|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on May 13, 2013 19:29:35 GMT -5
People just want their favorite characters to look like their favorite characters, white/black/green/whatever. The "nerds" this article claims are racist are the same people who would get up in arms if they didn't cast a black guy as Luke Cage or Falcon. Those "nerds" are also the same people who got pissed off when Christopher Nolan cast a white guy as Bane because the character is South American. There's nothing racist about it. I guarantee that if they did a Justice League movie and made Martian Manhunter blue instead of green, people would throw a fit, and those are fictional skin tones. Like has already been said, it just feels like stunt casting when they do stuff like this. People talk about race needing to be thrown out when it comes to casting parts in Hollywood, and that's absolutely true. However, when a primary protagonist already has a defined and marketed appearance, it's stupid to deliberately go against that because you're going to alienate more people than you're going to impress. exactly. I mean, let's take race out of the equation for a second; how would you guys feel if Superman had blonde hair in the next movie?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2013 19:52:07 GMT -5
People just want their favorite characters to look like their favorite characters, white/black/green/whatever. The "nerds" this article claims are racist are the same people who would get up in arms if they didn't cast a black guy as Luke Cage or Falcon. Those "nerds" are also the same people who got pissed off when Christopher Nolan cast a white guy as Bane because the character is South American. There's nothing racist about it. I guarantee that if they did a Justice League movie and made Martian Manhunter blue instead of green, people would throw a fit, and those are fictional skin tones. Like has already been said, it just feels like stunt casting when they do stuff like this. People talk about race needing to be thrown out when it comes to casting parts in Hollywood, and that's absolutely true. However, when a primary protagonist already has a defined and marketed appearance, it's stupid to deliberately go against that because you're going to alienate more people than you're going to impress. exactly. I mean, let's take race out of the equation for a second; how would you guys feel if Superman had blonde hair in the next movie? Who's the actor? If he's good, I'd have no problems. Bond changed to a blonde. Also wigs exist. You can't just change an actor's skin tone. If the best actor available only difference from the character is his skin color, I don't see why he couldn't play the character outside of it not being how people envision it.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on May 13, 2013 19:55:03 GMT -5
no no I mean literally the character is given blonde hair. no wigs, no dyes, the director wants him blonde (and no cape because "capes are faggy")
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on May 13, 2013 19:58:50 GMT -5
I can't say I've ever really cared so much to be angry about a character's hair color being different.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2013 20:00:12 GMT -5
Depends on how it's presented. If I approach it with an open mind, it could be an excellent film.
|
|
|
Post by ThereIsNoAbsurdistOnlyZuul on May 13, 2013 23:49:54 GMT -5
Creating a "great black superhero" isn't the goal. It's playing a superhero who's race is immaterial to the way he's always been presented, and giving the role to whichever actor auditions best or best suits what they're looking for. The key concept is that eventually whether the actor is black, white, or whatever doesn't even need to enter into our consciousness, because it's very arbitrary. It's an established character who can literally be played by someone of any race, because nothing about Johnny Storm's race defines who he is. ...And it feels like people keep answering this, then that answer is ignored while people just keep saying the same things, instead of arguing or conceding or at least acknowledging that point. But it isnt immaterial to a fan of the source material. This last statement is what I am gonna focus on here, for starters, and for good reason. There is a clause missing. ' Might' Because not every fan ultimately cares about this. And one's fandom of something is not diminished because they don't care about how the physical presentation is done. Being a fan does not, and will not ever make you the owner of that which you enjoy. To believe otherwise is to hold to something based on an emotional investment that does not correlate to reality. We, the fans do not own the objects of our fandom. It is not our team, our comic book. We own our reaction to it. That is all. And that does not give us the right to be angry when it changes, or when it cannot hold itself up to an ideal we believe it to be. Writers will changes, visions will shift, players get older, the adaptation has to flex for existing in a completely different environment entirely. We feel entitled to what we love, that it somehow owes something to us. And if it does then the merely of it's existence fulfills any promise we imagine it has made to us. The outrage of some should not rule over everyone else, especially when being angry or offended does not put you in the right. Try to satisfy those people make creators cautious, it makes their works weak. It is ambition and risk that drive people to heights, to grow. Stan Lee, for all his imperfections, took those risks, the Fantastic Four were among the first heroes where pathos and angst about their situation were components of. Gazing adoringly backwards while moving means you stumble. It means you do something like Joss Whedon did, bringing Colossus because he had to keep that good ship going with Buffy I mean Kitty Pryde. My issue with the complaining is that, from what I have seen, is that it hasn't been even. Again, if it matters that Johnny Storm is blonde haired and blue eyed, then it matters that Bane is a towering Hispanic character. That Leech is obviously inhuman. That Ras al-Ghul is Arabic. That Pyro is Australian. That the movies adhere to a different timeline/continuity than what is in the comics. These are all differences from your precious canon, the HAVE to matter as much as all the others according to the rules of this outrage. That where I take umbrage. It is where the lines are drawn. And when evidence points to people only really getting angry when some people in Hollywood are considering making a character a black male instead of a caucasian male... ![](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_med6veIenp1rqt0kqo1_500.jpg)
