Uh...I would hope he'd be back seeing as Ozai is kind of the big bad boss of the show. If they did have him die in the first movie, wtf would they do with the other two movies? He's the one Aang is working against the entire series. If they change that somehow, they're idiots.

ok wtf? fir lord ozai doesnt die in book 1 anyway WOW thee people who did this interview really did research,(small spoiler if u dnt watch avatar) he technically doesnt even die in the series

First if he wants to dream is completly free dont see this thing becoming a sucessful franchise
second Ozai is only seen is flashbacks on book one

I think he means if the the movie does well he'll be back for the sequels

You are missing the point of the article... He said that M.Night is doing his own take on the show. M.Night is not doing the story from the Niktoon. So he could kill off Ozai or any other charater at any point to tell HIS story.

Okay, this guy knows nothing of The Last Airbender, especially saying he is the darth vader of the series and that is wrong, he is more like the emperor. Darth Vader turns against the emperor at the end of the series, much like Ozai's son, Zuku. Seriously, if M
Night screws this up, I'm going to be pissed.

ok people u like avatar then listen M knight is working with the creators for the story hes trying to keep as much and stay true to the story. M knight is a big fan of avatar i doubt he will kill ozai in the first movie because hes not the stupid and the creators would be mad

Sorry to break it to ya, James... but Mike and Bryan are involved IN NAME ONLY. They had NO SAY in the casting and they certainly don't have say in stuff like costumes and such.

If he wanted to stay true to the story, he wouldn't have this guy wearing '...a cross between Roman and kind of Greek...' getup.

Curtis,
"So, what is my motivation in this scene?"

Shyamalan,
"Act Middle Eastern... and.. action!"

Shyamalan,
"Cut!"

Curtis,
"What's wrong?"

Shyamalan,
"Less Maori, more Middle Eastern... and.. action!"

God, my expectations for this movie drops lower and lower every time an article pops up. It's incredible how much M Night will have to condense but also how much influence from certain cultures he's taken out...for whatever reason.

In M. Night's vision, Fire Lord Ozai = Darth Vader???

. . .

"Aang, I am your father!"

"No!!!"

O_o

This movie has not had anything encouraging since it was announced.

Agreeing with above. I haven't heard one good thing to recommend this film so far.

"Roman and Greek?" Aiya.

Yep. I'm with you, Tired Sigh.

It seems like Mr. Curtis has been doing his research for his character... AVATAR IS ASIAN-INSPIRED. *headdesk*

But, then again, has this movie really stayed true to the original series at all?

We, asians, are greatly offended by these wrecthed movie (which i'm not gonna see i will tell everyone not to).

Zuko is supposed to be asian and asian only. Indian doesn't cut it!.. Indians are poor replacements for asians, yes, MNighty i am talking to you.

And Aang is supposed to asian too. Yet he played by some texan white boy. How stupid can one be to not to get it?

At least now that we know how he looks like we (offended asians, protesters and members of racebending campaign) can find him in real life, talk to him, and make him not to destroy his life with involvement in this stupic pile of crap that this movie is going to be (no need to look into crystal ball to know it: it was destroyed the moment casted their first non-asian actor in what was supposed to be all-asian cast).

Katara and Sokka are supposed to be asians as well. Come on! Everyone are!

Only racists can think that there is a place for a single non-asian actor in this movie.

Apparently, that is exactly who all of the crew of this horrible movie are.

I'm asian and now they're going to destroy what was going to be the best thing that Asia could give to USA and a rest of the world. I would never got my self interested in a show if it hasn't featured people who look like me (slanted eyes, tan), because it just would be deep enoough.

Take hits of the last years.

Transformers? They're making an apaptation of originally japanese-made show, and they don't have a single asian in the cast???... Stupidissimo.

Dark Knight? All asians that are in the movie are villains (that mob bookkeeper and chinese cops). Stupid movie.

Sin City. The only asian in a movie was a killer and sword master (oh! the stereotypes!!! how come all roles asians can get in hollywood are swords master or kung-fu masters!! i hate those stereotype!! every single movie that has an asian as a kung-fu master is bad by definition). And she even had a shuriken shaped like a german swastika!! Can it get more offensive that that? Of course i haven't watched the movie, but due to reasons listed above it can't be good.

Even "Up", which hit the theaters this week is racist -- it features asian boy who looks stupid and inferior to some white old guy. I didn't watched "Up" because of just that (and am not gonna to -- i won't -- the movie is bad cause it's racist and that's it).

This practive needs to be stopped. We must stop Hollywood from doing this. We must hire lawyers and bring multi-million suits for every second movie they're doing becase every other movie they make is a obvious and offense in our faces.

Well, there goes the obligatory troll and their noble Swiftian attempt at impersonating racebending.com

Definitely a troll (most likely a Zutarian)

Pssst....Indians ARE Asian.
Sokka and Katara should be Inuit (which yes, I know, bridge between continents, etc etc, of Asian DECENT). We can't change the casting now, it SHOULD have been majority Asians but it is not.
I'm still gonna see this movie, I love the show and if this does well maybe we'll get more of the show (not with the original gaang though, I know their story is done).

Actually, I changed my mind.
I am not going to see this movie.
This production does not practice equal representation in its casting methods.
In the process, the cast offends Asian cultures and insults the intelligence of non-Asian cultures.
After watching the tv series (for the millionth time)
I realize that the live action movie will ruin the artistic integrity of the original source material.
So, I cannot support this franchise with my money
just to fulfill my selfish fanboyism
to see more stories of the Avatar universe
(which will eventually get whitewashed by a live action adaptation).

The worst argument I have come across is
"But, its made by Americans,
for Americans."
Well, if that's the case,
why couldn't the producers tap into the beautiful diversity of America.
This film could have been the perfect opportunity to express that Asian-Americans and Native-Americans can play the lead heroic roles and not just the villains and background characters,
instead of profiting off of identity politics in the possessive investment in whiteness.

Curtis did not even watch the show for research. "I haven't watched the TV series to get confused by it," Curtis said. "I wanted to take his lead on what way he wanted to take the franchise. He's had to condense, I don't know how many episodes, but two or three years' worth of television episodes into three movies.
WHAT?! ARE YOU SERIOUS MR.CURTIS SIR?! What kind of actor are you to not even take a peek of the character you are going to portray! Especially if there is reference material! That's like
an actor who is going to play a Shakespearean roll AND NOT READ THE MATERIAL! I am so done with this movie....

Rebuttal to Claims of Racism in M. Night Shyamalan’s The Last Airbender:

I’m tired of reading people’s comments about how Shyamalan’s movie is “racist” and how no one should see it because so many of the actors are white, while the majority of the time, these same people are blatantly revealing their own racist opinions. So, I decided to write my own thoughts here.

