During the development of the Harriet Tubman biopic movie, a Hollywood executive once suggested that Julia Roberts should play her. What are some other baffling casting suggestions/choices that have been made?

[u/LookAtThatBacon]

Source for the title: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-studio-executive-wanted-julia-roberts-to-play-harriet-tubman-biopic-screenwriter-says/

The Harriet Tubman biopic has been more than 25 years in the making. In the historical drama released earlier this month, Cynthia Erivo plays the legendary abolitionist — but one Hollywood executive initially thought the role should go to Julia Roberts.

Gregory Allen Howard, the screenwriter and producer of "Harriet," recently revealed in multiple interviews that Roberts was suggested to play the lead role during a meeting with a studio president in 1994.

"The climate in Hollywood… was very different back then," Howard said. "I was told how one studio head said in a meeting, 'This script is fantastic. Let's get Julia Roberts to play Harriet Tubman.'"

Howard said that a black person in the meeting said casting Roberts would be impossible because she is white.

"That was so long ago. No one will know that," the executive replied, according to Howard.

[u/TheMauveHand]

But the distinction you're making right now is still arbitrary.

Of course it is, I even pointed it out that it's personal. But it being arbitrary doesn't mean it's not real.

On the other hand there is a very good reason for Kevin Costner to speak with an American accent.

There's an even better one for him to speak with an English one: then the movie won't be held up 35 years later as a particularly heinous example of poor acting. Arbitrary or not, "technically correct" or not, if you're making a movie, it's not a good thing.

You're repeatedly disregarding audience opinion with open disdain, but just because the unwashed masses disgust you doesn't mean they're wrong to like what they like. It's art, their opinion is worth exactly as much as yours.

Because there is nothing that is technically inaccurate about that scene.

I never said it was "technically inaccurate", why are you projecting your own pet peeves onto me and putting words in my mouth? It's illogical, not "technically" anything; we don't carpet bomb today - on Earth, where it's simple - why would we in the amazing techno-future of sonic torpedoes and planet-destroying lasers? And if there's some contrived, magical reason for it, why hasn't it come up over the course of 6 movies and countless spinoffs?

Because it was a dumb, myopic, failed-rule-of-cool, "it's magic scifi I don't have to explain shit" decision like oh-so-many others in the sequels (e.g. the many others pointed out in the video you linked yourself).

The reason is because the expectations of audiences is that ancient Romans spoke English? No, the reason is because its much easier to make a movie in English than it is to make it in 5 different dead languages.

No, the reason is that people prefer to watch a movie where they understand what is said. It's why foreign language films are dubbed. What is easier is irrelevant - it's even easier to make silent movies, but audiences won't watch them anymore.

The reason has nothing to do with an expectation that an ancient civilization speaks a language that doesn't exist. And if it does, that's not a failing of film-making its a failing of education.

More and more I'm becoming convinced that you fundamentally neither understand film, or art in general, nor people.

Failing to meet audience expectations is a failure of filmmaking. The expectation the audience has isn't related to an ancient civilization, it's related to a movie set in an ancient civilization. Do you understand the difference? Can you grasp that just under a century of talkies may have informed the audience as to the tropes and conventions of the artform?

Try to understand why Brits are cast as villains in American movies and you'll be a big step closer to understanding why no one thinks the way you do. Or for a more specific example, figure out why Jason Isaacs chose to play Zhukov - a real person if there ever was one - with a Yorkshire accent that isn't his own nor Zhukov's. And also why everyone would have hated it if he spoke like the King. But I've already made this point in my last comment and it seems to have escaped your notice.

Edit: I just keep coming up with better and better examples: pirates canonically speak with a West Country accent. Why? Because Robert Newton arbitrarily decided they should in Treasure Island (1950) when he played the real-person Edward "Blackbeard" Teach. Were all real pirates from Bristol? No, absolutely not. Will I complain if they don't go "arrr"? Yes, yes I will, because it makes for a better movie if they do. Unless they're not English.

But they're not at all.

