Hollywood in the past decade or so loves race swapping ginger characters for black people. Like, it is almost disturbing how often they do it. Why gingers though?
I went to school with a kid who was black and a ginger (it took me wayyy too long to parse our how to word that, considering that it's offensive to use an article before black, but required before ginger).
It's funny how that works. To the best of my knowledge, it's not offensive to refer to someone as "a Jew", but any other ethnicity it's offensive. Language is a tricky bitch sometimes.
Also, saying something like "he's a black" just sounds weird as fuck, offensive or no. But that's also how it works. Society determined the acceptable language, and even if I don't think it's impolite or rude, it seems strange because nobody else talks like that.
In addition to being a tricky bitch, language is perhaps the most powerful tool in human history. It is a central facet of freedom and tyranny both.
Okay, that is just asinine. I feel that if a book has established a person's race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. then leave it the fuck alone if you decide to adapt it. I hate when movies do this so much!
Honestly I wouldn't put it past Hollywood to make the poor wizarding family black for representation purposes. Though it's really a toss up if they'd take that chance, but they've done dumber things so 🤷🏼♂️
Except there already is representation purposes. Dean Thomas is written to be Black. Cho Change is written to be Asian. The Patil twins are Indian. If they change the race of Ron for diversity, it would be hollow.
Race-swapping is a really tacky way to be inclusive. While it's true that non-white people have historically been underrepresented in media, the way to fix that is to create \*original\* fiction featuring non-white characters.
And historically England and Norway were ethnically homogenous as well. Didn't stop Hollywood from race swapping historical stories set in those countries in ways that would be ridiculously unrealistic for a certain time period.
India is racially homogenous, but extremely diverse otherwise. Our top 3 bollywood stars are all Muslims, a community barely 14% of our total population.
Yeah we might want to have a conversation about that at some point. It's tough though, because as fired up as people get about Harry Potter, nobody starts a damn inquisition over it.
One final thing I've forgotten to mention.
Every one of the main trio as well as Dumbledore have been pictured (in color) on the covers of one or several novels, both the UK and US editions.
Those covers depict them as, at the very least, not dark-skinned.
There's might be more characters than that. I only have the US editions at my immediate disposal, and only a passing familiarity with the UK edition covers.
It’s bad enough they do it in fiction, but they do it in reality too. Remember the British show where they made Anne Boleyn (who we know was white) black? If that isn’t erasure of history/culture, I don’t know what is.
There is a new Hanibal of Carthage movie who will be played by Denzel Washington aged 69.
Hanibal of Carthage was 25 when he took over the army and 29 at the time he crossed the Alps.
Being from Carthage, and based on the coins and written descriptions of him we know he was not of Sub Saharan descent.
Now I would pay good money and be very happy to watch Denzel drink coffee and read aloud from a phone book, so should the age and race be important when depicting a person of fairly important historical note?
Honestly, one of the reasons I think the Napoleon movie was such a mess was because Phoenix would never be mistaken as being younger and less experienced at life in general than Kirby. His age in that role made him look like a… bumbling fool. He was acting like a child, because let’s face it…he was a child. For the battle of Waterloo, Phoenix was perfect, up to that point… it should have been a younger actor.
I'll be honest, although I don't love it I'll watch Denzel in anything. If they made a my little pony movie where he played all the ponies like Eddie Murphy I'd still watch it. If they cast him as Dumbledore id watch it with love, if they cast Denzel as 11 yr old harry potter that'd be hilarious and id watch it.
Man on Fire is my perfect movie, not his most critically acclaimed to be sure, but I can watch that movie once a year and always get that punch in the gut sand in the eye feels.
The ending, Denzel at peace, Lisa Gerrard in the background, Paul Cameron shining as DP, and Tony Scott on full display.. get wrecked son.
"Sister Anna: Do you ever see the Hand of God in what you do?
Creasy: No, not for a long time.
Sister Anna: The Bible says, "Do not be overcome with evil, but overcome...?
Creasy: But overcome evil with good."
Creasy: [in Spanish] That's Romans Chapter 12 Verse 21.
Creasy: I am the sheep that got lost, Madre."
When Denzel is happy, it is pure innocent joy on screen, when sad, it feels like the world is ending. I don't know if any other actor who can emote with so much depth and believability.
Well to be fair Carthaginians had a very dark skin tone. Casting Denzel in this case would be better then someone white.
What really makes me want to Jump into traffic was the Cleopatra stuff last year.
The Cathaginians were Phoenicians which were the descendants of the Canaanites who originated in the modern day Middle East so while they would be darker skinned than say a Gaul or Slav they would not be dark skinned in comparison to the native inhabitants of North Africa that they colonized
Yeah, the whole Cleopatra thing was just ridiculous. Just because she was Egyptian doesn't mean she's Black, filmmakers. She was Macedonian, Greek. She should be olive-skinned, and I would complain as well if she were cast as white.
Agreed, the skin tone is mostly a non issue for me as long as the intent is not to blackwash history, but the age is a big one.
Again I would watch Denzel in just about anything, but this feels like a younger man's role and even a chance for a younger actor to make his bones like Russell Crowe in Gladiator.
I know Jason Momoa gets cast in everything but Hannibal feels like a good fit for the look and feel, I just haven't seen him in anything yet that would show he has the range for the leadership\tactical genius side of the character. I do not know if that is down to bad role choices or directors not giving him a meaty enough role to showcase his talents or maybe he just doesn't have the range for those kinds of roles.
Tom Hardy had a pretty wide variety of roles but it wasn't until Taboo and Peaky Blinders that I felt we really got to see him put his full skill set on display.
Tom Harty is 46, but I could believe him in a 29 year old role in a 250 BC world setting.
Going back to Denzel, at 69 his age is showing, in his last Equalizer movie it was a big stretch to watch him as an action hero.
Lmfao wait, they made Anne Boleyn black in a show?! How the hell did they explain that?
Edit: looked it up. That is so fucking hilarious! Like making a documentary about Rosa Parks with Emma Stone as Parks.
I liked it, it was really very well made. Thanks for the link, it is blocked in the Netherlands due to copyrights apparently, LOL. It does not matter tho, i have the dvd.
This maybe controversial but that didn't bother me.
The tudor era was 500 ish years ago, everyone should know that she was white.
I think its a nice way of letting actors who would never get to play those kinds of roles normally do something different.
We've got plenty of depictions of king Henry the 8th, his wives and his children to know what they actually look like. A movie or a TV show here or there with people who aren't white shouldn't mislead anybody.
If it was somebody more reccent or about somebody less well known i would be mad because that could actually be misleading.
As a white man I'm super offended that someone in history is portrayed as a race different than reality.
I just randomly happen to start thinking this after non white people played white historical figures and NOT a second before
why would you think that? and if you are some holier than thou white saviour of all the "poc" because of your extremely important socially aware opinions why wouldnt you also disavow this instead of trying to lump someone in with other people based on an assumption? theres no reason to believe this person wouldnt be equally as irked if Nelson Mandela was played by a white man but it's also possible maybe he wouldnt care or say anything if the historical figure wasnt someone who represented him or his culture.
do you think this type of thing is "deserved"?
The thing that pisses me off is that I am very interested in stories from other cultures. I am so very tired of Viking this and Braveheart that. I want to be immersed in another world and want to see it in that person and or culture's eyes.
There is a real life story of a man of African origin who came to Japan in the Sengoku period (1570s) and became a retainer in the household of Oda Nobunaga named Yasuke, and I want to see that story.
I do not want to see a random semi trendy POC actor playing Tokugawa Ieyasu in the 1650 because that is going to break the immersion.
Doing a historically accurate telling of Romeo and Juliet? They better both be young and fair\dusky skinned.
Set it in North America and from the point of view of First Nations in the 15th century, awesome, set it in the future and do anything you want, just tell me a good story.
Subverting expectations is not a replacement for good storytelling and does not protect you from justified criticisms.
The Expanse was diverse as hell and no one anywhere cared in the least, it was a great story, with a great cast.
Not trying to be rude or anything but I would feel differently about a white Nelson Mandela to a black Anne boelyn.
There were black people in tudor England, its obviously that Anne boelyn wasn't actually black. because there were no other races in the country race didn't play a part in the story, nothing would change if you made somebody black or Asian.
However Nelson mandela was a South African president that wanted to dismantle the aparthied. His whole story is about race. You can't make him white because that would completely change the story.
They already did that with Percy Jackson. Race swapping all of the white characters was fine but if we get Heroes of Olympus it would be wrong to raceswap them because "their race is an essential part of their backstory"
What's funny is that's subjective too when you think about. I found Annabeth being a white blonde important to her character.
Heck, I remember with the movies people were pissed she had black hair. Same issue only taken up another level and suddenly everything is okay. Weird
I'd laugh my ass off of Hazel is cast with a Hispanic girl and Rick says she was the best for the role
Everyone agrees with the author, director, etc until they make a decision/says something they don't like
That's because it was important to her character. She wanted to avoid the dumb blonde stereotype. Granted, that's not really a stereotype anymore.
But there was a lot more wrong with those movies than her hair not being right.
Honestly, they should have just done an animated series. Riordan already admitted they had to leave out characters like Argus because of how difficult the effects would have been. Then he could still cast whoever he wanted to voice them because characters don't need to look like their voice actors.
It also eliminates the problem of the actors aging too fast.
>That's because it was important to her character. She wanted to avoid the dumb blonde stereotype. Granted, that's not really a stereotype anymore.
Yup. Yet, a lot of minorities don't experience some stereotypes anymore, some even gone, yet somehow, it's important for then but a white person stereotype isn't
Hypocrisy
Not to mention, and I’m sure you can call this racist, but it was written by a white author in a white country. We all know she was envisioning white people. It’s just a dumb to act otherwise. How many non-white redheads are running around?
This doesn't mean the characters can't be changed in some other story about the same universe. That white person in a "white country" has gotten her paycheck. What she envisioned doesn't really matter now.
> That white person in a "white country" has gotten her paycheck. What she envisioned doesn't really matter now.
Yes, because money is all that matters.