• First, you can only make a true claim of racial discrimination if you can prove the director turned an actor away based SOLELY on his/her race (i.e. saying “I’m sorry, we’re not going to hire you because you’re Asian”). On the other hand, racial discrimination WOULD exist every time the director told an actor, “No, I can’t hire you because you are white.” Racism goes both ways, contrary to popular belief, it seems.
• Secondly, to claim a movie is inherently “bad” just because you don’t like the race(s) of the actors in it reveals racial prejudice. Refusing to see The Last Airbender because it has a primarily white cast (when the original series had Asian-appearing characters) would be like refusing to watch Bollywood’s Bride and Prejudice because they (gasp!) substitute Indian actors and scenery for the English characters and settings of the original novel by Jane Austen.
• Thirdly, if you want the world to be truly “color-blind” to race, you have NO business arguing about the race of actors in a movie. To completely avoid racial discrimination, Shyamalan should have cast whichever actors had the best auditions and the best acting capabilities for the parts, regardless of their race. Since I was not a part of the casting process, I cannot say if this is what happened (though I would hope so), BUT BY THE SAME TOKEN, no one outside of the casting committee can claim that it did not. Since I have not heard of any lawsuits or complaints of racial discrimination made by those who tried out for the parts, I would venture to say that racial discrimination probably did NOT occur in the casting process.
• Fourthly, to those who claim the movie should at least represent a racially mixed America, please let me remind you that around 80% of Americans are white, while only about 4% are Asian (see http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762156.html). If you want to make the flimsy argument that a movie’s cast should proportionately represent the races of the country that films it, remember that that still includes a lot of whites.

@racebending.com: Who said that ALL the characters are supposed to be Asian? In fact, who said ANY of them are? The story occurs in a world OUTSIDE of our own! There is no “Asia” in Aang’s world. Just because there might be physical resemblances between the animated characters and real-life Asians does not obligate Shyamalan to only cast actors who look like the animations.

You said “only racists can think that there is a place for a single non-asian actor in this movie.” Does that sound racist to anyone else here? How about your comment “I would never got my self interested in a show if it hasn't featured people who look like me (slanted eyes, tan), because it just would be deep enoough”? I personally find that quite offensive and extremely racist. If I, a white person, said that only shows that featured white people were “deep enough” or good enough to watch, I would immediately be condemned as horribly racist.

As to Shyamalan destroying “the best thing that Asia could ever give to USA and the rest of the world,” aren’t the creators of the show AMERICANS? Perhaps they were influenced by Asian cultures and concepts, but that does NOT give Asia ownership of the series.

And finally, please don’t encourage anyone to hunt down Noah Ringer. How offensive and scarring might that be to a young boy to say, “Don’t act in this movie. You’re white, so you’ll be a total failure at playing Aang.”

Thank you for taking the time to read this lengthy post. I hope there are at least a few of you out there that can listen to reason and not just a bunch of hot-headed flamers.

If you look and listen closely the story is based off of asian culture yes but this is a multi-cutral story for one thing Zuko does not look that much like a asian anyway he seams pretty white to me somtimes. And stop looking for somthing to cry about in this movie this movie will still be a good movie. unless M.Night dont follow the creators story. Also Katara and Sakka are inuit but have you ever seen a real inuit person before an inuit person makes Katara and Sakka look white as snow. they should be played by white stars. All the firebenders dont look that asian either i mean look at the soilders and the guards the look more white to me in the show. the earthbenders are defiantly asian though ill give you that and so are the airbenders. But Noah Ringer when i first saw him in the teaser i actually thought he was asian untill i found out on the internet so shut the F^%$ up about that and let the movie be made and expect changes from the cartoon to the movie. Its just like going from a book to a movie and they turn out good most of the time.

Im with you Voice of Reason. your a tallented commenter if i don't say so myself

I just want to say thank you to Voice of Reason. I completely agree with all of your comments. I hate reading posts about this movie because most of them seem to be focused solely on race. Every point you bring up is exactly what I have been thinking. I am glad there are others out there who feel the same.

I have been a huge fan of the show and cannot understand why so many people would bother themselves with such a nominal issue. If all of these people loved the show before, why can't you just be happy with the fact that it is only a show? The story in no way represents our own world, except in its deeper meaning and symbols. The show is brilliant in the way that it can display that sense of philosophy and oneness. We should just be happy they are making this a movie at all. In addition, one cannot look at the movie and TV show as one, just as a novel and movie are almost never comparable. In doing so, you are just setting yourself up for disappointment.

As a filmmaker myself, I had the honor of being present during the filming of this movie. From what I saw firsthand, this movie is going to be spectacular. It may not be right for everyone, and may not fulfill everyone's expectations, but when is that ever true? The sense of dedication and commitment displayed by the actors and filmmakers was incredible. Do not dismiss this movie because of other's views. See the movie, and then judge for yourself based on elements other than race.

Thanks again.

Voice of Reason + worst nightmare to racebenders + Thank You = SAMEPERSON

@lol: Um, no. Actually, you have in fact read the posts of three different individuals with similar views--and you have managed to completely ignore their comments/arguments. Congratulations.

Thanks to those that have taken me seriously. Like Thank You said, it's nice to know I'm not the only one out there who thinks the race issue has been blown WAY out of proportion.

SAMEPERSON you can lie to me all you want, but remember that you cannot lie to yourself.

I am not the same person as Voise of Reason or Thankyou you dumb a&^. Im a guy that lives in South Carolina and I love the show and I don't think the movie should be judged by race. And secondly if i was Voice of Reason my comment would not have been that long because im lazy.

i put my last comment in twice ooppss now im the dumb a&^

SAMEPERSON you can insult me all you want and yourself if you feel like it, you can come up with as many elaborate lies as you can but in the end the truth will prevail.

@worst nightmare: Just ignore him (or her). Some people just can't accept the idea that there's more than one person in the world that disagrees with them.

I made my original post partly to see if there was anyone else out there who saw the same inconsistencies I saw in the arguments for racism in The Last Airbender. I also had some small hope of convincing a few people to lighten up on all their finger-pointing and criticism of the cast. (In case anyone else was wondering, none of this would be accomplished by writing bogus responses to my own post.)

SAMEPERSON, I choose to ignore you because you started with the word rebuttal yet you fail to produce solid evidence that what you said is the truth, you even fail to produce evidence that with a little deduction could prove that what you said could be true.
I am not counting your forth "rebuttal" because I don't see what it has to do with anything. it could but if it does, you were not clear enough as to what it was trying to disproof.

I also choose to ignore you because you took seriously the ridiculously obvious troll made by the poster using the name racebending.com.
Even if that person was actually serious about anything he said you should have realized that almost every thing that that person said contradicts itself and should not be taken seriously but I don't blame you since such "argument" could be easily rebutted.

My decision to ignore you seems that it is the correct one since you actually said "Some people just can't accept the idea that there's more than one person in the world that disagrees with them." when I have not said that I disagree with you or any person that has a similar opinion to yours.

To be honest, I think you are an "elaborate" troll[ this is the actual reason why I said that you are pretending to be 3 different persons ].
If you are not a troll, your "rebuttal" is easily rebutted and doesn't offer much challenge to me.

I should not be wasting my time with you but since you are actually entertaining and you actually present some kind of challenge unlike the poster racebending.com if that person is not a troll, I will consider replying to you in a serious matter tomorrow or the day after.

By the way, I don't care about this movie one way or the other since I believe that it shouldn't have being made in a live-action format in the first place.
If a person presents a valid point one way or the other I will acknowledge said point. So far, the camp you disagree with have presented more evidence that their point is actually valid.

