Fantastic Four
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
seelsa73
Sr Member
Re: Fantastic Four Reboot
I attach no sentimental value to the FF, my only exposure to them being that 70's cartoon and the 2 previous movies, but even I have a problem with the Michael B. Jordan casting. It's not at all the fact that JS is white in the comic, it's that the Storms are supposed to be blood siblings, yes? If you make one of those siblings black, the other one should be too. Unless they're completely reworking the origin story of all the characters, in which case it all becomes moot.
I attach no sentimental value to the FF, my only exposure to them being that 70's cartoon and the 2 previous movies, but even I have a problem with the Michael B. Jordan casting. It's not at all the fact that JS is white in the comic, it's that the Storms are supposed to be blood siblings, yes? If you make one of those siblings black, the other one should be too. Unless they're completely reworking the origin story of all the characters, in which case it all becomes moot.
Paul Andrew
Master Member
Re: Fantastic Four Reboot
I'm sure it will be fine. Everyone take a deep breath and then exhale slowly. Black human torch won't be the end of the world.
I'm sure it will be fine. Everyone take a deep breath and then exhale slowly. Black human torch won't be the end of the world.
GiovanniDekkers
Active Member
Re: Fantastic Four Reboot
I'd prefer a Female Doom over this, to be honest.
I'd prefer a Female Doom over this, to be honest.
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
Re: Fantastic Four Reboot
So is someone adopted then?
So is someone adopted then?
Solo4114
Master Member
Re: Fantastic Four Reboot
Thoughts.
1. The "youth" angle is a 50/50 for me. On the one hand, the cast may be more energized and less prone to looking too old for the parts. On the other, let's not forget the origin of the story here. These look like kids, yet they're going to be headed to space to be bombarded by gamma rays? I mean, the original story material was pretty wacky (I built my own rocket ship! Let's fly to space with my buddy from Brooklyn, my fiancee, and her kid brother!), but at least the 2005 film sorta addressed that. I'm not sure how they'll deal with it.
2. The actors...I've only really seen one of them. Kate Mara has acting chops, but I have no idea if she can pull off Sue Storm. That said, I've never really gotten a sense of who Sue Storm is, aside from her powers and such. Like, what role does she play, other than "Mr. Fantastic's girlfriend/wife"? I'm not sure. She's never seemed particularly well-defined to me. The rest, though, I haven't heard a thing about.
3. Black Johnny Storm. Honestly...I don't care. I just really don't have the energy for outrage or to pooh-pooh those who are outraged. He's adopted, or she's adopted. There. No more problems with explaining how they look so drastically different. As for tokenism...meh. I don't think it necessarily changes the character all that much. I didn't give a damn that Heimdall was black, and Idris Elba is an AMAZING actor. If this kid can play the role and the role itself is well-written, then fine. No problem.
As far as the whole "Well, would you be ok with Black Panther being white?!" Does Johnny Storm being white play THAT much of a role in his character? I mean, again, he's not particularly well-defined, so I don't see it as being that big a deal. Black Panther is a character whose upbringing as an African King is central to everything about him. I mean, yeah, I suppose you could make him the adopted white son of T'Chaka, but still, it would make FAR less sense than Johnny Storm being adopted, or Sue and Johnny BOTH being adopted by the Storms or whatever.
4. The kid playing The Thing. I hope he can bulk up. He seems kinda baby-faced at the moment, though I suppose it won't matter when he transforms.
Anyway, I'm neutral on this. Not all that enthused, but not all that perturbed, either. But then, I also don't have much emotional connection to the Fantastic Four. I've never found them to be particularly interesting as a team or a comic.
Thoughts.
1. The "youth" angle is a 50/50 for me. On the one hand, the cast may be more energized and less prone to looking too old for the parts. On the other, let's not forget the origin of the story here. These look like kids, yet they're going to be headed to space to be bombarded by gamma rays? I mean, the original story material was pretty wacky (I built my own rocket ship! Let's fly to space with my buddy from Brooklyn, my fiancee, and her kid brother!), but at least the 2005 film sorta addressed that. I'm not sure how they'll deal with it.
2. The actors...I've only really seen one of them. Kate Mara has acting chops, but I have no idea if she can pull off Sue Storm. That said, I've never really gotten a sense of who Sue Storm is, aside from her powers and such. Like, what role does she play, other than "Mr. Fantastic's girlfriend/wife"? I'm not sure. She's never seemed particularly well-defined to me. The rest, though, I haven't heard a thing about.
