‘Percy Jackson’ Author Condemns Racist Attacks on Leah Sava Jeffries Casting

Here's the bottom line.

The more that Hollywood tries to make things "Woke," the more backlash there is going to be.

Just keep characters the same as how they were written in the original text.

Period.

If the author had wanted the character to be black, she would have been black in the books. Changing it after the fact to satisfy some inclusiveness casting rules is going to bring some backlash from people who had envisioned the character as described. Backlash that is not likely racist, it's from damaged expectations.

You nailed it, R2.

I'm sorry, but Black Steel Magnolias just doesn't work.

It's NOT THE SAME.

When will Hollywood get this?

There’s no excuse for racism, but it’s ridiculous how this show and House of the Dragon are casting characters explicitly described as white, with black actors. They might as well create new characters instead of engaging in such heavy-handed tokenism.

HOWEVER, like Harry Potter before them, the controversy becomes ridiculous when you realize these stories are FANTASY. It’s hard to care too much about “realism” when there are dragons, sorcerers, and other magical elements in a story.

Anyone who uses the word woke in the pejorative is a racist r1

Typical racist fanboys in this thread. You guys do realize that white people are a minority in the world right?

I will agree with you on one thing. Writer's should stop should stop describing the character's race when it's not important to the story.

Percy Jackson's ethnicity isn't important at all and it shouldn't have been mentioned but so what if they want to change the character's ethnicity from this countries majority group for the TV show. Only a racist would be upset by it.

Since sex, gender, race and historical context don't matter anymore, let's do a Gandhi remake starring Laverne Cox as Gandhi.

“It’s racist!!!” No, it’s not. It’s insensitive to not follow the work you’re adapting and fans fucking hate it. It’s never been a success or revelation so these studios and directors need to cut it out.

I still think the most egregious example like the garbage fantastic four with a black Johnny Storm when his sister Sue Storm was white.

And no, that argument of “It’s fantasy!” is retarded R4.

Take “The Witcher” for example. One of the core themes of the show is literal racism: hatred of Elves, Witchers, and other races in this world.

They plop in some token black elves and characters and yet the world completely ignores any color-based racism. Pointy ears are the problem? It’s a huge disconnect. How do you have a hateful - yet colorblind - society?

It's ridiculous to get so worked up about something as trivial as fiction. Like there are so many things to get mad about (politics, global warming, the war in Ukraine, etc.) and people choose to add more on their plate than necessary? Lighten up, guys.

My problem with this has always been, you can't just change the race or ethnicity of a character and not do the work to make it make sense. I understand these are fictional characters, but races and ethnicities are not interchangeable.

My problem with this has always been, you can't just change the race or ethnicity of a character and not do the work to make it make sense

All of Hollywood is doing this now, and I fucking hate it.

They're even doing it with television commercials.

As if we're just supposed to pretend that two white people have a biological asian child. It's all so goddamned strange.

Hollywood is trying to be "post-racial," but that's just not the way the world works.

And the only ones suffering for it are the actors who take on these roles.

People are pushing back against this bs, and rightfully so.

They need to stop gratuitously changing the ethnicities of characters, just to satisfy the PC mob.

[quote] I understand these are fictional characters, but races and ethnicities are not interchangeable.

Of course, they are interchangeable unless you demand that every portrayal of ethnicity must be based on outdated stereotypes.

[quote] races and ethnicities are not interchangeable.

[quote] they are interchangeable unless you demand that every portrayal of ethnicity must be based on outdated stereotypes

It's not a "stereotype" if the writer wrote the character as a white person.

Which is exactly the case in this story.

Annabeth is Athena, the daughter of a GREEK goddess.

Athena liked BBC!

This is a ridiculous attack from a fringe minority (who I'm guessing haven't even read the books).

I don't remember them well, since I read the original series over a decade ago, and whilst Annabeth is written as white I don't actually remember race ever coming up in a meaningful manner in the story.

R13. The writer changed it. He's heavily involved. Who cares. He's free to do so.

And yes, they're all descended from Greek gods. But I don't think that plays much into their appearance. From memory, the gods don't really have DNA that they actually pass down to their kids (otherwise Percy and Annabeth hooking up would be incest). The kids primarily inherit a position in the Greek god hierarchy and the portfolio of powers and gifts that the god possesses.

I do think that Percy looks different than how I pictured him. As terrible as the first Percy Jackson movie was, Logan Lerman was pretty close to how I imagined Percy. This kid? Not so much.

[quote]If the author had wanted the character to be black, she would have been black in the books. Changing it after the fact to satisfy some inclusiveness casting rules is going to bring some backlash from people who had envisioned the character as described. Backlash that is not likely racist, it's from damaged expectations.

Except for the small problem that it's the author himself who doesn't care.

Look, we've done this. I'm not a fan of Mary Sue Rey from Star Wars. I think Albee's estate was perfectly justified in pulling their approval for a run of one of his plays where they went rainbow colors on a specific play because it made no sense. I think that Bridgerton is light fluff not meant to be historically accurate and is more like an alt history like Man in the High Castle.

You cannot make a blanket statement about such things. Sometimes it DOES matter. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes your priorities during adapation are more about capturing the spirit of the character. Sometimes it HAS to be about visual - looking at you Tom Cruise trying to be Jack Reacher.

I mean, it's like arguing whether all Hobbits are white. They're fictional. Are any Greek gods black - probably not since the Greeks weren't. But, does it matter since they're, you know, fictional - not in the least.

R8. You're projecting real-life racial dynamics on a fictional world. That's your mistake.

The racism in The Witcher is against the Elder Races since humans are basically greedy fucks. It's nothing to do with skin, it's to do with friction between the elders, who are essentially natives to the land (except arguably the elves), and the humans who settled the land much later. As what inevitably happens, the physical markers of the Elder Races (ears for elves, height for dwarves, etc.) become easily identifiable targets for racial attacks.

Skin color has never played a role because that isn't how the cultures in The Witcher universe have evolved.

Logan Lerman will always be my Percy Jackson, Alexandria Daddario will always be Annabeth, and don't even THINK about changing Jake Abel as Luke.

I don't even know why they have to change the ethnicities any way.

The original cast was diverse enough.

It will bomb and everyone in Hollywood will be shocked at it bombing and no one will learn their lesson and the Hollywood elite will go on smelling their own farts.

If black fans want more black superhero characters, then maybe black authors should be writing about them.

This IS cultural appropriation, but why isn't anyone complaining about it??

If a black author had written about black fictional characters, and then Hollywood went and changed some of those characters to be white, black people would be screaming their heads off about cultural appropriation. Fictional, or not.

So why is it wrong when fans of these characters get upset when you change their ethnicity from white to black?

It's the exact same thing.

Just stop fucking with the characters and how they were originally written.

If Hollywood is so desperate to have more popular black fictional characters, then for fuck's sake go WRITE about them.

[quote]If Hollywood is so desperate to have more popular black fictional characters, then for fuck's sake go WRITE about them.

Ah, but there's the rub of it.

If a non-black or (or other) person writes about a black person in any meaningful manner, you then get screams of "APPROPRIATION."

Same if you get a non-black director directing a primarily black cast. Even Black Panther, a fictional superhero movie, was not ever going to be directed by a white guy.

R18. I would argue they all had more or less the correct look (as I pictured in my head), although Logan and Alexandria were a bit old for the roles (the characters in the books are basically young teenagers). But their personalities in that movie were completely off.

Also, Jake felt slightly strange to me as Luke. I think he had the problem where he looked too young for the role so it was hard to take him seriously as first an older-figure crush (for Annabeth), a kind mentor (for Percy), and eventually the embittered villain who had thrown his lot in with Kronos.

R19. I think it will do well. People want things to watch and nostalgia is powerful. People don't really care about this race stuff. I don't.

R20. These aren't superheroes dear. Percy Jackson is YA fiction. Different themes.

And frankly I don't really see the problem in changing races for the characters unless their racial struggle/privilege is part of their story. That's why you don't see many Black superheroes getting rewritten as White, because Black superheroes tend to have their race come up in their story arcs or background, which wouldn't work if you made them White.

White heroes rarely have stories that acknowledge their race.

[quote] I don't really see the problem in changing races for the characters unless their racial struggle/privilege is part of their story. That's why you don't see many Black superheroes getting rewritten as White, because Black superheroes tend to have their race come up in their story arcs or background, which wouldn't work if you made them White.

[quote] White heroes rarely have stories that acknowledge their race.

These are not compelling arguments.

They're just excuses.

Old Percy versus new Percy.

What say you?

Says you R23. I think they're pretty reasonable explanations.

I can't imagine most kids giving any fucks at all about this, and if I saw any on social media raising a fuss I'd assume they were sock puppet accounts for weird adults.

R24. I just think the new Percy looks almost too young. He looks like he's 11 or 12. But I guess that's about the age he is in the first book and they want longevity if the series goes on.

An actor aging really obviously during a series run can be really distracting (see Game of Thrones).

[quote] I was quite clear a year ago, when we announced our first open casting, that we would be following Disney’s company policy on nondiscrimination

Technically, it’s the opposite of nondiscrimination. The casting deliberately selects actors based on their race. It’s should not be referred to as nondiscrimination.

When was the last time a non-white character in a much-loved novel was changed to and cast with a white actor in the film/series adaptation?

It's easier to change the races/ethnicities of a few characters than to change writers rooms or to greenlight and nurture more projects from minority creatives. That's the problem. If all the diversity is required in front of the camera, no one is looking at what's going on behind the camera. It's ridiculous.

Starring Gabourey Sidibe as Diana, Princess of Wales

R29. Happens a lot with adaptations to Japanese works. Ghost in the Shell for example. Death Note.

Would Black Americans prefer seeing a Black actor inexplicably playing a white character, or seeing a Black actor playing an authentically Black character? As has been pointed out, there’s nothing stopping producers from adding great Black characters to existing stories. It’s fiction, so it would be easy to replace Annabeth with a new Black character in the movie. Movies often have huge differences with the books they are based on.

R33. Isn't this a TV show, not a movie?

R32 You are right about Hollywood adaptations of Japanese anime which is why, anime fan that I am, I tend to not even bother watching Hollywood adaptations of anime anymore and instead stick with the Japanese film and TV adaptations. Netflix's Death Note adaptation was particularly atrocious. Not just the casting but the whole idea of the anime they gutted. The main character was supposed to be really smart and Netflix's version made the guy a complete idiot who would happily tell anyone who would listen that he was behind the Death Note.

I should have asked when was the last time a black character in a much-loved novel was cast with a non-black actor in the movie or TV adaptation. And would Hollywood still be insisting it was "color blind" casting to do so? Seems this is always a one-way street.

[quote]Except for the small problem that it's the author himself who doesn't care.

He's being paid to publicly give this casting his seal of approval. The producers obviously think this will calm down fans of the books. How did that work out with A Wrinkle In Time? Don't take book fans for fools.

R35. I forgot Edge of Tomorrow although that was a short story from memory.

But if you're looking for specifically black characters than, again, I feel that black characters tend to have backstories or character arcs that incorporate race much more (usually themed around marginalization). It's hard to sustain that those themes if the character has been whitewashed. The Subterraneans is apparently an example (not that I've seen that movie).

Here's a (non-comprehensive) list.

I know I'm alone in this, but I would argue that it's racist to assume that you can just change a character's race. It's not like flipping a switch and it has nothing to do with playing stereotypes either.

R34 Why did you completely (deliberately) miss R33's point?

R39. I didn't think it was a point worth addressing. They aren't going to take out Annabeth and put in a new character. That would be silly and confusing.

"Diversity" and "color-blind" casting - New terms for the same old racism.

R40 I believe what R33 was saying is, would a black audience prefer to see a black actor cast in a movie about the black experience OR a black actor cast in what was originally a white role in a story that has nothing to do with being black? One is organic. The other is shallow surface level shit.

In other words, is a black audience content to just nibble on the white man's remake scraps?

There are many black stories by black writers that Hollywood could produce and which would lift up a black audience (like, say, Hidden Figures). Instead, Hollywood would prefer to take the easy way out and shit out a black version of The Honeymooners and pat themselves on the back for doing so.

It's no different to Melrose Place which patted itself on the back for having a gay character on the show for years but never gave him anything to do. He was just a sexless token place holder. Compare that to, say, Queer As Folk which had gay characters in a story about the gay experience.

If the author of the books is ok with the casting, the audience should be ok with it. Besides, it's fantasy, so real world "rules" don't apply.

The only time I have a problem with "inclusive" casting is in two situations: first is historical films/programs, which I feel should attempt to portray the past as realistically as possible, and unfortunately the past was not as integrated as 21st century Western society (this particularly applies when portraying actual people from the past, like Anne Boleyn; there are a number of historical figures that have yet to be portrayed in film/TV -- Robert Smalls, Thomas-Alexandre Dumas, Abram Petrovich Gannibal, etc. -- that I would love to see); second is realist modern films/programs where the setting dictates the racial makeup of the characters (e.g., a small town in Iowa vs a big city like Chicago or Dallas -- and even in the latter, the particular neighborhood of the city is going to dictate the racial makeup).

If you ARE going to do "inclusive" casting in a historical project, you've got to make it work the right way: The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) doesn't work because the casting is absurdly ridiculous (black actress Nikki Amuka-Bird playing the mother of pale white actor Aneurin Bernard) in a movie that takes a realist style to the filmmaking and production; but The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021) does work because the production design and cinematography are so surreal that the casting of Denzel Washington works within that context (plus, it helps that Washington is so damn good in the role).

Finally, and this is the one statement that will probably get me dragged: when this "inclusive" casting occurs, why is it always in one direction? Why is it always a black actor playing a character originally established as white? Sure, we've got South Asian actor Dev Patel playing characters originally written as white (the aforementioned David Copperfield, last year's The Green Knight), but he's an outlier; like the recent Doctor Who casting announcement, it's usually one specific race that benefits from this kind of casting. I don't know, if were an actor of another ethnicity, I'd be kind of pissed about that; I wonder if they are, but they keep their mouths shut so as not to be cancelled.

R4 it doesn't matter if it's fantasy. People grow up imagining the characters one way, and it's jarring when a main character isn't close to how they're described. If Riordan wanted them a different race, he would have made them thus in the original stories. Doing it now just feels performative and is actually kind of insulting.

R42. I just disagree. I don't think black characters need to be written only to talk about the experience of being black. And in a story like Percy Jackson, where race doesn't really factor into anything, then black or white casting really doesn't matter. It doesn't help that the original story doesn't have any notable black characters at all (that I remember).

I don't think gay or black characters need to have "things to do" other than being the characters they already are. That's plenty to do already in a story like Percy Jackson.

Though in the case of Nico I suppose he did have something to do.

Oh heaven's! We mustn't be jarred! Someone fetch my smelling salts!

And of course posters like r5 come in to call everyone who disagrees racist and totally ignoring arguments that show more nuance than slapping a "racist" label on someone. You can't seem to argue the point so you just call everyone who disagrees with your view a racist, thus ensuring you never have to address what they said.

Of course the author should have described the character as he saw her. It's bad writing not to.

It does not matter what percentage of the world is this race or that race. If you're going to use statistics as an example, then black people are way over represented because they are only 14% of the US population. The character should have been Hispanic if you're going by the numbers. But that would also have been dumb, if the author didn't describe her that way.

R46 I explained why it matters and why it's irrelevant that it's a fantasy. Which you ignored and instead focused on one word in a throwaway comment.

You realize that other people form different opinions, right, with the same information? It doesn't make them wrong just because they disagree with you.

Have you even read these books?

I think what the "it's a fantasy" posters mean is "it's not based on historical people", which would be even more jarring if their race was changed.

R43 the author can be fine with it now, but the fact is he didn't make the character black when he wrote it. Changing it now, during "everyone must be represented on screen or you're racist" feels opportunistic and pandering.

The author could write a new novel with a new generation of characters that are like a Benetton ad, and that would be perfectly fine. But this one is already written and done.

R44 Like JK Rowling declaring years after the fact that Dumbledore was gay even though there was zero reference to that in the actual books or movies. She just wants to be patted on the back for being inclusive despite not being inclusive when it came to the actual books or movies in question.

She wants the awards. She doesn't want to put in the hard work.

And this guy is the same. He knows Disney+ was going to go this way with casting and so, in order to keep his deal and the show on the schedule, he's publicly claiming to be okay with it. Can you imagine him doing otherwise? I'm sure if you got him drunk you'd find out what he really thinks.

But, hey, hacks gotta hack.

R50 she didn't describe him as straight, though. He wasn't dating women or female professors in the books. And she also included that in the Fantastic Beasts films as a subtext, so it wasn't just a one-and-done. That's the difference.

You can pretend to mind read her but that doesn't mean what she said her reasons are for saying it are untrue. But if you dislike her for other reasons it would be all too easy to project bad motives on her. People do that to Meghan Markle, too.

R45 Nobody said Hollywood can only make movies or shows about the black experience. There are plenty of movies that cast a black actor in the lead role and race is never mentioned. Will Smith did this multiple times. Independence Day for example. Every previous actor considered for the role was white. They eventually just went with who was available and had a hit show at the time. Likewise Enemy of the State.

But are black audiences really satisfied with a blackwashing remake? Would they rather see Lifetime's black remake of Steel Magnolias or The Trip to Bountiful or would they rather another Color Purple or Black Panther?

R50. I actually think he really believes in diversity.

I suspect his more "mainstream" approach to the original series was fear of publisher or parental backlash. Hence why Nico's arc was kind of hidden and coded.

If you read the other series he wrote, including the Roman and Egyptian follow-ups, the characters are much more diverse.

In this case with Riordan, I would agree with you that he's saying it because Disney told him to. But I'm mind reading as well. He could very well have changed his opinions since he wrote the book and now regrets it. That does not change the fact that he made her white in the books, though, and that doesn't compare to Rowling because Dumbledore's sexuality isn't explicitly mentioned.

I remember when John Byrne was publicly PISSED that Jessica Alba (half-Latina) was cast as his beloved WASP-y Invisible Woman. There's was one creator who didn't have any PC fucks to give, R50.

He also spoke out about black Human Torch.

I don't even like the Fantastic Four but for some reason I have committed this to brainspace.

I'd also add that Rowling's long history of supporting progressive causes would also mean that she is actually okay with gay people and it's not pandering if she thought more and fleshed out his character after the books. Dumbeddore was a secondary character in most of the books save one near the end of the series, when he took on a more active role. And again, she went on to build Fantastic Beasts in order to flesh out the backstory as well as elaborate on characters she hasn't focused on during the original books. I have no doubt if she had written FB in book form first she would have included more about Dumbledore's romance. Not a lot though, it's still a children's book and movie.

R52. I think so, yes. You can black characters in shows about stopping evil Titans alongside TV shows talking about how racial marginalization and oppression.

I asked lipstick alley how they felt about inclusive casting so far one agrees with me that it’s bullshit . I’m non white and I think that it’s bullshit and lazy writing. I’m of African heritage and I think that if the creator wanted to include a black female character, they could have made her a parent a West African deity. Not only would the character be original, it would have more authenticity than black washing an already created creator.

R57 But which one gets made by Hollywood the most often?

The only time Hollywood makes movies about the black experience nowadays it's almost always some slave Oscar bait shit to make blacks feel bad about themselves and angry at whites. For every Hidden Figures there are 50 12 Years a Slaves.

This is actually a pretty good read on John Byrne and race-swapping.

[quote]When (The Human Torch) is race-swapped the inevitable response from some segments of fandom and the media is that this is “necessary” due to comics in the 1960s being hotbeds of White supremacy — while nothing is further from the truth. American comics had long been the home to some of the most liberal, forward thinking people you were likely to meet. They cannot be taken to task for portraying society as that society perceived itself. But they should definitely be lauded for being, often, ahead of the curve when it came to social reform.

[quote]Acting, (actors will often tell us when at their most pretentious,) is about TRUTH. There is NO TRUTH in casting actors from races other than that of the character, and then pretending nothing else has changed.

R58. I don't think that person knows what Percy Jackson is about.

It's certainly not a "European medieval based show".

And they can't have made her parent a West African deity because those haven't been addressed in the books (to my understanding). Introducing them would add far too much complexity to the cosmology.

The film of A Wrinkle in Time didn’t fail because they cast a black girl as Meg; it failed because the movie sucked. The argument that film adaptations need to stick to the book when it comes to racial identity IS racist if that’s the only change you’re complaining about. Why aren’t you whining about dropped subplots, missing characters, or changes in setting, all three of which happen all the time?

R59. Obviously high adrenaline shows about battling evil monsters get made a lot more often. Which is why it's important for black characters to be represented.

That's a well-reasoned opinion, r60.

There ARE black superheroes. They just weren't as popular at the time when the comics were released.

The studio doesn't want to use them, because they don't have a built in fanbase and the studio doesn't want to risk it with a property that wasn't widely known at the time. So instead they take the one with the bigger fanbase and ret-con a black character into it. It's about making money, not social justice.

R62 that movie did suck. The fact that the talk around the movie was 99% the casting and how empowering it would be for black women, versus how good the movie was, was a big giveaway. When you have a poor product you find the angle that will get you the most attention to distract from the quality of the product.

Adding on to r64 - Riordan could make a new series with a Benetton ad as the superheroes. But the studio would likely not want to film it until it was proved popular. It likely wouldn't have made them as much money if they did. So they shoehorn it into the popular ones instead.

She's only 12, which means she is not supposed to have a tik tok or most other social media accts because COPPA states that only people 13 or older may use them.

I find it interesting that, in two different Fantasy works, it is the main white [bold]female[/bold] character who has magically changed races and not any of the main [bold]male[/bold] characters.

Prior to this Percy Jackson situation, the same thing happened to Hermione Granger in the London stage production "Harry Potter and the Cursed Child". When that casting was questioned, Rowling replied that she never described Hermione's skin color, only that her hair was "bushy". As far as I know, all subsequent productions have continued to cast a Black actress in the part.

If they ever make a movie of "Cursed Child", I wonder what race Hermione will be.

[quote]I'm sorry, but Black Steel Magnolias just doesn't work

Riiiiight. Because black woman don’t live in the South, congregate in hair salons, or get diabetes!

[quote] The argument that film adaptations need to stick to the book when it comes to racial identity IS racist if that’s the only change you’re complaining about. Why aren’t you whining about dropped subplots, missing characters, or changes in setting, all three of which happen all the time?

R62 Because the argument is about CASTING, not CONTENT.

I think the issue is, why call it Steel Magnolias. Why not create a new work that pays homage to the original?

R71 Bingo! But that would require effort.

R68. To be honest, I also did not picture Grover that way (although I think it does make sense). I don't remember how he's described but he's a satyr so I imagined him like some Renaissance depiction of them (though not evil looking obviously).

Actually, the Riordan wiki has the depiction that's almost exactly what was in my head. Except I imagined him with more of a chinstrap beard.

R61

The author of Percy Jackson made a series based on Egyptian mythology set in the Percy Jackson universe. So I’m sure that the author had no issues with making the cosmology complex. Riordan could have come up with a way to include a black character that wasn’t black washing.

R71 for the reason I explained above. It would require the studio to take a risk. If they can shoehorn race changes into existing popular property, they think the chances of making money are higher than with a new property that would be riskier. They don't care as much about offending the fans of the original property because enough of them will see the new one that it should offset the public outcry. And they can always just call everyone racist who disagrees.

It's all about money.

r44 books differ from movies all the time for a variety of reasons. Getting your panties in a bunch over this says more about you.

So R76 would be totally fine with Chris Evans playing Black Panther in the next sequel. Right?

Of course r77! Remember "iT's JuST fAnTaSy" Why, they don't even have to be human! Replace them with typewriters, and the bad guys with aliens from the planet Zendar! No one will notice, and if you do, you're a bigot!

[quote]It will bomb and everyone in Hollywood will be shocked at it bombing and no one will learn their lesson and the Hollywood elite will go on smelling their own farts.