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,014
|
Post by Legion on May 14, 2013 1:00:57 GMT -5
If you arent going to make a film with the characters as they are and how they look, why not just make your own film with your own characters? No one but Danes should play Hamlet, ever. In fact, if you want to be a Shakespearean actor, you'd best be white... no non-whites allowed in our most cherished plays unless you're gonna be Othello or Shylock. There definitely should not be a black Inspector Javert in any Les Miserables musicals, or heaven forfend, a Filipina Eponine. Who cares about great actors or great singing? If they're the wrong color, too freaking bad. That sounds massively unreasonable, right? But that's essentially what we're saying here. Actors need to look exactly as the character looks, or our fragile suspension of disbelief is shattered. If a character's race doesn't change the story, why be so thin-skinned about a POC getting a shot at a great role? White people have plenty of great roles they can go out for, and they often get cast as other races anyway (see Johnny Depp in The Lone Ranger for a recent example, or {Spoiler}{spoilers for new Star Trek movie}Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan.) Plus, if they hold open auditions with people of all races, and the white guy is best, he'll still get the role. So why is it so painful to see a guy whose whiteness is completely immaterial to his character played by a POC actor who had the best audition? Because I dont feel that his whiteness is immaterial because I want a faithful translation. Yeah, I agree with those being really easy questions. I barely read any of the comics (basically just watched the cartoon show when I was younger), and even I knew that much about her. And this is what gets me angry. People who have no connection or existing love for the characters attacking people and, frankly, calling them racist because they have no problem with it, despite not being a fan of the existing material. Yeah, ok, not all fans will have the same mileage, but for me, at the very least, a character should look like themselves, else, and I say it again, why make a film of that property? If you arent actually going to make a film of that property, because you are changing fundamental elements of plot, character, or yes, for me, the look of the character, why bother doing it all?
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
HaHa U FaLL 4 LaVa TriK
Posts: 46,381
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on May 14, 2013 1:01:32 GMT -5
But it isnt immaterial to a fan of the source material. This last statement is what I am gonna focus on here, for starters, and for good reason. There is a clause missing. ' Might' Because not every fan ultimately cares about this. And one's fandom of something is not diminished because they don't care about how the physical presentation is done. Being a fan does not, and will not ever make you the owner of that which you enjoy. To believe otherwise is to hold to something based on an emotional investment that does not correlate to reality. We, the fans do not own the objects of our fandom. It is not our team, our comic book. We own our reaction to it. That is all. And that does not give us the right to be angry when it changes, or when it cannot hold itself up to an ideal we believe it to be. Writers will changes, visions will shift, players get older, the adaptation has to flex for existing in a completely different environment entirely. We feel entitled to what we love, that it somehow owes something to us. And if it does then the merely of it's existence fulfills any promise we imagine it has made to us. The outrage of some should not rule over everyone else, especially when being angry or offended does not put you in the right. Try to satisfy those people make creators cautious, it makes their works weak. It is ambition and risk that drive people to heights, to grow. Stan Lee, for all his imperfections, took those risks, the Fantastic Four were among the first heroes where pathos and angst about their situation were components of. Gazing adoringly backwards while moving means you stumble. It means you do something like Joss Whedon did, bringing Colossus because he had to keep that good ship going with Buffy I mean Kitty Pryde. My issue with the complaining is that, from what I have seen, is that it hasn't been even. Again, if it matters that Johnny Storm is blonde haired and blue eyed, then it matters that Bane is a towering Hispanic character. That Leech is obviously inhuman. That Ras al-Ghul is Arabic. That Pyro is Australian. That the movies adhere to a different timeline/continuity than what is in the comics. These are all differences from your precious canon, the HAVE to matter as much as all the others according to the rules of this outrage. That where I take umbrage. It is where the lines are drawn. And when evidence points to people only really getting angry when some people in Hollywood are considering making a character a black male instead of a caucasian male... ![](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_med6veIenp1rqt0kqo1_500.jpg) Even then, there's a difference between being a racist, and being wary because you've just turned an established family into the ECW incarnation of the Dudley Boyz because "Hey, diversity!".
