Donald Glover for Spider-Man

[nickytea]

As has been said, Donald Glover is a comedian. (He was brilliant in "Mystery Team.")

If this isn't some big joke on his part, the fact that he has been known thus far as a comedian should be enough to cross him off the Spidey list. He's got a funny face, and has used it well for comedy.

This isn't to say that comedians can't do dramatic roles, but with something as easily prone to comedic parody as superheroes, would you really risk slapping a goofy face on it? Jim Carrey has done some great dramatic roles, but you wouldn't be running to cast him as Captain America, would you?

 

[Solo4114]

Listen I "get" the point you are trying to make in that the colour of the character's skin is not intergral to the makeup of the character itself---

Except that said point is simply wrong.

The "makeup of the character" has to do both with the character's background and upbringing, as well as the character's socio-economic status, etc.

But moreover, these characters are more than simply disembodied personality traits and superpowers. They're cultural icons. ESPECIALLY the heroes of the tales. You cannot with a straight face argue that you can separate fundamental aspects of the character's look from the character themselves. Towards that end, sorry, but race is a factor, just as much as gender, sexuality, political attitudes, etc., etc., etc. And it's got nothing to do with racism, either.

I mean, why not make Captain America a Russian national who emigrated? Why not make him Japanese? Why not make him an avowed communist who dates men? After all, nothing says that the character can't still stand for all of the things he stands for while these things are also true.

I'm all for multiculturalism. I'm all for racial equality. Hell, I think it's great when comic books do a GOOD job of introducing new characters who go beyond the traditional "White guy in tights" mold. But you don't go messing around with ESTABLISHED characters like that. You can't change fundamental aspects of who they are. You can't just arbitrarily change a superhero's race any more than you can suddenly recolor their costume to something ENTIRELY different with no real explanation. It'd be just as off if Spiderman were in a blue and green suit as if he were something other than white. Just as it'd be equally wrong if you took Black Lightning and suddenly made him Korean in a purple and grey suit (Oh, he just shoots UV lightning now. Get it? Blacklight? Black lighting? Work with me people.).


These factors are not arbitrary. When comic books change them, they do so in ways that actually mean something. When Superman died and came back as a dude with a mullet, it was a big friggin' deal. When Spiderman got the symbiote suit, it was important and a major change. All of these things had to be explained in-universe. You couldn't just randomly change them. And when you DID change them, they were treated as major changes.


Now, could you still tell a compelling superhero story about a young black kid who is involved in a scientific accident and develops incredible powers which he must hide from the people he loves while simultaneously dealing with the "Great responsibility" he now has? Absolutely! Just not with Spiderman.

 

[nickytea]

I'm a firm believer that icons can be reapropriated for the purposes of being made more effective. Would making Spiderman black do this? I don't know.

And it's not really as interesting to me as seeing the repeated use here of Spiderman/Peter Parker as a composite character. I think there's a strong argument that they can be considered separate to an extent. Does making Peter Parker black have an effect on the Spiderman character? How much of the inconography lies literally with the suit he puts on? How much with the man underneath? How much to his motivation for it?

It's hard to pinpoint what makes the icon, as this is a character (like many superheros) that had many incarnations. Think of the people that were offended when Peter started being drawn as a handsome young man.

I also remember hearing that one of the defining aspects, at least to Stan Lee, was that while Peter Parker's story was specific, Spiderman could be anyone under that mask. I need to remember the name of that documentary. I think it was "In Search of Steve Ditko."

 

[The Stig]

Alright, let's let a white man play Martin Luther King Jr., hmm? Skin-tone doesn't matter, since it's the message that is important.

I know it is a silly reach, but this is the kind of thing it is. These comic book heroes are as much a part of American culture as MLK or Malcolm X, or JFK.

Stop, just stop. What is wrong with you even comparing the two?

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Don't you see the dissimilarity in these comparissons with MLK. He was a black historical figure, if you change him to a white guy in a movie about him, it totally messes up the plot so to speak. The fact that black people had a strong leader that was standing up for their rights, rights which they did not have at the time, would be a completly different story if it was a white guy. If you change spidey to something other than a white guy, the plot stays the same.
So that's my argument, I don't think spidey's 'whiteness' is part of the charecters iconography, and I don't think changing his race will effect anything else about the story.