3. Black Johnny Storm. Honestly...I don't care. I just really don't have the energy for outrage or to pooh-pooh those who are outraged. He's adopted, or she's adopted. There. No more problems with explaining how they look so drastically different. As for tokenism...meh. I don't think it necessarily changes the character all that much. I didn't give a damn that Heimdall was black, and Idris Elba is an AMAZING actor. If this kid can play the role and the role itself is well-written, then fine. No problem.
As far as the whole "Well, would you be ok with Black Panther being white?!" Does Johnny Storm being white play THAT much of a role in his character? I mean, again, he's not particularly well-defined, so I don't see it as being that big a deal. Black Panther is a character whose upbringing as an African King is central to everything about him. I mean, yeah, I suppose you could make him the adopted white son of T'Chaka, but still, it would make FAR less sense than Johnny Storm being adopted, or Sue and Johnny BOTH being adopted by the Storms or whatever.
4. The kid playing The Thing. I hope he can bulk up. He seems kinda baby-faced at the moment, though I suppose it won't matter when he transforms.
Anyway, I'm neutral on this. Not all that enthused, but not all that perturbed, either. But then, I also don't have much emotional connection to the Fantastic Four. I've never found them to be particularly interesting as a team or a comic.
comonbub
Sr Member
Re: Fantastic Four Reboot
Johnny Storm is not clearly well defined? Well when I open a comic book, I see a white, blonde haired blue eyed kid. That's pretty defining to me.
Johnny Storm is not clearly well defined? Well when I open a comic book, I see a white, blonde haired blue eyed kid. That's pretty defining to me.
Solo4114
Master Member
Re: Fantastic Four Reboot
I mean as a character. you've described how he looks, not who he is at his core. What are teh fundamental personality qualities of Johnny Storm that define his character? He's a hothead, he's Sue's younger brother, he's the guy who steals Ben's girl after Ben becomes the Thing, and......what else? Anything else? Not from what I can tell. Nothing in that requires him to be white. It's not as if his background and upbringing AS a white, blonde-haired, blue-eyed guy inform upon his character, whereas T'Challa/Black Panther's upbringing as the son of the previous King of Wakanda kinda requires him to be black. Likewise, for example, John and James Proudstar kinda HAVE to be Apache. This, however, brings up the issue of race in comics where, at least in many cases, a character is "themed" racially for non-white characters, whereas white characters don't really have anything about them that requires them to be white, other than the fact that they've always been white.
Look, I dislike cheap tokenism, so when studios do this sort of thing, it always strikes me as rather a publicity stunt. But it MAY be doable in a way that makes sense. Anyone have a problem with Nick Fury being black now, since Sam Jackson started playing him? How about Heimdall after Idris Elba played him? I don't see it as being quite as big a deal IF it's done well. If it isn't, well, then it'll just be more tokenism, and that'll be lame.
But at this point, I think it could work, possibly. Although, I'm more dubious if it isn't Marvel doing this, and is, instead, the studio that did the first two films just rebooting to try to hang on to the license. If that's the case, I'm more inclined to think it's just tokenism or an attempt to gin up some controversy.
I mean as a character. you've described how he looks, not who he is at his core. What are teh fundamental personality qualities of Johnny Storm that define his character? He's a hothead, he's Sue's younger brother, he's the guy who steals Ben's girl after Ben becomes the Thing, and......what else? Anything else? Not from what I can tell. Nothing in that requires him to be white. It's not as if his background and upbringing AS a white, blonde-haired, blue-eyed guy inform upon his character, whereas T'Challa/Black Panther's upbringing as the son of the previous King of Wakanda kinda requires him to be black. Likewise, for example, John and James Proudstar kinda HAVE to be Apache. This, however, brings up the issue of race in comics where, at least in many cases, a character is "themed" racially for non-white characters, whereas white characters don't really have anything about them that requires them to be white, other than the fact that they've always been white.
Look, I dislike cheap tokenism, so when studios do this sort of thing, it always strikes me as rather a publicity stunt. But it MAY be doable in a way that makes sense. Anyone have a problem with Nick Fury being black now, since Sam Jackson started playing him? How about Heimdall after Idris Elba played him? I don't see it as being quite as big a deal IF it's done well. If it isn't, well, then it'll just be more tokenism, and that'll be lame.
