Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Witcher Netflix series will debut in late-2019

124»

Comments

  • RhoklawRhoklaw Member EpicPosts: 7,029
    Rhoklaw said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    Sovrath said:
    Well that's what I'm saying. If I'm writing about Feudal Japan then "I'm writing about Feudal Japan" and race would matter. I'm not going to write about Feudal Japan being entirely populated by the Spanish.



    If I write a murder mystery it could have everyone black or everyone white or everyone a nice coffee color.

    But if I write a murder mystery "specifically" set in old Persia or South Africa, then that is going to take into account the people. If I write a fantasy story then quite frankly I don't care how tan or pale the people are. Or light green.

    The Witcher is the Polish Lord of the Rings. It's set in a fantasy Poland similar to how Kislev is fantasy Russia in Warhammer, and is about the people and myths of Poland. It makes about as much sense to replace white characters in The Witcher as it would to have a white actor play the Shogun in a feudal Japan fantasy.
    Can you imagine if the Last Samurai was a white dude? Oh wait! I mean they did a great job of incorporating him into the story, but this is what Hollywood does.
    Ken Watanabe gave an absolutely incredible performance in that role.  Such screen presence... he absolutely dominated Cruise in that film. So the analogy is not correct.  It would have been quite wrong for Cruise to play Katsumodo in that film and that would really have been analogous to what we are discussing here.  It would have been wrong and ham-fisted there, same as here.

    And to me... the worst part is NOT that they just would put out an open casting call and well, if they had a great actress that was a bit different from the part then they find a way to work it in.  Nope.  That's not what happened.  Instead, they put out a call for a specific race which was different form the character as written and previously portrayed... meaning they just wanted to check a box.   

    Back to your analogy:  It would have been very bad if they just put out a casting call and ended up with a white guy playing Katsumodo.   It would have been a travesty if they specifically went looking for one.  And that is the equivalent of what happened here.  

    By the way, I think it's an absolute shame that Watanabe never gained more fame and greater roles.  I always envisioned him as the perfect Captain of a Starfleet vessel.  Not a recast Capt Kirk, but his own character, on his own vessel.   Instead, he's typecast in Godzilla and Pokemon movies.   THAT is a shame and an utter waste of talent.

    So to me, the correct discussion would be around creating new stories and characters that involve varying races, sexes, colors, religions whatever.  NOT that we should ever retcon previous work to force checking a box.


    The role that Cruise played in the movie was most certainly a Hollywood tripe or farce.

    "In 2014, the movie was one of several discussed by Keli Goff in The Daily Beast in an article concerning white savior narratives in film,[19] a cinematic trope studied in sociology, for which The Last Samurai has been analyzed."

    "Motoko Rich of The New York Times observed that the film has opened up a debate, "particularly among Asian-Americans and Japanese," about whether the film and others like it were "racist, naïve, well-intentioned, accurate – or all of the above."

    The problem isn't whether certain story changes make sense, but rather why they were made. This could be said of the Ghostbuster remake, the Ocean's 8 movie, Star Wars and it's liberal use of sexuality emphasis ( which was never part of the original movie series ). It's not like people freaked out about Luke kissing his sister, because he didn't know Leia was his sister.

    However, as I pointed out earlier. I enjoy movies that make sense, such as Wonder Woman, the Black Panther, and Red Sparrow to name a few. I'm sure there are a million female actresses who could have fit the role just as well without "checking Hollywood's equality boxes."
    I honestly cannot follow what you are trying to say... I don't know if we agree or not. So I'll just leave it there :)

    I'm almost certain Cruise was chosen for his "popularity" as well as what I mentioned about America being contriving in their portrayal of Americans as the savior in almost all movies, regardless of the story. They didn't put Cruise in that role because it made sense, they made sense of the role so they could fit Cruise in the movie.

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 12,102
    Rhoklaw said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    Sovrath said:
    Well that's what I'm saying. If I'm writing about Feudal Japan then "I'm writing about Feudal Japan" and race would matter. I'm not going to write about Feudal Japan being entirely populated by the Spanish.



    If I write a murder mystery it could have everyone black or everyone white or everyone a nice coffee color.

    But if I write a murder mystery "specifically" set in old Persia or South Africa, then that is going to take into account the people. If I write a fantasy story then quite frankly I don't care how tan or pale the people are. Or light green.

