Super Not Cosmo said:Ugh! The only reason people have a hard on for having Miles Morales instead of Peter Parker in the new movie is simply because he's black. End of story. It's more of the same politically correct bullshit that got us the train wreck that was Avengers NOW! and this god awful lady Thor book and the upcoming mess of a book that's nothing but female heroes. The same people who are going elbow deep to pull reasons out of their ass other than "Because he's black" to justify having Miles Morales in the movie would collectively lose their shit if Marvel decided to go with a white guy to fill a traditionally black role.
Actually from my understanding it was Fox that screwed up. Their license includes all of the Marvel Mutants, but specifically leaves Scarlett Witch and Quicksilver as Avengers. They were supposed to be excluded from Fox's license. Fox chose to only focus on the "all the mutants" part and ignore the exceptions. That is part of the bad blood now swirling between Fox and Marvel.Ukomba said:I meant the legal aspect. As an outside observer, the ownership of the two seems questionable since Disney and Fox are both using them. It seems Disney is getting around Foxes actual ownership of them by altering them, an alteration that might have worked for Spider-man too.Right Hook said:Not really, I suppose you could maybe see it from that perspective but Marvel owns those two characters, that's why they can use them. All they are doing is slightly changing how they got their powers, that's it. Also most film-goers don't give two shits about Scarlet and Quick but we're talking about the goddamn Spider-Man here.Ukomba said:Aren't they essentially doing exactly that with the Scarlet Witch and Quick Silver?Right Hook said:Uhh...no they wouldn't do that, it wouldn't even work, people are way too picky. Besides owning Spider-Man equates to owning all the spider related characters as well so it would be a huge legal mess to even try something like that.Adam Jensen said:If Marvel wanted another character to play Spidey they would have just changed the name of the character and his alter ego.
OP: Definitely expecting the old Parker luck to force us into the same character we've been getting all along. Garfield really soured me on Peter Parker and I'd love a new direction but as long as they don't make 'Twilight but with Webbing' again, it can't be too bad.
Side Note. While Spider-man is obviously a bigger deal, I do believe, After 'X-Men: days of future past', there will be quite a few people who care about Quick Silver.
Marvel likes making money... Which is why they will not be crazy enough to mess with the central pillar of their empire without definitive or desperate reason. People buy Spiderman toys hand over fist now. They will not risk that by queuing up a pc stunt. The MCU has thrived by hewing pretty close to what the public expects. Much like the Winter Soldier they may setup Miles in the wings as a possible shock replacement in the future, but when Spider-Man first hits the big screen alongside the Avengers, it will be exactly the Spider-Man everybody recognizes and is expecting. Anything else is marketing and merchandising suicide. The last thing they want is fans going "yay! We got Spider-man back.... Ummm who the f is that?" Remember Marvel struck out on their own in making movies largely because everyone they licensed the characters to changed them in ways that the fans found unrecognizable.Robot-Jesus said:Super Not Cosmo said:Ugh! The only reason people have a hard on for having Miles Morales instead of Peter Parker in the new movie is simply because he's black. End of story. It's more of the same politically correct bullshit that got us the train wreck that was Avengers NOW! and this god awful lady Thor book and the upcoming mess of a book that's nothing but female heroes. The same people who are going elbow deep to pull reasons out of their ass other than "Because he's black" to justify having Miles Morales in the movie would collectively lose their shit if Marvel decided to go with a white guy to fill a traditionally black role.
It's not about political correctness, it's about appealing to more markets. Marvel has only two major black characters in the works; one is an african king and the other is an ex con. Black parents want to buy toys for their kids that are positive role models they can identify with, Marvel happens to likes making money; do you see where I'm going with this? In this day and age a lot of "political correctness" is just recognizing that black money spends as well as well as white.
faefrost said:Marvel likes making money... Which is why they will not be crazy enough to mess with the central pillar of their empire without definitive or desperate reason. People buy Spiderman toys hand over fist now. They will not risk that by queuing up a pc stunt. The MCU has thrived by hewing pretty close to what the public expects. Much like the Winter Soldier they may setup Miles in the wings as a possible shock replacement in the future, but when Spider-Man first hits the big screen alongside the Avengers, it will be exactly the Spider-Man everybody recognizes and is expecting. Anything else is marketing and merchandising suicide. The last thing they want is fans going "yay! We got Spider-man back.... Ummm who the f is that?" Remember Marvel struck out on their own in making movies largely because everyone they licensed the characters to changed them in ways that the fans found unrecognizable.Robot-Jesus said:Super Not Cosmo said:Ugh! The only reason people have a hard on for having Miles Morales instead of Peter Parker in the new movie is simply because he's black. End of story. It's more of the same politically correct bullshit that got us the train wreck that was Avengers NOW! and this god awful lady Thor book and the upcoming mess of a book that's nothing but female heroes. The same people who are going elbow deep to pull reasons out of their ass other than "Because he's black" to justify having Miles Morales in the movie would collectively lose their shit if Marvel decided to go with a white guy to fill a traditionally black role.
It's not about political correctness, it's about appealing to more markets. Marvel has only two major black characters in the works; one is an african king and the other is an ex con. Black parents want to buy toys for their kids that are positive role models they can identify with, Marvel happens to likes making money; do you see where I'm going with this? In this day and age a lot of "political correctness" is just recognizing that black money spends as well as well as white.
I've seen, like, two comments that are offended at the idea of a black Spider-Man on the basis of him being black. The other disapproving comments are offended at the frankly ridiculous disregard that's being shown to the characters of both Peter Parker and Miles Morales.ShirowShirow said:Sure are a lot of people that are offended by the idea of a black spider man in here.
But of course, us annoying social justice warriors are the overly sensitive ones.
Huh, did not know that. Still, less of a dick move than The '1994 Fantastic Four'ing Red Eagle just did to the Wheel of Time.faefrost said:Actually from my understanding it was Fox that screwed up. Their license includes all of the Marvel Mutants, but specifically leaves Scarlett Witch and Quicksilver as Avengers. They were supposed to be excluded from Fox's license. Fox chose to only focus on the "all the mutants" part and ignore the exceptions. That is part of the bad blood now swirling between Fox and Marvel.Ukomba said:I meant the legal aspect. As an outside observer, the ownership of the two seems questionable since Disney and Fox are both using them. It seems Disney is getting around Foxes actual ownership of them by altering them, an alteration that might have worked for Spider-man too.Right Hook said:Not really, I suppose you could maybe see it from that perspective but Marvel owns those two characters, that's why they can use them. All they are doing is slightly changing how they got their powers, that's it. Also most film-goers don't give two shits about Scarlet and Quick but we're talking about the goddamn Spider-Man here.Ukomba said:Aren't they essentially doing exactly that with the Scarlet Witch and Quick Silver?Right Hook said:Uhh...no they wouldn't do that, it wouldn't even work, people are way too picky. Besides owning Spider-Man equates to owning all the spider related characters as well so it would be a huge legal mess to even try something like that.Adam Jensen said:If Marvel wanted another character to play Spidey they would have just changed the name of the character and his alter ego.
OP: Definitely expecting the old Parker luck to force us into the same character we've been getting all along. Garfield really soured me on Peter Parker and I'd love a new direction but as long as they don't make 'Twilight but with Webbing' again, it can't be too bad.
Side Note. While Spider-man is obviously a bigger deal, I do believe, After 'X-Men: days of future past', there will be quite a few people who care about Quick Silver.
Agree! Nobody would want Black Panther to be white, why should it be the other way around?Hdawger said:Yeah... no. How about instead we have Spider Girl and stop pretending that race is the most important factor in choosing a superhero. The political correctness in this article is off the charts.
I'll say what I've said in a lot of other threads like this:Robot-Jesus said:Super Not Cosmo said:Ugh! The only reason people have a hard on for having Miles Morales instead of Peter Parker in the new movie is simply because he's black. End of story. It's more of the same politically correct bullshit that got us the train wreck that was Avengers NOW! and this god awful lady Thor book and the upcoming mess of a book that's nothing but female heroes. The same people who are going elbow deep to pull reasons out of their ass other than "Because he's black" to justify having Miles Morales in the movie would collectively lose their shit if Marvel decided to go with a white guy to fill a traditionally black role.
It's not about political correctness, it's about appealing to more markets. Marvel has only two major black characters in the works; one is an african king and the other is an ex con. Black parents want to buy toys for their kids that are positive role models they can identify with, Marvel happens to likes making money; do you see where I'm going with this? In this day and age a lot of "political correctness" is just recognizing that black money spends as well as well as white.
Just because there is a market for minority characters doesn't mean that they are given the same chance as other characters. Simply making new characters to represent minorities rarely works because while many people would like to see more representation, few people are willing to take a risk by buying new and untested books. And if the readers are unwilling to risk their Money on an untested character with no history, then the Publishers that ultimatelyy have to sign on for this risk Before the readers even get a chance to support it are even worse. Comics are an expensive hobby you know. Hence why new minority characters are generally legacy heroes or related to other characters so that they can borrow some brand recognition while they get started.Mister K said:I'll say what I've said in a lot of other threads like this:Robot-Jesus said:Super Not Cosmo said:Ugh! The only reason people have a hard on for having Miles Morales instead of Peter Parker in the new movie is simply because he's black. End of story. It's more of the same politically correct bullshit that got us the train wreck that was Avengers NOW! and this god awful lady Thor book and the upcoming mess of a book that's nothing but female heroes. The same people who are going elbow deep to pull reasons out of their ass other than "Because he's black" to justify having Miles Morales in the movie would collectively lose their shit if Marvel decided to go with a white guy to fill a traditionally black role.
It's not about political correctness, it's about appealing to more markets. Marvel has only two major black characters in the works; one is an african king and the other is an ex con. Black parents want to buy toys for their kids that are positive role models they can identify with, Marvel happens to likes making money; do you see where I'm going with this? In this day and age a lot of "political correctness" is just recognizing that black money spends as well as well as white.
If there is a market, then how about making NEW characters? I mean, there ARE a lot of goddesses to choose from to make another divine character. We have Amaterasu, Japanese godess of sun, Morigan, Irish goddess of battle, strife, and sovereignty,Coyolxauhqui, apowerful magician goddess from Aztec mythos (Coyo for short, maybe) and a LOT of others. But nooo, Marvel is too lazy and/or stupid to make new characters anymore, so let's give Thor tits.
Same situation with Morales. We are too lazy/stupid to create another non-white male character, so let's race swap the existing one. Hell, you want African deity, maybe? Then pay Neil Gaiman and buy rights for Anansi Brothers characters. Make it so that there is a heroic duo of sons of African song and trickery god and their villain is bloodthirsty Tiger god. Nope, race swap is the only way to do these things.
Just go and piss off more nerds.
OT: Movie goers don't know anything about comicbook characters and they know only one Spider-Man: Peter Parker. Making another alter ego for movie version is risky and can push away audience.