So a black actor is considering role of Johnny Storm and nerdrage has turned racist again.

MrBrightside919

New member
Oct 2, 2008
1,626
0
0
Torbjoern Bakke said:
MrBrightside919 said:
People should be offended that they are rebooting THE FANTASTIC FOUR, not because the human torch MIGHT be played by a black guy...
What, you a big fan of the two previous films? -.^


And to everyone saying his race isn't an important part of his character; think about it--isn't one's race important for any character? Not just in the way he/she acts and thinks, but even more so in the way the audience perceives and judges him/her. Besides, the way I see it, Johnny Storm is a pretty arch-typical white, cocky frat-boy..
Aren't we all HUUUUUUUUUUGE fans of the previous films?
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
Lightknight said:
OK, SLJ as Nick Fury did work (and How!) - from this example I'll concede the point that it can work. Unfortunately, I would still say it's generally a bad idea because as refreshing as it might be, it is still a fairly drastic change from the lore, which will inevitably anger a fair proportion of the long-term fans and lore-fiends.

I've also seen arguments to the effect of white -> black is fine but black -> white is not; this strikes me as absurd if we are trying to reach any reasonable attempt at equality, rather than just insincerely "making quotas". If ethnicity is not an integral part of the character, a truly equal view should be fully interchangeable, or allow not at all.
On the first point, I think fans will get over it honestly. Black nick fury is now as much or perhaps even more accepted by people as being THE Nick Fury. I'll also chime in that I don't like the idea of making Johnny Storm black because in his case it seems to mess with a lot of other things that will need explaining, but I am very open to being convinced that it is a good idea by them making a good movie. Having a white Johnny Storm sure didn't help in that regard!

I'll not argue against you on that second point. I actually wrote a lengthy post covering exactly why trying to fight racism with more racism was unjust.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
mrhappy1489 said:
I agree with what you have said and I'm sorry for assuming that you are white. The only problem I have with this is that, in my opinion, most roles suited for a black actor/actress just don't have the financial pull that movie studios are looking for. I think black people really have to break into the mainstream big time, this also goes for any other race that constitutes a minority in our western culture, for roles that are naturally suited to them are going to make more money. Another glaring problem is also that there really aren't any roles suited ti black people to begin with, because we've (western society) has only ever crafted movies and television as White centric pieces. We really do only need this temporary double standard until the point that we've crafted an industry were we don't need to change roles, because there are already roles for them there. The big thing is that there aren't roles to begin with and that has to change before we can stop changing white ones to black ones.
Temporary racism is still racism and being racist by denying people work because of their skin color is wrong as hell. You don't fix injustice by being unjust.
 

Karadalis

New member
Apr 26, 2011
1,065
0
0
Hrm.. besides the often brought up reason that his sister would have to be black too.. i cant really see a black person playing as johnny simply for believability of the character...

Johnny storms character is white... hes so white he makes white bread look suntanned.

Hes priviliged, hes arrogant, hes a thrillseeker, he doesnt give a damn about anything but himselfe most of the time, hes an annoying twat, and he puts his own foot in his mouth on a regular basis. In short: His character flaws are attributes of a white priviliged snobby upbringing.

Now how many black guys do you know that are exactly like him in real live AND move in a society "class" that is dominated by rich white people?

How can a black person bring over these character flaws if they are all written for a white rich brat? If the actor can... more power to him and great work.. but the chances are higher that either a) the whole background of the char is switched around... or b) its gonna get really awkward.

So i dont say its impossible.. i just cant picture it in my mind without it being incredible awkward.


Also the outrage about the skin change is more about Comic fans fearing that yet again the holywood industry will take a big dump on their beloved franchise.. like they used to do... over and over and over again.

And since its the fans of these comic books that make those movies even possible... yeah i would be pissed off too if people fuck with the source material for publicity just the same reason i facepalm every time someone makes a movie based on a Video game and fucks the whole thing up by rewriting basicly everything.

