HOME | DD
godofwarlover — Joker meme Gods of Egypt
#heimdall #marvel #thor #jokermeme #godsofegypt
Published: 2016-01-03 07:19:26 +0000 UTC; Views: 3157; Favourites: 40; Downloads: 2
Redirect to original
Description
Another Joker Meme I have made that this time of the Gods Of Egypt race controversy. I remember the one for Thor with Heimdall being played by Idris Elba and the only people who complained were people who want historical accuracy and the racists. Now Gods Of Egypt is coming out and people are complaining that some of the Egyptian Gods are being played by white people such as the guy who played Jaime Lannister and also Geralt Butler. I just find it hypocritical that people hardly complained about Idris Elba playing a Norse god in Marvel's Thor, now they are doing this to Gods Of Egypt. When will it end? I will never know because in my opinion both should have been played by their culture's race with all of the Egyptian gods being played by people of African descent while Heimdall should have been played by a person with European descent since that might have been more accurate to mythology and history. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of people who barely complained about one and now most of them are complaining about the otherJoker belongs to DC comics
Related content
Comments: 104
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
His voice comes from a black guy and he's played by a white guy. He's black and white.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Finally saw God of Egypt 2 months back. Turned out to be an amazingly dull movie despite all the effects. The most I got out of it was the giant fire breathing cobras, and Toth cloning himself a bunch.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It was bland I agree, But they shouldn't be complaining about Horus
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Because Idris Elba is a phenomenal actor. And Gods of Egypt is a pile of shit movie.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I heard that. But I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of these people
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
And I once saw James Earl Jones play a white cowboy. TTrippiest thing ever
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Grim Prairie Tales, a lovely little gem if your into horror anthology films
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ok so i just watched the trailer for the film .. again ... and i don't see ANY dark skinned people at all. none.
so ONE black guy in Asgard is "overlooked" (except by "historians and racist") so now the whole cast (practically) of an EGYPTIAN themed filmed should be overlooked too...
ooor you must be racist?
really?
Cast Gods of Egpyt
www.imdb.com/title/tt2404233/f…
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
And basically the whole cast of the 1999 Mummy film was white but I still loved it.
I used to be bitchy about that sort of thing, but I've decided to calm down and chillax about it over the years.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yep, name a Mummy film, or any film set in Egypt or Morrocco or even Africa before 1980 that had mainly Black actors
But yeah, I still complain but i'm not emotional about it. the only reason i brought it up is because of this post is complaining about Thor/Hemdall, as compared to God's of Egypt.
as mentioned elsewhere, most hollywood films from films inception have been and still are cast with mostly whites and mostly whites in the lead and supporting roles. for someone to point out 1 film and try and make one to one comparisons as if whites are being unfairly/unreasonably called out or something is what's amazing to me.
and seem to feel all righteous about it. "they" are unfair to complain, but whites didn't. mm hmm". sheesh really? give me a break.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Why would there be mainly black actors in a movie about dynastic Egypt? That is as ludicrous as White actors, well unless the movie is about the Ptolemy Dynasty since they where Greek. Also, why would Morocco have mainly black actors? Until the days of the Barbary Pirates the majority ethnicity of that nation wouldn't have a sizeable sub-Saharan African population either.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
It seems pretty clear to me that there no sincere way to say that white actors and black actors are EQUALLY out of place in a film based in Egypt i'm sorry.
Africans of all skin tones have been in Egypt since it's earliest days. Egypt is an African nation. A cast with for example Will Smith, Denzel Washington, Grace Jones, Angela Basset, Seal Zoe Saldana and nearly all black extras and the like would be far more true to the historical looks than a cast with say Gwyneth Paltrow, Cate Blanchett, Owen Wilson, Hidi Klump and Leonardo DiCaprio, and nearly all white extras.
The depictions in historical Egyptian art is of brown skinned peoples of all shades. "Blacks" as is commonly used in the west means people from very light brown skin tones to dark blacks. as well as certain facial features and hair textures.
It seems your trying to split hairs, while i'm making a broader point.
as far what Egyptians looked like as please visit my scraps page where i've collected a few images for ancient Egyptians from across the dynasties old and new. They show the Africans of all shades and in various roles in the culture through out it's history.
ade-doodles.deviantart.com/gal…
all the best Duriel
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Applying the modern idea of any shade of brown to represent black people is a monumentally flawed methodology for approaching this subject. The problem comes in that by propagating the idea of Ancient Egyptians being black as accurate is as innately false as having them be white. Your cast examples simply consist of two groups that would be equally historically inaccurate. The Genome mapping of ancient Egypt has had shown there where sometimes slightly shifting ethnic composition. Influx's of sub-Saharan and Mediterranean people occurred but where outliers lasting decades at most, minor road bumps considering the subject is cultural history lasting millennia. Outside of Afrocentric historians responsible for inspiring the historically ignorant 'We wuz kings' meme no regards this hypothesis as anything more than an anachronism, much like the theories that suggest the ancient Egyptians where Caucasian it has been debunked in academia for decades.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Again I refer you to the images the Egyptians created themselves from the earliest eras. Can you with any honesty say that an all white cast is JUST as flawed as an all brown-black? Seems to me that's just plain denial. Even today the people of Egypt are dark complexed. It amazes me that it's so difficult for some to accept. Even National Geographic mentions the 100 plus year reign of central africans (Sudan Kush) who while ruling intermarried with local dark and light brown Egyptians from top to bottom culturally.
if you want to think that a cast of brown skinned people is just as flawed, well then you can live in that fantasy. But the thing is most people's of the world outside of middle and northern Europe are not fair skinned with blonde-brown hair and blue eyes. Never have been.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you choose to muddy the water with a quip about your straw man's perceptions of race, you reveal your own bias than anyone elses. Art can often give glimpses of history, but it is not a reasonable standard to judge by with accuracy. If you'd like to refer to an academic collection of I'll take a look, otherwise cherry pickings to support a narrative are not convincing. If you wish to continue the afro-centric theft of Egyptian history and culture, that is on you but 'we wuz kings' thinking is simple unsupported by verifiable historical record. Egyptians where no more Sub-Saharan African (aka black) than they where European (aka white). I do not 'think' this because I want to, I believe this because a wealth of easily available studies support the position. I am a rational skeptic, I believe in evidence not feelings.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Seems your'e the one making straw men. You want to debate and disparage "we wiz kings" ideas and actually bring up "theft of culture". Neither is something i brought up but you seem determined on discussing as if it my point or my language.
You also seemed obsessed with very narrow definitions of race while i'm speaking to the broad and simple point of who looks MORE like Egyptians.
Are the Egyptians MORE brown skinned and brown eyed and DID they in fact have Sub-Saharans mixing among the Egyptian culture from it's earliest days? And here the simple historical honest answer here is yes. It's clearly depicted in their art. Which is historical evidence by any objective standard. And it's born out in look of the people of the land today from light brown to dark brown.
If you want debate someone on narrow definitions of race and bloodlines and somehow conclude that the sub-saharans and the european had ZERO cultural or by blood contact with or influence on Egyptians then please find someone else to talk to. My point simply is this, "African-American" actors from light brown to dark black would BETTER physically represent Egpytians in a film about Egypt than Blond haired blued eye actors.
There's no real need to make an in-depth scholarly defense of that point. (though it would not negate it) Just A visit to a few museums and to Egypt today should make that clear. Simply using "rational" thought and EYE SIGHT is all that's needed. Not feelings or any other in-depth studies.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
there is a a very strong source of negation of the Art argument in that the majority of Egyptologists regard Ancient Egyptian art as symbolic, not representative. The major sources of the argument it is representative are Afrocentric 'academic', aka those suffering 'We wuz kangs' delusional. These sources are largely debunked or based on inconclusive data and are continually pushed as a legitimate theory as an attempt of theft of culture, plain and simple. They you failed to investigate the sources of your own argument do not equate to a strawman. As to blood contact, it happened but was not a constant and given the infrequency of it compared to the length of Egyptian history, giving it undo weight is a distraction.
Where the Ancient Egyptians more bronze than the English, sure without a doubt, but so are the Italians. The argument of they might look closer so we'll make them black, is just hollow. Given that very few Europeans are Aryan, that argument is little more than a red herring. An extremely fair skinned European or a dark skinned African however are both laughably wrong, to insinuate either is remotely accurate is the realm of pseudo-science and nationalist conjecture. Now, a dark haired, dark eyed and swarthy/tanned southern European, that is just as accurate as a light brown 'African-American', which is to say it's entirely wrong but it may just be the closest we can get.
So I will grant in modern times as we are unlikely to find someone similar to a ancient Egyptian with creditable acting skills, unless there in a guild of Coptic actors I'm unfamiliar with. Given that lack of accurate appearing talent a dark skinned European or light skinned African is likely the best we will see.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"...Egyptologists regard Ancient Egyptian art as symbolic, not representative...."
And what exactly do they think the various shades of dark skin, the full lips, and curly hair are symbols of Durail?
Do your historians have written text that specifically explain the "symbolism" of the skin tones etc.?
yes or no?
Or are they ...or you... making every assumption to dismiss the obvious and confirm your biases?
Have white researchers or whites in general ever been known to have biases against Blacks Dural? Biases and some very real cultural appropriation from peoples around the world. Seems there is a very long well documented history of that. You might consider it as well. Before you assume I'm even familiar with the "Kings" concept and black historians you seem to have beef with.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There most certainly is a long documented conspiracy theory of bias by white historians. However much like most conspiracy theories about the 'white washing' of history, those that make such claims have an overwhelming tendency to engage the 'God in the Gaps' fallacy. This fallacy is when one points at those unanswered questions within a theory as evidence of an a different theory, which often suffers from a complete lack of evidence. When there is ample evidence of symbolism in ancient art and knowledge of what the symbolism means is certain cases, not knowing what symbolism means in each and every specific case does nothing to invalidate the case. Such an approach is neither rational or logical.
As to the meaning of the symbolism, it varies by dynasty and era, symbolism is not a static thing and Egyptian history is literally thousands of years to cover. In many cases for which specific evidence exists, it is used to denote political status, members of the priesthood vs royalty vs nobility. In others it denotes the difference in slight shading between pale skinned (not white, just pale) ancient Libyans (in some dynasty's painted red) and the darker bronze skinned native Egyptians. There are even a few known cases in which artists used black paint to reference the black sand of the Nile. However even without the evidence of specific cases, the argument for artistic symbolism theory is supported by basic logic whereas the argument of artistic literalism is not. Just as the reliefs depiction Egyptians in green paint does not mean ancient Egyptians where green, depictions of them with black paint does not mean they possessed black skin.
You are right in one of your assertions, I assumed by your argument that you where familiar with the 'afro-centric'/'king'/'hotep' nutters. It is perfectly possible for people to come to a theory independently of similar theorists, in fact I'm rather embarrassed that I failed to see that given the topic at hand. Ancient civilizations are actually great example of this phenomena with many civilizations that had with little to no contact developing near identical architecture, shipwright technique, metallurgy, chemistry, etc. etc. as well as similar if not identical social concepts.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Did you call me racist? I have Native American, African and Jewish ancestry. I am pointing out the fact that Heimdall was barely complained about in Marvel's adaption of Thor while everyone else is getting pissy about Gods Of Egypt and yes I already know that a couple of the gods in Gods Of Egypt are played by black people. I just said that in the comments down below if you have read them
👍: 1 ⏩: 2
For Heimdall, I think the official justification was "he shapeshifts".
And I suppose being space-gods whose "magic powers" are really just incomprehensibly advanced alien technology helps too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
no, I asked if you're calling others racist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No I'm not calling anyone racist (at least I don't think I am calling anyone racist)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Marvel is also giving Mjolnir to a woman, because that totally happens in Norse mythology. Marvel superheroes aren't exactly written with historical accuracy in mind (if they were, Loki would be MUCH more interesting)...Thor can travel anywhere from Valhalla but spends most of his time in New York, because that makes sense.
Gods of Egypt however takes place in Egypt, is about Egyptians and Egyptian deities, why would they be white? Not saying they need to come from Egypt and speak ancient Egyptian, but there's no reason for them to white beyond "audiences don't like majority colored casts."
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
They could have made Lady Thor interesting. They could have made her a good addition to the Marvel Comics roster. She could have been great!
......but then she ended up being a boring, stupid looking, SJW tool for "equal rights" (yeah, cause this will TOTALLY convince those 3rd world assholes to stop stoning little girls to death for not doing what they're told!).
Damn shame, really.
Hey, want another reason Lady Thor is stupid? A character named Thor GIRL already existed in Marvel Comics! And they actually had the talent to have her exist without having to get rid of a character who's been popular for decades!
But how could we expect Tumblr bound SJWs to know that? After all, they don't actually READ comics! They just like to manipulate people as a hobby! Why do you think they wanted to change Link's gender even though they didn't know the difference between him and Zelda? (No seriously. They were calling him Zelda.)
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Frankly I am perfectly fine with more "true" female heroes and fewer ____ girls. They're always a secondary, an afterthought, an eye candy version of the "real" hero (fewer Escher Girl entries would not go amiss either).
Reskinning an existing character as female/black/whatever, regardless of reason, feels like just another version of ___girl. Actually, that's exactly what it is. Having the original step down really doesn't make it better.
My argument wasn't that it was a good idea, I only brought it up to point out the difference between Marvelverse Valhalla and Ancient Egypt.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
I already know that and I think what they did with Lady Thor was bullshit also since she became a tool for SJWness. I like Thor but I don't think it should have done that though
I don't know why either. I like accuracy but then again I like 300 which is somewhat accurate with society in Greece (not a lot though obviously) but I'm just pointing out that people hardly complained about Heimdall and now they are complaining about Geralt Butler
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
IIRC "Lady Thor" is as much a misunderstanding as Black Captain America. The character isn't changing, Thor and Steve are still around, it's just someone else wearing the costume. What the writers do with their characters is up to them.
I think anybody looking to Hollywood (or Marvel) for any sort of accuracy is kidding themselves, for sure. On the other hand, I do understand the complaints about an all white (+ single token black) cast playing a bunch of Egyptians. I understand the desire to cast people according to their talents and the audience, but I also think that there are many good nonwhite actors who could easily have filled the roles without taking away from the box office figures.
It's like Hasbro not releasing any female Star Wars figurines. Sure, some people are going to get bent out of shape and take the butthurt too far, but the underlying complaint is still valid: Why would companies go to such great lengths to omit these groups of people? There's no reason for it in this day and age.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, people are beginning to hate Marvel because of that with characters being changed such as with Wolverine being gay, Gamora being lesbian, X-23 being lesbian, Jubilee being lesbian, and Ice Man being gay when none of these characters were introduced that way. Are you beginning to see a pattern here?
As for Star Wars, the only thing I heard is that they are no longer making Slave Leia action figures because some asshole complained about it
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Wolverine is gay now? Seriously?
Hey, I have a great idea! Let's have the Hulk get a sex change! That would totally appeal to discriminate jackasses who can't identify with characters unless we change them to suit their superficial needs!
(Sarcasm)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes unfortunately
I hope Disney and Marvel don't read your comment
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh God, I didn't think about that. S**t, I may have just given birth to something horrible......
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I feel the same way when I say something also
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It would probably be better if they just introduced new characters rather than retroactively altering existing ones, but like I said what the writers do with their own characters is up to them. Hopefully they're making these changes because they want to, not because they're being pressured to. I hate to see artists pressured one way or the other, whether they'r being bullied into forced inclusion by making characters non-"normal" or being bullied out of trying something new by people who can't handle change.
www.themarysue.com/hasbro-wher… This is not the first time for Hasbro. As for the slave Leia, the actress' words on the subject should have settled it. The fact that they caved and stopped making it is just another embarrassment.
There's assholes on both sides to be sure, and each side has its extremists that make the rest of the group hard to take seriously, but that doesn't mean they don't have a point. Hollywood whitewashing is a thing. Underrepresentation of nonhetero/nonbinary/nonwhite/etc is a thing. Underrepresentation of women is a thing. The people complaining about Gods do have a point, whether you feel it's justified based on previous actions or not.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think it is going to bite them in the ass because this sort of thing is going to make accepting LGBT people much harder because it is making being gay look like a choice and actually cause people to believe in that Gay Agenda conspiracy theory that the fundies on Youtube believe in. Why do you think people except for SJWs and rabid Korrasami fans dislike Legend Of Korra now? Because they changed a character who was into guys into liking women even though she had no interest in them before and also they ignore the fact that if Legend Of Korra took place in the actual early 20th century, Korra and Asami would have been social outcasts
I can't believe Carrie Fisher was okay with it. Why didn't anyone complain about Slave Leia earlier back when those figures were made in the 1980s 'til last year of 2015?
So far the only film that had an accurate cast was Apocalypto with how most of the people were actual Mayans since the film took place in pre-Spanish Mexico
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>