Mr Miyagi may have been intended as a supporting character for the first movie, but he so totally owned it that he was the real reason there were sequels. Don't let the traditional story format fool you, Miyagi was the real protagonist!

As for HTILC, sure, that's why I didn't say 'Wang Chi'. Hero, yes, protagonist no.

If Daniel-san was the real protagonist, why did Miyagi get the last fight in the first movie?  He totally stole the Danny boy's thunder... because HE was the real protagonist.  Its a story of an old dude passing on his wisdom to the younger dude, told from the OLD dudes perspective.

Though, honestly, Daniel was the least white white-boy lead they could have picked.... ethnically speaking anyway.  Otherthan that he was pure whitebread...

Quote from: Spike;278750If Daniel-san was the real protagonist, why did Miyagi get the last fight in the first movie?  He totally stole the Danny boy's thunder... because HE was the real protagonist.  Its a story of an old dude passing on his wisdom to the younger dude, told from the OLD dudes perspective.

He was not the real protagonist, he was the mentor.

The reason Miyagi gets the last fight in the movie is actually fairly obvious.  The wisdom Miyagi was trying to pass on to Daniel was that the truly strong man does not solve his problems with violence.  Remember, Daniel seeks to become Miyagi's student because he thinks that not being able to defeat the bullies makes him weak, and that if he could only kick their asses, he would be confident.  But Miyagi knows that fear and karate only make a beast -- as evidenced by the Cobras -- and that Daniel must learn true courage and come to believe in himself regardless of how he is perceived.

For Daniel we know that he truly wins not at the Karate tournament -- ribbons mean nothing -- but when he can walk away from a fight without being ashamed of himself.

Daniel wins when he doesn't let the Cobras bait him into a pointless fight after the match.  By doing so, Daniel illustrates that he has learned Miyagi's lesson and taken it to heart.  The torch has been passed and now Daniel is the Master -- the master of himself!  No longer afraid to walk away from a fight that he does not need to fight.

Miyagi then kicks the evil sensai's ass because, frankly, we the audience really, really want to see that guy get his comeuppance.  Someone has to kick the guy's ass.

This is a common trope in stories where the hero's journey culminates in the embrace of non-violence, or the rejection of venegance, or some other element that requires a display of mercy to triumph: once the hero has rejected violent means, someone else -- in comedies, its often a female character who has been timid to this point, such as the girl the hero has been trying to get -- takes out the villain.

Another variation on this is the hero who forces the villain to surrender and is going to "take him alive."  The villain pulls out a gun from nowhere and the hero must turn back and shoot him, even though he doesn't want to.  Or the hero's partner does it.

Those sorts of endings are always about satisfying the audiences need to see the villain punished.

You are putting WAAAAAAYYYYY too much work into this.  

Besides, you utterly ignored the whole Crow sidebar, which blows yer shit out of the water, unlike my chain yanking comment from earlier.

Please explain how a half chinese kid can be the lead in a movie where there is no shred of evidence to prove that the character needed to be anything but ethnically white in a movie like The Crow?  He's not the side kick, not the mentor, not the buddy buddy dude... he is the only thing the movie has regarding protagonists, and the only other adult on the side of heroes is black.  With the exception of the kid (Sara) and 'Victim number 2'... aka 'Shelly' there ain't a sympathetic white face in the crowd, and even many of the villians are various shades of 'not white'.

This actually carries over through the various Crow sequels.  In numba two the Crow was some whitish dude with a heavy accent and the main villian was black, in numba three the leads were white, but the rest of the cast of sympathetic characters were hispanic or native american, as was much of the admittedly stupid plot devices of the week.

Of course, particularly numba tree... was straight to the bin ass without a shot in the thousand chinese hells of being a 'hit', and everyone knew it.

Quote from: Spike;278857You are putting WAAAAAAYYYYY too much work into this.

Not really.  I've taken several years of film study classes, took screenwriting courses in college, have read dozens of books on screenwriting (many of which use Karate Kid as an example), and have written several screenplays (they all suck, but I'm getting better with each one).  Analyzing film story elements is something I do for fun, I enjoy it immensely.

That whole thing was actually a breeze to write. Hardly any work at all.

I think what you mean Spike, is that I'm forcing you to think way too hard about this to keep up.

QuoteBesides, you utterly ignored the whole Crow sidebar, which blows yer shit out of the water, unlike my chain yanking comment from earlier.

The Crow is a bad example, for several reasons:
1) Brandon Lee was the son of Bruce Lee, probably the most famous Asian in America (certainly at the time).
2) Bradon Lee's death and its ironic connections to the context of the movie lended an air of mystique and tragedy to the film that created a lot of buzz.
3) The soundtrack of that movie became an instant cultural touchstone.
4) It still only made $50 million.

