Fury over Black Hermione Granger

[Morrus]

If someone is perfect for for a role and you change one single thing, then that person is no longer perfect for that role.

Well that's a logical fallacy if I ever saw one!

Two people can be perfect for a role. Perfection is not an exclusive condition.

 

[Maxperson]

Well that's a logical fallacy if I ever saw one!

Two people can be perfect for a role. Perfection is not an exclusive condition.

I depends on what you are comparing. Two diamonds can be both perfect and different. The perfect key for the lock is going to have only one way for the teeth to be since changing the teeth will cause it to be unable to open the lock. Other perfect keys will be identical to the first in in that regard. A role is like a lock.

 

[Morrus]

I depends on what you are comparing. Two diamonds can be both perfect and different. The perfect key for the lock is going to have only one way for the teeth to be since changing the teeth will cause it to be unable to open the lock. Other perfect keys will be identical to the first in in that regard. A role is like a lock.

Of course it's not. What a bizarre thing to say. Watch a few performances of Hamlet.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I depends on what you are comparing. Two diamonds can be both perfect and different. The perfect key for the lock is going to have only one way for the teeth to be since changing the teeth will cause it to be unable to open the lock. Other perfect keys will be identical to the first in in that regard. A role is like a lock.

I have to agree with Morrus. Again, this would mean only clones are a good fit for a given role once you've found the 'perfect actor'. But we've seen many actors with very different physical appearances play the same role perfectly. Again, they can leave an imprint, and the source text can make it harder to go in certain directions, but for a film role, minor details can certainly change from actor to actor.

 

[Maxperson]

Of course it's not. What a bizarre thing to say. Watch a few performances of Hamlet.

Why? Many people can play a role. The overwhelming majority will not be a perfect fit.

 

[Maxperson]

I have to agree with Morrus. Again, this would mean only clones are a good fit for a given role once you've found the 'perfect actor'. But we've seen many actors with very different physical appearances play the same role perfectly. Again, they can leave an imprint, and the source text can make it harder to go in certain directions, but for a film role, minor details can certainly change from actor to actor.

No. There are many good fits. We aren't talking about a good fit. We're talking perfection. I've never seen multiple actors play one role perfectly. It's the main reason why I dislike remakes.

 

[Morrus]

Why? Many people can play a role. The overwhelming majority will not be a perfect fit.

Nobody is perfect, ever. The very concept of perfection does not exist. Lots of people are very good. Why on earth is this even a conversation

Are we defining perfection as "a thing Maxperson likes"?

I don't think she was very good at all. Neither was Radcliffe. Dangers of casting child actors, I guess.

 

[Maxperson]

Nobody is perfect, ever. The very concept of perfection does not exist. Lots of people are very good. Why on earth is this even a conversation

Are we defining perfection as "a thing Maxperson likes"?

I don't think she was very good at all. Neither was Radcliffe. Dangers of casting child actors, I guess.

It's not my definition. Rowling declared her to be perfect for the role. Personally, I really liked both of those actors in those roles. I couldn't say if they were perfect, though, because they weren't my vision. Only Rowling could say that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's not my definition. Rowling declared her to be perfect for the role. Personally, I really liked both of those actors in those roles. I couldn't say if they were perfect, though, because they weren't my vision. Only Rowling could say that.

Then this is just sophistry on your part. You know perfectly well that when JK Rowling said Emma Watson was perfect, she wasn't saying anything more than "she is a really, really good fit for the role". She wasn't establishing some sort of precedent about what hair color or eye color hermione had. And this is obvious because she approved of a black actress playing Hermione and went out of her way to show that Hermione's skin color was never mentioned in the books.

 

[Morrus]

It's not my definition. Rowling declared her to be perfect for the role.

Well, given the two relevant concepts for interpreting that: (1) colloquial speech; (2) there is no perfection.

Assuming you don't dispute either of those two things, you can't use the actresses's 'perfection' as a premise of an argument. Well, you can, but if your initial premise is flawed.

I'm kinda struggling to understand even the motive for doing so. Why is it important to make so much effort to prove a fictional character is white, even against the stated opinion of her creator? To what end is this effort?

I don't get it. If the author says her intention was to not define a character's race, why is it so important to prove that the character is white?
L