Diversity isn't a guarantee of success, that's true. A number of reboots with diverse casts have either bombed or been met with indifference.

[quote]How did that work out with A Wrinkle In Time?

Even the delicious Chris Pine couldn't save that movie. What an absolute piece of shit.

the racists in this thread are doing a terrible job of convincing everyone they're not racist. what other reason would there be for you freaks to be upset? i've read the books and this character being played by a black actor would make literally no difference

R1, This isn't about making things woke you moron. It's about celebrating diversity, and often increasing the bottom line. It will probably be even more financially successful. Here is what the author said himself. Learn from it. “If you don’t get that, if you’re still upset about the casting of this marvelous trio, then it doesn’t matter how many times you have read the books. You didn’t learn anything from them.”

"What other reason but racism?????" whilst r81 totally ignores every one of the many actual valid reasons given in the thread about why people think it's a bad idea.

That says FAR more about you than it does anyone else, my dear.

[quote]the past was not as integrated as 21st century Western society

21st Century Western society is not as integrated as Hollywood would have you believe. Every group of friends has a diverse social circle, every workplace is diverse, no matter where the story is taking place. That's not reality even in the present day.

R82 so you'd be cool with Black Panther Reboot 2030 being played by a white man?

But these are fictional characters. They live in fantastical realities where supernatural things can happen. So why is anyone isn't a racist upset when the casting doesn't match the original books. That logic doesn't make sense.

I could even see if this was fiction rooted in realism of how life really is, if it took place in 1940s Germany or present day Coney Island Brooklyn. But this stuff is rooted in world's in which superheroes exist. Why would the race of the actor matter?

Wasn’t the character blonde hair blue eyed in the books? Alexandra Daadario wasn’t even blonde so I don’t get the big deal I guess. Maybe they will give her blonde dreads or something like they are doing in the new Little Mermaid

I also love how Robert Rodriguez would cast all races and give them Hispanic names/blended families. I thought it was sweet that he loved his culture so much he wanted to share it.

The only thing I do side eye however are recasting the races of historical figures in what are supposed to be serious movies (the black Anne Boelyn, the Asian BFF in the Queen of Scots movie) because I have a feeling there would be tears if a Middle Eastern woman were playing Harriet Tubman

R86 see R44.

Coming soon to a theatre near you

On Amazon Prime this July!

For all the little white liberals in their feelings, lipstick alley a forum for black women also hate race bending and black washing. Are they racist or self hating? Not everyone wants to be a fucking token on a show that is predominantly white. Not everyone wants to be included in white spaces. True diverse and inclusion would be respecting and acknowledging different cultures and people of different backgrounds. Not erasing their differences so they can make you feel comfortable.

[quote] the Asian BFF in the Queen of Scots movie

Oh, Mary Queen of Scots was one of the worst examples of this: not only did they have Gemma Chan playing a white woman, they also had Mary say to her (Puerto Rican cast) Italian courtier David Rizzio, after discovering him in bed with her husband, "That's ok, it's just your nature!" Patently absurd.

This whole thread smells like DL’s racist Aspie, Matt.

That Matt Anscher guy has been gone for awhile. His posts were very distinctive

R94 He's the OP (and various alts) on the Why are there so many fucking idiots here? thread right now.

R94 = Matt Anscher

I am certainly not Matt Anscher, believe me!

[quote]I believe what [R33] was saying is, would a black audience prefer to see a black actor cast in a movie about the black experience OR a black actor cast in what was originally a white role in a story that has nothing to do with being black? One is organic. The other is shallow surface level shit.

The problem is that the answer is that they want both. Just like Miss Black America, and whatever other black-only tangential type things like that have been created over the years, exist while black women have been winning the actual Miss America for decades at this point. It's an over-correction that actually helps create the problem it is trying to fix.

Relating this back to us on a gay board, would all of you who are fine with this also be fine with a gay character being replaced by a straight one? Since you were discussing Rowling before, would you be okay with them giving Dumbledore a girlfriend or wife in the Fantastic Beasts movies after the author said he was gay because the studio thought it would play better?

Would we only be happy with them 'gaying up' originally straight characters instead getting original gay characters? If you are ever upset by them de-gaying a character or story for foreign markets, then you should also be upset by them de-racing a character.

Regardless of why the writer supports the casting of character of a different race, if he is okay with it then who are we to complain? As his wife wrote he owns the characters. I especially felt this way about Steel Magnolias. The writer wrote this based on very personal experiences. If he was okay with his family being reimagined as black, again who are we to complain?

R99 because that's not how stories work.

The author creates it and sends it out into the world, where it lives in the minds of those who read the book, too.

Just because the original source is okay with it now, it doesn't mean that everyone else is unreasonable. Those words aren't just the author's once they are sent out into the world, they belong to everyone who read the story afterwards. And the author himself set the expectation by explicitly stating the race of the character, this isn't a ambiguous description that could go either way.

Words create images for people, and when those images are disrupted by casting choices attemtping to check boxes or reach bigger audiences, it is going to upset some people as it creates a conflict in their heads with how they had envisioned the characters and story.

R26 Well, you are wrong. Kids can't stand changes in the books they love.

Faithfull adaptations (Harry Potter, Twilight) are successful while the ones that made changes (Eragon, Shadowhunters) fail big time.

The problem is this things never work. There are a lot of fantastic black writers but they don't use their books and people react really bad to this kind of token changes.

Diversity is a great thing but it has to be done well

This is so silly and childish, but I really got upset with the Riverdale show on The CW because they made Veronica a Latina, Reggie, Asian and Josie, black. Because it wasn't the same comic book characters that I grew up reading. It is stupid to feel this way about fictional characters, but I can get why people get pissed off about this stuff.

[quote]Like JK Rowling declaring years after the fact that Dumbledore was gay even though there was zero reference to that in the actual books or movies.

Not completely true.

She's always maintained that Dumbledore's history with Grindlewald always had a romantic component to it. It was part of the backstory she had created. The Deathly Hallows, Gindlewald and how Dumbledore got the Elder Wand were there from the very beginning.

As for the movies, she specifically had a line removed from the 6th movie where he originally was supposed to reference a girl he once was in love with and had it replaced with a more innocuous comment.

I totally get it, r102. Barry Allen (The Flash) was a blond in the comic books, but every actor who has played him on TV and film has been a brunet. Pisses me off. But, whatever.

What R9 said. You know what's become far more tiresome than "woke"? The people who treat it like it's worth getting so angry over. This is why Roe is fucking gone. This is why Republicans are getting away with everything. Because this bullshit gets you far more angry than what's going on in the real world.

Who in the fucking hell cares? You sure as fuck don't care when Jesus is portrayed as white with blue eyes despite the obvious.

I love you, R104.

[quote] You sure as fuck don't care when Jesus is portrayed as white with blue eyes despite the obvious.

That hasn't been done in many years.

R105 But producers love to do this (cast a black actor/actress in a much loved white role) because they WANT the people to get angry or to at least use it as an excuse for The Guardian and the like to shit out multiple articles about how "upset" the "bigots" are when the truth is that it's just to generate free publicity. It's very cynical.

Blue eyes and fairer skin tones are not unheard of among Middle Easterners. The current lunatic despot who runs Syria Marshal Bashar al-Assad and his wife could pass for European.

Queen Rania of Jordan could pass for European

I couldn't care less that the new Captain America is black, Sam Wilson is a black character in the comics so it makes sense, but if Steve Rogers had been cast with a black actor it would've been dumb as hell. Same with Tony Stark or Thor. Use an established character of color or create one, don't race change because you want to smugly tell everyone at your Hollywood party, surrounded exclusively by white Jews, how inclusive and open minded you are.

Queen Rania is a product of thousands of years of fucking/raping by various invaders, genius. I always see that moronic argument where people compare someone from TODAY when there's been thousands of years of invading, raping, migration etc, to what MOST people looked like thousands of years ago when there weren't as many god damned people moving around the world.

Only a fucking moron thinks Jesus just so happened to be the one with blonde hair and blue eyes in the Middle East, because so many Christians are so fucking racist that they can accept the ridiculousness of a man walking on water when he wasn't turning into booze, but that he would look like the average Middle Easterner is simply preposterous!