Brandon Lee had starred in several films before The Crow, starting with a film made in Hong Kong.  He was cast mostly on the power of his father's legacy, none of which were commercially successful (but none were career killing flops either).  His previous film, the run-of-the-mill martial arts flick Rapid Fire, made $14 million.

QuotePlease explain how a half chinese kid can be the lead in a movie where there is no shred of evidence to prove that the character needed to be anything but ethnically white in a movie like The Crow?

Again, he's the son of Bruce Lee.  He had already been in several movies.   Also, The Crow was a pretty low budget film from a then tiny studio (Dimension).  

Here's what they were thinking: We can't afford a really big name, but we can afford this guy who had demonstrable acting skills (3 previous films), was still a relative unknown (get him for cheap), knows martial arts already, and oh yeah, total bonus, his dad is Bruce Lee.

Thats what I love about you, Jack... your amazing willingness to leap to all sorts of conclusions about other people to make yourself feel better about being you.  Its like a plucky little mouse puffing up his chest and declaring victory over the house cat that wandered through the room...

I've taken film studies as well, though mine focused on the history of the vietnam war in cinema. I also am well aware of narrative structure and roles.  I also know quite well who Brandon Lee was, and have, in fact, seen all of his movies... just because I am cool like that.  Not that its hard.

Of the FOUR points you made rebutting the crow: two and three are utterly irrelevant because they had nothing to do with casting, or anything else but demonstrating that the movie was a success. Four is useful for demonstrating your point about racism in the moviegoing culture, though here there is the counterpoint that a movie about a dead guy getting revenge then dying again is a bit grim for American audiences...

Only point number one is relevant, and yet it still manages to fail to address the point: the studios hired an ethnic actor to be the lead in a major motion picture that did not require (in the least. Draven is a pretty white last name... sorta germanic even) an ethnic actor... and then populated the rest of the cast with lots and lots of various other ethnic actors.

We could, of course, further derail this by talking about the careers of Denzel Washington, Wesley Snipes and so on... lots of black actors getting top billing in movies these days you know... hell, Denzel's getting the same treatment as Deniro (great actor who's slumming for paychecks...) from most of the industry.

Or would that ruin your perfectly good little theory?

Quote from: Spike;278954Or would that ruin your perfectly good little theory?

I don't think you understand my "theory" at all Spike.

The examples you are giving, the arguments you are making, I don't understand their relation to my position at all.  I don't think you are arguing against my position, because I don't think you know or understand what my position is.

My position, my belief, my theory, call it what you will, is pretty simple:

1) The more money a studio is putting into a project the less risks they want to take.
2) Targeting an all-Asian cast movie at an audience comprised primarily of 6-11 year olds has never been done.
3) Asian leads don't have a strong record of success in America.
4) Consequently, if Disney is going to invest a lot of money in this project, they probably aren't going to make risky choices.

My argument is that the more money in a project, the more likely it is to be whitewashed, because whitewashing is safe.

I don't really see what The Crow has to do with this.  It was a low-budget action/horror movie from minor studio that happened to become a big hit for the company due to a number of factors, none of which was a cast of unknown Asian kids.

So what is your point?   I'm not arguing that Disney couldn't go with a cast of all Asian unknowns, I'm only pointing out that it's a risk because no one has really tried it.  And it might not work.  And that's a lot of money to gamble, especially since whitewashing has a proven track record of success.

I'm not saying it's right or good or enlightened, I'm just saying that's how Hollywood studios think.

Very well, since you want to play stupid, I'll become your enabler.

QuoteMy position, my belief, my theory, call it what you will, is pretty simple:

No, thats what you are saying about this very limited sense of circumstances. Your theory, at least in regards to our discussion in the last several threads was not specific to the race of Aang etc.

Quote1) The more money a studio is putting into a project the less risks they want to take.

That is rather simplistically formulaic. Certainly any investor wants to reduce risk on projects.  On the other hand, excessive risk reduction also reduces profits, meaning there is a balancing act that must be acheived to make scads of money. The movie business is more interested in the 'scads of money' method of profitteering than the 'safe but negligable trickle of profits' method of profiteering, thus explaining all those huge budget flops, in part. To many risks were taken and the soufle collapsed.

Quote2) Targeting an all-Asian cast movie at an audience comprised primarily of 6-11 year olds has never been done.

Outside of asia? Sure.  Then again, prior to the Ring, remaking a Japanese Horror film for American audiences, with an American cast had never been done. Now it's rote.  Prior to the new Terminator movie coming out no one had suggested a terminator movie could work with Arnold... yet now we have Christian Bale and no word of Arnold at all...  Prior to meeting you, I never thought anybody could be so dumb yet managed to write complete words, yet here we are... life is full of new shit.

Quote3) Asian leads don't have a strong record of success in America.

