for me is the Shredder related news

Helmholtz Watson:
Tell me again on how being a Norse God wouldn't make you look like the Norse people(see:Scandinavia)?

There are an enormous number of Gods of various cultures that do not look anything like the people of that culture. Also, keep in mind that in the fiction under discussion, the "Gods" are not a result of Norse culture, but rather an alien predecessor. If all they knew of Heimdall was what they'd been told of his duties, their depictions of him would not necessarily carry any real meaning.

Funny, it seems like Bob hated the movie for all the same reasons as I myself enjoyed it.

I think Johnny Depp works well as Tonto. He is clearly giving the character all he's got, which as usual is very nearly enough to carry the entire movie himself. Besides, the Tonto character has always been, to some extent, a stereotype. Casting Depp is a perfect way of not only acknowledging this, but also make the most out of it.

As for the Lone Ranger, we must keep in mind that he started out as the unfailing, one-dimensional hero of an adventure series in 1933. He is the classic all-American, dime-a-dozen, white-hatted, Colgate-smiling, squeaky-clean idol of wide-eyed children everywhere. He is a gunslinger who always outdraws his opponent, and never misses. He is the white in black-and-white morality. He is the centerpiece of a fictional world specifically tailored to accommodate his boyscout philosophy.

He is a cowboy who has never stepped in a cow pie.

What do you think would happen if this character was removed from his usual surroundings and plonked down in the Old West as it is portrayed in more modern media? Yeah. They haven't changed the Lone Ranger into a parody of himself. All they have done is change the world which surrounds him. Most of the movie is a fish-on-land story, with the Ranger stumbling through this strange new setting, determined to survive and persevere either entirely on his own terms, or not at all. And in doing this, he manages to play both the hero AND the fool. Respect.

Is Tonto a mystic or a madman? Is he right about Butch Cavendish being a wendigo, or did he simply lose his mind along with everything else that Cavendish took from him? I think the movie is actively trying to make this as ambiguous as possible. Notice that the silver actually IS implied to be cursed, as seen when the Ranger picks up a lump of it in Red's saloon. The tribesman who reveals Tonto's backstory clearly leans towards the "madman" theory - but he doesn't seem to care that much about Tonto, nor know him very well. Yes, there IS every chance that Tonto simply sees Cavendish as he wants to see him - but by the same token, it is also entirely possible that the tribesman is oversimplifying his own view of Tonto!

Certainly, Butch Cavendish is a human being. But he is also a monster. Disfigured, greedy, even cannibalistic - he might well have stepped right out of someone's nightmare. We never really find out if he is possessed or not. A fancy CGI wendigo like Bob asks for, would have eliminated all doubt - and wouldn't have been nearly as scary. Paradoxically, Butch Cavendish's humanity is the most menacing thing about him.

In short, damn near everything about the movie is widely open for multiple interpretations. Did the Ranger come back from the dead? Is the horse an emissary from the spirit world, or just the horse equivalent of a total weirdo? The Lone Ranger may well appear as a different movie to different people, and I think that's an awesome thing to pull off!

This movie has done the impossible: Introduce the ultimate Western adventure cliché to a modern audience in a remotely believable fashion. It is a bit rough in places, but it WORKS. It is funny. It is thrilling. It is everything an adventure movie should be.

And I, for one, would heartily recommend it.

Also, Depp's interpretation of Tonto bears an uncanny similarity to the acting style of Buster Keaton. I suspect that this may be intentional, as the climactic train chase apparently owes a lot to Keaton's 1927 masterpiece The General - complete with dangerous debris on the tracks, a sabotaged bridge, and a single man hijacking a train and creatively fighting off pursuers. This MAY have swayed my view of the movie somewhat - but I did enjoy the other stuff, too!

sounds like an interesting book.