Fuck off. you look for any excuse to be a prejudiced prick and you know it.

When we talk about bad casting, it’s not just about race. Imagine if Chrissy Metz were cast as Wonder Woman. She’s the appropriate race and gender, but she doesn’t fit the body type for the character. Accordingly, fewer people would pay to see a fake Wonder Woman portrayed by Metz (unless it were marketed as a grotesque horror film). Likewise, when an actor is cast and it changes a fundamental characteristic like the character’s race, there are going to be fewer people going to see a show with a fake version of the character. Black Annie and Black Human Torch hurt the box office. However, a great Black character like Black Panther did fantastic at the box office, proving beyond any doubt that audiences are more than fine with Black actors in the lead role.

Everyone can recognize racism when they see it and replacing white actors with black actors simply because of the color of their skin is racism. The SJWokesters pretending otherwise doesn't change the truth of that. SJWokesters really need to get back in touch with reality on many, many issues.

"but it's not how I imagined it!!!" Jesus, how tiresome. It's not a literal adaptation. Big fucking deal.

Example: Wolverine in the X-Men comics is under 6ft tall. Hugh Jackman is taller than 6ft. And he's sometimes the only good thing in some of those shitty movies!

I'm sorry the director didn't consult with each of you to find out what you saw in your head when you read this book. I'm sure it would have been brilliant.

I'm not PC nor overly woke. Cast changes are nothing new. And anyone who has a problem with minority casting for fictions not rooted in reality is a mafuckin racist. We're not talking about historical figures or even classic works of art. We're talking about new age pop culture. And if the creators of said work of art rock with it themselves there's really nothing to complain about. I hope the kids make this the most successful Percy Jackson entry yet.

And furthermore why would anyone be attacking a child on social media. People need to get their priorities straight and fkin grow up. Channel that energy to improving your net worth.

[quote] It's not a literal adaptation.

Then why call the character Annabeth? As a non-literal adaptation, they could have created a new female character to fill the same function in the story.

People have a flexibility with this shit, R115. You're creating a strawman. Just like many people accepted and loved old-ass McKellen as Magneto, and came around to a model, Rebecca Romijn, as scaly Mystique (way better than J-Law).

It's different than making Heimdall the only black Asgardian just because. Well, except for later-on black Valkyrie which I will still never be over. Long live Brunhilde.

R113, what is fundamental about the characters race in this kid series. How does it impact the story in a negative way? I'll wait...

Exactly r115. Create your own work of art and multimillion media franchise and dictate things how you would like. But you have no right to dictate to another artist how their work should evolve. It's offensive to artists everywhere.

Well, Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson) IS the new Queen of Asgard in the movies

Stan Lee was very against racechanging and gender swapping his characters as he thought it was a lazy way for writers to not create new characters with fully actualized backgrounds. He was very against Jane Foster becoming Thor— not because she was a woman, but because Thor isn’t a title, it’s his fucking NAME!

I've noticed how the people who are defending the change use a lot of swear words. I wonder why they're so angry?

r122 yeah, the female Thor was profoundly stupid.

r121 no one is dictating anything. They are expressing their disappointment at the change. The author doesn't have to listen to them. But at the same time you can't just tell people not to react or have an opinion about something that means something to them. That's just silly and calling them racist for having a perfectly reasonable reaction is also silly.

Changes like this to existing characters are cynical money grabs - ways of stretching more money out of the IP - and everyone knows it. Especially the author.

[quote]Only a fucking moron thinks Jesus just so happened to be the one with blonde hair and blue eyes in the Middle East,

Nobody said that.

[quote]Queen Rania is a product of thousands of years of fucking/raping by various invaders, genius. I always see that moronic argument where people compare someone from TODAY when there's been thousands of years of invading, raping, migration etc, to what MOST people looked like thousands of years ago when there weren't as many god damned people moving around the world.

Sweetheart, the Arabs moving out of the Arabian peninsula in the Middle Ages are why so many North Africans/Syrians/Lebanese are dark and swarthy today. In Classical Antiquity, they were more fair. The Greeks were too.

[quote]thousands of years of fucking/raping by various invaders, genius.

The Greeks were leaving their seed across the Middle East and as far as Persia and India, centuries before the events in the New Testament. To this day there are Indians and Persians with light hair and light eyes.

Classical Greeks were more fair than modern Greeks.

Semi-relatedly, many black people promote Afrocentrism in relation to the world - they claim to be the original Egyptians, claim Cleopatra was black, that black people were the original settlers in South America, that most of the scientific achievements like mathematics and such were actually black achievements, etc.

There's this Twitter feed that shows them which is pretty funny. It's so ahistorical.

Or this one:

They're also Japanese and defeated Russia.

People claiming Cleopatra was black are totally ignorant of history. Cleopatra was of 100% Macedonian Greek ancestry, as were all the Ptolemys.

R108 Similarly, many YouTuber fanboys of Lord of the Rings were horrified by the Black elves and dwarves prominently featured in the new Amazon series trailers, as this was clearly not Tolkein's vision for these characters.

Arabic people were also originally black, and Islam is a black religion, not Arab.

BTW these accounts only post people that aren't saying this stuff ironically! They mean it!

r132 it's bizarre. The Tolkien universe is very meticulously defined. Tolkien wasn't a racist (any more than others at the time, I don't think) but elves were a specific race with a very specific description and it reached back through history why they look like they do. Have black humans in some new character roles, sure, although there aren't any in Tolkien's notes that I'm aware of, but at least that makes more sense than black elves.

[quote] to what MOST people looked like thousands of years ago when there weren't as many god damned people moving around the world

Are you fucking serious? Have you ever heard of a little thing called the Roman Empire? People were on the move constantly, thousands of years ago. The Roman Empire had massive movements of people over three continents for centuries. There are skeletons of Black Africans that have been found in Britain that date back to the Roman Period, FFS. Caledonian (Scottish) men were popular as gladiators and lived all over Roman-occupied Middle Eastern territories.

R133 doesn't !slam have such a presence in Africa, because of the Arab slave trade?

The book I just finished, a transcription of the old Griot legends of legendary and ruthless warrior-turned-conqueror Son Djata, explicates the lore of a dynasty of !slamic kings in Mali, who inherited their beliefs from merchants and slavers who came from the Holy Land. These beliefs blended with the existing Pagan beliefs of the tribes of landlocked West African countries (then having different boundaries and names than they do today, bear in mind).

Son Djata himself is said to have admired the exploits of Alexander The Great, not exactly a paragon of black excellence.

The bible happened in Africa, and the original Israelis were black. Jewish people are racist if they aren't black because they're appropriating black culture otherwise.

Know nothing of the Percy Jackson franchise, but what my autistic 11-year old cousin/nephew tells me on one of his cute if annoying little infodumps. Apparently there's like, a lot of demigods, and stuff. Sounds like Marvel, but with more references to real Ancient World lore, which I can get behind I guess. At the least thanks to the books, the kid is reading, and taking an interest in history and world religion--can't be mad at that. Not sure if the tv series will be as instructive, though...

Percy Jackson isn't a great series, but it was popular amongst kids the past twenty years, so a lot of people grew up with it. The Greek/Roman gods are so overdone though in culture. I agree if it gets them reading it's good!

R134 It is strange, as Tolkien repeatedly and very specifically described the appearance of these 2 races. The peoples from the South, in Harad and other nations were described as 'swarthy' so that would have been a legitimate ethnic casting opportunity faithful to the author's vision.

"[R122] yeah, the female Thor was profoundly stupid."

It happened in the comics, so you can't complain that it's a violation of the source material!

Yeah, it sounds stupid, but there's always been a streak of absurdity in Marvel's Thor, so why not this? Guaranteed, it'll end with Thor having his powers back at the end, having learned a valuable lesson along the way, it's a stupid Thor movie.

r141 the modern comics, though, which are a violation of the original comics.

There's a gay Superman now, too.

Hollywood knows the black community will not watch something if it doesn’t have one of their own in a big part (and they will complain loudly as well) Asians and latinos will still watch and won’t complain.