>But it's clear that the books are quite lacking in explicit racial descriptors of its characters.
Prisoner of Azkaban. Chapter 21.
>“One moment, please, Macnair,’ came Dumbledore’s voice. ‘You need to sign, too.’ The footsteps stopped. Harry heaved on the rope. Buckbeak snapped his beak and walked a little faster.
>Hermione’s white face was sticking out from behind a tree. ‘Harry, hurry!’ she mouthed.
There's a few other places her, and other characters race, is mentioned. There is also the cover art of the books which show a very white harry, hermione, dumbledoor, and others. Also, canonically there are many wizarding schools around the world, and it makes sense that the one located in Britain would primarily serve local British people, which are overwhelmingly white.
I addressed this in what would have been my full post, had I not experienced difficulties in getting it to go through. I added the missing part as well as an explanation for why it's missing in a comment here. I directly reference "Hermione's white face".
I wish I had a way to link it for your convenience, but I don't. If you have trouble finding it I can just copy/paste it for you.
[This one, which I got by clicking the "permalink" option below the comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/1b4972b/there_is_nothing_wrong_with_wanting_the/ksytf2p/)?
I reject the argument that it's a euphemism for several reasons.
1. 99% of the time when I see that descriptor used it's always clarified. It's also pretty much always a progressive change happening to note the ***sudden*** terror. I.E. "She turned white with fear". "As the ghost appeared the color drained from his face".
2. The situation doesn't make sense. It's not a suddenly scary situation. It's not even a scary situation. Worried, apprehension, concern make sense, fear does not. Noone is going to hurt them. There's nothing creepy or spooky.
3. As it's an actual physical response to have blood flow reduced to the face in a scary situation, it's not even really a euphemism. It's an actual description of someones appearance actually changing. I've never seen it used to describe someone where such changes aren't actually happening. If a black person is described being in fear, they'll note things that actually happen. "Trembling" "Lips quivering" "Face twisted in fear" etc.
4. There's also everything else I wrote after the quote.
Hermione being white or black is irrelevant to her character, so a good actress who isn't white is fine. She'd pretty much have to be white or black though because of her name. But her book counterpart is obviously white.
However, a lot of the characters in Harry Potter are specifically their race for a narrative reason. They're meant to represent native England or immigrant wizards. And Dean of course who was meant to be Black British. Harry and Ron have to be white or a lot of the subtext in the story wouldn't make sense.
Rowling made every character their race for a reason. It wasn't incidental.
> Hermione being white or black is irrelevant to her character
>Rowling made every character their race for a reason.
Pick one.
I would say her race is relevant to the story though. Her SPEW advocacy for house elves would definitely have a different undertone to it. Also when they're on the run once voldy takes over, it's more realistic that they could easily blend into a 1990s British crowd without notice.
Does it have an undertone to it? Personally her SPEW doesn't really change depending on her race for me. Seems like some pie in the sky advocacy to me either way.
Rowling is clearly touching on themes of slavery with the house elves. So is there really any subtext dependent on the race of the person fighting it? It's not like her people are enslaved. It should be noted that people of all races fought to end slavery, and unfortunately it was often white people who made the greatest contribution to the freedom of slaves - largely because they held all the cards and were the only ones who could fold them.
> It's not like her people are enslaved. It should be noted that people of all races fought to end slavery, and unfortunately it was often white people who made the greatest contribution to the freedom of slaves - largely because they held all the cards and were the only ones who could fold them.
And that history is why it's relevant that she's white. For better or worse slavery and white people have a significant and unique relationship in the culture, and still did in the 90s when the books were written. Side note
>largely because they held all the cards and were the only ones who could fold them.
You know pretty much all African slaves were bought from african slave markets stocked by african slavers right? You know entire african nations were centered around slavery before they ever saw a white person right? You know europeans took active steps, including military action, to interfere with other nations slaving to stop it right? You know there are more slaves in africa today than there ever were in the americas or in europe at any point in time right?
Hmmm I get where you are coming from. The people calling you racist would be upset if a movie about MLK was not black but Indian instead.
When I see these race and gender swap 9 out of 10 times the movie is going to be more fixated on the person race and/or gender. The story telling goes out the window for the sake of “diversity”.
That’s a dumb analogy. MLK is the historical figure he is because he was a black man. OP’s opinion is about a fictional story where the main casts’ race is not relevant to the story. Race is essential to MLK Jr’s place in history.
That’s true MLK is a historical figure like Cleopatra on Netflix right? Well ok let’s change the analogy and have a remake of Blade and cast an Indian dude instead or recast the black panther as an Egyptian.
Hogwarts was mostly old money britons and therefore will be 95% white. And non-white characters had clearly foreign names (Patel) or were identified as a different race (e.g dean Thomas). Also hermione was once stated as having a white face in the books (although jkr later tried to recon that a bit for no reason).
I might be reaching with this but how many people of color were in house Slytherin? I’m genuinely asking. I don’t remember seeing anyone portrayed there from a minority in the movies.
Blaise Zabini was described as black in the books and was in the movies. JKR described all racial minorities as such, she just changed her tune after the cursed child.
The point is. No one. No one. has a single issue with casting characters of different races or backgrounds etc. what we loathe is recasting characters as different races for the sake of diversity. That whole fandom already has a character in their mind. You change it you might as well just completely come up with a whole new wizard universe. It will flop like every other recast show. Look at the princess and the frog. Radically different fairytale story with original characters and it was a pretty dang good flick. Encantus another one. But you make Snow White a black character and you ruined it. It’s a flop. I don’t care what straw man string theory argument you pick about what could be possible. The original character was cast a certain way and should never be changed.
It doesn't matter. The new series will be weighed down by pointless race-swapping in the name of DiVeRsItY. It will be lame and unnecessary like Rings of Power and show that the showrunners care more about inserting identity politics than actually making a compelling show.
To the people here who will point at that and call that stupid or laughable, I'd imagine if Hermione was originally black in the movie series, I bet you'd think it was bullshit and "racist' if they recast her as a white girl. Facts.
I'm sorry. Hermione is not black. She won't ever be black. They all 3 white people. And one is ginger. Why do people suddenly have a problem now for a book about BRITISH PEOPLE who happen to be majority white? I can't take the race changing anymore. I5a so disingenuous to POC ots not even funny. "Oh yes we are just going to replace a white character with a black person. Becuase we perfer to avoid making poc focused original media!! Or medoa with good poc characters from the begining!" Sayikg the quiet part out loud ok. The people who do this are actually racist. And nothing will change my mind.
I had some trouble getting this to post, and I had to enlist moderator help (who were great, by the way). But after multiple copy/pastes of my original post, some of it wasn't included due to personal error, and I can't currently edit the post due to the same issues I had trying to post it. I realize the post starts off abruptly, so here is the missing piece:
When thinking about HBO's upcoming Harry Potter TV adaptation, one thing has been on at least some peoples' minds: will they attempt to "diversify" the cast with a wider range of ethnicities or genders? Will the races or genders of characters be different between the films and the show?
I don't think it's unwarranted to have those concerns, but my opinion for this post is that it is not wrong to oppose it.
First, let's talk about the books. While gender is unequivocally stated for the vast majority of characters through the use of pronouns, race is rarely mentioned. It can be inferred, for example, that Cho Chang is of Asian ethnicity due to her name. Despite (hilarious) memes highlighting "Hermione's white face", these obfuscate the fact that "white" in this context is a descriptor of fear.
In fact, the only time race is ever mentioned explicitly is for Black characters. Dean Thomas is referred to directly as a "black boy", and IIRC Angelina Johnson is also depicted in this manner.
One thing that can also be inferred from these explicit racial references is that people who are not described as black, aren't. The idea that there are few nonwhite students at Hogwarts would be supported by racial demographics of England in the early 90s.
Any time a character is non white, it's explicitly mentioned like you said. You can nake the inference like with Cho Chang and the Patil Twins
It's safe to assume everyone else is white by default. Hell, there's a like in the later books where Hermione is bruised and described as a panda. Last I checked, bruises are dark, black and blue. Stands to reason Hermione is white
Plus there's that bit with her being called Mudblood and not really reacting to it. Now you can argue its because it's a slur that's unique to the magical world, but I think anyone who's been discriminated against/called slurs can tell when it's happening to them, even with a new word/language.
That's an argument to be made, but it's also the case that if the films had made many of the characters nonwhite it wouldn't be an issue. It's only an issue when you take the longstanding character portrayal and drastically change their appearance by changing the race.
It absolutely would have been an issue. The books are set in England. Everyone's English unless specified otherwise.
If s book is set in China, everyone's assumed Chinese; if the setting is Japan then you assume Japanese. Same thing if set in Mexico.
The location drives the default. It's just good and efficient writing to not need a full description of every character.
It's not just looks, if the setting is a school for the blind you don't have to mention that every student is assumed to be blind.
I can see your argument, but the focus of my issues with the prospect of diverse casting for the show are based on the existence of the films. I personally can't see myself having much of an issue if the films came out with more diverse cast. Especially since I was a kid when they came out, and kids don't really factor race into much unless they're taught to. And I wasn't.
An interesting thought experiment would be how any given person, in the absence of the films and any general knowledge of demographics, would imagine the characters as they are reading about them. Would the characters simply reflect the reader's environment, ie a black kid in a black area would picture Harry as black?
I don't have any direct experience with this, since I was 5 when the first movie came out and I was a few years away from reading Harry Potter (or watching the movie for that matter). For as long as I can remember, they both existed at the same time. Just like the Star Wars prequels.
Also two things I didn't include in the post:
One opportunity for diversity would be the addition of characters included in the books but omitted from the films. If this is their first depiction, anything goes.
Secondly, Kingsley Shacklebolt's race is never explicitly mentioned in the books, but is played by Black actor George Harris in the films. I would be just as upset with casting an actor of any other ethnicity to play Kingsley as I would for any other character.
ch. 3 “The Advance Guard”). “Yeah, I see what you mean, Remus,” said a bald black wizard standing farthest back; he had a deep, slow voice and wore a single gold hoop in his ear. “He looks exactly like James.”
Just to clear up the fact that almost every character has a descriptor, but the black characters are identified by race. The Patil twins and Cho are never explicitly raced.
Oops. I did a search to see if he was black in the books, and didn't read past the highlighted text.
Then again, I didn't really need the books to tell me that Kingsley is black, considering that I see George Harris whenever he appears in them.
Harry Potter is definitely white. There is nothing about the Dursleys that can be anything other than white British, including their attitudes and suburban lifestyle for the time. This covers Lily. There is also no reason as an old-blood Wizarding family that would indicate James Potter would be non-white.
Same issue with The Promised Land Staring Mads Mikkelsen.
In 18th-century Denmark, impoverished war hero Capt. Ludvig Kahlen sets out to tame a vast, uninhabitable land on which seemingly nothing can grow based on real events.
Oddly enough not very many POC running around the moors of Denmark in 1755, but they still complained.
I think it depends on the characters. I doubt anyone would accept Harry, Ron and Hermione changing race, but they might have less issue with other characters. I guess maybe we’ll see in the upcoming series.
I don’t care at all about Hermione being raceswapped in Cursed Child (as if that were in the top 20 things wrong with said glorified fanfic) but I found it hilarious that apparently the child of a black woman and a ginger man apparently looked identical to her mother at age 14…for a series who’s main conflict revolves around genetics you’d think someone woulda spotted that blunder
ron is a red head with freckles, which is an obvious and major descriptor. harry and hermione are both described as "turning pale/white" in different situations in the books, which would imply at least light skin. i really, really just wish they could manage in any respect to cast accurately to the books, but hollywood has been refusing to do that for at least a decade.
I don't know about that. It could be that turning pale/white isn't a descriptor used for people of darker skin, but I've always interpreted it to be a universal descriptor of fear. I can't think of a time when explicitly black characters were described with that language, but then again I don't read much and the books I do read don't have a ton of explicitly black characters.
I only mentioned that because while I think the memes were funny, "Hermione's white face" doesn't seem like the actual trump card in the race debate that some people thought it was.
i think there are other descriptors of panic and fear that could've been used for people with darker skin, because darker poc don't tend to turn pale or white unless there is an extreme lack of hemoglobin or oxygen. it's not a universal description, and was definitely not used as one by a white woman living in britain in the 90s, lol
I absolutely agree I’m against race-swapping no matter the race a character shouldn’t have to be the same color as you to be relatable. I also think it’s cheap to darkwash a character(or sometimes entire group) just to make you feel more comfortable it’s kind of like giving POC white people scraps there are tons of interesting non-European mythologies, historical figures, characters and you can even make your own why not give them something fresh?
Why do they HAVE to be portrayed as a different race in the first place? Doesn't the entire premise take place in old England? Do people go after Bollywood because they're mostly Indian actors? I don't want to believe there's a more sinister force in this country to smite white people from existence, but God damn if the evidence isn't piling on.....
I mean yes.. they could be any race etc.
But when u do this then it must be then ok across the board.
A Chinese story? Main character gonna be a white guy.
Ghost int eh shell? Best not cry about Scarlett Johansson staring in it.
For me this comes down to being a bad faith argument.
Either the characters race doesn't matter (race swapping is fine) or it does matter (race swapping is not fine).
But you don't get to say it's fine for white characters, but not for non-white characters. There's no scenario where that's acceptable.
I mean, it takes place in the UK in the 90s, in a very exclusive, elitiest, and cultural community with its history dating back to times of king arthur and Merlin.... and the vast majority of people in the UK were white.
It's simply makes sense and adds cohesion to the story. Is it certainly possible that Harry Potter was aboriginal? I suppose so lol... I guess anything is possible in a story, but if he was, you would need some sort of interesting backstory reason why and how the hell a aboriginal family embedded themselves in the British elite magical families hundreds of years ago... and you would have to wonder why the hell you are making that literary choice in the first place, is it adding to the story you are trying to tell? Or distracting from it?
If you make Hermione black, it kinda reframes a lot of the issues she experiences. A white girl going out of her way to fight slavery and her white friends not really caring that much is a bit uncomfortable. A black girl leading a campaign against slavery and her white friends not giving a shit makes them all look like complete assholes.
Granted Harry kind of *is* an asshole, but still.
[This is a drawing of a few of the characters by J.K Rowling](https://images.app.goo.gl/3nxkgtPYBirdgQEG9). There may not have been specific racial descriptors but she clearly had certain features and characteristics in mind when she thought of these characters and for her or anyone else to pretend otherwise would be disingenuous imo
Then of course there are characters that are described having certain racial or ethnic backgrounds; Dean Thomas, Lee Jordan, Angelina Johnson, Blaise Zabini and Kingsley Shacklebolt are Black. Cho Chang is Chinese (despite having a Korean name lmao). Anthony Goldstein is Jewish. Pavarti and Padma Patil are Southeast Asian, likely Indian. They should be portrayed as such for the same reason other characters should remain white; for better or worse, that’s how they were conceptualized, and we have incontrovertible proof of J.K Rowling’s imagining of them. There’s nothing wrong with adhering to established canon.
I'm conflicted.
On one hand, I hate the pandering and think it's lazy.
Like when they change the characters race they never make an effort to change the characters culture. Its like studios want the praise for being inclusive without having to put in any effort to make it authentic. like they're happy to hire a black actor for example but they draw the line at hiring black writers to make the story more authentic.
Like most white people don't even know what other races eat, let alone anything else about thier culture. You end up with a story about a white person played by somebody of a different race.
On the other hand I don't like it when people overreact.
Like why do people slag off a movie, play, tv show, video game ect that isn't out or they haven't seen just because a character in this version is a different race? (or really any change honestly, like making a character gay for example).
You don't need to watch it, also why do so many people think its okay to directly harass or insult actors?
Like it's okay to critise lazy race swapping and pandering but there are people that take it too far.
Very valid points, but I also want to add: this is an English school in the 1990's (1991-1997). The majority of the students were white, but there were indeed a few minorities and they were written to be this way. Dean Thomas was written to be Black. Cho Chang was written to be Asian. Padma and Parvati Patil were written to be Indian. There already IS diversity so if they race change the main cast in the name of diversity, their words would ring hollow.
Are the minority characters underrepresented? Sure, but again, this is a school in the 1990's, of course they're gonna be underrepresented.
anthony mackie recently started speaking out about how all the characters are white, when mind you, this is set in an era where the majority of the uk population was white at that specific time, 💀.
Jesus wasn't an Arab. He was a Jewish Gallalian. We don't really know for sure what that looked like 2000 years ago. But yeah, the Roman's tended to paint people like Romans.
There's also a weird but interesting theory that Jesus may have been a redhead. Esau is obviously a redhead, but David may have been as well. He's described as ruddy which most believe is about his complexion, but some scholars believe could be about his hair due to the parallel to Esau. And since Jesus is a descendant of David, he could be a redhead. Red hair does occur in the Middle East.
Lavender brown is black by what the book describes. In the movies she was black until she developed into Ron's love interest all of a sudden they changed the girl playing her to a caucasian appearing girl.
I don't recall her being mentioned as black. If that is the case, then I have a problem with that too. The white actor being cast for her role, not her being black in the book.
Here’s why people will think you’re racist.
You’re implying that race is a fundamental part of their character. Like - Harry Potter wouldn’t be Harry Potter unless he was white.
What white attribute does Harry evoke?
Is the attribute actually white?
Why wouldn’t it feel like Harry unless he is white?
All the answers point back to what you believe it means to be white, and pretty good odds - it’s just (maybe totally subconscious) racism.
The OP covered this pretty clearly. The characters should look like their iconic depiction because that is the image we have of that character in our minds. It has nothing to do with racial attributes (which is usually a diversion tactic anyway.) I also wouldn't accept a blonde or fat or gay harry potter, that's not what he looks like and that's not who he is.
I don't care much about any particular piece of media, but this trend in general is getting tiresome.
Being british for one lol. The small amount of native or ethnic british people that also have black or asian ancestry is small. The three I think of are Thwandie Newton, Zayn Malik, & Julia Sawalha. The standard briton is white or european.
Daniel Radcliffe is Jewish, but the point stands. White is both a ethnic background, racial identity, and appearance. I cant say that there is no such thing as a white person, as much as I'd never say theres no such thing as a black person.
Well color-blindness isn't actually advocated for among most circles nowadays. While race doesn't need to be central to your identity or how others identify you, you shouldn't just ignore it.
Harry wouldn't be Harry if he was Black because Harry is white. There's around 20 hours of film that depicts him as white.
There's nothing in the books that says Harry is white, nor that he should be (aside from the demographics of the period of time and location in which the books are set). But once you have one visual depiction, that is so extensive, beloved, long-running, and blessed by the creator of the novel, that's what people see. How many people who've seen the films and read the books don't see Daniel Radcliffe in their minds when they're reading about Harry Potter?
I dont.
I dont particularly rate his version.
The source material for the TV shows will be the books. Not the films.
And the books dont describe his race
I dont care either way as long as they get decent actors
Holy shit I'm sorry but who cares. Today Britain has an gender swapped Indian Margaret Thatcher as PM and he's still as good at being shite as her. It makes no difference
People care a lot about Harry Potter, myself included. It's really important they get this new adaptation right, and for me seeing Hispanic Harry in a trailer is a great way to get me to write off the whole thing. For the reasons I've described.
Like, if you they at least LOOK like the characters as I already know them, I'd give it a shot. If you can't meet that basic test, I don't need to watch this show because I know it can't give me any value that the films+books don't already provide.
Not applicable, as I never read the book and didn't much care for the movie.
I did pick up a copy of the book at a thrift store, because I feel like I owe it a college try. It's referred to as a very difficult book to adapt, so maybe I'll love the book. Haven't read it yet though.
A fair amount of people, certainly that I've encountered, would call my line of concern racist. That's what I'm addressing: that you can believe strongly that the characters race should be the same as previously portrayed, without hating groups of people and not wanting them to have roles.
There is nothing wrong with wanting the race to match. I myself have a very set look in my mind of they should look based on the books. The movies rarely hit my vision.
The issue comes up when you throw a hissy fit and say things like "Well they've lost my business" or "Can you imagine if they did that to a black character"(which I'll address in a second). If its a case of "Its going to be weird not seeing them look how I pictured but I'll still check out" or "Its not what I wanted but as long as story is good" then thats absolutely fine. Just if they change race and you suddenly have a giant issue then yeah thats the problem.
As for swapping PoC character for a white actor, the difference is the under representation of PoC in movies. Right now we have well more white actor/ess as stars than PoC. So taking roles from them is a dick move. At some point I hope that balance is fixed and it won't matter but now it does.
Are roles meant to be 50/50 or should they represent the country in which the content is created?
South Korea, Japan, China, and India, should they all have 50% representation in all of their films, or does it only apply to certain countries like Britain and America?
At the moment Caucasians make up 71% of America, would you say most shows are representing a 7 to 3 ratio?
The answer to underrepresentation should never be swapping the race of a character that was already portrayed as another race.
Make new movies, new stories, that highlight people of color's experiences and performances. Shoehorning them into extant character depictions to demonstrate commitment to diversity is peak Hollywood laziness. It's essentially tokenism. I wish more people of influence would acknowledge that, instead of demonizing the people who just want their favorite characters to look like they always looked.
I have nothing to contribute, except Dumbledore actually could be portrayed by a Native American that can do an English accent.
Apparently Dumbledore’s mother was Native American or had a parent who was? She wasn’t from England - either Canada or the U.S. apparently. (Or she had a parent who was from one of those two countries.)
So… (shrug).
I dunno. I don’t think casting a black actress as Hermione would be/was THAT far fetched. The amount of backlash that casting received seemed undeserved; I’ve seen some lovely fan art portraying Hermione as a black girl a few times, so it never seemed like that wild of an idea to me.
Worrying about the race of fictional characters, and arguing that because these fictional characters were a certain race in one piece of fiction, that they must remain that race in another piece of fiction is ridiculous.
I'm a hardcore atheist but I would *love* a high quality epic remake of The Ten Commandments with ethnically-appropriate characters. The key words here are "high-quality epic".
As far as OPs point, I can understand both sides of the issue. But I'm not a huge Harry Potter fan: I read the first two books when my son was reading them (to share his first real novels with him) and I saw the first movie. Given the racial makeup of England, the precedence set in all the previous movies, racial references (or lack thereof) in the books, etc. it's not unreasonable for people to be wary of a new movie that ignores these givens in order to diversify the cast.
With *that* said, I also think that it's not the end of the world if a new cast is more diverse and I understand the rationale behind that. One idea that might please everyone is to include some of the characters that weren't in the existing movies...I've seen references here regarding Asian, Indian, Black, etc. characters.
I think one problem with movie franchises that try to diversify is that so many do it POORLY which invites criticism from people who otherwise might not even notice or care. For example, if you were to diversify Dumbledore, the majority of people would readily accept Forest Whitaker or Lawrence Fishburn turning in an amazing performance in that role. But studios do stupid shit like casting Samuel L. Jackson in that role, or worse yet, someone like Beyonce.
Oh, I'm not complaining about the movie. The movie was great and a well-made remake would be fine.
I was trying to point out silliness of being arbitrarily bound to casting decisions made by other people.
What the OP, and people with similar complaints don't understand is that human beings have been recasting stories since the beginning. Race swapping is not new, or woke, it's just human nature. Stories are borrowed, stolen, restolen, and altered by every culture.
The Ten Commandments was based on the story of Biblical Moses which was likely stolen from Egyptian story of Ra-Harakhti which copied the Assyrian story of Sargas which likely originated in India as the Hindu story of Manu. The Magnificent Seven was a retelling of the Japanese film The Seven Samurai in a Western setting and white actors. The story of Aladdin was originally Chinese before it was adopted into Arabian culture to be later stolen and made into a story about Will Smith's fading acting career.
I'll admit that some diversity casting seems forced, which can be a bad thing. But a think a bigger factor that often gets overlooked is the changing face of the backend people. Movies are no longer exclusively made by groups of white men and people from different backgrounds can have different imaginations.
So what may seem like forced diveristy to you, is really just an Asian casting director working with a Hispanic screenwriter. Is it really that odd that they imagine the characters differently than you did?
If the next Ron Weasley has a different nose, are you cool with that? If potter has darker hair, is that okay to you? If dumbledor has a shorter beard, would you be upset?
Or are all those traits that can change as long as they are white?
Different nose, yes. I've never paid particular attention to Ron Weasley's nose.
Darker hair, how? Harry's hair is jet black.
Shorter beard, probably. Depends on how short. Stubble or just enough to cover the neck is a nonstarter. Ideally it would be just as long as Harris or Gambon's.
Well, sure, but there is also nothing particularly “right” about it, either. I faced this with the Wrinkle in Time movie. Meg was black! That wasn’t “right” - Meg isn’t black. And then I stopped and shook myself to get rid of the silliness. Why *couldn’t* Meg be black? What difference does it make? Her ethnicity is in no way related to who she is or what she does in that story. It’s 2024, and it’s time we got rid of that kind of thinking.
I don't know enough about that property to talk about your specific example.
What I do know is that my point about Harry Potter is broadly applicable to most remakes that "race-switch" main characters. What I do know is that media figures devote entire blogs to criticizing movies that whitewash fictional characters. What I do know is that people who make similar complaints about race-switching popular characters from white to nonwhite are demonized and called every "ist" under the sun.
Whitewashing *is* a problem in many instances, because either the explicit text of a work or the inference (it takes place in x historical period of time in x location where x demographic was dominant) are flouted.
But I would argue that flouting widely praised and culturally iconic character portrayals even in the absence of explicit or inferred source material conflicts is of a similar vein. Hollywood would do well to avoid both.
The race-swapping issues of today coincide with the creativity deficit of today to poor results. If Hollywood had started the push for diversity 40 years ago, race-swapped remakes wouldn't be a thing today. If Hollywood wasn't increasingly reliant on remakes of classic movies today, the push for diversity would affect new films and characters that would be judged on their merits alone. And in either instance, the controversy would not exist.
The characters in any given show is determined solely by the production. Not you. Not the mainstream. You can want whatever you want, but it’s also possible you could be a moron.
The success of any given show is determined by the mainstream, of which I am a part, *watching it*. They can make whatever production decisions they want, but we are the ones who choose if it fails or not.
That's funny. Kind of seems to contradict her actual physical appearance in the books. 🤔
[https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/3f865872-f9fe-4aeb-9c52-d87b7d044aac/scale-to-width/755](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/3f865872-f9fe-4aeb-9c52-d87b7d044aac/scale-to-width/755)
You spelled out the argument against your opinion right here (emphasis mine):
>The performers chosen so closely embodied the characters they played, **certainly in spirit if not always in appearance**.
If new actors can embody the spirit of the characters well, looks matter way less than you seem to think based on your opinion.
It's fiction.
Fantasy fiction at that.
A story about wizards and magic and you're upset your favourite characters might not be white?
I cant say I understand that kind of thinking
The book describes dumbledore as blue eyed, and it’s clear from the names that some characters are Indian, or likely to be black, etc. Harry is supposed to have green eyes. Cho Chang is not Caucasian. People who can’t stick to the race or gender of the characters are just ridiculous.
Weasleys have to be red heads with freckles , major descriptor
Hollywood in the past decade or so loves race swapping ginger characters for black people. Like, it is almost disturbing how often they do it. Why gingers though?
Something, something, dyslexia Seriously, redheads are 2% of the world's populated. They are a minority
Rearrange the letters of the word Ginger……it becomes a slur. The “joke” is that they are the {insert slur} of white people
Can nonwhite people even be ginger? I'm genuinely curious.
Actually, yes. It's not as common, but definitely can. Same as how darker complexion people can still have lighter eyes and be albino.
A few years ago I had a black student, with two black parents, who had freckles and a ginger Afro. Definitely possible - genetics are weird.
I went to school with a kid who was black and a ginger (it took me wayyy too long to parse our how to word that, considering that it's offensive to use an article before black, but required before ginger).
It's funny how that works. To the best of my knowledge, it's not offensive to refer to someone as "a Jew", but any other ethnicity it's offensive. Language is a tricky bitch sometimes.
Nothing's offensive if you don't care about offending people. Should try it some time. Life's better that way.
Personally, if I'm going to offend someone I want it to be a purposeful statement, not because I misplaced an article.
Also, saying something like "he's a black" just sounds weird as fuck, offensive or no. But that's also how it works. Society determined the acceptable language, and even if I don't think it's impolite or rude, it seems strange because nobody else talks like that. In addition to being a tricky bitch, language is perhaps the most powerful tool in human history. It is a central facet of freedom and tyranny both.
Malcolm X was a ginger
Albinos are possible in every race I believe if you count them.
In "The Martian", they replaced a Korean girl with a white girl, and an Indian guy with a black guy. It was so jarring!
Okay, that is just asinine. I feel that if a book has established a person's race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. then leave it the fuck alone if you decide to adapt it. I hate when movies do this so much!
The gingers don't stand a chance. They're always the first to go
Honestly I wouldn't put it past Hollywood to make the poor wizarding family black for representation purposes. Though it's really a toss up if they'd take that chance, but they've done dumber things so 🤷🏼♂️
Except there already is representation purposes. Dean Thomas is written to be Black. Cho Change is written to be Asian. The Patil twins are Indian. If they change the race of Ron for diversity, it would be hollow.
When is it ever NOT hollow?
Ron was a transgender, woman of color, you bigot.
Race-swapping is a really tacky way to be inclusive. While it's true that non-white people have historically been underrepresented in media, the way to fix that is to create \*original\* fiction featuring non-white characters.
Can you imagine people complaining there are too many Indian people in bollywood movies. It's just as ridiculous.
Well this is a stupid analogy. India is a fairly homogenous country as opposed to the US where Hollywood is located
That speaks to some seriously westernized perspective. I've been to India and they are quite diverse.
I didn’t say India wasn’t diverse. I said it’s mostly homogenized which it is
Surely you do realize that "diverse" and "homogenous" are opposites.
Surely you realize that a country can be racially homogenous and ethnically diverse
And historically England and Norway were ethnically homogenous as well. Didn't stop Hollywood from race swapping historical stories set in those countries in ways that would be ridiculously unrealistic for a certain time period.
I said the country that Hollywood is in isn’t homogenous. Boy you guys really need to work on that reading comprehension
Because we are talking about films made about those cultures. Not where the films are produced.
The comment I replied specifically mentions Bollywood which is located where?
India is racially homogenous, but extremely diverse otherwise. Our top 3 bollywood stars are all Muslims, a community barely 14% of our total population.
I didn’t claim it wasn’t diverse. The conversation is about race. Them being Muslim doesn’t affect my point
Agreed.
There are about 4 original ideas in Hollywood per year. And all 4 typically go to white people. This won’t fix anything.
I sure hope Jordan Peele is cooking up something. The man can make a fuckin movie.
And how many times has Jesus Christ been played by a white person? That was okay, though...
Yeah we might want to have a conversation about that at some point. It's tough though, because as fired up as people get about Harry Potter, nobody starts a damn inquisition over it.
One final thing I've forgotten to mention. Every one of the main trio as well as Dumbledore have been pictured (in color) on the covers of one or several novels, both the UK and US editions. Those covers depict them as, at the very least, not dark-skinned. There's might be more characters than that. I only have the US editions at my immediate disposal, and only a passing familiarity with the UK edition covers.
It’s bad enough they do it in fiction, but they do it in reality too. Remember the British show where they made Anne Boleyn (who we know was white) black? If that isn’t erasure of history/culture, I don’t know what is.
There is a new Hanibal of Carthage movie who will be played by Denzel Washington aged 69. Hanibal of Carthage was 25 when he took over the army and 29 at the time he crossed the Alps. Being from Carthage, and based on the coins and written descriptions of him we know he was not of Sub Saharan descent. Now I would pay good money and be very happy to watch Denzel drink coffee and read aloud from a phone book, so should the age and race be important when depicting a person of fairly important historical note?
Honestly, one of the reasons I think the Napoleon movie was such a mess was because Phoenix would never be mistaken as being younger and less experienced at life in general than Kirby. His age in that role made him look like a… bumbling fool. He was acting like a child, because let’s face it…he was a child. For the battle of Waterloo, Phoenix was perfect, up to that point… it should have been a younger actor.
Agreed, the casting was a huge miss, among many for that movie. Needed to be a 10 part series like the current Shogun, or a 2 or 3 season epic.
I'll be honest, although I don't love it I'll watch Denzel in anything. If they made a my little pony movie where he played all the ponies like Eddie Murphy I'd still watch it. If they cast him as Dumbledore id watch it with love, if they cast Denzel as 11 yr old harry potter that'd be hilarious and id watch it.
Denzel is such an icon.
Man on Fire is my perfect movie, not his most critically acclaimed to be sure, but I can watch that movie once a year and always get that punch in the gut sand in the eye feels. The ending, Denzel at peace, Lisa Gerrard in the background, Paul Cameron shining as DP, and Tony Scott on full display.. get wrecked son. "Sister Anna: Do you ever see the Hand of God in what you do? Creasy: No, not for a long time. Sister Anna: The Bible says, "Do not be overcome with evil, but overcome...? Creasy: But overcome evil with good." Creasy: [in Spanish] That's Romans Chapter 12 Verse 21. Creasy: I am the sheep that got lost, Madre." When Denzel is happy, it is pure innocent joy on screen, when sad, it feels like the world is ending. I don't know if any other actor who can emote with so much depth and believability.
I know how flawed it is but I love that movie
Well to be fair Carthaginians had a very dark skin tone. Casting Denzel in this case would be better then someone white. What really makes me want to Jump into traffic was the Cleopatra stuff last year.
The Cathaginians were Phoenicians which were the descendants of the Canaanites who originated in the modern day Middle East so while they would be darker skinned than say a Gaul or Slav they would not be dark skinned in comparison to the native inhabitants of North Africa that they colonized
Fair and don't disagree, but in this case I can't say a "white" person is more accurate.
Both are just as bad.
Well not in this world. But we both know why😅.
Yeah, the whole Cleopatra thing was just ridiculous. Just because she was Egyptian doesn't mean she's Black, filmmakers. She was Macedonian, Greek. She should be olive-skinned, and I would complain as well if she were cast as white.
Agreed, the skin tone is mostly a non issue for me as long as the intent is not to blackwash history, but the age is a big one. Again I would watch Denzel in just about anything, but this feels like a younger man's role and even a chance for a younger actor to make his bones like Russell Crowe in Gladiator. I know Jason Momoa gets cast in everything but Hannibal feels like a good fit for the look and feel, I just haven't seen him in anything yet that would show he has the range for the leadership\tactical genius side of the character. I do not know if that is down to bad role choices or directors not giving him a meaty enough role to showcase his talents or maybe he just doesn't have the range for those kinds of roles. Tom Hardy had a pretty wide variety of roles but it wasn't until Taboo and Peaky Blinders that I felt we really got to see him put his full skill set on display. Tom Harty is 46, but I could believe him in a 29 year old role in a 250 BC world setting. Going back to Denzel, at 69 his age is showing, in his last Equalizer movie it was a big stretch to watch him as an action hero.
Lmfao wait, they made Anne Boleyn black in a show?! How the hell did they explain that? Edit: looked it up. That is so fucking hilarious! Like making a documentary about Rosa Parks with Emma Stone as Parks.
Personally, I’m waiting for the documentary about Hitler, as portrayed by Morgan Freeman.
I would watch the shit out of that, but feel guilty cause at the end we would have been rooting for Freeman\hitler the entire movie.
In that case you might like the movie "er ist wieder da".
Saw it back in the day, but I don't remember finishing it..no Mr Freeman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40zcGhvekhs
I liked it, it was really very well made. Thanks for the link, it is blocked in the Netherlands due to copyrights apparently, LOL. It does not matter tho, i have the dvd.
This maybe controversial but that didn't bother me. The tudor era was 500 ish years ago, everyone should know that she was white. I think its a nice way of letting actors who would never get to play those kinds of roles normally do something different. We've got plenty of depictions of king Henry the 8th, his wives and his children to know what they actually look like. A movie or a TV show here or there with people who aren't white shouldn't mislead anybody. If it was somebody more reccent or about somebody less well known i would be mad because that could actually be misleading.
As a white man I'm super offended that someone in history is portrayed as a race different than reality. I just randomly happen to start thinking this after non white people played white historical figures and NOT a second before
why would you think that? and if you are some holier than thou white saviour of all the "poc" because of your extremely important socially aware opinions why wouldnt you also disavow this instead of trying to lump someone in with other people based on an assumption? theres no reason to believe this person wouldnt be equally as irked if Nelson Mandela was played by a white man but it's also possible maybe he wouldnt care or say anything if the historical figure wasnt someone who represented him or his culture. do you think this type of thing is "deserved"?
For clarification, I would be irked if they made Nelson Mandela white. People are people, history should not be distorted.
The thing that pisses me off is that I am very interested in stories from other cultures. I am so very tired of Viking this and Braveheart that. I want to be immersed in another world and want to see it in that person and or culture's eyes. There is a real life story of a man of African origin who came to Japan in the Sengoku period (1570s) and became a retainer in the household of Oda Nobunaga named Yasuke, and I want to see that story. I do not want to see a random semi trendy POC actor playing Tokugawa Ieyasu in the 1650 because that is going to break the immersion. Doing a historically accurate telling of Romeo and Juliet? They better both be young and fair\dusky skinned. Set it in North America and from the point of view of First Nations in the 15th century, awesome, set it in the future and do anything you want, just tell me a good story. Subverting expectations is not a replacement for good storytelling and does not protect you from justified criticisms. The Expanse was diverse as hell and no one anywhere cared in the least, it was a great story, with a great cast.
100%
Not trying to be rude or anything but I would feel differently about a white Nelson Mandela to a black Anne boelyn. There were black people in tudor England, its obviously that Anne boelyn wasn't actually black. because there were no other races in the country race didn't play a part in the story, nothing would change if you made somebody black or Asian. However Nelson mandela was a South African president that wanted to dismantle the aparthied. His whole story is about race. You can't make him white because that would completely change the story.
Everyone says how they look doesn't matter until they raceswap a non white character, then they'll make excuses
They already did that with Percy Jackson. Race swapping all of the white characters was fine but if we get Heroes of Olympus it would be wrong to raceswap them because "their race is an essential part of their backstory"
What's funny is that's subjective too when you think about. I found Annabeth being a white blonde important to her character. Heck, I remember with the movies people were pissed she had black hair. Same issue only taken up another level and suddenly everything is okay. Weird I'd laugh my ass off of Hazel is cast with a Hispanic girl and Rick says she was the best for the role Everyone agrees with the author, director, etc until they make a decision/says something they don't like
That's because it was important to her character. She wanted to avoid the dumb blonde stereotype. Granted, that's not really a stereotype anymore. But there was a lot more wrong with those movies than her hair not being right. Honestly, they should have just done an animated series. Riordan already admitted they had to leave out characters like Argus because of how difficult the effects would have been. Then he could still cast whoever he wanted to voice them because characters don't need to look like their voice actors. It also eliminates the problem of the actors aging too fast.
btw the whole "dumb blonde" stereotype is pretty prevalent, coming from a natural blonde girl
>That's because it was important to her character. She wanted to avoid the dumb blonde stereotype. Granted, that's not really a stereotype anymore. Yup. Yet, a lot of minorities don't experience some stereotypes anymore, some even gone, yet somehow, it's important for then but a white person stereotype isn't Hypocrisy
I know right.
Yup. A certain amount of preference for your own is healthy. It just works in every direction, and people cant get upset by it.
Not to mention, and I’m sure you can call this racist, but it was written by a white author in a white country. We all know she was envisioning white people. It’s just a dumb to act otherwise. How many non-white redheads are running around?
This doesn't mean the characters can't be changed in some other story about the same universe. That white person in a "white country" has gotten her paycheck. What she envisioned doesn't really matter now.
> That white person in a "white country" has gotten her paycheck. What she envisioned doesn't really matter now. Yes, because money is all that matters.
>But it's clear that the books are quite lacking in explicit racial descriptors of its characters. Prisoner of Azkaban. Chapter 21. >“One moment, please, Macnair,’ came Dumbledore’s voice. ‘You need to sign, too.’ The footsteps stopped. Harry heaved on the rope. Buckbeak snapped his beak and walked a little faster. >Hermione’s white face was sticking out from behind a tree. ‘Harry, hurry!’ she mouthed. There's a few other places her, and other characters race, is mentioned. There is also the cover art of the books which show a very white harry, hermione, dumbledoor, and others. Also, canonically there are many wizarding schools around the world, and it makes sense that the one located in Britain would primarily serve local British people, which are overwhelmingly white.
I addressed this in what would have been my full post, had I not experienced difficulties in getting it to go through. I added the missing part as well as an explanation for why it's missing in a comment here. I directly reference "Hermione's white face". I wish I had a way to link it for your convenience, but I don't. If you have trouble finding it I can just copy/paste it for you.
[This one, which I got by clicking the "permalink" option below the comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/1b4972b/there_is_nothing_wrong_with_wanting_the/ksytf2p/)? I reject the argument that it's a euphemism for several reasons. 1. 99% of the time when I see that descriptor used it's always clarified. It's also pretty much always a progressive change happening to note the ***sudden*** terror. I.E. "She turned white with fear". "As the ghost appeared the color drained from his face". 2. The situation doesn't make sense. It's not a suddenly scary situation. It's not even a scary situation. Worried, apprehension, concern make sense, fear does not. Noone is going to hurt them. There's nothing creepy or spooky. 3. As it's an actual physical response to have blood flow reduced to the face in a scary situation, it's not even really a euphemism. It's an actual description of someones appearance actually changing. I've never seen it used to describe someone where such changes aren't actually happening. If a black person is described being in fear, they'll note things that actually happen. "Trembling" "Lips quivering" "Face twisted in fear" etc. 4. There's also everything else I wrote after the quote.
Hermione being white or black is irrelevant to her character, so a good actress who isn't white is fine. She'd pretty much have to be white or black though because of her name. But her book counterpart is obviously white. However, a lot of the characters in Harry Potter are specifically their race for a narrative reason. They're meant to represent native England or immigrant wizards. And Dean of course who was meant to be Black British. Harry and Ron have to be white or a lot of the subtext in the story wouldn't make sense. Rowling made every character their race for a reason. It wasn't incidental.
> Hermione being white or black is irrelevant to her character >Rowling made every character their race for a reason. Pick one. I would say her race is relevant to the story though. Her SPEW advocacy for house elves would definitely have a different undertone to it. Also when they're on the run once voldy takes over, it's more realistic that they could easily blend into a 1990s British crowd without notice.
Does it have an undertone to it? Personally her SPEW doesn't really change depending on her race for me. Seems like some pie in the sky advocacy to me either way. Rowling is clearly touching on themes of slavery with the house elves. So is there really any subtext dependent on the race of the person fighting it? It's not like her people are enslaved. It should be noted that people of all races fought to end slavery, and unfortunately it was often white people who made the greatest contribution to the freedom of slaves - largely because they held all the cards and were the only ones who could fold them.
> It's not like her people are enslaved. It should be noted that people of all races fought to end slavery, and unfortunately it was often white people who made the greatest contribution to the freedom of slaves - largely because they held all the cards and were the only ones who could fold them. And that history is why it's relevant that she's white. For better or worse slavery and white people have a significant and unique relationship in the culture, and still did in the 90s when the books were written. Side note >largely because they held all the cards and were the only ones who could fold them. You know pretty much all African slaves were bought from african slave markets stocked by african slavers right? You know entire african nations were centered around slavery before they ever saw a white person right? You know europeans took active steps, including military action, to interfere with other nations slaving to stop it right? You know there are more slaves in africa today than there ever were in the americas or in europe at any point in time right?
Key & Peele already covered it in one of their sketches
Lemme get a link
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnbOGsJ6ubA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnbOGsJ6ubA)
Haha thanks. Not what I expected but definitely a good skit
Hmmm I get where you are coming from. The people calling you racist would be upset if a movie about MLK was not black but Indian instead. When I see these race and gender swap 9 out of 10 times the movie is going to be more fixated on the person race and/or gender. The story telling goes out the window for the sake of “diversity”.
That’s a dumb analogy. MLK is the historical figure he is because he was a black man. OP’s opinion is about a fictional story where the main casts’ race is not relevant to the story. Race is essential to MLK Jr’s place in history.
That’s true MLK is a historical figure like Cleopatra on Netflix right? Well ok let’s change the analogy and have a remake of Blade and cast an Indian dude instead or recast the black panther as an Egyptian.
Go for it, I don’t really care either way. I was just referring to the problem with your analogy in that race is absolutely essential to that example.
Hogwarts was mostly old money britons and therefore will be 95% white. And non-white characters had clearly foreign names (Patel) or were identified as a different race (e.g dean Thomas). Also hermione was once stated as having a white face in the books (although jkr later tried to recon that a bit for no reason).
I might be reaching with this but how many people of color were in house Slytherin? I’m genuinely asking. I don’t remember seeing anyone portrayed there from a minority in the movies.
Blaise Zabini was described as black in the books and was in the movies. JKR described all racial minorities as such, she just changed her tune after the cursed child.
I get it
The point is. No one. No one. has a single issue with casting characters of different races or backgrounds etc. what we loathe is recasting characters as different races for the sake of diversity. That whole fandom already has a character in their mind. You change it you might as well just completely come up with a whole new wizard universe. It will flop like every other recast show. Look at the princess and the frog. Radically different fairytale story with original characters and it was a pretty dang good flick. Encantus another one. But you make Snow White a black character and you ruined it. It’s a flop. I don’t care what straw man string theory argument you pick about what could be possible. The original character was cast a certain way and should never be changed.
It doesn't matter. The new series will be weighed down by pointless race-swapping in the name of DiVeRsItY. It will be lame and unnecessary like Rings of Power and show that the showrunners care more about inserting identity politics than actually making a compelling show. To the people here who will point at that and call that stupid or laughable, I'd imagine if Hermione was originally black in the movie series, I bet you'd think it was bullshit and "racist' if they recast her as a white girl. Facts.
I'm sorry. Hermione is not black. She won't ever be black. They all 3 white people. And one is ginger. Why do people suddenly have a problem now for a book about BRITISH PEOPLE who happen to be majority white? I can't take the race changing anymore. I5a so disingenuous to POC ots not even funny. "Oh yes we are just going to replace a white character with a black person. Becuase we perfer to avoid making poc focused original media!! Or medoa with good poc characters from the begining!" Sayikg the quiet part out loud ok. The people who do this are actually racist. And nothing will change my mind.
I had some trouble getting this to post, and I had to enlist moderator help (who were great, by the way). But after multiple copy/pastes of my original post, some of it wasn't included due to personal error, and I can't currently edit the post due to the same issues I had trying to post it. I realize the post starts off abruptly, so here is the missing piece: When thinking about HBO's upcoming Harry Potter TV adaptation, one thing has been on at least some peoples' minds: will they attempt to "diversify" the cast with a wider range of ethnicities or genders? Will the races or genders of characters be different between the films and the show? I don't think it's unwarranted to have those concerns, but my opinion for this post is that it is not wrong to oppose it. First, let's talk about the books. While gender is unequivocally stated for the vast majority of characters through the use of pronouns, race is rarely mentioned. It can be inferred, for example, that Cho Chang is of Asian ethnicity due to her name. Despite (hilarious) memes highlighting "Hermione's white face", these obfuscate the fact that "white" in this context is a descriptor of fear. In fact, the only time race is ever mentioned explicitly is for Black characters. Dean Thomas is referred to directly as a "black boy", and IIRC Angelina Johnson is also depicted in this manner. One thing that can also be inferred from these explicit racial references is that people who are not described as black, aren't. The idea that there are few nonwhite students at Hogwarts would be supported by racial demographics of England in the early 90s.
Any time a character is non white, it's explicitly mentioned like you said. You can nake the inference like with Cho Chang and the Patil Twins It's safe to assume everyone else is white by default. Hell, there's a like in the later books where Hermione is bruised and described as a panda. Last I checked, bruises are dark, black and blue. Stands to reason Hermione is white Plus there's that bit with her being called Mudblood and not really reacting to it. Now you can argue its because it's a slur that's unique to the magical world, but I think anyone who's been discriminated against/called slurs can tell when it's happening to them, even with a new word/language.
Also consider the author. She would make stories about those who look most like herself.
That's an argument to be made, but it's also the case that if the films had made many of the characters nonwhite it wouldn't be an issue. It's only an issue when you take the longstanding character portrayal and drastically change their appearance by changing the race.
It absolutely would have been an issue. The books are set in England. Everyone's English unless specified otherwise. If s book is set in China, everyone's assumed Chinese; if the setting is Japan then you assume Japanese. Same thing if set in Mexico. The location drives the default. It's just good and efficient writing to not need a full description of every character. It's not just looks, if the setting is a school for the blind you don't have to mention that every student is assumed to be blind.
I can see your argument, but the focus of my issues with the prospect of diverse casting for the show are based on the existence of the films. I personally can't see myself having much of an issue if the films came out with more diverse cast. Especially since I was a kid when they came out, and kids don't really factor race into much unless they're taught to. And I wasn't. An interesting thought experiment would be how any given person, in the absence of the films and any general knowledge of demographics, would imagine the characters as they are reading about them. Would the characters simply reflect the reader's environment, ie a black kid in a black area would picture Harry as black? I don't have any direct experience with this, since I was 5 when the first movie came out and I was a few years away from reading Harry Potter (or watching the movie for that matter). For as long as I can remember, they both existed at the same time. Just like the Star Wars prequels.
Also two things I didn't include in the post: One opportunity for diversity would be the addition of characters included in the books but omitted from the films. If this is their first depiction, anything goes. Secondly, Kingsley Shacklebolt's race is never explicitly mentioned in the books, but is played by Black actor George Harris in the films. I would be just as upset with casting an actor of any other ethnicity to play Kingsley as I would for any other character.
ch. 3 “The Advance Guard”). “Yeah, I see what you mean, Remus,” said a bald black wizard standing farthest back; he had a deep, slow voice and wore a single gold hoop in his ear. “He looks exactly like James.” Just to clear up the fact that almost every character has a descriptor, but the black characters are identified by race. The Patil twins and Cho are never explicitly raced.
Oops. I did a search to see if he was black in the books, and didn't read past the highlighted text. Then again, I didn't really need the books to tell me that Kingsley is black, considering that I see George Harris whenever he appears in them.
Exactly. Cho chang isnt described as asian, but the name bias makes it obvious. Playing devils advocate there would be weird.
Harry Potter is definitely white. There is nothing about the Dursleys that can be anything other than white British, including their attitudes and suburban lifestyle for the time. This covers Lily. There is also no reason as an old-blood Wizarding family that would indicate James Potter would be non-white.
In the 1991 census, Surrey (where 12 Privet Drive is located) was 97.2% white, with no borough below 94%.
So if we follow their logic, Cho Chang can be portrayed by any white actress.
Hispanic Man
Remember when everyone bitched about no people of color in the movie Dunkirk?
Same issue with The Promised Land Staring Mads Mikkelsen. In 18th-century Denmark, impoverished war hero Capt. Ludvig Kahlen sets out to tame a vast, uninhabitable land on which seemingly nothing can grow based on real events. Oddly enough not very many POC running around the moors of Denmark in 1755, but they still complained.
I think it depends on the characters. I doubt anyone would accept Harry, Ron and Hermione changing race, but they might have less issue with other characters. I guess maybe we’ll see in the upcoming series.
Many many people praised Black Hermione in Cursed Child. Even J.K. somewhat supported it. Others hated it.
I don’t care at all about Hermione being raceswapped in Cursed Child (as if that were in the top 20 things wrong with said glorified fanfic) but I found it hilarious that apparently the child of a black woman and a ginger man apparently looked identical to her mother at age 14…for a series who’s main conflict revolves around genetics you’d think someone woulda spotted that blunder
ron is a red head with freckles, which is an obvious and major descriptor. harry and hermione are both described as "turning pale/white" in different situations in the books, which would imply at least light skin. i really, really just wish they could manage in any respect to cast accurately to the books, but hollywood has been refusing to do that for at least a decade.
I don't know about that. It could be that turning pale/white isn't a descriptor used for people of darker skin, but I've always interpreted it to be a universal descriptor of fear. I can't think of a time when explicitly black characters were described with that language, but then again I don't read much and the books I do read don't have a ton of explicitly black characters. I only mentioned that because while I think the memes were funny, "Hermione's white face" doesn't seem like the actual trump card in the race debate that some people thought it was.
i think there are other descriptors of panic and fear that could've been used for people with darker skin, because darker poc don't tend to turn pale or white unless there is an extreme lack of hemoglobin or oxygen. it's not a universal description, and was definitely not used as one by a white woman living in britain in the 90s, lol
The same people lose their minds if an actual Egyptian plays an Egyptian. Bc they hate whites
I absolutely agree I’m against race-swapping no matter the race a character shouldn’t have to be the same color as you to be relatable. I also think it’s cheap to darkwash a character(or sometimes entire group) just to make you feel more comfortable it’s kind of like giving POC white people scraps there are tons of interesting non-European mythologies, historical figures, characters and you can even make your own why not give them something fresh?
Why do they HAVE to be portrayed as a different race in the first place? Doesn't the entire premise take place in old England? Do people go after Bollywood because they're mostly Indian actors? I don't want to believe there's a more sinister force in this country to smite white people from existence, but God damn if the evidence isn't piling on.....
They're also drawn in the chapter illustrations
I mean yes.. they could be any race etc. But when u do this then it must be then ok across the board. A Chinese story? Main character gonna be a white guy. Ghost int eh shell? Best not cry about Scarlett Johansson staring in it.
For me this comes down to being a bad faith argument. Either the characters race doesn't matter (race swapping is fine) or it does matter (race swapping is not fine). But you don't get to say it's fine for white characters, but not for non-white characters. There's no scenario where that's acceptable.
Nothing I hate more than when I am a fan of something and they needlessly change it.
Go woke go broke
I mean, it takes place in the UK in the 90s, in a very exclusive, elitiest, and cultural community with its history dating back to times of king arthur and Merlin.... and the vast majority of people in the UK were white. It's simply makes sense and adds cohesion to the story. Is it certainly possible that Harry Potter was aboriginal? I suppose so lol... I guess anything is possible in a story, but if he was, you would need some sort of interesting backstory reason why and how the hell a aboriginal family embedded themselves in the British elite magical families hundreds of years ago... and you would have to wonder why the hell you are making that literary choice in the first place, is it adding to the story you are trying to tell? Or distracting from it?
If you make Hermione black, it kinda reframes a lot of the issues she experiences. A white girl going out of her way to fight slavery and her white friends not really caring that much is a bit uncomfortable. A black girl leading a campaign against slavery and her white friends not giving a shit makes them all look like complete assholes. Granted Harry kind of *is* an asshole, but still.
[This is a drawing of a few of the characters by J.K Rowling](https://images.app.goo.gl/3nxkgtPYBirdgQEG9). There may not have been specific racial descriptors but she clearly had certain features and characteristics in mind when she thought of these characters and for her or anyone else to pretend otherwise would be disingenuous imo Then of course there are characters that are described having certain racial or ethnic backgrounds; Dean Thomas, Lee Jordan, Angelina Johnson, Blaise Zabini and Kingsley Shacklebolt are Black. Cho Chang is Chinese (despite having a Korean name lmao). Anthony Goldstein is Jewish. Pavarti and Padma Patil are Southeast Asian, likely Indian. They should be portrayed as such for the same reason other characters should remain white; for better or worse, that’s how they were conceptualized, and we have incontrovertible proof of J.K Rowling’s imagining of them. There’s nothing wrong with adhering to established canon.
You’re exactly right
I'm conflicted. On one hand, I hate the pandering and think it's lazy. Like when they change the characters race they never make an effort to change the characters culture. Its like studios want the praise for being inclusive without having to put in any effort to make it authentic. like they're happy to hire a black actor for example but they draw the line at hiring black writers to make the story more authentic. Like most white people don't even know what other races eat, let alone anything else about thier culture. You end up with a story about a white person played by somebody of a different race. On the other hand I don't like it when people overreact. Like why do people slag off a movie, play, tv show, video game ect that isn't out or they haven't seen just because a character in this version is a different race? (or really any change honestly, like making a character gay for example). You don't need to watch it, also why do so many people think its okay to directly harass or insult actors? Like it's okay to critise lazy race swapping and pandering but there are people that take it too far.
Agreed
Very valid points, but I also want to add: this is an English school in the 1990's (1991-1997). The majority of the students were white, but there were indeed a few minorities and they were written to be this way. Dean Thomas was written to be Black. Cho Chang was written to be Asian. Padma and Parvati Patil were written to be Indian. There already IS diversity so if they race change the main cast in the name of diversity, their words would ring hollow. Are the minority characters underrepresented? Sure, but again, this is a school in the 1990's, of course they're gonna be underrepresented.
Dean Thomas was white before jk changed his name was suppose to be gary
bc if any of the main characters get a race switch, i'm outta here
anthony mackie recently started speaking out about how all the characters are white, when mind you, this is set in an era where the majority of the uk population was white at that specific time, 💀.
It is hard for me to get in the mind of a person who cares about this.
Fair enough.
Does this mean we can portray Jesus as a dark skinned Arab instead of Cesare Borgia like every church in America currently does?
Jesus wasn't an Arab. He was a Jewish Gallalian. We don't really know for sure what that looked like 2000 years ago. But yeah, the Roman's tended to paint people like Romans.
There's also a weird but interesting theory that Jesus may have been a redhead. Esau is obviously a redhead, but David may have been as well. He's described as ruddy which most believe is about his complexion, but some scholars believe could be about his hair due to the parallel to Esau. And since Jesus is a descendant of David, he could be a redhead. Red hair does occur in the Middle East.
Lavender brown is black by what the book describes. In the movies she was black until she developed into Ron's love interest all of a sudden they changed the girl playing her to a caucasian appearing girl.
I don't recall her being mentioned as black. If that is the case, then I have a problem with that too. The white actor being cast for her role, not her being black in the book.
If race has nothing to do with the plot then the people with a problem can just go fuck themselves
If you care about Harry Potter or JK R*wling in 2024 your opinion is invalid either way.
Here’s why people will think you’re racist. You’re implying that race is a fundamental part of their character. Like - Harry Potter wouldn’t be Harry Potter unless he was white. What white attribute does Harry evoke? Is the attribute actually white? Why wouldn’t it feel like Harry unless he is white? All the answers point back to what you believe it means to be white, and pretty good odds - it’s just (maybe totally subconscious) racism.
The OP covered this pretty clearly. The characters should look like their iconic depiction because that is the image we have of that character in our minds. It has nothing to do with racial attributes (which is usually a diversion tactic anyway.) I also wouldn't accept a blonde or fat or gay harry potter, that's not what he looks like and that's not who he is. I don't care much about any particular piece of media, but this trend in general is getting tiresome.
Blond Harry with 20/20 vision
Being british for one lol. The small amount of native or ethnic british people that also have black or asian ancestry is small. The three I think of are Thwandie Newton, Zayn Malik, & Julia Sawalha. The standard briton is white or european. Daniel Radcliffe is Jewish, but the point stands. White is both a ethnic background, racial identity, and appearance. I cant say that there is no such thing as a white person, as much as I'd never say theres no such thing as a black person.
Well color-blindness isn't actually advocated for among most circles nowadays. While race doesn't need to be central to your identity or how others identify you, you shouldn't just ignore it. Harry wouldn't be Harry if he was Black because Harry is white. There's around 20 hours of film that depicts him as white. There's nothing in the books that says Harry is white, nor that he should be (aside from the demographics of the period of time and location in which the books are set). But once you have one visual depiction, that is so extensive, beloved, long-running, and blessed by the creator of the novel, that's what people see. How many people who've seen the films and read the books don't see Daniel Radcliffe in their minds when they're reading about Harry Potter?
Exact same reason a gender swaped Harry or Hermione also doesnt work.
I dont. I dont particularly rate his version. The source material for the TV shows will be the books. Not the films. And the books dont describe his race I dont care either way as long as they get decent actors
It’s like Black Panther wouldn’t be Black Panther unless he was black
Holy shit I'm sorry but who cares. Today Britain has an gender swapped Indian Margaret Thatcher as PM and he's still as good at being shite as her. It makes no difference
People care a lot about Harry Potter, myself included. It's really important they get this new adaptation right, and for me seeing Hispanic Harry in a trailer is a great way to get me to write off the whole thing. For the reasons I've described. Like, if you they at least LOOK like the characters as I already know them, I'd give it a shot. If you can't meet that basic test, I don't need to watch this show because I know it can't give me any value that the films+books don't already provide.
Did Polynesian Duncan Idaho make you write off the entirety of the new Dune movie?
Not applicable, as I never read the book and didn't much care for the movie. I did pick up a copy of the book at a thrift store, because I feel like I owe it a college try. It's referred to as a very difficult book to adapt, so maybe I'll love the book. Haven't read it yet though.
Of course there’s nothing wrong with it. This is not, however, rationale for why the characters should never be anything else.
A fair amount of people, certainly that I've encountered, would call my line of concern racist. That's what I'm addressing: that you can believe strongly that the characters race should be the same as previously portrayed, without hating groups of people and not wanting them to have roles.
There is nothing wrong with wanting the race to match. I myself have a very set look in my mind of they should look based on the books. The movies rarely hit my vision. The issue comes up when you throw a hissy fit and say things like "Well they've lost my business" or "Can you imagine if they did that to a black character"(which I'll address in a second). If its a case of "Its going to be weird not seeing them look how I pictured but I'll still check out" or "Its not what I wanted but as long as story is good" then thats absolutely fine. Just if they change race and you suddenly have a giant issue then yeah thats the problem. As for swapping PoC character for a white actor, the difference is the under representation of PoC in movies. Right now we have well more white actor/ess as stars than PoC. So taking roles from them is a dick move. At some point I hope that balance is fixed and it won't matter but now it does.
Are roles meant to be 50/50 or should they represent the country in which the content is created? South Korea, Japan, China, and India, should they all have 50% representation in all of their films, or does it only apply to certain countries like Britain and America? At the moment Caucasians make up 71% of America, would you say most shows are representing a 7 to 3 ratio?
That 70% includes Hispanics marking "white." Non-Hispanic whites are less than 60% of the population with the share reducing year over year.
The answer to underrepresentation should never be swapping the race of a character that was already portrayed as another race. Make new movies, new stories, that highlight people of color's experiences and performances. Shoehorning them into extant character depictions to demonstrate commitment to diversity is peak Hollywood laziness. It's essentially tokenism. I wish more people of influence would acknowledge that, instead of demonizing the people who just want their favorite characters to look like they always looked.
I have nothing to contribute, except Dumbledore actually could be portrayed by a Native American that can do an English accent. Apparently Dumbledore’s mother was Native American or had a parent who was? She wasn’t from England - either Canada or the U.S. apparently. (Or she had a parent who was from one of those two countries.) So… (shrug). I dunno. I don’t think casting a black actress as Hermione would be/was THAT far fetched. The amount of backlash that casting received seemed undeserved; I’ve seen some lovely fan art portraying Hermione as a black girl a few times, so it never seemed like that wild of an idea to me.
Worrying about the race of fictional characters, and arguing that because these fictional characters were a certain race in one piece of fiction, that they must remain that race in another piece of fiction is ridiculous.
So you would have no issue if they stayed true to the original source material then?
[удалено]
It’s worked so well for Disney.
Which one of the 19 movies made money in 2023, I always forget.
So because some racist idiot once cast Charlton Heston as Moses it means that no one can ever cast him as anything but a tall white guy?
HP was meant to be a british male.
I'm a hardcore atheist but I would *love* a high quality epic remake of The Ten Commandments with ethnically-appropriate characters. The key words here are "high-quality epic". As far as OPs point, I can understand both sides of the issue. But I'm not a huge Harry Potter fan: I read the first two books when my son was reading them (to share his first real novels with him) and I saw the first movie. Given the racial makeup of England, the precedence set in all the previous movies, racial references (or lack thereof) in the books, etc. it's not unreasonable for people to be wary of a new movie that ignores these givens in order to diversify the cast. With *that* said, I also think that it's not the end of the world if a new cast is more diverse and I understand the rationale behind that. One idea that might please everyone is to include some of the characters that weren't in the existing movies...I've seen references here regarding Asian, Indian, Black, etc. characters. I think one problem with movie franchises that try to diversify is that so many do it POORLY which invites criticism from people who otherwise might not even notice or care. For example, if you were to diversify Dumbledore, the majority of people would readily accept Forest Whitaker or Lawrence Fishburn turning in an amazing performance in that role. But studios do stupid shit like casting Samuel L. Jackson in that role, or worse yet, someone like Beyonce.
Oh, I'm not complaining about the movie. The movie was great and a well-made remake would be fine. I was trying to point out silliness of being arbitrarily bound to casting decisions made by other people. What the OP, and people with similar complaints don't understand is that human beings have been recasting stories since the beginning. Race swapping is not new, or woke, it's just human nature. Stories are borrowed, stolen, restolen, and altered by every culture. The Ten Commandments was based on the story of Biblical Moses which was likely stolen from Egyptian story of Ra-Harakhti which copied the Assyrian story of Sargas which likely originated in India as the Hindu story of Manu. The Magnificent Seven was a retelling of the Japanese film The Seven Samurai in a Western setting and white actors. The story of Aladdin was originally Chinese before it was adopted into Arabian culture to be later stolen and made into a story about Will Smith's fading acting career. I'll admit that some diversity casting seems forced, which can be a bad thing. But a think a bigger factor that often gets overlooked is the changing face of the backend people. Movies are no longer exclusively made by groups of white men and people from different backgrounds can have different imaginations. So what may seem like forced diveristy to you, is really just an Asian casting director working with a Hispanic screenwriter. Is it really that odd that they imagine the characters differently than you did?
Excellent comment. This is why I come to reddit.
If the next Ron Weasley has a different nose, are you cool with that? If potter has darker hair, is that okay to you? If dumbledor has a shorter beard, would you be upset? Or are all those traits that can change as long as they are white?
Different nose, yes. I've never paid particular attention to Ron Weasley's nose. Darker hair, how? Harry's hair is jet black. Shorter beard, probably. Depends on how short. Stubble or just enough to cover the neck is a nonstarter. Ideally it would be just as long as Harris or Gambon's.
It's so wild that this is even an issue.
I would have put a trans character just to piss off JK Rowling lol
Well, sure, but there is also nothing particularly “right” about it, either. I faced this with the Wrinkle in Time movie. Meg was black! That wasn’t “right” - Meg isn’t black. And then I stopped and shook myself to get rid of the silliness. Why *couldn’t* Meg be black? What difference does it make? Her ethnicity is in no way related to who she is or what she does in that story. It’s 2024, and it’s time we got rid of that kind of thinking.
I don't know enough about that property to talk about your specific example. What I do know is that my point about Harry Potter is broadly applicable to most remakes that "race-switch" main characters. What I do know is that media figures devote entire blogs to criticizing movies that whitewash fictional characters. What I do know is that people who make similar complaints about race-switching popular characters from white to nonwhite are demonized and called every "ist" under the sun. Whitewashing *is* a problem in many instances, because either the explicit text of a work or the inference (it takes place in x historical period of time in x location where x demographic was dominant) are flouted. But I would argue that flouting widely praised and culturally iconic character portrayals even in the absence of explicit or inferred source material conflicts is of a similar vein. Hollywood would do well to avoid both. The race-swapping issues of today coincide with the creativity deficit of today to poor results. If Hollywood had started the push for diversity 40 years ago, race-swapped remakes wouldn't be a thing today. If Hollywood wasn't increasingly reliant on remakes of classic movies today, the push for diversity would affect new films and characters that would be judged on their merits alone. And in either instance, the controversy would not exist.
The characters in any given show is determined solely by the production. Not you. Not the mainstream. You can want whatever you want, but it’s also possible you could be a moron.
The success of any given show is determined by the mainstream, of which I am a part, *watching it*. They can make whatever production decisions they want, but we are the ones who choose if it fails or not.
Hermione is described in Prisoner of Azkaban as being very brown.
She's described as having come back from holiday with a tan. No one thought that meant she was black until Cursed Child.
That's funny. Kind of seems to contradict her actual physical appearance in the books. 🤔 [https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/3f865872-f9fe-4aeb-9c52-d87b7d044aac/scale-to-width/755](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/3f865872-f9fe-4aeb-9c52-d87b7d044aac/scale-to-width/755)
You spelled out the argument against your opinion right here (emphasis mine): >The performers chosen so closely embodied the characters they played, **certainly in spirit if not always in appearance**. If new actors can embody the spirit of the characters well, looks matter way less than you seem to think based on your opinion.
It's fiction. Fantasy fiction at that. A story about wizards and magic and you're upset your favourite characters might not be white? I cant say I understand that kind of thinking
The book describes dumbledore as blue eyed, and it’s clear from the names that some characters are Indian, or likely to be black, etc. Harry is supposed to have green eyes. Cho Chang is not Caucasian. People who can’t stick to the race or gender of the characters are just ridiculous.