Censorship? There is no censorship!

[Sander]

He had a certain vision of the role, and he saw Bale in that role.
Personally I don't care if it's Bale or some lesser known semitic dude as long as the acting is spot on. But I guess Scott has a more developed eye for the detail, and he wants the actor to really live up to the role.
The question is if he should have kept looking for a more racially appropriate actor who would have been up to the task or if it is ok to just go with his initial idea.

He probably should've kept looking, mostly because "well I just think this white dude is the best person for the role" is always the justification for whitewashing a film or series. Because that's both how PR works, and how unconscious biases work. Of course Scott thinks a middle-aged white dude is best for the role, because that's the kind of person he has always seen in these sorts of roles. Besides, it's not like there's a shortage of good non-white actors out there.

 

[Tagaziel]

The more I look at those stills, the more I see a Welshman trying in vain to blend in with Egyptians. It's horrible.

EDIT: "I can’t mount a film of this budget and say that my lead actor is Mohammed so-and-so from such-and-such" (Ridley Scott)

what is this I don't even

 

[Crni Vuk]

You know where it gets really fun Tagz? I have read somewhere that they will use natural disasters to explain all the stuff that happens in the movie, even the part where Moses is crossing the Red Sea. But yeah ... lets try to make it realistic. But don't let the Pharao look even anything like this!

Had Ridley Scott been directly asked about not casting Middle Eastern actors to play Moses and Ramses his answers to questions about Bale and Edgerton may have been different, but what I gather from this interview is that the director wasn't really looking at race when he was finding his leads - he was just looking at talent. He likens putting the cast together as being similar to putting together a talented soccer team, saying that he requires strong partnerships. But is that enough of an explanation?

It's this kind of thoughtlessness that really gets me. You're making a movie set in Egypt and your main characters are played by people from Wales, Australia, and England. I love Christian Bale, but that's kind of thoughtless of Scott. There's no shortage of talented actors with a lineage that matches Egypt more.

I am kinda divided, I mean if Scot really believes that Bale is the best choice for his vision of Moses? Who are we to tell him, no STFU! And get this Mexican guy! Feels like telling an artist to paint the horses in his picture in green even though he feels that they would look better in red. After all you could always argue that Moses was maybe white. We simply don't know it. I mean it's not like he's filming Hotel Ruanda and filling the lead Role of Rwandan Paul Rusesabagina with Bale who got a paint job to look like a black person.

Though, if most of the cast is dominantly white and rather Caucasian/American looking, then I do somewhat agree with you. Because just like you said, there are many good actors out there. Of pretty much all colours and ethnicity.

What would be interesting is how people would actually react to a black Jesus. Or at least one that was not white. Chances are pretty good that the historical Jesus was not white.

because that's the kind of person he has always seen in these sorts of roles. Besides, it's not like there's a shortage of good non-white actors out there.

A black mass? I think that is still too much for the American society, can you imagine all the heads that would explode? I guess they would rather accept a black female President exposing her nipples in congress before that happens. By the way, she could always tell the audience that she's trying to win over the republican party.

 

[Akratus]

Christian Bale is shit at accents though. I watched the trailer and it just seemed like an out of place english dude. Definitely wrong casting in that movie. Still, Ridley Scott makes amazingly pretty movies, so I'm betting the movie is worth watching on that fact alone. Not worth paying for in the cinema though, for me, I think.

 

[Crni Vuk]

well at least he had enough sense to make Salah ad-Din look like a moslem.

 

[Hassknecht]

EDIT: "I can’t mount a film of this budget and say that my lead actor is Mohammed so-and-so from such-and-such" (Ridley Scott)

what is this I don't even

"I’m just not going to get it financed. So the question doesn’t even come up."
The cold, hard reality.

 

[Tagaziel]

"I’m just not going to get it financed. So the question doesn’t even come up."
The cold, hard reality.

He assumed he won't get it financed, so he didn't even try. That's what's wrong.

 

[Akratus]

I think it might also be the rigid hollywood culture that doesn't do these things from a racial motive, but purely from marketing. I've heard the expression somewhere, and I couldn't for the life of me remember where, but that some hollywood guy once said that caucasian audiances want for their lead either a white guy, or will smith. It's this culture of wanting such a tight grip on the contents of these products, to the point where they don't see what succeeds and what audiences want any more.

On the subject of gamergate, I think this is a particularly noteworthy debate:
http://branch.com/b/gamergate-debate-video-games-free-speech-misogyny

Since it's both sides presenting their opinion in an even-sided discussion. Not a lot of those being held.

 

[PlanHex]

Oh, Sander. You so silly. Trying to hide the most important bit.

And whether or not he specifically means them that way (and I think he does), a lot of people do mean them that way.

Why, it looks like you're doing that thing again that I keep talking about, what with not applying the things you demand from everyone else to yourself.

Correct: that's what I think he means. I posited my opinion on his position, based on listening to the entire context. Feel free to try to convince me otherwise. I could explain why I think he thinks that (mostly because elsewhere, he consistently makes statements like that), but to take my explicitly subjective evaluation of his meaning as a definitive, unarguable statement that ends the argument is...weird?

Not really, since at that point there's not much more to discuss, since it's all just fluff about which way the interpretation of the statement goes. The only effective way to go further is to ask him but not even that matters much since when asked "did you mean that in worst way or not?" there's only really one way he would answer. I'm curious to see these other statements you mention though.

Misinterpretations happen and it's perfectly possible I am judging him too harshly, but the fact is that many people do mean that criticism that way -- which is why I noted my opinion of what he specifically meant as an aside, not as a main point.

And then the point is moot, since I don't give a shit about those other people but rather like TB in general, hence why I was defending him.

But the way Walpknut interprets what specific people are saying is both flatly contradicted by the original text, and not actually what anyone I've ever seen has argued -- nor what anyone he's been able to cite has argued.

I skipped most of that crap to be honest and don't remember what the original text is in this context, but when dealing with statements like these it's not much of a jump to extrapolate that he'd believe something like The Birth of a Nation should not be protected as art since it has no value. I don't think that's the case, but to be honest I wouldn't rule it out completely either. Again, we could ask him, but the answer is obvious.

 

[Sander]

And then the point is moot, since I don't give a shit about those other people but rather like TB in general, hence why I was defending him.

And I don't really care about TotalBiscuit specifically, but I do care about the prevalence of that argument. So...we're kind of arguing two different things here?

I actually tried to find some other quotes to back up my opinion of TotalBiscuit, but I can't find any. Certainly possible I'm mistaken and that he meant a more sensible interpretation. TotalBiscuit has shown himself to be kind of clueless when it comes to social justice issues, but I was probably too harsh on him here.

I skipped most of that crap to be honest and don't remember what the original text is in this context, but when dealing with statements like these it's not much of a jump to extrapolate that he'd believe something like The Birth of a Nation should not be protected as art since it has no value.

It's certainly possible that he thinks that, and there are plenty of people who would think that anyway, sure. That art (or any cultural product) doesn't have an intrinsic value just because it's art. I'd probably argue Birth of a Nation is valuable in spite of its racism, but I could see the opposite viewpoint, too. It wouldn't be unreasonable, to my mind.

Regardless, the point with Walpknut's stuff is that he believes cultural critics are saying that women should never be allowed in certain roles (as the subject of violence, as a side character rather than the main character, as someone to be rescued) and that that's just restricting women's roles. That's patently not what anyone is saying (or at least not anyone I know, nor anyone he has cited): the critiques are almost always grounded in a context where women are overused in those roles and underused in other roles. And this is particularly galling because this kind of objection keeps coming up throughout this entire shitstorm, and it's nothing but a giant straw man.

 

[Akratus]

On the subject of movie casting, there's Green Lantern. I was never all that interested in comics or comicbook characters in cartoons and such. But I did see a bit of Justice League, and in that Green Lantern was black. I always assumed he was black in at least the modern comics/cartoons. But in the movie Ryan Reynolds plays him. I was dissapointed, both because he's not black and because he doesn't fit the role in my eyes. He's a bad actor for anything but comedic characters. But then I even googled "Isn't Green Lantern black?" after the movie came out, and it turns out a lot of people had the same idea. But casting aside, that movie was shit anyway.

 

[Gnarles Bronson]

"I’m just not going to get it financed. So the question doesn’t even come up."
The cold, hard reality.

He assumed he won't get it financed, so he didn't even try. That's what's wrong.

He's a fifty year veteran of the industry, I'm pretty sure he knows what he's talking about.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

On the subject of movie casting, there's Green Lantern. I was never all that interested in comics or comicbook characters in cartoons and such. But I did see a bit of Justice League, and in that Green Lantern was black. I always assumed he was black in at least the modern comics/cartoons. But in the movie Ryan Reynolds plays him. I was dissapointed, both because he's not black and because he doesn't fit the role in my eyes. He's a bad actor for anything but comedic characters. But then I even googled "Isn't Green Lantern black?" after the movie came out, and it turns out a lot of people had the same idea. But casting aside, that movie was shit anyway.

You'd be wrong. Hal Jordon, the Green Lantern in the film, was a white guy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Jordan

 

[Gnidrologist]

I mean, cultural marxism.

i mean, biotruthism...

 

[Tagaziel]

He's a fifty year veteran of the industry, I'm pretty sure he knows what he's talking about.

He's also Ridley-fucking-Scott. A guy who is one of the most acclaimed directors in the industry and makes movies that perform well at the box office as far as the total global performance is considered. Given that Prometheus is the highest grossing Scott's movie to date and it's a movie about an old cripple meeting giant pale aliens with a host of retards to kill off as the movie progresses, I'm pretty sure he could have his way if he wanted.

The fact that he chose not to bother is pretty annoying.

i mean, biotruthism...

The difference being that it describes a particular form of argument and is inherently playful, while cultural Marxism is a ridiculous conspiracy. Try harder.

 

[Akratus]

"So yes, to momentarily borrow Yudkowsky fanboy terminology, I wear black robes. I am a practitioner of the Dark Arts. I rigorously manage my own thinking and purge myself of dangerous "unthinkable" thoughts -- "mindkill" myself -- on a regular basis.This is what you have to do to be a feminist anti-racist progressive, i.e. a social justice stormtrooper, You have to recognize that there is no neutral culture, neutrality is impossible, that culture is a cutthroat war of memes and that you have to commit to picking a side and setting yourself up as a neutral arbiter of memes is impossible and is a form of surrender. You have to constantly "check your privilege" and "unpack the knapsack" and all those other buzzwords.
You need to understand that the only way to be "rational" in this world is to be irrational, that the only way to be "fair" is to pick the right side and fight for it.
The people who genuinely win are the people who do this. The people who refuse to do this are the ones who sit on the sidelines and never even lose because they aren't really playing.
I've said before that I'm amazed at Yudkowsky actually coming out and saying this at one point -- that his movement is really good at getting people to make propositional statements that he judges to be "rational" but really bad at, like, actually effectively making rational decisions.
He likens this to "a dojo that teaches you how to punch rather than kick", whereas I think a better analogy would be "a dojo that teaches you how to spectate rather than fight"." -Arthur Chu (http://archive.today/kA0K5#selection-2095.0-2115.177)

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

"So yes, to momentarily borrow Yudkowsky fanboy terminology, I wear black robes. I am a practitioner of the Dark Arts. I rigorously manage my own thinking and purge myself of dangerous "unthinkable" thoughts -- "mindkill" myself -- on a regular basis.This is what you have to do to be a feminist anti-racist progressive, i.e. a social justice stormtrooper, You have to recognize that there is no neutral culture, neutrality is impossible, that culture is a cutthroat war of memes and that you have to commit to picking a side and setting yourself up as a neutral arbiter of memes is impossible and is a form of surrender. You have to constantly "check your privilege" and "unpack the knapsack" and all those other buzzwords.
You need to understand that the only way to be "rational" in this world is to be irrational, that the only way to be "fair" is to pick the right side and fight for it.
The people who genuinely win are the people who do this. The people who refuse to do this are the ones who sit on the sidelines and never even lose because they aren't really playing.
I've said before that I'm amazed at Yudkowsky actually coming out and saying this at one point -- that his movement is really good at getting people to make propositional statements that he judges to be "rational" but really bad at, like, actually effectively making rational decisions.
He likens this to "a dojo that teaches you how to punch rather than kick", whereas I think a better analogy would be "a dojo that teaches you how to spectate rather than fight"." -Arthur Chu (http://archive.today/kA0K5#selection-2095.0-2115.177)

Did...he actually say that?
Holy shit, that's like something a villain would say.

 

[Crni Vuk]

"I’m just not going to get it financed. So the question doesn’t even come up."
The cold, hard reality.

He assumed he won't get it financed, so he didn't even try. That's what's wrong.

He's a fifty year veteran of the industry, I'm pretty sure he knows what he's talking about.

that makes it even worse. I mean ... what tagz said. I mean looking at it, the lack of experience in the past didnt stoped Scott from making the lead role of what is today one of the most famous Sci-Fi movies a female.

And I am not talking about the Alien.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

Out of curiosity, how many renowned Middle-Eastern actors are there in Hollywood?

 

[Hassknecht]

Uh... Alexander Siddig?