I don't care to be offended by the whole red face thing. Hollywood does whatever it wants to do, I'm completely over it. The rest of the world needs to get over it to. It's the film industry, fairness or accuracy, for the most part, does not play into it at all. That said, the movie was pretty damn abysmal. I took my girlfriend to see it, and she enjoyed it because she still loves Johnny Depp for whatever reason. I mean, he is a good actor, he always was, but he is getting type cast as these wacky characters that exist for the sole purpose of a good laugh. And his character in this movie was pretty funny sometimes. He was also the only character written with any kind of actual depth. He was the only character that got a back story, he was also the only "good guy" who had a set of balls and cared to follow through with the whole supposed back story and reasoning that he was after Butch Cavendish. The main character was for the most part annoying, I can't remember how many times I wished he would just get shot and killed. I return to what I said earlier, my girlfriend enjoyed it so it was worth seeing. I just wish she wanted to see Whitehouse Down because that at least looked pretty good and saw some favorable reviews. The upside, she is officially indebted to me for this and must go see Pacific Rim with me when it comes out.

I'unno Bob, '80s!Shredder looks pretty white in that image.

And that's still a better name than "Fred Fuchs".

The Dubya:

Why did The Lone Ranger HAVE to be similar to Pirates of The Caribbean? Why COULDN'T it have its own distinct framework to tell its own story?

Heh. I remember that when I saw the trailer I asked a friend. Did they cast Jack Sparrow for the role of Tonto?

tdylan:
I feel compelled to ask:

People complained about Idris Elba playing Heimdall. They were greeted with "stop being so closed-minded! it's just a movie and Idris is a great actor."

Johnny Depp plays Tonto, and it's extremely racist. Please don't get me wrong. When I heard Idris was playing Hemidall I knew people would get offended, but I didn't see anything wrong with it. Some made the argument "what if they got a white man to play John Shaft?" and I think it's valid.

With Depp playing Tonto, I again expected this negativity, but can anyone explain the double standard?

I'm not bothered by Depp playing Tonto, and it honestly gives me pause. I ask myself "shouldn't this be something that offends you?" But then I answer myself "You weren't offended when they hired a black man to play the whitest of the gods, so why would a white man playing a native american offend you?

This is my thought as well. The only thing I can think of is that since you were replacing a white guy with a a racial minority (which is not true depending on where you are of course), it's considered fair because all us stupid white men (as depicted by popular media) need to be taken down a few pegs. All of us Harvard Educated, rich affluent white asses that run the world don't deserve anything but to be looked down upon by everyone else. Breaking down the racial barriers is a one way street. If a character is represented as white in everything (using Heimdall as an example), his race does not define him so it's alright. But if the character is not white, his most defining feature is automatically his race, so now it's not OK to have someone of another race play them. The hypocrisy is so think it can be choked on. But, like I said in my first post, I'm over it. It's just the way the world is. I can't bring myself to lose sleep over it.

Also, I would like to point out that the movie had actual Native American's in it that accurately portrayed their own people.

Off Topic: Does anyone else have an obnoxious rollover to popup add appearing and partially obscuring the comment box. It's making me insane!

Kuth:

Seldon2639:
So, let me make sure I understand this:

Actual Native American Tribes on Johnny Depp playing Tanto: "kinda weird, but we'll induct him into our tribes and be happy that Native Americans are getting a positive character in a movie, rather than caring who was cast; so congratulations to the newest Comanche."

Movie Bob: "It is wrong on so many levels for Johnny Depp to be playing Tanto."

When the actual Native Americans have less objection than you do, perhaps your position is less reasonable than you think.

Not only that, but Tonto was seen as very racist in his first incarnations. He spoke in broken english, it was actually called Tontoisim for a style of haiku used with few articles.

