mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on May 11, 2013 23:29:49 GMT -5
It would be nice to use the same defenses in different terms outside of race discussion. They seem to just cherry pick that because it's a hot topic that is hard to countermeasure without digging a hole for yourself.
However, if we're going to criticize fans for this shit, why not Hollywood? Let's be honest, 95% of the time they do it as a means of trying to appeal to the largest audience possible and less about the person playing him is the best fit. This is why I'm amazed there isn't a Burger King Kids' Club movie yet...no one would be left out.
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on May 11, 2013 23:38:21 GMT -5
Good God, the first ever talkie was The Jazz Singer. Those were usually characters where getting the ethnicity right WAS important, unlike with characters like Johnny Storm or Luke Skywalker, where it means absolutely nothing beyond "that's how I picture them due to my exposure to previous iterations of these characters". Off topic, but I find absolutely nothing wrong with The Jazz Singer. It is a perfect model of the times of minstrel shows, and Al Jolson's character was probably more insulting to Jewish people than anything else. His character was an entertainer who used blackface which was part of a culture that did this sort of stuff constantly up until the 40's. Is it any worse than Soul Man which was made in the 80's? If we really want to talk about movies that ARE insulting, I think Birth of a Nation, the first blockbuster movie is a better example. That movie is disgustingly racist and a true testament to what racism was at the time.
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
HaHa U FaLL 4 LaVa TriK
Posts: 46,345
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on May 12, 2013 0:22:04 GMT -5
I say try to keep the characters no mater what race or gender the way that the creator made them. Thou Dazzler as black does fit with how she was originally going to be so there is wiggle room on cases like that or Obi Wan Kenobi was an Asian man. But when 90% of comics were made in a time when representation wasn't considered important (and honestly, it still isn't to a certain degree), that means that nobody of other races/sexualities will ever get an opportunity to appear, because let's face it, we'd probably see 100 different Batman movies before DC would ever consider doing, say, a Question movie with Renee Montoya. But then, the original Question was white, so even she wouldn't appear in this scenario. I see nothing wrong with creating new characters with new origins and telling _their_ stories. You can call me a racist or a bigot all you want (and you probably will), but I do usually feel like it's pandering to play off of an established character's 'name value' to give them a race/sexuality lift (moreso in the comics than in the movies, though), and tell more or less the same story again in a reboot. It seems a little bit less odd in movie adaptations, honestly (unless the casting goes totally off kilter and you end up with blood siblings of completely different races/ethnicities, without casting a parent of the 'new' background), if only because the movie adaptations usually are their own separate continuity, so it doesn't feel like the producer saying "Oh, yeah, by the way, character X is ethnicity Y now." (regardless of their reasons for doing so).
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on May 12, 2013 1:01:52 GMT -5
I'll just quote a comment from someone there who explained why such decisions are counter-protective and genuinely insulting far better than I could have myself: Seriously, casting a Black actor as a White character is basically taking the White character and putting him in blackface. How is that inclusive? I would agree if the casting directors were putting out a casting call for black actors for the Human Torch for the sake of diversity, but I don't think that's the case. Maybe they originally had a white actor in mind, but Jordan's audition or previous body of work was more impressive. Maybe he won the role on his own merits and not as a token hire. Actors like Will Smith and Halle Berry made entire careers out of playing roles that were originally intended for white actors because they had the best audition etc. And I bet that a lot folks that are whining about this didn't bat an eyelash when Angelina Jolie played a black woman, or Ben