"Yip Yip!" Avatar - the Last Airbender

Please go to this link: Angry Asian Man: Why It's Not Just A Movie. There were a lot of things I wanted to say in response to your comment but I think he said it better:

 

Thank you for posting that, as it illustrates my point entirely. This person is taking something completely out of context and blowing it out proportion based on their own insecurity. Why? Because he's a pissed off fan and taking his fandom way too seriously. It is just a movie. Not a vast racist conspiracy from Hollywood. Oh my, hyper-conservative views coming out of modern Hollywood, it's so obvious, there's no way its counter-intuitive at all! Calm down, wait for the trailer.


You know what that post reminds me of? Angry fans comparing the news that Final Fantasy XIII would be multi-platform to personal betrayal worthy of suicide.

 

*headdesk*

This person is taking something completely out of context and blowing it out proportion based on their own insecurity.

A person of colour is upset that his racial typecast was replaced by White people in a show. And you find his being insecure about this funny? You think the only reason why an Asian who has a grouse with institutionalized racism is can only be a "pissed off fan taking his fandom way too seriously"? For a while there, I genuinely believed that you were some naive White kid with an pop-psychology understanding of racism and a lot of bigoted opinions. But now, I'm beginning to suspect that you really mean to be this offensive.

 

Actually, since you seem to place so much importance on questioning the integrity, race, and intelligence of your opponents, I happen to be a Black American. I've spent a good deal of my life observing and thinking about the implications of race and how people approach it- from both sides. There are two extremes- either you have your diehard racists (think KKK) or you have those who are hyper-sensitive to the subject. Both of them are wrong for their own reasons. Racism is obviously utterly illogical and foolish, while hyper-sensitivity does nothing but constantly reopen the wound when it doesn't need to be. The solution, IMO, is to go with the idea of "post-racial"- that ethnicity, nationality, gender, all of that doesn't matter. What happened in the past is past- it must be remembered, but it must not be relived. There is still racism in the world, and this country has more than its fair share; there are still battles to fight. This is not one of them, at least not from this angle.

I've seen plenty of people exactly like the Angry Asian Man, some of them are my family and closest friends. So wrapped up in the fear of racism and discrimination, that they see it in every action, every comment, every movie. Their fear blinds them to the battles that really need to be fought, and things that are just that- things.

 

Actually I don't give a hoot about the race of people who advocate and/or justify racism. As for their integrity and intelligence, I don't need to cast any aspersions on either: their actions do that for me.

The good ol' Melanin Defence. It never fails to be brought up in discussions like this. Because racism stops being racism when it's being excused or ignored by a PoC/spouse-of-PoC/good-friend-of-a-PoC.

There are extremes, yes, but this is not one of them. Fortunately, for every PoC who lives life merely "observing and thinking" about racism, there are many more people - non-Whites and Whites - who are not too afraid or too embarrased or too comfortable with their lives to do something about it. Rosa Parks also had family and friends who thought she was a cranky lady getting worked up over bus seating. So by all means, be amused at the "over-sensitive PoCs" (when we're not just "crazy fans") fighting our ridiculous battle over one more "thing".

 

Don't try to disguise this as some moral crusade- you're a pissed off fan who's looking for something to strike at. You, and most of the people advocating the "racism" of this decision are approaching this from a completely emotional perspective. Do you know what tells me that? First, the initial reaction to the news- an immediate accusation of racism on the parts of the producers, casting director, and/or M. Night Shyamalan. Within days there's a letter/boycott campaign and relatively minor internet blog and news coverage. Did anyone think to write a letter to Paramount asking for justification? Is anyone bothering to ask what DiMartino and Konietzko take on the choices are- two people who a more vested interest than anyone and have an actual chance of being in the loop? No, you instantly cried racism and went for the pitchforks. The second marker has resided in your responses. You have linked to the personal blog of a random fan and supported it with accusations and insults. Why haven't you been posting historical accounts and evidence of similar events (such as Othello being cast as white for decades, or the controversy surrounding SciFi's adaptation of the Earthsea novels)?