Tonto is a very racist character, and Bob is bitching about the racist Indian not being 'properly' acted by a Nativer American. Bob, what self respecting Native American would actually play Tonto? You can't have a double standards about this. Why? You made an entire show how Idris Elba playing Heimdall was perfectly fine, and people need to grow up. You know what? That's you right now.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, Bob. If Idris can play a white role, then Johnny can do the same thing for Tonto. Unless you want to make an argument how movies need to be racist by restricting roles to certain races for the sake of 'accuracy'. Black man can play white role, but White man can't play Red man's role? Is that the logic train you are riding on? You just crossed on the Political Correctness line, and you better get off to the next station if any sort of sanity remains with you.

you know that person who can't be bothered to look up the actual argument for Idris Elba playing Heimdall so they can get a little thing called "context",(If you want to see the Idris Elba argument from Bob's perspective, and then get his perspective on "context" then look up "Skin Deep" and "Skin Deeper" in the big picture) well that person is you, Kuth, that person is you!

Bob's perspective on Idris Elba is that IT DID suck that the only way they were getting a fantastic actor in on a great part for him was by changing the race of the character, but he also points out that due to a LONG history of LOTS of characters not being minorities that that is what we get. That is his argument, that it's much more okay to do when it's a minority actor who nails the part than when it's the White actor who comes off as ignorant due to writing and direction. I'm sorry, but Tonto was pretty much EXACTLY what he was in the originals here, so we get to be "re-offended" just by that, but we also get to be let down, and upset that it's also just some white guy in Redface paint(and what red-face paint it is too! He has a dead crow on his head!)

Yes, Tonto is a touchy subject. Yes, it would be hard to find a good actor for him. Yes, if you want to make a legitimate Lone Ranger movie and NOT lose your ass, you have to take the over 50 year old license and MODERNIZE it. Shocking I know. Here's the thing, one could easily..EASILY...point out that both Tonto, and his later stand in Kato, were some of the first heroes to point TOWARDS acceptance of minorities since they got to be there, and in there day, being an indian and NOT being a badguy was the pinnacle of achievements.

We're past that and a new Tonto should have reflected this. The list of why it was terrible to cast "Tonto" in this kind of role still, and then explain it in the stupid way that they attempt to, while putting a white dude in indian makeup should not require much, and Bob didn't even give it much. He assumed people got that this was stupid. Just stupid...ignorant...I'm not trying to be insulting here, honestly, but it's ignorant. It's ignoring progress rather than championing it, it's ignoring goodness and acceptance rather than embracing it, and that it's now HAD to be explained saddens me.

I've seen the film, saw it legitimately, and legitimately believe the makers of this film owe me about 40 dollars(10 ticket, + 2 1/2 hours of my life not used constructively charged at rate of current job.( $11.00/hour) Okay, it doesn't quite come out to 40, but it still could have been used better than this waste.)

WHAT? The Shredder is now going to be some white dude? That's insane! It'd be bad enough if he was just played by a white dude, but actually making him a white dude is just stupid.

Well, I for one liked the movie. A lot. It felt like Pirates of the Carribean but in the wild west, and that's fine with me. I liked the Lone Ranger film from 1956, but this film was way more fun.

canadamus_prime:
WHAT? The Shredder is now going to be some white dude? That's insane! It'd be bad enough if he was just played by a white dude, but actually making him a white dude is just stupid.

You know what? This too! I know someone tried to say this could be okay to get it away from the cartoon, but this doesn't get away from the cartoon, and doesn't build any of the old myth that was created in the comics.

In Eastman & Laird's original story of TMNT, it is a pure revenge style "47 Ronin" styled story that featured a corrupt ninja taking over the largest ninja group in history. The turtles have no interest in breaking up said ninja group(at least at first) and only go to kill Shredder to avenge their Master's Master, and mark their style as relevant over the killer. It was a story of honor and justice taken with a eastern warrior mindset, and the fact that it was written as cleanly and honestly as it was is what got them the success to become the largest cartoon in the 90s, a success that drove a complete change of face to cartoon and comics makers of the time. It's a god damn icon.

So they want to turn the ninja master who is drenched in eastern lore into a white businessman who puts on silly bladed armor and calls himself the shredder?? Oh, okay, yeah, I have tons of hope this is gonna be great...

If michael bay were a more clever man and TMNT was a different movie youd likely see something about the financial crisis in sachs last name that turned him to be the shredder.

