Thread:Rodangizzardcrusher3/@comment-26687285-20160822213306/@comment-26687285-20160903201903

Rodangizzardcrusher3 wrote: If I were Abrams, I would have John Harrison be his actual name, and not Khan-related at all. Not just because this saves the story, but also because the original Khan was Native-American and this kind of steals a potentially great role from aboriginal actors (maybe that's where Suicide Squad got the inspiration).

It really depends on how/why it's done, and whether or not any emphasis is placed upon it in the story. In the case of Khan i understand why people would complain, since it does contradict something that is supposed to be part of the timeline before the split occured (i even shared this small grievance at first). But does it really matter so long as the character is accuratley portrayed?.

This reminds me a bit of all the talk about Idris Elba taking over as Bond after Daniel Craig leaves. Some people say that roles like Bond need to be portrayed by a non-white actor at some point, presumably to fill some stupid, pointless diversity quota (which often actually creates racial strife rather than solving it). While others say such roles must always remain caucasian because that is how they have always been portrayed, and therefore what they are "supposed" to be.

I'll even admit that i myself have some weak spots when it comes to this issue. I read somewhere that WB were considering casting a black actor as Batman, and my reaction was one of unease and slight discomfort. I had an even stronger reaction when i saw Noma Dumezweni as Hermione. I guess it's because, unless they are explicitly portrayed differently, i am used to seeing (or in Hermione's case imagining) these characters as white. Not because i have something against non-whites, but because it's something that is familiar to me. I'm not proud of it, but it is how i feel. I'm pretty sure it has something to do with our biology, that it's a kind of evolutionary instinct we still have. However, the opposite extreme from that position is not much better, because then, instead of feeling unsure about diversity or even outright opposing it, you start seeing it as a necessity, which means you are still focussing on someone's race first and their character second. An example of this would be when someone is congratulated for being a "good black person". That's the kind of thing i'm talking about.

On the other hand, i think there is something to be said for discussions about the differences between our cultures and our attitudes towards them. Some of my favorite comedians for example, very often talk about race and culture. Dave Chapelle and Chris Rock (to name two of them). But here again, i am often worried that by taking such an interest in these things i am getting hung up on something that might be better left unadressed. Thereby (unintentionally) perpetuating an obsession with it. I'm afraid that, just because i don't hate people of other ethnicities, it's still ok to keep delving into the subject as a way to perpetuate one's own obsession with it, even though it is those kinds of obsessions that keep us from truly seeing beyond someone's race or ethnicity.

It's all summed up pretty well in this clip: [1]. In short, it's very difficult to be truly colour blind.

P.S. But i'll tell you this, i would really respect the Bond filmmakers if, in the event that Elba is cast in the role, they not only didn't mention the race change, but made the film a direct continuation of the "Craig" storyline. It would be fantastic if they just came out and said: "Look, he's Brittish, he's charismatic, and he's a great actor." "That's all that matters to us." "So just shut up, and deal with it." Though Sony would have to lose the film rights first in order for that to happen, considering how disatrously they handled the Ghostbusters remake, specifficaly the backlash to it.