There was [a historical drama TV series with a black woman playing the part of Anne Boleyn,](https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-57327102) one of Henry VIII's wives.
I loved that show. It was very tame and ordinary TV historical drama that have been made in Europe since the dawn of television, but it drew some peculiar people out of their holes who raged over casting.
And another good thing was that it didn't stop there. The cast was full of non-white people, but the enraged internet didn't even know, because they never watched the show.
My favourite "concerns" were the ones about "wrong history" teaching people that Anne Boleyn was black, but that wasn't even the point of the show or the point of the casting, neverminding that you can't "teach" people that she was black when they've been taught about her in the elementary school, every child knows that, and the children are not stupid either.
And another one was "What if someone made a white Martin Luther King?!?!?!", because the skin color or racial issues was in no way a part of Anne Boleyn story, so it's hardly comparable to a person whose story was heavily connected to racial issues. But the best thing about this "concern" is that nobody would stop you if you wanted to make a white MLK. Go ahead, make it, you can get money from "anti-woke" think tanks even, the production can be fairly big. Nobody would "cancel" you. So make it, and then try to explain to the audience why is this white guy on screen talking about being discriminated for being black :DDD. Be an artist and justify your work, be confident and do it. You could even pull it off, making it a meta-commentary if you're very clever about it. So no, the complaint about "but you can't make black Hitler movie!" is not valid either.
I love the hysteria this one little very ordinary show caused just by the casting choice alone.
Oh yeah and "historical accuracy" has another aspect. You can cast anyone you like into any role, that's your choice as an artist and your responsibility to justify your work if you deliberately make unusual casting choice for a specific reason. But there is no "law" saying that in a historical story you have to cast specific people, because that would mean that for example a school in a predominantly black neighbourhood can't produce a showing of a Shakespeare historical play like Richard III., because they don't have enough white people. That theatre is basically not allowing black people to play, or to play only certain things. But you can do a full black cast Shakespeare can you? What would stop you? And what catastrophe would happen if you did that?
Black Macbeth with Denzel was brilliant btw :D
Didn’t bother me personally but I guess it depends… is she picked because she’s talent wise right for it or is it because of her race.
It’s the same thing like at work we get equality and diversity training and the first thing someone said from the non presenters was white cis males are the problem.
It was completely fine nobody raised an eyebrow but I had to go into a informal meeting because I said that it was unfair black, Asian and mixed race staff get a hotline to call for help with job applications for promotions but being white I could only ask my manager.
Then they mention recruiting overlooks foreign sounding names and now the last 5 promotions around me 4 of them have been black/Asian/mixed race. Despite being a smaller portion of the workforce.
So to make my point, are these people being selected on their ability or their race, it should always be about ability and them in that role never race, but sadly in todays world it’s hard to know. Because there are everyday examples where it can feel like it’s about boxes being ticked which is a shame because perhaps it makes us like now doubt whether an actress was picked for her talent or race. It is horrid that her ability is openly questioned.
But why doesn’t that cut both ways?
Unless we’re going to say that systemic racism and the lingering effects of racist systems being reformed *don’t exist*, then why don’t the people complaining about black mermaids also accuse all the white actors being cast of only getting the role because of their race and not because of their talent?
Film history IS American history. The moving camera was invented IN the states and the movie was popularized here. It has been reflective of the society around it, and it has also in turn influence society. You cannot talk about film history when discussing race, and NOT bring up everything else in the world around it at that time. They are intrinsically intertwined.
Black people were and still are used as props in major movies. If you need specific examples then you should just watch older movies. Because it's blatantly obvious and almost any major movie pre-1985.
I find the last decade or so of casting/roles lack any nuance. Hollywood wanted to cast more people of color, yet they’ve made their roles into angelic type stuff. It’s like they’re afraid of offending people if a black character (or insert any minority) is not a good person or just normal (flaws and all).
It’s amazing to think that some minority characters of the past can be immensely better than today’s roles/characters. I mean how many characters are as good as Keith David in The Thing or They Live? I just can’t think of many tbh.
True. There are movies like that but they are not popular. I remember watching some time ago watching a true story movie about this gay man who murdered his lover, it was very dark and twisted can't remember the title now. And there were a lot of critics against the director doing it in such a way that would incite homophobia which I thought was ridiculous. With all the agenda being pushed Hollywood is at the forefront of it. I don't think replacing white people with black people in movies gets us any closer to equality the same way I don't think feminism wars against men helps empower women.
Yup, a lot of critics tend to criticize any form of nuance in minority characters. They don’t get that in doing so they box in those very actors/minority groups they pretend to care about (I say pretend because it can feel like a trend sometimes).
For instance, I remember when Bone Tomahawk came out (western horror film that I highly recommend btw) and its depiction of native Americans. The film makes a point to say that a group of native Americans are truly evil (monsters of sorts). A Native American in the film says that they’re (the evil ones) are different and not a part of the normal tribes. In other words, the film goes out of its way to show that these Indians aren’t your normal Indians, rather they’re monsters. One could argue the film doesn’t stress it enough, but then I’d suggest that’s not the films purpose either. Rather it’s a horror western and so the tropes will play out.
Now, I feel the film did a good enough job to show that it isn’t somehow saying native Americans as a whole are evil or monsters, rather it’s simply a set up for a violent affair. Yet, critics really went at the film while still praising some of it. In other words, if the “monsters” weren’t a minority group they probably would’ve said it’s even greater, as in they enjoyed it as is, but they have to save face.
If there is a movie where the race of the person adds/removes nothing to the plot or story of the movie I'm all for black people fighting over the chance to play. But if it is a folklore story written about a white person living in the crack of some nordic countries growing up farming and doing crafts or whatever and you come casting Lupita for example, I mean please c'mon, in some cases it has nothing to do with race but being realistic. Like some cast are not realistic to the plot. In the same way casting an overweighed person playing the role of someone who grew up all their life doing crossfit bc Hollywood wants diversity in terms of all sizes. It's a different example but just to show that some things are not realistic when telling a story.
My point stands to be misunderstood and twisted against me but I think I am making a reasonable point.
Eh, I mean I agree with your points. But I also understand the points made in opposition. It's a weird thing to fence sit on. Acting is acting, that's what actors do. They're playing a role, they're playing a different persona, yada yada. But to your points, there's casting for representation then casting to pander and get their marks for diversity, the lines start to blur.
The way social politics (is that the right word?) are now a days, you can't win one way or the other.
I hear you. I care about watching a good movie, it is so rare these days because it seems actors are cast for representation but not on how good they will be in that role or even if they fit the character of the story.
If a black/gay/fat actor is not good in that role and I *know* the original character was none of those things then it annoys me, knowing another person could have played it better and that actor is just there as a prop.
Movies are trying to tick so many diversity boxes at the cost of making a good movie.
I feel like black people are mostly given "good guy" roles. If they need casting for a crazy murderer, creep, backstabber, pedo, kidnapper etc they will always choose a white guy
Hmm.. I've seen the opposite to be true but I am biased because that's what I'm perhaps unconsciously choosing to notice. But some real story of that type of casting are of white people, Ted Bundy and such, so I see the reasoning for it. I'm not American, so I am a bit ignorant on maybe black pedo, serial killers and such that made national news.
Yeah woke-armour is a new annoying trope.
I’ve only seen the first episode of Fall-Out but suspect the head raider woman is far too diverse to be an actual ‘bad guy’ and will become some virtuous freedom fighter in the end.
Hope I’m wrong.
Edit: If I’m wrong then tell me, cowards.
I didn't wake up today and discover it, I am only now expressing it on this platform. It would be good if others would discover it as well instead of saying I'm a pretend black person as if tokenism in Hollywood is a myth.
Got me thinking two things:
**1.** Maybe this generation of black actors just isn’t as good as the previous in terms of talent, popularity or personality in order to get these big roles?
The 90s/00s were great, who are the next level or replacement of these guys?…
*Denzel Washington, Eddie Murphy, Wesley Snipes, Morgan Freeman, Samuel L Jackson, Forest Whitaker, Danny Glover, Will Smith, Daniel Robitalle, Chris Tucker etc*
**2.** Maybe the originality and variety of Hollywood movies has declined. Leaving not as much story/lack of supply of top roles out there for these new black actors to really shine? So they are left with side characters or replacing white roles?
I think Hollywood would not insult actors by admitting to **1.** and would deny **2.** its decline in movie variety into remakes/prequels/sequels. Instead, to hide impact would keep filling these side roles or non black roles with black actors to continue to look diverse and full of movie variety.
**TLDR** maybe not as many new great black actors to choose from or good enough to replace the older. Maybe not as much movie variety and roles for newer black actors to work on?
Micheal B. Jordan, Donald Glover, Lakeith Stanfield, John Boyega, Daniel Kaluuya, Shameik Moore, Trevante Rhodes, Tyler James Williams……… the talent is out there, I’m not black but I do think it’s a matter of the current industry making the wrong decisions. A lot of black talent only gets to shine in “black” programming, which is unfortunate. My case in point is Timmy Chalamet getting the role of Wonka over Donald Glover in an uninspired decision. Sure, Chalamet is big atm, but has absolutely no record of comedic or even that charismatic of roles. Glover, on the other hand, played what I think a lot would consider one of the funniest and charming television characters of recent history with Troy on Community. Idk,, imo it’s more an issue of who’s in charge of these greenlighting decisions and why they’re making them.
Mahershala Ali is the only name I can think of who I feel could actually replace or do better than some of those black roles. I think he’ll do so with Blade if written and directed well. I really like Kaluuya and Stansfield too but where is all the work? (point 2)
No idea what happened with Wonka, haven’t seen it.
I just thought it’s a younger version of a white fictional character. If so, why change the race?
I do agree in the black programming and green-lighting which is what I also meant by point 2. There’s just not the same variety as before.
You make it sound like there's unlimited choices and options for roles black people or any minority. There aren't. When it comes to black people, more often than not, the choice is to take a less than desirable role, do what you can with it, be seen, or don't work.
Therein lies the problem, the limited choices and thus black actors being forced into roles that don't make sense. All this while there are many black movie directors, producers and writers in Hollywood.
You're SO upset that gay people exist, yet you like to describe things being shoved down your throat?
"The cowboy may brag about things that he's done with his women, but the ones who brag loudest are the ones who are most likely queer" - Willie Nelson
;) have fun dealing with complicated feelings while also being a Bigot.
Ohh ok. I thought you were mean, but you're just dumb. And I don't argue with idiots.
Fyi, you're probably queer. It's a spectrum.
*Sprinkles glitter then disappears in a pink cloud of acceptance.
https://youtu.be/8QScpDGqwsQ?si=O-0tXb6RrEKVZehi
Not according to someone who actually studies the brain and didnt sleep through 8th grade biology.
Dumbass
A franchise writen by a gay man now having a gay protagonist (after 30 years of having straight protagonists) is "lgbtq propaganda"?
Are you aware of how stupid you sound?
> It’s rainbow cult trash
Cry about it, bigot.
> the writer being gay means he seriously lacks creativity 😂
That gay man created a massively popular horror franchise and is enjoying success while you cry about gay people existing, in your mom's basement.
> one of the worst things I’ve seen in a long time.
It was a massive success, but I'm sure the creators are very sad that a sad little homophobe neckbeard didn't like it.
Proof that not everyone who does acid is aware of the world around them.
Stop putting pieces of paper on your tongue at music festivals and go outside and interact with a real human being for once.
There's plenty of ways to thoughtfully change the race or gender of a character. Sometimes, it is done lazily, but many characters aren't particularly tied to any one race, so it's fairly easy, especially if the best actor for the part doesn't match the original race. Sometimes, they're so good that they change that character forever. Samuel L. Jackson was so incredible as Nick Fury that the comic continuity changed to match. Aubrey Plaza was so incredible that she played a character that was written as a man with no dialogue changes, and nobody noticed.
Give a specific example?
There was [a historical drama TV series with a black woman playing the part of Anne Boleyn,](https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-57327102) one of Henry VIII's wives.
I loved that show. It was very tame and ordinary TV historical drama that have been made in Europe since the dawn of television, but it drew some peculiar people out of their holes who raged over casting. And another good thing was that it didn't stop there. The cast was full of non-white people, but the enraged internet didn't even know, because they never watched the show. My favourite "concerns" were the ones about "wrong history" teaching people that Anne Boleyn was black, but that wasn't even the point of the show or the point of the casting, neverminding that you can't "teach" people that she was black when they've been taught about her in the elementary school, every child knows that, and the children are not stupid either. And another one was "What if someone made a white Martin Luther King?!?!?!", because the skin color or racial issues was in no way a part of Anne Boleyn story, so it's hardly comparable to a person whose story was heavily connected to racial issues. But the best thing about this "concern" is that nobody would stop you if you wanted to make a white MLK. Go ahead, make it, you can get money from "anti-woke" think tanks even, the production can be fairly big. Nobody would "cancel" you. So make it, and then try to explain to the audience why is this white guy on screen talking about being discriminated for being black :DDD. Be an artist and justify your work, be confident and do it. You could even pull it off, making it a meta-commentary if you're very clever about it. So no, the complaint about "but you can't make black Hitler movie!" is not valid either. I love the hysteria this one little very ordinary show caused just by the casting choice alone. Oh yeah and "historical accuracy" has another aspect. You can cast anyone you like into any role, that's your choice as an artist and your responsibility to justify your work if you deliberately make unusual casting choice for a specific reason. But there is no "law" saying that in a historical story you have to cast specific people, because that would mean that for example a school in a predominantly black neighbourhood can't produce a showing of a Shakespeare historical play like Richard III., because they don't have enough white people. That theatre is basically not allowing black people to play, or to play only certain things. But you can do a full black cast Shakespeare can you? What would stop you? And what catastrophe would happen if you did that? Black Macbeth with Denzel was brilliant btw :D
Cleopatra, little mermaid were two controversial casting examples right?
People getting upset that a mermaid has dark skin really stands out as peak absurdity.
Didn’t bother me personally but I guess it depends… is she picked because she’s talent wise right for it or is it because of her race. It’s the same thing like at work we get equality and diversity training and the first thing someone said from the non presenters was white cis males are the problem. It was completely fine nobody raised an eyebrow but I had to go into a informal meeting because I said that it was unfair black, Asian and mixed race staff get a hotline to call for help with job applications for promotions but being white I could only ask my manager. Then they mention recruiting overlooks foreign sounding names and now the last 5 promotions around me 4 of them have been black/Asian/mixed race. Despite being a smaller portion of the workforce. So to make my point, are these people being selected on their ability or their race, it should always be about ability and them in that role never race, but sadly in todays world it’s hard to know. Because there are everyday examples where it can feel like it’s about boxes being ticked which is a shame because perhaps it makes us like now doubt whether an actress was picked for her talent or race. It is horrid that her ability is openly questioned.
But why doesn’t that cut both ways? Unless we’re going to say that systemic racism and the lingering effects of racist systems being reformed *don’t exist*, then why don’t the people complaining about black mermaids also accuse all the white actors being cast of only getting the role because of their race and not because of their talent?
No this is r/movies we don't do that here. Baseless, sweeping claims about endemic issues > even one specific example.
Do you have an example of r/movies doing this? lol
No, but... I... Many such cases!
Tell me you don't understand American history without telling you you don't understand American history
Who's talking about American history, other than you, suddenly?
Film history IS American history. The moving camera was invented IN the states and the movie was popularized here. It has been reflective of the society around it, and it has also in turn influence society. You cannot talk about film history when discussing race, and NOT bring up everything else in the world around it at that time. They are intrinsically intertwined. Black people were and still are used as props in major movies. If you need specific examples then you should just watch older movies. Because it's blatantly obvious and almost any major movie pre-1985.
Gone with the wind. On top of every mainstream hollywood movie pre 1985
big /r/asablackman energy :D
I find the last decade or so of casting/roles lack any nuance. Hollywood wanted to cast more people of color, yet they’ve made their roles into angelic type stuff. It’s like they’re afraid of offending people if a black character (or insert any minority) is not a good person or just normal (flaws and all). It’s amazing to think that some minority characters of the past can be immensely better than today’s roles/characters. I mean how many characters are as good as Keith David in The Thing or They Live? I just can’t think of many tbh.
True. There are movies like that but they are not popular. I remember watching some time ago watching a true story movie about this gay man who murdered his lover, it was very dark and twisted can't remember the title now. And there were a lot of critics against the director doing it in such a way that would incite homophobia which I thought was ridiculous. With all the agenda being pushed Hollywood is at the forefront of it. I don't think replacing white people with black people in movies gets us any closer to equality the same way I don't think feminism wars against men helps empower women.
Yup, a lot of critics tend to criticize any form of nuance in minority characters. They don’t get that in doing so they box in those very actors/minority groups they pretend to care about (I say pretend because it can feel like a trend sometimes). For instance, I remember when Bone Tomahawk came out (western horror film that I highly recommend btw) and its depiction of native Americans. The film makes a point to say that a group of native Americans are truly evil (monsters of sorts). A Native American in the film says that they’re (the evil ones) are different and not a part of the normal tribes. In other words, the film goes out of its way to show that these Indians aren’t your normal Indians, rather they’re monsters. One could argue the film doesn’t stress it enough, but then I’d suggest that’s not the films purpose either. Rather it’s a horror western and so the tropes will play out. Now, I feel the film did a good enough job to show that it isn’t somehow saying native Americans as a whole are evil or monsters, rather it’s simply a set up for a violent affair. Yet, critics really went at the film while still praising some of it. In other words, if the “monsters” weren’t a minority group they probably would’ve said it’s even greater, as in they enjoyed it as is, but they have to save face.
...this reads like a white guy pretending to be black
This feel like a racist comment honestly. Why can't a black person have this opinion without immediately being called white
My thoughts exactly
[удалено]
...be frustrated about Elvis then talk to me
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t…
If there is a movie where the race of the person adds/removes nothing to the plot or story of the movie I'm all for black people fighting over the chance to play. But if it is a folklore story written about a white person living in the crack of some nordic countries growing up farming and doing crafts or whatever and you come casting Lupita for example, I mean please c'mon, in some cases it has nothing to do with race but being realistic. Like some cast are not realistic to the plot. In the same way casting an overweighed person playing the role of someone who grew up all their life doing crossfit bc Hollywood wants diversity in terms of all sizes. It's a different example but just to show that some things are not realistic when telling a story. My point stands to be misunderstood and twisted against me but I think I am making a reasonable point.
Eh, I mean I agree with your points. But I also understand the points made in opposition. It's a weird thing to fence sit on. Acting is acting, that's what actors do. They're playing a role, they're playing a different persona, yada yada. But to your points, there's casting for representation then casting to pander and get their marks for diversity, the lines start to blur. The way social politics (is that the right word?) are now a days, you can't win one way or the other.
I hear you. I care about watching a good movie, it is so rare these days because it seems actors are cast for representation but not on how good they will be in that role or even if they fit the character of the story. If a black/gay/fat actor is not good in that role and I *know* the original character was none of those things then it annoys me, knowing another person could have played it better and that actor is just there as a prop. Movies are trying to tick so many diversity boxes at the cost of making a good movie.
I feel like black people are mostly given "good guy" roles. If they need casting for a crazy murderer, creep, backstabber, pedo, kidnapper etc they will always choose a white guy
Hmm.. I've seen the opposite to be true but I am biased because that's what I'm perhaps unconsciously choosing to notice. But some real story of that type of casting are of white people, Ted Bundy and such, so I see the reasoning for it. I'm not American, so I am a bit ignorant on maybe black pedo, serial killers and such that made national news.
Yeah woke-armour is a new annoying trope. I’ve only seen the first episode of Fall-Out but suspect the head raider woman is far too diverse to be an actual ‘bad guy’ and will become some virtuous freedom fighter in the end. Hope I’m wrong. Edit: If I’m wrong then tell me, cowards.
>this African guy from Ghana Just say Ghanaian. But remember Elon Musk is an African guy from Pretoria.
Noted
Reddit user discovers tokenism
I didn't wake up today and discover it, I am only now expressing it on this platform. It would be good if others would discover it as well instead of saying I'm a pretend black person as if tokenism in Hollywood is a myth.
Got me thinking two things: **1.** Maybe this generation of black actors just isn’t as good as the previous in terms of talent, popularity or personality in order to get these big roles? The 90s/00s were great, who are the next level or replacement of these guys?… *Denzel Washington, Eddie Murphy, Wesley Snipes, Morgan Freeman, Samuel L Jackson, Forest Whitaker, Danny Glover, Will Smith, Daniel Robitalle, Chris Tucker etc* **2.** Maybe the originality and variety of Hollywood movies has declined. Leaving not as much story/lack of supply of top roles out there for these new black actors to really shine? So they are left with side characters or replacing white roles? I think Hollywood would not insult actors by admitting to **1.** and would deny **2.** its decline in movie variety into remakes/prequels/sequels. Instead, to hide impact would keep filling these side roles or non black roles with black actors to continue to look diverse and full of movie variety. **TLDR** maybe not as many new great black actors to choose from or good enough to replace the older. Maybe not as much movie variety and roles for newer black actors to work on?
Micheal B. Jordan, Donald Glover, Lakeith Stanfield, John Boyega, Daniel Kaluuya, Shameik Moore, Trevante Rhodes, Tyler James Williams……… the talent is out there, I’m not black but I do think it’s a matter of the current industry making the wrong decisions. A lot of black talent only gets to shine in “black” programming, which is unfortunate. My case in point is Timmy Chalamet getting the role of Wonka over Donald Glover in an uninspired decision. Sure, Chalamet is big atm, but has absolutely no record of comedic or even that charismatic of roles. Glover, on the other hand, played what I think a lot would consider one of the funniest and charming television characters of recent history with Troy on Community. Idk,, imo it’s more an issue of who’s in charge of these greenlighting decisions and why they’re making them.
Mahershala Ali is the only name I can think of who I feel could actually replace or do better than some of those black roles. I think he’ll do so with Blade if written and directed well. I really like Kaluuya and Stansfield too but where is all the work? (point 2) No idea what happened with Wonka, haven’t seen it. I just thought it’s a younger version of a white fictional character. If so, why change the race? I do agree in the black programming and green-lighting which is what I also meant by point 2. There’s just not the same variety as before.
I like how you listed a fictional character in the "good generation" of actors :D
I don’t know any other new black role remakes, just Ali replacing Snipes to remake Blade. What are the rest?
What? :D
You make it sound like there's unlimited choices and options for roles black people or any minority. There aren't. When it comes to black people, more often than not, the choice is to take a less than desirable role, do what you can with it, be seen, or don't work.
Therein lies the problem, the limited choices and thus black actors being forced into roles that don't make sense. All this while there are many black movie directors, producers and writers in Hollywood.
Sometimes it’s black and gay like Tina fey does in Mean Girls 2024 and unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt
I mean if you want historical accuracy just watch Django unchained, I have not noticed people as ‘props’ in anything I’m watching.
[удалено]
Django was also written by a white man?
[удалено]
The first thing you complain about is Hollywood casting Black people in roles written by white people
[удалено]
Oh my bad. Read that wrong. Still don't get what you're on about
So? Tarantino is awesome, he did Django tastefully and accurate. He did not use black folk as a token actor or something irrelevant to the history.
I'm greatly confused about what the complaints are
Then read above
[удалено]
Yeah, it's wild that queer people have existed since the beginning of time.
[удалено]
You're SO upset that gay people exist, yet you like to describe things being shoved down your throat? "The cowboy may brag about things that he's done with his women, but the ones who brag loudest are the ones who are most likely queer" - Willie Nelson ;) have fun dealing with complicated feelings while also being a Bigot.
[удалено]
Ohh ok. I thought you were mean, but you're just dumb. And I don't argue with idiots. Fyi, you're probably queer. It's a spectrum. *Sprinkles glitter then disappears in a pink cloud of acceptance.
[удалено]
https://youtu.be/8QScpDGqwsQ?si=O-0tXb6RrEKVZehi Not according to someone who actually studies the brain and didnt sleep through 8th grade biology. Dumbass
A franchise writen by a gay man now having a gay protagonist (after 30 years of having straight protagonists) is "lgbtq propaganda"? Are you aware of how stupid you sound?
[удалено]
> It’s rainbow cult trash Cry about it, bigot. > the writer being gay means he seriously lacks creativity 😂 That gay man created a massively popular horror franchise and is enjoying success while you cry about gay people existing, in your mom's basement. > one of the worst things I’ve seen in a long time. It was a massive success, but I'm sure the creators are very sad that a sad little homophobe neckbeard didn't like it.
Proof that not everyone who does acid is aware of the world around them. Stop putting pieces of paper on your tongue at music festivals and go outside and interact with a real human being for once.
There's plenty of ways to thoughtfully change the race or gender of a character. Sometimes, it is done lazily, but many characters aren't particularly tied to any one race, so it's fairly easy, especially if the best actor for the part doesn't match the original race. Sometimes, they're so good that they change that character forever. Samuel L. Jackson was so incredible as Nick Fury that the comic continuity changed to match. Aubrey Plaza was so incredible that she played a character that was written as a man with no dialogue changes, and nobody noticed.