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

RJ Dalton

New member
Aug 13, 2009
2,285
0
0
Is it alright for me to say "It's fantastic four. Nobody gives a shit."? Because these movies have been nothing but shit from day one and I see no reason to expect otherwise. So why does anyone at this point care?
 

mrhappy1489

New member
May 12, 2011
499
0
0
Gorrath said:
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.
You know you're point would be very valid, if there was even a fucking double standard. As it stands, minorities still don't have as many opportunities as white people, still aren't as represented as white people and are still viewed with trepidation and racism. You're right, a double standard is wrong, no one is going to argue that, but all you're using as an example is some "whitey" missing out on maybe one role because the director decided to take another angle for the character, I guess he'll just have to go back to the thousands of other jobs available to him. I'm not even saying that there needs to be a double standard in the general field itself, just saying that there needs to be one when it comes to adaptions of things like comic books and literature. Like I keep saying there are not many jobs in the adaption world that would have any space for minorities if there wasn't a double standard. As consumers (not you or I) most people are looking for something safe and familiar to spend there money on. As sad as it is to say, a movie about the life of Toussaint Louverture would not sell well because it is stocked exclusively by African actors. It wouldn't matter how spectacular it would be, because lets be honest, a movie about Toussaint Louverture would be the bomb, it wouldn't sell because it doesn't have that marketability that most white bio-epics have and the only way it would sell is if Toussaint was played by someone like Will Smith and I'm going to be honest here as well, he'd be a terrible Toussaint. As much as it seems to be going in the opposite direction, it's not racist because they're not discriminating against white people, they're taking one of the hundreds of roles available to white people and giving it to a minority who showed such great acting chops that he/she deserved that role. Whilst I did say that a double standard needs to be there for a leg up, what I specifically meant was that it really only needs to be present in things like adaptions, not the general movie world. I got a little side tracked originally but now that I've remembered what I wanted to say there it is.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
mrhappy1489 said:
You know you're point would be very valid, if there was even a fucking double standard. As it stands, minorities still don't have as many opportunities as white people, still aren't as represented as white people and are still viewed with trepidation and racism. You're right, a double standard is wrong, no one is going to argue that, but all you're using as an example is some "whitey" missing out on maybe one role because the director decided to take another angle for the character, I guess he'll just have to go back to the thousands of other jobs available to him. I'm not even saying that there needs to be a double standard in the general field itself, just saying that there needs to be one when it comes to adaptions of things like comic books and literature. Like I keep saying there are not many jobs in the adaption world that would have any space for minorities if there wasn't a double standard. As consumers (not you or I) most people are looking for something safe and familiar to spend there money on. As sad as it is to say, a movie about the life of Toussaint Louverture would not sell well because it is stocked exclusively by African actors. It wouldn't matter how spectacular it would be, because lets be honest, a movie about Toussaint Louverture would be the bomb, it wouldn't sell because it doesn't have that marketability that most white bio-epics have and the only way it would sell is if Toussaint was played by someone like Will Smith and I'm going to be honest here as well, he'd be a terrible Toussaint. As much as it seems to be going in the opposite direction, it's not racist because they're not discriminating against white people, they're taking one of the hundreds of roles available to white people and giving it to a minority who showed such great acting chops that he/she deserved that role. Whilst I did say that a double standard needs to be there for a leg up, what I specifically meant was that it really only needs to be present in things like adaptions, not the general movie world. I got a little side tracked originally but now that I've remembered what I wanted to say there it is.
Sorry, I'm a bit confused because you seem to go back and forth between there should or should not be a double standard. I don't think there should be for all the reasons I've mentioned and I'm not sure trying to rephrase my position would help. What I will say though is that the idea that 'whitey' can just go get another role is a wholly fallacious argument and is at the core of what I meant about racial collectives. Presuming you know what someone's opportunities are, have been, or will be based on the color of their skin is a racist assumption. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I bring up racist double standards. Assuming because a man is black that he has a certain level of education would be called out as racist and the person who made the assumption would almost invariably be told off. But assuming you know what opportunities a white person has just because they are white? That's perfectly okay. These are the very sorts of racially based assumptions we need to get rid of and also why we need to stay as far away from double standards as possible, whether you are talking about the movie business in general or some niche of it.

Also, I'll reiterate that taking an established white character and changing their race is not racist, nor is it a problem for me unless the execution is shit. However expressing that there SHOULD be a double standard in regards to race-swapping in media is a problem, for the reasons I've outlined previously. I doubt I'll convince you of that, but I felt an alternate view would be worthy of expression.
 

D Black

New member
Sep 7, 2009
4
0
0
Baron von Blitztank said:
hazabaza1 said:
I think the biggest question is why their trying to reboot that series after the trainwreck that was the other movies.
Remember the other three movies starring Captain America?

OT:
I fail to see why this is racist. For around 50 years Johnny Storm has been shown as a white man. At this stage it's just kind of expected that movie adaptations would follow suit with that. It's like having a black James Bond or a black version of The Doctor, it just doesn't really seem right after all this time. So naturally people are going to complain. It just seems like changing the source material for the sake of it, without doing anything new or interesting with the character.
Having a modern James Bond that was black would not be a big deal, nor is a black johnny storm, Ethnicity is not a big part (or dare i say even a small part) of these characters

However i will say that the doctor couldn't be black, or a woman for that matter the fact is the doctor has to be able to walk into a situation in any time and be instantly seen as an authority (a "doctor" of you will) now the fact is that back in history (you know hes a time traveler) there where times that blacks and women where 2nd class citizens and not considered authority.

So yeah johnny storm can be black, i challenge anyone to find a story where him being specifically white mattered.... They probably better make Susan black too then just to avoid the confusion, but it's not necessary, just to avoid the questions, and you know what that's fine too.
 

mrhappy1489

New member
May 12, 2011
499
0
0
Gorrath said:
mrhappy1489 said:
You know you're point would be very valid, if there was even a fucking double standard. As it stands, minorities still don't have as many opportunities as white people, still aren't as represented as white people and are still viewed with trepidation and racism. You're right, a double standard is wrong, no one is going to argue that, but all you're using as an example is some "whitey" missing out on maybe one role because the director decided to take another angle for the character, I guess he'll just have to go back to the thousands of other jobs available to him. I'm not even saying that there needs to be a double standard in the general field itself, just saying that there needs to be one when it comes to adaptions of things like comic books and literature. Like I keep saying there are not many jobs in the adaption world that would have any space for minorities if there wasn't a double standard. As consumers (not you or I) most people are looking for something safe and familiar to spend there money on. As sad as it is to say, a movie about the life of Toussaint Louverture would not sell well because it is stocked exclusively by African actors. It wouldn't matter how spectacular it would be, because lets be honest, a movie about Toussaint Louverture would be the bomb, it wouldn't sell because it doesn't have that marketability that most white bio-epics have and the only way it would sell is if Toussaint was played by someone like Will Smith and I'm going to be honest here as well, he'd be a terrible Toussaint. As much as it seems to be going in the opposite direction, it's not racist because they're not discriminating against white people, they're taking one of the hundreds of roles available to white people and giving it to a minority who showed such great acting chops that he/she deserved that role. Whilst I did say that a double standard needs to be there for a leg up, what I specifically meant was that it really only needs to be present in things like adaptions, not the general movie world. I got a little side tracked originally but now that I've remembered what I wanted to say there it is.
Sorry, I'm a bit confused because you seem to go back and forth between there should or should not be a double standard. I don't think there should be for all the reasons I've mentioned and I'm not sure trying to rephrase my position would help. What I will say though is that the idea that 'whitey' can just go get another role is a wholly fallacious argument and is at the core of what I meant about racial collectives. Presuming you know what someone's opportunities are, have been, or will be based on the color of their skin is a racist assumption. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I bring up racist double standards. Assuming because a man is black that he has a certain level of education would be called out as racist and the person who made the assumption would almost invariably be told off. But assuming you know what opportunities a white person has just because they are white? That's perfectly okay. These are the very sorts of racially based assumptions we need to get rid of and also why we need to stay as far away from double standards as possible, whether you are talking about the movie business in general or some niche of it.

Also, I'll reiterate that taking an established white character and changing their race is not racist, nor is it a problem for me unless the execution is shit. However expressing that there SHOULD be a double standard in regards to race-swapping in media is a problem, for the reasons I've outlined previously. I doubt I'll convince you of that, but I felt an alternate view would be worthy of expression.
Sorry about the confusing nature of my initial argument, sleep between things can addle ones brain. The point I'm making though is valid and it is racist, but it's not a negative comment, it's fact! White people find it easier to get jobs in show business. That's not an assumption that is the truth of the matter. On a case by case basis, sure there will be discrepancies, but most of the evidence points towards white people having a distinct advantage in movie and television in a western, american world. There need to be at least something to give them a leg up or at least a chance to make it fair, that's the bottom line. If that means creating more characters specifically for minorities, great. If that means changing established characters to minorities, right on. I'm not promoting blocking the white man out of the field, I'm just saying that we should be giving them a chance and if the only way to do that is to make these changes then I'm all for it. What you may have mistaken for a double standard, I was just referring to the process of changing one character black being a good thing, while changing a japanese character white is a bad thing. I got caught up in an argument and kind of forgot what I was saying so sorry. But I'm definitely not going to stop thinking that changing characters into minorities or writing more characters specifically as minorities is a bad thing. The playing field needs to be levelled fairly.
 

William Ossiss

New member
Apr 8, 2010
551
0
0
MrGalactus said:
So I'm just sitting here waiting to be offended? So when people cry for a man to never even be considered for a role based on the fact that he has one physical feature that differs from the original character, nobody should get angry about that? sorry, mate, but it IS offensive, and it IS racist.
Also, nobody want's Marvel or Fox or whatever to choose the character purely for "PC" reasons. They should choose the best man for the job based on acting skills. Oh, BTW, MGM picked a black guy to play Felix because he was the first to express interest and audition. You think that role wasn't highly sought after?
So, I happen to think this is a horrible idea. You... can't just change a role like that. For characters like heimdall and Nicholas Fury, it worked. It really worked. But when you take a role like Johnny Storm and change it to a different shade of grey (fully colorblind here), not to mention how they would explain the brother sister relationship between him and Susan Storm, it fully screws the whole universe. Unless they consider a black actress for Susan, then I'm fully against this.

Obviously this is just Fox trying to keep their grubby little mits on the franchise rights... otherwise we wouldn't have seen hide nor hair of this. Same thing with spider-man. If they don't keep making movies, the rights default right back to marvel studios.

TL;DR Unless they have a black actress for Susan Storm (if they pick this guy) then I'm entirely against it.
I just want my continuity.
 

Soviet Steve

New member
May 23, 2009
1,511
0
0
I'm tempted to call it racism that you would want to drag other ethnicities down with whites and... well.. rocks I guess. Then again there's the potential for this to not suck and I'm not sure if they actively wanted to embarrass innocent peoples.
 

Edguy

New member
Jan 31, 2011
210
0
0
RJ Dalton said:
Is it alright for me to say "It's fantastic four. Nobody gives a shit."? Because these movies have been nothing but shit from day one and I see no reason to expect otherwise. So why does anyone at this point care?
Behind the central Justice League, the main Avengers, X-Men and Spider-Man, F4 is the biggest superhero franchise out there, and they have a lot of fans. So, yeah, I think a lot of people care. To be sure that a new movie will be absolute garbage just because the previous ones were seems pretty narrow minded, when the concept has just the same potential as other superhero movies. (Though, being handled by Fox, we probably shouldn't expect too much..)
 

vid87

New member
May 17, 2010
737
0
0
8-Bit_Jack said:
vid87 said:
...maybe ignoring her established character is the way to go.
Mr Fantastic - Genius, a bit oblivious, has trouble relating to others and taking emotional cues.

Johnny Storm - "Hot-head," energetic, never takes things seriously, reckless.

The Thing - Grumpy (especially about his transformation), acts tough but can be vulnerable.

Invisible Woman - .........


What exactly IS her "established" character? From what I understand, she's gone through so many personality changes, a lot of times mainly reflecting the dominant trends of women stereotypes:

50's - Meek, useless, goes by "Girl" instead of "Woman."

