Race has nothing to do with difficulty in casting people. You may want to address the idea that everyone involved legitimately wanted diversity.
Well for many people in support of the "race change" thing it seems their primary reason for holding those views is simply if they are better for the part because there is no one else who physically resembles the characters that can play them well enough, which is something I even understand a little.
And here's what an actual photonegative of a human being looks like:
Looks kind of like him:
That is opposite. Caramel and Wheat people are not in any way opposite, we just call them that for some reason you have failed to provide.
To differentiate them from chocolate and vanilla people.
The color chart was the support the point that we now agree on, which you didn't before. Now that we've got that cleared up, next we can deal with this next myth that Wally West has not varied in skin color. Do I seriously need to post pictures of Pecan Wally West and Beige Wally West and Peach Wally West, or can we accept the reality that his skin color is not always exactly the same? If we can accept that, then why can't we accept another equally small change in his skin color?
Except Wally is always colored the same; he's white. Making him black - sorry, "dark brown", or chocolate colored, is a big departure from that....in fact it's probably the polar opposite of how he's always looked. You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
Defining Physical traits, but who we are physically doesn't define who we are. It simply is how people dump us into largely irrelevant categories.
Tell that to these guys:
But then again, you'd probably cast Don Knotts as The Incredible Hulk if he could act angry enough.
I'm not ruling out personality, or character traits, or morality or upbringing, they are all equally important. How much more astonishing if a short man beats up a huge man instead of an average or similar sized one does the same? A person's appearance
DOES help define who they are.
I'm not talking about circular, I'm saying that "white" people who are Rust colored and "black" people who are Copper colored are right next to each other on the spectrum. This happens a lot, because "black" people are all along the spectrum. The idea that "black" people are at one end, is observably false, but people still cling to it for some reason. Perhaps you can tell me why.
As I said before, obviously there are variations within each color that make them more middle of the road, HOWEVER, when most people (especially people looking to cast a BLACK or WHITE character, specifically) refer to black or white they mean just that, if they mean "light black" or light brown" or "mixed" then they will say that, and normally they will certainly say that that is what they are casting for. So when someone says "black Wally West", they mean "black Wally West", not some ambiguous definition of the two.
Who said they were the same.
I asked you why you'd call them opposites. Can you answer that question or not?
"Beige" and "caramel" are the synonymous, black and white are opposites.
My point is just what I've said from the beginning, there's not a big difference between skin tones.
There are big differences between some skin tones, namely what we consider black and white. I'm not talking about an ambiguous black or white person or even someone like The Rock, I am talking about black and white.
A Fawn person and a Brozne person aren't significantly different, even though we call one "white" and one "black," neither one is white or black, so why separate them in that way.
Because Samuel L. Jackson doesn't look anything like Chris Evans. Denzel Washington doesn't look like Zack Galifianikis.
My point with Sinestro is that there's no more difference between Fawn Wally West and Bronze Wally West than there is Royal Purple Sinestro and Fuscia Sinestro.
Now you're right about the noticed part. Changing the shade of brown a slight bit for a human character is noticed a lot more than changing the shade of purple or blue a large bit on an alien character. But the fact is, the change is small.
But Sinestro is purple. Purple is not like yellow or green. Your point on Sinestro requires adding vagueness to his description, and not to the subject you're comparing him to. If Sinestro is not Purple but 'a vibrant technicolor,' ten people are not brown but 'a soft earth tone.' Obviously, everyone would reject a rich green Static Shock or Superman, just as a vibriant green Sinestro. But that's an even comparison, and it's hard to make race a big deal and do even comparisons at the same time.
Just as they would also reject a human flesh colored Sinestro, like white, brown, black, etc. Humans don't come in technicolors like aliens do, so making Sinestro yellow or green is a fair comparison to making Wally black or T'chala white. What you're saying is more comparable to making Sinestro white or black like a human than changing the color purple he is. Purple is comparable to yellow is comparable to green is comparable to orange in this case.
Okay, whatever, it's off topic anyway. Just say what you mean next time.
I did say what I meant, it was you who misunderstood it and required clarification.
For the same reason same and similar have different words. Two things can be similar and not be opposites without being the same. That's what you called them, opposites, I showed they're not, not that they're the same. Do you disagree.
Black and white are not the same or similar, if that is what you are arguing, then yes, I disagree.
Listen, it's not my fault that "black" makes you think of Coffee people fro Kenya to the exclusion of Tan people from Canada,
Maybe not that extreme, but yes, when I think of "black", I generally think of BLACK - not some racially ambiguous looking person. If you'd have said racially ambiguous or "mixed", or "light skinned black person/tan", then that is what I'd have thought of, but most people when they hear black are going to think of just that - black.
When Denny O'Neil told Neal Adams to draw a "black man who looked like he'd been through hell" in Green Lantern/Green Arrow way back in 1970, this is what he drew, and this is how they colored him:
He did not draw a "racially ambiguous", "almost black, almost white", "tan/caramel" person - and I really think that if that is what Denny O'Neil wanted Neal Adams to draw, then he would have, and the character(s) would have been colored accordingly.
"white" makes you think of Almond people from Scotland and not... other Tan people from Canada. But I can inform you that your definitions of white and black that make you see similar people as visual opposites is not based in reality. Whether you cling to your myths of oppositeness is up to you.
Well thank you for leaving it up to me, I appreciate that, but Martin Luther King still doesn't look anything like John F Kennedy, so we'll have to agree to disagree I'm afraid, because my views are not based in
your reality. People that look similar or have similar skin colors look similar, sure, but white and black in general do not look similar.
I don't think we really have the reason behind it. Further, the reason for the studio, the producer, the casting director and the actor may all be very different reasons, and mixes of reasons. It's possible the writers just wanted different colored people the same way an artist uses different colors to paint a picture. It's possible that they want to make a statement about how important black people are to modern society by putting them in the middle of the story... maybe both, maybe neither. Further, giving a work of art political and social relevance is what gives it value
But is not the only source of value for all or any art, either.
I'm pretty sure the idea that any casting of minorities where they "don't belong" as some sort of PC agenda is baseless. Has anyone ever justified any of these PC agenda claims? Or even shown how a PC agenda could actually be hurtful to anyone? I also find the idea that casting directors are "going out of their way" to cast non whites in previously white roles as hilarious. It's all such a big deal over such a very small difference.
Well it begins in a pitch room where somebody, for whatever reason, says "let's make so and so whatever ethnicity instead of what ethnicity they usually are", and then they look for someone that fits that description. Not hard to figure out. They wanted black Perry White...they got black perry White.
Eckhart and Fishburne weren't the ideal candidates in all the world. There's a reason they were rarely or ever fancast before they were actually cast. They were simply very good ones whose schedules and pay needs and interests and talents and previous/new relationships with the filmmakers lined up with the needs of the story. This 'best actor for the part' is a myth from an ideal world. Actors are cast for a myriad of reasons, and sometimes it is specifically because it's different from what people expect.
That's part of it, like Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan, a previously indian character (and him being indian is actually a pretty important part of his back story/character, too, but regular non Star Trek fans didn't seem to mind his casting because they don't know this), who got the part because Benicio Del Toro (a perfect fit, IMO, even though I enjoyed the movie and performances we got) dropped out. Things like that may be more situational than "let's change this character just for the sake of" mandate from the top - but when you have something that begins that way in script stage, i. e., black Perry White, casting call for Iris West listed as black
specifically, then that more than likely
IS just a case of PC pandering or some other bogus, unnecessary idea.
t:
