You're not proposing a valid reason for Marvel to make Spider man black. There hasn't been a single compelling or valid reason to do anything like that (which goes against the established fiction in BOTH universes). The assertion in this argument (the thread as a whole) seems to be that there's a compelling reason for marvel to DO this.
In debate, the people pushing the assertion (we should change this because...) bear the burden of proof. What's the rationale for a change?
The rationale for the change would be if Sony decided Glover was the best actor for the role.
We're not pushing for a change. Sony decided to change by casting a new Spiderman. All we're saying is if this black guy was the best actor for the role of Peter Parker, why not? Thus far the only answer has been that Peter Parker has always looked a certain way. Despite numerous minor deviations in appearance over the years, skin color seems to be too big a change for many fans.
Again, I think Glover would be good for the role, but I'm not casting and I don't know some of the other options. So, I'm not pushing for him to be Spiderman. I don't even have a twitter account. I just don't think race is important enough to the character of Spiderman to deny whoever the best actor is just because of skin color.
You're not proposing a valid reason for Marvel to make Spider man black. There hasn't been a single compelling or valid reason to do anything like that (which goes against the established fiction in BOTH universes). The assertion in this argument (the thread as a whole) seems to be that there's a compelling reason for marvel to DO this.
In debate, the people pushing the assertion (we should change this because...) bear the burden of proof. What's the rationale for a change?
The rationale for the change would be if Sony decided Glover was the best actor for the role.
We're not pushing for a change. Sony decided to change by casting a new Spiderman. All we're saying is if this black guy was the best actor for the role of Peter Parker, why not? Thus far the only answer has been that Peter Parker has always looked a certain way. Despite numerous minor deviations in appearance over the years, skin color seems to be too big a change for many fans.
Again, I think Glover would be good for the role, but I'm not casting and I don't know some of the other options. So, I'm not pushing for him to be Spiderman. I don't even have a twitter account. I just don't think race is important enough to the character of Spiderman to deny whoever the best actor is just because of skin color.
Its not, but the best actor for spiderman would be someone that looks like spiderman... it is a visual medium that the character is drawn from, and the new movie is supposed to be more in line with the ultimates.
Actually, spider-man's inability to understand the racial issues inherent to other characters has occasionally caused tension with team mates that ARE wrapped up in their ethnicity (Cage).
I think a movie about a character should take that character in to responsible consideration, and frankly it would be disrespectful to the base material to make a change like that.
Do people suddenly think its a great idea to make jesus, moses, or elvis into a different ethnicity? Would they even consider it? Does one character have any more aesthetic weight to it then another? Nah. It's just crass and a poor choice to make a change like that when the audience is accustomed to something else.
You're not proposing a valid reason for Marvel to make Spider man black. There hasn't been a single compelling or valid reason to do anything like that (which goes against the established fiction in BOTH universes). The assertion in this argument (the thread as a whole) seems to be that there's a compelling reason for marvel to DO this.
In debate, the people pushing the assertion (we should change this because...) bear the burden of proof. What's the rationale for a change?
The rationale for the change would be if Sony decided Glover was the best actor for the role.
We're not pushing for a change. Sony decided to change by casting a new Spiderman. All we're saying is if this black guy was the best actor for the role of Peter Parker, why not? Thus far the only answer has been that Peter Parker has always looked a certain way. Despite numerous minor deviations in appearance over the years, skin color seems to be too big a change for many fans.
Again, I think Glover would be good for the role, but I'm not casting and I don't know some of the other options. So, I'm not pushing for him to be Spiderman. I don't even have a twitter account. I just don't think race is important enough to the character of Spiderman to deny whoever the best actor is just because of skin color.
and more importantly, if race ( a value determined by source material) is up for grabs, why not age? I know it's an obscuring argument/slippery slope but if the compelling argument is acting ability what if the best actor is a 65 year old Hispanic woman?
|
Since when are Persians not considered white?
Probably when some fool decided Moslem and Jew were Racial Slurs...as opposed to being Religious ones. Religion is not a race. and Neither is nationality. Human (which thanks to nifty genetic testing) is now broken down into two families - Pure Strain Human (African) and Mongrel [multi-vector hominid] (all us post-exodus Africans who are apparently 1% Neanderthal).
I would have to say that Racism for a film peaked with the new Avatar: Last Airbender film when the holywood casting company put out a call for 'white kids' to fill the role of the (if you have seen the Avatar Animated tv series) distinctly eskimo kids from the Southern Water Tribe.
|
Do people suddenly think its a great idea to make jesus, moses, or elvis into a different ethnicity? Would they even consider it? Does one character have any more aesthetic weight to it then another? Nah. It's just crass and a poor choice to make a change like that when the audience is accustomed to something else.
Considering those are real people and not fictional ones, no it's not. However last I checked Peter Parker wasn't born in New York and there isn't currently a former supervillian running the shield agency.
But funnily enough, considering the fact that jesus wasn't from southern california, I'd say the church thought it was okay to do so. Unless that is you really think that jesus looked like the buddy christ considering his heritage and the ethnic makeup of the region at the time.
She's more than a sidekick!!! She's my soul mate!The joker and harley quinn are two of the most Iconic villains in all comic book history.Sorry, but I've got to dispute that little statement. Joker as on of the most iconic villains in all comic book history = two thumbs up.
Idea of Harley Quinn as same = laughter.
Joker's been around for 70 years and has been Batman's archnemesis for most of that time. You ask the average person on the street who The Joker is, there's a good chance they know he's Batman's big enemy.