    The Witcher is the Polish Lord of the Rings. It's set in a fantasy Poland similar to how Kislev is fantasy Russia in Warhammer, and is about the people and myths of Poland. It makes about as much sense to replace white characters in The Witcher as it would to have a white actor play the Shogun in a feudal Japan fantasy.
    Can you imagine if the Last Samurai was a white dude? Oh wait! I mean they did a great job of incorporating him into the story, but this is what Hollywood does.
    Ken Watanabe gave an absolutely incredible performance in that role.  Such screen presence... he absolutely dominated Cruise in that film. So the analogy is not correct.  It would have been quite wrong for Cruise to play Katsumodo in that film and that would really have been analogous to what we are discussing here.  It would have been wrong and ham-fisted there, same as here.

    And to me... the worst part is NOT that they just would put out an open casting call and well, if they had a great actress that was a bit different from the part then they find a way to work it in.  Nope.  That's not what happened.  Instead, they put out a call for a specific race which was different form the character as written and previously portrayed... meaning they just wanted to check a box.   

    Back to your analogy:  It would have been very bad if they just put out a casting call and ended up with a white guy playing Katsumodo.   It would have been a travesty if they specifically went looking for one.  And that is the equivalent of what happened here.  

    By the way, I think it's an absolute shame that Watanabe never gained more fame and greater roles.  I always envisioned him as the perfect Captain of a Starfleet vessel.  Not a recast Capt Kirk, but his own character, on his own vessel.   Instead, he's typecast in Godzilla and Pokemon movies.   THAT is a shame and an utter waste of talent.

    So to me, the correct discussion would be around creating new stories and characters that involve varying races, sexes, colors, religions whatever.  NOT that we should ever retcon previous work to force checking a box.


    The role that Cruise played in the movie was most certainly a Hollywood tripe or farce.

    "In 2014, the movie was one of several discussed by Keli Goff in The Daily Beast in an article concerning white savior narratives in film,[19] a cinematic trope studied in sociology, for which The Last Samurai has been analyzed."

    "Motoko Rich of The New York Times observed that the film has opened up a debate, "particularly among Asian-Americans and Japanese," about whether the film and others like it were "racist, naïve, well-intentioned, accurate – or all of the above."

    The problem isn't whether certain story changes make sense, but rather why they were made. This could be said of the Ghostbuster remake, the Ocean's 8 movie, Star Wars and it's liberal use of sexuality emphasis ( which was never part of the original movie series ). It's not like people freaked out about Luke kissing his sister, because he didn't know Leia was his sister.

    However, as I pointed out earlier. I enjoy movies that make sense, such as Wonder Woman, the Black Panther, and Red Sparrow to name a few. I'm sure there are a million female actresses who could have fit the role just as well without "checking Hollywood's equality boxes."
    I honestly cannot follow what you are trying to say... I don't know if we agree or not. So I'll just leave it there :)

    I'm almost certain Cruise was chosen for his "popularity" as well as what I mentioned about America being contriving in their portrayal of Americans as the savior in almost all movies, regardless of the story. They didn't put Cruise in that role because it made sense, they made sense of the role so they could fit Cruise in the movie.
    Sure.  They undoubtedly put Cruise in the movie because he was a mega-movie star.  I do not know, but I would not be surprised at all if it was developed around him.  But I'm not sure what that has to do with changing an existing character in an existing story.  To draw a parallel to this Witcher discussion would have been if they cast Cruise as Katsumodo. Which they obviously did not do.

    So again:

    So to me, the correct discussion would be around creating new stories and characters that involve varying races, sexes, colors, religions whatever.  NOT that we should ever retcon previous work to force checking a box.

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • XasapisXasapis Member RarePosts: 6,337
    As in all things, judge what you are offered, not what you wish you are offered or what you were promised to be offered ;)

    In this case it's a wait and see situation.
  • CaffynatedCaffynated Member RarePosts: 753
    Asheram said:
    Asm0deus said:
    From head up... does not look like Geralt:




    Really looks like Geralt:


    He looks the part, but his swordsmanship is painful to watch. His fight scenes in GoT are among the worse in the series, and he didn't get better from his fight with Ned to his fight with Brienne.  Having him be the star of a series about a guy who sword fights for a living would just not work.

    On the Last Samurai topic, I think people misread that movie if they see a "white savior" flick. TLS is a story about a man who hates himself, his culture and his people (white people), and who finds peace by completely subsuming himself in another culture. He then fails miserably at saving his new culture, which is kind of the opposite of a white savior movie.
    ScotGorweikcin
  • ikcinikcin Member RarePosts: 2,211
    Cavill looks like a good boy, who pretend to be bad. Geralt is not good, he is a monster, a bloodlust mutated sociopath, who tries to be good, and to act right, in fact the opposite of the Cavill's superman. The conflict between its past covered with murders and his attempts to become a good and honest person is what makes Geralt so unique. So you know he will kill the bad guys and monsters because he is the worst. 
Sign In or Register to comment.