I'm not sure what kind of "solid evidence" you are looking for: I tried to give concrete examples for all of my reasons why I don't think the casting for the movie is racist.

My understanding of the word of the word "rebuttal" is that it is a counter-argument, not a revelation of absolute truth. While I do believe that what I have said is true, that does not mean that I could not later be persuaded otherwise.

My fourth point about the proportion of whites in the US was directed at those like Jess who claimed that “this production does not practice equal representation in its casting methods, ” and asked, "why couldn't the producers tap into the beautiful diversity of America". I was trying to show that while there is a large variety of races represented in America, the vast majority are still white. That is not to imply that whites are in any way superior to the other races. I am not trying to promote white supremacy, but am simply pointing out that an “equal representation” of the actual distribution of race in America would still produce a movie with a predominately white cast. That being said, I am not in favor of trying to force equal representation. As I stated in my first post, I think the parts should have been cast on merit alone.

As to taking racebending.com seriously, you’re right, he/she probably was exaggerating/being sarcastic. However, I have heard a lot of the same kinds of arguments elsewhere, and it was starting to get on my nerves, so I guess I didn’t stop to really consider all the implications. Just the same, even if he/she was simply mocking others by impersonating them, that still implies that people are out there who do hold those beliefs. Perhaps some of my comments were directed at the wrong individual, but that doesn't make my points invalid.

I look forward to reading your response to my original arguments, and to seeing what evidence you think there is that favors the other side. So far, I have not seen any that is even mildly convincing. In the end, I prefer to have a reasonable discussion about this than to be told I'm a pretender and a liar.

SAMEPERSON let's dance.

First let me be clear on this, I am 99% sure that you are a troll[ the 1% of doubt is to cover my 6 o'clock :) ] but my inner troll has been awaken and is hungry for entertainment or as we call them "LULZ".

Secondly if you are not a troll, you let your emotional side take too much charge on this issue. I don't, as troll I have played against both parties when I encounter one that entertains me and offer some challenge [this is the reason I didn't counter-troll the poster racebending.com because he uses one of the most basic troll techniques and if he is not he is just an idiot that I can't take seriously unlike you who let your emotions guide you too much.]

Third, a rebuttal is indeed a counter-argument where you are supposed to provide solid evidence to the truth not opinions[ this is what you did in your first post as Voice of Reason except for the your fourth point ].
If solid evidence cannot be provided, one have to provide evidence that can guide you to the truth with some analyzing and deduction. You didn't do that either, you just gave an opinion guided mostly on emotion. Emotion has no place in a rebuttal, evidence of some kind does.

******************************************************

I will start with this.

Voice of Reason said:
\My fourth point about the proportion of whites in the US was directed at those like Jess who claimed that My fourth point about the proportion of whites in the US was directed at those like Jess who claimed that “this production does not practice equal representation in its casting methods, ” and asked, "why couldn't the producers tap into the beautiful diversity of America". I was trying to show that while there is a large variety of races represented in America, the vast majority are still white. That is not to imply that whites are in any way superior to the other races. I am not trying to promote white supremacy, but am simply pointing out that an “equal representation” of the actual distribution of race in America would still produce a movie with a predominately white cast. That being said, I am not in favor of trying to force equal representation. As I stated in my first post, I think the parts should have been cast on merit alone.and asked, "why couldn't the producers tap into the beautiful diversity of America". I was trying to show that while there is a large variety of races represented in America, the vast majority are still white. That is not to imply that whites are in any way superior to the other races. I am not trying to promote white supremacy, but am simply pointing out that an “equal representation” of the actual distribution of race in America would still produce a movie with a predominately white cast. That being said, I am not in favor of trying to force equal representation. As I stated in my first post, I think the parts should have been cast on merit alone.\

When Jess said that "this production does not practice equal representation in its casting methods" evidence points in the direction that her statement is actually true.

As you can see in this screen cap [ http://racebending.com/castinglead.jpg ] from [ http://www.myentertainmentworld.com/mew/audition_film-tv.html ] they asked for CAUCASIAN OR OR ANY OTHER ETHNICITY.
This evidence can guide to the conclusion that they had a preference for Caucasian actors.
If actors or whatever ethnicity where given equal representation, they would have simple said ANY ETHNICITY in the casting call. By doing that, evidence would demonstrate that what Jess said is a lie.
OBSERVATION:
I think that Jess actually meant "equal treatment" not "equal representation".
If she actually meant "equal representation I would say that Jess's choice of word was ill-adviced since "equal representation" is a very vague thing.
Thanks to this, now I understand why you came up with your fourth point.
I also can understand why Jess used those words thanks something s/he said:
\The worst argument I have come across is
"But, it's made by Americans,
for Americans."
Well, if that's the case,
why couldn't the producers tap into the beautiful diversity of America.\
You see, with a statement like IT'S MADE BY AMERICANS FOR AMERICANS one can think[ if you let your emotional side take over of course ] that that means IT'S MADE BY WHITE PEOPLE FOR WHITE PEOPLE SO ANY OTHER ETHNICITY DOESN'T NEED TO BE REPRESENTED.

******************************************************

Thanks to that I hope you can see why letting emotion take over in a rebuttal is a very very bad thing.

I am realizing that this dance will last a few days :)

OH NOES, I MADE A TYPO ;_;

I said:
\If actors or whatever ethnicity where given equal representation, they would have simple said ANY ETHNICITY in the casting call. By doing that, evidence would demonstrate that what Jess said is a lie.\

At the beginning it should be
IF ACTORS of WHATEVER ETHNICITY
not
IF ACTORS or WHATEVER ETHNICITY.

Thank you for your comments. I am leaving work in a couple of minutes, and as I don't have internet access at home (except for dial-up), I will post my response on Monday. In the meantime, if you don't mind, could you please explain how my first three arguments are simply the result of "emotion taking over"? I'm afraid I don't understand where that comment is coming from.

(And again, I'm really getting tired of being called a troll/liar. This is the last time I will say it: I wrote ONLY the posts under the name Voice of Reason. If you still don't believe me, can you at least leave it out of the discussion? I don't see that it has any real relevance.)

Yes I will explain that about your fist three arguments.

Also, don't take the the troll/liar thing too personal or seriously. I just do it and will probably do it again but it is only for my own amusement. I will try not to mention it too often or at all.

THE REASONS WHY I THINK YOU LET YOUR EMOTIONS TAKE OVER THIS ISSUE

When speaking of racism the majority of people on either side let their emotion take over. Some more than other.
I will admit that in your case even if that happens to you a little you try to analyze the argument at least.
Now that you told me that you are posting from work, that deduction could be wrong. You probably can keep your emotions in check while arguing. Sadly, this does lead me to the conclusion that that you probably overlook the argument quickly and you post the first logical counter-argument that comes to mind but without providing proper evidence to support it. This in itself is not a bad thing. But on issues where racism is involved, that is a bad thing to do because there are many levels of racism[ to be honest, I don't like the use of this word because it mainly implies hate. I would say that "ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION" is a better choice of word for this issue. ]

Another reason why I think that you let your emotion take over is the use of the words "I’m tired of reading people’s comments" in you opening paragraph. The rest is somewhat irrelevant because a person in the other camp using those same words to start a paragraph would have let me to the same conclusion.
Those words somewhat show that that person is being a tittle emotional[ the emotion is not important ] .
I could be wrong about this assumption but you almost used those same words in this in you last reply to me.
\ Voice of reason said:
I'm really getting tired of being called a troll/liar. \
But I don't blame you since I was actually trying to get you emotional while arguing with me[ I would say that I succeed a little :) ].

