The Big Picture: The Lone Ranger: What Happened?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Vivi22:
Pacific Rim has been out for a weekend and almost made back half of it's budget in that time. Not bad for a brand new franchise with no big name stars in it.

*Looks at Perlman and Elba* How dare you...

mattawbrown:
God, whenever I hear that quasi speech impediment Bostonian slipping in my mind immediately blocks everything out. Just another American having a hissy-fit because things didn't go their way.

American, no. 1 according to no one.

And here I came to the comments thread specifically to say (as a Boston transplant) that every time Bob's Bostonian accent leaks in I just giggle a bit. It's such a fun accent.

It sort of blows my mind a bit that during the same week the Lone Ranger "bombs," a trailer for this Disney live-action movie comes out.

I can hardly comprehend how excited I am about this movie. And next to the Lone Ranger and the motivations behind it...my mind simply can't handle the fact that this stuff is coming from the came company right now.

JimB:
Westerns are cool.

Westerns are America's legends, or at least the legends of the America that we have become. The gunslinger is America's knight in shining armor, our samurai, our cultural exemplar of a hero. The Western is a story about a hard man living in a hard time, a man who doesn't want to be a killer but must in order to battle the killers threatening those he loves. The Western is a story about a man who, after the entire movie has been spent piling pressure on him, becomes willing to take damnation onto himself in order to protect those who can't bear that burden not because he's broken and has become a beast but because he has made a choice as a man to embrace what of the beast he can use as a man. The Western is set in a nearly fantastical world we barely recognize where water is scarce and where enemy armies are camped out in the darkness just beyond our sight. The Western is a magical experience when done right, and if one is in a theater I will always go see it.

I did not go to see the Lone Ranger, and I never will, because I have no reason to believe it is a Western. I have seen nothing to suggest it has any understanding of what makes a Western great, and from what I've heard, no one else has seen that either.

This is not intended to rebut anything Mr. Chipman said. I'm sure his analysis is spot-on, and even if it isn't, I haven't seen the movie myself so I don't get to call him a liar. I'm only saying the Lone Ranger did not really want to be a Western, and that is a source of great sadness for me.

This is a very very astute observation. The first pirates of the Caribbean worked, not simply because of Johnny Depp's weird and wacky character. It worked because at it's heart it was a dead on perfect Swashbuckling Pirate Adventure movie. It channeled the days of Erol Flynn and company. It worked in its chosen genre and context. The later movies decreased in impact in large part because they failed to appreciate what worked in the first and focused more and more on the wrong things. They keep trying to go bigger and more spectacular instead of focusing on the core of what tells the story.

And they did the same thing here. People wanted a good classic Westerner. Preferably something clean and upbeat. Something that modernizes the west of Randolph Scott or John Wayne. Not as much the dirtier darker later stuff. Instead we got this over the top action mess. Huge ass train fights? Evil military? Mental illness? Cannibalism? Johnny Depp was certainly not the cause of this. He was merely a symptom.

And the movie also illustrates the other problem in Hollywood today. The one that it shares with AAA gaming. Costs escalating past the point of being able to reasonably recoup them. Lone Ranger made a $100 million in 2 weeks. The Heat made a $100 million in two weeks. One of them is the years most unexpectedly successful movies. The other is the years biggest flop. Show of hands, who understands why this is?

Holy shit! I'm almost twenty.
I hadn't noticed.

OT:
Wasn't the guy who originally played Tonto white too? I remember that coming up in an episode of the Sopranos.

I'm tired of all these god damn trolls on this god damn forum! If you can't appreciate Bob's slight(pretty slight so far)left view of wanting equality through shown action then why are you here!!!! It paints a large swath of his views and you clearly are too dense to give his ideas the time of day!

Get the hell out!

I stopped caring (never did thou) about this films when they said "it's going to have werewolves" just to follow it after a few months with "now it won't, btw it costs near as much as John Carter" Which was really funny. I've never understood what's with Disney having Depp in every movie as Bob explained. I didn't like Charlie nor Alice in Wonderland. They were just paler, less drunk versions of Jack Sparrow, but Burton seems to make that a profitable thing.