Your argument is illogical, disorganized, and motivated purely by emotion. Beyond your anger, where is the proof? Here, at this moment, for this situation, where is their proof of wrongdoing of any kind?

The reason I vehemently abhor the idea of this exploding to national news, of being the first scandal of 2009, is because of all the times in the past where "the Avatar movie is racist!" type debates have distracted people from things like the Jena Six? How many giants could walk right past us because everybody's busy staring at ants? I understand your anger as a fan- to a certain extent I share it. However, there is a large difference between being angry at a film and comparing that film to one of the greatest social diseases of our time. When actors and actresses start coming forward and saying they were turned away from the auditions because of their race, when Shyamalan says he can't see the movie succeeding with Asian leads, I'll be right beside you writing letters and boycotting theaters. But until that happens, I see no battle to win here- except against the irrational anger of the fan.

 

For people who don't have the luxury of ignoring and/or looking away, here's a close repeat of what I advocated for in the Last Airbender thread:

1, Write to Paramount: Tips on how to do so properly.

2, Write to the Media: Tips.

3, And when all of the above fails, keep your money in your pocket.

*shrugs* I'm not trying to disguise this as anything. That I am pissed/offended/infuriated-to-the-point-of-tears about the Whitewashing of a Asian-based show is the whole point of everything I've been posting here. That racist mis-casting has happened before is also something I have mentioned, if not in this thread, then elsewhere. As for emotionalism, that racism is an emotional thing, and will evoke emotional reactions from people has been established long before both our times.

By all means, completely ignore the fact that the No.1 of the list of things to-do that I posted in the other thread (and what is in my signature) is a letter-writing campaign to Paramount. Reduce the institutionalized racism that has influenced the casting of Avatar, and EarthSea and 21 before it, as well as Hollywood's entire history of Whiteface and Yellowface - to the "irrational anger of fans". Others have responded to you elsewhere with a great deal more coherence and patience than I have and you have ignored all their responses to cling to your theories that justify racism. I envy you for living in the kind of mindset that enables that.

EDIT: On reflection, it's noteworthy that while you make allegations of the issue being "disguised". the pattern of your responses follows the modus operandi of Diversionary Tactics that is used by the Priveleged class to defend an unfair status quo. First, there's the repeated emphasis on how Crazy/Hysterical/Over-sensitive/Mentally Unreliable the women and minorities must be for protesting against a system of oppression. Then there's the technique of repeated ignoring direct questions, (rather like the way you did in the Last Airbender thread), and bringing up tangential matters to divert attention from the plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face racism that is the root of the problem.

 

I didn't notice the urge to write Paramount itself- I should've looked more closely and I apologize. However, I would like to point out to you the latter half of my post. When absolute proof of wrongdoing comes forward, I'll be here right beside you fighting against something real. Right now, it seems like a beehive getting angry at smoke without knowing where the fire is. I repeat- past your anger, where is there concrete proof? I ask because the charge you are bringing forth is one of the things that angers me the most in the world- and before I commit myself to something like that, I need to see that it is truly worthwhile. Here, though, all I see is the anger of fans shielded by a paper-thin argument and supported only by personal anger and dismay.

As for the questioning of my background, I'm not going to rise to the bait. The reason I haven't been "directly answering" your questions is because from the start it seems they are little more than veiled insults filled with baseless assumption (I believe the exact words were "some naive White kid- always gotta love the capitalization of racial categories)- and that observation has colored my perception of your entire argument. And the other people responding more coherently than you? Their argument is based around the question of this decision, they seem to answers, from someone, so that they don't have to assume it was racially motivated. That I mostly agree with, because the casting doesn't make much sense to be either, I simply like giving people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to question of integrity. Perhaps in the coming weeks I'll be proven wrong.

