Race changes that wouldn't bother you

[Heliflyer]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

I wouldn't be the least bit shocked or upset by ethnic changes to the majority of characters big or small; it would be easier for me to list the ones I *would* be upset by. And those, as others have stated, would be characters whose ethnicity is central to their character ---- e.g., Luke Cage, Shang-Chi, Nightcrawler, Colossus, Warpath, Red Skull, and the like.

I still find the idea of a "black" Norse god like Heimdall, for instance, to be fairly jarring --- until I stop and consider that the rest of this "Norse" pantheon is composed of Brits, Aussies, and Americans, so....no harm, no foul.

Only problem is that "Brit, Aussie, American et.al." are not races, they are nationalities.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by Spider - Man

This is priceless. I was gonna ask you to show me where I ever said 'who's trying' but then I got to the end of your post. You actually think I'm Endeavor? I live in Durham, NC. He apparently lives in Florida! Man, talk about trying to be telepathic! I wish a mod could verify IP addresses just to show how foolish you are. I've never even seen a post by endeavor until today in this thread!

Hmmm... sounds like we're both wrong on that one. The original comment was made by weezerspider, when you responded, I never noticed that you were not the originator of that line of conversation. The comment to Endeavor at the end of the line was for Endeavor, not you, as is indicated by my direct response to his comment about you, Spider - Man, as opposed to the statement by you, that I quoted. So, sorry for the confusion, but again you claim to know what I'm thinking, despite evidence to the contrary.

But to address what I did say - 'sustain' is subjective. Black panther could run 3 issues and you could say 'it sustained a 3-issue series.' Rather than argue semantics, just read Marvel Comics: The Untold Story for why the Panther series were cancelled. Just like Luke Cage it didn't bring in enough money each month. When I say sustain, I mean for hundreds and hundreds of issues like Spider-Man, Daredevil, FF, Avengers.

If hundreds of issues is the standard, then the issue is not race, as no character other than those who already have films can do that. I think the line is about 1965. If that's your point: you're correct! That's totally irrelevant to the discussion though.

"adding diversity just makes things better": your words - I guess you can enlighten us all on the difference between 'improvement' and 'making things better'.

The difference is that improvement was in a sentence about updating, which is not always true. Making things better was in a sentence about diversity. I think everyone else was enlightened enough by the period between the two sentences, and the fact that diversity and updating are not synonyms.

Yes, those cool black wedding dresses are all the women can talk about! You certainly think a lot of your opinion trying to throw it around like it's fact.

You know, I actually want some clarification on this because I believe this points out just how twisted you opinion is: you are actually saying you believe as fact that if you have a white dress and dye it black - BAM! - it is better? You have a black dress beside a white dress - the black dress is better? Just because it's black? I think the bias is showing thru.

Or how about this: Man, this series just isn't selling. I guess we can cancel it or...no! Let's make one of the characters vegan! Instant best-seller!

The context of the conversation is diversity. Out of context, you're right, dying a white dress black will not make it better. Certainly, when a dress being white has meaning for the story, and is in fact diverse, that would make it worse! This actually proves my point, that diversity is aesthetically superior until it conflicts with the story.

In the context of our discussion, where everything is white, something being a different color would make the story more interesting. Why is this thing black, what does that mean for the story? Having everyone wearing different colors, now it actually starts to look like the real world, like these are real people we live around.

So, you're saying I am wrong about your viewpoint? You think it would be a good idea to have a movie with a fat Reed Richards, a bilateral amputee Johnny, mentally handicapped Sue and a suicidally depressed Ben? Well, I mean as long as one of them is black and one is Asian, of course. Is that what you're saying? Because otherwise you're just being a hypocrite.

Fine, race. That better? You have only mentioned diversity in the context of race. So again, you would be in favor of a film as I described above?

In a thread about race, I have also mentioned diversity of personality and clothing styles, among other things. I would be in favor of such a film if I lived in a world where everyone had severe mental and physical handicaps.

Again, you're talking to the wrong person.

