Whitewashed Avatar Cast

Originally Posted by Margar

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.

I am sure he find societies outlook absurd, that is not a crazy conclusion to come to.

They have a target audience, yes, but only black magazines get to say what they are targeting. That is what I am getting at. Surely you agree that the way society acts is very hypocritical in this sense. White people can't have white magazines but black people can have black magazines? Wtf?

Also, if they casted everyone in that movie black, what difference would it make? They made it how they wanted it, sure people would be mad that it isn't what they remembered but there is no reason to call racism unless you have good evidence.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

I am sure he find societies outlook absurd, that is not a crazy conclusion to come to.

but maybe he find it absurd in different ways and for different reasonsthan you do. I mean, why don't you just say "hey man- do you find society absurd? Y/N?

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

They have a target audience, yes, but only black magazines get to say what they are targeting. That is what I am getting at. Surely you agree that the way society acts is very hypocritical in this sense. White people can't have white magazines but black people can have black magazines? Wtf?

If you want to debate racism/racially targeted publications, then make a thread about it. it's not relevant to this particular debate. you're kind of getting of course with it. I'm not saying you don't make a valid point, but the target audience of magazines has little to do with the OP's intent in creating this thread. it's not about target audiences. both arguments deal with the possibility of latent racism and a form of media, but in very different ways.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Also, if they casted everyone in that movie black, what difference would it make? They made it how they wanted it, sure people would be mad that it isn't what they remembered but there is no reason to call racism unless you have good evidence.

Why would a producer cast people that are all one race (when the basis material is not) unless they a. wanted to go for a stylistic experiment (in which case they'd probably say so), or b. are racist and didn't want to cast non-whites, or c. only a bunch of weebo's auditioned, or all the non white actors sucked at their auditions.

either way, I think an explanation is at hand. We don't need to accuse the producers of racism, but it is a curious thing that they decided, for some reason, to have one homogeonously white cast.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

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.



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.

No you don't get it. There is no need for a specifically white magazine because we are already so well represented in the magazine that are supposedly for every one but still poorly represent the minorities who make these specifically race oriented magazines. It's not absurd for these people who have been marginalized by a majority (who isn't even a majority at all) to claim some power and a voice for themselves through a popular medium that is so dominated by Caucasians. It's not just race that's under represented it's also different sexual orientations. As a gay male I also feel extremely under represented in the media so god forbid we bring it upon ourselves to give ourselves a voice.

I'm gonna go ahead and ask an SD mod to split this thread because this magazine debate is not related to this movie thread at all, and it is cheapening both debates to have them mingled in.

Splitting won't really work because the two discussions are so intermingled, but yeah, it's tangential at best, so I'd ask people to make a new thread about magazines if they wish to keep discussing them.

Originally Posted by Margar

If you want to debate racism/racially targeted publications, then make a thread about it. it's not relevant to this particular debate. you're kind of getting of course with it. I'm not saying you don't make a valid point, but the target audience of magazines has little to do with the OP's intent in creating this thread. it's not about target audiences. both arguments deal with the possibility of latent racism and a form of media, but in very different ways.

I am debating societies outlook, which does indeed relate to the OP's intent, I am just using the magazines as an example.

Why would a producer cast people that are all one race (when the basis material is not) unless they a. wanted to go for a stylistic experiment (in which case they'd probably say so), or b. are racist and didn't want to cast non-whites, or c. only a bunch of weebo's auditioned, or all the non white actors sucked at their auditions.

either way, I think an explanation is at hand. We don't need to accuse the producers of racism, but it is a curious thing that they decided, for some reason, to have one homogeonously white cast.

Alright, that's fair, and that is what I was getting at, people shouldn't just accuse him of racism first off, I doubt they have a clue or tried to be fair.

No you don't get it. There is no need for a specifically white magazine because we are already so well represented in the magazine that are supposedly for every one but still poorly represent the minorities who make these specifically race oriented magazines. It's not absurd for these people who have been marginalized by a majority (who isn't even a majority at all) to claim some power and a voice for themselves through a popular medium that is so dominated by Caucasians. It's not just race that's under represented it's also different sexual orientations. As a gay male I also feel extremely under represented in the media so god forbid we bring it upon ourselves to give ourselves a voice.

I don't think you understand that these 'white' magazines, are not 'white' magazines, they are meant for everyone, including blacks and whatever else you can be. However, the 'ebony' magazines are the opposite, only for one certain race.

Should this be acceptable in society? No, because it is illogical.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

I am debating societies outlook, which does indeed relate to the OP's intent, I am just using the magazines as an example.

I just think it's farfetched to the original purpose of the thread, and I also think that it would make an interesting debate in a thread of its own. Why don't you make one? Society's outlook on how race is represented in the media is a broader topic than the one at hand.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Alright, that's fair, and that is what I was getting at, people shouldn't just accuse him of racism first off, I doubt they have a clue or tried to be fair.

Although it does seem that you've missed the last rito's post about the producer's past racist comments and other evidence. perhaps you should try googling like rito suggested and gain a little more perspective on the issue? You seem to want to debate a broader ideal here, which is fine, but takes awayf rom the original intent of the thread. IMO this should have gone in movies while the race/media/magazines thing should remain here.

I don't think you understand that these 'white' magazines, are not 'white' magazines, they are meant for everyone, including blacks and whatever else you can be. However, the 'ebony' magazines are the opposite, only for one certain race.

Should this be acceptable in society? No, because it is illogical.

of course it should be acceptable in society. did you even read Craymel's post?

Originally Posted by Craymel

No you don't get it. There is no need for a specifically white magazine because we are already so well represented in the magazine that are supposedly for every one but still poorly represent the minorities who make these specifically race oriented magazines. It's not absurd for these people who have been marginalized by a majority (who isn't even a majority at all) to claim some power and a voice for themselves through a popular medium that is so dominated by Caucasians. It's not just race that's under represented it's also different sexual orientations. As a gay male I also feel extremely under represented in the media so god forbid we bring it upon ourselves to give ourselves a voice.

care to provide a more thought-out response?



(well eff the new thread idea- seems too late now