I will give you tomorrow the main reason that lead me to believe that you get emotional while arguing.

While given the reasons for why you responded to the poster racebending.com, you said " I have heard a lot of the same kinds of arguments elsewhere, and it was starting to get on my nerves "
To me, when something gets on my nerves, it means that emotions are taking over and the possibility that I won't see thing clearly is very high.

Okay, from what I can see so far, it seems like you're mainly taking issue with HOW I made my arguments and not addressing the points I was trying to make. Just because I feel strongly about something doesn't mean I can't see things clearly in regards to what I'm arguing for or against.

However, I am willing to re-post my main arguments in a less emotionally-charged writing style, if that would help. That way we can discuss the actual points I was making rather than semantics and caveats.

Here is my argument against the claims of racial discrimination in M. Night Shyamalan’s casting of actors for the production of The Last Airbender that I have revised and (hopefully) clarified. I have numbered each point for easier reference (and to show which ones are directly related to each other):

1a) First, to make sure we’re on the same page semantically, here is a definition of “racial discrimination” from the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination: “the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.” (Incidentally, the United Nations conventions have agreed that “there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination”. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#cite_note-2 for both quotes.)

1b) Based on this definition, in order to make an adequate argument for racial discrimination, one must be able to prove that the director excluded/restricted the hiring of one or more actors based on their race, or otherwise showed preference for actors of a certain race (or races). Such an argument would need to be made on a case-by-case basis and not by overall percentages of race/ethnicity of the cast because such percentages are influenced by many factors (such as the numbers/races of actors that auditioned, their respective acting capabilities, their availability for filming, etc.). More simply put, if it could be proved that a single actor had been denied a part in the film solely because of his/her race, that would be racial discrimination. Likewise, if (for example) an Asian actor was given preference over a white actor that was better suited for the part simply because he/she was Asian, that would also be racial discrimination.

1c) I have not yet heard of any such verifiable claim of racial discrimination. Until I do, I will maintain that racial discrimination did not occur in the casting of The Last Airbender. As is the policy of my country (the United States), I will believe the producers to be “innocent until proven guilty.”

I would also like to point out some inconsistencies/underlying prejudices in some of the comments/arguments I have read from those who dislike the racial composition of the cast.

2) To claim a movie is inherently “bad” just because one doesn’t like the race(s) of the actors reveals racial prejudice because such preferences/opinions are based only on race.

3a) To completely avoid racial prejudice/discrimination, one needs to be “color-blind” to race, that is, not allowing it to influence one’s decisions, actions, opinions, and beliefs. Thus, it is self-defeating to argue that the wrong races were cast in The Last Airbender, as many critics of the movie have done, because such opinions are (again) based only on race.

3b) To avoid racial discrimination, Shyamalan should have cast whichever actor had the best auditions and the best acting capabilities for each part, regardless of their race. For the reasons given in point 1c, it appears that this is what happened. Those that wish to argue otherwise should offer proof that an actor (or actors) who was best qualified for a role (for reasons apart from race) was denied that role because of his/her race.

4a) [I think we have already sufficiently hashed out what I was saying in the fourth point of my original post regarding equal representation/treatment. I would now like to address lol’s response to that.] First of all, you said “with a statement like IT'S MADE BY AMERICANS FOR AMERICANS one can think[ if you let your emotional side take over of course ] that that means IT'S MADE BY WHITE PEOPLE FOR WHITE PEOPLE SO ANY OTHER ETHNICITY DOESN'T NEED TO BE REPRESENTED.” Since you have made it clear that you think my emotional side was “taking over” my argument, I can only assume that you think I interpreted that comment as saying only whites needed to be in the movie. This is untrue. Like Jess, I recognize that the term “Americans” includes a wide variety of races. My original point was that any attempt at equal (racial) representation of Americans would still include a lot more whites than other races. (From my earlier posts, one can see that I do not support such an attempt. I only intend to show that those who DO make this argument should more carefully consider what it is they are arguing for.)

4b) “CAUCASIAN OR ANY OTHER ETHNICITY”: I admit that this phrasing is somewhat suspicious on the surface. On the other hand, I would suggest another possible interpretation. It is reasonable to suppose that the producers wanted to be sure it was clear that whites could try out for roles from a tv show with Asian influences and Asian-appearing characters. With all the controversy over “racebending” and casting whites for “Asian” characters, such an attempt would appear to be justified. HOWEVER, regardless of which interpretation was intended, my argument is specifically regarding the CASTING of the parts, not the recruitment/calls for auditions.

4c) Just for the sake of argument, though, using the definition from point 1a, since all ethnicities are clearly “eligible” (that is, not excluded or restricted), I think it is a stretch to claim that simply naming one race indicates a preference for that race. Even if it does, that preference would need to “nullify or impair” the practice of casting actors “on equal footing” in order to be considered racial discrimination. That brings us back to my first point: can it be proven that an actor was turned away because of their race?

This is a long post, but you wanted clear and precise arguments and evidences. I have left out my comments directed at racebending.com, since you seem to believe them to be irrelevant/misdirected (though if you would like to discuss any of them at greater length, that is fine with me). Also, since I have covered a lot in this post, it might be easiest to discuss one point at a time, though I will leave that up to you.

Beautiful

If we go by the definition of race discrimination in 1a, I will have to agree with you that race discrimination did not occur in the casting of this movie.

But what should we call it if we drop this part
"which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

I want to drop this because when you are making movies this part of 1a "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin" is needed.

What is done in this part is what apply to to the casting of this movie.

I will elaborate on that with another post.

When making a movie the race, the skin color,the descent of the fictional character should be considered.
Once that is done a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, skin color, descent will occur but not in a bad way.
One can also completely ignore that aspect of this character for whatever reason.

Let's analyze this scenarios:

SCENARIO #1
A fictional character is supposed to be of " X " race.
An actor of " Y " race wants to play this fictional character.
A director says “I’m sorry, we’re not going to hire you because you’re of " Y " race and the character you want to play is of " X " race

I see that the director discriminated against this actor's race but without ill intent because he probably just wants the character to be portrayed in the best possible way.

In this case "racial discrimination" is not a bad thing.

SCENARIO #2

A fictional character is supposed to be of " X " race.
A director wants and/or prefers an actor of " Y " race because he thinks he will appeal to more people
An actor of " X " race wants to play this fictional character.
A director says “I’m sorry, we’re not going to hire you because you’re of " X " race and I want and/or would prefer an actor of " Y " race even if the character is of " X " race because he will appeal to more people thus bringing me more money"

The director is discriminating against the actor of " X " race but without ill intent because he thinks he will not bring him as much money as actor of " Y " race.