Vault Citizen:
I could have sworn Toy Story 2 was only thirteen years old, I was already around 10 when I saw it *checks* yeah it was released November 99 so "almost twenty has old" is overstating it a bit.

While the picture he showd was TS 2. Toy Story was released in 1995 and WAS the Space vs Cowboys thing. That's almost 18 years ago... Well shit, I saw it on theaters... Oh fuck you now, I'm feeling old and it's your fault! (jk)

Watching this, I realised how odd the whole US discourse about race actually is. Getting riled up about having to cast roles of a certain race with members of a certain race is, by definition, in and of itself racist.

I get that the US have a bad track record in terms of civil rights, and that this kind of backlash is basically a direct result of that. However, I don't think that Johnny Depp playing a Native American is the issue. I get blackface being offensive because of the history associated with that kind of performance, but I don't get the stigma on cross-casting people of different origins.

Admittedly, Depp's performance makes it offensive to Native Americans. Then again, if he were playing a teacher, it would be offensive to teachers. Or to humans. Or to vertebrates. Or to anything consisting of matter. You get the idea.

And yes, I know I sound like a Eurosnob when pointing out that "it works here, why not in the US", but I am just completely baffled by how this is an issue.

PunkRex:

DVS BSTrD:
Well to be fair the whole bird thing didn't have anything to do with Tonto being a n indian
It had everything to do with Tonto himself being insane.

Personally I found the Comanche's reenactment of the end of The Last Samuri to be WAY more offensive. Fucking lemmings.

Why you rip on my favourite film? Im fairly sure the real Samurai didn't go out quite as spectacularly but its still a good battle and the message seemed legit. I know the term Samurai mean't alot of things in Japan back in the day and they didn't all go on about honour and duty but I don't see how it's offensive.

The final charge made sense in the Last Samuri because they had run out of ways to stop the imperial army. Here the indians ALREADY had the army pinned down with arrow fire, but then charged down the the side of the hill straight at them massed tightly together like they were relieving Helm's Deep. Only one of them actually had the sense to try and sneak up on the troopers. It wasn't as though they didn't have any cover.

At least Tonto's actions can be explained by the fact that none of his characteristics are supposed to represent indians as whole because he is quite, quite mad. One of his gags is that he actually feeds the bird-hat several times throughout the film. But the other Indians lack even the most basic inclination for self preservation. A frontal assault would be the last thing any REAL indian would do in that situation and it was completely unnecessary given the situation. But they need a big over the top massacre so that the Lone Ranger will FINALY realize (about 2 hours into the film I might add) that he can't trust the law to do what's right. And all it took was genocide.

pottyaboutpotter1:
Say Bob. The Lone Ranger is Summer 2013's biggest flop. But didn't The Lone Ranger open at No.2 in the Box Office and has made over $100 million? And then there's that Robot movie which opened at No.3 and has yet to make $100 million. I'm not saying anything Bob. Just making an observation.

I'll say it bob's pretty damn selective with the truth and i was dying to say it.

he's a poor loser.

ShadowHamster:
I'm tired of all these god damn trolls on this god damn forum! If you can't appreciate Bob's slight(pretty slight so far)left view of wanting equality through shown action then why are you here!!!! It paints a large swath of his views and you clearly are too dense to give his ideas the time of day!

Get the hell out!

I'm sorry but i didn't see the sheep symbol when i checked in. its not a troll. From my heart.. from my soul when i say something about Bob I Fucking mean it.

and guess what ed wood was not a great movie LOL.
I watched it.. it was kinda fun.. kinda sorta... painful....

So yes you should take what bob says with a grain of salt.

shrekfan246:

Vault Citizen:
I could have sworn Toy Story 2 was only thirteen years old, I was already around 10 when I saw it *checks* yeah it was released November 99 so "almost twenty has old" is overstating it a bit.

The first one.

He used a picture from Toy Story 2, but was talking about Toy Story, where the character arc was about a cowboy feeling replaced by a space ranger because sci-fi was the new 'in' thing.

