Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on May 14, 2013 14:21:06 GMT -5
I can't say I've ever really cared so much to be angry about a character's hair color being different. With a character like Superman who doesn't wear a mask, taking away his dark hair would drastically harm his ability to look like Superman, which is how you sell the character. Everyone knows what Superman looks like as a general appearance. There's no good reason to try and tinker with that. That's the argument at hand here. Why change a character's general appearance for the sake of it? Michael Clarke Duncan wasn't cast because they thought they should just change Kingpin to a black guy. They had a valid reason, which was that Duncan was easily the most physically imposing and Kingpin-esque actor in Hollywood. That's why the amount of people you hear fuss about that is far less than say, people fussing about this new Johnny Storm rumor. Hollywood is filled with good actors who fit the basic Johnny Storm model, so there's no good reason to cast outside of that other than wanting to make a statement or go against the grain.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on May 14, 2013 14:27:09 GMT -5
I can't say I've ever really cared so much to be angry about a character's hair color being different. With a character like Superman who doesn't wear a mask, taking away his dark hair would drastically harm his ability to look like Superman, which is how you sell the character. Everyone knows what Superman looks like as a general appearance. There's no good reason to try and tinker with that. That's the argument at hand here. Why change a character's general appearance for the sake of it? Michael Clarke Duncan wasn't cast because they thought they should just change Kingpin to a black guy. They had a valid reason, which was that Duncan was easily the most physically imposing and Kingpin-esque actor in Hollywood. That's why the amount of people you hear fuss about that is far less than say, people fussing about this new Johnny Storm rumor. Hollywood is filled with good actors who fit the basic Johnny Storm model, so there's no good reason to cast outside of that other than wanting to make a statement or go against the grain. I think the fact that he's faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound do a lot more to sell Superman than black hair does. I agree that you shouldn't just change it for the sake of changing it, but if the best actor you have doesn't fit the comic book look perfectly, I don't see why it should be a big deal to change it as long as the characterization is unaffected.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on May 14, 2013 14:33:10 GMT -5
With a character like Superman who doesn't wear a mask, taking away his dark hair would drastically harm his ability to look like Superman, which is how you sell the character. Everyone knows what Superman looks like as a general appearance. There's no good reason to try and tinker with that. That's the argument at hand here. Why change a character's general appearance for the sake of it? Michael Clarke Duncan wasn't cast because they thought they should just change Kingpin to a black guy. They had a valid reason, which was that Duncan was easily the most physically imposing and Kingpin-esque actor in Hollywood. That's why the amount of people you hear fuss about that is far less than say, people fussing about this new Johnny Storm rumor. Hollywood is filled with good actors who fit the basic Johnny Storm model, so there's no good reason to cast outside of that other than wanting to make a statement or go against the grain. I think the fact that he's faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound do a lot more to sell Superman than black hair does. None of that matters if he doesn't look like Superman. Changing what Superman looks like is like trying to change Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny. People will reject it because their images are burned into the minds of everyone for countless generations. Why do you think that despite everything Christopher Nolan changed about Batman, he kept the same general mask shape, the scalloped cape, the three-pronged gauntlets, the gold/yellow utility belt, and the bat on the chest? Because Batman is a globally recognized icon and to change that would give your film an unnecessary giant hurdle to overcome.
|
|
|
Post by wildojinx on May 14, 2013 14:38:44 GMT -5
To be fair, alicia masters was made into a black woman in the 2005 film, so its not like it hasnt been done to the FF before (i wonder if they'll keep her black for the reboot).
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on May 14, 2013 14:45:57 GMT -5
I think the fact that he's faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound do a lot more to sell Superman than black hair does. None of that matters if he doesn't look like Superman. Changing what Superman looks like is like trying to change Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny. People will reject it because their images are burned into the minds of everyone for countless generations. Why do you think that despite everything Christopher Nolan changed about Batman, he kept the same general mask shape, the scalloped cape, the three-pronged gauntlets, the gold/yellow utility belt, and the bat on the chest? Because Batman is a globally recognized icon and to change that would give your film an unnecessary giant hurdle to overcome. Actually all of that is vitally important to Superman, more so than his hair color. If you were talking about turning Superman into Steve Urkel, then sure. But you're talking about changing his hair color. You're never going to get me to be outraged by that. Sorry, it's not going to happen, and you can't really force it.
