|
Heathen posted:Or maleness. Women are just as misrepresented as any other minority. If we can change race and sexuality arbitrarily why can't we do the same for gender? Is there any reason why Superman, Batman and Spider-Man can't be women? And we can't change their names because of their "cultural weight" and because new characters don't work. Well, changing the name from [noun/adjective]man to [noun/adjective]woman does happen to also be the name of another character in those cases.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 03:09 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 12:24 |
|
|
Well, but those aren't A-listers that people care about, though. Nobody would go to a Batwoman movie. Now, female Batman? That's another story. Saying that new(er) things can't possibly compete with older things is why they keep remaking the same crap every couple decades crappier and crappier, culminating in an alien invasion movie based on a Hasbro board game. It's lazy. Blade, for instance, was a minority comic book movie what was very very good back when the only comic book movies were terrible and/or Superman, and I bet more kids today know who Static is than Blade.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 03:24 |
|
|
I wrote a bit about why casting a minority in a non-minority role is usually a good idea, but whitewashing a minority role isn't (in this thread, I think, the last time this all came up), and I'll dredge it up once I'm not on my phone unless some enterprising poster does so before me. I gotta say, if your argument is "cause spergs," it's a very poor argument. Keeping things the way they are because that's just how you're familiar with them is problematic, due to most everyone in comic fiction being a white, cis-gendered guy. It's not an overtly racist distinction you're making, which is why you seem to feel you've come to it without prejudicial racial bias ("similar conclusions can be reached by different arguments"), but it actually IS racist by way of exclusion. "Don't do something directly racist, but also just keep things how they've always been" is racist because "how things have always been" are white, cis-gendered, and male. Therefore, you prefer things to stay white, cis-gendered, and male. The world has changed, but you want these characters to persist as vestiges of an outdated, slanted view of society.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 04:37 |
|
|
Black Panther could work, honestly. Comic book design aesthetics are really malleable, so there's no reason you'd have to have the Wakandan soldiers carrying spears laser or otherwise or crap like that. All that Wakanda needs to be is modern and prosperous. There's the narrative challenge of a superhero who also has a country to run, but that could be an interesting twist. (Or you could say he's basically a figurehead and the Prime Minister has to sign all the bills, so he's free to fight supervillains.) That said, in general I've always wanted to see a superhero film that looks like Kirby did the production design. Thor had a nice look to it but didn't go quite that far.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 04:44 |
|
|
Man, I've only read a couple of issues so far, but I'd kind of like to see a Mister Terrific movie made. Dude's a self-made millionaire, multiple-doctorate genius (and third smartest man in the DC universe), positive role model, and AFAIK doesn't even have a problematic origin story. But you'd have to deal with the main problem of having a movie about a hero called "Mister Terrific" without the benefit of popularity to overcome the goofy name.SlimGoodbody posted:I wrote a bit about why casting a minority in a non-minority role is usually a good idea, but whitewashing a minority role isn't (in this thread, I think, the last time this all came up), and I'll dredge it up once I'm not on my phone unless some enterprising poster does so before me. SlimGoodbody posted:Just as a means to have a working definition of why this stuff is important (and not directly related to the Bane conversation cause I was pretty sure his comics origin was "came from racist, poorly characterized, made-up-Central-American corruptocracy"), I'll give my take on why whitewashing is bad, while giving "white" roles to non-whites is okay.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 04:47 |
|
|
MjolnirMan posted:Well, but those aren't A-listers that people care about, though. Nobody would go to a Batwoman movie. Now, female Batman? That's another story. Yes, but as soon as you make Batman a woman, she's going to be Batwoman. All of the female counter parts to the A-listers have essentially the same origin anyway, other than Spiderwoman. All of the Superfamily came from Krypton in some way and the Batfamily tend to be rich/have monied backers as well as dead parents and a thirst for generalized non-lethal vengeance.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 04:56 |
|
|
Thanks Tetsuo!Gyges posted:Yes, but as soon as you make Batman a woman, she's going to be Batwoman. All of the female counter parts to the A-listers have essentially the same origin anyway, other than Spiderwoman. All of the Superfamily came from Krypton in some way and the Batfamily tend to be rich/have monied backers as well as dead parents and a thirst for generalized non-lethal vengeance. This is a great point. Almost all of the non-white-male-adult characters in comics are just watered down second tries of the "real" hero, regardless of whether those characters have been retconned into having agency and being interesting by later, more capable creators. Also, "dead parents and a thirst for generalized non-lethal vengeance" may be my favorite sentence of all time. It's certainly up there. vvvv She could just go by "The Bat," which I think probably would have been a better name for Batman to begin with anyway. I love the gently caress out of Batman, but I may have just committed nerd-heresy by suggesting that. Treat me kindly, internet. I'm a gentle soul. SlimGoodbody fucked around with this message at May 14, 2012 around 07:54 |
| # ? May 14, 2012 07:04 |
|
|
Gyges posted:Well, changing the name from [noun/adjective]man to [noun/adjective]woman does happen to also be the name of another character in those cases. Those characters are derivative. You can't base new characters off a pre-existing character and expect them to resonate with the audience in any appreciable way. It has to be the originals and it's unacceptable to think that the Big Three are all straight, white males. In order to maintain their cultural weight it's important that they stay the same character albeit with that one minor change. Gyges posted:Yes, but as soon as you make Batman a woman, she's going to be Batwoman. No. You wouldn't change Batman's race and call him Black Batman would you? You wouldn't call him Gay Batman would you? Batman does not derive his strength of character from his gender. A little girl could just have as easily witnessed her parents tragic murder and grown up a secretive billionairess seeking vengeance. Why would she have to be Batwoman?