This kind of "race discrimination" could still be considered a good thing since the purpose of movie making is to gain as much money as possible. But people have the right to complain about the director's decision.

Also when casting, one does not need to say "I'm sorry, we're not going to hire you because of your race".
This is easily achieved thanks to the way the recruitment/calls for auditions are worded.

Thanks to the recruitment/calls for audition they can completely ignore the person/s they want to discriminate against or show a preference for the kind of people they won't discriminate against.
Doing this is not a bad thing, it's just the way things are since in the movie industry this kind of discrimination is needed most of the time.

******************************************************

On 4a the part where I said "with a statement like IT'S MADE BY AMERICANS FOR AMERICANS one can think[ if you let your emotional side take over of course ] that that means IT'S MADE BY WHITE PEOPLE FOR WHITE PEOPLE SO ANY OTHER ETHNICITY DOESN'T NEED TO BE REPRESENTED." was directed at the poster Jess not you.

******************************************************

Also, I really want an answer as to what race discrimination should be called if we drop a part of it.
If we don't drop that part, there is no use discussing any more because that part did not happen obviously.

As you can see this part of race discrimination "a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin" is sometimes needed in the movie making industry.

To be honest, I don't have a better word besides "race discrimination" for what went on in the casting of this movie.

"RACE DISCRIMINATION WITHOUT ILL INTENT" maybe?

Aboutbuddha.org says

Siddhartha (First Buddha) was born in Northern India from a royal family.

But Buddhism was swallowed up by Hinduism (hence why India is not a practicioner of Buddhism) and it moved as far east as Japan where we learn about Zen.

Why is that important? That was one of the themes M. Night wanted to hit on if you will remember from his interview with the creators of Avatar.

My speculation is that M. Night was not so concerned with things as--pardon the pun--"skin deep" as racial tone, but rather the story, the underlining philosophy's, which regardless of the nation of the creators is deep and rich.

By the way, how can we be racist to a particular skin tone if we refer to humanity as a "race". Upset Asians, and flaming Racebenders, don't be racist towards humanity, because, hey, you are human too. I think the terminology you want to refer to is "nationality" or "people group", because race is as general as our species.

So yeah, I agree with others saying casting was chosen on ability and not a paint pallete. Because beyond the ill-logical casting decisions (or at least how they stand at the moment) that is nothing to say that these were characters chosen to best portray M. Night's VISION of exploring these themes.

Take Ozai up top not looking at the source material. He's already received a script and a costume. Watch any actor in special features and they will tell you what best got them into character was a Director's energy. And a director who is getting his own energy from his daughter's love for a great Cartoon is in itself an amazing story.

Please ease the tension of this comment section and smile. It's not racism, there's just so much heritage and history that somewhere a long the lines, the water got muddied by someone who didn't have all their facts. I personally think it is awesome that Bollywood and Indian actors are seeing more of the limelight, and what perfect way to segue them into Hollywood mainstream than as major characters in a movie which the philosophy and religious specs date back to one man in Northern India.

End of Lesson

Why hello there
I hope you are not Voice of Reason pretending to be another person. :p

\ History 101 said :
My speculation is that M. Night was not so concerned with things as--pardon the pun--"skin deep" as racial tone, but rather the story, the underlining philosophy's, which regardless of the nation of the creators is deep and rich. \

I would not care about the casting of this movie if Shyamalan had made a statement like this.
I would be disappointed at the movie loosing the racial tone from the cartoon but I would totally support this movie. Sadly he did not do that.

He said that he was going to stay very close to the source material. To me this means that he will keep the racial tone and the underlining philosophy from the cartoon.

Consider this :
Let's says that Shyamalan decided to concentrate on the racial tone from the cartoon and disregarded the the underlining philosophy.

If he had made this statement very clear since the beginning. I would support the movie even if I am disappointed at loosing the underlining philosophy.
If this statement was not made and I found that the underlining philosophy was removed, I wouldn't support this movie too.

THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION:

This is supposed to be a movie based on the cartoon Avatar : The Last Airbender I expect the elements like the racial tone and the underlining philosophy to remain intact, specially after Shyamalan said that he was going to stay very closed to the source material.

If this movie was advertised as being loosely based on the cartoon, the removal of the racial tone or the underlining philosophy is to be expected, People would probably not complain much. I know, I wouldn't.

If this movie was advertised as a re imagining of the cartoon, people would not have a reason to complain.

******************************************************

I agree with others saying casting was chosen on ability and not a paint pallete.

How do you know they were casted because of their ability and not because of a paint pallet, specially if the casting call for the main characters[ Katara, Sokka, Aang and Sukko ] said CAUCASIAN OR ANY OTHER ETHNICITY
The casting call for extras said:
NEAR EASTERN; MIDDLE EASTERN; FAR EASTERN; ASIAN, MEDITERRANEAN & LATINO ETHNIC GROUPS
http://media.philly.com/documents/LAB+Casting+Call-Flyer+2-7.pdf
There is also this other casting call that said :
The producers are looking for actors of Mongolian, Cambodian or Laotian heritage
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/goingoutgurus/2009/02/be_in_the_next_m_night_shyamal.html

As you can see, they used a paint pallet to cast.
Can this be consider "racist"?
I would say that was not racist at all.

*****************************************************

Wow, I miss a day because of a busy day at work, and have a book to read on this thread when I come back! Anyway, here goes . . .

I know virtually nothing about Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., but thank you to History 101 (though I’m not sure I’m entirely clear on your argument: basically that M. Night was more concerned with the deeper meaning of the Avatar series than he was about the perceived “races” of the characters?) I’m still not sure what you meant by this paragraph, though:

“So yeah, I agree with others saying casting was chosen on ability and not a paint pallete. Because beyond the ill-logical casting decisions (or at least how they stand at the moment) that is nothing to say that these were characters chosen to best portray M. Night's VISION of exploring these themes.”

@lol: As to a better term to use for “a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin,” perhaps “racial recognition” or, in the context of the rest of your argument, “aesthetic preference.” (I will get back to this.)

First I would like to address what you said regarding Shyamalan, “He said that he was going to stay very close to the source material.” It would be nice if you could find a link to that article so that I can see what his exact words were and what the context was (if you can’t, though, that’s fine). Anyway, you said that to you, “this means that he will keep the racial tone and the underlining philosophy from the cartoon.” Why exactly do you say that? He didn’t address race at all in what you’re paraphrasing him as saying.

I could just as easily say that that paraphrase tells me he’s going to keep the scenes from every last episode (including a mad king Bumi encasing Katara and Sokka in rock candy while he tells Aang to go get his lunch box key hanging halfway down a waterfall). However, that would obviously be an incorrect assumption: the season had 20 episodes, so that’s around, what, 8-9 hours? (once you take out the commercials), and the movie will probably be less than 3 hours. So clearly, Shyamalan is going to have to cut out a lot. All his fans, I’m sure, hope he cuts out the peripheral, less-important stuff, while keeping the core of the storyline. So I won’t be too surprised if the crazy, rock-candy-eating Bumi has an altered role, or is not even there at all. Why? Because he doesn’t contribute very much to the overall story line. His only really important contribution is teaching Aang that a lot has changed in 100 years and that Aang needs to adjust his thinking and actions accordingly. That kind of advice can come from anywhere, even just a simple conversation between Aang and Katara or Gran-gran.