Jackie Chan, Jet Li, Bruce Lee and even poor old Brandon Lee would disagree. Marc Dacascos has made a career out of pretending to be Asian, far more than David Carradine before him ever tried.

The fucking IMPORT market will disagree with you there too. Crouching Tiger was a huge success, better than most European foriegn films do. John Woo only has a career in Hollywood at all because of his work in Hong Kong cinema and the cross-over fans in America.  Hollywood might not be the most innovative place in the world but they smell the money coming out of Asian film markets in America, and they ain't to proud to steal from them... even if that means casting asians in big roles in American films.

Quote4) Consequently, if Disney is going to invest a lot of money in this project, they probably aren't going to make risky choices.

DISNEY might not. Disney is not all of Hollywood, and if you hadn't noticed this thread left 'just Disney' in the dust a while ago. That said, looking at who they've cast (as we all have) I doubt it, but that has more to do with the marketability of THESE kids than their whiteness... which is extreme. THey know THEIR target audience loves these actors.

QuoteI don't really see what The Crow has to do with this. It was a low-budget action/horror movie from minor studio that happened to become a big hit for the company due to a number of factors, none of which was a cast of unknown Asian kids.

It could be argued that the success of the movie has a lot to do with the fact that the actors were by and large unknown, non-whites.  The 'industry' knows that people do get tired of the same crap over and over again, they can see just when people do when their profits start to decline... thats why non-standard fare gets greenlit, to see if its a hit.  

QuoteSo what is your point? I'm not arguing that Disney couldn't go with a cast of all Asian unknowns, I'm only pointing out that it's a risk because no one has really tried it. And it might not work. And that's a lot of money to gamble, especially since whitewashing has a proven track record of success.

My point, insamuch as I care to have one, is that Disney is making this movie, which IS a risk regardless of the color of the cast because it is a 'new thing' and thus a potential money maker.  Its already a risk, so they would be willing to make it even less risky by hiring cheaper, unknown ethic actors.  Instead they have chosen to tap their stable of already known, proven child talent (proven by popularity with their audience, not necessarily acting ability... marketing...) who happen to be white.  The whitewashing is incidental, and may be the result of a more subtle endemic racism (where non-white actors get fewer chances to prove they have the charisma, the audience appeal, of the non-whites), but that didn't drive the casting directly, as you say it has.

But as it stands I disagree with your 'risk averse' theory on the face of it; and the idea that the whiteness of the actors is taken into consideration as a 'risk reducer'...  particularly since white actors, that is KNOWN white actors actually increase the cost of production over unknown ethnics, in particular.


Whew. What a fucked up sentence structure that was. I hope I didn't confuse you too much, with your superior brain and all...

Quote from: Spike;278977No, thats what you are saying about this very limited sense of circumstances. Your theory, at least in regards to our discussion in the last several threads was not specific to the race of Aang etc.

I don't really know what you're going on about Spike.  It's hard to follow your line of argument, because you're basically a howling retard.  You and I probably have very different ideas about what we were talking about.

QuoteThat is rather simplistically formulaic. Certainly any investor wants to reduce risk on projects.  On the other hand, excessive risk reduction also reduces profits, meaning there is a balancing act that must be acheived to make scads of money. The movie business is more interested in the 'scads of money' method of profitteering than the 'safe but negligable trickle of profits' method of profiteering, thus explaining all those huge budget flops, in part. To many risks were taken and the soufle collapsed.

Yeah.  I was trying to keep it simple for you, since you're a simpleton.

QuoteOutside of asia? Sure.

Yes, Spike, Hollywood is outside of Asia.

QuoteJackie Chan, Jet Li, Bruce Lee and even poor old Brandon Lee would disagree. Marc Dacascos has made a career out of pretending to be Asian, far more than David Carradine before him ever tried.

Jackie Chan has a lifetime average gross of $49 million, which goes down quite a bit when you take out the Rush Hour movies.
Jet Li has a lifetime average gross of $49 million, which goes down quite bit if you remove Lethal Weapon 4 and The Mummy 3, two movies in which he was not the lead.
Mark Dacascos doesn't even rate an entry at box office mojo, so I have no idea what his average is, but his IMDB entry screams Z-Lister.

I don't know what you think "successful" means, but that's the two biggest Asian stars in America, and they haven't broken the $50 million average mark.

Compare that with, say, Hugh Jackman ($90 million), or god forbid Harrison Ford ($113 million).

QuoteThe fucking IMPORT market will disagree with you there too. Crouching Tiger was a huge success, better than most European foriegn films do.

Better than all foreign films.  Most successful foreign film to date.  It did $128 million, and later attempts to cash in on it did significantly less (Hero did $50 million), and Hollywood's attempt to make their own movie in that line (Forbidden Kingdom) was a flop, and lost $20 million.

