Escape to the Movies: The Lone Ranger

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

One thing though, about Johnny's casting - why is it bad that he's white? I'm more offput by the fact that he doesn't SEEM remotely native American, and the costume is ridiculous. But were he white and still good for the part, why should it matter? They're not casting white people specifically to marginalise natives, they're clearly doing it because Depp has name recognition value, which would be fine with me - IF he were any good for the part.

And as for the Shredder, I am so thankful not to be attached to too many of the series that were on when I was a child, because they're being murdered and the corpses displayed. My bet is it's a quick, cheap attempt to cash in on the whole anti-corporate thing the US in particular has going on, which was sort of the same vibe I got from the latest Batman, and as someone who doesn't live in the US I don't really appreciate it, just like when Cerberus was described as a terrorist organisation in ME and we're all expected to reconsider our opinions. But yeah. Not necessarily one to judge before the final product is revealed, but it's a fucking trainwreck on paper.

I'm hoping they never get their hands on Astro Boy, personally, or he'll be the US military's top secret weapon and have to fight a bunch of experimental mechs stolen by terrorists to defend the US.

My big question as this got closer to release wasn't "will it suck?" (of course it would - just didn't know this badly), but "how is a cowboy movie - anchored by supposed safe-bet Depp - going to stack up a the BO?"

The numbers so far aren't good, and while I want to believe it's about just no wanting to see obvious crap, these are the points Disney may take away from what I was assuming will become this year's John Carter (going by BO only, not actual quality of film itself):

-Unless Pirates 5 and Alice 2 do well, Depp may have reached over-saturation and, at 50, is looking at the end of his megastar career.

-The cowboy genre is dead as a blockbuster.

-Disney stops with the lesser known properties and focuses exclusively on their juggernauts, Marvel and Star Wars.

That's probably all for the best, but it also means that they miss the biggest point:

Stop. Making. Crap.

Daaaah Whoosh:
I'm getting pretty tired of starting out thinking 'this movie looks stupid, but I'm sure it will at least be fun', only to have people tell me 'it's horrible, and boring'. I mean, is it seriously THAT hard to make a solid action movie these days?

Truth be told, I do not personally think it's hard to make a movie at least entertaining.

I admit of knowing little to knowing nothing about movie production, but I can tell you that this movie had no effort put into it other then "Hey it's a Lone Ranger movie trying to be it's own gig. Laugh, but don't laugh cause it's serious too! .... Watch it!"

The problem I see here is that the director doesn't know what he wants the movie to be overall. It had potential, it could of not only made sense but impress people with the sequences but as far as I know, it's all mixed with no solid context. Everyone who've I heard watched it thought it was 'pointless' seeing meaning the movie gave no feelings or afterthoughts for people to reflect on.

OT: My problem with this movie is that Johnny Depp used the 'I am this % of native american giving me total rights of playing as Tonto'. It shouldn't be about what race or resemblance you have. It's about how well you play as the character in personality and if you suit the part. Oh and painting his face all white just really feels kind of ... racist. I know it's not racist but, it's just.... ugh, stupid when you could of placed maybe some markings at least? The black lines were fine just- eh. I don't know.

I didn't think that the lone ranger deserved the hating it's getting. Sure it's not an Oscar level film but its not THAT bad. It came across to me as a message film. *SPOILERS*.
So Armie Hammer starts off the film as a naive young city lawyer and a large part of the film is about him coming to terms with what justice and real life is. I thought movie bob was unjust in critizing the actions of Armie Hammer because of that. His actions were SUPPOSED to be duffus actions because that allows for a contrast between his nativity and the rest of the characters. Even Tonto in his mind cracked state is far more world savey then Hammer and it's supposed to show.
I thought this film was less about the story and more about the message. And speaking of story I also think Movie Bob was unfair in saying the story jumps around. Part of the fault of that is the flashback way in which it was told-which i hated- but as far as the plot line goes it was rather coherent. It might seem like the plot is jumping around but that is because you and the characters are learning of the past while in the present, both in the story and through the flashbacks. But other then that, the story is about two men's greed, not about the railroad or anything else. Everything else is simply there so that the men can get the money that they want.
As for Johnny Depp's Tonto, since the native american tribe in question made him an honorary native american I'm pretty sure everyones claims about it being wrong on so many different levels are completely invalid.