Why am I seeing a picture of a white kid?

R140 wondering why couldn't the Tolkien race of Men be cast as multi-ethnic, as well? I get that from scholarship we know JRR based them on the Old English Beowulf-era peoples, so he probably envisioned them as all-white, but afaik this isn't explicitly delineated in text so there's no reason why they have to be.

And I say this as a caucasian, who was happy with the all-caucasion LOTR, and doesn't think we really need to racially-quota this thing. But if it shuts people up...

That one character won't be enough. It becomes a "token" character if there's just one. 51% must be black characters or it's racist.

[quote] There's a gay Superman now, too.

Bisexual, and it’s Clark Kent’s son.

The Oscars are already implementing a rule that if half of your cast isn’t non-white, you won’t be considered for an award.

r145 they were black, at least according to Wikipedia's interpretation:

The "Race of Men" includes the Harad.

Okay, if we're getting into Tolkien, then yes, Tolkien conceived his elves as white, but I for one don't have a problem if they use actors of other races. So what if some elves have dark skin, they aren't humans, they can look like whatever. As for the dwarves, Tolkien never gave any description of how the "seven tribes of the dwarves" looked, why shouldn't some of them tend to have darker skin and curlier hair!

And the humans of the Numenorean Empire really ought to be a mixed bag, the Empire stretched from far Harad in the south to Arnor in the north, and the thing about advanced empires that cover most of a continent is that they move and mix individuals around. In ancient Rome a government official from Judea or Egypt might find himself assigned to a job on the German frontier or Britain, and some of them settled down and married local women and mixed up the regional DNA a bit. Why shouldn't it be the same at the height of Numenor, when there was regular ship travel from Harad to Gondor to Arnor and Numenor itself and everywhere in between, surely those citizens of the Empire would move from place to place if they had a reason to move to Gondor or Dunland or wherever, and create a comparatively diverse population?

[quote]The Oscars are already implementing a rule that if half of your cast isn’t non-white, you won’t be considered for an award.

Even for historical films?

R148 what do they do with people like Rashida Jones, does she count?

[quote] So what if some elves have dark skin, they aren't humans, they can look like whatever.

But they were specifically described as fair-skinned. It's against the very carefully-defined lore that Tolkien laid down. And Tolkien had other races that had dark skin in his lore, so they could just use them.

r150 I don't think anyone has a problem with there being black humans in Tolkien. It's just weird to have elves of that color.

Committing genocide against black American Indians

"But they were specifically described as fair-skinned. It's against the very carefully-defined lore that Tolkien laid down."

You know something? You're right, and I don't give a shit! I just don't have a problem with color-blind elf casting, it's not important.

And I strongly advice anyone deep enough into the fandom to know what Tolkien wrote about elf color not to make this your Tolkien-Geek hill to die on, because this is not an argument you can make without looking like a total asshole and seeming to ally yourself with all these horrible needledick racists who are bullying a 12-year-old for being cast in a TV show. Seriously, do NOT go there.

[quote]Hollywood knows the black community will not watch something if it doesn’t have one of their own in a big part (and they will complain loudly as well) Asians and latinos will still watch and won’t complain.

That is the biggest bunch of bullshit I have ever read on here. The "black community" has been watching movies and television shows with all white casts since forever. Don't play that here. Race-changing is a way to make white Hollywood liberals feel good about themselves. It has nothing to do with black people. Trust me on that one.

[quote]Imagine if Chrissy Metz were cast as Wonder Woman.

I guess I'm the only one who would watch the fuck out of that and buy 2 copies of the blu-ray.

[quote]Example: Wolverine in the X-Men comics is under 6ft tall. Hugh Jackman is taller than 6ft. And he's sometimes the only good thing in some of those shitty movies!

If they only cast the over 6 foot tall actor in reaction to loudmouthed assholes spewing crap about discrimination against tall people, then it would also be a problem. The only thing that would be accomplished would be to stir up calls of discrimination against under 6 foot tall actors and make even more division in the world.

These simplistic, idiotic "solutions" are causing the problems they are supposedly addressing.

"The "black community" has been watching movies and television shows with all white casts since forever."

They didn't have a choice about what to watch for the first few decades of film and television! Believe me, they did NOT like being shown nothing but stories about white people, and they complained and protested and campaigned for decades before real change began to creep in. And now that real change seems to be happening they're trying to keep it going, because social progress can vanish if people don't work to keep it alive.

That is a totally stupid argument, R157, and if you know a damn thing about the history of the entertainment industry or even this fucking country, you know it too. You don't like being shown a constant stream of straight people and celibate gay best friends, black people didn't like being shown nothing but white people with black servants.

[quote]Imagine if Chrissy Metz were cast as Wonder Woman.

When she spun around it would cause a tornado

[quote]That is a totally stupid argument, [R157], and if you know a damn thing about the history of the entertainment industry or even this fucking country, you know it too. You don't like being shown a constant stream of straight people and celibate gay best friends, black people didn't like being shown nothing but white people with black servants.

There is a difference between wanting to see black people on screen and race changing white characters. You made the statement "Hollywood knows the black community will not watch something if it doesn’t have one of their own in a big part" and that is false. Do you know any black people? If you did, you wouldn't have made such a stupid statement.

R101. Twilight was trash and everybody knew it. Faithful adaptation or not.

And the Harry Potter movies were only faithful until the fourth movie, than they meandered away from the source material. I personally didn't really care for any of the HP movies past Prisoner.

Catherine Hardwicke spoke about wanting to cast the Cullens as a diverse family, such as making Alice to be Japanese, but was told no by Stephenie Meyer

R123, No one's angry but the no life lovers who chose to harass a child on social media. I curse when I talk. Sue me, I'm from New York.

Wow there's an ugly troll on this thread, whose probably old as dirt and hasn't been fucked in ages.

R165 Agreed. R164 is a disgrace.

Thats me. Both those comments are mine babe, lol.

I know. You've been alternately high-fiving and arguing with yourself for most of this thread.

R168, No I have not. Don't play yourself. I've made a handful comments defending the artists right to change their characters ethnicity and personally not seeing why this is such a big deal.

Of course you'd say that...

"You made the statement "Hollywood knows the black community will not watch something if it doesn’t have one of their own in a big part" and that is false."

I did not say that, R161, so on top of all your other foolish statements, you're putting words in my mouth!

What the hell is wrong with you, getting all worked up because of the casting of a child actor's role in a kiddie TV show you don't plan to watch! With all the evils and outrages going on in the world right now, THAT is what gets you all het up?

[quote] every portrayal of ethnicity must be based on outdated stereotypes.

R12 I guess you're one of those deluded youngsters who arrogantly believe they are "on the right side of history".

I can't find it online but Saturday Night Live did a sketch called The White Shadow about a black basketball coach who was getting into trouble and his all white team of teenager players kept bailing him out.

Percy Jackson needs to be played by a blind woman and his athletic companion must be played by a cripple.

R74 The Roman and Egyptian gods were introduced later and quite frankly in a rather shoddy way (where essentially the gods had some kind of personality disorder and split apart). Introducing all manner of pantheons into the world would require way too much explanation and people would start wondering why everybody's so worried about Kronos when Jormungandr or Apophis are out there as equally apocalyptic deities.

Also, the Roman, Egyptian and Greek gods are united by the shared Hellenization of their deities that dates back to Alexander, which provides a shaky framework for how these gods are all interconnected and why they might be essentially aspects of each other. The Romans codified it the best with their interpretatio romana which bleeds into the whole "inheritance of Greece/Rome" idea that is lampshaded in the books. Specifically, this is where the Greek gods enter into this blatantly American story, since it's explained they essentially move to wherever the center of power is in the world at the time and are reinterpreted by the relevant culture.

This isn't American Gods where everything exists because people believe in it. The cosmology is a lot shakier than that and you have to suspend certain areas of disbelief. This was/is a kids' book series after all.

[quote] that is lampshaded in the books

Is "lampshading" derived from gaslighting?

The Urban Dictionary offers several definitions of "lampshaded" or "lampshading", none of them relevant to this discussion:

1: To be very drunk. Proof that almost any noun can be followed by "ed" to describe being under the influence of alcohol. "It's Friday afternoon, lets go to the pub and get lampshaded."

2: To be given a gift you already own and are then asked to return it yourself.

3: A sexual act in which a man drapes his testicles over their partners eyes and penis across the bridge of the nose simulating a lamp switch and shading the eyes.

4: When a person (typically girls) wears an oversized shirt that covers their shorts, looking short of like a lampshade

5: When you're doing the hanky panky with a girl and then you make cumzies all over her face. You then put a lampshade on her head and turn on a black light so her face illuminates with cum.

Newly-created words with five different meanings must be definitely confusing for Datalounge's foreign readers.

R176/R177/R178. You must not be familiar with writing or storytelling tropes or devices.

To lampshade something in a story is to call attention to a shortcoming or plot hole and essentially pre-empt the criticism. In this case Riordan acknowledges in one of the early books that Greek gods shouldn't be hanging around America and that Mount Olympus is literally in Athens.

The explanation is then given that the Greek gods are constantly used as symbols of power and authority, the eagle so prominently displayed in American iconography is given as an example, and so move around as civilizations rise and fall in influence.

Sorry, meant to write Greece, not Athens.

R179 The so-called Urban Dictionary gives us five different meanings to this new word and you give us another.

Normal dictionaries tell us that the main purpose of a lamp shade is to 'diffuse or redirect the light from the bulb for maximum effectiveness and protect your eyes from the bulb's glare'.

Therefore the shade diffuses the light whereas you are telling us the shade "calls attention to a shortcoming" which seemingly increases the light.

That is contradictory.

R181. Urban Dictionary gives the same definition.

You can also find that definition on TV tropes, and other websites.

Why is this relevant?

Your mom is relevant

It’s terrible that they’re attacking a 12 year old because she’s black. These racists are abhorrent.

It reminds me of when they attacked the little girl from Good Luck Charlie just because the show had lesbian mom minor characters.

These bigots are deplorable.

[quote]To lampshade something in a story is to call attention to a shortcoming or plot hole and essentially pre-empt the criticism. In this case Riordan acknowledges in one of the early books that Greek gods shouldn't be hanging around America and that Mount Olympus is literally in Athens.

Because apparently, "hang a lantern on it" - the old school way to describe it - is too many words...

[quote] lampshading… hanging a lantern on it

I think this new word is clumsy.

I would suggest that confusing words and idioms will distract the reader from understanding the sentence.

Furthermore, turning the noun 'lampshade' into a verb also hinders communication.

I agree, it's stupid slang.

So Athena the Greek goddess is black now? Is Zeus black too?

[quote]HOWEVER, like Harry Potter before them, the controversy becomes ridiculous when you realize these stories are FANTASY. It’s hard to care too much about “realism” when there are dragons, sorcerers, and other magical elements in a story.

What does fantasy and realism have to do with this? Black people can be in fantasy, like Wesley Snipes in Blade. But people would throw a fit if they made Blade white.

To the people who say this is no big deal, you know you would lose your shit if they decided to make Wonder Woman black and cast Tiffany Haddish or Regina Hall.

[quote]“I have been clear, as the author, that I was looking for the best actors to inhabit and bring to life the personalities of these characters, and that physical appearance was secondary for me. We did that.

The author is lying because he would never have cast a black Percy Jackson, no matter if there was a black actor who was BEST for the role.

If everything was truly colorblind, why is it always the supporting characters who are changed and not the main character? Just like how they would never cast a black Harry Potter so they make the supporting Hermoine black.

r190, what about Doctor Who? Isn't he the main character?

R188. The Greek gods can take on whatever form they want. Aphrodite does so in the book. In the Iliad they all weave illusions or shape shift. Zeus is also a famous shapeshifter as is Dionysus.

And black and asian peoples were known to the Ancient Greeks, with many listed as allies of the Trojans. That's actually a possible origin for the centaur myth - that one of the allies of Troy were the ancient mongols.

And, of course, Aphrodite could have slept with a black guy to birth Annabeth.

You really need to think these things through.

[quote]The Greek gods can take on whatever form they want.

And Hollywood is like "let's make them black!"

[quote]And black and asian peoples were known to the Ancient Greeks,

Do you mean East Asians (Orientals)? They were not known to the Ancient Greeks.

R193. Why not? Africa is just across the Mediterranean. Makes more sense than them looking like Nords.

R194. I'm talking about Central Asia and the Eurasian peoples. The Scythians were one of the inhabitants of the steppes there and were a nomadic people who rode horses. Of course, the Scythians are Iranian in origin but there was probably a lot of intermingling across the plains with other tribes and races of similar disposition.

[quote]Why not? Africa is just across the Mediterranean. Makes more sense than them looking like Nords.

You clearly know nothing about ancient Greek history.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

r197, why spam this?

R196 You just going to leave it at that?

OK.

r199 ancient Greeks were caucasian, just as modern Greeks are.

R200. That's not new information to anyone on this board.

But the Greek gods can appear as anyone or anything they like. And even the ancient Greeks were aware of black people because they had extensive dealings with North Africa, most famously Egypt, so it's not surprising the Greek gods might choose to take the forms of different races at times.

Quite frankly, they're gods. They don't have a race because they aren't human beings and their actual form is supposedly so terrifyingly divine it incinerates those who look at it (see Semele).

Importantly, in this story they have moved to America and will reflect the racial diversity there by taking whatever form is appropriate to the situation.

Besides, this is entirely moot. I just remembered Annabeth wasn't conceived biologically. I'm almost certain the books stick with Athena as one of the maiden goddesses (alongside Hestia and Artemis) by explaining that Athena is born from platonic love and the meeting of intellect, as per Athena's fascination with Odysseus.

So her race is completely irrelevant.

^^Sorry, that should say that Annabeth is born from platonic love.

In the ancient cult of the virgin goddess Artemis, she would lose and regain her virginity in a yearly ritual. Gods are deities, human rules don't apply to them! If they want to bear a child and become a virgin afterwards, who's to say they can't!

And BTW, there's an obscure old myth, about the time the Olympian Gods were facing an invasion by some supernatural threat, some Titan or monster or something, and the legend says that most of them fled to Egypt and put on animal heads to disguise their origins. So yes, the Greeks had enough contact with the Egyptians to be aware of their Gods, who were sometimes depicted as having animal heads on human bodies.

Awkwafina IS James Bond!

R203. Yeah, the gods are kind of hilarious like that. If you read Troy, the whole book is the gods doing humorously horrific things to mortals and then disapproving when the mortals do stupid things as a result. I especially love the end after Troy is sacked and people are raped and murdered, the gods on both sides of the war say "The humans have gone too far! They must be punished!" and Zeus is just so fed up.

I think the myth is from Pindar who claimed the gods fled Typhon (the father of monsters and unkillable foe of the gods) and hid out in Egypt. That was probably just an early attempt at Egyptian Hellenization, later continued by Alexander. Egypt is obviously older than Greece by a fair bit.

[quote] So her race is completely irrelevant.

Except that it was very relevant to Disney and their casting policies (quotas).

[quote] I was quite clear a year ago, when we announced our first open casting, that we would be following Disney’s company policy

What's your point R206?

But just to clarify R203, I'm fairly certain Athena and Hestia are the epitome of true maiden goddesses. Athena is so pure she was born in a virginal manner too (coming out of Zeus' head). I remember the book explicitly stating that Athena doesn't conceive as humans do, unlike most of the other horny Olympians, and she might actually birth children in a similar manner to how she was born.

"That was probably just an early attempt at Egyptian Hellenization, later continued by Alexander. Egypt is obviously older than Greece by a fair bit"

I used to know an Egyptologist, who said it was the other way around, that the Greek gods were just Hellenizations of the more ancient Egyptian Gods. Honestly, I doubt that either is true, the theory I've heard is that the Olympian Gods were an amalgam of local deities, who were all lumped together when Greece changed from isolated tribes to a wider civilization that needed something resembling a common religion. If one town worshipped a virgin goddess and the next one worshipped a sun god, they were called twins and the children of a different god, and hopefully there was a little less fighting over religion.