... but we know both are untrue so there's little concern in that.

OT: Being at the tender age of 21, its needless to say the lone ranger is far before my time, but growing up at my grandparents house my grandfather loved to watch the show (since he grew up with it) and so my sistera nd I had to watch it at some point too. and I have a certain appreciation for the lone ranger tv series, and would like it more if it wasnt on the christian channels where in commercials they try to shove god and inspiration down your throat. So I knew this was going to be bad when i saw the trailers were all focusing on big action scenes and knowing that classic style westerns arent really cool any more.

Hell, johnny depp being in it is actually the main reason my grandfather didnt want to see the film mostly cause of depps anti american comments in venezula (or at least perceived as, I didnt see what he actually said). But Im still going to take my grandfather out to see the movie, though it sounds like I may have to do that during the middle of the week now instead of waiting till next weekend like I originally planned, since its my understanding the film's not grossing well and may not make it two weeks.

How appropriate that this review should be preceded by an ad for this movie.

Oh for pete's sake. A white guy's playing an Indian. Maybe he would've done a better performance then all other Native Americans interested in the role (like you were talking about in Skin Deep).

Although it looked like the role would be a wandering hippie (minus the tye dye, peace sign and glasses) like all other Indian roles, so would it really be better if an Indian played it?

On a different note, you do a really good Mr. Burns impression. I'd like to see you do it some more.

Every time I see someone use the phrase "politically correct" in a negative light, I remember Oancitizen's thoughts on the subject. I believe it was, "...political correctness, which is just an elaborate way of saying basic fucking human decency!"

Helmholtz Watson:
Tell me again on how being a Norse God wouldn't make you look like the Norse people(see:Scandinavia)? You really think that the ancient Scandinavians believed that one of their gods looks like a Black Guy? Tell me, do you also think that the ancient Greeks thought that Aries looked like an Chinese guy? Get serious, Idris playing Hemidall makes about as much sense as Jackie Chan playing Aries.

Or Morgan Freeman being cast as God. That would just be silly.

I think Movie Bob may be losing touch a bit recently. He seems overly pessimistic about EVERYTHING. This movie was good and the action scenes were damn fucking amazing and some of the best I've seen in quite a while. Sure the plot was predictable and you can see the "twists" coming miles away, but it was actually coherent and still made sense even after inspecting it.

But he does have one point that is true: Why the fuck is Johnny Depp playing a native american when there are actual native actors in hollywood? The only reason I can think of is for the movie to have at least one "name" to go along with it.

Captcha: Are you a food lover? ...I can answer no to this question?

hendoben:
Butt hurt Chris Nolan haters are the worst.

The Nolan-poking is starting to wear a little thin, yeah. His last three films have had prominent female characters - before that you could argue they're male-centric, but none of them are particularly healthy, well-adjusted characters. Moreover, I'd hardly say that Rises is ashamed of being a Batman or comic book film.

On topic, the colour saturation on The Lone Ranger makes me feel as if I'm going to get a migraine.

tdylan:
I feel compelled to ask:

People complained about Idris Elba playing Heimdall. They were greeted with "stop being so closed-minded! it's just a movie and Idris is a great actor."

Johnny Depp plays Tonto, and it's extremely racist. Please don't get me wrong. When I heard Idris was playing Hemidall I knew people would get offended, but I didn't see anything wrong with it. Some made the argument "what if they got a white man to play John Shaft?" and I think it's valid.

With Depp playing Tonto, I again expected this negativity, but can anyone explain the double standard?

I'm not bothered by Depp playing Tonto, and it honestly gives me pause. I ask myself "shouldn't this be something that offends you?" But then I answer myself "You weren't offended when they hired a black man to play the whitest of the gods, so why would a white man playing a native american offend you?

Studios don't think that people want to see a non-white person in a major role, so it's easier for white people to get the job.