Anyway those are my two cents. Thoughts?

EDIT: Oh ya message. So the message which could be taken a number of different ways is about greed (obviously). I mean you have these two guys who wipe out an entire village of native americans and then spend 20 years infiltrating the railroads and becoming major outlaws in order to get the silver. Now whether this is a message as to the greed of corporations or the greed of individual men is up to the viewer. Personally i think the message leans more towards the corporations because of little talk that the head of the railroad committee had with Hammer. It could also be more then greed and just simply the corruption of the corporations. Or maybe I'm just reading too much into this.

SonOfVoorhees:
Really Bob? Stupid hat? You start by berating Depp for playing Tonto as he is a white guy and then go on to insult the crow hat thing even though thats authentic native american head gear. Its why Depp wore that, because the indians did, he took that from seeing old photos of actual native americans. Granted, im guessing it was probably more for ceremonies and not on a day to day basis, but still its authentic.

Actually its not. Its based on a historically inaccurate (though still pretty damn good) painting of a native american warrior with a crow in the background that looks kind of like a hat. Source: http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2012/04/johnny-depp-explains-his-bird-hat Additionally I think Bob was making the point that dressing someone up in what essentially amounts to a racist caricature for laughs isn't appropriate in this day and age.

Heh. The pre-roll I got for this was an ad for the Lone Ranger. I'm not sure if that is good placement or a waste.

Winthrop:

SonOfVoorhees:
Really Bob? Stupid hat? You start by berating Depp for playing Tonto as he is a white guy and then go on to insult the crow hat thing even though thats authentic native american head gear. Its why Depp wore that, because the indians did, he took that from seeing old photos of actual native americans. Granted, im guessing it was probably more for ceremonies and not on a day to day basis, but still its authentic.

Actually its not. Its based on a historically inaccurate (though still pretty damn good) painting of a native american warrior with a crow in the background that looks kind of like a hat. Source: http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2012/04/johnny-depp-explains-his-bird-hat Additionally I think Bob was making the point that dressing someone up in what essentially amounts to a racist caricature for laughs isn't appropriate in this day and age.

But the thing is, the character is completely insane due to the murder of his entire village. The rest of the natives in the film (with their short appearance) do actually seem to be fairly accurate. Hell, as the movie was coming out I wondered what would have been more racist: The fact that Johnny Depp was playing a native or if an actual native were to play his part. On one hand, we have a white person portraying another race, but on the other we have someone of the actual race being played for laughs about stereotypes. Honestly, I'd take the whole casting as light commentary on white people that claim to be part native: They get the culture wrong.

Can we just go back to having the Italians make our westerns? That was working out for awhile

Interesting fact on the set of the Lone Ranger Johnny Depp could be heard singing this often-this is a copy of the lyrics:

I'm so white
You're so Brown
Once I go Brown I never go back
I'm so white
You're so Brown
I wanna be at where you are at

I'm so white
You're so Brown
My skin color is a minor setback
I'm so white and you're so Brown

I wanna change
From the palest gray to the darkest day
From the whitest lie to the blackest night

I wanna be a Native American like Red Cloud
I wanna be a Native American I really mean it
I wanna be a Native American like Cochise
I wanna be a Native American like Crazy Hoooooooooooooorse
Set me free

I will practice every day
Won't be an embarrassment I'll get those subtitles down
All the way please let me in
To your club
Because I wanna change
From the palest gray to the darkest day
From the whitest lie to the blackest night

From the whitest lie
To the blackest night

The only good Turtles movie was the first one. It was dark, the turtles were wise cracking teens, it felt just like the show did but with a little bit of an edge. The second one was an abomination.