Kingsley played an Indian man (both roles being of real people, not fictional characters), or Hugo Weaving played an Asian man or the countless other "white washing" that has been going on in Hollywood for decades. Hopefully, if Jordan knocks it out the park, all the controversy will blow over. But us nerds can be a stubborn bunch. I don't know, I've heard quite a lot of people condemn white washing. Heck, I remember over hear the uproar when the White Depardieu was cast to play Alexandre Dumas, who was of mixed origin. And the thing is, from what I remember, Smith and Berry never played the roles of characters who were always depicted as White but rather roles for characters whose creators didn't have a specific ethnicity in mind. It wasn't taking established characters and have the director do whatever he wants with them. And it's particularly jarring in an adaptation of comic books, which are predominantly visual mediums where the characters' looks are an integral part of their identity. It's like if they cast a skinny guy as Captain America or something. It may not change much but it still just doesn't represent the character. Guess what? THIS IS COMMON IN FANDOM. Yes, there are lots of people who aren't racist. There are lots of people who aren't sexist. There are lots of people who aren't homophobic. Does that mean that we should ignore the many (and there are many) that are? Cracked haven't made up these arguments, they've taken actual quotes and posts as examples here. You might see it as an infinitesimally small problem, but this is the background noise that most people might not notice, but for the targets of the bigotry, it's always there. For my own part, I've seen people vigorously deny that their favourite shows/comics/movies/etc contain any biphobia, even when it's staring them in the face. (Hi, 90% of Supernatural's Tumblr fandom!), and I've no doubt that it's the same with questions of race. In fact, it's most likely an even bigger problem. We should be praising Cracked for actually bringing it to a wider audience's attention, and it's interesting that the immediate reaction was defensively insulting the author. Except the author himself was defensively insulting everyone else and his entire argument was basically "the only explanation why anyone would dislike this choice is racism! There is absolutely no other explanation la la la can't hear you don't care!". He's not making any point but instead takes quotes out of context and makes gross and inaccurate generalizations of entire groups of people based on isolate incidents, which is quite jarring for an article that claims to preach tolerance. In fact, he even goes further than that and flat-out dismisses any reasonable explanation from anyone who isn't happy with this casting choice by simply going "No they're secretly racist". I'm not saying racism and other forms of intolerance in fandoms isn't a thing, but there's a difference between condemning racism and full-on godwinning the whole thing.
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
HaHa U FaLL 4 LaVa TriK
Posts: 46,345
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on May 12, 2013 1:12:28 GMT -5
Except the author himself was defensively insulting everyone else and his entire argument was basically "the only explanation why anyone would dislike this choice is racism! There is absolutely no other explanation la la la can't hear you don't care!". He's not making any point but instead takes quotes out of context and makes gross and inaccurate generalizations of entire groups of people based on isolate incidents, which is quite jarring for an article that claims to preach tolerance. In fact, he even goes further than that and flat-out dismisses any reasonable explanation from anyone who isn't happy with this casting choice by simply going "No they're secretly racist". I'm not saying racism and other forms of intolerance in fandoms isn't a thing, but there's a difference between condemning racism and full-on godwinning the whole thing. I think the issue there, is that for some people, they feel the only way (or at least the fastest way) to "win" the argument is with a Scorched Earth tactic like that. The only (or again, the fastest/easiest) way to make someone take 'your' position (when they otherwise may not really have one) being to force them to defend the indefensible, to forcefully identify them with an argument they never made. It can be quite an effective strategy.