Do you get that? Hollywood made a $70 million dollar martial arts action film with incredible special effects, an interesting story, and the BOTH of the hottest Asian stars in America, and it LOST TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS.

QuoteJohn Woo only has a career in Hollywood at all because of his work in Hong Kong cinema and the cross-over fans in America.  Hollywood might not be the most innovative place in the world but they smell the money coming out of Asian film markets in America, and they ain't to proud to steal from them... even if that means casting asians in big roles in American films.

DISNEY might not. Disney is not all of Hollywood, and if you hadn't noticed this thread left 'just Disney' in the dust a while ago. That said, looking at who they've cast (as we all have) I doubt it, but that has more to do with the marketability of THESE kids than their whiteness... which is extreme. THey know THEIR target audience loves these actors.

QuoteIt could be argued that the success of the movie has a lot to do with the fact that the actors were by and large unknown, non-whites.  The 'industry' knows that people do get tired of the same crap over and over again, they can see just when people do when their profits start to decline... thats why non-standard fare gets greenlit, to see if its a hit.

Except that's not really the case.  The cast was actually predominately white.  There is one black gang member, the bad guy's half-sister is Asian, his henchman is black, and the friendly cop is black.  And then there is Brandon, a half-Asian guy who looks white.  The female leads (the girl and Darla) are white, the main villains (T-Bird and Top Dollar) are white, and most of the supporting cast is white.

Sorry dude, I just don't buy it.  I remember when the Crow came out, and I remember why people were talking about it, and race wasn't the reason.  It was Brandon Lee's death, the soundtrack, and the Goth aesthetic.

And again, it was small budget movie.

QuoteMy point, insamuch as I care to have one, is that Disney is making this movie, which IS a risk regardless of the color of the cast because it is a 'new thing' and thus a potential money maker.  Its already a risk, so they would be willing to make it even less risky by hiring cheaper, unknown ethic actors.  Instead they have chosen to tap their stable of already known, proven child talent (proven by popularity with their audience, not necessarily acting ability... marketing...) who happen to be white.

That makes absolutely no sense at all.   There is this massive counter-inutive leap to an outrageous conclusion buried right in the middle there.

Which is:  This movie is already a risk, so they won't increase the risk by putting popular known actors in it.

First of all, it's typical Spike stupidity to suggest something as obviously wrong as "known actors are a greater risk than unknown actors."

Second, there is no logic to "This is already risky, let's make it more so" concept your argument hinges on.  That's just dumb.

QuoteBut as it stands I disagree with your 'risk averse' theory on the face of it; and the idea that the whiteness of the actors is taken into consideration as a 'risk reducer'...  particularly since white actors, that is KNOWN white actors actually increase the cost of production over unknown ethnics, in particular.

By that logic Hollywood shouldn't have cast the very expensive Christian Bale in the lead role in the new terminator (after all, he is KNOWN to people), they should have gone with a complete unknown from a foreign country that would work dirt cheap.

Again, you're a very stupid person Spike.  Astonishingly so.

Jackalope apparently doesn't understand how hot Anime is with kids.  How much they identify with asian culture, even when they are grossly misinformed and inaccurate in those beliefs.   The kids who are likely to go see Avatar as a live action movie have GROWN UP watching anime, and are not unfamiliar with the fact that anime is from Japan (most of it that makes in NA-side) and Japanese people are not white.  The kids likely to see Avatar are NOT happy they are casting all whites in the roles.  They are more likely to be upset with massive changes in the story lines.  In short, this is Disney GROSSLY underestimating its audience.  It will still make money, sure, but they wouldn't lose as much as you say if they cast more asians in it.

Quote from: jhkim;278681It sounds like what you're saying is that it isn't the casting per se -- but rather what the writers would do if that casting choice were made.  i.e. They'd be obsessed with the casting choice and write material very differently than if the Doctor were white.  That seems possible to me, as I don't know the series or its writers very well.  

A parallel that springs to mind was changing the character of Starbuck to be a woman in the new Battlestar Galactica series.  Many people criticized this as mindless political correctness.  I've seen the first two seasons of the new series, but only distantly remember a few episodes of the original series.  It seemed to me that the character was mostly handled pretty well.  i.e. It wasn't all about how the character is a woman, though that did come up from time to time.

You've also got Mos Def as For Prefect in the Hitchhikers movie.  The character did not change in any noticable way beyond skin color.  

I think a black Dr. Who would be great.  There's nothing in Doctor Who's background and history that demands a white actor, beyond the fact that it was made by white people with white actors.  Theres nothign in the actual CHARACTER that demands whiteness.