|
|
|
Post by ThereIsNoAbsurdistOnlyZuul on May 14, 2013 2:42:27 GMT -5
This last statement is what I am gonna focus on here, for starters, and for good reason. There is a clause missing. ' Might' Because not every fan ultimately cares about this. And one's fandom of something is not diminished because they don't care about how the physical presentation is done. Being a fan does not, and will not ever make you the owner of that which you enjoy. To believe otherwise is to hold to something based on an emotional investment that does not correlate to reality. We, the fans do not own the objects of our fandom. It is not our team, our comic book. We own our reaction to it. That is all. And that does not give us the right to be angry when it changes, or when it cannot hold itself up to an ideal we believe it to be. Writers will changes, visions will shift, players get older, the adaptation has to flex for existing in a completely different environment entirely. We feel entitled to what we love, that it somehow owes something to us. And if it does then the merely of it's existence fulfills any promise we imagine it has made to us. The outrage of some should not rule over everyone else, especially when being angry or offended does not put you in the right. Try to satisfy those people make creators cautious, it makes their works weak. It is ambition and risk that drive people to heights, to grow. Stan Lee, for all his imperfections, took those risks, the Fantastic Four were among the first heroes where pathos and angst about their situation were components of. Gazing adoringly backwards while moving means you stumble. It means you do something like Joss Whedon did, bringing Colossus because he had to keep that good ship going with Buffy I mean Kitty Pryde. My issue with the complaining is that, from what I have seen, is that it hasn't been even. Again, if it matters that Johnny Storm is blonde haired and blue eyed, then it matters that Bane is a towering Hispanic character. That Leech is obviously inhuman. That Ras al-Ghul is Arabic. That Pyro is Australian. That the movies adhere to a different timeline/continuity than what is in the comics. These are all differences from your precious canon, the HAVE to matter as much as all the others according to the rules of this outrage. That where I take umbrage. It is where the lines are drawn. And when evidence points to people only really getting angry when some people in Hollywood are considering making a character a black male instead of a caucasian male... ![](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_med6veIenp1rqt0kqo1_500.jpg) Even then, there's a difference between being a racist, and being wary because you've just turned an established family into the ECW incarnation of the Dudley Boyz because "Hey, diversity!". I fail to see how that applies. Further how is that addressing any points I made? Making a cynical observation about supposed motivations of Hollywood executives is at best poor discourse, at worst a rhetorical attempt to derail. I will address you point, they aren't an established family. They are a fictional construction. Those things are very distinct. Besides, I can offer a very good explanation for all of this: Franklin Richards. Marvel's very own: ![](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-T2tKypO2FO0/T2EBQmKpeSI/AAAAAAAAAgk/4KCRs6LEsZI/s1600/Cartman-WHATEVA-I-DO-WHAT-I-WANT.jpg) Holy crap, that means I know something about the history of Marvel comics, yanno the guy who sealed away the Fantastic Four and the Avengers before? The kid to whom reality itself is akin to Lincoln Logs (for those too young to understand, they were a more primitive and biodegrabable form of LEGOS)? ![](http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120518013148/marveldatabase/images/d/df/Franklin_Richards_(Earth-616)_from_FF_Vol_1_15_cover.JPG) There built in handwave. Soak it in people. Oh, wait, I forgot. The main Marvel Universe is 616. And given that pretty much all the movies are more divergent than a What If issue, clearly, this is a different reality entirely than the movie itself (has to be or the Stan Lees are all Skrulls).