Where am I going with this? I think we can all agree that Shyamalan can (and must) change/eliminate a lot of things, while still staying “very close to the source material.” The things that he changes/gets rid of (we hope) will be those things that aren’t important in the big picture. Since physical appearance is never an issue that the characters have to deal with (except when they’re trying to keep people from recognizing them), I would argue that racial appearance is one of those peripheral things that allows for more artistic flexibility and interpretation. (You’ll notice I try to avoid using the word “race” in reference to the tv show characters. That goes back to what I said earlier, that these characters are not part of our world and therefore cannot be identified as being of any race/nationality/ethnicity in our world. How many Inuits have blue eyes? Very few, as far as I can tell. And how many in the Water tribe have blue eyes? Nearly every single one. Just an observation.)

Anyway, I can’t change your personal opinion (or those of others) that the physical appearance of the characters is a crucial part of the source material. I can question the reasoning for that, of course. :) Because still, as far as I can tell, that is simply an aesthetic/artistic preference. You like how the characters appeared on the tv show, and you want to see similar-looking actors in the movie. I can understand that (and truth to tell, if they had made Katara blonde, I would have been a little disappointed), but in the end, isn’t it a little presumptuous to criticize a director’s artistic choices simply because they do not coincide with your own?

OH you are back.
I was beginning to think that your mind was easily satisfied since I said you were right on your point.

I imagine that you have seen the whole cartoon.

HMMMMMMMM... I kinda like what you said about “racial recognition” [this could apply perfectly to the cartoon] and “aesthetic preference.”[this can apply to the reasons why they would originally cast white kids].

I don't remember where Shyamalan said he was going to stay very close to the source material. I will try to find it.

Voice of Reason said:
That goes back to what I said earlier, that these characters are not part of our world and therefore cannot be identified as being of any race/nationality/ethnicity in our world. How many Inuits have blue eyes? Very few, as far as I can tell. And how many in the Water tribe have blue eyes? Nearly every single one. Just an observation.)

Even if the fictional characters in the cartoon are not part of our real world, they can be assigned a race/nationality/ethnicity from our real world. I will elaborate on that in another post.
The colors of the eyes were just used to imply what type of bending they could do.

******************************************************
I think I will simplify my name to just lol
******************************************************

Why did I said :
I imagine that you have seen the whole cartoon.
When I should have said :
I take it that you have seen the whole cartoon.
And even then, I don't really need to say that since you described a very detailed scene involving Bumi.
I probably had a horribly stinky brain fart ;_;

******************************************************
Also can we agree on the meaning of these concepts?

1-A CARTOON DEPICTING A WORLD EXACTLY BASED ON ANCIENT ASIAN CULTURE = there is no denial that this world is Asia from our real past.

2-A CARTOON DEPICTING A WORLD BASED ON ANCIENT ASIAN CULTURE = this world could still be viewed as our Asia from the past.

3-A CARTOON LOOSELY BASED ON ANCIENT ON ASIAN CULTURE = there is no evidence that this world is Asia from our past.

If you really need examples as to why I am trying to say, just ask. I want you or anyone else to be thinking the same thing as me when I use those concepts later.

Yes, I have seen the whole series (some episodes more times than others, but I have seen each one at least once or twice).

I agree with your explanations of the concepts listed above, though I'm not entirely sure where you're going with them.

I will wait patiently for the rest of your argument. :)

Voice of Reason said:
\ I agree with your explanations of the concepts listed above, though I'm not entirely sure where you're going with them. \
Good, and yes you will see later where I am going with this.

Since I am somewhat busy, I will not be able to post everything I want today. I also want to elaborate and be clear as much as I possible can.
For those reasons, I guess this will be a see you monday situation.

But I will start with this.

******************************************************
OBSERVATIONS FROM THE CARTOON[ part 1 ]

Because of the geography( see screencaped map from the opening : http://piandao.org/screencaps/opening1/opening1-46.png ) and animals( i.e. a six-legged-giant-flying bison ) present in the cartoon and to some extent the inclusion of Inuit culture, the concept #1 goes out of the window obviously. At this point concept #3 can easily apply to the cartoon.

******************************************************

Also did you know that 'Bumi' means earth in Indonesian. But since I don't know the language I don't know if that information is accurate.

See you monday.

Are you still there?

Yes, I just have been busy and partying(week-end) and preoccupied since I lost my job this monday.

Don't worry, I did not forget or chose to ignore you. I should be back with a clear head next week.

I am sorry to hear that you've lost your job. That is not easy to deal with. I hope you can find a new one soon.

test

It seems that I cannot copy paste what I wrote for some reason.

Test 2

lol wut?

Too tired to think of what I am doing wrong

Test3

Still no good, but I'm glad you're back. I thought our discussion was about to fade away into obscurity forever. :)

I am back . I will try to post each paragraph and see what doesn't get posted.
Test4

*****************************************************

OBSERVATIONS FROM THE CARTOON[ part 2 ]

Since the creators of the cartoon have stated that they wanted to portray an Asian-influenced world and actually tried to portray it in a somewhat accurate and very detailed matter, it is safe to say that concept #3 doesn't really apply to this cartoon.

Proof of their intentions :

Interview 1
http://www.animationinsider.net/article.php?articleID=841&document=2

Quote from article :
\ Mike: Well, Bryan had worked with Eric Coleman, the head of development at Nickelodeon, and we new that Nickelodeon was looking for a [particular fantasy] kind of show, so we kind of took that directive and set about creating our own mythology. And we wanted to base it in Asian rather than European background, and use the elements; to use martial arts as kind of the basis for the magic in the show… even though we don't call it "magic," it is the supernatural element of the show. \

Interview 2
http://web.archive.org/web/20071217111256/http://www.nicksplat.com/Whatsup/200510/12000135.html

Quotes from article :
\ 1. How did you come up with the Avatar?

We came up for the concept for "Avatar" 3 years ago. Nickelodeon wanted to make a "legends & lore" type of show with a kid hero. That’s a genre we are very interested in, but we wanted to create a mythology that was based on Eastern culture, rather than Western culture. Although "Avatar" isn’t based on a specific Asian myth, we were inspired by Asian mythology, as well as Kung Fu, Yoga, and Eastern Philosophy. We were also inspired by Anime in general. We wanted to create a story that inspired people’s imaginations and that had elements of comedy, drama, and action.

2. You guys are not Asian so how did you come up with such an Asian cartoon?

We read a lot about Buddhism, Daoism, and Chinese history. We also have several consultants who work for the show - a cultural consultant that reviews all the scripts; a Kung Fu consultant who helps choreograph all the bending moves so that they are accurate to the style on which they are based; and a Chinese calligrapher who does all the signs and posters in the show. We don’t use any written English words in the show. \

Remarks :
-Question 2 from interview 2 is very telling as to what the Nick people were recognizing in the cartoon.
-While it is true that the creators of the cartoon never said that the characters in the Avatar world are supposed to be Asian, they have also never said that they are supposed to be white. They let the viewers come to their own deductions.
-The comment from interview 1[ we wanted to base it in Asian rather than European background ] and the one from interview 2 question 1[ we wanted to create a mythology that was based on Eastern culture, rather than Western culture ], could easily lead to the deduction that they intended for White people to be excluded from the Avatar world. This of course is not a fact but just a speculation from me.