Quote from: Jackalope;278992Jackie Chan has a lifetime average gross of $49 million, which goes down quite a bit when you take out the Rush Hour movies.
Jet Li has a lifetime average gross of $49 million, which goes down quite bit if you remove Lethal Weapon 4 and The Mummy 3, two movies in which he was not the lead.
Mark Dacascos doesn't even rate an entry at box office mojo, so I have no idea what his average is, but his IMDB entry screams Z-Lister.

I don't know what you think "successful" means, but that's the two biggest Asian stars in America, and they haven't broken the $50 million average mark.

Compare that with, say, Hugh Jackman ($90 million), or god forbid Harrison Ford ($113 million).

I think that's a poor measure to use, because lifetime average gross is dragged down hugely by including someone's small films.  On the box office mojo site, Jackie Chan's stats are low because they're counting back from when he did "The Big Brawl" in 1980, whereas Hugh Jackman they only count from "X-Men" in 2000 -- ignoring his prior Australian works, probably because none of them even got an American theatrical release.  So Jackie Chan's stats are dragged down because his earlier films did better, meriting a theatrical release.  

By their numbers, the average of Jackie Chan's last four movies is $108 million.  The average of Hugh Jackman's last four movies is $65 million.  

Quote from: Jackalope;278992Better than all foreign films.  Most successful foreign film to date.  It did $128 million, and later attempts to cash in on it did significantly less (Hero did $50 million), and Hollywood's attempt to make their own movie in that line (Forbidden Kingdom) was a flop, and lost $20 million.

Do you get that? Hollywood made a $70 million dollar martial arts action film with incredible special effects, an interesting story, and the BOTH of the hottest Asian stars in America, and it LOST TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS.

You're drawing some very broad conclusions here from a tiny handful of examples.  There are plenty of movies that flop without Asian stars.  The Golden Compass lost over $100 million, yet you don't see Hollywood abandoning Daniel Craig as a star, or even Nicole Kidman despite her being in a long string of flops.  

Now, there is a chicken and egg problem here.  You say that few Asians are cast mainly because there is no track record of success for Asian actors.  I suspect that there is no track record of success for Asian actors mainly because they are almost never cast.  To some degree I would agree with you -- lack of Asian stars at the top level (i.e. big-budget movies) reflects lack of Asian stars at the lower levels (i.e. television and low-budget domestic movies).  But that just spreads the blame around.  

The top foreign movies come from Asia, yet you will see European stars cast into Hollywood films far more often than Asian stars.

Quote from: Jackalope;278992I don't really know what you're going on about Spike.  It's hard to follow your line of argument, because you're basically a howling retard.  You and I probably have very different ideas about what we were talking about.

Yeah.  I was trying to keep it simple for you, since you're a simpleton.

If you can't follow my line of argument then it is less likely that you are smarter than me, and more likely you are not as smart as you think I am.

QuoteYes, Spike, Hollywood is outside of Asia.

Wow! You actually agreed with something I've said?! My, the Honor!

Not that you grasped my point, but hey... I'm used to you not being able to keep up.

QuoteJackie Chan has a lifetime average gross of $49 million, which goes down quite a bit when you take out the Rush Hour movies.
Jet Li has a lifetime average gross of $49 million, which goes down quite bit if you remove Lethal Weapon 4 and The Mummy 3, two movies in which he was not the lead.
Mark Dacascos doesn't even rate an entry at box office mojo, so I have no idea what his average is, but his IMDB entry screams Z-Lister.

I don't know what you think "successful" means, but that's the two biggest Asian stars in America, and they haven't broken the $50 million average mark.

Compare that with, say, Hugh Jackman ($90 million), or god forbid Harrison Ford ($113 million).

Mr. Kim covered this far more eloquently than I have. I will point out that you've already demonstrated a willingness to slant the data in your favor quite blatently, not to mention naked attempts to shuffle definitions to suit your whims.  The Rush Hour franchise may be utter ass, but given that its a series of movies with two non-white leads, and its pulled down gangbusters profits for each movie... well, trying to claim Jackie Chan's only worth 50mil is obviously lacking.  Rush Hour 2, for example, grossed 226 million in the domestic market alone.

And I notice you utterly ignore the various, non-white, leading man actors mentioned as well. No glib response about how they are 'essentially white' or some other nonsense?

QuoteBetter than all foreign films.  Most successful foreign film to date.  It did $128 million, and later attempts to cash in on it did significantly less (Hero did $50 million), and Hollywood's attempt to make their own movie in that line (Forbidden Kingdom) was a flop, and lost $20 million.

Do you get that? Hollywood made a $70 million dollar martial arts action film with incredible special effects, an interesting story, and the BOTH of the hottest Asian stars in America, and it LOST TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS.

And with a white leading actor. I get that, I saw it actually.  The amount of money spent making a movie does not indicate quality. See also: Australia.