|
|
|
Post by Stone Cold Eleanor Shellstrop on May 14, 2013 14:49:53 GMT -5
I can't say I've ever really cared so much to be angry about a character's hair color being different. With a character like Superman who doesn't wear a mask, taking away his dark hair would drastically harm his ability to look like Superman, which is how you sell the character. Everyone knows what Superman looks like as a general appearance. There's no good reason to try and tinker with that. That's the argument at hand here. Why change a character's general appearance for the sake of it? Michael Clarke Duncan wasn't cast because they thought they should just change Kingpin to a black guy. They had a valid reason, which was that Duncan was easily the most physically imposing and Kingpin-esque actor in Hollywood. That's why the amount of people you hear fuss about that is far less than say, people fussing about this new Johnny Storm rumor. Hollywood is filled with good actors who fit the basic Johnny Storm model, so there's no good reason to cast outside of that other than wanting to make a statement or go against the grain. Wouldn't recasting a character with a black actor be a conscious effort to make sure people understood that a new Fantastic Four film is meant to be different (here, only visually different according to race) from the first two films and not simply a continuation of a story (which in this case would be like recasting three of the characters from Ang Lee's "Hulk" film to Letterier's "Hulk" film?). So in order not to confuse audiences, wouldn't this recasting be exactly a good reason in the first place from a business point-of-view? To make sure audiences who thought your first two Fantastic Four films suck come back for another round? I think the fact that he's faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound do a lot more to sell Superman than black hair does. None of that matters if he doesn't look like Superman. Changing what Superman looks like is like trying to change Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny. People will reject it because their images are burned into the minds of everyone for countless generations. Why do you think that despite everything Christopher Nolan changed about Batman, he kept the same general mask shape, the scalloped cape, the three-pronged gauntlets, the gold/yellow utility belt, and the bat on the chest? Because Batman is a globally recognized icon and to change that would give your film an unnecessary giant hurdle to overcome. Which in itself is an interesting point to consider, because Nolan's Batman looked like Batman, but he certainly didn't have the ethos of Batman. What Batman would be tired of the crimefighting business after 16 months (The Dark Knight), and then disappear altogether for 7 years (The Dark Knight Rises)? Yeah, the Dent Act reduced a lot of crime, but to say that there was no crime is absurd, and that Batman wouldn't go out to stop that bit of crime that exists is absurd (because of Batman's obsessive need to stop injustice, the very same kind that led him to put on the suit in the first place) and that Batman would want to retire because he's shacked up with a new woman, 'hey, who gives a crap about Rachel WHO DIED', is equally as absurd. Nolan's Batman films are 'Batman films' in name and look only. This is the other side of 'if it doesn't look like a Human Torch, and it doesn't sound like a Human Torch...' argument.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,003
|
Post by Legion on May 14, 2013 15:15:15 GMT -5
To be fair, alicia masters was made into a black woman in the 2005 film, so its not like it hasnt been done to the FF before (i wonder if they'll keep her black for the reboot). And that didnt make that much of a difference I will admit. It annoyed me more that they changed her character totally as well as her looks. The fact they changed her in to a confident blind woman from the get go (rather than growing in to it) with no weird step father and then totally stripped her role from the Silver Surfer part of the second film was the issue there.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,003
|
Post by Legion on May 14, 2013 15:21:10 GMT -5
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. Ahha, then we agree to disagree it seems. I find that everything about a character is important about said character, and that includes the race because changing the race of a character can change that character; a confident privileged, playboy white character is going to be different to a privileged playboy black character just because of the way that a) the audience will expect the character to act and b) the way a writer will write said character - as in reality there is a difference to how the majority of each would act. Although I doubt we need to start debating on stereotypes and a-typical behaviour traits. But it appears we also agree and agree when it comes to the possibility of a double standard when it comes to racial swapping.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on May 14, 2013 16:03:05 GMT -5