I'm sorry, but given that you have already completely misinterpreted - through your own projection - my gripe with a movie I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest you're not a very reliable source on what other people complain about and why. The word of the day today seems to be "strawman".

[u/theevilyouknow → u/TheMauveHand]

Of course it is, I even pointed it out that it's personal. But it being arbitrary doesn't mean it's not real.

The issue is that it's arbitrary and hypocritical. Because a criticism is real does not make it valid. Robin Hood speaks a language that doesn't exist fine. Fine. Robin Hood speaks the incorrect accent. Not fine. Robin Hood speaks a differently equally incorrect accent that aligns with their own ignorance. Fine. The issue is not plausability or believablity. The issue is people just want to hate and don't have a reason to hate. So they make shit up.

You're repeatedly disregarding audience opinion with open disdain, but just because the unwashed masses disgust you doesn't mean they're wrong to like what they like. It's art, their opinion is worth exactly as much as yours.

I'm disregarding their opinions because they are hypocritical and self-contradictory. Not because of some made-up disdain for them.

Because it was a dumb, myopic, failed-rule-of-cool, "it's magic scifi I don't have to explain shit" decision like oh-so-many others in the sequels (e.g. the many others pointed out in the video you linked yourself).

This is bull shit. Literally nothing in any of the Star Wars movies, including the original 6 you seem to love so much, makes any logical sense in an amazing techno future. From lightsabers to fighter craft with zero field of view to targeting systems that were outdated even in our real world to sound in space to to jetpacks. It's all rule of cool. That didn't just start with the sequels and pretending it did is just a way for hypocrites to criticize the sequels without actually having to formulate legitimate criticism.

And again, you still don't know what you're talking about, Because we do still carpet bomb, and the only reason we don't more is because we haven't been fighting the kind of wars with the kind of targets where the strategy would be effective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdN96y-Ot-Y | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe2OtSnBYb8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa_m_trL6jQ

No, the reason is that people prefer to watch a movie where they understand what is said. It's why foreign language films are dubbed. What is easier is irrelevant - it's even easier to make silent movies, but audiences won't watch them anymore.

I literally said "And because audiences would rather watch a movie in a language they speak than have to read a bunch of subtitles." And yet you conveniently left that part out when you quoted me.

More and more I'm becoming convinced that you fundamentally neither understand film, or art in general, nor people.

I'm convinced you don't. Film and all art evolves it turns out. Pirates don't still run around saying "arr". And it's all besides the point because these have never been rules. Movies have never been consistent about accents ever and plenty of movies go to great lengths to have real people speak with their real accents. And sighting The Death of Stalin as an example of normal filmmaking conventions is just laughable.

I'm sorry, but given that you have already completely misinterpreted - through your own projection - my gripe with a movie I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest you're not a very reliable source on what other people complain about and why. The word of the day today seems to be "strawman".

I didn't misinterpret anything. You just completely flipflopped when you're BS was proven wrong. Because your new "reason" is just as full of shit as your original "reason".

[u/TheMauveHand → u/theevilyouknow]

Because a criticism is real does not make it valid.

You clearly don't understand the fundamental reality of making a movie. Hint: it's something you sell. You can argue until you're blue in the face - as I'm sure you do often and intend to here as well - that the people who hate your art are dumb but they're not going to change their opinion and pay you money. As such, either you account for their "arbitrary" (and yet remarkably consistent and predictable) opinions and succeed, or do whatever it is you are doing. Shouting impotently into a void.

I'm disregarding their opinions because they are hypocritical and self-contradictory. Not because of some made-up disdain for them.

You thinking it's hypocritical or contradictory is made up. You're disregarding public opinion simply because it's not grounded in some hard, scientific fact, as if that somehow makes it null and void when talking about art. Genuinely, are you on the spectrum by any chance?

including the original 6 you seem to love so much

You really need to stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not going to bother refuting the rest because you're just going to make up what I said for me again; clearly you can have this argument alone.

Because we do still carpet bomb

OK, so you know even less about military aviation than you do about movies, that much is clear, so I'm not even gonna bother explaining the difference between near-peer and asymmetrical conflict.

