Keep in mind, Marvel's success came from 2nd stringers and obscure oddities because all their big properties (X-men. Fantastic 4, Spiderman) were owned by other film companies. So if DC's success comes from similarly 'low appeal' characters rather than their superstar characters, it would only be par for the course.The Great JT said:
Really? Captain America, Hulk, and Iron Man were considered second stringers and obscurities?Windknight said:
Iron Man was definitely B-list at best prior to Robert Downey Jr. I think people were aware of Captain America, but no one actually cared about him until the movie made him awesome. People obviously knew Hulk, but he doesn't count as part of the MCU success because his (most recent) eponymous movie wasn't especially well-liked.Samtemdo8 said:
Iron Man and the Hulk had several cartoons between the 1960's and movies. Hulk even had a fairly popular live action tv show in the 70's. There was a period in the 90's when the X-Men and Spiderman were more popular, that that wasn't always the case. Captain America has always struggled though, despite Reb Brown's best efforts.JimB said:
Hulk also had a standalone movie prior to the MCU. A lot of people forgot about it though.Ukomba said:Iron Man and the Hulk had several cartoons between the 1960's and movies. Hulk even had a fairly popular live action tv show in the 70's. There was a period in the 90's when the X-Men and Spiderman were more popular, that that wasn't always the case. Captain America has always struggled though, despite Reb Brown's best efforts.JimB said:
I do agree with this bit, I think if Black Panther shows anything it's that historically black superheroes can stand on their own without necessarily dipping into established franchises. People want more and varying super heroes and stories, not just reboots of reboots of 90-year old franchises that have more or less run their course storytelling wise.monkey_man said:
The main difference is that Superman is an alien prince from outer freaking space who grows weak when he's around fantastical space rocks. This isn't some small detail, I think one of the reasons Superman caught on so much with audiences of all kinds, all around the world was the fact that he was implicitly not human, and thus was above concepts of human bigotry and cruelty. There's no reason he "has" to look like a white man, really the idea that he looks exactly like a human despite being an alien is so absurd on its face. At least Goku had a tail.
There is a huge audience of people whose only memory of Marvel Comics prior to Rami's Spiderman films is a little show called The Incredible Hulk that pulled gigantic ratings in the 80's.Devieus said:
I want to believe your interpretation of the character, but Superman's motto, until very recently, was "truth, justice, and the American way!". That phrase, when uttered in the 1950's, doesn't exactly scream, "hooray diversity!" Perhaps in the 80's, but that's not when that motto caught fire.hentropy said:
Yeah, the Hulk was well known. But his film didn't do so well. The MCU's success started with Iron Man, definitely a "2nd stringer", but until Guardians of the Galaxy (more like 3rd stringers) it mostly stayed there (Cap and Thor movies just weren't making Iron Man or team-up movie returns until Civil War - which prominently featured Iron Man).PhiMed said:
Maybe not with T'Challa, but hear me out: what about a white South African child displaced by the Boer War and manages to be picked up by a member of the Wakandan Border tribe or something?monkey_man said:I have seen superman, and did not care for it, and I've seen Batman vs Superman, and did not care for it. I have grown wary of DC movies, but I hope they can fix it. I loved the dark knight trilogy. If more good DC movies come out, I might revisit these new DC movies, And I've heard good things about wonder woman, but for now I'm not really interested in watching it.
However, I think that recasting superman as a black person is a grave mistake. Let me explain. I feel like casting Superman as a black person fundamentally undermines "black characters". This black washing is boring. There already are powerful and interesting black (super)hero characters, such as Blade, Black Panther, Storm, Hancock Agent Jay, etc. I really liked all of those characters. However, just blackwashing a "white character" feels like taking something away from the already established black characters, instead of adding to their "lineup". Superman as a character might be interesting as a black person, to see his struggle as Clark Kent from a completely different angle.
It's just that I fail to see why that story can't be told by creating a new character called "omega man" or something. Same basic plotline: Super-powered humanlike alien gets sent to earth, gets adopted by humans, hides his powers under the disguise of an affable but harmless oaf, saves the planet from evil etc. Only now "Omega man" is a black character instead of a white character. I feel like such an attempt would be infinitely better and more interesting than: "this character that's been around for literally 80 years(!!!) is now black".
And before someone calls me racistbecause I am clearly a cis white man who doesn't know shit about anything, imagine the outrage, the sheer fucking outrage if the Black Panther were to be re-casted (for some reason) as a white actor.
( I believe the image's intent is to provoke and to be a crude joke, I don't think the artist actually drew Black Panther as white because they thought that was what he looked like, or should look like. The interesting thing here is the comment section. The artist is put away as a racist and a dumb ass *****. If this comment section is justified in their negative response, and I think it is, why can't the same outrage be justified when the roles are reversed?)