Then you would be mistaken.

 

[The Manlet]

I'm far from a racist (my best friend is black, if that matters to anyone), but Spider-man is white. Why change it?

Worked with Nick Fury.:lol You know what I want to throw my hat in the ring, I've got the build for ultimate Spider-Man, the bad love life, the same great catch phrases! A smile like Valentino! & I've already got my own suit.

I'm ready for my close up Mr. DeMille!!

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Stop, just stop. What is wrong with you even comparing the two?

Read the rest of what I said, Stig. It is a REACH of a comparison, but Spider-Man is just as much a part of American culture to some folks as MLK. The level of offense with changing an inconic character would be similar to some.

 

[nickytea]

I haven't formulated an opinion yet, but I am curious.

What aspects, exactly, of the Spiderman or Peter Parker character do you consider to be racially specific?

I understand that everyone has a different opinion of what is intrinsic to the character, but what are those values?

I just don't see any of even Spidey's character conflicts being based on race in the slightest. Class? Yes. Age? Certainly. So, I am curious.

 

[OldKen]

I haven't formulated an opinion yet, but I am curious.

What aspects, exactly, of the Spiderman or Peter Parker character do you consider to be racially specific?

I understand that everyone has a different opinion of what is intrinsic to the character, but what are those values?

I just don't see any of even Spidey's character conflicts being based on race in the slightest. Class? Yes. Age? Certainly. So, I am curious.

The same could be said about blade... Imagine if they wanted Dane Cook to be blade.

To me this is just as bad.

A comedian the wrong color playing a character that started as ART. In that ART the characters were drawn a certain way. A way that makes them who "they" are.

Just my honest opinion. No race crap involved. I think blade is still one of the best comic book movies ever! And if they did a reboot with Dane Cook or some other goofy white comedian... I would be WAY more turned off than this proposed new spidey!

 

[Risu]

Wow, there's some good racism going in this thread. Good read.

I know plenty of nerdy black people, my best friend is as nerdy and black as a person can be, and she's a genius, so Peter Parker being black wouldn't stop him from being smart. That claim was extremely offensive to me, and I'm 100% white. Maybe Donald Glover isn't the perfect actor to play Spidey, but saying a black actor couldn't play the part and play it well is downright racist.

And comparing a comic book character's race and it's importance to that of MLK is the stupidest thing I think I might have ever read. Congratulations.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Wow, there's some good racism going in this thread. Good read.

I know plenty of nerdy black people, my best friend is as nerdy and black as a person can be, and she's a genius, so Peter Parker being black wouldn't stop him from being smart. That claim was extremely offensive to me, and I'm 100% white. Maybe Donald Glover isn't the perfect actor to play Spidey, but saying a black actor couldn't play the part and play it well is downright racist.

And comparing a comic book character's race and it's importance to that of MLK is the stupidest thing I think I might have ever read. Congratulations.

How in the hell is there racism in this thread? How in the hell is saying a black actor should NOT play a white character racist? It sure as hell did NOT work for Jim West in Wild Wild West. Maybe you should stop projecting your own "racism" onto the rest of us who think that a black actor CANNOT play a white charatcer. That would be nice. It's usually apologists who say "I have a black friend...". If he was really a friend, would you feel the need to tell us his color?

Maybe think on that. Why not ask your friend if he thinks a black, not too funny actor, should play Peter Parker.

 

[micdavis]

I'm still at a loss as to why we need to reboot a series not even, what? ten years old?

Because Toby will want $20 mil. A new guy will want $5 mil.

Economics drive Hollywood. It's not art, it's business. When some of you get that, you might not rag on movies quite so much.

 

[CessnaDriver]

Wow, there's some good racism going in this thread. Good read.

I know plenty of nerdy black people, my best friend is as nerdy and black as a person can be, and she's a genius, so Peter Parker being black wouldn't stop him from being smart. That claim was extremely offensive to me, and I'm 100% white. Maybe Donald Glover isn't the perfect actor to play Spidey, but saying a black actor couldn't play the part and play it well is downright racist.