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on May 12, 2013 1:23:29 GMT -5
Except the author himself was defensively insulting everyone else and his entire argument was basically "the only explanation why anyone would dislike this choice is racism! There is absolutely no other explanation la la la can't hear you don't care!". He's not making any point but instead takes quotes out of context and makes gross and inaccurate generalizations of entire groups of people based on isolate incidents, which is quite jarring for an article that claims to preach tolerance. In fact, he even goes further than that and flat-out dismisses any reasonable explanation from anyone who isn't happy with this casting choice by simply going "No they're secretly racist". I'm not saying racism and other forms of intolerance in fandoms isn't a thing, but there's a difference between condemning racism and full-on godwinning the whole thing. I think the issue there, is that for some people, they feel the only way (or at least the fastest way) to "win" the argument is with a Scorched Earth tactic like that. The only (or again, the fastest/easiest) way to make someone take 'your' position (when they otherwise may not really have one) being to force them to defend the indefensible, to forcefully identify them with an argument they never made. It can be quite an effective strategy. You pretty much hit the nail right on the head. I'll just quote a comment from someone there who explained why such decisions are counter-protective and genuinely insulting far better than I could have myself: Seriously, casting a Black actor as a White character is basically taking the White character and putting him in blackface. How is that inclusive? Aw man, come on, that's a very disingenuous argument. Maybe it's the history teacher in me, but such an argument just ignores so much social science and industry history that it can't stand up. As mentioned before, the character of Johnny Storm has never been defined by his ethnicity; his character is entirely malleable in that regard. Now, a film biopic of somebody like, I don't know, Lyndon B. Johnson? Yes, it'd be a tad weird to cast an African-American actor in the role, especially given some of LBJ's most significant legislative accomplishments and personal background. Luke Skywalker and Han Solo? Whether they're black, white, Latino, Asian, Icelandic, it literally makes no difference in their characterizations whatsoever, because none of those ethnicities actually exist in the Star Wars universe (yes, Lando is black, but he's not black in the terms of our own society's racial definitions), and nothing about their characters change if you alter their skin colors. Meanwhile, many minority superheroes over the years have been largely defined by their skin color/cultural background. The 70's and 80's had Superfriends lineups with such luminaries as Apache Chief and Samurai, truly pandering attempts at being multi-cultural that smacked of little more than tokenism. These characters WERE defined by what ethnicities they were. Plus, all of it ignores, again, Hollywood's "white-washing" history, and the relative dearth of roles available to minorities in comparison to whites. Instantly brings to mind John Wayne playing Genghis Khan, among other equally egregious examples. Good God, the first ever talkie was The Jazz Singer. Those were usually characters where getting the ethnicity right WAS important, unlike with characters like Johnny Storm or Luke Skywalker, where it means absolutely nothing beyond "that's how I picture them due to my exposure to previous iterations of these characters". The thing is, it's still a cheap ploy to look progressive without actually being progressive. Instead of actually writing a new, interesting Black character, they just took an already established White character and gave him a racial makeover. It still suggests that a Black character can't be interesting on their own merits and I don't see how the white-washing of history, which is a genuine and even worse problem, is supposed to justify doing the same kind of stuff with fictional characters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2013 1:29:47 GMT -5
Personally, the whole racial shift thing I for the most part don't have much of a problem with. I can definitely understand the issue and there is something to be said about context, but I don't have any issue with, say, Perry White. Now, Last Airbender's a good example of it being done poorly, where they chose poor actors (in Katara's case supposedly due to some bribery) when the characters had a specific ethnicity in place (had they been any good, fine, but if you're going to cast someone who absolutely sucks you might as well get it right) and showed it was probably an ignorance thing with the, "If you're Korean, wear a kimono," thing in the casting call, but that movie had plenty of other issues like just being shit in general and being quite sexist to boot.
I do think there is a little bit of a double standard, though. Like, I imagine this author would be much more willing to take issue with, say, a white actor being cast to play John Stewart. Personally, if they were the best choice then whatever, give it a shot, but know plenty of folks would take issue with that.
Though I do think there are situations where a given race is the right call for it. Like... Captain America. Not to say anything about the patriotism thing, though I'm sure some minds instantly go there, but given his backstory it probably wouldn't make very much sense for him to be played by a black actor, just because during that time period they probably wouldn't opt to go with something that revolutionary for someone who wasn't white. A black Superman, though? It'd definitely be different, but I'd give it a shot; he's not a human in the first place, it makes as much sense for him to be black as it does to be white or purple or whatever. If nothing else, I'd much rather give that a shot than the no-trunks look DC's so insistent on these days.
|
|
|
Post by Stone Cold Eleanor Shellstrop on May 12, 2013 1:41:10 GMT -5
I'm not saying racism and other forms of intolerance in fandoms isn't a thing, but there's a difference between condemning racism and full-on godwinning the whole thing. And I also think there's a difference between intentional, subjective, personally-expressed racism (when someone says 'I hate X people') and unintentional, non-subjective, systemic racism (when someone 'why are most superhero characters white? why are most comic book creators white? why are the identities of non-white comic book characters often dependent upon their non-whiteness?' is an exposure of the structural racism, or at the very least racial privilege, upon which inequalities of representation and access thrive when they are not even perceived as being real, visible, and material entities).
