What's with all the Black washing?

Besides that, actors make up a small percentage of what makes a movie great. How come no one is complaining about not enough producers, directors, screenwriters, cameramen, key grips being people of color? A bit hypocritical to only focus on the individuals in front of the cameras instead of the ones who are actually making the picture. In Hollywood, guess what color most of them are?
Being rich & famous is still the name of the game. Even if someone wins Best Cinematography or Best Screenwriting people tend to remember the name of the movie instead of the person. People who want equal representation have most likely never heard of James Wong Howe & conveniently ignore how directors like Zhang Yimou & Ang Lee first gained international acclaim in their home countries before moving to Hollywood.
 
Jul 2016
7,353
USA
Being rich & famous is still the name of the game. Even if someone wins Best Cinematography or Best Screenwriting people tend to remember the name of the movie instead of the person. People who want equal representation have most likely never heard of James Wong Howe & conveniently ignore how directors like Zhang Yimou & Ang Lee first gained international acclaim in their home countries before moving to Hollywood.
AKA, this controversy is framed by ignorance. I'm cool with that conclusion.
 

Nemowork

Ad Honorem
Jan 2011
8,188
South of the barcodes
I can honestly see someone like Daniel Radcliffe, from Harry Potter, playing Nelson Mandela, so I am in agreement with you. I think the alternative perspective would be worth the price of the movie ticket.

After that, we can make a reboot of Shaka Zulu, but with Scarlett Johanssen as Shaka.
I think Scarlett may be a bit gunshy on that subject, she's two strikes down already!

Have you considered Lady Gaga?
 

Angelica

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,643
Angel City
When I sit down to watch a movie the focus is on the plot and acting skill. I tend to like suspense, thrillers and drama movies. The plot has to be good and acting skill executed accordingly. I don't focus on color it is of no Importance whether black or white.

Hey if you only watch movies based on your color kudos to you are entitled to do as you please. As for Hollywood well they will do according to the masses people contribute by watching their movies these individuals demand change. There are amazing and engaging talents on all sides.

If you don't wish to see black people on your screen then don't watch...an easy fix.
 
Feb 2017
419
Rock Hill, South Carolina
Hollywood has always followed political trends. I usually don't care, like when they added Finn and Rose and the like to Star Wars, I had no issue with it. The movies sucked for other reasons.

The problem I have is when they start screwing with established canon. I would have just as much of a problem with Mr. T playing Ripley from Alien as I would with Benedict Cumberbatch playing John Coffey from The Green Mile. One of the things I like about The Expanse for example, is that the story is naturally diverse, and they accurately represent the canon in the TV show.

That's why people have issue with the new DC Teen Titans live-action, because they're sick of people taking "artistic license" and rewriting the stories they already know and love. To some extent that applies to Star Wars too, since most of the hardcore fans grew up with the original Expanded Universe.

This also applies to History. Black people in Roman Britain? Fine. Like, there were a handful. I don't like Mary Beard's annoying pushing of it based on grave finds of people from North Africa and the Levant, who have no evidence of sub-Saharan African ancestry and are very clearly identifiably North African ("Hamitic") by genetics and osteography. And that descent does not automatically imply very dark skin color although some did have dark skin color. It happened but it wasn't common, as evidenced by the number of Roman sources who call it an "oddity," including ones from Roman North Africa. Actually studies have been done on Roman-era mummies from Egypt which found Semitic and Sub-Saharan African heritage is very uncommon before the Islamic expansion.

But there is some stuff that is absurdly ridiculous, like the Ptolemaic Greek woman, Cleopatra, who came from the upper echelons of Egyptian society which made a point not to intermingle with the local non-Greek population or other aristocracies, being portrayed as black. In a culture that actually was somewhat racist against Blacks (or at least the Nubians). Or portraying Hannibal, who was of Punic origin, as black. Now technically, neither of them should be white either, they should be portrayed by people from the mediterranean with "olive" skin or light brown skin tones. But having them portrayed by people who at least look like them with Europoid skull features is far more accurate than portraying them as sub-Saharan Africans.

So in summation: if you want to include diversity, fine. Just don't overwrite canon or factual history for the sake of political correctness.
 