But thank you for remembering who Typhon was when it slipped my mind and my googling skills! I don't think the story of the Gods fleeing to Egypt was an attempt at Hellenization, just the Greeks trying to understand what they saw of Egyptian religion.

I suspect the Indo-European invaders of Greece brought a lot of their gods with them. Zeus has linguistic connections with the Latin Deus (god) and deva in Sanskrit (heavenly, excellent, divine)

I believe a lot of gods were part of a very broad, shared heritage that was spread and adapted and changed over a very wide area. Egypt would be different, although of course people started mixing and matching after Alexander created the Hellenistic world, and partly rediscovering old connections that had been forgotten.

R209/R210. I could definitely see the Greek gods as born from more ancient Egyptian deities, but I'm agree about the amalgam of local deities. I think inspiration was definitely drawn from Sumerian, Mesopotamian and other surrounding cults and cultures.

My understanding is that the Olympians as they are understood today is really only mentioned by Homer's works, which were then picked up and codified by writers during the Renaissance. The religion was much more muddled during the actual era of ancient Greece.

I think the linguistic connection with Latin Deus was just because the Roman's stole a lot from the Greeks. But the connection with deva in Sanskrit is really interesting.

Romans did take a lot from the Greeks, probably from Greek colonies in Italy at first, later from owning educated Greek slaves as tutors, I'm guessing, but everyone should remember that these peoples are all part of a big Indo European spread around Eurasia. It's not a major point, but some think they all spread out from what's now Ukraine originally, which suddenly makes that whole thing even more tragic these days. Anyway, they were not entirely disconnected. They had common ancestors (I guess we all do, but still, theirs were a little more recent.)

Egyptians were out of a different tradition, more African, more Nile centered, more probably its own thing. But yes, as pagans interacted with other pagans, they did adopt and adapt various gods and ideas about gods. There wasn't this rigid "our god" "your god" "our holy faith" "your unholy faith" that would come in much later with the Abrahamic religions and all their bitter nonsense (although the question of whether Jews were really monotheistic is a very complicated question itself).

It's a mess, much more of a mess than I'd expect any young adult novel to get into, but it's fascinating, and I hope at least some Percy Jackson fans would pursue the fascination.

R212. Yeah, it's a wonderful mess.

But I agree. I read Percy Jackson 15 years ago and it got me into the topic of Greek mythology and all its complexities. I also hope it does the same for other fans.

Ridiculous. How many times have we seen aryan Jesus Christs and Egyptians in movies? Hollywood has a long history of whitewashing. Anybody who cares about recent inclusivity is nigh-racist, if not outright. White people wanting to be victims so bad is the most ridiculous sentiment of the last few years. You’re all grown men and women crying about this stupid shit.

Because it's historically inaccurate r214. And this is a kids' movie so it's rather irresponsible.

[quote]How many times have we seen aryan Jesus Christs and Egyptians in movies?

Certainly not recently.

R214, if it was wrong then, it's wrong now. Racism is racism.

R215 It’s a make believe, fantasy. Who gives a fuck?o

R216 Yeah. We only had *counts on fingers* a few decades worth. Plus that Mary Magdalene movie with the Joaquin Phoenix Jesus wasn’t long ago.

R217 This inclusivity kick is recent and will run its course eventually. Shit was whitewashed for decades. The whites will be alright.

R218, you can't right a wrong by doing another wrong in the name of right. Makes no sense at all.

[quote] Yeah. We only had *counts on fingers* a few decades worth.

And? It's long over.

Joaquin Phoenix isn't "Aryan" r218. He could actually pass for Israeli.

R219 Yet, you types had no issue when you could see yourselves in those roles, but have suddenly had some awakening that it’s “wrong” now while the non-whites had to live with your standard their entire life.

R220 It’s not long over if the movie only came out a few years ago. And the Jesus of the Bible looked nothing like your current day Israeli, so no, he couldn’t pass.

r221 people in that region looked not much different than modern day people. Joaquin Phoenix could've more or less passed. God, now we have to do an ethnic purity test for every fucking role. It's ridiculous. As long as a person is close enough it shouldn't matter.

BTW, nobody knows what Jesus looked like.

BTW, why do you have no posts on other threads? Did you just join DL five minutes ago so you could comment on this thread?

[quote]Yet, you types had no issue when you could see yourselves in those roles, but have suddenly had some awakening that it’s “wrong”

FFS you're talking about generations ago. How many people today were around when Charlton Heston played Moses or Jeffery Hunter played Jesus?

RE: Egyptians. Ancient Egyptians looked more like Rami Malek than many Egyptians today, who were originally Arabs. The Coptic Christian Egyptians (of which Rami Malek is one) are more of the old bloodline.

He and Joaquin Phoenix could pass for brothers 😂

BTW Rami Malek played a man of French ancestry in The Pacific. Should he be cancelled because he wasn't of the right background, not being of European extraction? Educate us, r218/r221!

R222 In the Bible, Jesus is described as having a dark hue and white, wooly hair. His feet were the tone of bronze. It’s widely known the current iteration of Jesus was made after Ceasere Borgia. Also known that the current inhabitants of Isrrael are immigrants and look nothing like the original Jew.

R223 Mary Magdalene, The Passion of Christ, Gods of Egypt , etc. were not generations ago.

But r226 none of the actors in those roles were "Aryan." They were close enough. Hollywood isn't exactly teeming with Middle Eastern actors.

[quote] Also known that the current inhabitants of Isrrael are immigrants and look nothing like the original Jew.

Many of today's Israelis were not from Europe. Jews have always lived in that area.

R215. Jesus, we just had a long discussion about how it isn't historically inaccurate. Did you even read the thread before posting?

Annabeth is a modern day demi-god living in contemporary America. Her mother is Athena who a.) didn't give birth to her biologically, b.) is a god so can appear however she likes, and c.) has a true form that would incinerate mortals.

Furthermore, the Greek gods not only were aware of black people, with the Greeks having extensive contact with north Africa, but have their centre of power in the racial melting point that is the US. So Athena appearing black, and her kids being black, is NOT historically inaccurate.

R222, how do you know what the Israites of 2000 years ago looked like?

I mean this site skews old, but not THAT old...

r229 it's not complicated. Forensic reconstruction and all.

R217 You are a Moralist.

"Racism" didn't exist 50 years ago let alone centuries ago.

[quote] Shit was whitewashed for decades.

We put it in white toilets now, R218.

Incidentally, the time that the "racism" word came into vogue is when the Jews were being persecuted by Hitler and prejudice against Jews was much higher. Of course only a subset of Jews are actually a race, but that's likely why it started getting used.

R226 Yes, the description in Revelations 1:14-15 is rather poetic

[quote] were white as white wool, white as snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace.”

The book of Revelations was written around a hundred years after Christ's death. The books of the New Testament were written 50-100 years after his death, assuming he was a historical figure and not invented.

Who cares about the brown fish, let's talk about this Walker Scobell!

""Racism" didn't exist 50 years ago let alone centuries ago."

WTF??? Fifty years ago was 1972, when everyone had spent the last 20 years watching the Civil Rights struggle and the fight against legal segregation on the evening news! Racism was discussed everywhere!

Just stop talking when the adults are around.

I like Greek Mythology because they were so sexy!

R235 "The simple fact is that the New Testament, as we know it, is a helter-skelter accumulation of more or less discordant documents, some of the probably of respectable origin but others palpably apocryphal, and that most of them, the good along with the bad, show unmistakable signs of having been tampered with."

Racist/Racism wasn't used as a word until around 1931. If the poster who wrote that is older it's likely he forgets to tack on the last twenty years. You'll understand when you are older. Definitely the modern interpretation of racism has changed over the years, too. For example, now it just means "white people" in the west.

R239 agreed! It's a hodgepodge.

Good job, no need to wait until it's a classic to colorize it.

The Greek legends are so sexy! King Amphitryon was a hottie!

R238 if they were really Greek they would look more like this:

Slay me!

R245 My hardest "labor" would be taking all of his Olympian cock.

[quote] Classical Greeks were more fair than modern Greeks

This classical Greek fair sends me.