Harley Quinn has been around since the early 90s, where she was introduced in the animated series. She's pretty much a sidekick to better and more interesting villains. You ask the average person who the character is, do you think they'll answer correctly?
+1.
Also, this entire thread brings up an interesting question/point. For years upon years,(legitimate)theatre has turned up their nose at the knuckle dragging tendancies of the movie-goer: to die hard afficionados, roles transcend race; performance is the only thing, to put it simply. Are we all showing our scarred hands here that we can't accept an actor who can play a convincing Peter Parker that happens to be not white? Or are we all honestly just nerd-raging that someone is daring to defy years of comic book history(which should be respected as much as possible). I'm not getting on a soapbox here, I really want everyone to sound off. And no, choosing the comic book history side does NOT mean one is a closet(or pantry or living room or whatever) racist- just that they want the character they grew up with(and who has undergone so many changes over the years race is the LEAST of his worries...).
I'll start. I think people are knuckle dragging a bit. I've said it before and I'll say it again- I'd like to see actors of all races try out for various parts, even ones that have been traditionally white in the past. If not for such avant-garde approaches, we would never have gotten Patrick Stewart as Othello(one of the greatest performances ever from what I have heard), or Denzel Washington playing Julius Caesar. What do you think?
Do people suddenly think its a great idea to make jesus, moses, or elvis into a different ethnicity? Would they even consider it? Does one character have any more aesthetic weight to it then another? Nah. It's just crass and a poor choice to make a change like that when the audience is accustomed to something else.
Considering those are real people and not fictional ones, no it's not. However last I checked Peter Parker wasn't born in New York and there isn't currently a former supervillian running the shield agency.
But funnily enough, considering the fact that jesus wasn't from southern california, I'd say the church thought it was okay to do so. Unless that is you really think that jesus looked like the buddy christ considering his heritage and the ethnic makeup of the region at the time.
Jesus = Buddy Christ.
He's happy. He's scrappy. He's the son of God!!!!
|
She's more than a sidekick!!! She's my soul mate!The joker and harley quinn are two of the most Iconic villains in all comic book history.Sorry, but I've got to dispute that little statement. Joker as on of the most iconic villains in all comic book history = two thumbs up.
Idea of Harley Quinn as same = laughter.
Joker's been around for 70 years and has been Batman's archnemesis for most of that time. You ask the average person on the street who The Joker is, there's a good chance they know he's Batman's big enemy.
Harley Quinn has been around since the early 90s, where she was introduced in the animated series. She's pretty much a sidekick to better and more interesting villains. You ask the average person who the character is, do you think they'll answer correctly?
+1.
Also, this entire thread brings up an interesting question/point. For years upon years,(legitimate)theatre has turned up their nose at the knuckle dragging tendancies of the movie-goer: to die hard afficionados, roles transcend race; performance is the only thing, to put it simply. Are we all showing our scarred hands here that we can't accept an actor who can play a convincing Peter Parker that happens to be not white? Or are we all honestly just nerd-raging that someone is daring to defy years of comic book history(which should be respected as much as possible). I'm not getting on a soapbox here, I really want everyone to sound off. And no, choosing the comic book history side does NOT mean one is a closet(or pantry or living room or whatever) racist- just that they want the character they grew up with(and who has undergone so many changes over the years race is the LEAST of his worries...).
I'll start. I think people are knuckle dragging a bit. I've said it before and I'll say it again- I'd like to see actors of all races try out for various parts, even ones that have been traditionally white...
Denzel Washington played Julius Caesar?
|
|
Do people suddenly think its a great idea to make jesus, moses, or elvis into a different ethnicity? Would they even consider it? Does one character have any more aesthetic weight to it then another? Nah. It's just crass and a poor choice to make a change like that when the audience is accustomed to something else.
Considering those are real people and not fictional ones, no it's not. However last I checked Peter Parker wasn't born in New York and there isn't currently a former supervillian running the shield agency.
But funnily enough, considering the fact that jesus wasn't from southern california, I'd say the church thought it was okay to do so. Unless that is you really think that jesus looked like the buddy christ considering his heritage and the ethnic makeup of the region at the time.
Jesus was kinda-white, but he probably had black hair and a slightly darker skin tone.
|
|
Disrespectful how exactly, seriously how is that disrespectful exactly I really want to know?I think a movie about a character should take that character in to responsible consideration, and frankly it would be disrespectful to the base material to make a change like that.
Disrespectful to the fans. Especially the nerdy white ones who could relate. It's what he represents.
Disrespectful to the fans. Especially the nerdy white ones who could relate. It's what he represents.Disrespectful how exactly, seriously how is that disrespectful exactly I really want to know?I think a movie about a character should take that character in to responsible consideration, and frankly it would be disrespectful to the base material to make a change like that.
How does he represent white? Just by being white? That's not really representing. I have french roots, but I don't represent french people.
|
most iconic fictional character EVAR, puhlease.
Oh, and he's also the most iconic fictional characters EVER.
Nice strawman you built.
I bolded the bit you chose to ignore so that you could work in your little rant. You know, the bit where I make it clear that he is ONE of MANY iconic fictional characters. And not necessarily even the MOST iconic fictional character.
Superman...meh, I'd say they're right about at the same level (known by practically everyone, even those who have no interest in comics), and most people I know prefer Spidey. Huckleberry Finn...maybe a decade or two ago, but ask a random kid on the street these days who Huck Finn is, and who Spidey is, and I'd wager he knows a lot more about Spidey. Same argument goes for Romeo.
