Whitewashed Avatar Cast

I think it is funny that for an anime with obviously "ethnic-looking" characters to have a completely white cast for the movie is silly. Even just for diversity's sake.


As for th ewhole "blatantly white" magazine- if to you, "blatanylu white" means having a race-oriented publication name, then you still ignore the content of the magazine. does it matter if they outright use racially-oriented language, if it's pretty easy to see who the main reader-base and content is geard toward? the don't have to come out and say "THIS IS FOR WHITE PEEPULS!" for it to be quite apparent.

EDIT- and Santa, asian appearance is more than skin tone. it's eyes and hair too.

I know Margar, but I only spoke about the skin tone because of 'whitewashing/skin colour argument' . ALSO did anyone ever see that video on the news, in like.. 2003? where asians actually got 'eye opening' surgery to appear more western :\.

I must admit I'm a little confused by people who are saying: "So what? The racism Asians and Blacks and Stuff display against us is so much worse!" because, well, it isn't.

The question here is this: Were the character's skin colours changed because the people doing the casting either consciously or subconsciously thought that white people would do a better job? If so, is that a valid point of view?


I'd say it's probably a yes to the first question and a no to the second. There probably was an element of purposefully casting white people into leading roles. Every movie released in the west has white people cast in the lead roles. By this point I suspect it's self-reinforcing and rather subconscious.

See: Non-white actors can't get big roles, they know this, so there are fewer of them than white actors. In addition, their resumes don't look as good because they rarely have any starring roles on them.

As such, white actors get hired more often, thus reinforcing the cycle.

In addition, there's a very strong (and rather stupid) prevailing opinion that audiences can only empathize with people of the same skin colour. Black main character? Only black people will like the film! Female main character? Only women will like the film! etc.

Both of these factors, while not outright racist, do combine to be rather bigoted in practice.

Originally Posted by John

I must admit I'm a little confused by people who are saying: "So what? The racism Asians and Blacks and Stuff display against us is so much worse!" because, well, it isn't.

I don't blame them since I'm not in the American situation, I blame my government.

Originally Posted by Margar

I think it is funny that for an anime with obviously "ethnic-looking" characters to have a completely white cast for the movie is silly. Even just for diversity's sake.

It is the directors choice, let him make his movie, why should we care what he wants to use? It's like telling an painter not to paint something the way he wants to.

As for th ewhole "blatantly white" magazine- if to you, "blatanylu white" means having a race-oriented publication name, then you still ignore the content of the magazine. does it matter if they outright use racially-oriented language, if it's pretty easy to see who the main reader-base and content is geard toward? the don't have to come out and say "THIS IS FOR WHITE PEEPULS!" for it to be quite apparent.

Yes, to me a race oriented magazine tells you it is race oriented, otherwise, you have a general publication. The majority of America is white, that does not make it a 'white' magazine. 'Ebony' however, is for blacks, what you listed is for everyone.

Racially oriented language? Like what?

Your basing your whole argument around white being the default setting, which may be true, but you have failed to show how these other magazines blatantly draw lines between races as the 'Ebony' ones do. They are general publications meant for anyone.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

It is the directors choice, let him make his movie, why should we care what he wants to use? It's like telling an painter not to paint something the way he wants to.

I guess that is true, though the director aim will be to make a movie that satisfies the demand of its target audience. If not, making a movie, which no one will like, is not wise.

Yes, to me a race oriented magazine tells you it is race oriented, otherwise, you have a general publication. The majority of America is white, that does not make it a 'white' magazine. 'Ebony' however, is for blacks, what you listed is for everyone.

Racially oriented language? Like what?

Your basing your whole argument around white being the default setting, which may be true, but you have failed to show how these other magazines blatantly draw lines between races as the 'Ebony' ones do. They are general publications meant for anyone.

I’m not fond of magazines that are meant for a particular race. It just makes the distinction between races more apparent when really it shouldn’t be.

All in all, it's a ridiculous thing to be mad over.
There's MUCH worse things happening in the real world.