Will Smith on Hitch, for instance: http://www.today.com/id/7019342#.UddxK_lbS_o

If we lived in a fair, equal and balanced world then that wouldn't be an issue and an equal amount of bones could be picked over a black guy playing Heimdall and a white dude playing Tonto. But we don't, so there you go.

Also, I don't have an intimate knowledge of the comics, but Thor the comic is based on Norse mythology, I assume the comic's in-universe idea/excuse is that Thor and such have had interactions with Earth in the past and this led to the Norse mythology of the real world, and this would lead to their depiction of being white. So Heimdall's race is actually pretty irrelevant.

Pyrian:

Helmholtz Watson:
Tell me again on how being a Norse God wouldn't make you look like the Norse people(see:Scandinavia)?

There are an enormous number of Gods of various cultures that do not look anything like the people of that culture. Also, keep in mind that in the fiction under discussion, the "Gods" are not a result of Norse culture, but rather an alien predecessor. If all they knew of Heimdall was what they'd been told of his duties, their depictions of him would not necessarily carry any real meaning.

That and since the movie 'Thor's is based on the Marvel Comics, the history and culture has been thrice bastardized before Idris Elba was even involved. I can even imagine a conversation between Odin and Heimdall going thus:

Odin: "Does it bother you that they Earthlings get your physical description wrong all the time?"

Heimdall: "I'm an all-seeing space god with a giant magic sword; what do I care what they're doing?"

On the other hand, his casting would have been actually contentious if they'd been adapting the Prose Edda or something from actual Norse mythology.

Woodsey:

hendoben:
Butt hurt Chris Nolan haters are the worst.

The Nolan-poking is starting to wear a little thin, yeah. His last three films have had prominent female characters - before that you could argue they're male-centric, but none of them are particularly healthy, well-adjusted characters. Moreover, I'd hardly say that Rises is ashamed of being a Batman or comic book film.

On topic, the colour saturation on The Lone Ranger makes me feel as if I'm going to get a migraine.

I was just irritated that Dark Knight rises was just a mess that made no sense to me. And i'm not a hardcore batman lover in all forms, i know the basics, and am not against changes and reboots. the film to me was just... dumb. The motivations of the characters and their actions made little to no sense, and the structure was appalling.

I didn't have my hopes up for it being as good as the first two films, but i didn't expect it to be bad. but it was bad to me. Very bad.

Meh.

Back to topic: especially the Depp casting.

Gordon_4:

Pyrian:

Helmholtz Watson:
Tell me again on how being a Norse God wouldn't make you look like the Norse people(see:Scandinavia)?

There are an enormous number of Gods of various cultures that do not look anything like the people of that culture. Also, keep in mind that in the fiction under discussion, the "Gods" are not a result of Norse culture, but rather an alien predecessor. If all they knew of Heimdall was what they'd been told of his duties, their depictions of him would not necessarily carry any real meaning.

That and since the movie 'Thor's is based on the Marvel Comics, the history and culture has been thrice bastardized before Idris Elba was even involved. I can even imagine a conversation between Odin and Heimdall going thus:

Odin: "Does it bother you that they Earthlings get your physical description wrong all the time?"

Heimdall: "I'm an all-seeing space god with a giant magic sword; what do I care what they're doing?"

On the other hand, his casting would have been actually contentious if they'd been adapting the Prose Edda or something from actual Norse mythology.

What these two guys said seconded.

BabySinclair:

Heimdall's character is not defined by his race/skin tone. He is the guardian of the Bifrost and Asgard. Tonto on the other hand is defined partially by his ethnicity as a Native American, like how the Prince of Persia is you know, Persian. John Shaft is defined by his race. It's central to understanding him as a character as a inner-city cop at the crossroad of the economic struggles by those in the black community and the system dictated/created by white people. Those last three each share a part of their cultural heritage as a fragment of their character. Heimdall is Asgardian, an alien, skin tone is rather less important.

And the whole for every minority role in the media today there are dozens of white roles, even when the character's skin color doesn't matter so shifting in favor of a minority is far less important than shifting away from roles for actors in the minority.

