God of War

A movie adaptation of anything is obviously the take on a character or story of the makers of the movie. If the owners of the story or character give the producers absolute freedom they can do with it what they want. If they want to make a point and cast a white Blade that's their decision, if they make a good movie out of it I would watch it. I enjoy faithful adaptations because I enjoyed the originals. If a movie is good though very different from what it was based on I am just as alright with it.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
It wasnt her acting that sucked so much as the movie itself. An actor/actress can only do so much. Even Christian Bale couldnt save "Reign of Fire."

It sent him into depression. He was shit in that movie.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
That made me laugh, Gary Coleman. 😂

So you agree? Bob Sapp or Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I am fairly certain that when Qui Gon and Padme are walking through Mos Espa, there are black people in the crowd.

That wasn't what I asked. "That's a dodge, baby.".

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
There was no way Lucas could know the movies would "resonate throughout the ages," he had a certain visual of what Solo should look like, and Ford fit the bill.

I'm pretty sure he was going for whoever acted the part best, since that's what has resonated. Secondly, Han Solo is nothing close to rugged, he's just shady. He's actually a very clean cut, "good looking" man in those movies.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Can we SEE James Earl Jones? NO. All we hear is his voice, thats all, thats entirely different.

No it's not, it's a black man doing a white man's voice. Why does "entirely different" now come into play? Russell Crowe playing Martin Luther King is stupidly different to what we're discussing, but you saw fit to raise that example.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, to Denzel. Somehow I doubt Bond fans would have taken kindly to that.

Why do you keep referring to what fans would like? This isn't about what fans would like, fans wanted another Rambo. I couldn't care less what "fans", it's about what would factually work best.

Samuel L. Jackson or Dalton? Exactly, we know the truth.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Theres no way to show this as fact, it's just common sense, Why dont you start a thread about it and we'll see?

It's not about what fans would like, though, so that's irrelevant.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I never read the book, whats he look like in the book?

Poser.

He looks entirely different, and acts quite different too. Brad Pitt captured ENOUGH of it to nail it, but it wasn't precise by far. What now?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
His skin is white, therefore he is white. What color is your skin? What ethnicity are you? You are white.

Are you purposefully ignoring the point I'm making here?

Spider-Man's character, his issues, his life, could easily be lead by a black man. Had a black man been where Parker was at the time (Entirely possible, there were black kids in his class), they would have been Spider-Man. That's my point. His character is not "white", Peter Parker just happens to be. His mannerisms, situations and dilemmas are not "white".

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
It's improbable, but not impossible.

It's more or less impossible, but even if it was JUST improbable, it'd prove my point. It's not improbable for a black man to become Spider-Man, or Blade to be white. It's as possible as it was for it to be a white man.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I meant to say El Maricahi being hispanic. OOPS....and it makes total sense, I am saying that these characters had never been established before they were cast, so race wasnt an issue.

And this is entirely at odds with you saying race doesn't cause you to overlook important character. It has to be non-existent or definitely established.

-AC

If Blade had been cast as a white guy, it wouldn't have been a faithful adaptation.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
If Blade had been cast as a white guy, it wouldn't have been a faithful adaptation.

True.

If he played the role perfectly, everything would have been in his favour.

Besides, who are you to comment? Do you even read the comics as much as me or at all? If not, then you have no say on "adaptation", since you have no investment in the source.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If he played the role perfectly, everything would have been in his favour.

Besides, who are you to comment? Do you even read the comics as much as me or at all? If not, then you have no say on "adaptation", since you have no investment in the source.

-AC

Do you mean me or him?

Him, obviously.

You read comics.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Him, obviously.

You read comics.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It sent him into depression. He was shit in that movie.

So you agree? Bob Sapp or Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut?

That wasn't what I asked. "That's a dodge, baby.".

I'm pretty sure he was going for whoever acted the part best, since that's what has resonated. Secondly, Han Solo is nothing close to rugged, he's just shady. He's actually a very clean cut, "good looking" man in those movies.

No it's not, it's a black man doing a white man's voice. Why does "entirely different" now come into play? Russell Crowe playing Martin Luther King is stupidly different to what we're discussing, but you saw fit to raise that example.

Why do you keep referring to what fans would like? This isn't about what fans would like, fans wanted another Rambo. I couldn't care less what "fans", it's about what would factually work best.

Samuel L. Jackson or Dalton? Exactly, we know the truth.