 

Why am I not surprised? What is the point of listening or looking closely when you've already made up your mind?

I had laid arguments out for you before (which apparently, you hadn't even bothered to read) and by your own words, you've been given proof by more coherent people. Perhaps you're looking for a life-sized conscience?

I never questioned your background for the simple reason that I have no interest in it. Despite your intentions for waving the Melanin card to this thread, it doesn't authenticate either your arguments or your attitude. My "naive White kid" was a direct response to your reaction to the Angry Asian essay in which you claimed that the writer was not a minority reacting to racism but a pissed-off fans with his own insecurity. A style of subversive counter-argument which is typical of the Priveleged Class in an unfair society: call the Agitators crazy and Subvert the Discussion. Up until that point, I was willing to cut you some slack that you didn't meant to be offensive.

The questions I did ask were in response to your points in the other thread - questions which you ignored and side-tracked with your arguments of "fans taking things too seriously."

 

How about we play a little nicer around here?

 

If you have such disinterest my background, why do you continue to allude to your perception of it? I've been attacking your argument, you've been coming closer and closer to flat out calling me an elitist racist. As for paying attention to your arguments, let's test that theory.

When did I ever allude to my background before the "White kid" comment? In fact, let's examine your use of the phrase "Melanin Defense". You call it exclusively to immediately dismiss views that don't conform to your world view. Is this not a patented response of those defending illogical platforms when uncomfortable opinions crop up? You what that reminds me of? People being called an "Oreo" or an "Uncle Tom" because they were in a similar debate to this. I'm a minority who disagrees this is a racist event, so suddenly I'm naive, elitist, and racist myself. When I attacked the hypersensitivity, I commented on how it causes bigger problems than it solves. One of them is that it causes division within a minority because the second response to such perceived racism is to similarly accuse anyone who doesn't agree.

Subverting the discussion? Okay, let's go with that. I"m the one subverting the discussion when every one of my posts here have been questioning your points, the motivation for the argument, and the evidence you provide to support your claim. You have spent your posts accusing me of racism, elitism, naivety, as well as the classic of "you're not a minority, you just don't get it" (the aforementioned "naive White kid" comment). You're right. I'm completely subverting the discussion.

Actually, no. The most common response of those benefiting from a form of oppression is to make attempts to justify the morality the practice in question. Slaveholders didn't rely on calling Abolitionists crazy, they centered their argument on the idea that American Slavery was condoned in the Bible. "Calling the Agitators crazy"- or otherwise calling their integrity into question, is most often used by those extremely conservative or extremely liberal regardless of social background. I point of William Garrison for a prime example of the latter.

 

Sci-Fi. Com has picked up the story

One would think that if I was interested in backgrounds, I would have stated mine by now. An injustice doesn't stop being one because the person pointing it out is from the "Priveleged Class" any more than an injustice stops being one because the person justifying it is a minority.

Once again, my opinion of you has nothing to do with whether you're a minority or not - something which cannot be authenticated one way or the other - and everything to do with all you have been saying, and most importantly, not saying in your discussions so far. Backgrounds came up because your response to the Angry Asian's discussion: an ad hominem logical fallacy if I've ever seen one - Call the other person crazy/obssessive/insecure and proceed to not respond to any of his points (which was posted in response to your statement). As you are yet to respond to any of the questions I raised in the other thread, I fail to see how you can claim to have attacked any argument that has been presented to you.

Firstly, you yourself pointed out that you don't even read my posts, so it confuses me how you have been responding to them. Secondly, the only arguments you presented (real arguments, I mean, not the ad hominem attacks), when questioned, you promptly refused to defend.

*snorts* None of which is where racism falls under. Between this and your lack of awareness of institutionalized racism, for someone who has spent most of his life "observing and thinking" about racism, you seem to have little understanding of the concept.

Of course, once again you have responded on this thread by answering everything except the questions I raised against your argument.