60's-70's - Recognizes past character, becomes far more independent, scornful.

Present (at least from what I've gathered from Tv / film versions) - Takes charge, no nonsense, babysitter to her adult(?) brother, frustrated with Reed's emotional disconnect.

I don't want to turn this into a gender issue, but would you say that latter one is what we "officially" recognize as her character, or is that the writer's way making as sure as they can that they don't revert to a more offensive character like the former? Could she maybe stand to gain a few more qualities to round out her personality? Could ALL of them use some rounding out? I'm curious.

Springboarding back OT - if this is what we understand as Johnny's established character, what exactly will casting a black actor honestly change other than perhaps some ultimately minute background info like him being adopted - if they don't actually focus on race in the story, the problem is mostly moot, though I get what people are saying by the whole "changes cannon" sentiment. Hell, if they DID focus on race, it might be an interesting explanation for why he acts like an idiot - dealing with racism or feeling out of place by maybe not knowing his heritage causes him to revert to a Spiderman-esq humor-based defense mechanism to hide his discomfort.

Look, I'm not exactly trusting of Hollywood's instinct for rationality or decision-making and I'm aware they can make changes purely for publicity, but it would be nice to think of these situations as trying to find what these kind of changes BRING to a character, how being different from the routine could make things better. I'm all for cannon and consistency, but shaking things up might prove worthwhile - look at Nick Fury.
 

HalfTangible

New member
Apr 13, 2011
417
0
0
MrGalactus said:
HalfTangible said:
MrGalactus said:
Also, nobody want's Marvel or Fox or whatever to choose the character purely for "PC" reasons. They should choose the best man for the job based on acting skills.
Correction: nobody intelligent wants an actor chosen for PC reasons. I saw it happen with that guy in Thor whose name escapes me (this was BEFORE the movie released and everyone saw that the guy /owned/ the part), and I guarantee there is somebody out there who is defending that this is the best move regardless of the actor's actual skill. Personally, I'm fine with changing the race as long as the guy can act and the character's race doesn't define them.
Wooooooooah, woah, woah, choosing him BECAUSE he's black would be just as bad as refusing to consider him because he's black. I don't think they should choose the actor based on his/her race at all.

The Heimdall (Idris Elba, by the way) thing was a mess. There were people saying they should cast him because he's black and there were no other black characters in the movie (or PC reasons, as you put it), and there were people saying he shouldn't even be considered for the role based on the face that the original character from the comics isn't black. I think both of these arguments are bullshit; It shouldn't matter. We really should be at the point now where shit like this doesn't matter.
Also, in my opinion, Idris Elba did an absolutely perfect job at the character of Heimdall. Funny how no one complained about his armour in the movie being gold, when he actually wears green and brown pelt in the comics.
WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA WHO whoa. whoa. Isn't that what I just said? It's sure as heck what I MEANT: pick an actor based on their acting skill, not their race. =/ IMO, Heimdall himself was boring, but not once did I ever doubt that I was watching a God responsible for guarding a rainbow bridge. So yeah, he was a great actor and casting him was a good call.
 

RJ Dalton

New member
Aug 13, 2009
2,285
0
0
Edguy said:
Though, being handled by Fox, we probably shouldn't expect too much..
I just assume everything is shit until it proves itself otherwise. Safer that way.
 

Pyrolithic

New member
May 2, 2011
10
0
0
Some_weirdGuy said:
So, genuine question:

If they were instead considering a female actor for the human touch, would complainers be considered sexist?

and to current supporters, would you continue to support this ((and would you continue to use the same kind of justification: 'is the gender really an important part of the human tourches character? What does it matter which chromosomes they have?')
What about current non-supporters, would you continue to argue it's demerits based on their previous depictions not being female?
This is where I find the issue to be conflicting.

On the one hand, I don't really care whether or not the actor playing a character is white, black or whatever, provided the character's ethnicity isn't a significant part of the character's background and/or raison d'être. I thought the Heimdall debacle was a little bit silly and I suspect this one will be too.

On the other hand, there's the niggling doubt that I wouldn't be able to say the same if they turned Johnny Storm into a woman and never addressed it. Fans would obviously complain then, probably along much the same lines.