Everything I read about this Micheal Bay Turtles reboot sounds terrible. Including "Eric Sachs". In 2013 we can't cast a Japanese actor as the main villain, he has to be some white dude? Not to mention all the terrible other things from early scripts, like the turtles actually being aliens.

I know the original show was never great and existed to sell the toys, of which I bought too many, but it has an established mythos and characters and tone. Change it to a degree, sure, but change it too much at your peril.

Actually the film sounds fun Bob

Pyrian:

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.

There have been other groups who don't like it, and I felt I should state so, not every natvie american groups is okay with the destitution, some have and that very nice of them, shows a lot acceptance. Cherry picking refers to picking results or reactions and ignoring others to get across a point which is what Seldon2639 was doing, it might a bit of a hash use of the term as the largest groups are cool with depp as tonto but it is an example of it.

Armie Hammer has a very punchable face. Then he did that evil character in Reaper, and it made sense - the man was born to be a villain. Not the Lone Ranger. Should have been the bad guy

I think the problem is they wouldn't be able to find a respectable Native American that would be able to play the role as Johnny Depp did. Or want to, rather..

And the throw a wrench in the racism in movies complaints: Will Smith's daughter is going to be little orphan Annie.
Chew on that.

Jetsetneo:

The long story short is; because there are not nearly as many roles for minorities to play, and when they SHOULD get them they get handed out to, not only the 'wrong' minority, but often a Caucasian ('the majority').

Tonto is a role steeped in Native American Culture, its intrinsic to the character, you can't divorce it. So it seems very wrong to give it to a non-native American.

Now, I can't name a Native American star who puts that part of themselves up front, but i don't know if thats yet ANOTHER problem with hollywood or what.

I don't like it either way, but its the sad truth of what is happening. Besides, Johnny Depp wasn't right for this role for many other reasons than 'hes a white guy'.

I didn't had a problem with jonny depp playing an native american. Then again i am really not into western movies, so i didn't even knew that "The lone Ranger" existed before this movie.
I think it's jonny depp, because they just wanted another Pirates of the Carribean. It had jonny depp in it and was a big success, in a time were nobody watched pirate movies. So they thought: What genre does nobody watch anymore? Westerns!
So they made a western with jonny depp in it.

Meh, biggest problem I saw with this movie was the tone. I mean it wants to be a fun stupid movie like the PotC movies. But when you're making a movie like that, you don't show Indian Genocides and people eating people. The movie was fun the 1st and 3rd act, but when they were trying to be serious in the 2nd, and forcing that Indian Genocide thing within a 10 minute action sequence - yeah! That's when the movie was seriously crap and offensive. I personal found the white guy as Tonto annoying too, but I was willing to overlook it. Honestly I thought the retelling of Tonto as a man with a broken mind that imagines there being spirit guides and Windigos as pretty good, good material there that wasn't used that well.

Oh and Bob, what is with you and giving Chris Nolan movies crap? Seriously, I think you're just waiting for the chance for him to make a bad movie so you can write him off as a hack. The guy is the best director in Hollywood right now. You like have a secret agenda against him because he made a Batman movie gritty and not child friendly. Like George Carlin said! My word to that is:

FUCK THE CHILDREN!

Stupid snot-nose brats! It's not the 90s anymore (and back then it was bad) and they now got enough stupid comic book characters in DC and Marvel universe to look up to (which is why Man of Steel sucks because Superman is definitely for children). Batman is ours!

I'll be damned if the next Batman re-imagining is somewhere along the lines of the Avengers...ugh!

-_-

:P

Amir Kondori:
The only good Turtles movie was the first one. It was dark, the turtles were wise cracking teens, it felt just like the show did but with a little bit of an edge. The second one was an abomination.

I wouldn't call it dark, it was more down to earth. Like it really was taking place. And the movie was cheaply made that gave it that lived in feel of over the shoulder VHS recording machines. Which is what made it great. It gave you the sense that mutant turtles could be living the sewers. Definitely better than even the cartoon, and not as dark as the comics.

My father is currently writhing around in his urn right now as he was a BIG Lone Ranger fan and has an AUTHENTIC SIGNED PICTURE of the original ranger. I knew it was gonna be bad after seeing pictures of him and hearing Johnny Depp was Tonto but you mutha fecking bastards in Hollywood, please rot in the festering maggot trenches of hell.

So, no mention of the twenty-or-so minute long train fight at the climax of the movie? That was two hours into the movie, but it was what made the movie worthwhile. The entire scene was set to The Light Cavalry Overture, it had action that made Pirates of the Carribean wish it had trains?

Nothing at all?

I was most disappointed in the narrative. Didn't give a shit about Depp's portrayal of Tonto, I didn't think Depp was offensive or poorly cast because I just cannot give a shit. I was on board with Depp when I saw him as old Tonto in 1933, then the narrative never took the steps I wanted it to go. I wanted the movie to take the path of Call of Juarez: Gunslinger and have an inconsistent narrator who skips around time and messes up parts of his story and interacts with his listeners, making the listeners actual characters instead of plot devices, all the while giving the storyteller more of a character.

If you guys and girls want a good Western story with Western action and Western characters, buy Call of Juarez: Gunslinger.

Helmholtz Watson:

BabySinclair:

tdylan:
snip

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.

How it Jesus/God depicted today? White. Where was Jesus born? The Middle East. What skin tone is native to those in the Middle East? Not white. Cultures will often change the depiction of cultural figures to better match their ideals. Jesus became European because Europeans thought themselves superior to those of different skin tones. There are historical records in which historically significant people suddenly become whiter if they were a positive influence. Why wouldn't the Scandinavians have done the same with their gods?

*edit* same goes for body shape, hair color, and any other physical trait. It was quite common to make historic leaders and icons represent their ideals, still goes on today too.

Urgh, can we stop with the actor's race doesn't match the character's race, what is this, 2011?

Reign in the disgust (how dare he!) and less distaste will creep into the review.

It's pretty funny how I got an ad for The Lone Ranger played right before this scathing review...

Helmholtz Watson:
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.

I must have missed the part in Thor where Idris Elba was made-up and costumed to look like a white guy and then proceeded to act like an incredibly ridiculous stereotype of a white guy, as though it were a reverse minstrel show.

If when they met up with the other Natives the Natives had been like, "Pssst, Lone Ranger, Tonto isn't actually an Indian, he's a white guy pretending to be one" rather than the half-assed PTSD thing, now THAT would have had actual comedic potential.

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.

First off, I didn't ask about other cultures, I asked specifically about Northern Europe. Second, your comment about other cultures is a red herring.

Pyrian:
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.

If your going to base your story/character off of a real religion/culture, then its fair game for people to call out the inaccuracies in said story. Case in point, despite never claiming to be 100% realistic, people(Bob included) had no problem pointing out the inaccuracies in the movie 300.

Dr. Cakey:
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!"

And every time I see people over simplify political correctness as nothing more than having "human decency", I remember what what Charlton Heston said, "political correctness is tyranny with manners". For more in depth commentary on political correctness and its effects on society, feel free to watch this video[1].

Dr. Cakey:

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

Your sarcasm aside, it all depends on what religion his role would be based off because depending on the religion it might be fine(like in Bruce Almighty) or it might be inaccurate(like if he was cast as Zeus).

Teshi:

Helmholtz Watson:
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.

I must have missed the part in Thor where Idris Elba was made-up and costumed to look like a white guy and then proceeded to act like an incredibly ridiculous stereotype of a white guy, as though it were a reverse minstrel show.

You also must have missed that part where I never claimed that that Idris Elba wore make-up to look like a White guy, and that I only said some people seem to get upset when Goku is played by a White guy but they are totally silent when Idris Elba plays a Norse god.

[1] While granted, the video is on the subject of laws banning unpopular opinions, its still relevant to the subject of political correctness.

BabySinclair:

How it Jesus/God depicted today? White. Where was Jesus born? The Middle East. What skin tone is native to those in the Middle East? Not white.

You realize that Jesus was a ethnic Jew, yes? As an ethnic Jew myself, I must ask....you realize that just because we are indigenous to the Middle East, doesn't mean we have to look like some oreintalistic stereotype, right? Seriously, look at Israel's eastern neighbor, Jordan, and you will see that the Jordanian king and queen have *GASP* a light/fair complexion and the king even has *GASP* blue eyes! Its almost as if having a fair complexion and light eyes isn't something exclusive to ethnic-Europeans and that the idea that only white people can have a light complexion/light eyes is not only factually wrong, but also incredibly Euro-centic in its thinking.
Nah, that couldn't be it, right? I mean I'm only a Jew so what would I know about how I and my family look like? /sarcasm

BabySinclair:
Cultures will often change the depiction of cultural figures to better match their ideals. Jesus became European because Europeans thought themselves superior to those of different skin tones. There are historical records in which historically significant people suddenly become whiter if they were a positive influence. Why wouldn't the Scandinavians have done the same with their gods?

What? Did you really just compare Christianity, a religion that came from the Middle East, with the Norse religion, a religion that comes from Northern Europe? You do realize that Norse paganism is indigenous to Europe in its origin while Christianity is not indigenous in origin to Europe, right? Why would the people who came up with the belief in the Ăsir change the depiction of their gods to have whiter skin and not just have light skin to begin with? Better yet, do you have any, any credible academic level proof at all that the Northern Europeans changed the depiction of Heimdallr from someone with a dark complexion to someone with a light complexion?
I mean, to me it seems odd that they would depict Heimdallr as having a dark complexion when he is described as being the "Whitest of the Gods" and his name means "the one who illuminates the world", but maybe you have credible academic proof that proves me wrong.

Okay. It's been two reviews now and I know this is just little old me speaking - but what the Hell is everyone's problem with the supposed "travesty" that Man of Steel is said to be? I've seen the movie and I have no beef with it, other than the fact that it's fairly underwhelming!

As for the big shocker twist about Supes and Zod - well, gee whiz, I didn't know hardcore comic book fans could be so blind, because the fact is, Superman *does* occasionally kill others! He's killed Zod at least twice and sat there like a boss while Faora and her flunkies choked on Kryptonite dust! He doesn't *want* to, no, but sometimes the end do indeed justify the means.

We all like to remember Superman as a very Golden Age-type character. That is to say, he's endlessly optimistic and upbeat, has oddles of hope in the human race and ideals forged out of cast iron so there's absolutely no way whatsoever he could ever off someone, right?

Right?

Well, no. He does, because Superman has emotional weaknesses. Try Injustice for a non-canon example, while keeping the mind that there's a ton of canonical examples where Supes the Oh-So-Perfect actually takes a life or two.

Daaaah Whoosh:
I'm getting pretty tired of starting out thinking 'this movie looks stupid, but I'm sure it will at least be fun', only to have people tell me 'it's horrible, and boring'. I mean, is it seriously THAT hard to make a solid action movie these days?

No, it's not. If you want dumb fun and action you can do way worse than this movie. Bob just has something up his ass about this movie for some reason.

AC10:
Damn Bob, you really tore into this one!
I've not heard anyone who has liked this movie thus far. Too bad I guess!

*Raises hand sheepily*

I did?

Aiddon:
The guys who wrote this have no idea how to reconcile differences in tone. They obviously want to try to do a very grand, almost Errol Flynn type adventure but then they juxtapose it over Fichtner eating people. At the very least I hope this serves as a wakeup call to Verbinski and Depp because the former has done nothing but bloated, boring movies for too long and the latter needs to start taking acting seriously again.