 

Am I upset over the how the representation of this work of art in the filmic format, the type of media which I believe enjoys the most exposure, acclaim, prestige, and cultural capital in modern society completely ignores and/or undermines the thematic and narrative foundations of the Avatar concept and story? Of course I am. Viewed from a standpoint of the maintenance of the integrity of this particular world vision--however mythological or fantastic it may be--respect for the work and the ethics instilled into the piece--the casting is not only insensitive, the bald disregard for the underpinnings of the narrative and its fanbase comes off as cruelly malignant and spiteful. If the casting of the film adaptation of the Avatar series was executed according to the conclusion of drumming up just this sort of scalding controversy in the effort to bolster publicity, it is downright shameful and the response to it needs to exceed the caustic, callous intent of those working behind the scenes on the film, starting from the casting department and working from there, both up and down the administrative totem pole.

However, I don't think the casting decisions of this film were made with such heartless motives at their roots, if what has indeed been reported as the cast for the film at this time ends up being the final, set-in-stone cast for it.

I think some executive at whatever studio has greenlit the film was handed the gist of what Avatar is by some assistant or script-reader, recognized the universal appeal of the story content, and wanted the stars for the film to be white because he or she figured going with a white cast meant making the biggest return on his or her investment.

A quick perusal of the top ten films based on aggregate scores out of a possible ten points listed on IMDB reveals films with predominantly white casts--with the very notable exceptions of Morgan Freeman, Samuel L. Jackson, and James Earl Jones in numbers 1 & 4, 6, and 9, respectively. It's worth noting, perhaps, that two of these black men and the talents they exhibited which were crucial to the enduring success of these films were nominated for some of the highest accolades in the land (Freeman and Jackson got oscar noms for lead acting and supporting acting respectively), while Mr. Jones was hijacked by some crusty old white guy who was just subpar enough to be digitally replaced by another, slightly more talented white actor nearly thirty years later. The top ten grossing films listed on that site also include films with dominantly white casts. Executives of any kind, but particularly those in the entertainment/creative fields, look to minimize risk wherever they can, so they go with traditions proven to be meritorious based both upon professional and public critique, as well as expanding their bottom line, oftentimes to purely ludicrous amounts.

Turning something as crucial as the casting of the Avatar film into a smash and grab for more money shouldn't be excused, and neither should a casting director/studio suit be let off the hook for demanding or rubber stamping an all-white cast because neither or both of them were not knowledgable enough about diversity being one of the cornerstones of the Avatar mythos. I believe ignorance should never be rewarded, particularly ignorance permeated with greed represented in a desire to snare White box-office and/or positive word of mouth. Does this mean the casting of the film was oppressively, racially hateful? I don't think so. I think the film has been tentatively cast the way it has been because someone involved in the making of the film from the administrative end has recognized there are more white people in the markets where the Avatar film and tie-in merchandise will be publicized and advertized pertaining to domestic and foreign moviegoing consumers.

I believe all of the above makes logical sense from a risk/reward standpoint, particularly when hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake. It does still make the blood boil

 

Hey, Mr_Black! It?s been a while. I agree with a lot of the things you have stated here but there are one or two things I do want to point out:

The top ten grossing films listed on that site also include films with dominantly white casts. Executives of any kind, but particularly those in the entertainment/creative fields, look to minimize risk wherever they can, so they go with traditions proven to be meritorious based both upon professional and public critique, as well as expanding their bottom line, oftentimes to purely ludicrous amounts.

Which came first: the chicken or the egg? Fact A: The most successful films in Hollywood have pre-dominantly white casts. Fact B: Hence, studios will prefer to invest in a pre-dominantly white cast. According to your argument, it?s A leading to B but if you turn it the other way round, you get far closer to the truth. Think about how many big budget Hollywood films in 2008 alone that starred had PoC protagonists and compare the numbers to how many starred White protagonists. Think back to the last 10 years.