Originally Posted by VictorZamora

All in all, it's a ridiculous thing to be mad over.
There's MUCH worse things happening in the real world.

Yes I do think it is not a issue to be concerned about. Though I don't see any harm in having a dicussion about it.

It might resolve some issues.

Originally Posted by VictorZamora

All in all, it's a ridiculous thing to be mad over.
There's MUCH worse things happening in the real world.

So? Name any issue. All but one of them won't be the worst thing happening in the world. Should we only talk about that one?

Originally Posted by John

So? Name any issue. All but one of them won't be the worst thing happening in the world. Should we only talk about that one?

No, but talking about how casting directors "whitewashed" a cast is ridiculous and can barely be considered "serious discussion". Personally, I just urge this thread to be moved to the Entertainment section. As long as it's off of Serious Discussion.

Originally Posted by John

So? Name any issue. All but one of them won't be the worst thing happening in the world. Should we only talk about that one?

This is true, but still. This is on a whole different level than those "other things"

Originally Posted by VictorZamora

No, but talking about how casting directors "whitewashed" a cast is ridiculous and can barely be considered "serious discussion". Personally, I just urge this thread to be moved to the Entertainment section. As long as it's off of Serious Discussion.

I can second that. It's primarly white cast members. Not a serious problem.
I'm sure if it were made by people in a prodominantly asain or black country, it would mainly feature people of that ethnicity.

The last time people got this worked up about a cartoon, over a hundred people died.

What cartoon was that?

Originally Posted by John

Were the character's skin colours changed because the people doing the casting either consciously or subconsciously thought that white people would do a better job? If so, is that a valid point of view?

It very much depends on what you mean by "do a better job".

If the Indian born director - whom most sources I can find indicate played the major role in casting - is honestly of the opinion that lighter skin-tone directly corresponds to greater acting ability, and was influenced by that belief when he made his casting decisions, then he is a racist.

If - as is far more likely - well payed marketing people psychographically profiled the movie's target demo, concluded that they would be amiable to a "whiter" cast, and Shyamalan took their advice into account, then he is decent businessman. (And while maybe those kind of profiling results don't reflect well on the media-consuming public, there is no moral obligation for a summer popcorn flick to crusade against the bigoted perceptions of its viewers).

If - arguably yet again more likely - the kids who honestly gave the most compelling auditions were hired with minimal consideration for the color of the skin, then at worst the movie merely displays a lack of racial diversity in America child actors... which is only a problem at all if you have some notion of passive prejudice.

Originally Posted by VictorZamora

No, but talking about how casting directors "whitewashed" a cast is ridiculous and can barely be considered "serious discussion". Personally, I just urge this thread to be moved to the Entertainment section. As long as it's off of Serious Discussion.

Actually, in my experience, the lack of discussion on racism/misogyny in the media sets SD apart from the "average" board of its kind. Many similar forums across the net see threads of this nature about as frequently as threads on, say, Homophobia.

Originally Posted by Koulatio

What cartoon was that?

I imagine he's referring to the controversy over the Danish Cartoons of Muhammad.

For a universe that supposed to be half Chinese, Firefly sure doesn't have any asians. Yet, I've never heard anyone make a big deal of it.

I am sick of people saying that it will "appeal" to white people if they whitewash the cast. 99 % Avatar fans are going to see the movie. No one who is not Avatar-aligned will view it or even give a crap about it.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

It is the directors choice, let him make his movie, why should we care what he wants to use? It's like telling an painter not to paint something the way he wants to.



Yes, to me a race oriented magazine tells you it is race oriented, otherwise, you have a general publication. The majority of America is white, that does not make it a 'white' magazine. 'Ebony' however, is for blacks, what you listed is for everyone.

Racially oriented language? Like what?

Your basing your whole argument around white being the default setting, which may be true, but you have failed to show how these other magazines blatantly draw lines between races as the 'Ebony' ones do. They are general publications meant for anyone.