OT: The whole thing sounds like a huge clusterfuck to me. Fortunately I never had any interest seeing the film in the first place. It is all too correct that Hollywood probably won't realize the actual reason it's a relative flop, though.

That would make sense, I thought he meant 2 because of both the picture and the fact that the cowboy vs spacemen thing was important regarding the villain's motivation in the second film.

Giving up on Westerns would certainly be a shame. I just watched 'The Good, The Bad, The Weird' two days ago, and it pretty much encapsulates how well a Western can be shaped for the modern era.

Seriously, everyone, go watch it.

Look everybody, here is the reason why it is a Good Thing when a traditionally white character is race flipped, but a bad thing when the opposite happens.

From the very beginning of the movie business to this moment right now, Hollywood has predominantly made movies about white people, starring white actors. This is despite that fact that these movies are made in the most diverse country on the planet, and are distributed across the world. This is a problem for several reasons:

1. It makes it very hard to have a career as a nonwhite actor.
2. It makes it so nonwhite moviegoers rarely get to see characters that look like them onscreen.
3. It reinforces the idea that white people are the "default" race.
4. It contributes to the success of Tyler Perry*.

When you take a nonwhite character and make him or her white, you are making all of these problems worse. I am tired of seeing whiny white dudes complain about this.

*There are almost no movies besides Tyler Perry movies with mostly black casts. Black people don't see these movies because they're good, they see them because it's all they've got. I guarantee that if mainstream movies were more diverse, Perry would be out of business. Imagine a world where Adam Sandler comedies were the only movies you could see with a cast of white people.

I have no problem with Depp playing a Native American. I'm not Native American, but I also didn't have a problem with Robert Downey Jr playing a Black man in Tropic thunder. I thought it was a great caricature of a caricature in a Blackploitation film. It was funny and well done. Of all the actors in hollywood, you'd think that Depp would be the one to "get away" with playing a Native American???

I do understand how America's history plays a role in making this a bad idea. A stupid and offensive bad idea.

What I'm not ok with is M Night Shamalamalasfjf doing what he did with Airbender. Casting one white guy as a Native is nothing compared to casting a white guy as the brother of an Indian ruler of a, clearly Asian, culture. It's just stupid and blatantly racist. Not the one white guy, but white washing the Water tribe and Aang, and brown washing the Fire Nation. If there was a real purpose behind the change, I wouldn't have a problem with that awful movie other than the awfulness...

Also ok with....

Parry White being Black
Nick Fury being Black
Heimdall of Thor being Black even though it's odd
Tonto being White

Yay from mixing it up every now and then.....'cept Airbender :I

BROOKLYN RAGE! Halfway through the clip :)

Here are some things people don't seem to know about Depp playing Tonto:

1) Sometimes, Native Americans wear white facepaint and animals on their heads

2) He is, in fact, a small part Native American.

3) "Before signing up for his role as Tonto, he asked for blessings from the Native American community, and was actually offered to be adopted into the family of Comanche activist Ladonna Harris." (from the above-linked article)

If there are real controversies to be found with the movie, Depp's portrayal of Tonto is not one of them.

Vault Citizen:
I could have sworn Toy Story 2 was only thirteen years old, I was already around 10 when I saw it *checks* yeah it was released November 99 so "almost twenty has old" is overstating it a bit.

He never stated "Toy Story 2", but Toy Story featuring Woody as the main character was released almost 20 years ago. His theme is the "nostalgic cowboy toy" theme. I'm sure Bob was talking about that.

The Lone Ranger: What Happened?

Simple.

It was a film from a genre that has struggled to have anything resembling industry clout for practically half a century with mass movie goers only being able to stomach one or two westerns every couple of years. (Just look at what happened in the late 80s early 90s the last time the genre was attempted to be resurrected for mass popularity and took off like a flung rock tied to a 2 ton anvil.)