With a character like Superman who doesn't wear a mask, taking away his dark hair would drastically harm his ability to look like Superman, which is how you sell the character. Everyone knows what Superman looks like as a general appearance. There's no good reason to try and tinker with that. That's the argument at hand here. Why change a character's general appearance for the sake of it? Michael Clarke Duncan wasn't cast because they thought they should just change Kingpin to a black guy. They had a valid reason, which was that Duncan was easily the most physically imposing and Kingpin-esque actor in Hollywood. That's why the amount of people you hear fuss about that is far less than say, people fussing about this new Johnny Storm rumor. Hollywood is filled with good actors who fit the basic Johnny Storm model, so there's no good reason to cast outside of that other than wanting to make a statement or go against the grain. Wouldn't recasting a character with a black actor be a conscious effort to make sure people understood that a new Fantastic Four film is meant to be different (here, only visually different according to race) from the first two films and not simply a continuation of a story (which in this case would be like recasting three of the characters from Ang Lee's "Hulk" film to Letterier's "Hulk" film?). So in order not to confuse audiences, wouldn't this recasting be exactly a good reason in the first place from a business point-of-view? To make sure audiences who thought your first two Fantastic Four films suck come back for another round? None of that matters if he doesn't look like Superman. Changing what Superman looks like is like trying to change Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny. People will reject it because their images are burned into the minds of everyone for countless generations. Why do you think that despite everything Christopher Nolan changed about Batman, he kept the same general mask shape, the scalloped cape, the three-pronged gauntlets, the gold/yellow utility belt, and the bat on the chest? Because Batman is a globally recognized icon and to change that would give your film an unnecessary giant hurdle to overcome. Which in itself is an interesting point to consider, because Nolan's Batman looked like Batman, but he certainly didn't have the ethos of Batman. What Batman would be tired of the crimefighting business after 16 months (The Dark Knight), and then disappear altogether for 7 years (The Dark Knight Rises)? Yeah, the Dent Act reduced a lot of crime, but to say that there was no crime is absurd, and that Batman wouldn't go out to stop that bit of crime that exists is absurd (because of Batman's obsessive need to stop injustice, the very same kind that led him to put on the suit in the first place) and that Batman would want to retire because he's shacked up with a new woman, 'hey, who gives a crap about Rachel WHO DIED', is equally as absurd. Nolan's Batman films are 'Batman films' in name and look only. This is the other side of 'if it doesn't look like a Human Torch, and it doesn't sound like a Human Torch...' argument. I completely agree with you about Nolan's Batman. I make the exact same points you did all the time. But if you look at the marketing for those films with trailers, posters, the giant cardboard cut-outs in retail stores, they all scream "BATMAN". It's the instantly recognizable visual image of Batman swinging on a grapnel line or punching bad guys in the face. I guess the argument that can be made for Human Torch is that his true marketable appearance is him in his "flamed on" state. In that case, he'll always basically look the same regardless of skin color.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on May 14, 2013 19:23:28 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"? That's fine: I didn't say it isn't a double-standard. It absolutely is. I'm saying that in matters of diversity sensitivity, that double-standard isn't inconsistent with the stated philosophy. But the point remains: changing the white character doesn't change the very clear reality that white actors have exponentially more avenues to get roles, that white kids have exponentially more white fictional role models to follow, and that a typical white person has no reason to even be really "aware of their whiteness", since it's still considered the norm in American society. The very opposite holds true for most ethnic minorities: remove one such role/character/etc., and it has a radically larger effect, particularly on groups of people who DO live much more aware of their appearance/ethnicity due to not being in the social majority. It's a pretty easy pop culture trade-off for being the dominant culture/ethnicity in a given place and time: you get the better and more plentiful opportunities, you don't live in as high awareness of your appearance, yet at times that lower level of awareness will be used to give a minority group an opportunity at increased representation in pop culture...and you might not get that back in return. Pretty small potatoes, really.