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
HaHa U FaLL 4 LaVa TriK
Posts: 46,345
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on May 12, 2013 2:04:28 GMT -5
I'm not saying racism and other forms of intolerance in fandoms isn't a thing, but there's a difference between condemning racism and full-on godwinning the whole thing. And I also think there's a difference between intentional, subjective, personally-expressed racism (when someone says 'I hate X people') and unintentional, non-subjective, systemic racism (when someone 'why are most superhero characters white? why are most comic book creators white? why are the identities of non-white comic book characters often dependent upon their non-whiteness?' is an exposure of the structural racism, or at the very least racial privilege, upon which inequalities of representation and access thrive when they are not even perceived as being real, visible, and material entities). Irony : The more you try to cram every possible identity group in for "equal access", the more likely you are to offend that last little one that you missed. Not commenting on "the progressive thing to do" at all in this case, mind you.
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,211
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on May 12, 2013 2:40:25 GMT -5
Okay, but see, even then, you're playing into his argument. Why pick the one character who's race isn't discernable as a superhero? Once he becomes the thing, it wouldn't matter if he was originally white, black or any other ethnicity. Why not Reed? Has Sue even been cast yet? She could be African-American as well. I heard rumors of Alison Williams... Which means their mom has some explaining to do. I don't have a problem with it if it's explain in the context of the story. Like Idris Elba as Heimdall in Thor, I don't read the comics to the extent where a black God seemed out of place or that big a factor to break the believability of the story. A black James Bond wouldn't be out of place if it's understood the popular theory now that "James Bond" is a code name. But if I see something like a white Sue Storm and a black Johnny Storm and their siblings with no explanation I'm going to wonder if their mom got some freak on the side. If it really pisses you off as something lore breaking then the answer is simple... don't go watch the film. I'm pretty sure Fox has one or two attempts left in them before they give the rights back to Marvel. Not much explaining, just have a family photo in the background with a black parent and a white parent. This does happen.
|
|
|
Post by Stone Cold Eleanor Shellstrop on May 12, 2013 3:03:07 GMT -5
And I also think there's a difference between intentional, subjective, personally-expressed racism (when someone says 'I hate X people') and unintentional, non-subjective, systemic racism (when someone 'why are most superhero characters white? why are most comic book creators white? why are the identities of non-white comic book characters often dependent upon their non-whiteness?' is an exposure of the structural racism, or at the very least racial privilege, upon which inequalities of representation and access thrive when they are not even perceived as being real, visible, and material entities). Irony : The more you try to cram every possible identity group in for "equal access", the more likely you are to offend that last little one that you missed. Not commenting on "the progressive thing to do" at all in this case, mind you. Perhaps, but that is more of an issue of assuming that visibility secures representation (not necessarily) or that representation secures visibility (not necessarily), to the point that what is perceived of people are only their visibilities or representations (when, if anything, people in their construction of themselves transcend both visibility and representation). But then both visibility and representation are entwined because we think of identity-as-difference as self-same consistency ('I am X because I am not Y'). This actually renders all difference equivalently (as socially constructed as those differences are), as being identical in their form, irrespective of their content. But we do not think differently about difference. Such is the qualitative relation between homogeneity and heterogeneity. To which, well yes, both politically progressive and regressive types are guilty of this fallacy when identity is constructed along the former lines--identity-as-difference--and not the latter--difference-as-difference. But none of this point, an irony as you describe it, speaks to the questions I've raised as hypotheticals, which are raised speculatively as to whether or not the redress as to the problem might be solved. Which is also a trivial problem in one sense, 'who will play the Human Torch?', but far more interesting in another sense, given how people think about, construct, practice, experience, and talk about race, media, and politics, and how these topics often converge (visually in this case) in something like comic books.