But at this point, I think it could work, possibly. Although, I'm more dubious if it isn't Marvel doing this, and is, instead, the studio that did the first two films just rebooting to try to hang on to the license. If that's the case, I'm more inclined to think it's just tokenism or an attempt to gin up some controversy.
The Dark One
Active Member
Re: Fantastic Four Reboot
On the note of Nick Fury:
Samuel Jackson was used as a model for the Ultimate Marvel Nick Fury. Ultimate Marvel from the start was looked at as a more "realistic and present day" alternate universe to the quirkier regular universe. Changes were made, but they dont detract from the character's core per your other examples you're sharing. Example: Tony Stark is a super intelligent mutant.
Side note: This is where the Marvel Cinematic Universe takes some points from. Example: Captain America revived in present day. Sam Jackson as Fury. Not all points though; Being Tony to my knowledge is not a mutant.
However, Sue and Johnny in this universe also share the same mother and father by birth; to throw off "they're adopted" this change for the 2014 film is unfortunately another example of marvel movie tokenism (Foxx) even though Micheal B. Jordan was AWESOME in Chronicle and appears like a crummy throw away excuse.
I can get behind Marvel movie universe changing characters around as long as the core remains the same, but this is clearly not the case with Fox and what's left of it's Marvel properties; and it's a poor notion to say "well, that one's adopted" about anyone as a reason. I also subscribe to when these characters were ALL originally created that Marvel was already creating some cutting edge ideas; and in this case being that the FF have hardly ever changed (an incredible weakness for them, exception Ultimate FF making them all young heroes but still incredibly boring) if one was meant to be African American; They would have been African American to start with.
It's a shame that this point is a noted problem with the cast, when over all the cast doesnt look the part: for Ultimate FF or regular Marvel universe.
On the note of Nick Fury:
Samuel Jackson was used as a model for the Ultimate Marvel Nick Fury. Ultimate Marvel from the start was looked at as a more "realistic and present day" alternate universe to the quirkier regular universe. Changes were made, but they dont detract from the character's core per your other examples you're sharing. Example: Tony Stark is a super intelligent mutant.
Side note: This is where the Marvel Cinematic Universe takes some points from. Example: Captain America revived in present day. Sam Jackson as Fury. Not all points though; Being Tony to my knowledge is not a mutant.
However, Sue and Johnny in this universe also share the same mother and father by birth; to throw off "they're adopted" this change for the 2014 film is unfortunately another example of marvel movie tokenism (Foxx) even though Micheal B. Jordan was AWESOME in Chronicle and appears like a crummy throw away excuse.
I can get behind Marvel movie universe changing characters around as long as the core remains the same, but this is clearly not the case with Fox and what's left of it's Marvel properties; and it's a poor notion to say "well, that one's adopted" about anyone as a reason. I also subscribe to when these characters were ALL originally created that Marvel was already creating some cutting edge ideas; and in this case being that the FF have hardly ever changed (an incredible weakness for them, exception Ultimate FF making them all young heroes but still incredibly boring) if one was meant to be African American; They would have been African American to start with.
It's a shame that this point is a noted problem with the cast, when over all the cast doesnt look the part: for Ultimate FF or regular Marvel universe.
Last edited:
Solo4114
Master Member
Re: Fantastic Four Reboot
Well put. I've always felt that the FF were kind of bland. Whereas most of the other Marvel heroes had some interesting things going on with them, FF just struck me as...I dunno...not having anything going on with them other than maybe the Thing. There's no real drama. They have powers and...um...they fight badguys, but there's no internal struggle for the characters. The end result is that, to create some internal thing that they have to overcome, you end up turning the characters into exaggerated character-traits. Mr. Fantastic is "too sciency, and lacks empathy." Johnny Storm is a "rebel hothead who can't be a team player." The Thing is a "brooding guy who hates what he's become." And The Invisible Girl/Woman is....um....pretty and blond? I dunno. I never "got" what Sue's problem was, if there was one.
The appeal of the FF seemed to me to be less about the team dynamics and the social struggles they face (as opposed to, say, Spider-Man or The Hulk or Captain America or the X-Men) and more about just the fantastical nature of their battles. I think Marvel studios has "gotten" this concept for their home-grown films. They get that it's not enough to show kewl battles and such, and that you have to actually create interesting characters. Fox seems to be far more hit-or-miss on this. Some of their X-films are ok, but the rest of their stuff has been pretty lousy.