|
|
|
Post by ThereIsNoAbsurdistOnlyZuul on May 14, 2013 20:10:10 GMT -5
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. A valid observation, and I can agree that it isn't necessarily as big an issue as the article represented in terms of scope of people who share that belief. I don't necessarily even believe that what people are complaining about is motivated by overt racism. I feel that it is impossible and hypocritical to deny that there is no racism component to their arguments when the same objections to other differences in actor's ethnicities. Further I don't see why there needs to be this canonical purity at all to the movies. Because, just leaving the Fantastic 4 in place and taking it from their canon origin, a RECKLESS and sociopathic scientist in Reed Richards took his girlfriend and her teenager brother up in an untested spacecraft and were blasted by cosmic rays. Remember Sue being a positive female role model for women when she was created, right? Oh wait... never mind, I forgot she was systemically abused by Reed FOR YEARS. Admittedly he abused his friends as well. Yet we are fine to update that story so it makes sense to our modern sensibilities, no one complained about that aspect, just about plenty of other issues with those movies. The movie 'Universe' has Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, Pepper Pots and Tony Stark shacking up, The Hulk being more along the lines of the Television show, the name of SHIELD has changed. We can acknowledge that they are separate continuities. There is nothing wrong with that, as they are blending at least 4 continuities, and having to gloss over upwards of 70+ years of established story to make their movies concise and coherent. And if one is upset about the POTENTIAL of Johnny Storm being played by an African-American actor, then one must be upset with every single other aspect/change that was done, for the sake of canonical purity.
|
|
|
Post by Widow's Peak on May 14, 2013 20:34:54 GMT -5
I was reminded of this while reading this thread (language)
|
|
|
Post by Brother Nero....Wolfe on May 14, 2013 21:28:05 GMT -5
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. A valid observation, and I can agree that it isn't necessarily as big an issue as the article represented in terms of scope of people who share that belief. I don't necessarily even believe that what people are complaining about is motivated by overt racism. I feel that it is impossible and hypocritical to deny that there is no racism component to their arguments when the same objections to other differences in actor's ethnicities. Further I don't see why there needs to be this canonical purity at all to the movies. Because, just leaving the Fantastic 4 in place and taking it from their canon origin, a RECKLESS and sociopathic scientist in Reed Richards took his girlfriend and her teenager brother up in an untested spacecraft and were blasted by cosmic rays. Remember Sue being a positive female role model for women when she was created, right? Oh wait... never mind, I forgot she was systemically abused by Reed FOR YEARS. Admittedly he abused his friends as well. Yet we are fine to update that story so it makes sense to our modern sensibilities, no one complained about that aspect, just about plenty of other issues with those movies. The movie 'Universe' has Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, Pepper Pots and Tony Stark shacking up, The Hulk being more along the lines of the Television show, the name of SHIELD has changed. We can acknowledge that they are separate continuities. There is nothing wrong with that, as they are blending at least 4 continuities, and having to gloss over upwards of 70+ years of established story to make their movies concise and coherent. And if one is upset about the POTENTIAL of Johnny Storm being played by an African-American actor, then one must be upset with every single other aspect/change that was done, for the sake of canonical purity. Oh I definitely agree that canonical purity is hardly something worth defending. I think some degree of fidelity is needed in order to justify an adaptation in itself, but accuracy beyond the premise isn't really a requirement most of the time. So long as the characters are still recognizable(in personality) I don't see much of a reason to complain, especially with something like comics that, retcons aside, doesn't seem overly keen on canonical purity itself("Goddamn Batman" comes to mind). I'm not a fan of the article mostly because I think it was badly argued and not exactly well written, but I don't agree with the people he was criticizing either. The way I see it, if I can live and love BBC's Sherlock, somewhat like the Sherlock Holmes movies and not be in a constant state of baffled anger about the American tv show, so can everyone. It's more that the article bothered me than that I side with the people it was criticizing. I won't deny that there might be a racist factor at play here, but it's hard to define how much it is and the article makes strong claims with very little support - it gives the impression of someone who decided on a conclusion before even thinking things through and this bothers me, even if his actual conclusion isn't something I would be too surprised about if it were true. As for the fact that they would have to logically be upset with every other aspect of the movie universe - a part of me thinks that it isn't entirely impossible that they actually are upset by every single possible change but have a short term memory about it. This goes back to your point about Reed's sociopathic origins; canonical purity in comics is relative to the version of the character people like the most and this changes frequently. When Ultimate Fury was announced and the character was black, there was some negative reaction to it - but nowadays everybody is thrilled about it and more or less associates the character with Samuel Jackson to the point where if they cast a white guy instead of Jackson next movie they would complain about it as well(and then go on to repeat the cycle with a similar amount of anger within a year or two). Not that this makes the overreaction to minor changes any less silly, but I think that's why it exists.