Studios cannot claim that movies with PoC leads are unsuccessful when they refuse to invest in movies with PoC leads. How many successful Black-protagonist films do you remember? The answer is far less than successful White-hero films because very few Black-hero big-budget movies that are made. How many popular sitcoms with Asians can you think of? The answer is none, because there are no sitcoms with Asian actors. However, it?s been proven that PoCs can carry movies and shows: Cosby Show; Will Smith?s Men in Black, I-Robot; imported foreign films like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and just about anything with Jet Li or Jacki Chan. Millions of Americans watch Japanese anime, in Japanese with subtitles, with no problem and enjoy it. If the movie or show is good, people will watch it, no matter the race of the lead.

The problem is that big-budget movies have rarely been made with PoC leads. The few that have PoC in supporting roles usually place them in stereotypes.


Does this mean the casting of the film was oppressively, racially hateful? I don't think so. I think the film has been tentatively cast the way it has been because someone involved in the making of the film from the administrative end has recognized there are more white people in the markets where the Avatar film and tie-in merchandise will be publicized and advertized pertaining to domestic and foreign moviegoing consumers.

But the thing is that racism doesn?t stop at deliberate malice. There?s a lot of racism that is sub-conscious and a lot more that is institutionalized. How else do you explain the decision of making an all-white cast based on the need to get a White audience? What does it say about the White American mindset that the studio marketers can assume that the average White audience cannot identify or will not be interested in a non-White protagonist? What does it say about the White American mindset when the marketers assume that the average White kid will want to watch a movie completely based on Asian culture (clothing, writing, architecture, fighting style, etc) but will not want to see Asians as the leading characters?

Then take it a step further by remembering that the source material, with the non-White protagonist, was successful in its own right as a TV show with a multi-cultural audience. So while it can be argued that the casting decision was not based on calculated malice or even a conscious racist mindset, the evidence still points to the fact that the decision is racially-driven.

So the question is: are the studio marketers basing their marketing strategy on the prevailing racist attitude of the White American society at large or are they basing their strategy on their own racist mind-set?

 

Going by your A and B indicators, what came first in the American film industry were white film narratives invented, promoted, and released by white people (e.g. "The Great Train Robbery", 1903, according to some research). Calling the earliest examples reflections of an industry--original or modern--may be a bit of a misnomer since the very format itself when in its infancy in those earliest of days, but let's be real here; American film industry and culture is interwoven with American prejudice and discrimination, if referrances to cast and crew credits, and the hiring practices in place to establish those credits are any indication to the racial guidelines which govern it. I'm speaking about the industry as it stands today as well as when it started.

Whether it's A to B or B to A doesn't matter; both roads lead to the same result, which is a social, professional, and cultural landscape dominated by white men in front of and behind the camera, and in most of the plushest movie studio corner offices. It ain't right, or fair, it is, instead, plainly racist and sexist, and Avatar is only one of innumerable works of art which focused on or actively involved minority culture to be totally transformed into an unrecognizable, irrepresentative visage in the interest of banking the most money possible.

There?s a lot of racism that is sub-conscious and a lot more that is institutionalized. How else do you explain the decision of making an all-white cast based on the need to get a White audience?

The above answers your question by providing the foundations to state that the film industry/cultural infrastructure in America either doesn't know it's being racist by supplanting source material with direct, deep allusions to Asian culture and philosophy in favor of White familiarity which would be more profitable for the Avatar franchise, or that the racism inherent in such executive and creative decision-making for this specific project is understood, but disregarded since a minority is raising objections while the majority will most likely buy a ticket, park their butt in a theater seat and not realize until Movie!Aang makes his first onscreen appearance that the Asian foundations of Avatar have been hijacked. The institution of film in America, in other words, has racism as one of the core values in its foundation. That's how I explain the decision-making which has tentatively whitewashed Avatar.

remembering that the source material, with the non-White protagonist...