Well put. I've always felt that the FF were kind of bland. Whereas most of the other Marvel heroes had some interesting things going on with them, FF just struck me as...I dunno...not having anything going on with them other than maybe the Thing. There's no real drama. They have powers and...um...they fight badguys, but there's no internal struggle for the characters. The end result is that, to create some internal thing that they have to overcome, you end up turning the characters into exaggerated character-traits. Mr. Fantastic is "too sciency, and lacks empathy." Johnny Storm is a "rebel hothead who can't be a team player." The Thing is a "brooding guy who hates what he's become." And The Invisible Girl/Woman is....um....pretty and blond? I dunno. I never "got" what Sue's problem was, if there was one.
The appeal of the FF seemed to me to be less about the team dynamics and the social struggles they face (as opposed to, say, Spider-Man or The Hulk or Captain America or the X-Men) and more about just the fantastical nature of their battles. I think Marvel studios has "gotten" this concept for their home-grown films. They get that it's not enough to show kewl battles and such, and that you have to actually create interesting characters. Fox seems to be far more hit-or-miss on this. Some of their X-films are ok, but the rest of their stuff has been pretty lousy.
comonbub
Sr Member
Re: Fantastic Four Reboot
You can't compare a black Johnny Storm to a black Nick Fury because there is an actual black Nick Fury in the comics. Ok so on the characteristics since you're so accepting of it...You'd be cool with a black Batman and Robin as long as they act the parts?
You can't compare a black Johnny Storm to a black Nick Fury because there is an actual black Nick Fury in the comics. Ok so on the characteristics since you're so accepting of it...You'd be cool with a black Batman and Robin as long as they act the parts?
drcraig13
Sr Member
Re: Fantastic Four Reboot
OK I hate to say anything since we are getting a little race sensitive here but here it goes. 1. There already is a black Batman that fights crime in Africa except he goes by Batwing and has the blessing of Bruce to use the name and tech ect. 2. Here is where I'm really going to make people up set. There is a huge difference in popularity in the FF and Batman. Everyone knows Batman few outside of the comic world really know the FF. Now that being said again I am not a huge fan of changing him in this manner. As I said if i were black I would want my own super cool character and not some PC we will change this to make you feel better about yourself hand me down. Unfortunately I was not consulted in this manner. Personally I see this movie being a huge bomb and something as obscure as Ant Man (to the general public) being huge. IMO.
OK I hate to say anything since we are getting a little race sensitive here but here it goes. 1. There already is a black Batman that fights crime in Africa except he goes by Batwing and has the blessing of Bruce to use the name and tech ect. 2. Here is where I'm really going to make people up set. There is a huge difference in popularity in the FF and Batman. Everyone knows Batman few outside of the comic world really know the FF. Now that being said again I am not a huge fan of changing him in this manner. As I said if i were black I would want my own super cool character and not some PC we will change this to make you feel better about yourself hand me down. Unfortunately I was not consulted in this manner. Personally I see this movie being a huge bomb and something as obscure as Ant Man (to the general public) being huge. IMO.
GiovanniDekkers
Active Member
Solo4114
Master Member
Re: Fantastic Four Reboot
First, on the subject of Nick Fury, that was the Marvel Ultimates line. Are YOU saying that you only object because a given thing hasn't happened in the pages of any version of the comics? If so, that seems rather narrow-minded.
Anyway what I'm saying is that there's nothing in particular about Batman (or Robin) that requires that he be white. It'd be jarring, yeah, because Batman has always been white. But there's nothing about the character that inherently requires he be white. Nothing about how he's been written as a character, I mean. Batman's story is not something that is somehow uniquely white.