And comparing a comic book character's race and it's importance to that of MLK is the stupidest thing I think I might have ever read. Congratulations.

Would you support a white man to play Blade?
And do you think there would be a different reaction to that then Spidey?

 

[hankey01]

Oh brother. That's the trouble with anti-racism..we aren't allowed to care about or see differences. Who cares if someone is a different ethnicity..if that doesn't suit what has been defined as a character, it doesn't work.

You don't cast a border collie to play Marmaduke, you don't cast a white cat to play Garfield, you don't cast a poodle to play Scooby Doo. They are all comic characters we recognize and in any effort for us to believe this is a movie adaptation OF the comic it has to somewhat resemble the character in the comics.

If they do (please don't) an Archie live action movie... I'm pretty sure Archie will have red hair. It is not racist to want or expect Archie to resemble the comics we read. I LOVE Donald Glover in Community...I just don't think he is the right choice for Spiderman.

 

[CessnaDriver]

Awww eff it.

I'm going to audition for the new white Dolemite.
Always wanted my own army of all girl Kung Fu killers.

 

[Westies14]

I think/hope what everyone's trying to say is that they're simply used to Peter Parker being a certain person and they want to see what they know on screen. It could absolutely be retconned to have him be black, without changing a thing other than his race. But without a good reason, why? Mickey Mouse could be yellow, but there's no artistic reason to do that. Same here. You need a good reason to change a major characteristic of an iconic character, in my opinion.

And again, Donald Glover is simply a lunatic comedian who probably wouldn't want Parker to be made black himself. He's being funny. Hollywood actors under serious consideration don't "throw their hat in the ring" on their blog; they have their agents contact the studio. This kid's pretty smart and funny, and there's no way he expected a positive reaction to this idea.

Besides, the rice jokes regarding uncle ben would be unbearable.

 

[Solo4114]

Maybe Donald Glover isn't the perfect actor to play Spidey, but saying a black actor couldn't play the part and play it well is downright racist.

No, no it really isn't.

Not if isn't about intrinsic acting ability, anyway. I mean, I grant you that saying "Black actors can't play roles as well as white actors," yeah, that's racist. But saying, "A black actor can't play Peter Parker" isn't racist at all. It's just saying who the character is and who can effectively play the character. It's no more racist than saying "Peter Parker is white." That's not a racist statement. It's a statement of fact. No comic book character "transcends" race, ok? And it's not like we're dealing with material as fungible and as intentionally manipulated as Shakespeare, where any number of people could end up playing the parts.


This gets at what makes a character a character. Is it there personality traits? Their abilities? Or is it more? Could you cast an Arabic Harry Potter? I don't think so. How about a Haitian Superman? Nope, don't think so either. Why is that? Simple. Because that's not who those characters are. None of this is to suggest that Haitian or Arabic actors are any less talented than white actors. I wouldn't cast a white actor in the role of Black Panther. Nor would I cast a white actor in the role of Mariko in some future Wolverine project. Not because white actors are incompetent or whatever, but just because they probably aren't right for the role unless they don heavy makeup, and even then, it's still kinda off.


These characters come from comic books -- an inherently visual art form. The more you deviate from the original version of the character, the more you lose of that character. With ancillary characters it's LESS of a problem, but it's still a problem. I thought Michael Clarke Duncan was fine as the Kingpin, but to me the Daredevil roles aren't the REAL Daredevil story. But bear in mind, I had just as much problem with Duncan playing the Kingpin as I did with Collin Farrel playing a raving lunatic with a bullseye carved into his forehead as Bullseye. That's not who either character is, and both are major deviations from the original material. Are they critical flaws? That's debatable. I'd say not quite, but they're enough to make me consider them to not actually be the "official" representation of those characters. Partially because the movie sucked, but also because they just didn't look right. I might be more forgiving if the movie kicked ass, the way I was about a black Nick Fury in Iron Man. Not because I have a problem with Sam Jackson (although I've not seen him stretch himself as an actor in a while....but then again, I did really try to avoid The Spirit), but just because, to me, Nick Fury is a white dude who chomps a cigar and is a WWII vet. So, Sam Jackson's performance is fine in a good movie, but I still think of him as "Nick Fury, but not the real Nick Fury."