|
|
|
Post by Piccolo on May 14, 2013 6:52:01 GMT -5
And this is what gets me angry. People who have no connection or existing love for the characters attacking people and, frankly, calling them racist because they have no problem with it, despite not being a fan of the existing material. Because I don't read X-Men? Oh, the horror. Look, you can be as angry as you want, but the question remains. If someone's race changes nothing about their story... if Hamlet could be a black Dane and have the same experiences of being a thinker forced into a doer's role, a scholar struggling with the implications of when and if to kill a family member based on the testimony of a ghost as a white Dane would, why could Hamlet not be portrayed by a black actor? Why should POC be banned from the meatiest roles in cinema simply because of their skin color? Why can we suspend disbelief about gods and aliens, but not about skin color? What about it is so frightening or insulting?
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on May 14, 2013 8:47:09 GMT -5
And this is what gets me angry. People who have no connection or existing love for the characters attacking people and, frankly, calling them racist because they have no problem with it, despite not being a fan of the existing material. Because I don't read X-Men? Oh, the horror. You are history's greatest monster ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png)
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on May 14, 2013 9:14:11 GMT -5
I am only going to reiterate this one more time, and that's it: the argument of "what about having a white guy play Luke Cage, then?!" doesn't hold water, in many posters' opinions, because being African-American has always been central to the characterization of Luke Cage. His race is not immaterial. You may argue with this point, you may debate it, but if I see another post that does not even acknowledge that this point has been made countless times already, then I am locking the thread and potentially issuing warnings. Nobody here has to agree on subjective matters, but YOU MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THE ARGUMENTS/POINTS OF VIEW THAT OTHERS ARE OFFERING.
And if Johnny Storm needs to be white because some fans want "a faithful adaptation of the source material", then that fan needs to reexamine his/her priorities, in my opinion. Once again, Storm, the Fantastic Four, countless heroes have been written, rewritten, reinterpreted, redesigned countless times, so what exactly is a "faithful adaptation"? And when race does not even enter into the discussion for this particular character, how does it affect the storytelling?
As for other arguments concerning characters like Jubilee, what we're seeing is an example of privilege blindness; frankly, for many people in matters concerning diversity sensitivity, it IS ok to take a white character and have an ethnic minority actor play them (again, barring an instance where whiteness is core to the storytelling), but the opposite doesn't hold true.
And honestly? There is nothing inconsistent about this.
The reality of Hollywood and most other mainstream American institutions is that there is no shortage of positive white role models or even examples of whiteness being "the norm". After all, as of now white people are still the majority in the U.S. population, and I don't think anybody takes umbrage with any depiction of an "average American" crowd wherein the majority of faces are white.
Yet while minorities are just that, a minority within the population, the depiction of many ethnic minorities in entertainment and other venues (hell, even in our political discourse) has historically been woefully under-representative. If you take Jubilee and make her white, you remove something that doesn't exist very much within the world of comics/movies/TV/etc.: an Asian hero, particularly one who isn't defined by being Asian, but simply is. This is not a common thing to find in mass media/pop culture.
Now, take, say, Spider-Man and make him hispanic, it isn't as if white people really "lose" anything. Much like Jubilee, Spider-Man is not defined by his ethnicity; however, altering his ethnicity would really have no larger social consequences. It isn't as if white children will suddenly miss out on having a rare positive white role model in their media outlet of choice, as white heroes are plenty easy to find and are often the faces of the most recognizable superheroes.
This is where the blind privilege aspect comes in; if you take a few white role models and make them black/Asian/whatever, I'm not likely to notice, because I'm lucky enough to be part of the population that will always have representation in mass media. Take away one or two minority superheroes, fans within that ethnic community are much more likely to feel the sting, as they do not have that luxury.