Now, I'm not trying to get off on a long political thing, but comic books have traditionally reflected the culture in which we exist at a given moment in time. I suppose back in the 1930s that Batman being white DID reflect some essential whiteness because it was FAR less likely that you'd see a black millionaire playboy. But nowadays? There's no reason why Batman couldn't be black. Or any other race, really. At this point in time, the only reason why any of the vast majority of white superheroes need to remain white is...because they've always been white, or because "white" = "default." Unless they only exist in a particular point in history where anyone other than a white person could not have the same background and set of experiences, their whiteness is totally arbitrary. But if Batman originated today, if you'd never ever heard of Batman before...is there any reason why you'd say he COULDN'T be a black character? If Batman was a new character, would you say he HAS to be white for the story to make sense? I wouldn't. Nothing about Batman requires that he be white or any other race. What's required is that he's the son of a wealthy Gotham city family who devotes his life to fighting crime -- without superpowers -- after witnessing the brutal murder of his parents. That's it. Race doesn't enter into it. Don't believe me? Try the following thought experiment:
Change the name from Batman to, say, Kestrel, and change the symbol and look of his costume to a hawk-themed one. Leave all other background information the same. Same murdered parents, same wealthy upbringing, same desire to hone his body and mind into a crime-fighting machine. Anything about that story that doesn't fit? No? Then his race is arbitrary and meaningless. The Kestrel can be black, white, Indian, Native American, Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Ukranian, Persian, whatever. Race is irrelevant to the background. Hell, you could even argue that sexuality and gender are irrelevant. You can be a billionaire gay playgirl and still pretty much be doing exactly what Bruce Wayne does. Running a big company (but really leaving it to the board) and giving the appearance of partying your ass off in the meantime. Nothing about the Kestrel's story requires that he or she be male or female, gay or straight or bi. It's all arbitrary.
In that sense, I think that it raises an interesting little thought experiment to change a character that has traditionally been white but has no real reason why they have to remain white into a character of some other race. Or gender, for that matter. I mean, again, in the 1960s when Doctor Doom was created, it made sense that you'd have the leader of a country and megalomaniacal supervillain who is a man. But now? No reason why he couldn't be a she. It's completely arbitrary and only exists that way because...it always has. Although, I grant you, that a black Doctor Doom wouldn't make much sense -- but that has more to do with Doom's origin as an eastern european pseudo-dictator. But again, no reason why Victor von Doom couldn't be Victoria von Doom in this day and age.
So, in that general sense, no, I don't have a problem with the concept of a black Batman and Robin.
What I have a problem with is doing so as a form of "stunt casting" or to gin up controversy. In Marvel's "Ultimates" line, it makes sense. This is a reimagining of the traditional Marvel universe, so it's fine to play around with those kinds of things. Plus, it preserves the "core" universe and can raise interesting questions. The thing is, when film studios do this, I'm more inclined to assume that they're purely trying to play the controversy angle and generate "buzz" for the film in the cheapest way possible. That and they're trying to "capture" a particular slice of the demographic pie. "We need a character who can appeal to the 'urban youth' market. Make Johnny Storm black. Say he's adopted or something. That way we can sell toys to black kids." That's what I imagine some ******* studio exec saying, anyway.
All that aside, IF a studio can do it effectively and tell an interesting story, I'm not gonna say "I refuse to watch it because Batman is black." I dislike stunt casting, yes. But it'd be the stunt casting itself, not the race they changed the character to, that would turn me off. I'd be equally turned off by pretty much any angle on that. "Batman is now a tween. Batman is now a girl. Batman is now Korean and gay and he's really into hiphop." Whatever. The point isn't that a [different] Batman is per-se bad. The point is that the reason BEHIND it usually is, which in turn frequently results in crappy storytelling. When a studio goes for flash, I assume it's doing so because it doesn't have the substance to carry the day. I'd like to think that's not the case here. But given that this isn't (apparently) an in-house Marvel project...I'm a lot less inclined to assume that the people at the helm understand and respect the characters, and a lot more inclined to assume that they are instead simply appealing to controversy and tokenism.
First, on the subject of Nick Fury, that was the Marvel Ultimates line. Are YOU saying that you only object because a given thing hasn't happened in the pages of any version of the comics? If so, that seems rather narrow-minded.
Anyway what I'm saying is that there's nothing in particular about Batman (or Robin) that requires that he be white. It'd be jarring, yeah, because Batman has always been white. But there's nothing about the character that inherently requires he be white. Nothing about how he's been written as a character, I mean. Batman's story is not something that is somehow uniquely white.
Now, I'm not trying to get off on a long political thing, but comic books have traditionally reflected the culture in which we exist at a given moment in time. I suppose back in the 1930s that Batman being white DID reflect some essential whiteness because it was FAR less likely that you'd see a black millionaire playboy. But nowadays? There's no reason why Batman couldn't be black. Or any other race, really. At this point in time, the only reason why any of the vast majority of white superheroes need to remain white is...because they've always been white, or because "white" = "default." Unless they only exist in a particular point in history where anyone other than a white person could not have the same background and set of experiences, their whiteness is totally arbitrary. But if Batman originated today, if you'd never ever heard of Batman before...is there any reason why you'd say he COULDN'T be a black character? If Batman was a new character, would you say he HAS to be white for the story to make sense? I wouldn't. Nothing about Batman requires that he be white or any other race. What's required is that he's the son of a wealthy Gotham city family who devotes his life to fighting crime -- without superpowers -- after witnessing the brutal murder of his parents. That's it. Race doesn't enter into it. Don't believe me? Try the following thought experiment:
Change the name from Batman to, say, Kestrel, and change the symbol and look of his costume to a hawk-themed one. Leave all other background information the same. Same murdered parents, same wealthy upbringing, same desire to hone his body and mind into a crime-fighting machine. Anything about that story that doesn't fit? No? Then his race is arbitrary and meaningless. The Kestrel can be black, white, Indian, Native American, Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Ukranian, Persian, whatever. Race is irrelevant to the background. Hell, you could even argue that sexuality and gender are irrelevant. You can be a billionaire gay playgirl and still pretty much be doing exactly what Bruce Wayne does. Running a big company (but really leaving it to the board) and giving the appearance of partying your ass off in the meantime. Nothing about the Kestrel's story requires that he or she be male or female, gay or straight or bi. It's all arbitrary.
In that sense, I think that it raises an interesting little thought experiment to change a character that has traditionally been white but has no real reason why they have to remain white into a character of some other race. Or gender, for that matter. I mean, again, in the 1960s when Doctor Doom was created, it made sense that you'd have the leader of a country and megalomaniacal supervillain who is a man. But now? No reason why he couldn't be a she. It's completely arbitrary and only exists that way because...it always has. Although, I grant you, that a black Doctor Doom wouldn't make much sense -- but that has more to do with Doom's origin as an eastern european pseudo-dictator. But again, no reason why Victor von Doom couldn't be Victoria von Doom in this day and age.
So, in that general sense, no, I don't have a problem with the concept of a black Batman and Robin.
What I have a problem with is doing so as a form of "stunt casting" or to gin up controversy. In Marvel's "Ultimates" line, it makes sense. This is a reimagining of the traditional Marvel universe, so it's fine to play around with those kinds of things. Plus, it preserves the "core" universe and can raise interesting questions. The thing is, when film studios do this, I'm more inclined to assume that they're purely trying to play the controversy angle and generate "buzz" for the film in the cheapest way possible. That and they're trying to "capture" a particular slice of the demographic pie. "We need a character who can appeal to the 'urban youth' market. Make Johnny Storm black. Say he's adopted or something. That way we can sell toys to black kids." That's what I imagine some ******* studio exec saying, anyway.
All that aside, IF a studio can do it effectively and tell an interesting story, I'm not gonna say "I refuse to watch it because Batman is black." I dislike stunt casting, yes. But it'd be the stunt casting itself, not the race they changed the character to, that would turn me off. I'd be equally turned off by pretty much any angle on that. "Batman is now a tween. Batman is now a girl. Batman is now Korean and gay and he's really into hiphop." Whatever. The point isn't that a [different] Batman is per-se bad. The point is that the reason BEHIND it usually is, which in turn frequently results in crappy storytelling. When a studio goes for flash, I assume it's doing so because it doesn't have the substance to carry the day. I'd like to think that's not the case here. But given that this isn't (apparently) an in-house Marvel project...I'm a lot less inclined to assume that the people at the helm understand and respect the characters, and a lot more inclined to assume that they are instead simply appealing to controversy and tokenism.
Nightwing Returns
Sr Member
Re: Fantastic Four Reboot
Stan Lee's Batman was black.
I think this reboot is going to bomb. Johnny Storm is white. Can't change that. But they did and it's crap.
Just think of the outrage there would be if Boyz n the Hood was remade with white kid's in suburbia. It would never get made. BUT that's how political correctness works. We HAVE to be okay with a white part going to a black person because of, well, I don't know??? If white people complain it's considered "racism". BUT if African Americans complain about Mark Wahlburg being cast as Spawn or Ewan McGregor as Black Panther (who, too, could be explained as adopted), it's fine and dandy. And it makes no sense to me. We're not allowed to be upset because we're white. Isn't that, in itself, a form of racism?
Either way, I won't be seeing it til it's on Blu-ray or Netflix.
Stan Lee's Batman was black.
I think this reboot is going to bomb. Johnny Storm is white. Can't change that. But they did and it's crap.
Just think of the outrage there would be if Boyz n the Hood was remade with white kid's in suburbia. It would never get made. BUT that's how political correctness works. We HAVE to be okay with a white part going to a black person because of, well, I don't know??? If white people complain it's considered "racism". BUT if African Americans complain about Mark Wahlburg being cast as Spawn or Ewan McGregor as Black Panther (who, too, could be explained as adopted), it's fine and dandy. And it makes no sense to me. We're not allowed to be upset because we're white. Isn't that, in itself, a form of racism?
Either way, I won't be seeing it til it's on Blu-ray or Netflix.
The Dark One
Active Member
Re: Fantastic Four Reboot
However, like Fantastic Four, Batman has gone through many changes and none of them was his ethnicity. This really boils down to changing something about a character that's never changed since their inception.
Changing the ethnicity of a character should have value. This is the problem I see as arbitrarily changing the race of a character: It's either a throw away offensive excuses like adoption or it's just to represent that ethnicity as a token. There are PLENTY of black/multicultural heroes that have crossed paths, and even participated in the member ship of incarnations of the Fantastic Four (Luke Cage, Black Panther, Storm, Dr. Doom, Lyja, Namor, Wyatt Wingfoot); yet they chose the route of replacing one rather than showcase an already existing character. I would be equally offended if Sunfire were changed to caucasian or Colossus were changed to an Italian, or if Superman shot green toxic rays out of his eyes rather than X-Ray or Heat vision; for this reason unless it were some alternate in company canon universe leaving the original as they were.
And...Marvel has an African American Batman, he goes by Nighthawk. He's in the Squadron Supreme with Marvel's (ex)MAX titular r-rated DC archetype heroes. It was alot more exciting to read than what DC has going for it now before Marvel managed to screw it up by dumping it into the Ultimate Universe; and then that in to Marvel NOW universe. Batman is an archetypical character, just like Superman, and the Justice League, and they have mirrored characters in other companies that have put their own touch on them; and that is 100% fine.
It boils down to: Change needs to have value, especially if it's a change that's 180 degrees different from a character's inception.
I completely understand what you're trying to say.
However, like Fantastic Four, Batman has gone through many changes and none of them was his ethnicity. This really boils down to changing something about a character that's never changed since their inception.
Changing the ethnicity of a character should have value. This is the problem I see as arbitrarily changing the race of a character: It's either a throw away offensive excuses like adoption or it's just to represent that ethnicity as a token. There are PLENTY of black/multicultural heroes that have crossed paths, and even participated in the member ship of incarnations of the Fantastic Four (Luke Cage, Black Panther, Storm, Dr. Doom, Lyja, Namor, Wyatt Wingfoot); yet they chose the route of replacing one rather than showcase an already existing character. I would be equally offended if Sunfire were changed to caucasian or Colossus were changed to an Italian, or if Superman shot green toxic rays out of his eyes rather than X-Ray or Heat vision; for this reason unless it were some alternate in company canon universe leaving the original as they were.
And...Marvel has an African American Batman, he goes by Nighthawk. He's in the Squadron Supreme with Marvel's (ex)MAX titular r-rated DC archetype heroes. It was alot more exciting to read than what DC has going for it now before Marvel managed to screw it up by dumping it into the Ultimate Universe; and then that in to Marvel NOW universe. Batman is an archetypical character, just like Superman, and the Justice League, and they have mirrored characters in other companies that have put their own touch on them; and that is 100% fine.
It boils down to: Change needs to have value, especially if it's a change that's 180 degrees different from a character's inception.
Solo4114
Master Member
Re: Fantastic Four Reboot
To address some of your examples:
With Sunfire and Colossus, their nationality is essential to the character's background. These are what I think of as "themed" characters. By their nature, they are "token" characters. "Look! We've got Mr. Japan Hero here!" Or at least, that's how a lot of them originated. That changed over time as the characters were developed further beyond their one-note nature, but many of the characters that debuted in the 70s were "themed" around their ethnicity or race or whathaveyou. Compare, for example, Black Panther or Black Lightning to the Monica Rambeau version of Captain Marvel. I'd argue that Rambeau is a more modern interpretation of a black superhero because her blackness is not turned into an aspect of her superhero personality, so much as it is a background part of her character. Her race is incidental to her superhero identity. By that I mean that her superhero character isn't built around her blackness or referential to it. Look at Mr. Terrific. The first one was a white guy. The second one is a black guy. Did it matter that they created a black Mr. Terrific? Nah. Not really. It's not relevant to his character or his superhero identity. To me, that's a more modern interpretation of superheroes and their ethnic/racial/cultural background. It's incidental to their character or forms the backdrop to their identity as people rather than their identity as superheroes. And they aren't themed. Like, in the 60s, you'd expect to see "The Mexican Bandit" as a themed badguy or even hero, perhaps. Nowadays, you just have Jaime Reyes as the new Blue Beetle.