It's not about what fans would like, though, so that's irrelevant.

Poser.

He looks entirely different, and acts quite different too. Brad Pitt captured ENOUGH of it to nail it, but it wasn't precise by far. What now?

Are you purposefully ignoring the point I'm making here?

Spider-Man's character, his issues, his life, could easily be lead by a black man. Had a black man been where Parker was at the time (Entirely possible, there were black kids in his class), they would have been Spider-Man. That's my point. His character is not "white", Peter Parker just happens to be. His mannerisms, situations and dilemmas are not "white".

It's more or less impossible, but even if it was JUST improbable, it'd prove my point. It's not improbable for a black man to become Spider-Man, or Blade to be white. It's as possible as it was for it to be a white man.

You trying to tell me that in that era, there wasnt one white man who sympathized with blacks and their plight?

And this is entirely at odds with you saying race doesn't cause you to overlook important character. It has to be non-existent or definitely established.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If he played the role perfectly, everything would have been in his favour.

Besides, who are you to comment? Do you even read the comics as much as me or at all? If not, then you have no say on "adaptation", since you have no investment in the source.

-AC

I mean, can't we all agree that a white Blade in the movies we know would be way ****ing more faithful than the Batman in Batman and Robin, though of same colour as in the comics?

Originally posted by Bardock42
True.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I mean, can't we all agree that a white Blade in the movies we know would be way ****ing more faithful than the Batman in Batman and Robin, though of same colour as in the comics?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
And if a black guy had played Wolvie...and if a black guy played Spidey....and if a white guy plays Solid Snake........ALL inaccurate depictions of the character.

Originally posted by Bardock42
All not perfectly faithful, but in no way necessarily bad. You don't get perfectly faithful. A black spidey could have been interesting and could have been (as Mr. Parker would tell you) more faithful than the Man Spider we ended up with.

Accuracy of character doesn't matter to you, accuracy of looks does.

Anyway, where do you get the idea that you can prance about deciding what is and isn't a correct depiction of a character whose source material you aren't even that familiar with?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
My point exactly. He is a high caliber actor, but due to a shoddy script and just.....well, the movie sucking balls, he couldnt do anything with it.

No, he actually did bad acting.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Jason Statham? 😂

Jason Statham or Bob Sapp? Do you know who Juggernaut is?

Jason Statham.

Bob Sapp.

Juggernaut.

If you say Jason Statham, you're an idiot. That's all there is to it, and a preference of white actors can obviously be established, because none of them even look the part that Bob Sapp could. Jason Statham is white, that's the only thing he has, but then, that would be enough for you. You'd have him look entirely shit than let a black man play the role.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
You asked if there were black people on Tattooine, I responded with an appropriate answer. You asking me how MANY blacks there are? What the statistical breakdown is?

No, I asked you if there were enough of a black populace that it could be very possible that Luke Skywalker could have been a black kid, or not white. Was there that much interracial diversity, sexually?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Clean cut, yes, but he has that quality, that swagger to his walk, the cockiness that made Han Solo the character he is.

That's called acting ability, RJ. That's my point. He didn't look rugged or terribly bad ass, he acted a way that made you believe he was.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
It is totally different, because Russell playing MLK is a visual perception of the character, just as DAVID PROWSE is the visual perception we have of Vader unmasked. If his voice had been nothing but blips and bleeps, ala R2D2, what then?

What if it was a white man's voice? Let's take James Earl Jones out, and put David Prowse's voice in there instead. Would that work as well, or better? Simple question, I am expecting a huge dodge, but please answer.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Who sees these movies? the FANS. Who pays 7 and 8 bucks a ticket to see their fave actors on the silver screen? the FANS, so this is TOTALLY about what the fans.

It's not, it's about whether or not it's possible for a character to be played by an actor who is not of the same skin tone. The answer is yes, you beg to differ for reasons you have yet to provide in any successful manner.

This isn't about what fans accept or not, it's about what could actually work.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Dalton, cuz he is white.

White preference then, blatant. Why even bother denying it? You prefer white actors and actresses over actors and actresses of other ethnicities.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Thats just boneheaded. When a director is making a film, who is he catering to? THE FANS.

Not necessarily, or only.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I am a poser for never having read the book? :lol Riiiiiiiiiiiight. 👆 Did you see "Shooter", with Mark Wahlberg?

No, saw The Bourne Identity. No need to see The Diet Bourne Identity.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I need more to go on than that, guess I need to read the book.

