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

VanTesla

New member
Apr 19, 2011
481
0
0
MrGalactus said:
So yeah,
http://www.thewrap.com/movies/column-post/will-chronicle-star-michael-b-jordan-be-human-torch-fantastic-four-88881
Michael B Jordan is considering being The Human Torch in the Fantastic Four reboot. Frankly, I think there's no problem here at all. A role, as far as I'm concerned, has nothing to do with the look of the character, but how well the actor can capture or interpret the character, but the comic book community is complaining all over the internet. Seriously, check the comments. It's not good stuff.

What does the Escapist make of this? Do you guys care about the race of a character in an adaptation?
Stupid and sad when it devolves into race arguments and hate speechs. My only reason I can think of as to why not to change the ethnicity is for it would make no sense with his back story since he is a twin brother of Sue Storm. Well if they changed Sue ethnicity as well, then it work or just have them adopted maybe? I rather Marvel flesh out the already established black heroes instead of changing ethnicity of other heroes. I want to see Black Panther, Blade (again), Cyborg, John Stewart, War Machine, Storm, Luke Cage, and so on. I think it is sad Marvel can't come up with a good script for these characters and instead have to change other characters... I will say I like Idris Elba as Heimdall and Michael Clarke Duncan as Kingpin (one of the only good things in that Daredevil movie...).
 

VanTesla

New member
Apr 19, 2011
481
0
0
Friv said:
I don't remember the uproar when Chris Evans wasn't blonde.

Or when Mystique worked for Magneto.

Or when Tony Stark and Pepper Potts got romantically involved.
Well Mystique has worked with Magneto in the past before and Tony Stark has had short relations with Pepper Potts in the past, but nothing long lasting. I don't understand the fan drama to such extreme for you can never have a 100% comic adaptation on film for some things just don't work from comic to big screen. I do like a certain level of faithfulness to actually have the character be what made that character big in the comics though.
 

Carnage95

New member
Sep 21, 2009
227
0
0
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

There are plenty of black heroes characters they can use, no need to change another hero's ethnicity. If they changed Falcon or Luke Cage into a white, asian or whatever, the comic book fanbase will definitely go up against it. Moreover, people know the Fantastic Four regardless of whether they watched the films first, cartoons, or read the comics. I imagine it would feel a tad weird to see Johnny Storm as a black man.
 

Some_weirdGuy

New member
Nov 25, 2010
611
0
0
MoD1212 said:
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?
Different situation completely, Johnny Storms defining characteristics is that he is Sue's younger brother and is arrogant, a trickster, and a playboy. Making him a black guy changes none of this while making him female would completely change his/her and Sues' relationship
See but that's what I'm asking: On what basis?
You say it's a different completely, but nothing there explains your how or why. It is definitely a question of opinions, but I asked that to try and invoke some deeper discussions/analysis.

What about being female specifically makes you think it would change the dynamic any more or indeed less that changing race, or even sexual preference. Why do you think one necessitates a change in relationship while another does not?

you do say the defining traits are specifically:
-younger brother
-arrogant
-trickster
-playboy

Which seems like you're trying to say that being a younger brother specifically and being a play*boy* are what makes the gender swap 'over the line' but not the race swap. However, when you really think about it, is this:
-younger sibling
-arrogant
-trickster
-player (flirter? not sure what would best fit a female or unisex version of 'playboy')

not also an equally accurate description of those exact same traits? You used gender-charged descriptors, but is there a real reason for that or are you just thinking of gender in the same way others are currently thinking of race? Are you just being sexist?

As i said at one point, it's really a question of how you quantify certain changes,
what makes X change |--this big---|
but Y change |----------this big------------|
?

Only once you kinda work that one out can you get the true answer to my real question: What really qualifies as bigotry (or racism, or sexism) as one side are claiming, or what is actually 'legitimate' complaint about tampering with an already defined character as the other side are claiming, as it's most certainly a grey area.
 

Geo Da Sponge

New member
May 14, 2008
2,611
0
0
Hey, remember how Khan from Star Trek was originally played by a Mexican actor and now he's being played by like, the whitest guy ever?

No? Oh well.
 

MoD1212

New member
Feb 2, 2010
99
0
0
Some_weirdGuy said:
See but that's what I'm asking: On what basis?
You say it's a different completely, but nothing there explains your how or why. It is definitely a question of opinions, but I asked that to try and invoke some deeper discussions/analysis.

What about being female specifically makes you think it would change the dynamic any more or indeed less that changing race, or even sexual preference. Why do you think one necessitates a change in relationship while another does not?

you do say the defining traits are specifically:
-younger brother
-arrogant
-trickster
-playboy

Which seems like you're trying to say that being a younger brother specifically and being a play*boy* are what makes the gender swap 'over the line' but not the race swap. However, when you really think about it, is this:
-younger sibling
-arrogant
-trickster
-player (flirter? not sure what would best fit a female or unisex version of 'playboy')

not also an equally accurate description of those exact same traits? You used gender-charged descriptors, but is there a real reason for that or are you just thinking of gender in the same way others are currently thinking of race? Are you just being sexist?

As i said at one point, it's really a question of how you quantify certain changes,
what makes X change |--this big---|
but Y change |----------this big------------|
?

Only once you kinda work that one out can you get the true answer to my real question: What really qualifies as bigotry (or racism, or sexism) as one side are claiming, or what is actually 'legitimate' complaint about tampering with an already defined character as the other side are claiming, as it's most certainly a grey area.
The Playboy aspect is not why I don't think he can't be a girl, it was poor wording, player works better I guess. The point I was trying to make it that an older sister and younger brother have a different relationship than that of an older sister/younger sister duo. I honestly don't think that's at all sexist to say that. Even if you don't change Johnny personality and made the female just as reckless and arrogant and promiscuous(i think is the word we are looking for) the fact is that Sue would treat her differently.

Quick example cause I don't read a lot of FF, but I do know that Johnny recklessness is one of Sues' main issues with her brother out of concern for his safety, while most older sisters would have a much bigger issues with a more promiscuous little sister worrying about someone breaking her heart/STD's/pregnancy etc. And while I know those promiscuous issue could also happen to a male Johnny (minus getting pregnant) Sue realistically wouldn't stress that on him cause that's is how society is. Dads never trust a daughters bf, but are happy for their son to get a gf and older siblings (brother or Sister) and usually the same way.

So in changing Johnny's sex that is one relation aspect that would change. I wish I had more examples but I'm more of a X-men guy. My point is in Johnny Storms specific case, his race is less important than his sex. needless to say that is not the case for every super hero. In cases with characters like Steve Rodgers(Captain America), Black Panther, Magneto, etc their race and religion in Mag's case are unchangeable aspects because of how central they are to their respected characters.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Huh. I really liked Idris Elba's performance as Heimdall. He had the presence and mannerism down perfectly for a (near)Omniscient deity. I feel so stupid having to state the obvious here, but the most important goal of an actor/actress is that they can make you believe that they are the person they are portraying in their role (be it fictional or real).

If they can accomplish that, there is no "purist" argument large or strong enough to disprove that.

So, if Jordan can put on a good performance in the role of Johnny Storm, I'm all for it.
 

HalfTangible

New member
Apr 13, 2011
417
0
0
Lovely Mixture said:
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.
...Ah.

I was trying to say 'picking an actor solely because of PC reasons is dumb'.
 

Gregory McMillan

New member
Jan 30, 2012
48
0
0
Private Custard said:
Is it even possible to think this could be stupid idea, without shouts of 'RACIST' and a large amount of pitchfork wielding?? We live in a world full of people just waiting to be offended, and it's getting boring. If something's non-canon, how can it be racist to point it out?

In this case, I don't really care. But the switching ethnicity's of major characters could get a little tiresome if it appears to merely be for p.c. reasons (I'm looking at you Bond!).

On the same token, this is only one character in a fictional world. This has no bearing on reality, so what if Batman, Superman or Spiderman get casted as black or asian or whatever. As long as it tells a good story about being a hero, what does it matter?

Now if you casted Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln or or Mother Teresa as a different color, then there will be problems because you're simply rewriting history
 

Bucht

New member
Apr 22, 2010
315
0
0
It's a dumb move to keep casting black actors to play previously existing white characters.
But hey, saying that makes you a racist, because that's the world we live in today.
I bet the film studio would be the racist one if they would cast a white guy to play Falcon, Rage, Power Man, Storm, Morales, etc.
 

RobAlister

New member
Jun 3, 2011
15
0
0
Private Custard said:
Is it even possible to think this could be stupid idea, without shouts of 'RACIST' and a large amount of pitchfork wielding?? We live in a world full of people just waiting to be offended, and it's getting boring. If something's non-canon, how can it be racist to point it out?

In this case, I don't really care. But the switching ethnicity's of major characters could get a little tiresome if it appears to merely be for p.c. reasons (I'm looking at you Bond!).
PC reasons? So you're saying that someone made the case that it was racially instinctive for Johnny Storm to be white for all these years? Please give me a link to whoever said this.

And if you're confused by this, I'm referring to the (true) definition of political correctness.
 

BoredRolePlayer

New member
Nov 9, 2010
727
0
0
Shadowstar38 said:
This is not about racism. This is about being accurate to the source material.

Aang, Katara, and Sokka aren't white.

Bane isn't British.

Johnny Storm isn't black.

These are not hard things to avoid fucking up.

Also, Famke Janssen had to die her hair red to play Jean grey. So this would would logically...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteface_(performance)

Yeah...fuck no.
There is also a black spider man, besides when we are talking about a comic book and how many different versions there are of one character I don't think it matters. I mean the Marvel movies is it's own continuity, and if this reboot is apart of that then the change does not bug me at all.
 

80sboy

New member
May 23, 2013
167
0
0
Andy Shandy said:
Is the race of the person truly important to this character?

If not, then it shouldn't matter what colour the person is, whether they are black, white or even blue!
Yeah, but an established character is an established character, you can't go back and change such details just because the medium use to exclude other races and creeds at one point. I mean why can't they just create new ones?

Now Johnny Storm is a minor character in the Marvel universe. But what if they decided to change Spiderman into a Hispanic homosexual? First off, Peter Parker is an anglicized name, would you change that too? Also the character has a history of relationship with women...how do you explain that if the character is no longer a heterosexual?
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
Shadowstar38 said:
This is not about racism. This is about being accurate to the source material.

Aang, Katara, and Sokka aren't white.

Bane isn't British.

Johnny Storm isn't black.

These are not hard things to avoid fucking up.

Also, Famke Janssen had to die her hair red to play Jean grey. So this would would logically...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteface_(performance)

Yeah...fuck no.
The problem I have with this argument is that it assumes the race of the character was originally chosen because of the creators making an active decision. But let's be honest with ourselves, here--the Fantastic Four premiered in 1961. What are the chances of a character of color with non-racist powers premiering that early in the 60s? He wasn't made white because the creators felt that was the best choice for the character. He was white because the social conventions of the time would not have allowed anything else.

And the same can be said of pretty much any other super hero until the about the 70s and 80s. If those comics were remade today, do you really think they'd all end up pasty white again? Probably not. And if they did, then their creators would face some serious scrutiny in regard to their apparent aversion to people who aren't white.

So I say, why not add back some of that color? They were only white in the first place because they premiered at a time when society was really, really racist. And in case you're curious, I do have a problem with the water tribe in the Last Airbender turning white, because they were what they were because of a creative decision. Changing the race there wasn't overwriting racism, it was overwriting a conscious and creative decision.
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
Lilani said:
Shadowstar38 said:
This is not about racism. This is about being accurate to the source material.

Aang, Katara, and Sokka aren't white.

Bane isn't British.

Johnny Storm isn't black.

These are not hard things to avoid fucking up.

Also, Famke Janssen had to die her hair red to play Jean grey. So this would would logically...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteface_(performance)

Yeah...fuck no.
The problem I have with this argument is that it assumes the race of the character was originally chosen because of the creators making an active decision. But let's be honest with ourselves, here--the Fantastic Four premiered in 1961. What are the chances of a character of color with non-racist powers premiering that early in the 60s? He wasn't made white because the creators felt that was the best choice for the character. He was white because the social conventions of the time would not have allowed anything else.

And the same can be said of pretty much any other super hero until the about the 70s and 80s. If those comics were remade today, do you really think they'd all end up pasty white again? Probably not. And if they did, then their creators would face some serious scrutiny in regard to their apparent aversion to people who aren't white.

So I say, why not add back some of that color? They were only white in the first place because they premiered at a time when society was really, really racist. And in case you're curious, I do have a problem with the water tribe in the Last Airbender turning white, because they were what they were because of a creative decision. Changing the race there wasn't overwriting racism, it was overwriting a conscious and creative decision.
So if the old version was so racist, why not just make a new, multicultural superhero team? What possible reason is there to want to keep something like that around but altered to be more palatable to modern standards? Seems to me like that's glossing over the social issues of the past moreso than meeting the ones of the present.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
Owyn_Merrilin said:
So if the old version was so racist, why not just make a new, multicultural superhero team? What possible reason is there to want to keep something like that around but altered to be more palatable to modern standards? Seems to me like that's glossing over the social issues of the past moreso than meeting the ones of the present.
The idea isn't just to make a multicultural rainbow of colors. The idea is to make sure a conscious, creative decision is being made when casting or rebooting the character. If that creative decision leads to a race change, then that's fine. And if it doesn't, then that's fine too. I don't have a problem with the act of changing or not changing a character's race. What I have a problem with is the reasons these decisions are made. Adamantly keeping a character white because their creators long ago were racist or weren't able to do anything different because of societal conventions is just thoughtless. And at the same time, changing a character's race when there was a creative decision and reason already in place is dishonoring the creator (unless we're talking about a reboot rather than an adaptation, then there's some more wiggle room there).
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
Lilani said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
So if the old version was so racist, why not just make a new, multicultural superhero team? What possible reason is there to want to keep something like that around but altered to be more palatable to modern standards? Seems to me like that's glossing over the social issues of the past moreso than meeting the ones of the present.
The idea isn't just to make a multicultural rainbow of colors. The idea is to make sure a conscious, creative decision is being made when casting or rebooting the character. If that creative decision leads to a race change, then that's fine. And if it doesn't, then that's fine too. I don't have a problem with the act of changing or not changing a character's race. What I have a problem with is the reasons these decisions are made. Adamantly keeping a character white because their creators long ago were racist or weren't able to do anything different because of societal conventions is just thoughtless. And at the same time, changing a character's race when there was a creative decision and reason already in place is dishonoring the creator (unless we're talking about a reboot rather than an adaptation, then there's some more wiggle room there).
You still didn't answer my question. If the decision was made because the creators were racist, why give their works the time of day? Why not make a new, not rooted in racism property?
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
Owyn_Merrilin said:
You still didn't answer my question. If the decision was made because the creators were racist, why give their works the time of day? Why not make a new, not rooted in racism property?
It's the same reason almost nobody is making new property these days: rebooting or adapting a known and still popular name is less risky than trying to establish a new one.

It's like Aunt Jemima's maple syrup. Aunt Jemima's first came about under that name because it came out at a time when black women were overwhelmingly associated with subservient roles, such as cooking and house cleaning. So the idea was pretend the syrup was made by a woman named "Aunt Jemima"--a woman whose biggest role is to make you, the white consumer, delicious maple syrup.

Now the brand still exists, but unless you read up on its history you don't know anything about that. They just took the focus away from that and now with time the trope has faded from most people's common knowledge. Personally, I still find it a bit off-putting now that I know about it, but I never bought the syrup anyway (I'm a Hungry Jack gal, myself) and as long as nobody else is greatly offended I don't care one way or another what goes on with it.

So back to comics. While the characters were created during a racist time and that's why they're white, the characters themselves are not racist. Like the syrup--only the connotation behind the name was racist, not the product itself. So a bit of rebranding can easily fix that. And in a way, mixing up a few races is akin to making a new property. You're simply giving certain aspects of it a slightly different aesthetic identity. Rebranding and changing up canon is something that is rampant in comics, adaptations, and reboots. I don't really get why most comic book fans won't bat an eye at Batman's transition from your standard goody-two-shoes hero to the "Dark Knight," a psychologically troubled man who finds solace in killing people in the dark. But as soon as you make him black, that's simply going too far.
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
Lilani said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
You still didn't answer my question. If the decision was made because the creators were racist, why give their works the time of day? Why not make a new, not rooted in racism property?
It's the same reason almost nobody is making new property these days: rebooting or adapting a known and still popular name is less risky than trying to establish a new one.

It's like Aunt Jemima's maple syrup. Aunt Jemima's first came about under that name because it came out at a time when black women were overwhelmingly associated with subservient roles, such as cooking and house cleaning. So the idea was pretend the syrup was made by a woman named "Aunt Jemima"--a woman whose biggest role is to make you, the white consumer, delicious maple syrup.

Now the brand still exists, but unless you read up on its history you don't know anything about that. They just took the focus away from that and now with time the trope has faded from most people's common knowledge. Personally, I still find it a bit off-putting now that I know about it, but I never bought the syrup anyway (I'm a Hungry Jack gal, myself) and as long as nobody else is greatly offended I don't care one way or another what goes on with it.

So back to comics. While the characters were created during a racist time and that's why they're white, the characters themselves are not racist. Like the syrup--only the connotation behind the name was racist, not the product itself. So a bit of rebranding can easily fix that. And in a way, mixing up a few races is akin to making a new property. You're simply giving certain aspects of it a slightly different aesthetic identity. Rebranding and changing up canon is something that is rampant in comics, adaptations, and reboots. I don't really get why most comic book fans won't bat an eye at Batman's transition from your standard goody-two-shoes hero to the "Dark Knight," a psychologically troubled man who finds solace in killing people in the dark. But as soon as you make him black, that's simply going too far.
Yeah, but if you'll notice, Aunt Jemima is still black on the syrup labels. It's just such an established brand that it doesn't really /need/ any advertising at this point.

As for the rest: Okay, so basically because the entertainment industry is non-creative, and you're assuming that the author of the comic was racist for making his cast white (instead of either A.) his audience being racist, B.)him making a conscious decision to make the cast white for non-racist reasons, or C.)it was far enough back that it was kind of silly to expect four characters who got their powers because they were astronauts at a time when there were no non-white astronauts and few if any non-white people rich enough to start a private space program, which I'm pretty sure is the actual back story there.

So if it's what you're saying, you have kind of sort of an argument, although it totally hinges on accepting Hollywood's lack of creativity and accepting the fact that they're re-using a racist property, and just expecting them to use it in a non-racist manner.

If it's B, you're disrespecting the original author. If it's C, you're doing the worst thing of all: you're white washing (or brown washing, as the case may be) the past. You do not fix the crimes and inequalities of the past by pretending they did not exist. You fix it by making sure they don't exist /today./ Taking an old property like that and updating it in the way you're saying for the reasons your seeing is the former, not the latter.

Edit: Messed up with the part about A -- listed A, but described the results of the author being racist. If it's the audience, same as C. Really even if it's the author, should be the same as C. I mean, if the property was racist from the get go, it would be like making a movie out of Mein Kampf (not a narrative story I know, but bear with me) and making some of the blond haired blue eyed Germans black. If the property is really racist like that, this isn't the way to fix it.

Edit Edit: Also, Batman does not kill people. And that's just about the only constant the character has had over the years. Even that's not totally constant, since the first few issues had him carrying a gun and basically being a 1930's pulp hero with a fancy costume. That's a different case from the Fantastic Four, who are kind of the bland unchanging anchor that the rest of the Marvel universe grew up around. Like Superman is for DC.

Also, Batman is a serial position that's been held by a couple different people over the years. A black Batman would fly. A black Bruce Wayne would not.