******************************************************

I can post all the paragraph so far but not the whole thing. Maybe it is some kind of text limit.

*********************************************************

OBSERVATIONS FROM THE CARTOON[ part 3a ]

The "tools" the creators of the cartoon used to portray this "Asian" world are as followed :
a- The use of an actual Asian written language( in this case Chinese ), thanks to the hiring of professional calligrapher Siu-Leung Lee as a consultant and translator.
If you thought that the writing in the cartoon was just some made up doodles, read this[ http://avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Writing_in_the_World_of_Avatar ]. There is really some fascinating stuff in there.

b-The use of actual Asian traditional clothing to differentiate one "Asian" culture from another within the world in the cartoon.
examples taken from the avatar wiki[ http://avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Influences_on_Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender#%20Stylistic_Influences ] :
- Aang's clothing in season one and two closely resemble the saffron robes of Shaolin Monks--fitting, since Avatar draws inspiration from Chinese wuxia adventure stories, which often feature young Shaolin monks with shaven heads as the heroic protagonist.
- In Season 3, Aang's wears clothing similar to the Dalai Lama. In Buddhist tradition, the right arm of the Dalai Lama is always kept uncovered. In his late-season 3 clothing, which is similar in style, Aang's right arm is also uncovered.
- With the exception of Ba Sing Se, Earth Kingdom clothing is almost entirely based off pre-Manchu China. The Bei Fong family's clothing is largely inspired by Tang Dynasty clothing.
- All the Ba Sing Se costumes are inspired by Qing Dynasty dress. For example, the haiku girls wear headpieces reminiscent of headpieces worn by Qing Dynasty court ladies.
- Dai Li uniform is similar to that worn by guards of the Inner Forbidden Palace. It is also similar to that worn by the scholar officials (mandarins) of Qing China. In parallel, Long Feng has a hat befitting of a high ranking Ancient Chinese official, while the lower ranking Dai Li have the hats of lower ranking Ancient Chinese officials.
- The Earth King wears very similar clothing to the Qing Dynasty Emperors. The Earth King's costume is clearly an allusion to a famous painting of Xianfeng Emperor, down to the hat and jade beads. It is notable that he is the only Earth Kingdom person to wear a gown of primarily golden cloth, which was the practice in Imperial China, where wearing a robe of golden cloth was enough to have one executed.
- The military uniforms of the Fire Nation are clearly based on military uniforms of ancient Chinese militaries, as are many weapons. Fire Nation attire often resembles Chinese Hanfu. Zuko is sometimes depicted wearing a shenyi.
etc.etc. etc. You get the idea. For other examples read[ http://avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Fashion_in_the_World_of_Avatar ].

Wow, you’ve done a lot of research on the Asian influences. However, I don’t think I ever tried to deny that Asian cultures heavily influenced the creation of the tv series. My point has always been that, in spite of such influences, there is nothing that REQUIRES the characters to be portrayed by Asian actors. I imagine that a lot of the Asian influences on the cartoon series WILL make their way into the movie (costumes, architecture, martial arts, etc.). And the basic thematic elements of reincarnation, balance, etc. will obviously be preserved as well.

Can we boil down the Asian influences to two categories? This is how I would classify them:

1) Thematic/plot influences: These include the philosophical influences as well as influences on the plot (ex. reincarnation/cyclical history of the Avatar, importance of balance, emptying oneself, etc.)

2) Aesthetic/artistic influences: These include things such as costumes, art, writing, architecture, landscape, styles of martial art, etc. Here is where I would also place racial/physical appearance, as I discussed in an earlier post.

To me, the thematic and plot influences are the most important. Changing those changes the story entirely. The aesthetic/artistic influences, while they enrich the overall feel and quality of the story, tend to be rather superficial. I’m okay with some of these being changed/modified as the producers see fit. As I said before, I know not everyone will agree with all of the artistic choices made in the movie. You can’t please everyone. However, I think making such an uproar as there has been about this issue is going way overboard. (Imagine, for instance, if people were complaining about the style of the costumes or the architecture!)

A note on the elements topic: the elements used in the Avatar series (Water, Earth, Air, Fire, and Spirit) are not solely Asian. These were also embraced by the classical Greek and medieval European societies (though “Spirit” was called “aether,” it was a similar concept). In addition, according to this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_elements), the Chinese elemental system was made up of water, earth, fire, wood, and metal (no air or spirit elements). So, even if the producers of the cartoon series got their ideas for the elements from the Asian cultures, they certainly aren’t excluding the ancient Western conception of these.

hehehe, you are really impatient,

I was not done with my point[ the etc.etc.etc was only for part 3a b-], and have to finish the conclusion.
If you know my whole point of view the probability of you thinking what you are thinking will not be the same :)

Voice of Reason said :
\Can we boil down the Asian influences to two categories?\

I was thinking the same thing on this, but it is in the conclusion part of what I am trying to prove.
Anyways, after we are done with the cartoon we will have the movie and then the casting to finish. This weird internet argument.

Off topic, I just realized that you do have a way of analyzing in one direction without considering other possibilities and not having must information available. I find this weird since I try to analyze every possibility when I don't have all the info to make up my mind. When I find the info to make up my mind, I find it rewarding when I see that I thought of the final scenario.

Also, I will have the conclusion next monday. I lost one job and now I have two jobs since last week[ this is the reason why I was so tired last week and got annoyed with this site not posting my stuff.]

I forgot to ask, have you seen a lot of Japanese Animation or just some[ give estimation please ].
Depending on your answer, I will have to elaborate on the problems with Japanese Animation ;_; I really don't want to elaborate on this but I will try if I have to.

Bad luck, I couldn't do anything on the conclusion since I am too busy and partying.

Hopefully, I can get it done this coming week.

I didn't realize writing a post four days after your last post made me impatient . . .

You said I have a "weird" way of analyzing things in one direction (whatever that’s supposed to mean). If anything, I would say I’m simply trying to stay on topic and to make my arguments as clear and concise as possible. The whole point of this argument was to discuss 1) whether the casting for the movie was racist and 2) whether the race/ethnicity of the actors is even an important issue to consider. I think we've kind gotten away from those questions and are now in the murky waters of Shyamalan's intentions for the movie and how he did or did not follow through on those intentions. If I’ve lost track of the latest permutation of this discussion, please enlighten me when you finish your conclusion.

To answer your question, I have not seen a lot of Japanese animation, but before you go on any lengthy explanation of it, could you explain its relevance? I guess I’m having a little bit of difficulty in following your thinking process here. :)

I was kidding about the impatient thing... but made you you are also kidding with your comment...hehehe.

Maybe, I am the weird one with a weird thinking process not you :)
Anyways, this discussion has to go in 3 steps to be understood.
1.THE CARTOON[ the one we are now ]
2.THE MOVIE
3.THE CASTING
and we cannot jump from one to another.