On this last point, I absolutely agree. I think the value needs to be something beyond simple shock value, tokenism, or whathaveyou. But I also think that you can do that -- even with existing characters -- without destroying the character.
All that aside, I'd much rather see new characters introduced who aren't "themed" characters, but reflect the trend of superheroes who happen to be of a given background. Certainly I'd rather see that than changing existing characters. Unless, for example, you expand the mantle such that the old one died or retired or franchised the superhero or whatever, and a new one took over. I've got no problem with that, either.
All I'm really trying to get at is that the changing of a character's race isn't objectionable because of the race you change them to. It's objectionable because it's usually done for all the wrong reasons. It can still end up working out fine, but it's often done poorly and the comics end up returning to status quo anyway. For that matter, I feel the same way about most radical character changes, including Peter Parker dying and being replaced by Doc Ock or whathaveyou. Usually this is done for shock value, and then presto-changeo, we're back where we started.
To address some of your examples:
With Sunfire and Colossus, their nationality is essential to the character's background. These are what I think of as "themed" characters. By their nature, they are "token" characters. "Look! We've got Mr. Japan Hero here!" Or at least, that's how a lot of them originated. That changed over time as the characters were developed further beyond their one-note nature, but many of the characters that debuted in the 70s were "themed" around their ethnicity or race or whathaveyou. Compare, for example, Black Panther or Black Lightning to the Monica Rambeau version of Captain Marvel. I'd argue that Rambeau is a more modern interpretation of a black superhero because her blackness is not turned into an aspect of her superhero personality, so much as it is a background part of her character. Her race is incidental to her superhero identity. By that I mean that her superhero character isn't built around her blackness or referential to it. Look at Mr. Terrific. The first one was a white guy. The second one is a black guy. Did it matter that they created a black Mr. Terrific? Nah. Not really. It's not relevant to his character or his superhero identity. To me, that's a more modern interpretation of superheroes and their ethnic/racial/cultural background. It's incidental to their character or forms the backdrop to their identity as people rather than their identity as superheroes. And they aren't themed. Like, in the 60s, you'd expect to see "The Mexican Bandit" as a themed badguy or even hero, perhaps. Nowadays, you just have Jaime Reyes as the new Blue Beetle.
On this last point, I absolutely agree. I think the value needs to be something beyond simple shock value, tokenism, or whathaveyou. But I also think that you can do that -- even with existing characters -- without destroying the character.
All that aside, I'd much rather see new characters introduced who aren't "themed" characters, but reflect the trend of superheroes who happen to be of a given background. Certainly I'd rather see that than changing existing characters. Unless, for example, you expand the mantle such that the old one died or retired or franchised the superhero or whatever, and a new one took over. I've got no problem with that, either.
All I'm really trying to get at is that the changing of a character's race isn't objectionable because of the race you change them to. It's objectionable because it's usually done for all the wrong reasons. It can still end up working out fine, but it's often done poorly and the comics end up returning to status quo anyway. For that matter, I feel the same way about most radical character changes, including Peter Parker dying and being replaced by Doc Ock or whathaveyou. Usually this is done for shock value, and then presto-changeo, we're back where we started.
Nightwing Returns
Sr Member
Re: Fantastic Four Reboot
From DC's Imagine: Stan Lee's Batman
From DC's Imagine: Stan Lee's Batman
payton paison
Well-Known Member
Re: Fantastic Four Reboot
...Colossus were changed to an Italian...
I see your point. Does eveyrone remember the Captain America movie when they made the Red Skull Italian ?
I'm 100% Italian and even I was like "what the hell ? ", the Skull is German descent.
IMO I like when things stay closer to source material.
...Colossus were changed to an Italian...
I see your point. Does eveyrone remember the Captain America movie when they made the Red Skull Italian ?
I'm 100% Italian and even I was like "what the hell ? ", the Skull is German descent.
IMO I like when things stay closer to source material.
Similar threads
