I had no idea there was so many white guys in ancient China
I don't care if he is a white guy, playing a white guy. He looks really out of place.
shareI totally agree. This is something i dislike so much with the movie culture these days. People are in movies they are not supposed to be in. Especially in movies depicting historical events.
The great wall Matt damon, a white guy in older china.
Exodus Christian bale and joel edgerton, two white guys in ancient egypt.
Thor Idris Alba, One black guy in a white society. And the asian actor, who play Hogun
What's the next step? Leonardo dicaprio playing a leading role in a movie about Zulu-warriors?
Don't forget John Wayne played a Mongol and I don't think anyone complained back then about it.
Also Charlie Chan didn't had any success initially with Japanese actors playing the role and it only found success after a white actor was cast in the role.
David Carradine is a white actor who was playing a Chinese immigrant in Kung Fu.
But casting John Wayne as Ghengis Khan really was an extremly horrible casting! Ten years later the cast Omar Sharif in the same role. Not much better really. Maybe even worse?
shareUm, excuse me but who the &#$# says Thor (or any of the Norse Gods) are white guys?
Do you think they were actually historic figures or something...?
You might as well bitch about Morgan Freeman playing God in Bruce Almighty. I mean he's playing Jehova (apparently), but he doesn't look Jewish... I mean wtf why doesn't he look Jewish - cos Jews imagined him and all. No. Moses should look like a Hebrew, but God can look like whoever the hell the filmmaker likes.
They are myths, subjects of superstition, not historic figures.
Ancient Egyptians, yeah. But that is a wholly different issue to what is happening here, which is a thin ass plot to justify getting Matt Damon in there for a droll clash of cultures narrative.
You can't expect Hollywood to stop making stories about biblical events unless they have ethnically authentic heroes. What exactly DID a Hebrew slave look like? I wouldn't know, and I wouldn't care to be honest. The whole story is abject fantasy. Unlike this film there isn't a superpower using the tale of Moses to justify it's imperial ambitions 2000 years ago, or today in the South China Sea.
The norse gods were white guys because the old norse had not met anything other than white people when they invented those gods. Morgan Freeman as God is appropriate I think, since the original homo sapiens propably did look a lot like him.
shareThe Jews didn't imagine him to be black when they 'invented' Jehova.
WTF does the original homo sapiens have to do with anything? Did they have religion? What was it? Why dont they apply to the Norse?
Sorry you can't have your logic cake and eat it too.
If you think God really exists/is a christian God should be black or even more correctly "capoid". If you think God is invented, he should be hebrew. Simple as that.
shareDon't be silly if I think God exists he/she/it/they can be whatever I/he/she/it/they want to be.
The first humans on Earth do not define what God is or looks like anymore than being a Japanese person determines what color t-shirt you can wear. It's that redundant.
The first God was probably a fertility God, which would naturally make it a woman. So all concepts of God other than a feminine God responsible for fertility would accordingly be 'wrong'. If such a ridiculous preposition that a concept of a God could be 'wrong' were not completely laughable.
It's as facile as arguing that Santa Claus doesn't wear blue, when the only reason he wears red and white is Coca Cola branded him in their colors so consistently that it stuck within the American, and then Western psyche. No one owns the intellectual property of Santa Claus (although admittedly some own specific artist representations of him).
I don't care about the first human was, because it has absolutely no bearing on the nature of God. If you are determined to pursue this line of 'reasoning' frankly you can call this a win, and I'll happily leave you to your 'victory' of un-logic.
You want to believe that God is a construct of humans, fine. You can subscribe to God being wholly contemporaneous construct that cannot evolve or exist outside the time he/she/it/they were first conceived without losing validity. But this makes no sense because you do not ascribe validity to the God as anything more than a human construct. So it has no actual validity except as an idea regardless of who thunk it first. This is not a logical argument in of itself. It is simply a personal philosophy. It is also full of falacies because you presume earliest homosapiens had a concept of God, rather than animistic spirituality or some other far less concrete concepts of God. Similarly you prescribe to popular and modern understandings of these religions, and presume them to have been as monolithic as our understanding of them. When a truer understanding is all religions formed over many generations, were fragmentary, evolved constantly, and absorbed elements taken from other cultures.
Following your logic all the modern popular Christian renderings of God as a white guy are wrong, because he is essentially the same God as that of the old testament which Jews would envision as a great ethereal celestial Jew. And then they are all wrong because the true God is an ape woman from our prehistory. This all resolves itself in a wonderful amount of naval gazing, and goes absolutely nowhere.
Again, who gives a crap, these are all mythical characters. No viking understood the nature of their Gods, so they got some things wrong and actually Heimdall was black, or maybe the whole pantheon was Asian looking but spoke Greek. That's how it is with Gods, and until you have a burning bush or a child marrying prophet telling you what is or is not the facts anything goes.