‘One of the most iconic characters’ is a tricky argument though. Oh, I don’t think you were trying to be tricky, but is he one of the three most iconic characters, one of the ten most iconic characters, one of the top one thousand most iconic characters?
For what it’s worth, I think you’re right, Spiderman is a very iconic character, probably one of the most iconic ;-)
Peter Parker, not so much. Probably near as many people I know that are not comic book fans (or into anything much geeky) would be able to identify Superman, Batman and Spiderman in a line up; I think just about all of them could also tell you that Clark Kent is Superman. A lot of them could probably tell you that Bruce Wayne is Batman. I think it would be a much smaller percentage that could tell you who Peter Parker is, or much about him.
Actually, come to think of it … about all most people who aren’t very familiar with Spiderman or comic books could likely tell you about Spiderman’s alter-ego is that he’s probably male and probably white (over that he’s a geek or from a lower socio-economic background, or that he has brown hair or whatever). So maybe his race or skin colour is more an integral part of the character than I first thought. I still maintain that the character is not and should not be defined by race, but maybe the recognition factor is important enough that it should be a factor in casting?
|
|
Also, this entire thread brings up an interesting question/point. For years upon years,(legitimate)theatre has turned up their nose at the knuckle dragging tendancies of the movie-goer: to die hard afficionados, roles transcend race; performance is the only thing, to put it simply. Are we all showing our scarred hands here that we can't accept an actor who can play a convincing Peter Parker that happens to be not white? Or are we all honestly just nerd-raging that someone is daring to defy years of comic book history(which should be respected as much as possible). I'm not getting on a soapbox here, I really want everyone to sound off. And no, choosing the comic book history side does NOT mean one is a closet(or pantry or living room or whatever) racist- just that they want the character they grew up with(and who has undergone so many changes over the years race is the LEAST of his worries...).
I don’t think most people saying no to black Spiderman are being racist at all. There is a lot of justifiable nerd-rage and legitimate enough issues with continuity. However, there is also this underlying thing, and its very much a cultural thing, that we (as a culture) can handle all sorts of changes to an iconic character or story (for example, Peter Parker’s eye colour, his height, the fact that originally he grew up in the fifties and sixties but in the last movie series he grew up in the nineties and noughties, the different appearance of various villains from their original depictions, for example the Green Goblin) without too much eyebrow raising, but that race and skin colour is that line that we can’t seem to cross (or at least not without massive controversy).
After reading the thread and pondering the whole idea, I don't see a problem with a black Peter Parker. So long as the story is well written and the acting is good, I could overlook any discontinuity with the original comic character.
After all, there is discontinuity as a matter of course when you have a film adaptation of a comic book. Look at the first three Raimi films. We have a Spider-Man that shoots webs that he generates in his own body. That was enough of a stray away from the original for my own nerd hackles to raise. Still, now I'm fine with it. Any time you have a retelling of a story, there will be new interpretations, new imagery. That's just the way it goes. If this Glover fellow is the best pick amongst the auditioning actors, then go for it.
I think the only time race ever came up as a real issue for me concerning actors is when Michael Jackson wanted a five year old white boy to play a young him in the movie about his life. o_0
When I heard Will Smith had been cast for I Am Legend, I was disturbed not because they had a black actor playing Neville, but because they had Will Smith playing him. It took me three years to muster enough courage to actually watch the film, dreading an inevitable "Oh, hell no!" coming up at some point. As it turns out, it was a good adaptation of the original story. There were a lot of changes and more areas that were more like the original movie version, Omega Man than the novel, but the bottom line was that it was a good film, and I think that should be the bottom line when casting: make it as good as you can.
[/soapbox]
Do people suddenly think its a great idea to make jesus, moses, or elvis into a different ethnicity? Would they even consider it? Does one character have any more aesthetic weight to it then another? Nah. It's just crass and a poor choice to make a change like that when the audience is accustomed to something else.
Considering those are real people and not fictional ones, no it's not. However last I checked Peter Parker wasn't born in New York and there isn't currently a former supervillian running the shield agency.
But funnily enough, considering the fact that jesus wasn't from southern california, I'd say the church thought it was okay to do so. Unless that is you really think that jesus looked like the buddy christ considering his heritage and the ethnic makeup of the region at the time.
Clearly, no argument on the churches decision (and I'm an atheist, so they're not real people to me... well, besides elvis).
Again... if "best actor should get the part" is the argument, then what if it's a 64 year old hispanic woman?
If you don't want to be faithful, or at least respectful to the source material, then don't call it Spider-Man.
So if the "Best Actor should get it" argument is defunct, which, by the way, is a logic fallacy because I dare you to find a definable scale by which we can determine acting prowess, there's still no compelling reason to do it.
Jesus was kinda-white, but he probably had black hair and a slightly darker skin tone.
Considering that if there was a historical Jesus, he'd be a Semetic man with long hair and a beard, spending a lot of time walking around out in the sun, if there was a second coming here in the U.S. he'd probably be detained and sent to Gitmo.
|
|
Do people suddenly think its a great idea to make jesus, moses, or elvis into a different ethnicity? Would they even consider it? Does one character have any more aesthetic weight to it then another? Nah. It's just crass and a poor choice to make a change like that when the audience is accustomed to something else.
Considering those are real people and not fictional ones, no it's not. However last I checked Peter Parker wasn't born in New York and there isn't currently a former supervillian running the shield agency.
But funnily enough, considering the fact that jesus wasn't from southern california, I'd say the church thought it was okay to do so. Unless that is you really think that jesus looked like the buddy christ considering his heritage and the ethnic makeup of the region at the time.
Clearly, no argument on the churches decision (and I'm an atheist, so they're not real people to me... well, besides elvis).