This gets especially difficult when you deal with the main heroes of a story. Morgan Freeman is an amazing actor, but I wouldn't cast him as Professor X. Nor, for that matter, would I cast Edward Norton (setting aside his appearance as Bruce Banner), nor would I cast a younger Alec Guinness. These are all highly talented actors....who are also WRONG for the part.

You're dealing with comic book characters, ergo your actors have to not only be capable actors in general, but they also have to look the part. I thought the notion that Liev Schreiber -- an actor whose work I genuinely respect and enjoy -- could play Sabretooth was friggin' asinine. Why? Because he's WRONG for the role. He doesn't look a thing like Sabretooth no matter how good of an actor he is, no matter how many pounds he puts on. If they'd put him in a ton of makeup and a blonde wig, ok, maybe. Big maybe. But they didn't even bother and he just...looks...wrong. Not like the character. Not at all.



So, spare me the "That's racist!" rhetoric, ok? It's not racist to say that an actor doesn't look the part any more than it is to say that the character itself is of a particular race. Spiderman is white, ok? So's Superman. So's Captain America. So's Thor. Black Panther is black. Jubilee is asian. Dawnstar is native american. Sunspot is brazilian. That's who these characters are and it isn't racist to say so. To say otherwise is just asinine. You might as well call a dog a duck and a duck a Sherman tank. Wait, I'm sorry. That's tankist.

 

[CessnaDriver]

The only way I see this working is if is a different person entirely wearing the costume.
Not Peter Parker. Comics often do that kind of thing.

But what? Two guys bitten by the same spider that day?

Sure. Sounds like Marvel to me.

 

[Solo4114]

I think/hope what everyone's trying to say is that they're simply used to Peter Parker being a certain person and they want to see what they know on screen. It could absolutely be retconned to have him be black, without changing a thing other than his race. But without a good reason, why? Mickey Mouse could be yellow, but there's no artistic reason to do that. Same here. You need a good reason to change a major characteristic of an iconic character, in my opinion.

It's more than just "I'm used to this." These are defining characteristics of these characters -- characters who existed previously in a visual medium. You mess with the visuals and you're messing with the characters. It's just a pure statement of fact. End of story.

With the exception of someone's post that went something like "No one plays nerds like white folks do," I haven't seen a single post suggesting that actors of ANY race or ethnicity are somehow less capable than others. But you can't argue that a [Race A] actor can play a [Race B] character unless that actor is CGed, heavily made up, and/or wearing prosthetics. It just ain't happening.

And again, Donald Glover is simply a lunatic comedian who probably wouldn't want Parker to be made black himself. He's being funny. Hollywood actors under serious consideration don't "throw their hat in the ring" on their blog; they have their agents contact the studio. This kid's pretty smart and funny, and there's no way he expected a positive reaction to this idea.

Besides, the rice jokes regarding uncle ben would be unbearable.

At this point, I think the Glover thing is well beside the point. We're WAY past the initial joke and into a whole other debate now. I would, however, point to the fact that a comedian made a joke about this to highlight THE VERY ABSURDITY OF THE NOTION. The joke only works if you already accept the premise of "A black Peter Parker? That's ridiculous!" You can flip it around and have Weird Al play The Falcon in the Captain America movie. See? Equally absurd.

 

[Solo4114]

The only way I see this working is if is a different person entirely wearing the costume.
Not Peter Parker. Comics often do that kind of thing.

But what? Two guys bitten by the same spider that day?

Sure. Sounds like Marvel to me.

Exactly. that's legit. That's an entirely different character. That's not Peter Parker, it's Mike Matthews (or whoever). That's no different from the Green Lantern being: (1) Alan Scott, (2) Hal Jordan, (3) Guy Gardner, (4) John Stewart, and (4) Kyle Rayner. (Not to mention every other member of the Green Lantern Corps.) They're all different characters, even if they share the same superhero name and powers. No problem with that. But John Stewart is black, and Guy Gardner is white.