If you want to compare it's profits though, you'd have to compare it to other films not in English.  You can't quite grasp the relevance of that significant fact, can you?   I mean, if you could you wouldn't be comparing it to an english language film.  And given that a central premise of your theory is that its all about the white faces: Guess what, most european foriegn language films are FILLED with white faces.

QuoteDISNEY might not. Disney is not all of Hollywood, and if you hadn't noticed this thread left 'just Disney' in the dust a while ago. That said, looking at who they've cast (as we all have) I doubt it, but that has more to do with the marketability of THESE kids than their whiteness... which is extreme. THey know THEIR target audience loves these actors.

Quoting Error, Jack. That was MY words.

QuoteExcept that's not really the case.  The cast was actually predominately white.  There is one black gang member, the bad guy's half-sister is Asian, his henchman is black, and the friendly cop is black.  And then there is Brandon, a half-Asian guy who looks white.  The female leads (the girl and Darla) are white, the main villains (T-Bird and Top Dollar) are white, and most of the supporting cast is white.

If you tally up minor characters with single, small, scenes like the pawn shop dude, sure.  If you ignore their place in the film, certainly. There are only three sympathetic characters in the film. Eric Draven (Asian dude), the Cop (Black Dude) and the kid (White dudette).  Mom ain't sympathetic, she's a junkie who all but abandon's her daughter for sex and drugs until the Crow takes a hand. Shelly is sympathetic, but she's on screen for an aggregate of some 30 seconds... and she's dead dead, so that hardly helps.

The bad guys are not sympathetic in the least, and while there may be a few more white faces than non-white, its actually a pretty extreme mix.  Tin Tin gets more facetime and coolness (black dude), an asian is tossed in for no reason at all, and Funboy (white dude), arguably the most complex and interesting of the villians gets utterly written out to the point of being all but unnamed in the film.

Its safe to say that the Crow wasn't cast with an eye to racism, and that perceived audience racism wasn't a factor either.  The movie, now 15 years old, was successful enough, despite expectations, to have given a fairly obvious lie to the idea that a movie NEEDS white faces to reduce risk... which I've already demonstrated is a nonsense argument anyway, and you ignored it in favor of trying to nit pick the percentages of cast members in The Crow.  Are you in full retreat now?  Is that what this is? I mean, you practically lead every post with an utter dismissal of my intelligence, which is usually a sign of victory for me when dealing with your brand of stupidity.  Hell, I wasn't even trying this time, it was just all about poking fun at the solemnenity of your prodigious arguements against Mister.Fucking.Miyagi... of all things.  Nobody uses the Karate Kid to make serious arguments about anything!!!

QuoteThat makes absolutely no sense at all.   There is this massive counter-inutive leap to an outrageous conclusion buried right in the middle there.

Which is:  This movie is already a risk, so they won't increase the risk by putting popular known actors in it.

First of all, it's typical Spike stupidity to suggest something as obviously wrong as "known actors are a greater risk than unknown actors."

Second, there is no logic to "This is already risky, let's make it more so" concept your argument hinges on.  That's just dumb.

You are apparently not a betting man.  If you are holding a hand of cards with nothin' in it, you don't toss extra money in the pot to 'reduce risk'.

So, when faced with a movie that is risky, you don't spend extra money, you spend LESS money.

Its idiot simple, which is why you probably don't get it.  Known Actors are not magic cure alls for chancy movies, they just increase the cost of said movies... thus the risk.  Obviously its not a binary equation, but I shouldn't have to explain that to a person with a functional grasp of reality.  

In this case the cost difference between the white, known, Disney cast and a hypothetical cast of ethnic unknowns is probably pretty small, so its not a huge risk (increasing production costs) to use their known talent (potentially increasing draw).... though of course, Disney does have at a few known, popular ethnic actors in their stable who probably SHOULD be in the movie.

But its not directly about the whiteness, its about the built in fanbase these actors bring.

QuoteBy that logic Hollywood shouldn't have cast the very expensive Christian Bale in the lead role in the new terminator (after all, he is KNOWN to people), they should have gone with a complete unknown from a foreign country that would work dirt cheap.

Except, you know, twenty years of lore showing John Connor as white, a name that comes from predominantly white ethnic crowds.  I mean, sure: John Connor could be some skinny dude from Kashmir who's parents were fans of western naming conventions. Hell, it even makes some sort of twisted sense: people from Kashmir are far more likely to survive a war of extermination by sentient machines than any Americans, and its not like they don't already have that guerilla warfare mindset that Sarah Connor spent twenty years (supposedly) learning and imparting to her son...

In this case we have a reason for the character to be white.  Not a great reason, mind you, but a reason.  Or will you only be happy when there is not a single white face polluting your silver screens?

QuoteAgain, you're a very stupid person Spike.  Astonishingly so.