Again... if "best actor should get the part" is the argument, then what if it's a 64 year old hispanic woman?
If you don't want to be faithful, or at least respectful to the source material, then don't call it Spider-Man.
So if the "Best Actor should get it" argument is defunct, which, by the way, is a logic fallacy because I dare you to find a definable scale by which we can determine acting prowess, there's still no compelling reason to do it.
IF a 64 year old hispanic woman is the best at playing a teenage boy, maybe they should get it, but some of us can get pretty offended at the suggestion that skin color is as fundamental a difference in personality as age or sex. Which is what a question like that implies and what some of us don't agree with. I for one don't think that being black or being indian somehow makes you fundamentally different if you grow up in the exact same socio-economic background as a white kid. Being a female does make you fundamentally different, being 65 does make you fundamentally different, being black does not.
Denzel Washington played Julius Caesar?
Yes, on broadway.
|
|
So if the "Best Actor should get it" argument is defunct, which, by the way, is a logic fallacy because I dare you to find a definable scale by which we can determine acting prowess, there's still no compelling reason to do it.
Are you seriously going there. Yeah because acting prowess isn't something you can see when people go for a role. it's all just opinion, there's no such thing as a bad actor. The actors in the Transmorphers movie are subjectively as good as the actors in Slumdog Millionare, so really we should just let whoever walks in that day first get the part, since you know auditions can't find out who does better at a role than others.
The idea that because something is subjective doesn't mean that there can't be a clear "best", is just silly, because by your answer apparently we don't even need casting agents, we just need look alike contests because "hey, there's no objective measure to say who's best."
EDIT: that may have come off as a bit strong, but as a former actor I found his comment particularly distasteful.
Most of our iconic superheroes are white guys created by white guys FOR a white audience.
Go to any comic convention (even here in NY) most of the people who attend NYCC are decidedly NOT BLACK. Most of the creators of note are decidedly NOT BLACK. Most of the characters, at least the well known ones, are NOT BLACK.
So what would Sony have to gain by casting a non-white , specifically a black Spider-Man. Nothing. What would they lose? The predominately white fan base as well as the majority of people who will not support a black male lead in a film. And before anyone invokes the names of Denzel Washington or Will Smith, they are the EXCEPTIONS not the RULE.
I say all of this as a black man who loves and has been reading superhero comics since he was six years old. White people WILL NOT go to see a black male lead in movie unless his name is Denzel Washington or Will Smith.
So yeah, a black lead for a new Spider-man movie is a pretty stupid idea from a money stand point.
IF a 64 year old hispanic woman is the best at playing a teenage boy, maybe they should get it, but some of us can get pretty offended at the suggestion that skin color is as fundamental a difference in personality as age or sex. Which is what a question like that implies and what some of us don't agree with. I for one don't think that being black or being indian somehow makes you fundamentally different if you grow up in the exact same socio-economic background as a white kid. Being a female does make you fundamentally different, being...Do people suddenly think its a great idea to make jesus, moses, or elvis into a different ethnicity? Would they even consider it? Does one character have any more aesthetic weight to it then another? Nah. It's just crass and a poor choice to make a change like that when the audience is accustomed to something else.
Considering those are real people and not fictional ones, no it's not. However last I checked Peter Parker wasn't born in New York and there isn't currently a former supervillian running the shield agency.
But funnily enough, considering the fact that jesus wasn't from southern california, I'd say the church thought it was okay to do so. Unless that is you really think that jesus looked like the buddy christ considering his heritage and the ethnic makeup of the region at the time.
Clearly, no argument on the churches decision (and I'm an atheist, so they're not real people to me... well, besides elvis).
Again... if "best actor should get the part" is the argument, then what if it's a 64 year old hispanic woman?
If you don't want to be faithful, or at least respectful to the source material, then don't call it Spider-Man.
So if the "Best Actor should get it" argument is defunct, which, by the way, is a logic fallacy because I dare you to find a definable scale by which we can determine acting prowess, there's still no compelling reason to do it.
No, but being anything other then a geeky white kid makes you FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT from Spider-Man.... doesn't it?
It's not like we're saying an ethnic person isnt' good enough (which is what people are getting hyped up about) but that they're not suited for the role. Just like it wouldn't be right to make iron man black, Hulk blue, or The Thing Green. Now if they were to change any ethnic characters race I'd be just as bothered by the idea... War Machine, Ultimate Nick Fury, Jubilee, etc... are the way they ARE, and should be handled with care to retain their distinct identities.
If you're getting offended about it it's definitely a personal decision on your behalf, not a deductive one. No one's said anything that lends itself to any form of racial bigotry here (as it is against the forum rules, look at the bottom of the page at bullet 2, the post would have been removed) and frankly I'm offended at the implication that because I disagree I'm tinged with a subtle and insideous race based bigotry.
|
|
Most of our iconic superheroes are white guys created by white guys FOR a white audience.
Go to any comic convention (even here in NY) most of the people who attend NYCC are decidedly NOT BLACK. Most of the creators of note are decidedly NOT BLACK. Most of the characters, at least the well known ones, are NOT BLACK.
So what would Sony have to gain by casting a non-white , specifically a black Spider-Man. Nothing. What would they lose? The predominately white fan base as well as the majority of people who will not support a black male lead in a film. And before anyone invokes the names of Denzel Washington or Will Smith, they are the EXCEPTIONS not the RULE.
I say all of this as a black man who loves and has been reading superhero comics since he was six years old. White people WILL NOT go to see a black male lead in movie unless his name is Denzel Washington or Will Smith.