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 07:25 |
|
|
Heathen posted:No. You wouldn't change Batman's race and call him Black Batman would you? You wouldn't call him Gay Batman would you? That is race and sexuality, both different from gender. Heathen posted:Batman does not derive his strength of character from his gender. A little girl could just have as easily witnessed her parents tragic murder and grown up a secretive billionairess seeking vengeance. Why would she have to be Batwoman? Because she is a woman? I don't see anyone writing he derives his strength from his gender. What I do see is an explanation that he derives his name from his gender. Which is a grammatical thing more than anything else. You even call her a billionairess, why not billionaire if the gender has nothing to do with it?
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 09:37 |
|
|
BioTech posted:You even call her a billionairess, why not billionaire if the gender has nothing to do with it?
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 10:47 |
|
|
I think the basis of this argument is between people who see "man" as inherently a male-focused word and people who think it can be used in both a genderless and a gendered way. I think that's also why it would be a problem to sell a female "Batman" as opposed to a Batwoman because a lot of people tend to default to man = ... well, man, even though it can be used as a nongendered term for a human being as well. It isn't helped by the existence of gendered counterparts which reinforce the idea of man being explicitly the character's gender. Of course, then you have Man-Bat, who has been both male and female and called Man-Bat in both cases!
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 12:16 |
|
|
SlimGoodbody posted:"Don't do something directly racist, but also just keep things how they've always been" is racist because "how things have always been" are white, cis-gendered, and male. Therefore, you prefer things to stay white, cis-gendered, and male. The world has changed, but you want these characters to persist as vestiges of an outdated, slanted view of society.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 12:53 |
|
|
How about adding Monica Rambeau to the next Avengers movie?
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 13:09 |
|
|
Heathen posted:Those characters are derivative. You can't base new characters off a pre-existing character and expect them to resonate with the audience in any appreciable way. It has to be the originals and it's unacceptable to think that the Big Three are all straight, white males. In order to maintain their cultural weight it's important that they stay the same character albeit with that one minor change. You're going to have to make a bit few more minor changes than simply making them a woman. And when you do that, you've essentially made them the female counterparts that already exist. Unless you think that a woman running around named Clark is somehow going going to maintain the cultural weight of Superman while everyone else is wondering why you've changed Kara's name to Clark. quote:No. You wouldn't change Batman's race and call him Black Batman would you? You wouldn't call him Gay Batman would you? Nope, they'd still be Batman, but when a woman runs around in his suit the press, who gave all of these guys their name, isn't going to call them Batman. No one is. Unless you want a running gag of Batman(but she's a woman) fighting for the name Batman as everyone calls her Batwoman. Sorry, but that's the way the gender specific name crumbles. quote:Batman does not derive his strength of character from his gender. A little girl could just have as easily witnessed her parents tragic murder and grown up a secretive billionairess seeking vengeance. Why would she have to be Batwoman? Yes, a little girl could have the same background as Batman and grow up to run around Gotham attacking criminals. I think I already said that. However she'd be Batwoman because people don't generally call women men. Hell even with collective names for professions, as opposed to the actual monicker of a single individual, people tend to use the term policewoman, firewoman, congresswoman, etc. Unless you're calling for a less humanoid appearance for these characters such that people can't guess the gender of the person in the costume. Which is fine for the alien, the spider-mutated human, and the billionaire in body armor. I'm just not sure why you're so insistent that you not change the gendered name of the character, as I assume you aren't planning on having a woman running around called Clark/Bruce/Peter. Edit: You say that you want the audience to accept these changes and have your new movie/comic/whatever resonate with the public with the same cultural weight. I'm sorry but that's not going to happen, because in our society no one is going to roll with Superman, Batman, or Spider-Man being a woman. However as there are already the gender-swapped knock offs that everyone has already accepted in Supergirl, Batwoman/girl, and Spiderwoman/girl why not just take those already existing properties and work them up so they aren't just 2nd rate versions of their straight, white male counterparts? Especially since they've already penetrated the cultural consciousness by having their own movie, TV show, and, I think, radio appearances. Gyges fucked around with this message at May 14, 2012 around 13:31 |
| # ? May 14, 2012 13:14 |
|
|