Its the same for comic book fans.
 

mrhappy1489

New member
May 12, 2011
499
0
0
Gorrath said:
Temporary racism is still racism and being racist by denying people work because of their skin color is wrong as hell. You don't fix injustice by being unjust.
It's not racist to give someone a fair chance. I'm not saying they shouldn't choose a whitey if there better just to be PC, I'm saying that we're going to have to accept that roles that were originally white are going to have to be expanded to allow people of all races and skin colours to portray them if we want to get out of the stupid racist rut we're still basically in. It's not unjust to give people more of a leg up when we've pushed them down so far.

EDIT: Plus, who the fuck cares if the best the whitey gets with regards to racism is, oh no there are slightly less roles available for me to play in a movie. As much as I like to acknowledge that the best way to move past racism is to proactively treat everyone and by extension, every role equal, there is still a lot of lingering racism in many fields around the world. We have to get past these lingering threads to the past before we can actively treat people equal and I'm sorry, but until there is a representative amount of minorities in major films we won't be there. No they don't have to be exactly equal, because that would be putting one race above another, but what we need to do is at least have representative numbers of all minorities in these fields, which I can guarantee you there isn't.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
mrhappy1489 said:
Gorrath said:
mrhappy1489 said:
I agree with what you have said and I'm sorry for assuming that you are white. The only problem I have with this is that, in my opinion, most roles suited for a black actor/actress just don't have the financial pull that movie studios are looking for. I think black people really have to break into the mainstream big time, this also goes for any other race that constitutes a minority in our western culture, for roles that are naturally suited to them are going to make more money. Another glaring problem is also that there really aren't any roles suited ti black people to begin with, because we've (western society) has only ever crafted movies and television as White centric pieces. We really do only need this temporary double standard until the point that we've crafted an industry were we don't need to change roles, because there are already roles for them there. The big thing is that there aren't roles to begin with and that has to change before we can stop changing white ones to black ones.
Temporary racism is still racism and being racist by denying people work because of their skin color is wrong as hell. You don't fix injustice by being unjust.
It's not racist to give someone a fair chance. I'm not saying they shouldn't choose a whitey if there better just to be PC, I'm saying that we're going to have to accept that roles that were originally white are going to have to be expanded to allow people of all races and skin colours to portray them if we want to get out of the stupid racist rut we're still basically in.
It is not racist to give someone a fair chance, that is true. However, propping up the idea that accepting temporary double standards is the key to giving people a fair chance does not follow the first statement. I have no problem with companies casting actors to fill whatever role they want. If they do it as a 'PC" move, I also don't rightly care, because if they do it, and the movie sucks, I won't watch it. If they do it and the movie's great, I will. That's me speaking as a consumer. However, I object wholly to the idea that being racist to a person through the use of a double standard is justice and, is not, in fact, a terrible thing to do to anyone. It needs to be said, by everyone, as much as possible, that racism is wrong no matter who you do it to.
 

mrhappy1489

New member
May 12, 2011
499
0
0
Jaythulhu said:
FFS, I am the only one sick to death of the dark ages mentality that still pervades humanity? Gender issues, skin colour issues, sexuality issues... Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ, can we get over this bullshit already and start dealing with the things that actually matter, like climate change, poverty, governmental/corporate corruption and so on?

Fuck me sideways with an arm-full of rotting deckchairs, this kind of petty, distracting bollocks needs to fucking end already.
You're my hero. Seriously so many people are not fucking getting it.
 

pexz darkwatch

New member
Jul 5, 2012
3
0
0
boots said:
Torbjoern Bakke said:
There's a pretty disgusting amount of straw men in this post.
How is any of that a straw man when the poster literally said that if a black actor can be cast in the role then they might as well cast a poodle? I mean, he literally said that, I'm not putting words in his mouth. Look:

pexz darkwatch said:
as a fan of the series theres a good chance that they might have well had the role of the thing played by a poodle because it forfilled the roles requirments and played it out in a new and intresting direction
I know you have to penetrate some shocking grammar and spelling to find it, but that's what he said.

ok as this seems to have been missunderstood buy you let me explain my orinal comment so you get it