So yeah, a black lead for a new Spider-man movie is a pretty stupid idea from a money stand point.
That's a singularly depressing view Shin, I mean honestly I think you may be a bit cynical, or at least hope you are. Don't get me wrong, I understand that your opinion is based on your experience, but for the sake of my children at the very least I hope you're wrong.
|
|
No, but being anything other then a geeky white kid makes you FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT from Spider-Man.... doesn't it?
As I've been saying from the beginning
Spider-man isn't a geeky white kid, he's in his late 20s early 30s.
Now if your saying originally a geeky kid, yes if he's not a geek, he's not the same character. But if you say he's not spider-man if he's not white, no I don't see a single iota of evidence in the comics I've read that would change peter parker at all if his skin was five shades darker.
So if the "Best Actor should get it" argument is defunct, which, by the way, is a logic fallacy because I dare you to find a definable scale by which we can determine acting prowess, there's still no compelling reason to do it.Are you seriously going there. Yeah because acting prowess isn't something you can see when people go for a role. it's all just opinion, there's no such thing as a bad actor. The actors in the Transmorphers movie are subjectively as good as the actors in Slumdog Millionare, so really we should just let whoever walks in that day first get the part, since you know auditions can't find out who does better at a role than others.
The idea that because something is subjective doesn't mean that there can't be a clear "best", is just silly, because by your answer apparently we don't even need casting agents, we just need look alike contests because "hey, there's no objective measure to say who's best."
EDIT: that may have come off as a bit strong, but as a former actor I found his comment particularly distasteful.
That's an argument via reduction. As a former student of Rhetoric I find your comment particularly....naw, just joshing ya. This isn't personal.
The point was that the actors skill doesn't matter if they don't represent the part. If a woman gets ruled out because of physical differences, then so does someone of a different ethnicity, invalidating the assertion.
I think a lot of people see white as "ethnically neutral", they see how a white peter parker's life evolved and ask, "What about that is representative of being white." I would turn the question around and ask, "What about peter parker's life is representative of being non-white?" Did peter parker get followed when he went to a store or a library by workers there because they thought he was a criminal? Did peter parker get pulled over just because he had the wrong skin tone for a given area? Did peter parker get harassed for dating a red-head green-eyed white woman because he was dating outside of his race? Did peter parker ever get harassed about his nerdism as "acting white"?
Peter Parker being white isn't being "ethnically neutral". If you don't make him white, then you either should address many of the above issues (and others as well) or you are just "white-washing" the experience of non-whites and doing a true disservice to the struggles that they go through.
I'm not saying a non-white spider-man/peter parker wouldn't be interesting or I wouldn't go see it, but it definitely should not be the same as the traditional spider-man. As for the Nick Fury thing, they didn't make Nick Fury black. They replaced Nick Fury with Samuel Jackson and then pasted a Nick Fury name tag on him. The reason it "worked" is because Jackson is consider such a bad ass, plain and simple.
And because the Ultimate Nick Fury was created with Samuel Jackson in mind to begin with, if I remember correctly. Could be wrong of course. :-)
|
|
I don’t think most people saying no to black Spiderman are being racist at all. There is a lot of justifiable nerd-rage and legitimate enough issues with continuity. However, there is also this underlying thing, and its very much a cultural thing, that we (as a culture) can handle all sorts of changes to an iconic character or story (for example, Peter Parker’s eye colour, his height, the fact that originally he grew up in the fifties and sixties but in the last movie series he grew up in the nineties and noughties, the different appearance of various villains from their original depictions, for example the Green Goblin) without too much eyebrow raising, but that race and skin colour is that line that we can’t seem to cross (or at least not without massive controversy).
Also, this entire thread brings up an interesting question/point. For years upon years,(legitimate)theatre has turned up their nose at the knuckle dragging tendancies of the movie-goer: to die hard afficionados, roles transcend race; performance is the only thing, to put it simply. Are we all showing our scarred hands here that we can't accept an actor who can play a convincing Peter Parker that happens to be not white? Or are we all honestly just nerd-raging that someone is daring to defy years of comic book history(which should be respected as much as possible). I'm not getting on a soapbox here, I really want everyone to sound off. And no, choosing the comic book history side does NOT mean one is a closet(or pantry or living room or whatever) racist- just that they want the character they grew up with(and who has undergone so many changes over the years race is the LEAST of his worries...).
With theatre, you are expected to use your imagination much more than in film, because of the limitations of the medium (no CGI). So if a black guy turns up and says, "Hey, I'm Romeo from Verona", you just roll with it. You don't exacly imagine he is a white Italian, you just ignore the incongruity because you have to ignore so much other stuff (scenery moves and so on). It is part of the viewing culture in theatre these days.
Film, on the other hand, is much more realistic in what it portrays. You aren't asked to imagine stuff, it is simply presented to you on screen. You don't have to imagine robots rampaging across the landscape, they show you robots rampaging across the landscape. In a sense, you don't have to excercise your imagination so much as the director is excercising his for you. In a particularly theatrical performance - say, a film of a Shakespeare play - you can probably get away with it. But in something which is fairly fixed in people's minds because of film (and television and comics) - Peter Parker has always been portrayed as a white guy - it is probably a degree of cognitive dissonance for some people to have a person of a different race show up and expect the viewers to just roll with it like you would in theatre.
My personal view is that I would have no problem with a black Peter Parker, if the black guy can bring more to the role than the other actors they have tried for the role. But then I don't really care passionately either way, I'm not a fan.
