Not archaic, but not bound to societal viewpoints of a different time. I don't think they are spinning a wheel of race and I don't think they need to force feed something that doesn't make since, but exclusive of the sibling item(previously addressed), does changing the race of any of the characters, effect the central plot or character dynamics? When you cast for a movie, you hire the best person for the role, regardless of race. Just like when you hire anyone in the real world.Alek_the_Great said:So what, it's ok to just randomly change the races of the character because apparently it's archaic for them to be white?Whytewulf said:Aren't they all imaginary?JimB said:Skin color is not character. It is not even a character trait. It is a biological marker. Since the character of Heimdall is imaginary, he has no biological markers, and therefore his skin color is irrelevant.
I think you all are forgetting one thing.. Not everyone who sees these movies gives a flying flip about race. I understand there is a certain loud "purist" group, as you said, that wants everything to be like the original comics, but that's just not gonna happen, get over it. Its over 50 years later and things have changed. It's time to update these a bit with how society really is. These franchises are just that, franchises, they need to use their money making names. They also want to try and get a fairly wide audience. But in the end, why do we care? Why can't it just be the best actor for the role, isn't that what we all want anyway? Unless it's a historical figure or pivotal to the plot, I don't get it anymore.
This. SO MUCH of this. Didn't Robert Downey Jr prove that a superhero doesn't have to be 19? How about Edward Norton? Mark Ruffalo? Basically the ENTIRE cast of Avengers? I'm fine with Spider-Man being a teenager, but Reed Richards has always been older. It's one of the things that makes his character interesting and believable.Eliwood10 said:Putting the race thing aside because it's already been discussed to death, the thing that really gets my goat about this casting is that fact that Reed Richards is WAY TOO YOUNG.
Seriously, Richards is supposed to be an experienced, middle aged scientist, not a baby-faced twenty-something. I hate Hollywood's obsession with making all their heroes young and pretty. This shouldn't bug me so much, but Mr. Fantastic is my favorite FF member and it pains me to see this.
Not likely, black skin is multiple dominate genes and white is multiple extremely recessive genes.Buccura said:I don't know a lot about genetics, but I suppose it is possible that if the mother is black and the father is white (or vice versa) that one child could be born black and the other could be born white. Or, is that not actually possible? I ask because I genuinely do not know.
When you try to adapt the original, 196whatever story of Peter Parker to the movie, you end up with a dreary Sam Raimi movie. When you try to adapt the original Twilight, you get a four-movie cinematic abortion.Alek_the_Great said:I was referring to that little tidbit you mentioned that they might need to change his personality and the fact that he may be adopted in this version. It defeats the entire purpose of trying to adapt the character if you're just going to change those two fundamental details.JimB said:Which fundamental characteristic are we talking about? Johnny Storm's level of melanin? Is that what you're saying is so fundamental a change they may as well add more characters and change the name?Alek_the_Great said:Oh cool, if everyone's okay with them changing the fundamental characteristics of the franchise they might as well add a new fifth character and call it the Super Five.
Context is not a double standard. If it is, then requiring a doctor be educated before he can be certified is a double standard against people who don't have the training to be doctors. Pretending that things happen in a vacuum is simplistic to the point of inaccuracy.Alek_the_Great said:Nice double standard there.
I am unaware of any character trait Blade possesses that relies on him having African genes in order for him to still be Blade (then again, I'm only aware of Blade from Wesley Snipes's portrayal, and he can barely be said to have a character at all from that standpoint). I am similarly unaware of any character trait Johnny Storm possesses that can only exist within him if he's Aryan. My judgment in this case is based on what purpose the character's race serves and America's history of appropriating figures from other cultures and whitewashing them in order to make them more comfortable and appealing to an entrenched power structure that seems to benefit from racial disparity.Alek_the_Great said:I guess it's wrong in that scenario because it would "take away" the character from black people (despite race apparently not mattering in regards to the character) and it's okay to do it to a white character because there's apparently too many of them in media.
If I was making a movie about a steroid-riddled villain in a face mask, I would probably not want to touch with a ten-foot pole the controversy I would deservedly bring upon myself by making him a Latino luchadore.Alek_the_Great said:Hell, I felt this way in the Dark Knight Rises with Bane.
And what? You asked a yes or no question, and I answered yes. Then I explained why I answered yes. In what way is that unclear?Alek_the_Great said:And?JimB said:Yes. It is exactly okay to do that. Fox owns the movie rights to the character, and has the authority to make that decision. You and I do not. The fact that we have read comic books does not give us the right to decide what Johnny Storm's race must be in a movie.Alek_the_Great said:So what, it's okay to just randomly change the races of the character because apparently it's archaic for them to be white?
Yes, they did, and the best of them was still not a very good movie. Say what you want about the Amazing Spider-Man sucking, at least it tried to cast off the era-specific origin story that was created two and a half human generations ago.Alek_the_Great said:And those movies stayed pretty true to the characters in the source material (whether that's a good thing for Twilight is debatable).JimB said:When you try to adapt the original, 196whatever story of Peter Parker to the movie, you end up with a dreary Sam Raimi movie. When you try to adapt the original Twilight, you get a four-movie cinematic abortion.
Sometimes you have to change shit to make it work.
How should I know? I haven't seen the script. At least one person thinks a black person portraying the personality white Johnny Storm holds will make him seem like a racial caricature of a thug, so maybe that's the problem. Ask me again if I ever watch the movie.Alek_the_Great said:What about Johnny Storm having the same personality, appearance, and relation with his sister would not make the film work?
It's not a double standard because you insist on ignoring variables and factors that alter the intent and the outcome of the action, instead focusing on the action to the exclusion of all else. By the methodology you've applied, a soldier in an armed conflict with enemy soldiers should face the same legal penalties as a gang member who murders five people in a drive-by shooting, since both people have performed the same act of shooting people.Alek_the_Great said:Then tell me how it isn't a double standard.
Appearance is not a character trait. "Character," in the realm of fiction, is defined by the role a person plays and the way he plays it; that's why that famous YouTube review of the Phantom Menace opens up by challenging people to describe the characters in the original trilogy, and then the prequels, without referencing appearance or occupation. Being a specific color is not a role, and there is no way to play a color.Alek_the_Great said:The character trait is their appearance, and believe it or not, a white man does not look like a black man.
No, I'm sure you wouldn't.Alek_the_Great said:I think Peter Dinklage is a fantastic actor, but I wouldn't want him to physically play a character that isn't a little person in the source material.
Yes, I would, because movie-Bane does not exist before I have made him (we will, for the purposes of this discussion, all pretend Batman & Robin does not exist). Comic-Bane is not movie-Bane.Alek_the_Great said:You wouldn't need to 'make' him a Latino luchadore because he already is supposed to be one.
I think your specific example is flawed in that movie-Bane is recognizable as Bane because he has the same name and does the only thing Bane is meant to do, but even speaking in a more general sense, let me respond with a question of my own: what is the point of making a movie if it cannot be anything other than an existing comic book story? Why should I, as a hypothetical filmmaker, debase myself by giving up my vision and my ideas in order to be a stenographer, transcribing another person's words as literally as possible?Alek_the_Great said:If you don't like the portrayal of the character in the source material, if you aren't even going to try and make him the slightest bit recognizable to the original, then what's the point of adapting him?
You may have intended it as a rebuttal, but it wasn't one, because it failed to address anything I said. You only shifted the goalposts, admitting that it is, in fact, okay for creators to do what they want with their property, and then changing the subject to ask if that means you're not allowed to complain about it. Well, if you're American, then you have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to be able to complain about it, just as I have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to say that I think your complaints are fundamentally flawed because they are based on a misunderstanding of what the word "character" means.Alek_the_Great said:Good job cutting off the majority of the quote that is supposed to be the actual rebuttal.
But it would be fine, because on the inside of the costume he may be black, but on the outside he'd be white ^_^Alek_the_Great said:I wouldn't be against a black Spiderman, but only if it an adaption of Miles Morales. And if that was the case, I'd think Michael B. Jordan would be a tad too old to play a teenager. But then again, he does have a somewhat youthful appearance for 27, so it wouldn't be TOO much of a stretch.