Now that Disney is going to reboot DIE HARD.. how much do you want to bet that it won't have a straight while male lead anymore. It will have someone of some race, or a female.. oira female of color. I guarantee it
And the problem with that is?
so yes, the character on Die Hard .. there is nothing about that character tied to race or gender.. and the original was a straight white male.. my point is that .. changing all that.. for no reason (because it is not essential to the story) means they are only doing it (if they do it) to draw attention to itself.
You just said there's no storytelling reason why the character has to be a particular race or gender, yet you're determined that it should be a straight white male for... reasons. The only one pushing an agenda is you, but you're not capable of the kind of self-reflection necessary to confront why you need the character to be straight white and male to accept it.
On the surface I have no problem with making Ariel black.. a i mean that character was not someone that had to be white (it's a fantasy character anyway) but with a studio that was making live action versions look and feel very close to the animated versions, changing her race ONLY brings undue attention to that aspect .. and is the wrong kind of attention. I feel bad for the actress and the undue backlash she will get.
It's a wrong kind of attention brought on by guys like you who are hung up on this kind of stuff, so how about instead of trying to make it falsely look like your doing this out of concern for the actress (I'm sure holding her back from jobs would be a great help to her career) you deal with some of your hangups about race and gender casting?
"t is to reach a broader audience and make more money for their shareholders. " hence an agenda.. not a creative story reason
No way, film studios try to reach a broader audience and make money on their big blockbuster tentpole movies? STOP THE PRESSES!
First off, what's wrong with that? Secondly, you already said there is no storytelling reason that requires the character to be a particular race or gender, yet you keep demanding there be a storytelling based reason for changing the race or gender of the character (and to be clear, it's not even a change, since this is a reboot, not a continuation, so they can cast anyone they want) or else it means dastardly film studios are doing what film studios do and trying to make money and appeal to a broader audience. You're not even consistent with your own argument and are desperately flailing about trying to justify why it has to be a straight white guy for reasons you can't articulate and are uncomfortable with.
when Die Hard came out no one complained that the film has not made the character a minority character.. so now doing it where the character is a minority .. you are only doing it to draw attention to the fact of is or her minority status.. that seems to me that you are making it that character a minority just to make it that way for that reason, and that is the wrong reason to reboot something
You don't even know that it's not going to be a straight white guy, so this could all be preemptive white guy whining about casting. For all we know it could be one of the eight thousand straight white males named Chris who gets the job.
But beyond that, do you have any idea how many people they went through before settling on Bruce Willis while casting the original? It was a who's who of who's white as hell, but there was a lot of differences between the actors within that demographic.
First they were contractually obligated to offer the role to Frank Sinatra because the Roderick Thorp novel
Die Hard was based on (
Nothing Lasts Forever) was a sequel to the novel and film
The Detective which Sinatra starred in in 1968. But since Sinatra was in his 70s he fortunately turned down
Die Hard. Then they tried to get Arnold Schwarzenegger, but he turned it down because he wanted to make comedies instead and did
Twins. Then they offered the role to Richard Gere, Clint Eastwood, Burt Reynolds, Sylvester Stallone, Harrison Ford, Don Johnson, Nick Nolte, Mel Gibson and Richard Dean Anderson, all of whom turned it down. Then, making a decision based largely on Cinemascore demographic ratings (so there's that agenda driven casting again) and desperate to fill the role, they took a chance on a popular TV comedic actor name Bruce Willis, and he turned them down because he was still filming
Moonlighting. Fortunately, Cybil Shepard needed some time off from filming the show for pregnancy leave, so during that five weeks off Willis filmed
Die Hard.
Now, even with it being the 80s and more reliant on a straight white male lead, you're telling me that the vast differences in styles and outcomes between casting Sinatra, Schwarzenegger, Nolte, Reynolds, Anderson, Stallone, and Willis are fine, but it's inconceivable to you for the character to be played by a minority man or a woman? You're telling me Idris Elba is not badass and vulnerable enough to be John McClane? Have you seen
Luther?
Hell, the
Terminator was originally up for grabs between OJ Simpson (who Cameron thought was too nice and not believable as a killer) and Lance Henrikson before settling on Schwarzenegger. That's a pretty major swing across body types and personalities and acting ability.
I just want a great character.
And you're saying for vague undefinable reasons that you keep trying to tip-toe around addressing that a woman or a minority can't be that. It sounds pretty bad, dude.