I agree if there is a good reason for it its a perfectly legit idea to do so as long as they maintain the change with either a black sue or remove the family tie between the invisible woman and human torch (it is a reboot after all) <--see this bit this is where im explaining that if they choose to change the part they need to change other things in the back story to MAKE IT FIT and there for make sence in the context of the exsisting lore and the changed lore for the film

but as a fan of the series theres a good chance that they might have well had the role of The Thing played by a poodle because it forfilled the roles requirments and played it out in a new and intresting direction if they dont make it fit <-- see that last phrase "if the dont make it fit" thats the other bit you seem to have missed or ignored im trying to point out that changing any thing about the story line with or with out good reason is stupid if they dont take the time to have it make sence for both people who know nothing about the fantastic 4 and those that do

now if you will kindly make sure you understand what ppl have said and more importantly to me make sure you understand what ppl are attempting to get across before you start trying to imply that they are a raciest

and please forgive my spelling and grammer i do struggle with such things
 

mrhappy1489

New member
May 12, 2011
499
0
0
Gorrath said:
It is not racist to give someone a fair chance, that is true. However, propping up the idea that accepting temporary double standards is the key to giving people a fair chance does not follow the first statement. I have no problem with companies casting actors to fill whatever role they want. If they do it as a 'PC" move, I also don't rightly care, because if they do it, and the movie sucks, I won't watch it. If they do it and the movie's great, I will. That's me speaking as a consumer. However, I object wholly to the idea that being racist to a person through the use of a double standard is not justice and, is in fact, a terrible thing to do to anyone. It needs to be said, by everyone, as much as possible that racism is wrong no matter who you do it to.
I'm just going to repost what I said earlier, as you haven't got that one and I think it covers what you've said.

Plus, who the fuck cares if the best the whitey gets with regards to racism is, oh no there are slightly less roles available for me to play in a movie. As much as I like to acknowledge that the best way to move past racism is to proactively treat everyone and by extension, every role equal, there is still a lot of lingering racism in many fields around the world. We have to get past these lingering threads to the past before we can actively treat people equal and I'm sorry, but until there is a representative amount of minorities in major films we won't be there. No they don't have to be exactly equal, because that would be putting one race above another, but what we need to do is at least have representative numbers of all minorities in these fields, which I can guarantee you there isn't.

It's not being unjust to give them a leg up, it's just levelling the playing field. What you're arguing is all well and good, but at the end of the day if this wasn't in place, so many people wouldn't even get a look in. As time goes by and less old, racist people move into the field, this will become a remnant of the past, but until then, they need this. Like I said it's not being racist it's giving them the assistance they need after the oppression they've had for so many years.
 

PeterMerkin69

New member
Dec 2, 2012
200
0
0
Q: How do you starve a dog?
A: Hide his food stamps under boots.



boots said:
And then the other poster came out defending him on the basis of, "well that's not so bad because after all dogs are people too." Again, he literally said that.
No way, babe. You've got me all wrong! What I said was:

Me said:
People are animals, by the way. They're also objects. That some of us may feel really, really strongly about them doesn't change that.
I know you're just clownin', dawg. I like you, but I want to have some fun, too.

boots said:
But changing the amount of melananin in a character's skin is not a very big deviation. It doesn't inherently affect the character's personality, or his background, or his powers, or anything at all really, unless you can explain to me how Johnny Storm being black somehow prevents him from being confident, or being rich, or being a playboy, or making lots of jokes. So saying "if we make him black then we might as well make him a poodle" is fucking absurd, and carries an awful lot of ugly implications as to how that person feels about black people.
Ah, but changing the amount of melanan-an-an-anin in an individual's skin is a big deviation. In fact, it's a huge part of what defines their life whether anyone likes that or not. And that's supposed to be the problem here, isn't it? I mean, if equality among all the little peoples was something we'd truly achieved, if there were, in fact, no differences between a white Johnny and a black Johnny(is there?), then racism wouldn't be bad for any reasons that weren't wholly circular. You've slyly concocted a fantasy land in which racism doesn't exist for the express purpose of escaping your own racial insensitivity. I do not think this is what your messiah had in mind when he told you to turn the other cheek.

See also:

Oot Em said:
]White doesn't define Johnny Storm, but then Johnny Storm has never been called a ******. He's never been denied a loan or turned down for a job because even though he seemed like one of the good ones, he once had a cousin who was doing time for running with the Niners and it's just not worth the risk. Johnny Storm doesn't frighten little old ladies if he stands behind them in line at the ATM. No one targets Johnny Storm in fast food adverts because they think he's too dumb to know any better. To say that changing his ethnicity wouldn't change the character is to dismiss the effect a lifetime of experience has on a person and, moreover, it is to dismiss the role of prejudice in society. HAVEN'T YOU EVEN SEEN SOUL MAN??
 