I'd say so.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Yes, the spider could have bitten Tyrone, but it didnt, it bit Peter. Peter is white, therefore Spidey is white.

But his character is not "white", his skin just happens to be. What about this is not getting through to you?

Are Peter's problems specific white people problems? Are his issues white people issues only?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Point is Spidey was created white, he wasnt created black. Blade was created black, and a Black man portrayed him in the movies.

That's not the point, I'll repeat it since you're dodging it:

"Are Peter's problems specific white people problems? Are his issues white people issues only?".

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
You trying to tell me that in that era, there wasnt one white man who sympathized with blacks and their plight?

I never, but to have what happened with Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, you would have to be black, that's a fact. That time climate called for a strong, black leader who had suffered as only black people had suffered. It would not have happened if he were white.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
It HAS to be consistent with the visual perception fans have of the character, or its not accurate.

To what? The looks? I'm talking about the essense of the characters and what makes them who they are, not the colour of their skin.

Furthermore, "fans" are the ones like Mr. Parker who spend nearly a decade HATING a movie because they gave him the power to shoot web instead of making web fluid. Despite the fact that it doesn't make any difference to who he is as a character.

I'm repeating myself because you simply do not understand. Why am I even bothering? You know why it's so puzzling? You pay to see the movies, you are sitting here arguing about what is a more accurate portrayal of source material that you've never read in any great detail. Your opinion isn't too valid anymore.

If you were familiar with the source material, your opinion would be valid, but we'd not be having this argument, cos you'd see my point.

-AC

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
No doubt there, but I am of the opinion that when making a movie about a character that already exists, the movie and character should be as close to 100% accurate as possible.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
No doubt there, but I am of the opinion that when making a movie about a character that already exists, the movie and character should be as close to 100% accurate as possible.

Why have live action movies then?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Accuracy of character doesn't matter to you, accuracy of looks does.

Anyway, where do you get the idea that you can prance about deciding what is and isn't a correct depiction of a character whose source material you aren't even that familiar with?

No, he actually did bad acting.

Jason Statham or Bob Sapp? Do you know who Juggernaut is?

If you do, and you say Jason Statham, you're an idiot. That's all there is to it, and a preference of white actors can obviously be established, because none of them even look the part that Bob Sapp could.

No, I asked you if there were enough of a black populace that it could be very possible that Luke Skywalker could have been a black kid, or not white. Was there that much interracial diversity, sexually?

That's called acting ability, RJ. That's my point. He didn't look rugged or terribly bad ass, he acted a way that made you believe he was.

What if it was a white man's voice? Let's take James Earl Jones out, and put David Prowse's voice in there instead. Would that work as well, or better? Simple question, I am expecting a huge dodge, but please answer.

It's not, it's about whether or not it's possible for a character to be played by an actor who is not of the same skin tone. The answer is yes, you beg to differ for reasons you have yet to provide in any successful manner.

This isn't about what fans accept or not, it's about what could actually work.

White preference then, blatant. Why even bother denying it? You prefer white actors and actresses over ethnic ones.

Not necessarily, or only.

No, saw The Bourne Identity. No need to see The Diet Bourne Identity.

I'd say so.

But his character is not "white", his skin just happens to be. What about this is not getting through to you?

Are Peter's problems specific white people problems? Are his issues white people issues only?

That's not the point, I'll repeat it since you're dodging it:

"Are Peter's problems specific white people problems? Are his issues white people issues only?".

I never, but to have what happened with Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, you would have to be black, that's a fact. That time climate called for a strong, black leader who had suffered as only black people had suffered. It would not have happened if he were white.

To what? The looks? I'm talking about the essense of the characters and what makes them who they are, not the colour of their skin.

Furthermore, "fans" are the ones like Mr. Parker who spend nearly a decade HATING a movie because they gave him the power to shoot web instead of making web fluid. Despite the fact that it doesn't make any difference to who he is as a character.

I'm repeating myself because you simply do not understand. Why am I even bothering? You know why it's so puzzling? You pay to see the movies, you are sitting here arguing about what is a more accurate portrayal of source material that you've never read in any great detail. Your opinion isn't too valid anymore.

If you were familiar with the source material, your opinion would be valid, but we'd not be having this argument, cos you'd see my point.

-AC

My opinion is just that, my opinion, as yours is yours, neither are more valid than the other, thats why they are opinions, not fact.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Why have live action movies then?