Also, has Michael Bay ever actually SEEN an Asian person before? I think he literally doesn't know that Asia actually exists. It probably wouldn't have been that hard to get an Asian actor to play Shredder either.

I gotta admit that there was a rather jarring tone difference when

I mean sheesh.

OT: Meh, I liked the movie. Of course I never saw the original series or anything (being a 90s kid) but this movie was fun enough. People are getting insanely hypercritical of movies nowadays.

Having just watched it, I would say that it was an okay movie. Not exceedingly boring or terrible or crap or anything. The pacing is a bit stilted and predictable and it's kind of forgettable. As far as Johnny Depp playing Tonto, if the Native Americans approved it, which reportedly they did, it does make it ok, in my opinion.
Was he miscast? Abso-freakin'-lotely, there should have been an actual Indian playing the roll.
I have one question that was completely ignored throughout the film. What was with the fanged, freaky, carnivorous/cannibalistic rabbits?!?!? Seriously, WTF?

Cant say Im surprised by this considering the director and the fact that Johnny Depp is in it.

I also agree that its exceedingly unfair that Depp played Tanto when a real native American could have taken up the role. They might have performed poorly but at least they would have been the real deal. On a similar note Im still annoyed that Idris Elba ended up playing Heimdall (to his credit he did an amazing job in that role but thats not the point) because I believe its important to stay true to your source material and as much as I want there to be about equal opportunity there just isnt the chance to do that when you have every time. I know bob makes the argument that minorities should get these roles because there are far less roles for them in hollywood but that doesnt address the reasons I think its wrong to allow for a double standard. O

Also, I agree its nonsense that the Shredder would be played by anything but a Japanese actor if the shredder will have the same or similar origin as the old cartoon shows. Now if the shredder is now some alien being like Ive heard the turtles are supposed to be then I wont mind the change in the sense of the movie but I will since its not being true to the source material I know (that being the 90s cartoon show)

Other than being a spectacularly stupid name, does Eric Sachs mean anything in particular?

Helmholtz Watson:
What? Did you really just compare Christianity, a religion that came from the Middle East, with the Norse religion, a religion that comes from Northern Europe? You do realize that Norse paganism is indigenous to Europe in its origin while Christianity is not indigenous in origin to Europe, right? Why would the people who came up with the belief in the Ăsir change the depiction of their gods to have whiter skin and not just have light skin to begin with? Better yet, do you have any, any credible academic level proof at all that the Northern Europeans changed the depiction of Heimdallr from someone with a dark complexion to someone with a light complexion?
I mean, to me it seems odd that they would depict Heimdallr as having a dark complexion when he is described as being the "Whitest of the Gods" and his name means "the one who illuminates the world", but maybe you have credible academic proof that proves me wrong.

Why would anyone need academic proof? People are just speculating based on the movie's events. But just for fun I actually have a physical copy of Myths of the Norsemen by H.A. Guerber next to me. Here is a link to a site with a free pdf.

http://manybooks.net/titles/guerberh2849728497-8.html

First of all the Whitest part does not refer to Heimdall's skin tone. And why would it? Now I'm not saying that the "actual" Norse gods weren't white, but if having pale skin was all it took then why would only one of them be especially called out as the whitest? This should be at about page 78 on the pdf.

Heimdall was always depicted in resplendent white armour, and he was therefore called the bright god. He
was also known as the light, innocent, and graceful god, all of which names he fully deserved, for he was as
good as he was beautiful, and all the gods loved him. Connected on his mothers' side with the sea, he was
sometimes included with the Vanas; and as the ancient Northmen, especially the Icelanders, to whom the
surrounding sea appeared the most important element, fancied that all things had risen out of it, they attributed
to him an all-embracing knowledge and imagined him particularly wise.

