'Harry Potter and the Cursed Child' play casts it's leads and people aren't happy
 

Bitch better have plans to adapt this into a book/film/Mini-series.

I didn't know you could change skin colour as you got older :think:

:joker:

:clap1:

If she was black in the books, then JK rowling would have said so, as she did with Dean Thomas and Angelina. She mentions that Hermione gets a tan after going to France, so it's fair enough to assume that she's pretty much white. But whatever, if she was best for the role, then that's brilliant.

Also if you read the books it mentions Hermione's white skin numerous times

I don't get this? Is this supposed to be them when there older? I don't follow the books.

Not that bothered, it's just a play like.

.

Literally the first thing I thought when I see this was Ron is not ginger. Then 'oh, hermione is black now'. Not that that is an issue. I'm still perched for it.

If Hermione had been black in the book and then they'd cast a white woman to play her.

Just sayin'.

The outrage would have been just the same the other way around.

This is less to do with that she black, and more to do with the casting of a play that follows one of the biggest series in film history, with iconic and world famous actors.

If we had a black actress, who became as famous as Emma, and acted in one of the biggest film series ever created, fans would definitely still be annoyed if a white woman was cast for a play following the 7th/8th book/film.

I think the difference is that there's an overwhelming number of lead roles for white actors while black actors and other ethnicities have dramatically less opportunities for the bigger roles. A black actor playing a role that was previously played by a white actor is kind of helping towards balancing the scales while a white actor taking a role that's known for being played by black actors is doing the opposite, it's taking opportunities away from black actors when there wasn't that many to begin with.

This is like Rue all over again

Such a non story

Nobody's going to be truly happy until it's Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint standing there!

That's true and it's not like I would have taken issue with Hermione being black, if JK Rowling had had the foresight to actually make the character black... But, as was said above, this was a huge global phenomenon both the books and the films, and cutting away all of the other political stuff... The character is white. Ms Rowling is saying she's happy with it as only the frizzy hair etc. Was mentioned - which is true when the character was introduced - but the fact is, throughout the series, it IS explicitly indicated that the character has light skin. It's not a race issue at all, it's an issue of a very well established character - who has featured both in book form and live action - being altered in a significant way... I don't like it when people mess so much with established canon, it "breaks" the universe that has been built and is a constant reminder that it's "just fiction", which sort of... Ruins the entire purpose of fiction.

Contrast it with something like Marvel who have also done a lot and are doing a lot to introduce diversity - but they tend to do it by introducing a brand new character to then take over the role of an established hero.

Then again, I suppose with it being theatre, there are different "rules" - Robin Hood in pantomime often being played by a female lead, etc...

But I just can't imagine that any Potter-buff who goes to see this will be able to settle into the character as Hermione? It "breaks immersion"... That's my major issue, I suppose. I'm big on politics and I'm also big on fictional worlds and universes - but I sort of quite strictly like the two to be kept separate - and with that in mind, I can't consider something that may be politically positive, but at the same time disrupts the integrity of the established fiction, to be an overall positive.

Tl;dr - they should have established a new leading role for a black actor, or JK should have included a black character in a major role in the first place, as rewriting something that is established pop culture seems disjointed.

Was there controversy over her being black or something? I remember vividly reading that she was black, that wouldn't have made sense to me (but I don't remember hearing people outraged or anything).

RE: Hermione I don't really recall reading anything specific about her skin tone but I can't really imagine caring if I had. The only times when people toy with "let's make ____ black/gay/trans/plantkin!" and I kinda object are when people suggest James Bond be female really. That would just be absurd. And do not scream bloody murder at me for suggesting Ian Fleming kinda meant his character to not sit at home and wonder about gender identity.

There was a bit of a stir but it only came from illiterate racist idiots.

I can understand that point of view but I'm also not against characters being changed either, I quite like a bit of artistic interpretation at times.

Thinking about it, I'm not really either, for example if they did a play of the first book and changed things it wouldn't be an issue, if it's a whole new take on the concept e.g. Wally West being black (and having different family ties) in the Flash series, even though in the comics he was white, it's not an issue because it's his first appearance in that specific DC universe. Also I guess for the same reasons that it doesn't bother me that there's going to be a TV flash and a movie flash at the same time that are completely unrelated... Or that the Batman Askham games that came out at the same sort of time as the Nolan Batman films were not the same Batman. Some people seem to be totally baffled but I'm like "no! Canon multiverses are fine they are unrelated characters!"...

Anyway, waffling, but I think my issue here is more that it's (so far) been touted as a direct sequel to the source books/films, not a reboot / new interpretation of the source material, and therefore should follow the established canon.

**** sake my wife is right, I'm such a geek.

The two Flashes business is so messy, I like Ezra Miller but he doesn't strike me as The Flash.

See I've never had a problem with James Bond being black, female, a cat or anything else really. I don't get why it bothered people. The movie Bond is a completely different character to the book Bond anyway, and each actor seems to represent a mini-reboot (and Daniel Craig a full reboot) anyway so as far as I'm concerned they can go wild with Jamie Bond :joker:. It could be quite interesting. They'd totally have to make her middle aged and sleazing on the young boys, though. Female Bond makes sense - female bond who is suddenly aged about 21 would not (because Bond needs to be an experienced and battle / life hardened agent).

I'm just dubious that they'd ever cast a 40 year old female protagonist and, to be frank, a 20-something leather bound femmebond would be MUCH worse than no femmebond at all, for anyone's cause.

I understand what you mean Toy Soldier. The fact that it has been labelled as a sequel makes the choice of a black actress a little puzzling, because like people have stated, Hermione is said to be a white character in the books. If it were an adaptation, or a separate canon then it would make more sense.

I'm not bothered at all though, if she was the best choice then that's great for her. I really want to go see it now.

I've come to terms with the split universe, it only seems messy to me because Marvel have done a decent job of having a combined universe... But they've done that by keeping the TV side to the smaller players. Flash is too integral to the whole Justice thing for it to have worked. Plus the flash / arrow universe makes less sense overall if you throw Superman into the mix.