So if the "Best Actor should get it" argument is defunct, which, by the way, is a logic fallacy because I dare you to find a definable scale by which we can determine acting prowess, there's still no compelling reason to do it.
Almost chapter and verse, this is the problem (legitimate)theatre has with movie goers. A good actor is just that- a good actor. I would turn this on its ear and challenge you to find a good female actor in classical(read: EXTREMELY FRAKKING SERIOUS) theatre. Here's a hint- there are none. They're all men in drag(some quite good, others intentionally farcical).
If you're going to bring something like logic to acting, then I think you're going to be a sad panda for the most part- it's not a logical process.
|
|
I think a lot of people see white as "ethnically neutral", they see how a white peter parker's life evolved and ask, "What about that is representative of being white." I would turn the question around and ask, "What about peter parker's life is representative of being non-white?" Did peter parker get followed when he went to a store or a library by workers there because they thought he was a criminal? Did peter parker get pulled over just because he had the wrong skin tone for a given area? Did peter parker get harassed for dating a red-head green-eyed white woman because he was dating outside of his race? Did peter parker ever get harassed about his nerdism as "acting white"?
Peter Parker being white isn't being "ethnically neutral". If you don't make him white, then you either should address many of the above issues (and others as well) or you are just "white-washing" the experience of non-whites and doing a true disservice to the struggles that they go through.
I'm not saying a non-white spider-man/peter parker wouldn't be interesting or I wouldn't go see it, but it definitely should not be the same as the traditional spider-man. As for the Nick Fury thing, they didn't make Nick Fury black. They replaced Nick Fury with Samuel Jackson and then pasted a Nick Fury name tag on him. The reason it "worked" is because Jackson is consider such a bad ass, plain and simple.
I disagree with this. While yes those are conditions that many face, not every black person ever has had to deal with those situations. And while I understand that it may even be preferable with the change, I do not think it is necessitated by the change. If anything I can see just as much difficulty in assuming because he's black he has to deal with that sort of thing.
On the other hand as shinhakkaider pointed out being black and nerdy could make him feel MORE isolated and alone based on the common nerd demographics so it could be done to even strengthen that lonelyness and isolation that peter parker lives with. I mean hell, in the ultimates line of comics before he got his powers, Mary Jane was the ONLY friend Peter had, so it could make his isolation feel more palpable.
Neither of these I see as a reason not to do it, if the actor was the best in the role.
I think a lot of people see white as "ethnically neutral", they see how a white peter parker's life evolved and ask, "What about that is representative of being white." I would turn the question around and ask, "What about peter parker's life is representative of being non-white?" Did peter parker get followed when he went to a store or a library by workers there because they thought he was a criminal? Did peter parker get pulled over just because he had the wrong skin tone for a given area? Did peter parker get harassed for dating a red-head green-eyed white woman because he was dating outside of his race? Did peter parker ever get harassed about his nerdism as "acting white"?
Peter Parker being white isn't being "ethnically neutral". If you don't make him white, then you either should address many of the above issues (and others as well) or you are just "white-washing" the experience of non-whites and doing a true disservice to the struggles that they go through.
I'm not saying a non-white spider-man/peter parker wouldn't be interesting or I wouldn't go see it, but it definitely should not be the same as the traditional spider-man. As for the Nick Fury thing, they didn't make Nick Fury black. They replaced Nick Fury with Samuel Jackson and then pasted a Nick Fury name tag on him. The reason it "worked" is because Jackson is consider such a bad ass, plain and simple.
I disagree with this. While yes those are conditions that many face, not every black person ever has had to deal with those situations. And while I understand that it may even be preferable with the change, I do not think it is necessitated by the change. If anything I can see just as much difficulty in assuming because he's black he has to deal with that sort of thing.
On the other hand as shinhakkaider pointed out being black and nerdy could make him feel MORE isolated and alone based on the common nerd demographics so it could be done to even strengthen that lonelyness and isolation that peter parker lives with. I mean hell, in the ultimates line of comics before he got his powers, Mary Jane was the ONLY friend Peter had, so it could make his isolation feel more palpable.
Neither of these I see as a reason not to do it, if the actor was the best in the role.
Shinhakkider makes a damn good point. It's not easy being green(read: black and nerdy). That COULD bring some realism to the character, but then my problem would be that it was taking away from Static(the original comic, not Static Shock, the...charming...show).
|
|
I think a lot of people see white as "ethnically neutral", they see how a white peter parker's life evolved and ask, "What about that is representative of being white." I would turn the question around and ask, "What about peter parker's life is representative of being non-white?" Did peter parker get followed when he went to a store or a library by workers there because they thought he was a criminal? Did peter parker get pulled over just because he had the wrong skin tone for a given area? Did peter parker get harassed for dating a red-head green-eyed white woman because he was dating outside of his race? Did peter parker ever get harassed about his nerdism as "acting white"?
Peter Parker being white isn't being "ethnically neutral". If you don't make him white, then you either should address many of the above issues (and others as well) or you are just "white-washing" the experience of non-whites and doing a true disservice to the struggles that they go through.
I’m white (mostly – I look white anyway, though a fair bit of my ancestory is Spanish) and I’m not American, so I really don’t know whether all non-white people in the US experience some or all of these things. I hope not, but maybe that is naïve of me, maybe they do. If they do, how greatly would it impact on their lives and their personality? Maybe a lot, maybe a little, I don’t know (probably it varies from case to case). Even if it is a big impact, would it prevent them becoming someone very, very much like Peter Parker? I don’t know, maybe, maybe not.