I practice. Mostly I just read what you write. The process destroys brain cells, giving me an advantage in internet debates. YOU are my secret weapon.

Quote from: jhkim;279160I think that's a poor measure to use, because lifetime average gross is dragged down hugely by including someone's small films.  On the box office mojo site, Jackie Chan's stats are low because they're counting back from when he did "The Big Brawl" in 1980, whereas Hugh Jackman they only count from "X-Men" in 2000 -- ignoring his prior Australian works, probably because none of them even got an American theatrical release.  So Jackie Chan's stats are dragged down because his earlier films did better, meriting a theatrical release.

I agree, but that is how studios make their decision.  

QuoteYou're drawing some very broad conclusions here from a tiny handful of examples.  There are plenty of movies that flop without Asian stars.  The Golden Compass lost over $100 million, yet you don't see Hollywood abandoning Daniel Craig as a star, or even Nicole Kidman despite her being in a long string of flops.  

After the release of Australia, Kidman has been talking about retiring from filmmaking and focusing on other things, and entertainment media is treating her as a sales killer.  Her career is definitely on the downslide.

QuoteNow, there is a chicken and egg problem here.  You say that few Asians are cast mainly because there is no track record of success for Asian actors.  I suspect that there is no track record of success for Asian actors mainly because they are almost never cast.  To some degree I would agree with you -- lack of Asian stars at the top level (i.e. big-budget movies) reflects lack of Asian stars at the lower levels (i.e. television and low-budget domestic movies).  But that just spreads the blame around.

Sure, it's a vicious cycle.  Never claimed otherwise.

The point I'm making is that breaking the vicious cycle requires taking a risk, and that Hollywood is risk-adverse as a general rule, and becomes more risk adverse the more money is on the line.

Which is why I started my comments by saying that people who think that Disney should go with an all-Asian cast for either PC reasons or to please ridiculous fanboys seriously do not understand how decision are made in Hollywood.  They do not understand that the people making these movies would almost certainly be out of a job and financially ruined if they listened to these voices.

QuoteThe top foreign movies come from Asia, yet you will see European stars cast into Hollywood films far more often than Asian stars.

That's because European stars are more likely to speak English fluently.

Quote from: HackmastergeneralJackalope apparently doesn't understand how hot Anime is with kids. How much they identify with asian culture, even when they are grossly misinformed and inaccurate in those beliefs. The kids who are likely to go see Avatar as a live action movie have GROWN UP watching anime, and are not unfamiliar with the fact that anime is from Japan (most of it that makes in NA-side) and Japanese people are not white. The kids likely to see Avatar are NOT happy they are casting all whites in the roles. They are more likely to be upset with massive changes in the story lines. In short, this is Disney GROSSLY underestimating its audience. It will still make money, sure, but they wouldn't lose as much as you say if they cast more asians in it.

I think this is a case of you SERIOUSLY overestimating the understanding of children -- most of whom probably don't realize that the very white looking kids of Avatar with their white voice actors are intended to be Japanese (I myself find it hard to believe, what with the girl being a brunette with blue eyes).

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the 6 to 11 year olds that make up the majority of the Avatar audience are actually concerned by this whitewashing?

Also, do you understand that to succeed this movie has to appeal to a lot of people who have never heard of Avatar?   Avatar has a viewing base of about 5 million.  Way more than 5 million people have to go see this movie for it to make it's money back.

Quote from: Spike;279172If you can't follow my line of argument then it is less likely that you are smarter than me, and more likely you are not as smart as you think I am.

No Spike, I think I can't follow your argument because their shit arguments that don't go anywhere and don't make any sense.

QuoteAnd I notice you utterly ignore the various, non-white, leading man actors mentioned as well. No glib response about how they are 'essentially white' or some other nonsense?

And you still don't get that it's an irrelevant point, tangential to what is actually being discussed.

QuoteAnd with a white leading actor. I get that, I saw it actually.  The amount of money spent making a movie does not indicate quality. See also: Australia.

If you want to compare it's profits though, you'd have to compare it to other films not in English.  You can't quite grasp the relevance of that significant fact, can you?   I mean, if you could you wouldn't be comparing it to an english language film.  And given that a central premise of your theory is that its all about the white faces: Guess what, most european foriegn language films are FILLED with white faces.

See, this is what I'm talking about.  You make no sense.

What are you talking about?  Forbidden Kingdom was an English language film.

QuoteIf you tally up minor characters with single, small, scenes like the pawn shop dude, sure.  If you ignore their place in the film, certainly. There are only three sympathetic characters in the film. Eric Draven (Asian dude), the Cop (Black Dude) and the kid (White dudette).  Mom ain't sympathetic, she's a junkie who all but abandon's her daughter for sex and drugs until the Crow takes a hand. Shelly is sympathetic, but she's on screen for an aggregate of some 30 seconds... and she's dead dead, so that hardly helps.