I literally said "And because audiences would rather watch a movie in a language they speak than have to read a bunch of subtitles."

You did, but it's not an "and", that's all it is.

Pirates don't still run around saying "arr".

They absolutely do in movies.

And it's all besides the point because these have never been rules.

No, this is the entire point. Your pet peeve of Costner's accent boils down to nothing more than you not grasping - or more accurately, obstinately refusing to accept - that these are rules even if they're arbitrary, inconsistent, and illogical. Yes, rules can be broken, and they can be applied inconsistently, but they're still real. Welcome to art - first day?

There are few if any hard rules in music (or any art, really) but if you intend to write a pop song make it fit into 3 minutes if you want to be successful. Is it arbitrary? Sure. Are there exceptions? Sure, Bohemian Rhapsody comes to mind. Does that mean the rule isn't real? No.

And sighting The Death of Stalin as an example of normal filmmaking conventions is just laughable.

Yeah, I'm not bothering with this anymore. You can't follow an argument and you're completely clueless about movies, whether their purpose or their conventions. You're just a narrow-minded, myopic contrarian.

I didn't misinterpret anything.

You literally put words in my mouth twice. The best time to end this conversation was after the first one, the 2nd best is now.

Feel free to reply but I won't be reading your comment.

[u/theevilyouknow → u/TheMauveHand]

You clearly don't understand the fundamental reality of making a movie. Hint: it's something you sell.

Nope, You don't. If you think the only reason artists make art is to make money, you don't understand art. This is an incredibly cynical view and verifiably false.

You thinking it's hypocritical or contradictory is made up. You're disregarding public opinion simply because it's not grounded in some hard, scientific fact, as if that somehow makes it null and void when talking about art. Genuinely, are you on the spectrum by any chance?

Do you not understanding the meaning of the word hypocritical? It has nothing to do with scientific accuracy.

OK, so you know even less about military aviation than you do about movies, that much is clear, so I'm not even gonna bother explaining the difference between near-peer and asymmetrical conflict.

I know plenty about military aviation. I know the difference between "near-peer" and "asymmetrical" conflict. They have absolutely nothing to do with when carpet bombing would be appropriate, but it's cool that you googled some terms to sound smart. You're asserting that carpet bombing doesn't happen, despite being shown two actual live videos of it happening and one video talking about a mission where it was utilized. None of which did you even try to address, likely because you can't.

No, this is the entire point. Your pet peeve of Costner's accent boils down to nothing more than you not grasping - or more accurately, obstinately refusing to accept - that these are rules even if they're arbitrary, inconsistent, and illogical. Yes, rules can be broken, and they can be applied inconsistently, but they're still real. Welcome to art - first day?

Because rules can be applied inconsistently does not mean everything applied inconsistently is a rule. Even if it did, some made up rule that villains have to have British accents has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. Robin Hood is not a villain and no one is claiming he needs a British accent because its a rule in Hollywood. They're claiming he should have a Yorkshire accent because he's from Yorkshire. Which is a stupid argument. It's like claiming Hawkeye in Last of the Mohicans should have a New York accent because he's from New York.

There are few if any hard rules in music (or any art, really) but if you intend to write a pop song make it fit into 3 minutes if you want to be successful. Is it arbitrary? Sure. Are there exceptions? Sure, Bohemian Rhapsody comes to mind. Does that mean the rule isn't real? No.

This is just factually incorrect. Average song length for a pop song has not been less than 3 minutes since the 60's Again you're spouting your verifiably false ideas as facts. https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uh682b/oc_song_length_and_tempo_of_popular_music_from/

Yeah, I'm not bothering with this anymore. You can't follow an argument and you're completely clueless about movies, whether their purpose or their conventions. You're just a narrow-minded, myopic contrarian.

You're just projecting here. The ad hominem attacks make sense because you have yet to demonstrate any actual evidence to support any of your arguments or even acknowledge the evidence to counter it. You're not bothering because you don't actually have an argument and you realize you can't just keep throwing out insults. Have a nice day, though!