MjolnirMan posted:I want black, Indian, Asian, female, and gay characters (and I like characters in these groups and have cited them in my earlier posts) to stay black, Indian, Asian, female, and gay. Please explain how this is an example of me "preferring things to stay white, cis-gendered, and male". If the status quo is negatively slanted against minority characters, then maintaining the status quo is a negative treatment of minority characters.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 13:14 |
|
|
MjolnirMan posted:I want black, Indian, Asian, female, and gay characters (and I like characters in these groups and have cited them in my earlier posts) to stay black, Indian, Asian, female, and gay. Please explain how this is an example of me "preferring things to stay white, cis-gendered, and male". Because the status quo in general is unfairly unbalanced against those characters. As long as the status quo lasts, it is effectively impossible for those characters to get equal representation. American superhero comics are in a weird place where they have very strong pre-existing brands but almost no power to create new ones. As created, almost every single major iconic superhero is a white heterosexual and the vast majority of them are male. If you go for a character with name-brand recognition who isn't a white male, you've got extremely few meaningful choices, and almost none who are not part of a larger team as part of their basic nature. (i.e: Storm, Invisible Woman, not characters who are part of the Avengers/Justice League where it's a crossover.) In fact, when it comes to recognizable icons who are not a white male and not part of a larger team or a spinoff of a male superhero, you've got... Wonder Woman and Black Panther? Maybe Luke Cage as well if you stretch it. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at May 14, 2012 around 14:17 |
| # ? May 14, 2012 13:46 |
|
|
Heathen posted:Or maleness. Women are just as misrepresented as any other minority. If we can change race and sexuality arbitrarily why can't we do the same for gender? Is there any reason why Superman, Batman and Spider-Man can't be women? And we can't change their names because of their "cultural weight" and because new characters don't work. I have no problem with a female Spider-Man, Batman, or Superman, nor would I have a problem with a female actress playing a male Spider-Man, Batman, or Superman, or any other combination of gender and sex for the character and actor. You're absolutely right that young girls should have as much access to these heroic icons as young men. I do disagree with your use of the term "arbitrarily" though. There are reasons to make a change, or to accept that casting a woman isn't even a change. MjolnirMan posted:It's obvious I'll never convince you guys who disagree, because you have to care about minutiae like that and if you don't, you don't. Specifically, you have to care strongly about the specific minutia of skin color, which you certainly seem to do. You do not appear to care about the specific minutia of eye color, however. Why do you care more about the former minutia than the latter? MjolnirMan posted:It's arbitrary and perhaps silly, yes, but it is what it is - the point being, it can be because of irrational sperglordness instead of a racial bias that all superheroes have to be white no matter what and obviously minority heroes should be shunned and ignored and black actors should all be fired. It's not at all arbitrary. You didn't randomly decide that someone's skin color is an essential element of who they are; society educated you to believe that. It's a product and component of being part of a racist society, even if you yourself harbor no ill-will towards people with different color skin than your own. MjolnirMan posted:You can make a run like Superman Red/Blue, or throw Black President Superman at the wall forever, but it'll never stick because the cultural icon of Superman isn't twin electricity gods or Calvin Ellis POTUS. Nah, we'll eventually get over this poo poo. Race is a socially-constructed label and what labels are important changes over time. Eventually Superman won't have been "white," he'll just have historically been portrayed by people with light-colored skin because that was important at the time. Did they change Batman when they switched from Val Kilmer to George Clooney? The two men don't look the same. If Batman looks like Val Kilmer, then George Clooney could never have played him, so clearly some aspects of his physical appearance are irrelevant. It is a problem to automatically make skin color one of the important physical attributes. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at May 14, 2012 around 15:57 |
| # ? May 14, 2012 13:55 |
|
|
Heathen posted:No. You wouldn't change Batman's race and call him Black Batman would you? You wouldn't call him Gay Batman would you? Race and sexuality aren't part of his name though. Gender is. Therefore that line of thought doesn't make any sense.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 14:11 |
|
|
How about a Blue Marvel movie but one that does the potential of the character and story justice.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 15:34 |
|
|
MjolnirMan posted:I want black, Indian, Asian, female, and gay characters (and I like characters in these groups and have cited them in my earlier posts) to stay black, Indian, Asian, female, and gay. Please explain how this is an example of me "preferring things to stay white, cis-gendered, and male". You want a movie adaptation of The Authority?