It was manufactured by an organization that was built on the foundation of leaving ruin and misery in their wake. They have spent almost a century proactively working to corrupt and manipulate entire generations of youth that when they have to approach something that either needs or would benefit from a level of maturity greater than that of a 14 year old they do so with all the grace and painful awkwardness of the average socially backward, homed schooled, head gear wearin`, walking oil and pus factory 14 year old talking to a girl for the first time. On top of that having all of the integrity of the most morally and consciously absent shyster throwing its own mother under a bus to collect the life insurance.

Then it was ventured to fall back on the strength of albeit a talented actor, one that has been so milked over the last decade that not only are audiences tired of seeing his "chameleon act" but has been stretched to the limits of even his ability.

And all that before perhaps the most relevant part, the fact it is a franchise that had became unpopular even before westerns as a whole fell off in popularity and that most of what would have been the fanbase of this franchise who could have been excited for this reboot are predominantly either dead or dying. Without that innate fanbase to fall back on it falls to the film to basically rebuild such a fanbase from scratch and as I pointed out that would be a Sisyphian exercise in futility given that the genre struggles to generate widespread interest, the "main" drawing actor is becoming over used, too worn out in public perception and being controlled by a company that has absolutely no interest in creating something "good" so long as they get to fall back on their "clean" image that dupes lazy and neglectful parents into buying into their products because they are publicly seen as safe and non offensive. Thus giving them no reason to show any care or effort and instead throwing together whatever patchwork scraps that can be slung together haphazardly because it is cheap and easy.

This is one of those instances that honestly there really was no way that anyone couldn't see this coming from a mile away and it is practically impossible to NOT know it would at absolute best be very mediocre from even the first preview trailer six months before its debut. Almost to the point of being so painfully apparent that if you honestly have to wonder what went wrong, there is no reason to ask anyone else because any answer would come off just as incomprehensible as its failing.

Edit: I just find it really surprising. Why is it that so few people proactively try to look forward in situations and not simply take them at face value but to visualize where they will go or what they will do? If those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, why do more people not compare new situations proactively to historical trending to at least prepare themselves for what "might" come.

Edit 2: Surprisingly close, hitting on some, but still missing on a lot. I think the whole "racist" schtick being blamed is getting WAY too much credit at the expense of giving credit where credit is due on the beast that is the house of mouse.

bobleponge:
Look everybody, here is the reason why it is a Good Thing when a traditionally white character is race flipped, but a bad thing when the opposite happens.

From the very beginning of the movie business to this moment right now, Hollywood has predominantly made movies about white people, starring white actors. This is despite that fact that these movies are made in the most diverse country on the planet, and are distributed across the world. This is a problem for several reasons:

1. It makes it very hard to have a career as a nonwhite actor.
2. It makes it so nonwhite moviegoers rarely get to see characters that look like them onscreen
3. It reinforces the idea that white people are the "default" race.
4. It contributes to the success of Tyler Perry*.

When you take a nonwhite character and make him or her white, you are making all of these problems worse. I am tired of seeing whiny white dudes complain about this.

*There are almost no movies besides Tyler Perry movies with mostly black casts. Black people don't see these movies because they're good, they see them because it's all they've got. I guarantee that if mainstream movies were more diverse, Perry would be out of business. Imagine a world where Adam Sandler comedies were the only movies you could see with a cast of white people.

I didn't know skin color was so important to people. Sheesh. I really do wonder why everyone is so absolutely fixated 100% on the ethnicity of people and who play characters. It hardly has any bearing on talent or capability of said actors.

But enough of that sarcasm. If the character isn't historical, or defined by their skin color, then I don't see why having a change is inherently bad either way you do it. So long as it's done for the right reasons, or at least, not racist reasons then it's got it's own set of problems outside of race relations.

DiMono:
Here are some things people don't seem to know about Depp playing Tonto:

1) Sometimes, Native Americans wear white facepaint and animals on their heads

2) He is, in fact, a small part Native American.

3) "Before signing up for his role as Tonto, he asked for blessings from the Native American community, and was actually offered to be adopted into the family of Comanche activist Ladonna Harris." (from the above-linked article)

If there are real controversies to be found with the movie, Depp's portrayal of Tonto is not one of them.

Johnny Depp claims to be from three different nations, and has no documented heritage. Each time he brings it up he's said his great grandmother was probably native. He then changes his story from interview to interview, sometimes she's Creek, sometimes Cherokee, and sometimes Choktaw.

Not only that, Native Americans come from hundreds of different nations, and do not have a set view on anything. Just because some people gave him their blessing, does not mean that it's a consensus. Furthermore, his portray is racist. Based on stereotypes and caricature.

Jenny Jones:
How to make a modern day western: See firefly and/or serenity.

So, the answer is to merge it with other genres? Then it is no longer a western. It's a hybrid with western elements.

DVS BSTrD:

PunkRex:

DVS BSTrD:
Well to be fair the whole bird thing didn't have anything to do with Tonto being a n indian
It had everything to do with Tonto himself being insane.

Personally I found the Comanche's reenactment of the end of The Last Samuri to be WAY more offensive. Fucking lemmings.

Why you rip on my favourite film? Im fairly sure the real Samurai didn't go out quite as spectacularly but its still a good battle and the message seemed legit. I know the term Samurai mean't alot of things in Japan back in the day and they didn't all go on about honour and duty but I don't see how it's offensive.

The final charge made sense in the Last Samuri because they had run out of ways to stop the imperial army. Here the indians ALREADY had the army pinned down with arrow fire, but then charged down the the side of the hill straight at them massed tightly together like they were relieving Helm's Deep. Only one of them actually had the sense to try and sneak up on the troopers. It wasn't as though they didn't have any cover.

At least Tonto's actions can be explained by the fact that none of his characteristics are supposed to represent indians as whole because he is quite, quite mad. One of his gags is that he actually feeds the bird-hat several times throughout the film. But the other Indians lack even the most basic inclination for self preservation. A frontal assault would be the last thing any REAL indian would do in that situation and it was completely unnecessary given the situation. But they need a big over the top massacre so that the Lone Ranger will FINALY realize (about 2 hours into the film I might add) that he can't trust the law to do what's right. And all it took was genocide.

Oooooooooh, you were saying 'The Lone Ranger' had a Last Samurai renactment scene, I misunderstood.

My derp, my derp.

Mr_Terrific:
I have no problem with Depp playing a Native American. I'm not Native American, but I also didn't have a problem with Robert Downey Jr playing a Black man in Tropic thunder. I thought it was a great caricature of a caricature in a Blackploitation film. It was funny and well done. Of all the actors in hollywood, you'd think that Depp would be the one to "get away" with playing a Native American???

I do understand how America's history plays a role in making this a bad idea. A stupid and offensive bad idea.

What I'm not ok with is M Night Shamalamalasfjf doing what he did with Airbender. Casting one white guy as a Native is nothing compared to casting a white guy as the brother of an Indian ruler of a, clearly Asian, culture. It's just stupid and blatantly racist. Not the one white guy, but white washing the Water tribe and Aang, and brown washing the Fire Nation. If there was a real purpose behind the change, I wouldn't have a problem with that awful movie other than the awfulness...

Also ok with....

Parry White being Black
Nick Fury being Black
Heimdall of Thor being Black even though it's odd
Tonto being White

Yay from mixing it up every now and then.....'cept Airbender :I

Usually I don't like characters with a known characteristic (race, hair color, disfigurement, etc) to be altered. But man, Samuel L. Jackson owns that role.

Sooo... why couldn't they cast Johnny as the Lone Ranger instead? If they where afraid that the main character couldn't be the wacky one, allow me to point something out; a straight-man sidekick is 1) not that uncommon, and 2) the Lone Ranger came back from the dead!

Think about it; he either suffered a near-death experience (and severe sunstroke), or he literally died and was then brought back by that spirit animal horse. Either one could easily leave a man a tad bit unhinged.

Tonto comes along, looking for Cavendish, finds the Ranger patrol dead, and decides to be a decent human and bury the men before moving on, when he discovers that Johnny is alive. He can either pass this off as a religious thing ("The spirits have brought you back to stop Cavendish") or he can go with the rational explanation ("Cavendish killed my family, killed your brother and almost killed you. Want payback? Me too, let's team up"). In either case you have a perfectly valid reason for Tonto playing straight-man and the Ranger acting like the Western-ized Jack Sparrow the studio so desperatly wanted.

triggrhappy94:
Wasn't the guy who originally played Tonto white too?

Not according to this video. Mr. Chipman says in it the original Tonto was played by, uh, I forget his name. Eric Silverheels or something. I guess he could be white--a last name isn't proof of ethnicity--but I got no reason to doubt Mr. Chipman's word thus far.

faefrost:
This is a very very astute observation.

Why thank you, sir! I liked your observation about people wanting a clean, upbeat Western. I suddenly want to see Robert Downey Jr. in a Western. I'd love to see an hour of him playing some guy who's given up the gun and just him clowning around the way he does until finally it's time to get serious and he spends the last thirty minutes doing that crazy-eyes stare of his while shooting dudes down.

Seriously, this needs to happen.

Didnt you say before that the latest spiderman remake movie was a movie by accountants?

the problem i saw with the lone ranger was that depp made it his movie when its not supposed to be. and also that themade this movie and called it the lone ranger but baiscally fucked up the entire back story too him and changed him so he wasnt the lone ranger anymore. its the same problem bob had with the amazing spiderman.

wait whats wrong with grown ups 2? I saw the first and thought it was pretty good and as a standard summer comedy movie you could do worse and they got together a decent cast of funny guys to do it. the second looks alright from its advertisement.

PunkRex:
Why you rip on my favourite film? Im fairly sure the real Samurai didn't go out quite as spectacularly but its still a good battle and the message seemed legit. I know the term Samurai mean't alot of things in Japan back in the day and they didn't all go on about honour and duty but I don't see how it's offensive.

I'm in a very tiny minority here, but I did find the last samurai offensive on a level. Not racially offensive, heck it was wildly popular in Japan, but I do find it sort of intellectually offensive.

Firstly, it completely subordinates the entire point of the events it is depicting. There was actually a rebellion against the Meiji government whose leader (Saigo Takamori) was the basis for Ken Watanabe's character.

The thing is, what they were actually fighting for was the retention of the enormous social privileges which were being taken away from the samurai class in favor of a more meritocratic society. Being a samurai was not a profession anyone could pick up, it was a birthright, and these people were fighting because they believed that that birthright should make them socially superior to other people.

The whole "life in every breath" thing is also just weird, not just in that it's absolutely meaningless but also in that it's actually the opposite of how samurai at the time tended to describe Bushido. Samurai seem to have been relentlessly obsessed with death. The "philosophy" of the samurai is all about treating life with detachment and being ready to sacrifice yourself if required.

But what's really dody about this is that this kind of misrepresentation (i.e. "anyone can be a samurai", "bushido is a part of Japan's national character", etc) is that it was a huge component in the ideology of Japanese militarism. It has absolutely nothing to do with what real samurai actually believed, but it does have an awful lot to do with what the people who pushed Japan into World War 2 believed, with massive and terrible consequences for just about everyone involved. The film is referencing that pretty much directly.

Now, I'm not saying that The Last Samurai promotes militarism (and regardless, I'd be a massive hypocrite if I said that I could never enjoy films or books which are supportive of militarism) but it's still directly referencing that era and the way that era sought to rewrite history.

Now, the real issue for me is not about that. Heck, the actual ideas behind the film are so meaningless that it doesn't really promote anything except that Japan is cool. It's really just about selling the really stereotypical imagery of "traditional" Japanese culture (inner peace, cherry blossom, submissive women) as something good and wholesome and which you can be part of irrespective of who you are, and that's.. a bit offensive in just how shallow it is.

On topic though, great episode. I always love it when Bob talks about Hollywood.

I can't help but feel that maybe the issue here is that Hollywood doesn't get the "mainstream audience" (if such a thing exists at all). I mean, people who watch a lot of similar movies and tend to have very clear viewing habits are easy to market to. I guess that's why Hollywood can get away with pumping out so many mediocre horror or action movies, because some people will always go out and see them just because they are horror or action.