I think Aang is a minority representative, you think he is as well. The internet at large? In light of the commentary presented by this debate both in this forum and elsewhere, I'd say a disturbingly large portion of Aang's fanbase is ambiguous about his race/ethnicity. Factors which lead to assuming Whiteness on Aang's part may be due in part to his voice actor, whom I believe is White, and the design of his character, which is suspisciously light-skinned relative to the rest of the designs on the show. Frankly, I wouldn't be shocked to find out the show's creators/art staff received a note from the studio requesting Aang favor White features (skin tone, timbre of his voice, etc.) The seeds of this current uproar could've been planted by the studio which originally produced the show and were left to be nurtured by the one governing which actor stars in the film version.

it?s been proven that PoCs can carry movies and shows


There are shows and films featuring minority cast, crew, and storylines that are successful. There's no denying the cultural and economic impact of Cosby and MIB. But for every one of those successes featuring minorities in film and tv media, there are numerous failures. Two I can think of right now for each medium are the Pluto Nash movie and Wayne Brady's sitcom. Yes, talent, quality, and pre-release and post-market support by the moneymen count, and yes, shows and movies dominantly featuring white people tank all the time. The differ

 

American film industry and culture is interwoven with American prejudice and discrimination, if referrances to cast and crew credits, and the hiring practices in place to establish those credits are any indication to the racial guidelines which govern it.

I agree with that. I was arguing with the assumption that Hollywood makes casting choices like this one for purely commercial reasons.

Whether it's A to B or B to A doesn't matter
...
The answer is both. One informs the other. In fact, one is enveloped in the other; there would be no prevailing market strategy incessantly targeting White people for maximum profi

It does matter. To solve a problem, you must start from as close to its root cause as we can. Otherwise, we'll just be hacking off at the symptoms to the disease, and not the ailment itself.

The institution of film in America, in other words, has racism as one of the core values in its foundation. That's how I explain the decision-making which has tentatively whitewashed Avatar.

Tentatively?

Aang's ethnicity:
In light of the commentary presented by this debate both in this forum and elsewhere, I'd say a disturbingly large portion of Aang's fanbase is ambiguous about his race/ethnicity.

Perhaps a few people do think that, but they are clearly in the minority if the big Avatar online communities like AvatarSpirit.net and Avatar Fans at Livejournal are any indication. Some White people suffer from the white=default mentality that always comes up as an argument whenever something like this happens. From what I can see, a lot of others do not.


Factors which lead to assuming Whiteness on Aang's part may be due in part to his voice actor, whom I believe is White, and the design of his character, which is suspisciously light-skinned relative to the rest of the designs on the show. Frankly, I wouldn't be shocked to find out the show's creators/art staff received a note from the studio requesting Aang favor White features (skin tone, timbre of his voice, etc.) The seeds of this current uproar could've been planted by the studio which originally produced the show and were left to be nurtured by the one governing which actor stars in the film version.

The voice actors don't sound White. They sound American. I certainly couldn't tell from his voice that Dante Bosco, the voice of Zuko, was not a White teenager. Aang's voice is the voice of a child. The show makers made in influencing his speech was to raise the pitch of the voice actor when his voice started breaking. It is more of an effort to keep the main character a child and the Everyman for the target audience than to keep the main character White. Nickledeon have always promoted Avatar as their "Harry Potter" with an emphasis on the fact that it is an Asian-themed fantasy.


Greed, racism, and a desire to see the self reflected in important and popular social and cultural contexts (movies, tv, business, and politics) are the reasons why I think the majority of White people support White culture and entertainment while avoiding or undermining minority-centric material of equal or greater merit.

Not being American, I can't speak for or against this. It doesn't detract from the fact that the audience (White or POC) can only choose to watch what is actually made. There's no way to say if the majority of White people only support White-protagonist films if the numbers are not comparative. On the other hand, there is the popularity of the Japanese manga, the fact that a movie like Hancock which was panned, still managed to make it into the top 10 money makers of 2008.