Again, you want to argue "but it's not how I always imagined it!"...that really doesn't mean anything. That's your own opinion, but it doesn't account for much when these decisions are made.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on May 14, 2013 10:49:25 GMT -5
As for other arguments concerning characters like Jubilee, what we're seeing is an example of privilege blindness; frankly, for many people in matters concerning diversity sensitivity, it IS ok to take a white character and have an ethnic minority actor play them (again, barring an instance where whiteness is core to the storytelling), but the opposite doesn't hold true. And honestly? There is nothing inconsistent about this. Cutting this short just for space, but I did read your defense of it, but this part of the argument rubs me the wrong way. How is a straight up racially-driven double standard not being inconsistent with the rules of movie casting? You can defend the double standard, but you can't pretend that it's not one. You're arguing that you can take two fictional characters of similar, non-racially driven characterization, and say a black (real) actor can play either but a white (real) actor can only play one? The fact that there aren't a lot of minority heroes doesn't change the fact that your giving a different set of rules to different actors based solely on their race. How can you honestly argue that's not being inconsistent? You want to criticize people for being upset that the character isn't consistent with the way they've been portrayed 99 times out of 100, arguing that they're displaying privilege, but then you want to completely justify people saying "well, you can change this character, but you better not change a character of my race"?
|
|
|
Post by Brother Nero....Wolfe on May 14, 2013 11:03:41 GMT -5
But it isnt immaterial to a fan of the source material. This last statement is what I am gonna focus on here, for starters, and for good reason. There is a clause missing. ' Might' Because not every fan ultimately cares about this. And one's fandom of something is not diminished because they don't care about how the physical presentation is done. Being a fan does not, and will not ever make you the owner of that which you enjoy. To believe otherwise is to hold to something based on an emotional investment that does not correlate to reality. We, the fans do not own the objects of our fandom. It is not our team, our comic book. We own our reaction to it. That is all. And that does not give us the right to be angry when it changes, or when it cannot hold itself up to an ideal we believe it to be. Writers will changes, visions will shift, players get older, the adaptation has to flex for existing in a completely different environment entirely. We feel entitled to what we love, that it somehow owes something to us. And if it does then the merely of it's existence fulfills any promise we imagine it has made to us. The outrage of some should not rule over everyone else, especially when being angry or offended does not put you in the right. Try to satisfy those people make creators cautious, it makes their works weak. It is ambition and risk that drive people to heights, to grow. Stan Lee, for all his imperfections, took those risks, the Fantastic Four were among the first heroes where pathos and angst about their situation were components of. Gazing adoringly backwards while moving means you stumble. It means you do something like Joss Whedon did, bringing Colossus because he had to keep that good ship going with Buffy I mean Kitty Pryde. My issue with the complaining is that, from what I have seen, is that it hasn't been even. Again, if it matters that Johnny Storm is blonde haired and blue eyed, then it matters that Bane is a towering Hispanic character. That Leech is obviously inhuman. That Ras al-Ghul is Arabic. That Pyro is Australian. That the movies adhere to a different timeline/continuity than what is in the comics. These are all differences from your precious canon, the HAVE to matter as much as all the others according to the rules of this outrage. That where I take umbrage. It is where the lines are drawn. And when evidence points to people only really getting angry when some people in Hollywood are considering making a character a black male instead of a caucasian male... ![](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_med6veIenp1rqt0kqo1_500.jpg) The only thing I'm not sure I agree with is that this is drawing much more negative reaction than the other examples you cited. I agree with your reasoning and if there's more complaining about a white character being turned black than other similar changes--well, at least some of it has to be racially motivated. What I'm not sure though is the claim that more people are upset about this than any other change. I remember people being upset about Bane, blond James Bond(the complaining about this one was ridiculous), among others. Has the complaining been much different? Because that's frankly one of the issues I had with the article - it just cited a bunch of forum posts and twitter, both of which are not good ways to find a sample of anything, and then claimed it represented a very large group of people and to take his word for it. I'm not saying there isn't a lot of complaining about this, mind you - I'm legitimately asking about it because I honestly don't know.
|
|
Goldenbane
Hank Scorpio
THE G.D. Goldenbane
Posts: 7,331
|
Post by Goldenbane on May 14, 2013 11:14:17 GMT -5
I am only going to reiterate this one more time, and that's it: the argument of "what about having a white guy play Luke Cage, then?!" doesn't hold water, in many posters' opinions, because being African-American has always been central to the characterization of Luke Cage. His race is not immaterial. You may argue with this point, you may debate it, but if I see another post that does not even acknowledge that this point has been made countless times already, then I am locking the thread and potentially issuing warnings. Nobody here has to agree on subjective matters, but YOU MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THE ARGUMENTS/POINTS OF VIEW THAT OTHERS ARE OFFERING.And if Johnny Storm needs to be white because some fans want "a faithful adaptation of the source material", then that fan needs to reexamine his/her priorities, in my opinion. Once again, Storm, the Fantastic Four, countless heroes have been written, rewritten, reinterpreted, redesigned countless times, so what exactly is a "faithful adaptation"? And when race does not even enter into the discussion for this particular character, how does it affect the storytelling? As for other arguments concerning characters like Jubilee, what we're seeing is an example of privilege blindness; frankly, for many people in matters concerning diversity sensitivity, it IS ok to take a white character and have an ethnic minority actor play them (again, barring an instance where whiteness is core to the storytelling), but the opposite doesn't hold true. And honestly? There is nothing inconsistent about this. The reality of Hollywood and most other mainstream American institutions is that there is no shortage of positive white role models or even examples of whiteness being "the norm". After all, as of now white people are still the majority in the U.S. population, and I don't think anybody takes umbrage with any depiction of an "average American" crowd wherein the majority of faces are white. Yet while minorities are just that, a minority within the population, the depiction of many ethnic minorities in entertainment and other venues (hell, even in our political discourse) has historically been woefully under-representative. If you take Jubilee and make her white, you remove something that doesn't exist very much within the world of comics/movies/TV/etc.: an Asian hero, particularly one who isn't defined by being Asian, but simply is. This is not a common thing to find in mass media/pop culture. Now, take, say, Spider-Man and make him hispanic, it isn't as if white people really "lose" anything. Much like Jubilee, Spider-Man is not defined by his ethnicity; however, altering his ethnicity would really have no larger social consequences. It isn't as if white children will suddenly miss out on having a rare positive white role model in their media outlet of choice, as white heroes are plenty easy to find and are often the faces of the most recognizable superheroes. This is where the blind privilege aspect comes in; if you take a few white role models and make them black/Asian/whatever, I'm not likely to notice, because I'm lucky enough to be part of the population that will always have representation in mass media. Take away one or two minority superheroes, fans within that ethnic community are much more likely to feel the sting, as they do not have that luxury. Again, you want to argue "but it's not how I always imagined it!"...that really doesn't mean anything. That's your own opinion, but it doesn't account for much when these decisions are made. Isn't Luke Cage just a "black super hero version" of Jean Valjean from the book/play Les Miserables?
|
|
the2ndevil
Grimlock
Super Seducer Survivor
Where Is Your Santa, Now?
Posts: 13,635
|
Post by the2ndevil on May 14, 2013 11:26:09 GMT -5
Now, take, say, Spider-Man and make him hispanic Isn't this exactly the Ultimate Spider-Man comics did? I'm not a big comic reader, myself, but I heard good things about the character and the stories being told.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on May 14, 2013 11:42:01 GMT -5
Now, take, say, Spider-Man and make him hispanic Isn't this exactly the Ultimate Spider-Man comics did? I'm not a big comic reader, myself, but I heard good things about the character and the stories being told. Yeah, slightly different though Ultimate Peter died and someone else took up the mantle of spider-man
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on May 14, 2013 11:44:25 GMT -5
Isn't this exactly the Ultimate Spider-Man comics did? I'm not a big comic reader, myself, but I heard good things about the character and the stories being told. Yeah, slightly different though Ultimate Peter died and someone else took up the mantle of spider-man still haven't forgiven Marvel for that one either. I like Miles fine, but the way they did away with Peter just felt mean-spirited, like they only did it because it invalidated Joe Quesada's lunatic obsession with Spider-man 616 being single.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,014
|
Post by Legion on May 14, 2013 13:17:14 GMT -5
As for other arguments concerning characters like Jubilee, what we're seeing is an example of privilege blindness; frankly, for many people in matters concerning diversity sensitivity, it IS ok to take a white character and have an ethnic minority actor play them (again, barring an instance where whiteness is core to the storytelling), but the opposite doesn't hold true. And honestly? There is nothing inconsistent about this. Cutting this short just for space, but I did read your defense of it, but this part of the argument rubs me the wrong way. How is a straight up racially-driven double standard not being inconsistent with the rules of movie casting? You can defend the double standard, but you can't pretend that it's not one. You're arguing that you can take two fictional characters of similar, non-racially driven characterization, and say a black (real) actor can play either but a white (real) actor can only play one? The fact that there aren't a lot of minority heroes doesn't change the fact that your giving a different set of rules to different actors based solely on their race. How can you honestly argue that's not being inconsistent? You want to criticize people for being upset that the character isn't consistent with the way they've been portrayed 99 times out of 100, arguing that they're displaying privilege, but then you want to completely justify people saying "well, you can change this character, but you better not change a character of my race"? Exactly. I dont get the argument that a) has to be this colour because it is integral but b) can be changed because it isnt. I could write a story about a Tarzan like white child lost to his parents in Africa and adopted by the childless King of Wakanda because of a prophecy and voila, I've written a story that makes it ok for Black Panther to actually be white. No, it would be lambasted and called white washing and rightly so, because that is a black character and clearly requires a black actor to play him. A white guy wouldnt even get to audition for that role and that has nothing to characterisation. As for your point about Luke Cage, how is that 'many posters' can feel that that particular argument is invalid and that being black is integral to him, but the counter point, that Storm being white and being a 'full' relative of Sue and being, frankly, a white privileged playboy teen is actually not essential and open to change and debate? I dont understand the requirement for that particular double standard. If race changing is ok for one character, then it has to be ok for any character, regardless of what fans may want because if I can't see a character portrayed how I want to see him, why is my opinion on that to be less protected than someone who feels a different character can be chopped and changed?
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on May 14, 2013 13:56:28 GMT -5
Cutting this short just for space, but I did read your defense of it, but this part of the argument rubs me the wrong way. How is a straight up racially-driven double standard not being inconsistent with the rules of movie casting? You can defend the double standard, but you can't pretend that it's not one. You're arguing that you can take two fictional characters of similar, non-racially driven characterization, and say a black (real) actor can play either but a white (real) actor can only play one? The fact that there aren't a lot of minority heroes doesn't change the fact that your giving a different set of rules to different actors based solely on their race. How can you honestly argue that's not being inconsistent? You want to criticize people for being upset that the character isn't consistent with the way they've been portrayed 99 times out of 100, arguing that they're displaying privilege, but then you want to completely justify people saying "well, you can change this character, but you better not change a character of my race"? Exactly. I dont get the argument that a) has to be this colour because it is integral but b) can be changed because it isnt. I could write a story about a Tarzan like white child lost to his parents in Africa and adopted by the childless King of Wakanda because of a prophecy and voila, I've written a story that makes it ok for Black Panther to actually be white. No, it would be lambasted and called white washing and rightly so, because that is a black character and clearly requires a black actor to play him. A white guy wouldnt even get to audition for that role and that has nothing to characterisation. As for your point about Luke Cage, how is that 'many posters' can feel that that particular argument is invalid and that being black is integral to him, but the counter point, that Storm being white and being a 'full' relative of Sue and being, frankly, a white privileged playboy teen is actually not essential and open to change and debate? I dont understand the requirement for that particular double standard. If race changing is ok for one character, then it has to be ok for any character, regardless of what fans may want because if I can't see a character portrayed how I want to see him, why is my opinion on that to be less protected than someone who feels a different character can be chopped and changed? See, I disagree in that I believe it can be changed if you can keep the vital core elements of the character and you have the right actor who just happens to be a different race. Ultimately, the quality of the movie matters more to me than getting the aesthetic perfect, and I personally don't need to see an exact representation to enjoy a movie. I just can't buy into the notion that it's ok to change a white person but not ok to change one of any other race. To me, that's ridiculous.
|
|