The bad guys are not sympathetic in the least, and while there may be a few more white faces than non-white, its actually a pretty extreme mix.  Tin Tin gets more facetime and coolness (black dude), an asian is tossed in for no reason at all, and Funboy (white dude), arguably the most complex and interesting of the villians gets utterly written out to the point of being all but unnamed in the film.

Blah blah blah.

QuoteIts safe to say that the Crow wasn't cast with an eye to racism, and that perceived audience racism wasn't a factor either.

Yeah,sure.  It was alsoa $15 million dollar film from a minor studio that was successful for flukish reasons. But hey, don't let that stop you.

QuoteThe movie, now 15 years old, was successful enough, despite expectations, to have given a fairly obvious lie to the idea that a movie NEEDS white faces to reduce risk...

That's a really hasty conclusion to draw from the success of The Crow, when ticket sales were pretty clearly driven by Lee's death.

Quote...which I've already demonstrated is a nonsense argument anyway,

Maybe in you poor deluded mind, the same deluded mind that convinces you that you make sense on something approaching a regular basis.

Quoteand you ignored it in favor of trying to nit pick the percentages of cast members in The Crow.  Are you in full retreat now?  Is that what this is? I mean, you practically lead every post with an utter dismissal of my intelligence, which is usually a sign of victory for me when dealing with your brand of stupidity.  Hell, I wasn't even trying this time, it was just all about poking fun at the solemnenity of your prodigious arguements against Mister.Fucking.Miyagi... of all things.  Nobody uses the Karate Kid to make serious arguments about anything!!!

I call you an idiot because its the only part of talking to you I enjoy. The rest is like pulling teeth.

And aren't you the one who brought up Miyagi in the first place?

QuoteYou are apparently not a betting man.  If you are holding a hand of cards with nothin' in it, you don't toss extra money in the pot to 'reduce risk'.

So, when faced with a movie that is risky, you don't spend extra money, you spend LESS money.

Its idiot simple, which is why you probably don't get it.  Known Actors are not magic cure alls for chancy movies, they just increase the cost of said movies... thus the risk.  Obviously its not a binary equation, but I shouldn't have to explain that to a person with a functional grasp of reality.  


In this case the cost difference between the white, known, Disney cast and a hypothetical cast of ethnic unknowns is probably pretty small, so its not a huge risk (increasing production costs) to use their known talent (potentially increasing draw).... though of course, Disney does have at a few known, popular ethnic actors in their stable who probably SHOULD be in the movie.

But its not directly about the whiteness, its about the built in fanbase these actors bring.




Except, you know, twenty years of lore showing John Connor as white, a name that comes from predominantly white ethnic crowds.  I mean, sure: John Connor could be some skinny dude from Kashmir who's parents were fans of western naming conventions. Hell, it even makes some sort of twisted sense: people from Kashmir are far more likely to survive a war of extermination by sentient machines than any Americans, and its not like they don't already have that guerilla warfare mindset that Sarah Connor spent twenty years (supposedly) learning and imparting to her son...

In this case we have a reason for the character to be white.  Not a great reason, mind you, but a reason.  Or will you only be happy when there is not a single white face polluting your silver screens?



I practice. Mostly I just read what you write. The process destroys brain cells, giving me an advantage in internet debates. YOU are my secret weapon.

I would have responded to the rest of this crap, but you bore me.

Quote from: Jackalope;279173Sure, it's a vicious cycle.  Never claimed otherwise.

The point I'm making is that breaking the vicious cycle requires taking a risk, and that Hollywood is risk-adverse as a general rule, and becomes more risk adverse the more money is on the line.

Which is why I started my comments by saying that people who think that Disney should go with an all-Asian cast for either PC reasons or to please ridiculous fanboys seriously do not understand how decision are made in Hollywood.  They do not understand that the people making these movies would almost certainly be out of a job and financially ruined if they listened to these voices.

Let me see if I can summarize your evidence of this.

1) The Crow was a success, but it doesn't count because it was a fluke.
2) Harold and Kumar was a success, but you think it would have been a bigger success with white stars.  
3) Most of Jackie Chan's and Jet Li's American films were successes, but they weren't huge successes except for the Rush Hour films.
4) The Forbidden Kingdom was a flop.  

The thing is, I don't see this as ironclad evidence that casting Asian leads would make the film flop and thus ruin the producer's career.  The only genuine flop you've cited is The Forbidden Kingdom, which seems more like an exception given that it's stars had plenty of other successful films.  

I'm not saying that it is risk-free -- indeed, I think it is a risk regardless.  However, Hollywood does take risks from time to time -- doing something different like Harold and Kumar, and making money on it.  I'm just saying it's not an unreasonable or idiotic thing to ask for.