While I'm sure some of the arguments being made qualify as racist (we all know there's no shortage of these folks on the Internet), I feel it's more than a little bit dismissive to call out anyone not agreeing with the move sexist, a bigot, what have you.
 

jpoon

New member
Mar 26, 2009
1,995
0
0
Would affect me a bit but I'm not sure why they'd rewrite the character just to get Michael in there. Wouldn't it just be a lot easier to put some random cracker in there?
 

Lovely Mixture

New member
Jul 12, 2011
1,474
0
0
HalfTangible said:
WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA WHO whoa. whoa. Isn't that what I just said? It's sure as heck what I MEANT: pick an actor based on their acting skill, not their race. =/ IMO, Heimdall himself was boring, but not once did I ever doubt that I was watching a God responsible for guarding a rainbow bridge. So yeah, he was a great actor and casting him was a good call.
The wording was a little confusing at the beginning I think.

"nobody intelligent wants an actor chosen for PC reasons."

Obviously you meant to say:
"It's stupid to choose an actor based on PC reasons alone" (with which I agree BTW)

The "nobody" somehow makes it hard to understand (I'm not sure why, but I had trouble reading it at first, even though the sentence is perfectly fine). So it comes out as:

"Intelligent people want an actor chosen on PC reasons" (which is the opposite of what you wanted to say)

I don't mean to correct your English BTW, I just like finding out how things get misread/misinterpreted.
 

userwhoquitthesite

New member
Jul 23, 2009
2,177
0
0
vid87 said:
Mr Fantastic - Genius, a bit oblivious, has trouble relating to others and taking emotional cues.

Johnny Storm - "Hot-head," energetic, never takes things seriously, reckless.

The Thing - Grumpy (especially about his transformation), acts tough but can be vulnerable.

Invisible Woman - .........


What exactly IS her "established" character? From what I understand, she's gone through so many personality changes, a lot of times mainly reflecting the dominant trends of women stereotypes:

50's - Meek, useless, goes by "Girl" instead of "Woman."

60's-70's - Recognizes past character, becomes far more independent, scornful.

Present (at least from what I've gathered from Tv / film versions) - Takes charge, no nonsense, babysitter to her adult(?) brother, frustrated with Reed's emotional disconnect.

I don't want to turn this into a gender issue, but would you say that latter one is what we "officially" recognize as her character, or is that the writer's way making as sure as they can that they don't revert to a more offensive character like the former? Could she maybe stand to gain a few more qualities to round out her personality? Could ALL of them use some rounding out? I'm curious.
You realize that you're just making my point, right? About Sue Storm, I mean. Her whole character is "and also, the woman!"
 

mrhappy1489

New member
May 12, 2011
499
0
0
Magenera said:
My people being black has a disadvantage because of the reputation my people have created. My people have piss poor education, have an atrocious crime-rate. My people is responsible for America homicide rate, were are responsible for incarceration rate. To a lesser extent is the same with Hispanics as they are in second place. So no, it is not white's fault, no need for the white guilt, and this is mostly a market thing which I explained earlier.

Basically if you are white, you are not responsible to the current problems for minorities, and if it make's you feel better know that world wide, you are a minority. :D
Sorry about that. As an Australian most of the bad stuff that has happened to our aborigines has been our fault and we treated them in a similar way to how african americans were treated. I'm not about to apologise for the things of the past, but I still what to actively assist in improving life for as many people as possible. Speaking as an Australian, a lot of what we did in the past has had lead on effects into the future. While I'm not saying that I was actively involved or condone any of it, I'm fairly certain that my ancestors had a had in it (One of my ancestors was a Lieutenant Governor of Launceston in Tasmania and the treatment of the Aboriginals at the time there was incredibly brutal). I'm not saying that I feel guilty about what happened then, but I don't want to use that as a free pass to go, well my hands are clean let them sort themselves out. I what to help in anyway that I can and particularly with tha aborigines I want to see them either move into society properly if that's their choice or assist them in returning to the way they were. Call me naive if you must, but we're the ones who fucked them up and I cannot and will not sit on my ass and do nothing.