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
HaHa U FaLL 4 LaVa TriK
Posts: 46,345
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on May 12, 2013 3:19:39 GMT -5
It's not a 'solvable' issue. You can't brute-force people into all having the exact same philosophy.
Not without resorting to very, very, very unpleasant methods, which is to say the imminent threat of very, very, very unpleasant consequences for non-compliance.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on May 12, 2013 6:02:48 GMT -5
How do you know that was the motivation? Maybe the guy had the best audition?
Also, why write a "new, interesting black character" if the idea is supposed to be "the ethnicity of these guys really isn't important"? Unless you're writing a character where race is important to their characterization, the entire point is that it becomes meaningless. As said before, take Batman, Han Solo, any number of typically white heroes, change them into different-looking ethnicities, and guess what? Nothing about them changes.
The fact that Johnny Storm is a pre-existing character is different from "Johnny Storm is a pre-existing white character"; his whiteness is meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by ThereIsNoAbsurdistOnlyZuul on May 12, 2013 7:25:05 GMT -5
I agree with the article, sorta. I don't care about the physical appearance, or ethnicity, of the characters from a comic book being changed when they adapt it to the big screen. I really, and truly, don't. I would prefer that they remain consistent with the characterization, yanno the personality, the world view. And given there are aspects of the human condition that are universal these are more important to a serial piece of fiction like comics, where a character may have hundreds or even thousands of different writers and artists interpreting them. Sure some appearance cues are important (Dr. Doom and his mask, Cyclops and the Visor, Wolverine's hair, Spiderman being a skinny guy, Kingpin being a physically imposing and strong individual), but they can be dropped if they aren't integral to the characterization (the x-men movies kinda of dropped the whole Storm being from Africa, inasmuch as they didn't reference ever).
I mean if we are going to get nitpicky about about the ethnicity of a character then you have to acknowledge the gigantic pink elephant of the implication of Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury.
Why is this a problem?
Because this means that that whole Avengers arc is set in the Ultimates universe (this is the line people use to stop the faux-righteous frothing over a non-caucasian playing Nick Fury, and boy howdy I remember that needless whining on the interwebs over that, heck I remember people complaining about how Ultimates Fury wasn't white).
Which means we should be using Ultimate Hulk. Whereas the origin story they are using for the Hulk is from the Ed Norton Movie/TV show. Understandably, considering Ultimates Hulk is a freaking monster, and there is little to be considered redeeming about the character.
And it means we are using the rest of the Ultimates Universe as a whole which... is a pretty messed up place. But we also haven't acknowledged Hawkeyes backstory at all. And heck was Betsy even mentioned in Avengers? And why are people complaining about Heimdall being portray by an awesome actor, when you should be PISSED that a midget played Odin (I was taken out of the movie by knowing how short Anthony Hopkins is, and looking for all the tricks they did to get him to comparable height as the others), or that we got the slap in the face of continuity with Thor friendzoning Sif (his Wife in most continuities) so very hard. Or just how twisted Sebastian Shaw was from the comics.
Take it another step, I heard little to no backlash when they made Bane a whiteguy. The complaints were he was too small, not that he was a portrayed by very caucasian British man.
They have cherry picked which 'version' of the character they are going to use time and again in these adaptations, so much so that quoting 'time and place' of the character's creation is irrelevant. As if something in the comics doesn't 'fit' with the narrative they are going for, they'll disregard it.
IF you have to gather your pitchfork and torches out over Hollywood editing something, then you should hate famous comic artists (like Jack Kirby, John Byrne, Ron Lim, and Jim Lee) for good stretches of their career drawing people in such as fashion as to be a little hard to tell apart (Kirby's construction of faces in the 60s was good for this, as is John Byrne even across genders for him as She-Hulk's face looks near mirror image to any other female face, or the fact that Jim Lee's Psylocke and Zealot are palette and hairdo swaps).
Now I wont laud Hollywood for any casting decision until I see the actor portray the character. But my world is not shattered, even really effected at all, when one of the comic book character I grew up reading isn't exacting how I remember him to be, or want him to be. There are 50+ years of development and hodge podge that just cannot be accounted for
|
|
|
Post by Z-A Sandbaggin' Son of a b!%@h on May 12, 2013 7:46:46 GMT -5
That's the stupidest shit I've ever read.
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on May 12, 2013 7:49:39 GMT -5
I agree with the article, sorta. I don't care about the physical appearance, or ethnicity, of the characters from a comic book being changed when they adapt it to the big screen. I really, and truly, don't. I would prefer that they remain consistent with the characterization, yanno the personality, the world view. And given there are aspects of the human condition that are universal these are more important to a serial piece of fiction like comics, where a character may have hundreds or even thousands of different writers and artists interpreting them. Sure some appearance cues are important (Dr. Doom and his mask, Cyclops and the Visor, Wolverine's hair, Spiderman being a skinny guy, Kingpin being a physically imposing and strong individual), but they can be dropped if they aren't integral to the characterization (the x-men movies kinda of dropped the whole Storm being from Africa, inasmuch as they didn't reference ever). The problem here is that the article isn't about that but about calling anyone who doesn't like this casting choice a racist as if there's no other reason for it. As for the Nick Fury thing, the thing is it reflected a change that happened in the comic as well. The point being, if you're not going to represent the characters as they are in the original material, why bother adapting it at all? I understand adaptations can and sometimes must take liberties, but what's the point of this? And yes, Bane being a thin White guy in Dark Knight Rises is equally bullshit for the same reasons!
|
|
|
Post by ThereIsNoAbsurdistOnlyZuul on May 12, 2013 8:16:16 GMT -5
I agree with the article, sorta. I don't care about the physical appearance, or ethnicity, of the characters from a comic book being changed when they adapt it to the big screen. I really, and truly, don't. I would prefer that they remain consistent with the characterization, yanno the personality, the world view. And given there are aspects of the human condition that are universal these are more important to a serial piece of fiction like comics, where a character may have hundreds or even thousands of different writers and artists interpreting them. Sure some appearance cues are important (Dr. Doom and his mask, Cyclops and the Visor, Wolverine's hair, Spiderman being a skinny guy, Kingpin being a physically imposing and strong individual), but they can be dropped if they aren't integral to the characterization (the x-men movies kinda of dropped the whole Storm being from Africa, inasmuch as they didn't reference ever). The problem here is that the article isn't about that but about calling anyone who doesn't like this casting choice a racist as if there's no other reason for it. As for the Nick Fury thing, the thing is it reflected a change that happened in the comic as well. The point being, if you're not going to represent the characters as they are in the original material, why bother adapting it at all? I understand adaptations can and sometimes must take liberties, but what's the point of this? And yes, Bane being a thin White guy in Dark Knight Rises is equally bullshit for the same reasons! I would argue that the article rips apart the defenses people are using to react negatively to a possible casting choice. It is okay to want as faithful adaptations as possible, but if the people adapting it cherry pick what they bringing over, and the Fans (short for fanatics, a word not associates with rationality and clear mindedness) are cherry picking what things are going to send them into NERDRAGE and what they are being vocal about is a COSMETIC portion of the character then they lose ground. But like I said, if you are being FAITHFUL then you cannot adapt a black Nick Fury AND have the Incredible Hulk as anything but an antagonist/plothook/macguffin. As that Nick Fury is FIRMLY in the Ultimates line, which means that Hulk is a homicidal cannibal. Or even wussed out on Tony Stark's alcohol abuse, and how Stark's real first name in the Ultimates continuity is Antonio, and that he has an inoperable brain tumor, and not the same origin as in the main line continuity (and his magical capacitors). And again the fandom was up in arms over the SIZE of Bane, not the ETHNICITY. Which, carry equitable weight in the context of the character. For that matter, no one complained with Ras al-Ghul was white either. And he is most decidedly not white, and has no ties to Ninja as the League of Shadows/League of Assassins was hardly that. I didn't see any posts here about Moira McTaggert not being Scottish in First Class. If the outrage was consistent to ALL comic book characters being adapted then it is just the comic fans being obsessive about details. But they aren't being equally vociferous on the changers. That is the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on May 12, 2013 8:21:34 GMT -5
I hated hated hated that article. just inflammatory bullshit that doesn't even bother to be fair to the COMPLETELY LEGITIMATE arguments of people who think Johnny Storm should actually look like Johnny Storm. this isn't a minor character like Heimdall or a villain like Electro or Kingpin whose race is unimportant, it's an iconic superhero whose always been a white blonde guy in every other adaptation, comics films or otherwise, and who popular culture will always see that way. it'd be the same if they got an asian guy to play Superman or a samoan to be Batman. people don't hate this possible casting decision because they're racist, they hate it because it's very difficult to make sense of a black guy being the brother of a white girl without adding silly adoption elements into the background that needlessly complicate things, and it also smacks of tokenism. Just because a character who is white like Johnny Storm or Batman is more visible as an iconic comic book figure compared to the cinematic representations of Heimdall or Kingpin does not mean that their race is any more or less important to that character. Batman being Samoan changes nothing whatsoever about that character, because how typical is it in comic books for characters to openly comment about a white character's being-white to begin with, whereas other characters, non-white characters, are often identified according to their non-white difference (like the Black Panther, ignoring the political allusion around which the character then debuted). Which in itself is problematic because it assumes as a norm that whiteness is that by which all other racial difference is to be compared, but also because whiteness itself as a racial category becomes effaced and assumed as a given, is assumed to be natural because whiteness is no longer 'as visible' as other racial differences are. Mind you, our perceptions of race as 'difference' is socially determined, and as such race hold no inherent, essential meaning. You wouldn't say "purple is a better colour than green" because what it assumes as fact cannot be tested empirically (qualities and quantities of purpleness to greenness, even insofar as 'better' as a subjective-evaluative signifier is socially determined, even to the point that the science of empiricism is also socially determined, so what constitutes objectivity is really a social product anyway), but why has there historically been such an association with skin colour? It is not skin colour itself that holds any meaning, but the social meanings attached to skin colour that does, often problematically so (racism, slavery, colonialism, genocide, etc.). To this point, given the propensity of predominantly white characters in comic books, if not perhaps the role that white comic book creators have in creating white characters (which we ought to be careful not to assume that having more non-white comic book creators means that there will be more non-white comic book characters), why is it so important that a fictional character must remain white when his identity has not been predicated upon the social meanings of his skin colour? Fictional characters are completely malleable. The Human Torch could be made a woman. The Human Torch could be made into a dog. Within the confines of the context of the story, the Human Torch is what he needs to be. There is no true, essential identity to the Human Torch. Granted, there is a history of how he has been visually represented as a racial character (as being white), and there are audience expectations to how the character should be portrayed because of how long he has been visually represented a certain way. But neither point grants any truth to how the character ought to be portrayed, a point of truth above all other claims to represent the Human Torch otherwise (as black, as a woman, as a dog, etc.), when his representation-as-identity never has been called into question or has been commented upon as being important to begin with. I think it's incredibly insulting to assume I implied anywhere that "white is normal". I never said that. what I said was "Johnny Storm is a white character, he always was a white character, via pop-culture osmosis it will just come off as silly if a film-maker makes them something they never have been". it's the same reason you wouldn't cast a mexican as Luke Cage. a character's race is very much a part of who they are. you can say it's irrelevant when it's completely relevant. if you made him a woman or a dog, it'd be even sillier. don't believe me? look at the 60s cartoon where he got replaced with a robot and ask how many people have fond memories of that.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on May 12, 2013 8:28:46 GMT -5
Was there any outrage when Bane was casted to be played by a white guy? not really, but even if he's a latino Bane's always been drawn to look caucasian. he's half-white half-brazilian (er... well... comic-friendly brazilian counterpart) and there's a lot of caucasian brazilians. I'm just disappointed he didn't have the faux-hawk.
|
|
|
Post by ThereIsNoAbsurdistOnlyZuul on May 12, 2013 8:34:06 GMT -5
Just because a character who is white like Johnny Storm or Batman is more visible as an iconic comic book figure compared to the cinematic representations of Heimdall or Kingpin does not mean that their race is any more or less important to that character. Batman being Samoan changes nothing whatsoever about that character, because how typical is it in comic books for characters to openly comment about a white character's being-white to begin with, whereas other characters, non-white characters, are often identified according to their non-white difference (like the Black Panther, ignoring the political allusion around which the character then debuted). Which in itself is problematic because it assumes as a norm that whiteness is that by which all other racial difference is to be compared, but also because whiteness itself as a racial category becomes effaced and assumed as a given, is assumed to be natural because whiteness is no longer 'as visible' as other racial differences are. Mind you, our perceptions of race as 'difference' is socially determined, and as such race hold no inherent, essential meaning. You wouldn't say "purple is a better colour than green" because what it assumes as fact cannot be tested empirically (qualities and quantities of purpleness to greenness, even insofar as 'better' as a subjective-evaluative signifier is socially determined, even to the point that the science of empiricism is also socially determined, so what constitutes objectivity is really a social product anyway), but why has there historically been such an association with skin colour? It is not skin colour itself that holds any meaning, but the social meanings attached to skin colour that does, often problematically so (racism, slavery, colonialism, genocide, etc.). To this point, given the propensity of predominantly white characters in comic books, if not perhaps the role that white comic book creators have in creating white characters (which we ought to be careful not to assume that having more non-white comic book creators means that there will be more non-white comic book characters), why is it so important that a fictional character must remain white when his identity has not been predicated upon the social meanings of his skin colour? Fictional characters are completely malleable. The Human Torch could be made a woman. The Human Torch could be made into a dog. Within the confines of the context of the story, the Human Torch is what he needs to be. There is no true, essential identity to the Human Torch. Granted, there is a history of how he has been visually represented as a racial character (as being white), and there are audience expectations to how the character should be portrayed because of how long he has been visually represented a certain way. But neither point grants any truth to how the character ought to be portrayed, a point of truth above all other claims to represent the Human Torch otherwise (as black, as a woman, as a dog, etc.), when his representation-as-identity never has been called into question or has been commented upon as being important to begin with. I think it's incredibly insulting to assume I implied anywhere that "white is normal". I never said that. what I said was "Johnny Storm is a white character, he always was a white character, via pop-culture osmosis it will just come off as silly if a film-maker makes them something they never have been". it's the same reason you wouldn't cast a mexican as Luke Cage. a character's race is very much a part of who they are. you can say it's irrelevant when it's completely relevant. if you made him a woman or a dog, it'd be even sillier. don't believe me? look at the 60s cartoon where he got replaced with a robot and ask how many people have fond memories of that. Counterpoint: In your example you reference Luke Cage. This is an apple, as it was essential to the way the character was made and developed that he was a black character. The orange is that Johnny Storm, whose race was ancilliary to the character at best, applied only for cosmetic reasons. To put it another way, there is a different between a white character, and a character who happens to be white. And unless there was going to be some elements of the ethnic culture/sub-culture it wasn't discussed. In this example, are the Storms Irish? Scottish? Dutch? German? I don't know, it was never really an important point to the character. Luke Cage's ancestry was never really explored either, apart from him being a part of the African-American community, and coming from a poor part of town. But aspects (stereotypical/cliche as they were) of that culture was present in him from pretty much the get go. To put it simply Luke Cage is an African-American character. Johnny Storm is a character who happens to be Caucasian.
|
|