Annihilist

New member
Feb 19, 2013
100
0
0
Lilani said:
greatcheezer2021 said:
do you see why we dont mess with characters who have been already established as cultural icons in respect whatever country they hail from? especially when they dont wear a mask to protect their identity? or have a freakin country in their name?
Vacher2 said:
Hoping for a character's appearance to remain the same as it has in all source material is perfectly acceptable. We have seen before that fans DO complain when a tiny aspect is changed in a character so to do so here is no different; it is not racist, they simply want the character they have invested in to look as he always has. These fans are not racist, it is not as if they won't accept any character who is not white and demand for them all to be changed. Why can't the fans want the white characters to be white and the black characters to be black, without being branded as racist?
Annihilist said:
What it would be doing is changing a fundamental aspect of a classic character. It's like casting Superman as black. Would you really get cries of "racist" when people protest to a black superman? This kind of PC bullshit annoys me a lot. If a female actor wanted the role of a popular male character (lets say, Batman, Superman, or even Harry Potter), would we deem it sexism if it were denied? We wouldn't, or at least we shouldn't.

Equal opportunity is a good thing, but you can't expect someone incapable of fulfilling a particular role to fulfil a particular role.
I would like to direct you three and everyone else who feels this way to a post already written by an intelligent individual from page 12 who wrote what I was about to say word for word:

Gennaroc said:
Don't know if anyone has already mentioned it, but claiming the 'source material should be adapted correctly' thing bugs me. Does anyone stop to think that virtually all the primary superhero characters are white? Do we think about the reasons behind that? These characters were created in times when no one would even think to make them different ethnicities, and if they did it would have been a maaasive deal. Sure there are a few exceptions to the rule, but for the most part these character's ethnicities were just unthought default choices, like a racial equivalent to heteronormativity (theres probably a word for it...).
The choice for caucasian characters was not a calculated decision, but just standard 'this is what heros look like'; a basic and unthinking reaction due to the general ideology of the times. So, claiming that 'we must be true to the source material' is simply supporting the general ideology of the 60's.
Do you really think if these characters were being created now that they'd all be white? The reason why people kick up a fuss nowadays when POC characters are cast as white in adaptations is because they are rare enough as is, without converting them to just more white characters (Think Last Airbender and the Inuit, Tibetan etc whitewashing. The diversity on the show was pretty cool and the movie decimated that).

Pretty much, if the source material is a product of a (intentionally or not) racist mindset, then why claim it as something that needs supporting and faithful adapting?
So, yeah. These characters weren't made white because the writers felt it was the best choice for their character. They were made white because the cultural climate of the day wouldn't have accepted anything different. So we have close to a century of iconic comic book heroes, almost all of whom in some way or another were designed with varying degrees of racism from the get-go. I'm not saying the fact that they are white is racist, however the fact that they couldn't have been anything else raises the question of if these comics were written today would ALL of them really have turned out white? And for those of you saying that it's a "fundamental aspect" of their character...what about being black conflicts with Johnny Storm's personality or backstory? It's one thing if his backstory involves being Amish or something, but as far as I know there is nothing quintessentially "white" about him.

Jaythulhu said:
FFS, I am the only one sick to death of the dark ages mentality that still pervades humanity? Gender issues, skin colour issues, sexuality issues... Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ, can we get over this bullshit already and start dealing with the things that actually matter, like climate change, poverty, governmental/corporate corruption and so on?

Fuck me sideways with an arm-full of rotting deckchairs, this kind of petty, distracting bollocks needs to fucking end already.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Fair point, actually. I've always hated the aforementioned "source text must be recreated exactly" when it comes to adaptations.