But the "average" person probably doesn't actually watch many movies in theatre, especially now, and thus it's harder to really quantify their viewing habits in that way and to predict their behavior. I suspect Hollywood also underestimates how aware and media savvy this audience actually is and sometimes seems to assume that simply hyping a film in public space (i.e. outside of film journalism and targeted campaigns) will be enough to sell it on the basis that it's an event.

My guess would be that actually people are increasingly more interested in the content of what they're watching than whether it can be said to constitute an event, and yet a lot of the marketing I see tends to focus much more on making a movie look socially important rather than inviting engagement, the focus seems to be on making it clear that all your friends will be talking about this movie as opposed to telling you why you personally will actually enjoy it.

Maybe it's just my opinion, but the promotional material I've seen for Lone Ranger for example seems to be far less focused on telling me what I'm going to see or why I should care and much more on who is in it and that the team behind it also did Pirates of the Caribbean, and frankly I don't think many people fall for that any more.

That's not to say people always have the most sophisticated taste in films (Transformers) but I suspect they're much more conscious in their decision making about what films to watch than Hollywood execs think they are.

Just a theory though.

Pink Apocalypse:

uanime5:

The fact that you couldn't explain why mrblakemiller was wrong and instead posted a clip from Sesame Street shows that you Pink Apocalypse are the one who is incapable of understanding why white guilt is not an acceptable reason to make white characters into non-white characters.

What should I explain to you?

-snip-

Well, if you aren't going to explain, most of us on this site will just dismiss you.

I believe in white privilege. I believe in racism. I think it's okay, from an artistic standpoint, for a black actor to play a character that was previously white.

I also believe it's okay for a white actor to play a character that was previously written as black, or any other race. Heck, I'd be perfectly okay with a Native-American actor playing a character that is SUPPOSED to be white, as well as the inverse. Because it's acting, and there's no reason to say, "You can pretend to be from a different time, speaking a different language, or even an alien from another planet, but you can't pretend to be of a different race."

If you want to argue that with me, I'm game. Sounds like fun, and I see no reason not to have a civil and sensitive discussion about it.

Question for potential discussion: Patrick Stewart played the lead in a racially-inverted performance of Othello. I'm not sure if they kept the language of calling him a "moor," but if they did, it would be an entire play of similar performances (in dealing with this issue) as Depp in Lone Ranger. Is this okay?

Oh, and anyone else is welcome, natch, to get in on a discussion.

I'd like to firmly declare myself of being completely fed up with the "THAT'S RACIST!" arguments in movie roles. Laughing at stereotypes really should not be this big of a deal. I wish we could collectively get over ourselves and just laugh at how silly stereotypes can be. Sure, I might balk a bit at a race-swapped character I have firmly pictured in my head but tht balking doesn't stem from "RACE XX IS GETTING SHAFTED AND MISPORTRAYED!", it stems from "This does not adhere to my own personal vision of the character in the original work!"

Not the point of this big picture, I know. But that reply to the above also applies to the video; I'd be far more interested in hearing the multiple hiccups the movie went through rather than "Depp made idiot calls, silly people let him make said calls and him playing Tonto is racist."

Ah well.

Thinking about it; I dont actually know anyone who likes Westerns. It would always tank in the UK.

Jenny Jones:
How to make a modern day western: See firefly and/or serenity.

Or any of the amazing westerns or western style movie released in the last ten years...

No Country for Old men, Deadwood, Assassination of Jesse James, The Good The Bad and the Weird, The Proposition, Seraphim Falls, True Grit, Django Unchained. Hell even Rango was a great western. And that's the same guys who made this. I could go on and on. That's off the top of my head.

And yes, Firefly and Serenity deserves a mention.

Hey Bob, your Boston is showing.

Of course we have to drag race into EVERY FUCKING THING ON EARTH..... geez

So I feel like the only one around who actually liked the movie...

(Yes, I know, I'm never the ONLY one)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 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