lanky316 Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 Yeah, it's not something he uses often and in this case it's to give a contrast rather than a descriptor. It does pop up elsewhere in a way that does show the world Shakespeare inhabited (or whoever really wrote the plays conspiracy fans!) could be a bit more multicultural than people think. One of the main lovers in Midsummer Nights Dream for example is told to go "away, you Ethiope!" which while it could be just a Shakespeare flourish rather than saying "clear off, bitch" could be a reference to her skin colour and is one of the characters across the works where there is a fair amount to go on with vision as she's also referred to as being short several times - this led to further controversy when the Globe (or RSC?) used a little person (forgive me if wrong terminology I'm brain farting momentarily while thinking of this post) in that role due to lines referring to her as a dwarf. We sort of get a picture on some, we know that his usual clown for example was tall due to the number of times fool characters are referred to as gangly, lanky and put down with height based punchlines but usually it's a blank slate and assumed white English unless, as Loki said, it's to highlight an "other" element. There's a couple of characters alluded to being black but again, it's usually highlighted in the text. There's a couple of lines across Shakespeares' work along the lines of "I'd love them, even if they were black" which - usually cut or edited these days - turn up in a couple of comedies as a bit of a punchline. Overall though you've got a few names, most of whom have no real descriptions in the text to work with for most things and the strength of that is that you can play with the settings and characters to tell a story. Especially for something like Romeo and Juliet which is ultimately a basic plot carried by some of Shakespeares best speeches and poetry. Of course it's all just typical overblown nonsense, getting upset over a fictional character with little to go on as far as descriptions is typical of how things are these days but when you've already had Romeo and Juliet with seals, MacBeth with Samurai, Hamlet avenging his fathers death with the help of a meerkat and the million other adaptations it's just rage over nothing. It'd be one thing if it was a history play - as most of the racial casting controversy seems to be - but it's not. I for one have loved people trying to compare it to Baz Luhrmann's because Shakespeare had written it to take place on a California beach with handguns (longsword brand pistols!) and that's before we even get to that interpretation of Mercutio! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted April 12 Paid Members Share Posted April 12 17 hours ago, no user name said: @Carbomb Fair enough but also its a film that probably half of it doesn't make sense if you think about it. I don't think it's really an issue. If people made a massive big deal about it a lot of it would be down to racist views I imagine Sorry, missed this. It is an issue for some, hence why I mentioned the commentary - there are quite a few people of colour who've mentioned it, both online and in the public domain in general, and also personal acquaintances. I don't know how large a group they are, but I definitely know this is considered a legitimate concern, largely started by the frequent discussion of Idris Elba being cast in the role; there is a well-stated concern that that particular issue could be "rehabbed", and end up silencing wider discourse (this is legit usage of the word, nobody @ me) on the highly problematic nature of James Bond as a property in general, and the unaddressed continuation of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB6937 Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 It's a curious one regarding replacing typically white cast roles because I always see a couple of different arguments: 1) It would be incredibly powerful to cast a black person as something as big as James Bond. 2) It's almost lazy and glosses over the bigger issue which is the lack of creation of similar roles for black people. As a white middle aged man, I'm not in the position to say what's right/wrong there. I do tend to lean towards the second one just because I think there needs to be a drive in opportunity and creativity, but again I'm not the person it would need to happen for. I can't say what would be more impactful or powerful or important for moving forward. We've seen it all when it comes to Doctor Who over the years - race, gender, whatever else.. you'd think it'd be a lot easier to accept when it's an alien role but apparently not. So no surprise there's always similar debate about James Bond, if not worse in some ways. Arguably I suppose it needs to be both - a more open minded world when it comes to casting/writing AND re-casting. Although there's obviously far more nuanced discussions to be had when it comes to what roles/properties and the best way to approach them. But yeah, it's daft that such casting decisions have been going on historically for years and yet in many ways we're more backwards and closed minded now in certain sectors than ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperBacon Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 My issue with Idris Elba as Bond is that he is a shit actor. Nothing else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Danger Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 I didn’t see the uproar when Ice Cube took over the XXX franchise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Jazzy G Posted April 13 Paid Members Share Posted April 13 @DavidB6937yeah, the people getting all upset about Jodie Whittaker being cast as the Doctor in spite of them loving Missy, and