And the worst part is that the system in place governing film and just about everything else in this country and elsewhere could care less, especially if the white-washed movie makes money, but also even if it does not. Avatar is just under-the-radar enough where it could be shrugged off, by the industry at large and the individual studio in charge of its development, no matter what happens. Talk about depres

 

Happy Holidays.

Thanks very much. Hope you gave and got a good haul this year! I completely agree with you in this case, by the way, so you don't need to defend yourself to me (and if you aren't, apologies for misreading you). I'm drafting a letter of protest about this as we...type.

Tentatively?

I sure hope the casting is tentative. I hope our efforts and the work of Avatar community make this a tentative cast and not the final one, otherwise what we're doing is tantamount to shaking your fist at the clouds while the waterline from the storm is already past your nose.

It doesn't detract from the fact that the audience (White or POC) can only choose to watch what is actually made. There's no way to say if the majority of White people only support White-protagonist films if the numbers are not comparative.

True, there isn't an equal split in terms of available options to support, and perhaps there never will be. The reason may be because there's a bias on the part of the producers and marketers of movies, tv, etc. which assumes a White-majority audience prefers to patronize White artifacts. I believe what's most improtant, at least from a sociocultural standpoint (and economic, I guess, since when has money or its fundamental equivalent not been a part of any society or culture?), is to make the phrase "I'm going to the movies" a panoramic statement encompassing any movie regardless of who's making or starring in it. This means a hypothetical double-feature in the future could open with a Spike Lee movie and close with a Woody Allen movie without having racial assumptions influence the producers or consumers of the material and instead allow the merit--if any--of the work to speak for itself.

I'd rather do something (letter writing, boycotting), than fold my hands and tell myself that it doesn't matter.

By all means, you should do something. You are, I am, and so are an impressive number of other people. The reality of the situation--and precedent set by other clusters of fans/protestors petitioning to network/studio administration--says we'll likely be ignored, since the people we're appealing to (and the system they operate in) move and shake based on the content of wallets and not ideals, no matter how sagely indicated or eloquently argued. If you, me, or, anyone else reading this really wants to make a substantial impact against the whitewashing of Avatar, the most incisive, effective action to take is to either keep your wallet closed when this debuts at the box office, or use it to support Paramount's competitors, unless we succeed and the higher-ups come to their senses about what Avatar represents and means to people. Otherwise, my life experience tells me you get noticed when you mess with someone's money, even moreso once the amount ranges within the 100-200 million dollar area.

 

It's quite clear there's usually a racist tendancy in casting decisions in Hollywood. It's so pervasive that I regularly talk movies and Hollywood with a black martial arts dude who has just given up on expecting better out of Hollywood because of it.

The casting of this movie sucks, and the martial arts in this movie are going to suck. It pisses me off to no end that they've cast a karate kid to play a character that does Ba Gua Zhang... there couldn't be two more different martial arts.

For all those that enjoyed The Forbidden Kingdom despite the white kid in it... this is a slap in the face. This is a step BACKWARDS.

 

Could someone recomand me a show wich is similar?Something ,,Avatarlike,,?

 

Naruto is probably the closest you're going to get, and better in many ways IMO. Especially when dealing with things like chi... which they call chakra for some in explicable reason.

 

I look it up,thanks for the sugestion.

 

Probably neither. There's no point in assuming some sort of steeple-fingered villainy on their part. It's likely that it just didn't occur to them, and that right now they're kicking themselves. In fact, I bet McCartney stepped out of the movie because of the ****storm surrounding this movie, and the filmmakers cast Patel as an "our bad" because he's hot right now.

 

One of the latest reports I saw actually said Rathbone's role in the movie was unconfirmed now too. Also because of "scheduling conflicts."

Curious, no?