Madame Web

[Ghost]

31 minutes ago, Coyotedancer said:

 

I'm not sure what sort of snarky "got'cha"-statement you expected that to be... but aside from some of the usual comic book grognard grumping you'd hear about ANY change made to an established character ("What?!? The Ancient One is a WOMAN?!? What?!? Nova Prime is a PERSON?!?!?!" And so on and so forth-) about the worst I recall hearing re: Fury's casting was some doubt about how Jackson would play him in terms of tone. But then, a black guy playing a spymaster character just wouldn't strike most people going to see a superhero action movie as all that off the wall.

 

The black Nazis would.

Think that was the point.

No big uproar when Sam was cast.  Not like the stink cause when Tilda or Scarlett were cast to play predominantly Asian characters.  Even though they were not playing Asians.

 

 

 

[Coyotedancer]

8 minutes ago, Excraft said:

 

First, I'm not an American.  Second, you didn't answer the question.  Why would it be weird?  Because of "historical" reasons?  Ok, then why would this be more weird than changing the race and gender of the Ancient One in Doctor Strange?  Or race swapping Heimdall and Reed Richards?  Historically, every one of those characters were shown as a different race and/or gender for decades since their inception.  Why are those acceptable changes, but black Nazis wouldn't be?  Are you suggesting actors like Denzel Washington aren't talented enough to pull off the role?

 

I'm American, Ex. I never said you were. 

 

As for the question. Yes... Historical context is the meat of it. There's a whole lot less historical baggage involved in making the Ancient One a woman than there would be in casting Nazi soldiers as gay and black. Again, this is something you know. You're not as obtuse as you're pretending to be, here. 

 

But yeah... if ANYONE could actually pull that off, it would probably be Denzel Washington. The guy is brilliant... But no matter how well he did it, there would still be raised eyebrows because the history of Nazi Germany is what it is. They were utter racist bastards and the whole world knows it. That's a lot harder to act around or write out of our collective cultural memory than rather a background comic book character is male or female.

[Excraft]

32 minutes ago, Coyotedancer said:

As for the question. Yes... Historical context is the meat of it. There's a whole lot less historical baggage involved in making the Ancient One a woman than there would be in casting Nazi soldiers as gay and black. Again, this is something you know. You're not as obtuse as you're pretending to be, here. 

 

But yeah... if ANYONE could actually pull that off, it would probably be Denzel Washington. The guy is brilliant... But no matter how well he did it, there would still be raised eyebrows because the history of Nazi Germany is what it is. They were utter racist bastards and the whole world knows it. That's a lot harder to act around or write out of our collective cultural memory than rather a background comic book character is male or female.

 

Oh I agree with you 100% that an all black cast as Nazis in WW II would raise a lot of eyebrows.  But so what?  Isn't that sort of the point to go against type and give non-Caucasian actors and actresses more opportunity?  And I completely agree, Denzel Washington would rock it as he always does.

 

Since you're saying that comic book characters are less important to keep consistent, you'd be cool with Leonardo DiCaprio or Taron Egerton or Daniel Radcliffe taking the mantle of Black Panther in the MCU?  Or how about Javier Bardem becoming T'Challa with an all Latino and Asians cast as Wakandans? 

[PeregrineFalcon]

1 hour ago, Coyotedancer said:

I'm not sure what sort of snarky "got'cha"-statement you expected that to be... but aside from some of the usual comic book grognard grumping you'd hear about ANY change made to an established character ("What?!? The Ancient One is a WOMAN?!? What?!? Nova Prime is a PERSON?!?!?!" And so on and so forth-) about the worst I recall hearing re: Fury's casting was some doubt about how Jackson would play him in terms of tone. But then, a black guy playing a spymaster character just wouldn't strike most people going to see a superhero action movie as all that off the wall.

 

The black Nazis would.

It's not intended as a gotcha statement at all. If anything I am making your point about context.

 

The reason that no one was upset about Samuel L Jackson playing Nick Fury is because people understood that he wasn't being picked to push "Current Year Ideology", he was picked because he has the right attitude and charisma to play Nick Fury. And people were ok with that because movie and comic fans ARE NOT evil racists despite what adherents to "Current Year Ideology" would have you believe.

 

Just as you said, context matters. The problem is that adherents to "Current Year Ideology" seem to want to destroy our favorite characters and stories instead of create their own. And when fans of the original characters and stories complain about it, and refuse to buy tickets to those movies, they're accused of being an entire list of -ists and -phobs. Everyone knows it isn't true, but they keep saying it anyway because they're pushing "The Message."

 

People have voted with the wallets and the message is crystal clear: "Stop pushing The Message and make entertaining movies or keep losing money at the box office."

[Ghost]

Damn this is looking really bad

 

Wednesday 6m

Thursday 2m

Friday 4m

 

 

[battlewraith]

26 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

The reason that no one was upset about Samuel L Jackson playing Nick Fury is because people understood that he wasn't being picked to push "Current Year Ideology", he was picked because he has the right attitude and charisma to play Nick Fury. And people were ok with that because movie and comic fans ARE NOT evil racists despite what adherents to "Current Year Ideology" would have you believe.

 

No. Jackson was cast because Mark Millar decided to change the character in the comics and based it on the actor (without getting any permission to use his likeness). Apparently this was inspired by Colin Powell. I don't see this as substantially different from any other switch that goes on in movie casting. Why did comics fans not care? Probably because Nick Fury was a rather obscure character who was popular when Steranko was drawing the book in the 60s? And/or people just didn't care?

 

"Current Year Ideology" is not a thing, other than an indication that you are deep in an information silo. Movie and comic fans embody a range of political beliefs. Scandals happen, people get accused of something and then individuals clutch their pearls about the fans getting criticized--when it's really just them getting criticized. They don't represent the fandom.

[battlewraith]

2 hours ago, Excraft said:

 

First, I'm not an American.  Second, you didn't answer the question.  Why would it be weird?  Because of "historical" reasons?  Ok, then why would this be more weird than changing the race and gender of the Ancient One in Doctor Strange?  Or race swapping Heimdall and Reed Richards?  Historically, every one of those characters were shown as a different race and/or gender for decades since their inception.  Why are those acceptable changes, but black Nazis wouldn't be?  Are you suggesting actors like Denzel Washington aren't talented enough to pull off the role?

 

White supremacy is an ideological foundation of nazism. So it's weird to cast a black actor as a nazi for that reason. Maybe it can be done for satirical reasons or something, but it would need to be reasoned out. When you complain about Heimdall or Reed Richards being race swapped, you're implying that whiteness is a foundational aspect of their character. Which is silly and wouldn't fly for Nick Fury either. The ancient one is an even worse example. The character is an old, exotic mysterious sage. How is maleness as a characteristic important to the character?

[Coyotedancer]

1 hour ago, Excraft said:

Since you're saying that comic book characters are less important to keep consistent, you'd be cool with Leonardo DiCaprio or Taron Egerton or Daniel Radcliffe taking the mantle of Black Panther in the MCU?  Or how about Javier Bardem becoming T'Challa with an all Latino and Asians cast as Wakandans? 

 

Honestly? It might make an interesting movie. It could also be a total disaster, depending on how it was written, but that's true of anything.

 

If someone really wants to buck expectations and cast any of those guys as T'Challa, (and they manage to pitch a solid enough proposal to actually get a studio to finance the project-) ... I say why not let them try? They'll have an uphill road with it because none of those actors really suit the character regardless of color, but they might still end up with something entertaining.  Different, certainly. Apt to be roasted by critics, no doubt. But it's not impossible. (Movies that are "*SO BAD* they're good" are A Thing, after all.)

 

The gay, black Nazi film likewise, though they'd have to tread very, very carefully there.  With the right writer and cast, and in spite of a ton of historical baggage, it's not absolutely impossible that it might work out. But, like I said in that first post, the context is still going to matter and their odds of overcoming people's doubts wouldn't be great. History, like it or not, has more weight than a comic book. The subject-matter means that it'll be taken more seriously by its potential audience. 

 

Still... It's interesting to think about. Who in the world would direct it? 

[Ghost]

31 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

When you complain about Heimdall or Reed Richards being race swapped, you're implying that whiteness is a foundational aspect of their character. Which is silly and wouldn't fly for Nick Fury either. The ancient one is an even worse example. The character is an old, exotic mysterious sage. How is maleness as a characteristic important to the character?

Saying an established trait is unimportant has me wondering if you’d apply that to all aspects of a comic book movie adaption.

For example..

Northstar being a straight male - thus ignoring his roots as the first gay superhero.

Or

White Tiger being Asian, rather than the first Hispanic superhero 

Or 
Completely ignoring the fact that Dr Mid-Nite was the first disabled superhero

 

[Ghost]

20 minutes ago, Coyotedancer said:

 

 

If someone really wants to buck expectations and cast any of those guys as T'Challa, (and they manage to pitch a solid enough proposal to actually get a studio to finance the project-) ... I say why not let them try? They'll have an uphill road with it because none of those actors really suit the character regardless of color, but they might still end up with something entertaining.  Different, certainly. Apt to be roasted by critics, no doubt. But it's not impossible. (Movies that are "*SO BAD* they're good" are A Thing, after all.)

 

 

Why?  It’s all about inclusion and acceptance, isn’t it?

I would think studios would line up to make a Black Panther movie starring Tom Cruise.

The critics would write how it’s the greatest thing they’d ever seen!

 

20 minutes ago, Coyotedancer said:

 

The gay, black Nazi film likewise, though they'd have to tread very, very carefully there.  With the right writer and cast, and in spite of a ton of historical baggage, 

 

Still... It's interesting to think about. Who in the world would direct it? 

Tim Burton

Edited February 18 by Ghost

[battlewraith]

12 minutes ago, Ghost said:

Saying an established trait is unimportant has me wondering if you’d apply that to all aspects of a comic book movie adaption.

For example..

Northstar being a straight male - thus ignoring his roots as the first gay superhero.

Or

White Tiger being Asian, rather than the first Hispanic superhero 

Or 
Completely ignoring the fact that Dr Mid-Nite was the first disabled superhero

 

 

You ignored what I actually said. I mentioned foundational aspects of a character. What are the important traits they embody? 

Nick Fury is the director of SHIELD, not a cook. He has an eye patch, not a sombrero. Does it matter that the character was originally white? Apparently not, most people seem comfortable with the dark skinned version, who seems to behave more or less the same way as the light skinned variation. 

 

If the creator of Northstar specified that he was the first gay superhero--I would take that as a defining trait. Along with his superspeed and being Canadian. Does everything else have to stay the same?

 

Does Reed Richards have to be living in a 1960s New York and married to a woman 10 years younger than him? Are those essential characteristics that must be communicated in order to do Reed Richards? 

[Ghost]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

 

You ignored what I actually said. I mentioned foundational aspects of a character. What are the important traits they embody? 

Nick Fury is the director of SHIELD, not a cook. He has an eye patch, not a sombrero. Does it matter that the character was originally white? Apparently not, most people seem comfortable with the dark skinned version, who seems to behave more or less the same way as the light skinned variation. 

 

If the creator of Northstar specified that he was the first gay superhero--I would take that as a defining trait. Along with his superspeed and being Canadian. Does everything else have to stay the same?

 

Does Reed Richards have to be living in a 1960s New York and married to a woman 10 years younger than him? Are those essential characteristics that must be communicated in order to do Reed Richards? 

Northstar came out as gay in Alpha Flight #106 (a first) and went on to get married in the first same-sex marriage in comics.

Is it defining?  That’s subjective.

He was around for a few years before ever coming out.  
However it is established lore and therefore important imo.

Just like the race/ethnicity of every MAJOR character is an established part of lore, and therefore important imo.

 

Will I avoid a comic movie because the race was changed?  If it was done solely based on the actor/actress being the best suited or best available - no, of course not.

I would be mad though if it was done based purely on checking a box or filling some type of quota.

 

Matching what’s previously been established may not be important to you, but it is to a lot of other people.

If it’s that important to your customers - shouldn’t they come first?

I get trying to make changes to draw in more customers, but if it results in that not happening, wouldn’t it make sense to reverse course rather than purposely sink your ship just to prove a point?

Edited February 18 by Ghost

[Excraft]

5 hours ago, battlewraith said:

 When you complain about Heimdall or Reed Richards being race swapped, you're implying that whiteness is a foundational aspect of their character. Which is silly and wouldn't fly for Nick Fury either. The ancient one is an even worse example. The character is an old, exotic mysterious sage. How is maleness as a characteristic important to the character?

 

I'm not complaining.  I asked a question in regard to the use of historical context.  Historically, The Ancient One, Heimdall and Reed Richards were all portrayed as males of certain ethnicity.  That's what comic readers remember and would be expecting to see when those characters were brought to life on film.  Why did they need to be changed?  As for the Ancient One in particular, the race/gender swapping was done in the MCU to not offend Chinese audiences since China is such a huge market now.  Same with the Mandarin.  As for Nick Fury, the Ultimates and Ulimate Avengers pre-dates the MCU, so it's not like Nick Fury being black in the MCU was out of left field. 

 

As for the last sentence there, that has to be one of the stupidest questions ever.  Why does Supergirl or Wonder Woman need to be a woman then?  Why does Superman or Batman need to be a man?  You're virtue signaling.

 

5 hours ago, Coyotedancer said:

The gay, black Nazi film likewise, though they'd have to tread very, very carefully there.  With the right writer and cast, and in spite of a ton of historical baggage, it's not absolutely impossible that it might work out. But, like I said in that first post, the context is still going to matter and their odds of overcoming people's doubts wouldn't be great. History, like it or not, has more weight than a comic book. The subject-matter means that it'll be taken more seriously by its potential audience. 

 

I think you and I both know there would be a literal meltdown of public rage were anyone to even consider making such a film. 

Edited February 18 by Excraft