However I still don't see the need to change it. It comes back to the black superman thing. No one would dream of casting Superman as black now. And I don't understand the public outcry at this. I know changing a character's race is not the same as changing their gender, but it's still akin to casting a woman as Joan Storm (or whatever). I think if the writers feel the need to change the race, and that it would change the character in a way the writers are keen to explore, then that's great. But I don't know, I don't think it's necessary to change the character, because there wouldn't be the same outcry if a female actress was rejected from the Batman auditions. Truth is, in life we have to play the cards we're dealt, and if it means we can't play a character because we're the wrong race or sex, then so be it.

But still, I concede your point.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
mrhappy1489 said:
Gorrath said:
It is not racist to give someone a fair chance, that is true. However, propping up the idea that accepting temporary double standards is the key to giving people a fair chance does not follow the first statement. I have no problem with companies casting actors to fill whatever role they want. If they do it as a 'PC" move, I also don't rightly care, because if they do it, and the movie sucks, I won't watch it. If they do it and the movie's great, I will. That's me speaking as a consumer. However, I object wholly to the idea that being racist to a person through the use of a double standard is not justice and, is in fact, a terrible thing to do to anyone. It needs to be said, by everyone, as much as possible that racism is wrong no matter who you do it to.
I'm just going to repost what I said earlier, as you haven't got that one and I think it covers what you've said.

Plus, who the fuck cares if the best the whitey gets with regards to racism is, oh no there are slightly less roles available for me to play in a movie. As much as I like to acknowledge that the best way to move past racism is to proactively treat everyone and by extension, every role equal, there is still a lot of lingering racism in many fields around the world. We have to get past these lingering threads to the past before we can actively treat people equal and I'm sorry, but until there is a representative amount of minorities in major films we won't be there. No they don't have to be exactly equal, because that would be putting one race above another, but what we need to do is at least have representative numbers of all minorities in these fields, which I can guarantee you there isn't.

It's not being unjust to give them a leg up, it's just levelling the playing field. What you're arguing is all well and good, but at the end of the day if this wasn't in place, so many people wouldn't even get a look in. As time goes by and less old, racist people move into the field, this will become a remnant of the past, but until then, they need this. Like I said it's not being racist it's giving them the assistance they need after the oppression they've had for so many years.
So if I understand you, the correct course of action to fix the issue of under-representation in a given work force is to accept a double standard that is itself racist by nature. That is unjust to the person who suffers from it, no matter what their skin color is. I'll tell you who cares if 'whitey' does or does not get a role based on his skin color. He does, because 'whitey' isn't some faceless mass of racial collective. 'Whitey' is a person, 'whitey' is a person with a name and a face and maybe a family. 'Whitey' is an individual who probably has bills and needs to pay them. And to sit there and tell 'whitey' that his livelihood has to be sacrificed on the alter of giving someone else a leg up is wrong. That's the thing about justice, at the end of the day, justice is personal, it affects individual people with individual lives.

We do have a problem with racism and it needs to be addressed. We do have under-representation of minorities in many areas. And we need to change our thinking to get rid of those problems. But I will never accept that the proper way to fight racism and discrimination is to embrace racism and discrimination, no matter what the end goal is supposed to be. We'll do what we can to end these problems by facing them, educating people as to why they are wrong and convincing people that their fellow man is a person. You can't do any of that by treating people like racial collectives and trying to implement racist double standards.
 

NathLines

New member
May 23, 2010
689
0
0
HOLY COMPROMISING BATMAN - I JUST SOLVED EVERYTHING EVER. The movie starts out with Torch being white and, after he flames on for the first time, he becomes black. Genius, logical and comical!

I guess I'll say it again, but I don't know why I bother. Comic movies ARE (usually) NOT CANON. Even Marvel and DC knows that. The term "Movieverse" didn't get coined for nothing. I'd be worried if it were any of the other cast, but I really have no problem seeing Johnny being cast as a black man. I think it can work out really well.
 

Do4600

New member
Oct 16, 2007
934
0
0
It only matters if it matters to the character, for instance if Edward Norton's character from American History X was played by Cuba Gooding Jr. the entire meaning of the film would be misplaced.

I often wonder though if it's really in good taste to include a black actor into a summer blockbuster just because. And it seems like that's what this is honestly, it's there to give black audiences somebody to relate to in a big blockbuster movie.