And very much this.

WWmelb:

Woodsey:

hendoben:
Butt hurt Chris Nolan haters are the worst.

The Nolan-poking is starting to wear a little thin, yeah. His last three films have had prominent female characters - before that you could argue they're male-centric, but none of them are particularly healthy, well-adjusted characters. Moreover, I'd hardly say that Rises is ashamed of being a Batman or comic book film.

On topic, the colour saturation on The Lone Ranger makes me feel as if I'm going to get a migraine.

I was just irritated that Dark Knight rises was just a mess that made no sense to me. And i'm not a hardcore batman lover in all forms, i know the basics, and am not against changes and reboots. the film to me was just... dumb. The motivations of the characters and their actions made little to no sense, and the structure was appalling.

I didn't have my hopes up for it being as good as the first two films, but i didn't expect it to be bad. but it was bad to me. Very bad.

I've read a hundred articles on it and I don't get people's issues. I mean, I have seen people nitpick down to the fact that the first scene with him as Batman jumps forward after the scene immediately preceding it by about half an hour too much. Bob himself complained about Liam Neeson explaining the plot in a dream, but he doesn't at all - that sequence is Bruce making a subconscious connection based only on information he's been told. Said connection is also completely wrong, as it's later revealed. Watched it three times now and I've liked it more on each.

I won't fight someone for saying they prefer TDK but I could never fully stand in that corner either. Begins felt a little torn between the more comic book-y presentation and the realistic style of TDK. I've always preferred him becoming Batman as opposed to him being Batman in that film. Second half doesn't work as well.

Woodsey:

WWmelb:

Woodsey:

The Nolan-poking is starting to wear a little thin, yeah. His last three films have had prominent female characters - before that you could argue they're male-centric, but none of them are particularly healthy, well-adjusted characters. Moreover, I'd hardly say that Rises is ashamed of being a Batman or comic book film.

On topic, the colour saturation on The Lone Ranger makes me feel as if I'm going to get a migraine.

I was just irritated that Dark Knight rises was just a mess that made no sense to me. And i'm not a hardcore batman lover in all forms, i know the basics, and am not against changes and reboots. the film to me was just... dumb. The motivations of the characters and their actions made little to no sense, and the structure was appalling.

I didn't have my hopes up for it being as good as the first two films, but i didn't expect it to be bad. but it was bad to me. Very bad.

I've read a hundred articles on it and I don't get people's issues. I mean, I have seen people nitpick down to the fact that the first scene with him as Batman jumps forward after the scene immediately preceding it by about half an hour too much. Bob himself complained about Liam Neeson explaining the plot in a dream, but he doesn't at all - that sequence is Bruce making a subconscious connection based only on information he's been told. Said connection is also completely wrong, as it's later revealed. Watched it three times now and I've liked it more on each.

I won't fight someone for saying they prefer TDK but I could never fully stand in that corner either. Begins felt a little torn between the more comic book-y presentation and the realistic style of TDK. I've always preferred him becoming Batman as opposed to him being Batman in that film. Second half doesn't work as well.

I get the content and what it all meant, that wasn't my issue. I have no problem with other people enjoying it, i wanted to enjoy and really thought i would. I like Nolan as a director usually, but, i just couldn't get invested in this film. Every character seemed half baked, even batman. Too much going on, over too long a period of time with little of it being of consequence. Much like the Harvey Dent arc of The Dark Knight. Fortunately for that film, it had enough other redeeming features, that that half baked inclusion didn't bring the rest of the film down with it.

Just my view on it. Glad most people liked it, but i just couldn't however much i tried.

And i agree with you on Begins. The first half worked much better.

WWmelb:

Woodsey:

hendoben:
Butt hurt Chris Nolan haters are the worst.

The Nolan-poking is starting to wear a little thin, yeah. His last three films have had prominent female characters - before that you could argue they're male-centric, but none of them are particularly healthy, well-adjusted characters. Moreover, I'd hardly say that Rises is ashamed of being a Batman or comic book film.