|
|
|
Post by ThereIsNoAbsurdistOnlyZuul on May 15, 2013 0:05:35 GMT -5
Oh I definitely agree that canonical purity is hardly something worth defending. I think some degree of fidelity is needed in order to justify an adaptation in itself, but accuracy beyond the premise isn't really a requirement most of the time. So long as the characters are still recognizable(in personality) I don't see much of a reason to complain, especially with something like comics that, retcons aside, doesn't seem overly keen on canonical purity itself("Goddamn Batman" comes to mind). I'm not a fan of the article mostly because I think it was badly argued and not exactly well written, but I don't agree with the people he was criticizing either. The way I see it, if I can live and love BBC's Sherlock, somewhat like the Sherlock Holmes movies and not be in a constant state of baffled anger about the American tv show, so can everyone. It's more that the article bothered me than that I side with the people it was criticizing. I won't deny that there might be a racist factor at play here, but it's hard to define how much it is and the article makes strong claims with very little support - it gives the impression of someone who decided on a conclusion before even thinking things through and this bothers me, even if his actual conclusion isn't something I would be too surprised about if it were true. As for the fact that they would have to logically be upset with every other aspect of the movie universe - a part of me thinks that it isn't entirely impossible that they actually are upset by every single possible change but have a short term memory about it. This goes back to your point about Reed's sociopathic origins; canonical purity in comics is relative to the version of the character people like the most and this changes frequently. When Ultimate Fury was announced and the character was black, there was some negative reaction to it - but nowadays everybody is thrilled about it and more or less associates the character with Samuel Jackson to the point where if they cast a white guy instead of Jackson next movie they would complain about it as well(and then go on to repeat the cycle with a similar amount of anger within a year or two). Not that this makes the overreaction to minor changes any less silly, but I think that's why it exists. I cannot defend the article as written, hell I am not defending the article so much as going after the mentality that causes people to circle their wagons in response to a rumor. (I can even defend 'Goddamn Batman' Frank Miller is insane. So therefor anything he creates will be crazy too.)
|
|
FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,463
|
Post by FinalGwen on May 15, 2013 0:09:09 GMT -5
I think the fact that he's faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound do a lot more to sell Superman than black hair does. None of that matters if he doesn't look like Superman. Changing what Superman looks like is like trying to change Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny. I feel this is now relevant: ![](http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/2005-02-21-a.gif)
|
|
|
Post by Long A, Short A on May 15, 2013 3:30:50 GMT -5
Fandoms don't like to be called out on their BS. Especially when that BS ends with ism. That's the only problem with the original article. The place doesn't matter because Cracked has posted articles about Hollywood, fantasy, and racism before. The writer even put links to those articles in his piece. The ranting tone didn't matter because that's the tone almost everyone has posted in this thread has used.
The thing about race bending that gets on my nerves is that it doesn't have to be done most of the time. Most of these comic book movies have at least 30 years worth of lore to work with and that lore probably includes characters of color. I wish filmmakers would fight to place established HOCs in these movie instead of changing the race of white characters. However, I don't think changing a white character to a non white one is a big fat f***ing injustice.
|
|
|
Post by cool guy on May 15, 2013 5:36:20 GMT -5
I can't say I've ever really cared so much to be angry about a character's hair color being different. With a character like Superman who doesn't wear a mask, taking away his dark hair would drastically harm his ability to look like Superman, which is how you sell the character. Everyone knows what Superman looks like as a general appearance. There's no good reason to try and tinker with that. That's the argument at hand here. Why change a character's general appearance for the sake of it? Michael Clarke Duncan wasn't cast because they thought they should just change Kingpin to a black guy. They had a valid reason, which was that Duncan was easily the most physically imposing and Kingpin-esque actor in Hollywood. That's why the amount of people you hear fuss about that is far less than say, people fussing about this new Johnny Storm rumor. Hollywood is filled with good actors who fit the basic Johnny Storm model, so there's no good reason to cast outside of that other than wanting to make a statement or go against the grain. But the most iconic image of The Human Torch is a guy made of fire, which will look basically the same no matter what he looks like when depowered.
|
|