I'm seriously getting tired of your magazine argument. For YEARS most American media has been very Caucasian centric. Noticing how poorly represented they were (in a lot of the publications that already have been mentioned) people from these minority groups decide to represent themselves with their own publications. The reason no magazine has ever specifically stated it was targeting a specifically white audience is because there was no need to. I'll be damned if you had any trouble finding a publication that didn't have a large representation of white people in fact most magazines you say are for every one are like this. Okay? There is not "white" magazine because of how widely represented a white person like myself already is.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

It is the directors choice, let him make his movie, why should we care what he wants to use? It's like telling an painter not to paint something the way he wants to.

But here you have the same sort of argument as in the miss CA thread- when people make CHOICES, they have to deal with the public's reaction to that choice, especially since a film is a public thing, not his private life. I mean, we can't justify every problem in humanity to "meh- it's the person's choice".


anyway- the thing with magazines versus a movie that's based off a previous body of work is like comparing apples and oranges, really so I'd rather not argue about something that really has nothing to do wiht the thread topic.
Avatar isn't necessarily aimed at a particular race for an audience. the magazine argument we're on about is in regards to the target audience.

The main point in this Avatar thing is that CLEARLY the characters inthe anime are drawn to be non-white looking. it's not a matter of who the director wanted to cast, because the characters are purposely designed and drawn the way they are. taking that whole series and casting caucasian actors is a bit "WTF". I mean, if a couple of the actors were white, that'd be onething because anime's do tend to have a wide rage of colors- if not in skin tone, then at least hair color,lol... but the fact that EVERY actor in the film is white, simply raises an eyebrow.

Originally Posted by Craymel

I'm seriously getting tired of your magazine argument. For YEARS most American media has been very Caucasian centric. Noticing how poorly represented they were (in a lot of the publications that already have been mentioned) people from these minority groups decide to represent themselves with their own publications. The reason no magazine has ever specifically stated it was targeting a specifically white audience is because there was no need to. I'll be damned if you had any trouble finding a publication that didn't have a large representation of white people in fact most magazines you say are for every one are like this. Okay? There is not "white" magazine because of how widely represented a white person like myself already is.

So you agree there is not a 'white' magazine out there. I am assuming you know why that is. So then it is only socially acceptable for races other than whites to have their 'own' magazine. This is a separation, one which they harp on about endlessly yet refuse to change in themselves. All of which I believe relate.

Also, whats wrong with my magazine argument? It is a perfect example of how society ignores racial separation for people other than whites and I contrast it with the incident we speak of now. This is absurd and you know it.

Margar, I think it relates to the thread fine because this is about racial separations, (ethnics can't lead sorta things) and I am making a comparison to something clearly more 'racist' than this issue and I am asking why isn't that an issue people harp on. Then I proceed to argue the idiotic outlook of society.

The main point in this Avatar thing is that CLEARLY the characters inthe anime are drawn to be non-white looking. it's not a matter of who the director wanted to cast, because the characters are purposely designed and drawn the way they are. taking that whole series and casting caucasian actors is a bit "WTF". I mean, if a couple of the actors were white, that'd be onething because anime's do tend to have a wide rage of colors- if not in skin tone, then at least hair color,lol... but the fact that EVERY actor in the film is white, simply raises an eyebrow.

I think you mean every starring role is white. Again, why should you care? If an artist wants to make his own rendition of someone else's painting, and he doesn't use the same colors, he is just painting it the way he thinks it should be painted. The same applies here.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

This is absurd and you know it.

that's just rude. no he doesn't know it. he has a different opiniont han you,and don't tell him what he does and doesn't knwo.


if you'l read in my last post- the connection between arguing about magazines and this movie ARE different, because in a magazine, they are seeking a specific audience. in the case of Avatar, we're not talking about race in regards to the target audience. we're talking about the fact that the director took an already existing series, and cast EVERY actor to be of one race, when clearly the original characters were not intended to be so (at least not all of them).

I mean, what if the new Star Trek movie had an all black cast? sure, the producers can do what they want, but they'd have to have an explanation for it.