On topic, the colour saturation on The Lone Ranger makes me feel as if I'm going to get a migraine.

I was just irritated that Dark Knight rises was just a mess that made no sense to me. And i'm not a hardcore batman lover in all forms, i know the basics, and am not against changes and reboots. the film to me was just... dumb. The motivations of the characters and their actions made little to no sense, and the structure was appalling.

I didn't have my hopes up for it being as good as the first two films, but i didn't expect it to be bad. but it was bad to me. Very bad.

Meh.

Back to topic: especially the Depp casting.

Gordon_4:

Pyrian:
There are an enormous number of Gods of various cultures that do not look anything like the people of that culture. Also, keep in mind that in the fiction under discussion, the "Gods" are not a result of Norse culture, but rather an alien predecessor. If all they knew of Heimdall was what they'd been told of his duties, their depictions of him would not necessarily carry any real meaning.

That and since the movie 'Thor's is based on the Marvel Comics, the history and culture has been thrice bastardized before Idris Elba was even involved. I can even imagine a conversation between Odin and Heimdall going thus:

Odin: "Does it bother you that they Earthlings get your physical description wrong all the time?"

Heimdall: "I'm an all-seeing space god with a giant magic sword; what do I care what they're doing?"

On the other hand, his casting would have been actually contentious if they'd been adapting the Prose Edda or something from actual Norse mythology.

What these two guys said seconded.

BabySinclair:

Heimdall's character is not defined by his race/skin tone. He is the guardian of the Bifrost and Asgard. Tonto on the other hand is defined partially by his ethnicity as a Native American, like how the Prince of Persia is you know, Persian. John Shaft is defined by his race. It's central to understanding him as a character as a inner-city cop at the crossroad of the economic struggles by those in the black community and the system dictated/created by white people. Those last three each share a part of their cultural heritage as a fragment of their character. Heimdall is Asgardian, an alien, skin tone is rather less important.

And the whole for every minority role in the media today there are dozens of white roles, even when the character's skin color doesn't matter so shifting in favor of a minority is far less important than shifting away from roles for actors in the minority.

And very much this.

not to interrupt, but since nobody has posted a list of native american actors http://www.imdb.com/list/2eje60Y5XLk/

also that's just an IMDB list that popped up first. if i can find them on google a big budget movie might be able to find more by sending out a call for native american actors

So... Eric Sachs... Is there something funny about this other than it sounds like "Eric sucks"?

Maybe its a mythlogical factor...

From the review this film seems to take the Far Side cartoon joke where kemosabe is "an Apache expression for a horse's rear end" and the older joke of it being a corruption of the Spanish phrase "quien no sabe" ("he who doesn't understand") throw them into a blender and then run with the result.

I guess the only thankful thing is that it didn't take the Spanish meaning of Tonto ("stupid") seriously for the character though that meaning seem to apply to the whole movie. Considering Native American writer Sherman Alexie claimed in 1996 that "They were calling each other 'idiot' all those years." the term somehow fits this movie.

Seldon2639:
So, let me make sure I understand this:

Actual Native American Tribes on Johnny Depp playing Tanto: "kinda weird, but we'll induct him into our tribes and be happy that Native Americans are getting a positive character in a movie, rather than caring who was cast; so congratulations to the newest Comanche."

Movie Bob: "It is wrong on so many levels for Johnny Depp to be playing Tanto."

When the actual Native Americans have less objection than you do, perhaps your position is less reasonable than you think.

Yeah... as seemingly the resident Native American on the Escapist I can say that I really don;t give a damn about Johnny Depp playing Tanto, I mean I haven't seen the movie... but at face value I really couldn't care less... and honestly I like Johnny Depp, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was great...<.<

And seriously, what Native Americans were they gonna get to play Tonto? Lou Diamond Philips? because that one quarter Indian totally makes the role PC... seriously... Native American actors just don't really exist...<.<

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here