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 15:54 |
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Specifically, you have to care strongly about the specific minutia of skin color, which you certainly seem to do. You do not appear to care about the specific minutia of eye color, however. Why do you care more about the former minutia than the latter? I don't; you're wrong. For instance, it's part of Harry Potter that he has his mother's green eyes. Despite this being stated in the books and even the movies repeatedly, Daniel Radcliffe had brown eyes. He's great overall, but "Harry Potter" has green eyes, and therefore it's a (slightly) inaccurate representation of how the character was created.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 16:16 |
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:Action Comics #9 was wonderful. I picked up a copy on Sunday, and had no idea that Morrison was still on Action Comics, nevermind that it had gone so far into Morrison territory that he snuck Secret Original/Unknown Superman into the book.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 16:34 |
|
|
MjolnirMan posted:I don't; you're wrong. For instance, it's part of Harry Potter that he has his mother's green eyes. Despite this being stated in the books and even the movies repeatedly, Daniel Radcliffe had brown eyes. He's great overall, but "Harry Potter" has green eyes, and therefore it's a (slightly) inaccurate representation of how the character was created. What color are Spider-Man's eyes? Superman's? Batman's? Essentially, characters where the color of their eyes isn't a plot point. I wouldn't have argued for a racially-blind casting of, say, Robert Downey Jr.'s role in Tropic Thunder either, since it's specifically about a white man playing a black character. Harry's eye color isn't as central, the movie works fine, but there is that incoherence between him having his mother's eyes and the actors having different eye colors. But the essential story of Superman doesn't require him to have any particular eye color or skin color other than that they be plausible for being human.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 16:50 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I picked up a copy on Sunday, and had no idea that Morrison was still on Action Comics, nevermind that it had gone so far into Morrison territory that he snuck Secret Original/Unknown Superman into the book. I stopped reading Action Comics after I hit some time travel issue that felt like it was out of left field. Looks like I might have to remedy this.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 16:52 |
|
|
With superman you could argue that he was raised as the son of wholesome retro good old all-american 50s world farmers, which as a stereotype are white.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 17:16 |
|
|
There are a lot of poor, wholesome farmers around the world.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 17:20 |
|
|
niethan posted:With superman you could argue that he was raised as the son of wholesome retro good old all-american 50s world farmers, which as a stereotype are white. The Kents are adoptive parents. They could stay white (if one wanted) no matter what Clark's skin colour is.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 17:23 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:There are a lot of poor, wholesome farmers around the world. Yeah I guess Lobok posted:The Kents are adoptive parents. They could stay white (if one wanted) no matter what Clark's skin colour is. Don't they claim him as their son to the public?
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 17:24 |
|
|
niethan posted:Yeah I guess What I mean is that there's nothing stereotypically white about that, even in the United States.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 17:26 |
|
|
niethan posted:Don't they claim him as their son to the public? Don't know, honestly, but that's a pretty simple change. Edit: Actually, Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man all have living parental figures that could be different races since none of them are biological parents. Though with Spider-Man, it'd be easier to change May unless you change all of the Parkers or have Ben be adopted as well. Lobok fucked around with this message at May 14, 2012 around 18:16 |
| # ? May 14, 2012 17:28 |
|
|
Comic book fans will go to great lengths to preserve their heroes innate whiteness, I guess. Kill him off? Sure. Make him blue? Yea whatever. Rewind time and change his history repeatedly? Ok. Make him black? Hell no!
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 18:17 |
|
|
I don't see why the Kents couldn't be black. It's not like an alien happening to look exactly like a white human and being found by white people is all that more likely than the same alien looking black and being found by black people. I mean, people just accept Superman's origin as plausible because subconsciously, white = default. Change the skin colors and suddenly they can't suspend their disbelief (because they are racist).
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 18:27 |
|
|
Obviously there are black farmers, it's just that  Ugh whatever I don't even care niethan fucked around with this message at May 14, 2012 around 19:01 |
| # ? May 14, 2012 18:41 |
|
|
Obviously there are farmers without glasses, it's just that Obviously there are farmers without a receding hairline, it's just that Obviously there are farmers with blue eyes, it's just that
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 18:59 |
|
|
niethan posted:Obviously there are black farmers, it's just that So you're saying that because white people are over-represented in American art, they should also be over-represented in comic books? 
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 19:04 |
|
|
Who looks at American Gothic and thinks "well, that could be anybody". It's so specific to a particular time period, setting and dynamic - how many people who view the painting even realize that the woman is the man's daughter and not his wife?
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 19:10 |
|
|
Clark Kent, the adopted son of a tightass Methodist and his daughter-wife.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 19:11 |
|
|
So are we talking about making Black Panther and Blade white? Whats going on?
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 19:12 |
|
|
Seriouspost: Yeah you guys are right, me seeing "stereotypical american farmers" as white is a symptom of my privilege/a symptom of the institutional racism.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 19:15 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 12:24 |
|
|
Dude I really hope you are going to come in here and post about how Superman being white is a damning failure of monoculture because otherwise the implications of that post... 
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 19:15 |
|
