By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
DonFerrari said:
MrWayne said:

My stance on this whole racewashing thing is, I don't care as long as the movie is good. Those who adopt the source material should decide how stricktly they wanna stick to it.
It's easy to point at negative examples for "racewashing" but hard to point at positive examples because the whole point of well made "racewashing" is that you don't notice it.
A few examples of movies or other works of art who stick very loosely to their source material and/or "racewashed" characters:
-The Departed(2006): Whitewashed the whole cast and location
-Oldboy (2003): very loose adaptation of the manga which definitely benefited the film, also racewashed all characters to korean
-Ghost in the Shell(1995): Major Kusanagi is almost a different character as in the manga
-superhero comics: comics have a long tradition of constant reimagination

Also this thought that "actors should only be casted based on how good they play/ suites the role and not based on their skin color" is very naive. for many roles the skin color determinate how well a actor is suited for said role, I doubt they would have casted a black/asian actor for Derek Vinyard in American History X if only they had played better than Edward Norton.

The examples you gave where almost all chars made by another ethinicity. So for the movie to work as an story in USA it made sense to be americans and not japanese, same for oldboy.

they changed them from chinese to white irish-american to be precise and of course it made sense that they changed their ethnicity. The whole point I wanted to prove is that you don't have to stick to close to your source material to make a good film.