Jan 2009
1,170
The problem I have is when they start screwing with established canon. I would have just as much of a problem with Mr. T playing Ripley from Alien as I would with Benedict Cumberbatch playing John Coffey from The Green Mile. One of the things I like about The Expanse for example, is that the story is naturally diverse, and they accurately represent the canon in the TV show.

*snip*

But there is some stuff that is absurdly ridiculous, like the Ptolemaic Greek woman, Cleopatra, who came from the upper echelons of Egyptian society which made a point not to intermingle with the local non-Greek population or other aristocracies, being portrayed as black. In a culture that actually was somewhat racist against Blacks (or at least the Nubians). Or portraying Hannibal, who was of Punic origin, as black. Now technically, neither of them should be white either, they should be portrayed by people from the mediterranean with "olive" skin or light brown skin tones. But having them portrayed by people who at least look like them with Europoid skull features is far more accurate than portraying them as sub-Saharan Africans.
I was pondering about this and I came to the following conclusions:
1) If it is a documentary, then heck yes, I want it to be as accurate as possible, including the appearance of the actor to be the best of our knowledge.
2) If it is a dramatization but tries to stay as close to the history as possible, then I would prefer them to be accurate in the casting, too.
3) If it is 'inspired by' or something like that and race is not important to the story being told, then it matters less to me.
4) If it is pure fiction and a reboot/reimagining, then I don't care at all. If it is supposed to be the same character, then that gets a bit more confusing. Some franchises recast people anyway, although the better ones try to be reasonably consistent about it.

The race-flipped Nelson Mandela story sounds very interesting. I hope someone makes it.
 
Jul 2016
7,353
USA
When I sit down to watch a movie the focus is on the plot and acting skill. I tend to like suspense, thrillers and drama movies. The plot has to be good and acting skill executed accordingly. I don't focus on color it is of no Importance whether black or white.

Hey if you only watch movies based on your color kudos to you are entitled to do as you please. As for Hollywood well they will do according to the masses people contribute by watching their movies these individuals demand change. There are amazing and engaging talents on all sides.

If you don't wish to see black people on your screen then don't watch...an easy fix.
LOL, this is hilarious response.

SJW complain and threaten and sue to get Hollywood to start Blackwashing, the very opposite of "then just don't watch." Then when everyone else says "What gives? Queen Elizabeth's Lord Chamberlain wasn't a black guy (Mary Queen of Scots)?" The SJW response is to tell them to either suck it up or stop watching movies.

And then when they don't watch the movies, the SJW cry racism or something else to justify crappy box office results when its actually crappy decision making resulting in a crappy movie.
 
Last edited:
Sep 2012
3,458
Bulgaria
@aggienation Everything that stands on the way of profit should be massacred, eliminated, destroyed or at least avoided incl your SJW. Apparently there are viewers who want to see black Hanibal or black Margaret of Anjou, I personally like Sophie Okonedo in 'Hollow Crown' to hell the historical accuracy. It's entertainment.
 
Jul 2016
7,353
USA
@aggienation Everything that stands on the way of profit should be massacred, eliminated, destroyed or at least avoided incl your SJW. Apparently there are viewers who want to see black Hanibal or black Margaret of Anjou, I personally like Sophie Okonedo in 'Hollow Crown' to hell the historical accuracy. It's entertainment.
Wrong. Those movies that do that nearly always bomb. And the studios are not doing it because majority demographics of target audience expect it, they are doing it because a very vocal and tiny minority of SJWs demand it, are bullying them on social media to accept their demands by threat of boycotting them, and the industry itself is full of SJWs anyway, who will sacrifice a movie with SJW topics while knowingly infuriating the fanbase, even ridiculing them.

I'm no Star Wars fanboi, those dudes are absolutely nuts, but they definitely have a point that from the head of Lucasfilms on down, they have nothing but contempt for their core audience, the ones who watch the movies 3-5 times in the theater, buy all the junk, etc. When The Meg makes more money then Episode 8, and zero changes are done with the executives who caused it, that is insanity. A movie that expensive to make, with that much money spent on marketing, and it bombs to the point that Star Wars nerds who have spent tens of thousands of dollars individually celebrating the franchise say they are forever boycotting future movies...that is insanity.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions