To me, Storm should have been Iman. I didn't like Halle Berry's version of Storm AT ALL!
Seriously, this woman doesn't age!
Iman does indeed look fantastic now, but (A) I'm betting she's had work done (which doesn't change that she's still a knockout, of course), and (B) that picture DEFINITELY has been photoshopped. Which is a pity because she IS stunning without the filters.
If a movie is going to flop because a particular actor isn't in it, then I think you have a much bigger problem with the movie itself rather than the casting. If the only reason to put people in a seat is by who is in the movie, then you clearly have a problem with the concept and script of the movie.
This is a big part of my gripe. It's not that I think Depp will do a poor job. Quite the contrary, actually. I'm sure he'll do well. I usually find him entertaining in films even if the film itself isn't entertaining (see also, Pirates 2-4). To me, it's more just the crass, calculating BS that studios do to gin up excitement about the films. And I also hate that it WORKS. People WILL see this film merely because Johnny Depp is in it, and WOULDN'T see the film if some no-name was in it, even if that no-name was good. And that's a real shame because it robs us, I think, of far more variety and talent than we're otherwise exposed to. So, great that they've got an unknown with Armie Hammer. Here's hoping he's not just a pretty face who also happens to be heir to a sizeable fortune... (Baking soda, anyone? No joke. Look it up.)
I guess I just keep repeating myself. Out of the stars that draw an audience, I think Depp is probably the most suited for the role and they needed something to make this movie marketable to the masses.
For my part, I'm not debating that. It's reality. But it is an unfortunate reality, much like how they had to rename A Princess of Mars to "JOHN CONNER...er...CARTER" because boys won't see a movie with "princess" and girls won't see a movie with "mars" in the title. Lame.
The only downside to the decision of casting him is the handful of people complaining 'but he's not a real Native American'. If that's enough to turn someone away from the movie if they had been a fan in the past, then I guess they weren't much of a fan and that's one less person from the smaller demographic that they're relying on audience from, but overall I don't think the negative thoughts of those people will be enough to hinder what mediocre success ( I REALLY doubt westerns, can you tell? ) the movie may have.
I see another downside of this. Namely that a typically underrepresented slice of the populace continues to be underrepresented when there is a role that you'd think would call for them to be cast.
There aren't too many well-known NA actors. Wes Studi and Adam Beach come to mind readily. Graham Greene is another. Eric Schweig. "That guy from Dead Man" (a.k.a. Gary Farmer), and Michael Horse (a.k.a. "That guy from Twin Peaks") are less well known. By the way, Wes Studi? Full-blood Cherokee. AND a terrific actor to boot. Why not cast him? I'll tell you why. Because the producers want "JOHNNY DEPP" on the poster.
The real pity here is that there are both known -- and likely unknown -- VERY talented NA actors out there who are being passed over. I had a similar issue with, for example, Prince of Persia. Why? Because Pej Vahdat (a.k.a., that guy from Bones) is ACTUALLY Persian, AND could absolutely have pulled off the role.
To me, that's the real shame of it. It's not that the people in the roles are necessarily bad (although Jake Gyllenhall was pretty lame in that film), it's that other actors who are ACTUALLY of the right background could have done it just as well if not better. But people are stupid and timid and won't go see a film merely because they don't recognize the names.
And hey, whoever thought that we'd be saying that the 1950s Lone Ranger was somehow MORE "politically correct" because at least Jay Silverheels was actually a Native American. :facepalm