I think Sophia Vergara could definitely pull it off. 😉😂
But it'd be awfully weird to watch a movie about Larry Bird played by a Hispanic woman. I don't think that would likely be very captivating, nor entertaining.
I would unironically watch the hell out of this.
My mind immediately slipped over to noting that original Shakespeare was performed by all-male casts.
It would take a hell of a good Hispanic actress to pull it (portraying Larry Bird) off. But if she's that good of an actress then yes, definitely worth watching.
Lots and lots of slow-motion shots of clutch jumpers. Throw in Magic Johnson played by like William H Macy and Jordan as a hologram Air Bud and I'll camp out for tickets.
You guys are too cute
But seriously, ain't nobody rushing out see to a movie about Larry bird portrayed by Sophia Vergara any more than they are a movie about Lisa Leslie portrayed by Tommy Lee Jones. It's absurd, and no one in their right mind would make such a movie, other than maybe as some extreme parody.
But that's not really the point. The point is, the outcome isn't that important, the process is what is important.
Take for example, the show "The Punisher". John Bernthal is fantastic in the role of Frank Castle. But it's seemingly a role that was written rather race neutral, and that an actor of any race could have been cast in that role. I would have been just as captivated regardless of what race the actor playing the role was.
Bu the important question is, why was a white actor chosen over an actor of another race?
Was it because the producer/writer hates minorities and views them as inferior actors? That would be disgustingly wrong, and furthermore, illegal.
Was it because the producer/writer thought a white actor would sell better to the public? Well, this is maybe a gray area, but personally, I see no issue with that line of thinking most of the time. The market dictates what the market dictates, and in truth, the market will probably dictate that a representative number of minority actors are given roles if studios are truly doing what is in their financial best interest.
Or, was it because of all the actors that auditioned for the part, John Bernthal was simply the most qualified? Obviously no one should have any issue if this is in fact the answer. And this is critical, because it has relevance to the following statements.
If we use this census then 77% of role ought to go to whites, 13 to African Americans, Etc. I am not certain that would be fair, but statistically it would be correct.
Internet searches and social media mentions for "inclusion rider" spiked late Sunday night after Frances McDormand urged other actors to ask for them in contracts as a way to ensure gender and racial diversity in films.
"I have two words to leave with you tonight, ladies and gentlemen: inclusion rider," McDormand said, concluding her powerful acceptance speech for winning the best actress Oscar.
She expounded on the meaning of the term while speaking with reporters backstage, saying the clause allows actors to "demand at least 50 percent diversity in not only the casting, but also the crew."
Both of these statements fall flat, for the reasons I've outlined above.
In a society that truly treats all people as equal, and in which employment, among other things, is based on a non-bias system of meritocracy, it stands to reason given a large enough population any subset of the population should be approximately equally distributed. Now, this doesn't inherently mean that it has to be, but given an equal interest in pursuit, and free from any biases, it most likely will be.
Any claims that a subset of the entire population that represents a minority of the overall population should inherently be entitled to a greater representation than their population share, are discriminatory, and should never be allowed.
Quite literally, the only thing that should matter is whether or not the most qualified person for the job actually got the job. And if not, why?