When is it okay to race/gender swap a movie role?

So? Stephen Strange ends up in Tibet, does that mean he's Tibetan? People never live in countries they weren't born in? The Ancient One is Sorcerer Supreme over this entire plane of reality - he could have his base at the North Pole, on Mt. Everest, on top of the Burj Khalifa in Dubai (tallest building in the world), or on Mars!

Why do they have to mention his nationality or ethnic origin? (If that indeed was such a huge issue as to FORCE them to change the character's gender?)

P.S. if Marvel was so worried about offending Chinese sensibilities, then does it make sense to change the Ancient One (Sorcerer Supreme over all the Earth) into a woman, considering that China is still a largely patriarchal society wherein women are expected to be subservient and submissive?

I call Marvel's statement on their motives of not wanting to offend China debunked!

Answer to the thread question: Always. It might not always make sense, but the point I would like to make is: As long as you are making a quality film, it doesn't matter if it's a white dude, black girl, Asian genderqueer, a masculine of center African-American dwarf, or whatever pronouns you want to use. Quality matters more than gender or race.

Now put yourself in the film maker perspective: how are you going to film an old Tibetan Kung Fu master that looks just like this



without mentioning Tibet [and all the political nonsense it encompasses] nor making him look like a stereotype out of a 70's movie?

Simple: you change the character into this:



See the difference?

__________________

i'm honestly trying to understand. in your other post you said "Wheedon wanted to portray how a man will go to the rescue of a pretty girl even if that help isn't really needed", like, that was the main point of the character. and, like... no? that's why i said you don't get the show, cause that wasn't the point, and Whedon has never said that, so... yeah.

i haven't read every post, so if you gave specifics maybe i missed it. so are you saying that because Buffy had Spike and Angel helping her and also caring about her, she's not really a strong female character?

__________________
letterboxd

So, would it make sense to remake an historical drama like Roots (again), but with an all white cast?

Should a character like the Black Panther (T'chaka - king of Wakanda) be played by... oh... maybe... Channing Tatum?

Read the answer to Dani.

I have no qualms in saying Marvel put their foot in the wrong hole sometimes [lately in their comics], but this is a bit more complicated than that. Forget not that they are catering to the chinese market [as any big franchise would].

Ps - so, I call debunked on your debunking

Not only that, but a gweilo. I'm debunking this right now. If he wanted to cast woman for diversity, why not use an asian american actress to play the part. No, he was just money grabbing and diversity baiting. This is why people get the shts. It's shoe horned.

ད་དུང་ག་ལེར་ག་ལེར་གསུང་གནང་དང་།

I said it might not make sense, but I wouldn't care if they did that. As long you don't put them in black face. I don't think they would ever make that, but I do think it would be interesting to see them try to pull it off. Especially Roots. It had just better be done in a tasteful and respectful way that doesn't take light of the source material. Like I said, quality is more important for me. I don't give a sh*t about race/gender differences. I prefer to think of people as people, not as white/black/brown people or men or women or whatever.


EDIT: My point, more succinctly: Gender/race choices don't offend me. Poor quality, lack of respect, or general tomfoolery involving subject matters is way more offensive.

Stuff like having to accept the idea of her sister who she didn't know existed and who didn't exist as a fellow depressed individual. Alot of Buffy's later questioning of herself is because she isn't convinced she is back and alive and Dawn who just pops up at one point without explanation isn't great for her mind.

No, I agree with you. Buffy is THE strong female character. What I am trying to point is that even she being so strong, men (as they are) wanted to be the savior or the stronger or to look as some kind of knight. There is a contrast between the strong girl and the strong men. They wanted to help and save her even when she didn't ask for it. So, I think the show wanted to portray this, how strong (and not so strong) men will react to an independent, strong and pretty woman, who really do not need them in most of the cases.

I never said this is the main point of the character, I said this is one of the things you couldn't show if the main character is a man. The main point of the character was very well detailed by The Usual Suspect in another post, I am just pointing one of the things that wouldn't work if you change the gender of the Main Character.

But the intention would obviously not to be to tell the Roots story, but to present a social experiment of performance art film-making. Kind of like White Man's Burden which is an alternate reality of role reversal.

Here's part of this issue that no one wants to mention but: replacing long-established white characters with black ones = good / diversity / a public display of socio-cultural reparations / rebalancing the scales of social equality / unless you want to be labeled a "racist" you will identify this as good because that's what PC dictates for its chosen causes.
Replacing long-established black characters with white ones = unacceptable / taboo / politically incorrect and therefore "racist".

But the true bottom line is that racism is racism - if your goal is to balance some conceptual scales of race then you are focused on race & skin color as opposed to a person's character, talents or abilities.

I'm glad you brought this up, because Buffy is an example of both the good and the bad here. The good, of course, is telling a story specifically about female empowerment from the ground up, and doing it really well, so that it would be a good story even without the message.

The bad part...


Anyway, that's where I generally draw the line, and that's also why I'm inherently mistrustful of things like this: because you don't really know, when push comes to shove, whether or not they'll prioritize the character and the story, or the point they want to make.

You still don't get it. Put away your blindfolds and stay on topic. Angel is a different story than Buffy`s. They are not the same. I didn't know Angel was a pretty high school cheerleader living with a single mother who suddenly was aware she was a Vampire Slayer.

We are talking about things that wouldn't work in the Buffy storyline if she was changed with a male protagonist.

you literally said Buffy wouldn't work if it was a man; i didn't realize you meant a man, and a cheerleader with a single mom. you said it wouldn't work because it wouldn't look right because women aren't chivalrous in the same way - well, Angel is a really, really good example of women that come to the aid of a strong male character, who also has superpowers - they help him, love and support him, and even save his ass a few times. is that not the point you were making?

Just want to clarify my mentioning White Man's Burden - its role reversal is the point of the movie - it's making a statement about society - it's not replacing a previous or established story.

But, if you were to remake the movie Glory and replace all the black soldiers with white ones - it wouldn't be a remake or a retelling of the story - at best it would be viewed as some skewed piece of indecipherable performance art and at worst it would be seen as some form of racist statement designed to disrespect the real black soldiers who fought and died.

Yes, Angel is a good example. But, again, we are not talking about his gang, helpers or supporters. I am talking about outsiders. Anyway, to me at least, is different to see how strong men who believe they should be the hero or the savior react to a strong woman who doesn't need them. It may not work that well the other way around. It's a most common case when a man tells a woman to stay behind and not help in dangerous situations and the reactions are quite different.

can you at least explain what outsiders you're referring to in Buffy? you keep saying that, like you're talking about people outside the core group, but you've only cited main cast peeps

anyway, i don't see why that wouldn't work, myself - it worked so well in Angel, which is also a great show.