I also want to apologize, if it seems that I am going in "murky waters. My mother tongue is not English so I am not used to hold long arguments in English[ this is the reason why I am taking my time to elaborate on what I have to elaborate and because I am very busy and tired most of the time when I get home]

I suspected that you have not seem much Japanese Animation.
This is relevant because A:TLA used this type of animation.
This type of animation has many problems.
This problems are the reason why people are arguing about the movie and the casting.

I will simplify this problems, so I don't bore you with some history on Japanese Animation.

Also because you said this :
\That goes back to what I said earlier, that these characters are not part of our world and therefore cannot be identified as being of any race/nationality/ethnicity in our world.\

Believe or not, but in Japanese Animation all characters ARE Japanese unless it is said or implied that they are not.

I am sorry, If I am taking to much time with this argument but hey you are at work so this is probably a welcome distraction.

I am enjoying our discussion, and I did not know that English was not your first language (though you do seem to write it pretty well most of the time).

Regarding Japanese animation: I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that A:TLA used animation SIMILAR (but not identical) to anime. I will try to find some specific discussion/sources for this tomorrow or the next day.

I didn't do any progress again[ the part time job that I have in the morning will last at least two more weeks]. My head doesn't want to read walls of text that I need to read to get all the information that I want to gather.

But I can do some small talk :)

Voice of Reason said :
\Regarding Japanese animation: I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that A:TLA used animation SIMILAR (but not identical) to anime\

I am intrigued about the info you can get about this statement.
When I first started watching the cartoon, I was sure it was made by Nick Japan( I usually ignore ending that don't change and I should have pay attention the two first times that I saw them before deciding to ignore it) until the second season. I was greatly surprised when I learned that it was actually made in the US.
I guess the Asian writing( I didn't know it was Chinese at the time so I thought it was Japanese lol ) fooled me D:
Anyways, I think there are like three effects that Anime productions use usually for low budget or long running series that were not used in the cartoon. This is probably what you are thinking off.

Effect-one : they use ONE picture the whole time and they zoom in and out or move from left to right and vice-versa or they move form top to bottom and vise-versa to make it look like there is something going on in the shot.
The funny thing about this is that since it is only one picture, there is nothing going on in the shot :D
In the cartoon they used more than one picture when they did zooms or those types of movements.

Effect-two : The people from the background and/or the background are either blurred out and/or lack animation which in turn make the people look like statues and the backgrounds like paintings hehehe.
In the cartoon there was some action going on in the backgrounds and the people were also doing something.

Effect-three : when focusing on a character's face ONLY the mouth is moving and the dialog goes for a good period of time thus making them look like a puppet.
I am pretty sure this was never done in the cartoon.

These three money and time saving effect are usually non-existent or used once or twice in Japanese animated movies or short series or high budget series.

These three effects were not in my elaboration on the problems with Japanese Animation but I elaborated on them because of you lol... oh well.

Anyways, try to find the info you saw or try to recall what the info said. I am very curious about this because this is the first time I have read about that.

Off topic, can you tell me what are the problems with a dial-up internet connection besides the noise while connecting and not being able to use the phone and probably the loading time. It has been a long time since I had that.
I want to know this because I can set up a site that won't take too much of your bandwidth. As an added bonus( for me anyways ) we can post any image from our computers

Ugh, I had posted a nice long comment about this, but for some reason it did not go through. I will have to rewrite it tomorrow (and hope I can find the same sources again!).

Okay, here is my re-done post about anime. I hope I didn't forget anything. :) (It looks like I have to do this in two posts, perhaps? Maybe it's too long for one post.)

There is a lot of debate about whether A:TLA is anime or not. Here is a definition of the word: “Anime, an abbreviated pronunciation in Japanese of ‘animation’ is animation originating in Japan. The world outside Japan regards anime as ‘Japanese animation’.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anime) According to this definition, A:TLA is not anime because it was not created in Japan. There are other definitions, however, that say anime is only a STYLE that originated in Japan (which is what leads to all the debate, I suppose). However, based on the strictest definition—and your earlier comments about Japanese animation—I think we can safely agree that A:TLA is not anime because it was not created in Japan. I will concede that it is strongly influenced by anime, but no more than that.

If you’re not convinced by that argument, consider the following quote from an interview with the creators of A:TLA:

“IGN: With this show being animated but not anime, were you surprised to see all of the fans of Japanese animation becoming fans of the show? Do you feel that U.S. animation gets the respect it deserves when compared to anime?

MIKE: Since a lot of Avatar's inspiration comes from anime and Asian culture, we hoped that anime fans would like it. But, when you're creating something, you never know what the response will be. Bryan and I wanted to create a show with a lot of heart - something we would want to watch, and thankfully, a lot of other people want to watch it too.

BRYAN: I'll just say that America - us included - has a long way to go to catch up with the animated work being done in a handful of countries, namely Japan.” (http://tv.ign.com/articles/818/818284p2.html)

It seems clear from this quote that even the creators would agree that A:TLA is not anime. They did not correct the interviewer about A:TLA “being animated but not anime.” Mike said it was INSPIRED by anime, and both Bryan and the interviewer talk about American animation as being different from Japanese animation (i.e. anime).

To sum up, here’s another quote about A:TLA: “The show's character designs are heavily influenced by anime; the show, however, is not considered an ‘anime’ because of its origination in the United States.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender)

As to dial-up: it’s slow and it ties up the phone line. Also, I am currently living with my parents and only their computer can hook up to dial-up. My parents work from home and need the computer or the phone much of the time. They don’t let my sister or I spend much time on the internet, so I’m left with going online at work or sometimes at the library. :) It’s kind of primitive, I know, but that’s how life works for us right now.

I was expecting something shocking revelations...HAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHA...not the never ending argument of what is Anime.

Yeah... A : TLA is not Anime because it was not made in Japan, but if it was it would LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME as any other show airing at the same time because it uses a style of animation developed in Japan.

I personally just consider Anime a type of animation that can be used by other countries other than Japan.
I say this because there are shows made in Japan that use a style of animation developed by western countries( mostly the US ) like this one http://www.futabasha.com/sinchan/
http://www.shinchanshow.com/ see the characters profiles. This show is considered Anime yet it doesn't uses the type of animation developed in Japan.

So yeah, Avatar : The Last Airbender is not Japanese Animation(Anime) but uses the type of Animation developed in Japan(Anime)...crazy huh?

Voice of Reason said :
\ As to dial-up: it’s slow and it ties up the phone line. Also, I am currently living with my parents and only their computer can hook up to dial-up. My parents work from home and need the computer or the phone much of the time. They don’t let my sister or I spend much time on the internet, so I’m left with going online at work or sometimes at the library. :) It’s kind of primitive, I know, but that’s how life works for us right now. \

Wow... and I thought that I had it bad with my pre-2000 cumputer.
You have a job, you should invest in a decent internet connection...but maybe you can't.

Just curious but were do you live[ I am in Quebec, Canada ] and why you don't have a good internet connection[ it is obvious that it is not a money issue since you work and your parents work but I could be wrong ]

I did some small progress on my conclusion but it's still not finished...sorry