"Of Ăsir the brightest-- He well foresaw Like other Vanir."
SŠmund's Edda (Thorpe's tr.).
Heimdall was further distinguished by his golden teeth, which flashed when he smiled, and won for him the
surname of Gullintani (golden-toothed). He was also the proud possessor of a swift, golden-maned steed
called Gull-top, which bore him to and fro over the quivering rainbow bridge. This he crossed many times a
day, but particularly in the early morn, at which time, as herald of the day, he bore the name of Heimdellinger.
"Early up Bifr÷st Ran Ulfrun's son, The mighty hornblower Of Himinbi÷rg."

He is actually described as having White armor, golden teeth, and riding a horse with a golden mane. He is known as the Whitest because of his bright white armor. In the movie his armor is bright and shiny but it is gold instead of white. And I guess they figured giving him golden eyes was a more suitable physical attribute, because even giving a White actor golden teeth would look bad. And of course if we were going by the actual myths Thor should be a ginger who shoots lightning from his beard when he's angry. He should also never be allowed on the Rainbow Bridge because his power would damage it. At around page 34 of the pdf.

As he was god of thunder, Thor alone was never allowed to pass over the wonderful bridge Bifr÷st, lest he
should set it aflame by the heat of his presence; and when he wished to join his fellow gods by the Urdar
fountain, under the shade of the sacred tree Yggdrasil, he was forced to make his way thither on foot, wading
through the rivers Kormt and Ormt, and the two streams Kerlaug, to the trysting place.
Thor, who was honoured as the highest god in Norway, came second in the trilogy of all the other countries,
and was called "old Thor," because he is supposed by some mythologists to have belonged to an older dynasty
of gods, and not on account of his actual age, for he was represented and described as a man in his prime, tall
and well formed, with muscular limbs and bristling red hair and beard, from which, in moments of anger, the
sparks flew in showers.

And this is the biggest problem with your stance. This movie is not based off the actual Norse myths. This is a movie based of a Marvel comic book series that was loosely based on the Norse Myths. And it is not even set up in the same way as the Wonder Woman mythos of DC comics where the Greek God are supposed to be actual Gods. Nope, in the Marvel universe the Asgardians are inter-dimensional aliens who live on an asteroid that visit earth on occasion. What you should be asking for is not academic proof but comicbook canon. And from what I can find whenever Heimdall is shown in the comics he looked like this.

image

So like the other Asgardians in the comics he looks little like his physical description in the myths. And again, like most Asquardians in the comics was white, but big whoop. Its not like Heimdall has that major of a role in the comics or the movies. And personality wise Elba did a great job portraying an all seeing, all hearing, wise, guardian of the Rainbow Bridge. He also looks cooler.

Now if an actual movie depicting the Norse myths is ever made feel free to demand that the cast be all white. That would make perfect sense, this movie however is far too removed from the actual mythology for particulars.

RJ Dalton:
Other than being a spectacularly stupid name, does Eric Sachs mean anything in particular?

Variations of the word "Sachs" mean "scissors" in several European languages. Could be a coincidence, though.

Depp tried something fun and original in Pirates of the Caribbean, now it seems no one will cast him unless he reprises the same character over and over again.

I wonder if in T.M.B.T (Teenage Mutant Bay Turtles), if Shredder will have a forced Japanese accent.

RJ Dalton:
Other than being a spectacularly stupid name, does Eric Sachs mean anything in particular?

It's just a shitty attempt to Anglicize Shredder's REAL name which is Oroku Saki. Ugh, Michael Bay might be the most racially insensitive filmmaker in the world.

Aiddon:

RJ Dalton:
Other than being a spectacularly stupid name, does Eric Sachs mean anything in particular?

It's just a shitty attempt to Anglicize Shredder's REAL name which is Oroku Saki. Ugh, Michael Bay might be the most racially insensitive filmmaker in the world.

Wow. I mean, WOW. That's some 4kids level bullshit right there. I mean, what's the real problem here? If you think about it, the villain being a foreigner sounds like it fits right in with Michael Bay's tendency towards racism, so this change doesn't even make sense from that perspective. My guess is Michael Bay just doesn't like foreigners.

 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