The Last Airbender: The main four have been cast

[Temis the Vorta]

If they wanted to go for box office, where's Miley Cyrus?

 

[Venardhi]

Shes too expensive for them, or they probably would have based on this cast.

 

[LaxScrutiny]

Again, I'm not liking it, but considering how likely they are to find dozens of Inuit actors including two who could play the lead, at some point you have to realize that couldn't stay true to the source.

All the more reason why it's a mistake to do this in live action in the first place. But at least they could've approximated. Sokka and Katara didn't have to be played by actual Inuit, but at least they could've found actors who had brown skin and the sort of generic "exotic" look that could come close. I mean, if Naveen Andrews, who's Indian, can play an Iraqi on Lost, then why not? (Not to mention that American films and shows never really keep their Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Filipino, and other Asian nationalities straight in casting.)

I guess my point is, if you're going go with a group of generic Asian-American actors who don't match the ancestory of the intention of the original show, then how is that different than just using generic Caucasian actors? And yes, there is a diffence, but it still has no real connection to the original.

Then there's the whole cultural appropriation angle, which can be stupid, but it's easy to step on toes and for a studio it may just be easier and simpler to avoid the whole thing.

 

[ancient]

I don't know what to think, I'm leaning toward "This sucks" but to play Devil's Advocate a different way...

If you cast everyone from the Fire Nation as Japanese, you're looking at a pretty strong racial bias. The other nations are fairly "nice" although they all show some cultural weakness, but the depiction of Japanese would be pretty harsh.

It's accurate for recent historical purposes, but it wouldn't be PC.

Imperialistic, oppressive groups are rarely, if ever, diverse. So making that kind of opponent into some kind of PC cultural rainbow wouldn't make much sense, and in the Avatar universe white people are extinct or something, so what does that leave? A uniform non-white/American group as the bad guys.

I don't have a problem with it.

I mean, you could accuse the Matrix films of being un-PC or racist against whites since pretty much every single bad-guy (both machine/program and human) is white, and pretty much every single good-guy (both machine/program and human) is non-white.

Of course that overlooks some obvious things like all the people who made it being white, but it's hilariously consistant in its 'anti-white person' theme. Those films are so PC that they swing around and become racist again.

Even though the symbolism becomes a bit shakey in the Matrix films, evil in real life is often dictated by uniformity. While 'good' can be represented by acceptance and diversity. Which is probably what the WB's were going for. It's all good.

Also in the TV series, there was time to develop the backstory and show that the Fire Nation people weren't totally evil, just the political faction and the Firelord. But could that come across enough in a movie, when in limited time there's so much else to focus on?

Since the main two fire-nation characters, Zuko and Iroh are not evil that would be easy to establish right off the bat.

I'm not say a great writer and great director couldn't pull it off, but depending on what they have to work with, making the cast more generic takes a load off their shoulders.

Safer and blander. Hooray.

It's not uncommon in Fantasy to do things like make an aboriginal tribe have Caucasion features and a Gothic medieval society have Asian, or some such. Doing this with Avatar isn't true to the source material, but get past the cosmetic appearance and the story would still be there.

Again, I'm not liking it, but considering how likely they are to find dozens of Inuit actors including two who could play the lead, at some point you have to realize that couldn't stay true to the source.

It still seems kinda lazy. It pretty much boils down to "screw it, just cast anyone!"

 

[Christopher]

I guess my point is, if you're going go with a group of generic Asian-American actors who don't match the ancestory of the intention of the original show, then how is that different than just using generic Caucasian actors?

The intention of the original show was to depict a fantasy world that doesn't look European, to move beyond the standard feudal-Europe basis of fantasy fiction and create something steeped in non-Western cultures. The nations are based on Asian and Native American ethnic groups, but not exactly; the Water Tribe have blue eyes, for instance. So it isn't necessary to cast every role exactly according to the cultural inspiration in order to live up to the original intention, so long as the effort is made to create a world that's distinctly non-Western.

Besides, part of why they call it acting is that you don't actually have to be what you pretend to be, you just have to be convincing at creating the illusion. Naveen Andrews isn't an Arab, but he looks enough like one that he's credible as Sayid on Lost. But someone with blond hair and blue eyes wouldn't be able to credibly play an Iraqi.

Sure, a Chinese or Japanese person could tell that, say, Rosalind Chao isn't really Japanese like her TNG character or that Tamlyn Tomita isn't really Chinese like her Stargate character. But I could tell that Alyssa Milano wasn't really related to Rose McGowan, yet they were similar enough types that I was able to suspend disbelief and pretend they were sisters on Charmed. If they'd tried to pass off Gina Torres or Lucy Liu as the biological sister of Alyssa Milano, though, that would've been beyond the threshold of disbelief. So getting close does count when it comes to acting.

 

[ancient]

And since Avatar takes place in an alternate reality of sorts, much like Tolkien's "Middle Earth", it's not clear exactly what the ethnic make-up is, or if it is exactly parallel to our own modern-day.

Sure, a Chinese or Japanese person could tell that, say, Rosalind Chao isn't really Japanese like her TNG character or that Tamlyn Tomita isn't really Chinese like her Stargate character. But I could tell that Alyssa Milano wasn't really related to Rose McGowan, yet they were similar enough types that I was able to suspend disbelief and pretend they were sisters on Charmed. If they'd tried to pass off Gina Torres or Lucy Liu as the biological sister of Alyssa Milano, though, that would've been beyond the threshold of disbelief. So getting close does count when it comes to acting.

How about Danny Devito and Ahnuld as brothers?

 

[Amaris]

I'm tentatively optimistic. I am leery of the casting choices...very leery. However, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that I will see a good movie emerge from this.

J.

 

[exodus]

Again, I'm not liking it, but considering how likely they are to find dozens of Inuit actors including two who could play the lead, at some point you have to realize that couldn't stay true to the source.

All the more reason why it's a mistake to do this in live action in the first place. But at least they could've approximated. Sokka and Katara didn't have to be played by actual Inuit, but at least they could've found actors who had brown skin and the sort of generic "exotic" look that could come close. I mean, if Naveen Andrews, who's Indian, can play an Iraqi on Lost, then why not? (Not to mention that American films and shows never really keep their Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Filipino, and other Asian nationalities straight in casting.)

I guess my point is, if you're going go with a group of generic Asian-American actors who don't match the ancestory of the intention of the original show, then how is that different than just using generic Caucasian actors? And yes, there is a diffence, but it still has no real connection to the original.

Then there's the whole cultural appropriation angle, which can be stupid, but it's easy to step on toes and for a studio it may just be easier and simpler to avoid the whole thing.

Come on, did you guys seriously believe they would cast Asian unproven nobody actors in the lead roles of a film they wish to be a blockbuster? You guys should have known that fact upon hearing the news this film was going into production.

Naveen Andrews has proven he can act, he also isn't the main focus of LOST. He's only one actor out of a sea of others who are mostly white, who get more magazine covers than him because of it. This is also why Jackie Chan & Jet Li get teamed up with better known American actors to help sell their American made movies.

 

[Chris3123]

I'm tentatively optimistic. I am leery of the casting choices...very leery. However, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that I will see a good movie emerge from this.

J.

My thoughts exactly!

 

[Christopher]

At this point, I think being optimistic that Shyamalan will make a good movie is like being optimistic that the steadily growing sinkhole in your backyard will suddenly fill up again.

 

[Dream]

The trailers will make the movie look good but the actual movie will be disappointing. That'll be the twist.

 

[FordSVT]

In an ideal world this movie would rock so hard it would blow your mind.

There are only three seasons, about 440 minutes long in total. A trilogy of movies would be fine at 360 minutes long, maybe even a bit more. You wouldn't have to cut much of the story out (maybe just a couple of the standalone episodes or b-c plot lines) and you could still get away with using the cartoon as a virtual storyboard for the movie with few great changes. Each season even follows the narrative structure of the film.

I don't think Shyamalan is that bad a director, from a shot POV. Get him working with a good cinematographer, set designer and writing staff (that he stays the hell away from) and there is no reason this couldn't still be a great movie or series of movies. I do think he typically has a disctinct lack of energy that is the antithesis of what Avatar should demonstrate.

Having said that I'm not getting my hopes up. I'll still see it in the theatres, but only after reading the reviews first. I'd be afraid to see the movie if it sucks; I love the cartoon enough that I'd be genuinely disappointed in a movie that was worse.

 

[Christopher]

In an ideal world this movie would rock so hard it would blow your mind.

In an ideal world, it would be an animated movie from the show's makers. They were able to achieve a feature-quality look to the show on a TV budget and schedule; give them a feature budget and schedule and they'd set a new standard of awesomeness.

There are only three seasons, about 440 minutes long in total. A trilogy of movies would be fine at 360 minutes long, maybe even a bit more. You wouldn't have to cut much of the story out (maybe just a couple of the standalone episodes or b-c plot lines) and you could still get away with using the cartoon as a virtual storyboard for the movie with few great changes. Each season even follows the narrative structure of the film.

You skipped a step. Each season is about 440 minutes, 20 episodes times 22 minutes. All three seasons is more like 1340 minutes (since the last season was a bit longer). So each individual movie would only have 25-30% of the running time of the corresponding season.