If producers feel the need to do this for the reasons I've stated they might as well include the entire
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Gorrath said:
Lightknight said:
OK, SLJ as Nick Fury did work (and How!) - from this example I'll concede the point that it can work. Unfortunately, I would still say it's generally a bad idea because as refreshing as it might be, it is still a fairly drastic change from the lore, which will inevitably anger a fair proportion of the long-term fans and lore-fiends.

I've also seen arguments to the effect of white -> black is fine but black -> white is not; this strikes me as absurd if we are trying to reach any reasonable attempt at equality, rather than just insincerely "making quotas". If ethnicity is not an integral part of the character, a truly equal view should be fully interchangeable, or allow not at all.
On the first point, I think fans will get over it honestly. Black nick fury is now as much or perhaps even more accepted by people as being THE Nick Fury. I'll also chime in that I don't like the idea of making Johnny Storm black because in his case it seems to mess with a lot of other things that will need explaining, but I am very open to being convinced that it is a good idea by them making a good movie. Having a white Johnny Storm sure didn't help in that regard!

I'll not argue against you on that second point. I actually wrote a lengthy post covering exactly why trying to fight racism with more racism was unjust.
You've misattributed this quote here. That was SquidSponge from the second-to-last post on page 14.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
Lightknight said:
Gorrath said:
Lightknight said:
OK, SLJ as Nick Fury did work (and How!) - from this example I'll concede the point that it can work. Unfortunately, I would still say it's generally a bad idea because as refreshing as it might be, it is still a fairly drastic change from the lore, which will inevitably anger a fair proportion of the long-term fans and lore-fiends.

I've also seen arguments to the effect of white -> black is fine but black -> white is not; this strikes me as absurd if we are trying to reach any reasonable attempt at equality, rather than just insincerely "making quotas". If ethnicity is not an integral part of the character, a truly equal view should be fully interchangeable, or allow not at all.
On the first point, I think fans will get over it honestly. Black nick fury is now as much or perhaps even more accepted by people as being THE Nick Fury. I'll also chime in that I don't like the idea of making Johnny Storm black because in his case it seems to mess with a lot of other things that will need explaining, but I am very open to being convinced that it is a good idea by them making a good movie. Having a white Johnny Storm sure didn't help in that regard!

I'll not argue against you on that second point. I actually wrote a lengthy post covering exactly why trying to fight racism with more racism was unjust.
You've misattributed this quote here. That was SquidSponge from the second-to-last post on page 14.
Indeed, tags got all messed up in my editing. Not the first time I've manged to make a mess out of a series of previous posts and will likely not be my last. Thanks for pointing it out though, I failed to even realize.
 

Echopunk

New member
Jul 6, 2011
126
0
0
Not sure if the obligatory joke has been made yet, but if not - here it is: This wouldn't be the first time a black man played the Human Torch. That honor would have to go to Richard Pryor.

Anyway...

Michael Clarke Duncan played the Kingpin.

Ving Rhames played Kojak.

Samuel L Jackson plays Nick Fury.

I don't care what color an actor or actress is, if they can deliver on the role their given. In the above cases, the only one who really did a good job was Samuel L Jackson. MCD's Kingpin was actually much better than the John Rhys Davies version from The Trial of the Incredible Hulk back in the 80's, as he lived up to the image of Wilson Fisk being not just a big guy, but a big guy that had enough muscle packed on to tear someone apart. Although, it was unfortunate the casting chutzpah didn't extend far enough to put an actress with the right complexion and physicality into the Elektra role.

I'm not sure how important it would be for an actress of color to portray Sue Storm. They don't necessarily have to match. One sibling could be adopted. The Fantastic Four was always about a family. Showing that color doesn't matter, that the notion of family and being accepted is more important than a homogenous white-washed photo album, wouldn't be a bad place to start.
 

Buizel91

Autobot
Aug 25, 2008
5,265
0
0
Shadowstar38 said:
Bane isn't British.
That may be, but we both know the Dark Knight Trilogy veered away from the comics for realism, which worked. Tom Hardy played the part perfectly.

OT: Didn't the marvel comics change Spiderman to a black guy? After the death of Peter Parker or something? Meh, so what.

However he is brother to Sue, So she is probably gonna be black as well, or he will be an adopted brother or something.