‘Superman & Batman’ movie will follow ‘Man of Steel’

Huh, thats funny I don't recall Khan's nationality being brought up at all in Wrath of Khan. In fact its isn't even brought up in Star Trek Into Darkness either. Hell it was a foot note at best in Space Seed and based solely on the observations of Lt. Backstabber, and as Christopher pointed out based on a hodgepodge of stuff put together.

And the whole moral outrage thing falls apart since lets be honest would anyone really be commenting about it if Benicio del Toro hadn't had to drop out, despite not being Khan's ethnicity either.

 

^^^
But that's just it. Even if it was JUST a footnote, isn't that enough for casting to be all 'Hey! Here's a great way to showcase an actor that isn't your standard white guy! And there's plenty out there talented enough that would be great!'



All we needed was this. It's already there, in full colour! Why NOT embrace it when given an opportunity to show the world that, yup, we ARE making strides.

There were no footnotes that made Kingpin black, but they did it anyways and it worked great in Daredevil. You don't necessarily need that footnote for progress, but someone is actually sweeping what little there was under the rug and saying "nothing to see here. Status quo, as you were!"

That's where the perceived double standard can be seen.

 

Again based on a historian of questionable competence.

And also dodging the would you even care if Benicio del Toro had be cast question.

 

Sure, he's not the greatest talent around. But he is a powerful and imposing presence, which would help counter the unfair stereotypes about Aquaman as a lame character; and the filmmakers are embracing the fresh texture that his Polynesian heritage can bring to the interpretation of the role, which strikes me as a very interesting course to take.

Which is really not fair, since this was a guy who in the Golden Age was tossing polar bears at bad guys. He didn't mess around. The perception of Aquaman as lame or a joke comes mainly from Super Friends, but every character on Super Friends was lame. So why Aquaman gets singled out for scorn is beyond me. Perhaps just because, unlike Superman and Batman, he hasn't had a strong, memorable mass-media portrayal to cancel out that perception. And maybe this is what will change that.

Why does that matter, since neither of them was anywhere near Indian? Montalban may have been Mexican, but he was basically white. Remember, they put him in brownface makeup in "Space Seed," and didn't even bother to change his Mexican accent. And in TWOK, they didn't even darken his skin. So Cumberbatch is no closer to Khan's theoretical ethnicity than Montalban was. Heck, at least it makes sense for someone theoretically from India to speak with an English accent.

 

Which may have had something to do with the black face stunt man fiasco.

 

Nothing to dodge, I didn't even know he was up for the roll. Do we know who else was? Does it matter? It didn't end up on the screen. They could have been thinking Tony Danza for all it matters, it's the actions that speak louder than words.

But it's still interesting you fight the idea that he absolutely shouldn't be cast as non-white when there's a grain of story there that he easily could be. Like in Aquaman's case, who has never ever ever been depicted as anything but blonde haired and blue eyed (well, I'm not sure about the eyes). Why the opposition to the idea?

Yet no opposition in other instances when that grain isn't even there? Where exactly is the line drawn for you?

 

Momoa may not be DeNiro or Day-Lewis but I think he totally nailed this scene (among many others) on GOT. I remember seeing him announced as Conan and thinking 'yawn, another model turned actor' but that was a premature conclusion. Now I've seen him act, I think he has great physicality and presence and enough acting clout to carry this role off.

http://youtu.be/1-6_WRDROdM

 

Not much sun on Ceti Alpha V...

 

I never gave much thought to Khan's skin color simply because he was the product of genetic tinkering in the first place.

 

I don't give a shit if next reboot casts a non-white guy gets cast as Khan as long as their good in the part.

I'm just not going to freak out about who they cast in the role of a guy with an ambiguous background who was grown in a freaking lab as part of a fictional devastating international war that would have taken place 20 years ago.

I don't give a shit who they cast as Aquaman as long as they don't suck at it.

I also don't give a shit about obsessively following a comic book.

 

And that's where it was a nice idea in principle to define a genetically superior being as Indian/Sikh rather than the blond Nordic type that "Harold Ericsson" was originally going to be, a nice subversion of racist preconceptions. But that's mostly negated by casting Montalban and putting him in brownface.

 

Isn't it still? How does casting Montalban change that? The whole point of the makeup is to sell that.

And I say makeup because brownface is disingenous. "Blackface" was not about using makeup in an attempt to try to legitimately portray a black person. I don't think Star Trek was trying to make Montalban evoke a minstrel show performer.

 

So Meryl Streep should play Superman and Jack Nicholson should play Harry Potter. Got it.

 

I'd probably pay good money to see that.

 

Anytime make up is used to make a white actor "ethnic" its "___face". It derives from the term for minstrel show make up but isn't quite the same. Though often it's used in humorous and stereotypical portrayals. John Wayne as Genghis Khan is "yellowface". All those European playing Native Americans are in "redface" ( though I've never actually heard that used) So,Ricardo Montalban as an Indian is brownface.

 

I get the usage but I question the fairness. There's a vast difference here to paint with the same brush:

 

Nice try, but no.

On the other hand ... if they can pull it off, more power to them.

Actors act, critics critique, and fans bitch. About everything.

 

It's a derivative term so there doesn't have to be an equivalency. Though I'm sure somewhere in the history of film making there is a white guy made up to be Indian in equally offensive make up.

RDJ in Tropic Thunder was made up to be a black man, but not in minstrel show blackface, yet folks still called it "blackface".

 

Do we know for sure that Montalban didn't just have a really nice tan in those days? It's not impossible.

Is anyone outraged that Ansara and other Klingons were "brownfaced" to appear as something they weren't?

Why is this debate taking over the BvS thread when there are plenty of other places for fans to bitch about the Montalbatch?

 

The problem is that the makeup is an excuse to cast a white actor instead of giving an opportunity to a nonwhite actor, and that perpetuates white privilege. Characters are fictional, but actors are real live human beings who need to eat and pay the rent and often have families to support. Roles for minority actors were scarce enough as it was in the '60s, so when someone wrote a character that was perfect for a minority actor and it ended up going to a white person in stupid-looking face paint, that merely reinforced the institutionalized employment discrimination.

To a white person who has nothing personally at stake, maybe there's a difference. To a minority actor being shut out of an employment opportunity because they gave it to a white person, there's no difference at all.

Besides, casting Montalban as Khan was one of the milder instances of brownface casting in the '60s. Look at The Man from UNCLE's "The Yellow Scarf Affair," for instance, with Murray Matheson cast as a Hindu in an episode that portrays Indian culture in a grossly racist fashion, basically equating all traditional Hindu culture with Thuggee murder cults. They cast an actual Indian actress as his daughter, but she was the only Indian character in the episode who wasn't played by a white actor, and Matheson's makeup looked ridiculous next to the real thing.