there having already been references to other Timelords having changed gender previously was ridiculous. I haven't seen as much for Ncuti Gatwa, but I'm sure it's there outside of my echo chamber. Plus he's great. @lanky316what a wonderful, well written comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlesTuckerTheThird Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 7 minutes ago, Jazzy G said: @DavidB6937yeah, the people getting all upset about Jodie Whittaker being cast as the Doctor in spite of them loving Missy, and there having already been references to other Timelords having changed gender previously was ridiculous. I haven't seen as much for Ncuti Gatwa, but I'm sure it's there outside of my echo chamber. Plus he's great. Sadly I have seen a fair few gammons getting all bent out of shape over Ncuti Gatwa and Ruth Madeley being in the show as a "box-ticking exercise." Personally I think the only boxes they ticked are "Do they do acting good?" Also hilarious to me that, despite various incarnations as far back as Tom Baker saying "The regeneration process is completely random", they seem to get all het up about the possibility of anyone except a white male playing the role, despite it being, y'know, random? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no user name Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 @Jazzy G @CharlesTuckerTheThird I think in general Ncuti Gatwa has had a positive reception. Personally I think they should cast a vegan, black, woke,non binary trans women who identifies as a tree just to wind people up ha ha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Danger Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 Sometimes race, gender and identity are pivotal to the story. I don’t think I could buy in to a straight historical epic like Shogun if all the Japanese characters were white, brown and all the colours in between. Then again turn that epic in to a musical where all the characters rap and you can cast who you want to play anyone you like. If it’s a completely made up story like Doctor Who then you have creative license to bend and change that story to anything imaginable. The audience will decide if it works.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted April 13 Paid Members Share Posted April 13 The Doctor is a regenerating alien who travels through time and space, and has seen all sorts of societies and worlds across countless locations, eras, and dimensions. Only issue I have with the casting of the show is when they had James fucking Corden as a companion. There's only one, minor thing I want with the castings of Gatwa and Whittaker, which is just a bit of tidying up in the storyline. If the Doctor can regenerate into anything, why have they been white, presumably straight, human males for the first 13 cycles? If they could explain it in canon just as something like "the reason why it's been believed to be thirteen regenerations only is because, in actuality, any regeneration past the thirteenth is, because of genetics, completely down to the choice of the individual and beyond anyone else's control, so the bastard Timelords do a bit of a Logan's Run and kill off anyone at the end of their thirteenth regeneration with an implant - and as the Timelords were out of the picture for so long, the Doctor's implant was never maintained and eventually destroyed by all the shit he's been through". Something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Surf Digby Posted April 13 Paid Members Share Posted April 13 On 4/12/2024 at 11:25 AM, lanky316 said: Of course it's all just typical overblown nonsense, getting upset over a fictional character with little to go on as far as descriptions is typical of how things are these days but when you've already had Romeo and Juliet with seals, MacBeth with Samurai, Hamlet avenging his fathers death with the help of a meerkat and the million other adaptations it's just rage over nothing. There's now a version of The Tempest where Ariel is a robot. It's bad enough that she's the subservient to the Patriarchy in the form of Morbius Prospero, but now she's literally dehumanised too. I'm predicting riots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Hannibal Scorch Posted April 14 Paid Members Share Posted April 14 Daniel Radcliffe responds to She who shall not be named https://www.thetrevorproject.org/blog/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB6937 Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 6 hours ago, Hannibal Scorch said: Daniel Radcliffe responds to She who shall not be named https://www.thetrevorproject.org/blog/ Can't see anything on there? Did see some quotes floating around social media but they were old ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Hannibal Scorch Posted April 14 Paid Members Share Posted April 14 (edited) 32 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said: Can't see anything on there? Did see some quotes floating around social media but they were old ones. Of course, one of those things that didn’t copy the link properly. But when I go back and find the tweet it’s been community noted and from the comments I think he was just engagement farming. Not that the statement wasn’t great, but it has nothing to do with recent events. Edited April 14 by Hannibal Scorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlesTuckerTheThird Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 This past weekend, GW released one of their army books for the Adeptus Custodes with 2 pieces of lore saying that some Custodes are women. Despite GW never previously saying all Custodes are male, this has led to an uproar from various chuds saying "GW hAs gOnE wOkE" and "bAd ReTcOnS!" Life is exhausting sometimes..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.