I am not trying to downplay racism, its effects or the struggle that many people have to go through to overcome it, but exactly how much does it shape people? To some degree certainly, but can one say with a certainty that x person has experienced racism and therefore could not possibly be anything like y person?
Conversely, what is to say a geeky white person from a lower socio-economic background who does not live with their parents has not had somewhat similar experiences (not driven by racism, but by other factors) that might lead to similar outlooks?
I am not suggesting that where I am from (Australia) racism is less common than in the US (although I think it expresses in different ways, and often seeks different targets) – however, where I am from, a person of a lower socio-economic background and who looks it, regardless or race, might oneday find themselves followed in a store because they thought he was a criminal (I’ve experienced this); a person might get pulled over just because they are the wrong age or driving the wrong sort of car, regardless of race (I’ve experienced this); a white person might get harassed for dating someone outside their race (I’ve experienced this); a nerdy person is just as likely to get harassed about being a nerd than for anything else (I’ve experienced this).
I’m not trying to equate my experiences with racism, or downplay how deplorable racism is – I’m saying there are many experiences that may (or may not) determine who people are, race is not always a factor (or at least not always the main factor).
Interesting stuff
Speak on about the issues of race in Australia. I almost ended up living there, if family history is to be believed.
No, but being anything other then a geeky white kid makes you FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT from Spider-Man.... doesn't it?As I've been saying from the beginning
Spider-man isn't a geeky white kid, he's in his late 20s early 30s.
Now if your saying originally a geeky kid, yes if he's not a geek, he's not the same character. But if you say he's not spider-man if he's not white, no I don't see a single iota of evidence in the comics I've read that would change peter parker at all if his skin was five shades darker.
Ultimate spider man (which is what they claim they're pulling this from) is most certainly a geeky white kid in his teens.
[Shinhakkider makes a damn good point. It's not easy being green(read: black and nerdy). That COULD bring some realism to the character, but then my problem would be that it was taking away from Static(the original comic, not Static Shock, the...charming...show).
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that Virgil hawkins reminded them of a black Peter Parker. The Static comic was a very different animal than the cartoon and IMHO it was an ultimized Spider-Man before the concept had a name. As a nerdy black kid myself I loved both Static and Spider-Man.
So if the "Best Actor should get it" argument is defunct, which, by the way, is a logic fallacy because I dare you to find a definable scale by which we can determine acting prowess, there's still no compelling reason to do it.Almost chapter and verse, this is the problem (legitimate)theatre has with movie goers. A good actor is just that- a good actor. I would turn this on its ear and challenge you to find a good female actor in classical(read: EXTREMELY FRAKKING SERIOUS) theatre. Here's a hint- there are none. They're all men in drag(some quite good, others intentionally farcical).
If you're going to bring something like logic to acting, then I think you're going to be a sad panda for the most part- it's not a logical process.
I'd point to the above post, but I'll say it again...
Assertion One : The best actor should get the role regardless of physical differences from the character that it represents. To do otherwise would be bigoted.
Refutation One : Therefore, any physical difference should be on the playing field. Age, Gender, Race, or you're still being bigoted. If we're judging solely by acting skill, it can be the only value judgement.
Assertion Two : In Classical Theatre, casting like this is the norm.
Refutation Two : This isn't Classical Theatre, its film, and more, its a film adaptation of a character with an established physical identity from a visual medium.
Assertion Three : Nothing about Spider-Man is inherently white.
Refutation Three : Established back story, character identity, creative intent.
Just a side note...Is ANYONE inherently white? Are we allowed to be inherently white? Can someone have White Pride?
So just to be clear, the people who are in the "if their the better actor" camp about black Peter Parker/Spiderman issue. Then they do not get to call foul on a black Thor, an asian Jesus, an Inuit Martin Luther King, a white Vishnu, a male Wonder Woman or anything else in future films if those people were the best actors no matter the 'visual origin' of the role they are playing.
If you disagree then your hypocrisy is apparent.
I'd point to the above post, but I'll say it again...Assertion One : The best actor should get the role regardless of physical differences from the character that it represents. To do otherwise would be bigoted.
Refutation One : Therefore, any physical difference should be on the playing field. Age, Gender, Race, or you're still being bigoted. If we're judging solely by acting skill, it can be the only value judgement.
Assertion Two : In Classical Theatre, casting like this is the norm.
Refutation Two : This isn't Classical Theatre, its film, and more, its a film adaptation of a character with an established physical identity from a visual medium.
Assertion Three : Nothing about Spider-Man is inherently white.
Refutation Three : Established back story, character identity, creative intent.
+1
So just to be clear, the people who are in the "if their the better actor" camp about black Peter Parker/Spiderman issue. Then they do not get to call foul on a black Thor, an asian Jesus, an Inuit Martin Luther King, a white Vishnu, a male Wonder Woman or anything else in future films if those people were the best actors no matter the 'visual origin' of the role they are playing.
If you disagree then your hypocrisy is apparent.
Has anyone in that "camp" said this? If so, I missed it.
Just a side note...Is ANYONE inherently white? Are we allowed to be inherently white? Can someone have White Pride?
Just as a side note:
No. No one is inherently white (in a cultural sense). I actually hate the grouping of people together. For example white used as a different word for expressing that someone has Caucasian skin (low to no melanin) is lazy but understandable.
Trying to express white as a culture though is stupid and a straw-man. White culture does not exist. Nor does black culture or asian culture or any other stupid assertion. There are nations where caucasians have traditionally come from and they each have their own culture. The same goes for 'blacks' (PS Africa is not a country) and everyone else.
|
|
So if the "Best Actor should get it" argument is defunct, which, by the way, is a logic fallacy because I dare you to find a definable scale by which we can determine acting prowess, there's still no compelling reason to do it.Almost chapter and verse, this is the problem (legitimate)theatre has with movie goers. A good actor is just that- a good actor. I would turn this on its ear and challenge you to find a good female actor in classical(read: EXTREMELY FRAKKING SERIOUS) theatre. Here's a hint- there are none. They're all men in drag(some quite good, others intentionally farcical).
If you're going to bring something like logic to acting, then I think you're going to be a sad panda for the most part- it's not a logical process.
I'd point to the above post, but I'll say it again...
Assertion One : The best actor should get the role regardless of physical differences from the character that it represents. To do otherwise would be bigoted.
Refutation One : Therefore, any physical difference should be on the playing field. Age, Gender, Race, or you're still being bigoted. If we're judging solely by acting skill, it can be the only value judgement.
Assertion Two : In Classical Theatre, casting like this is the norm.
Refutation Two : This isn't Classical Theatre, its film, and more, its a film adaptation of a character with an established physical identity from a visual medium.
Assertion Three : Nothing about Spider-Man is inherently white.
Refutation Three : Established back story, character identity, creative intent.
Just a side note...Is ANYONE inherently white? Are we allowed to be inherently white? Can someone have White Pride?
Assertion one is certainly not what we made, I said that it should be done, I didn't say to not do it is bigoted.
For refutation three to be true you'd have to know stan lee's thoughts on the matter. So you know for a fact that the creative intent for spider-man was to be white? You know that Stan Lee consciously excluded black as his ethnicity, as opposed to not thinking of race as a factor and because Stan Lee is white and the inker was white that they defaulted to white. You know that Stan Lee is on record saying that when he created Peter Parker he knew it wouldn't work if he made him black, those are a lot of things to know about the "Creative intent" behind spider-man that I didn't know Stan Lee was on record as having said.
|
|
So just to be clear, the people who are in the "if their the better actor" camp about black Peter Parker/Spiderman issue. Then they do not get to call foul on a black Thor, an asian Jesus, an Inuit Martin Luther King, a white Vishnu, a male Wonder Woman or anything else in future films if those people were the best actors no matter the 'visual origin' of the role they are playing.
If you disagree then your hypocrisy is apparent.
Thanks for not actually paying attention to a single thing that's been said in this thread and repeated at least 4 times and said by 3 seperate people.
Has anyone in that "camp" said this? If so, I missed it.So just to be clear, the people who are in the "if their the better actor" camp about black Peter Parker/Spiderman issue. Then they do not get to call foul on a black Thor, an asian Jesus, an Inuit Martin Luther King, a white Vishnu, a male Wonder Woman or anything else in future films if those people were the best actors no matter the 'visual origin' of the role they are playing.
If you disagree then your hypocrisy is apparent.
Camp was probably a bad choice of words. Not intentional just a slip up.
I know LastKnightLeft has argued repeatable throughout the thread that it is fine to allow best-actor-gets-it for certain roles but not others (like Thor, T'Challa and others) because their image is somehow tied more into the character and the implication being that they are somehow more important to protect.
Thor doesn't have to be Norse (or Norse-like) any more then Spiderman has to be white (or whitish).
So if the "Best Actor should get it" argument is defunct, which, by the way, is a logic fallacy because I dare you to find a definable scale by which we can determine acting prowess, there's still no compelling reason to do it.Almost chapter and verse, this is the problem (legitimate)theatre has with movie goers. A good actor is just that- a good actor. I would turn this on its ear and challenge you to find a good female actor in classical(read: EXTREMELY FRAKKING SERIOUS) theatre. Here's a hint- there are none. They're all men in drag(some quite good, others intentionally farcical).
If you're going to bring something like logic to acting, then I think you're going to be a sad panda for the most part- it's not a logical process.
I'd point to the above post, but I'll say it again...
Assertion One : The best actor should get the role regardless of physical differences from the character that it represents. To do otherwise would be bigoted.
Refutation One : Therefore, any physical difference should be on the playing field. Age, Gender, Race, or you're still being bigoted. If we're judging solely by acting skill, it can be the only value judgement.
Assertion Two : In Classical Theatre, casting like this is the norm.
Refutation Two : This isn't Classical Theatre, its film, and more, its a film adaptation of a character with an established physical identity from a visual medium.
Assertion Three : Nothing about Spider-Man is inherently white.
Refutation Three : Established back story, character identity, creative intent.
Just a side note...Is ANYONE inherently white? Are we allowed to be inherently white? Can someone have White Pride?
Assertion one is certainly not what we made, I said that it should be done, I didn't say to not do it is bigoted.
For refutation three to be true you'd have to know stan lee's thoughts on the matter. So you know for a fact that the creative...
I believe that the primary assertion was just that, and if it wasn't what was intended it certainly WAS what was stated.
As for Stan Lee's intent... he published the character. So to recap that particular argument (because I like to be clear about things)
Assertion : You don't know what Stan Lee wanted for a fact because you weren't witness to his creative intent.
Refutation in two simple steps : Step one - Locate golden age spider man comic. Step two - Open your eyes.
Just a side note...Is ANYONE inherently white? Are we allowed to be inherently white? Can someone have White Pride?
Just as a side note:
** spoiler omitted **
+1
That was exactly the point I was hoping to make. Well put.
lots of stuff on assertations and refutations
Hammers and nails, anyone? :-D
lots of stuff on assertations and refutationsHammers and nails, anyone? :-D
LOL I just like it to be layed out clear. I like the paraphrasing though.