>>87270436everyone could be treated like shit, that's the point.
Nobody said stop portraying the first, but it doesn't decrease the quality if any actor plays him really well
And for your last point, anyone could be treated the same way. Casting an asian in a "12 years a slave" story would be interesting if it was portrayed well. When 12 years a slave bored the crap out of me, that had nothing to do with the actor's genes.
If we're talking about actual events, then you might need a literal translation but that can be helped with makeup, etc. Other than that, with fiction especially, any story can star any actor. The situation can still be done exactly the same. The genes won't change that. It's still a human playing the iron fist, as long as he does it well, that's all that matters.
I just don't think the genes of the actor matter.
>>87270518Anyone can have any characteristics/behavior, it doesn't come down to their genes. If I lived in China my whole life, but I was born with "white" genes, does that mean I'll be different from all the other Chinese people? Isn't that the story of Iron Fist? There's no difference no matter who plays him. You can have the same story, and the same characteristics/behavior.
>>87270533read above, anyone can live anywhere and adopt any characteristics, literally.
>It's the sad truth, and the truth is How much can that face sell. That's what Hollywood is aboutThat's what marketing is about, the fear that a certain appearance will alienate people from watching a good movie is not true. Morgan freeman is not white, and has a butt-ugly face these days, but his "face" will sell, because of his reputation as an actor. There may have been another time in the distant past where he wouldn't have been given a chance, and we would've lost out on a great performance for no reason, but that time is gone now. Put the performance first. People will get used to the face, the face is just a face.