 

[FordSVT]

In an ideal world this movie would rock so hard it would blow your mind.

In an ideal world, it would be an animated movie from the show's makers. They were able to achieve a feature-quality look to the show on a TV budget and schedule; give them a feature budget and schedule and they'd set a new standard of awesomeness.

There are only three seasons, about 440 minutes long in total. A trilogy of movies would be fine at 360 minutes long, maybe even a bit more. You wouldn't have to cut much of the story out (maybe just a couple of the standalone episodes or b-c plot lines) and you could still get away with using the cartoon as a virtual storyboard for the movie with few great changes. Each season even follows the narrative structure of the film.

You skipped a step. Each season is about 440 minutes, 20 episodes times 22 minutes. All three seasons is more like 1340 minutes (since the last season was a bit longer). So each individual movie would only have 25-30% of the running time of the corresponding season.

Whoops, and the funny thing is I've gone over this a dozen times in my head using real, honest to goodness math. I quickly punched what I thought was 61x22 into the calculator, but I guess I didn't. No alarms either, BAD!

Don't tell my employer, I do math on the job.

But my point still stands, in that you could follow the basic structure of each season in a two hour movie and get to leave most of the best stuff in.

I'm just worried they'll alter it to the point that it resembles the cartoon in only superficial ways, or leave out main characters due to time restraints, or change relationships or leave them out entirely. And there are a lot of backstory/history episodes that would probably be reduced to a few lines of dialogue or a quick scene.

I'd love to have a feature animated Avatar movie the followed up on the events of the film. DVD would be fine, please and thanks.

 

[Christopher]

That's why you should always double-check a calculator by thinking about the results and asking if they make sense. It's meant to be a supplement to human problem-solving, not a replacement for it.

 

[FordSVT]

That's what posting and playing Warcraft at the same time gets you. I'm certainly not this error prone at work if you want to have a serious discussion about calculator use.

 

[SiorX]

I guess my point is, if you're going go with a group of generic Asian-American actors who don't match the ancestory of the intention of the original show, then how is that different than just using generic Caucasian actors? And yes, there is a diffence, but it still has no real connection to the original.

Then there's the whole cultural appropriation angle, which can be stupid, but it's easy to step on toes and for a studio it may just be easier and simpler to avoid the whole thing.

The thing is, Caucasian actors aren't 'generic' in the sense of being neutral, and casting them in the roles of distinctly non-white characters most definitely isn't avoiding the whole thing.

There's already an overwhelming over-representation of caucasian male main characters in movies, to the extent that an all-white cast may look like a neutral casting move simply because we're so used to white blokes as default that we forget to notice the horrible cultural assumptions that go along with that default.

It's cultural appropriation-by-numbers, in my opinion, to cast a white-washed ensemble for the sake of making an easy buck rather than to take the time to deal with and think through the cultural issues being raised by the original series.

 

[Christopher]

^^I just want to point out that the quote there is from LaxScrutiny in response to me, not from me. This board software tends to lead people to leave in extra quote-opening tags when they edit posts, so quotes are often wrongly attributed.

 

[SiorX]

Whoops! Sorry, Christopher. Tags all fixed now.

 

[exodus]

I guess my point is, if you're going go with a group of generic Asian-American actors who don't match the ancestory of the intention of the original show, then how is that different than just using generic Caucasian actors? And yes, there is a diffence, but it still has no real connection to the original.

Then there's the whole cultural appropriation angle, which can be stupid, but it's easy to step on toes and for a studio it may just be easier and simpler to avoid the whole thing.

The thing is, Caucasian actors aren't 'generic' in the sense of being neutral, and casting them in the roles of distinctly non-white characters most definitely isn't avoiding the whole thing.

There's already an overwhelming over-representation of caucasian male main characters in movies, to the extent that an all-white cast may look like a neutral casting move simply because we're so used to white blokes as default that we forget to notice the horrible cultural assumptions that go along with that default.

It's cultural appropriation-by-numbers, in my opinion, to cast a white-washed ensemble for the sake of making an easy buck rather than to take the time to deal with and think through the cultural issues being raised by the original series.

The cultural aspects of the cartoon was to give the characters a basis of origin for their bending styles, it was never the main focus of the show. Due to that I'm sure many viewers didn't ever know the cultural difference of the characters.

The point of the show transends any one culture. The point was these children backed the Avatar because they all believed in uniting all the people of all the nations regardless of their culture, heritage or race. If the massage is bringing all types of people together in harmony, then it shouldn't matter what race or culture the cast is because their ideals represent all of us.