I should be, but later in this post you express that you feel the motivation is to fill some sort of quota. So, the response is actually spot on.

Funny thing about art is it's all subjective. If you read back to one of my earlier posts, you'll see that I actually say that what this boils down to is a matter of opinion and what each person personally holds most important. Some think staying true to the comic is most important. Others like you think that changing the race and 'mixing it up' is more important. The problem is that, again, you think your preference is actually the 'truth' when the truth is that is delusional.

Well... all the people who make the films seem to think that updating the property is more important than staying true to the comics, so I'll go ahead and join them in their delusions about art, even when mixing it up or updating happens to include race.

Yeah a really hard Google search - 'breakdown of America by race'. Just one of the MANY sources of the 'slippery slope fallacy' you seem to have imagined I pulled out of a hat - http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762156.html

Okay, if that's where you want to go.

Fallacy is not whether information is true or not, it is the intellectual integrity of how you use it. In this case the Slippery Slope fallacy is when the arguer presupposes that an undesirable action leads to an even more undesirable action, without establishing the cause and effect. In this case, representing racial diversity, does not necessarily lead to representing racial diversity based on population samples. (and if so, of what, of the country? The city? the state? the job field?) Not only would it be silly to do so, but there are many counter examples of diversity that have done no such thing, thus disproving the relationship you assumed. As such, your argument becomes textbook slippery slope. But you're not content to slide there, you then continue to warn about the dangers of this path, by creating an even more extreme example where not only are all types of diversity represented - even ones that do not fit the motivation given for using racial diversity - even ones that conflict with the very essence of the story. And not just represented, but make up the entirety of the central cast, the entirety of the story, where they are overrepresented. You've painted a picture where a little less under-representing of one thing is supposed to lead to over-representing of something totally different. Then you've labelled anyone who disagrees with this textbook fallacy a hypocrite, adding a little ad hominem kickback at the bottom of the slippery slope.

So no, Spider - Man, just no.

Wow. So obese or physically handicapped people are incapable of being 'superior'? Nice. Peel back another layer on this Dr. Cosmic person you speak of.

Physically superior. And not talking about capability. So we have Ad hominem, slippery slope with an Ad Hominem chaser and now just outright misquoting. This is your argument? This is you giving it to me? This is *me* being delusional?

You can have plenty of tension, differences, subtext and conflict without changing the race of an established character. The fact that Stan and Jack did all of that with a quartet of white people for years and years kinda implies it doesn't necessarily apply to race in fact.

You can also do that with race. So what's the problem, again?

So one example of this demographic is sufficient to fill the quota for that excluded minority? So would one example of a black superhero satisfy you? One homosexual? I guess you really don't care about the numbers, do you?

There's no quota. Each story has its own advantages of different levels and types of diversity. I would suspect the filmmakers care about story more than how many black or gay or whatever superheroes there are in other people's stories as well.

Again, I have nothing against diversity of any kind except when it takes established characters and changes them to realize some quota.

There's that darned telepathy again. When has this ever happened? When has a race ever been changed to fill a quota?

My point lies on my opinion just like yours.

Then your opinion is based on fantasy/fallacy, as opposed to observation and reality, and is irrelevant to the discussion of the thread.

And as I said before the choice is up to the filmmakers. The performance of the film will determine to many if the choices were good or bad. So let them do what they will and let the results speak for themselves.

So are you retracting your advice to not take the route of making white characters other races? Or should I take this as your inability to justify such a viewpoint?

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by weezerspider

1. Spiderman 2099 is stupid. I've always hated it. So pointing to one stupid decision by Marvel to justify another one is...well stupid. It would be a nice comeback if I earlier had expressed my love for Spiderman 2099, but I didn't. Spiderman 2099 is just has stupid to me as the new Ultimate Spiderman and GASP! Spiderman 2099 is WHITE and I still don't like him!?!

So? You were wrong. A picture made it funny. That's all that happened.

2. Regarding the bolded statement, you can't just claim something is better without giving any justifiable reasons why. Once again, turning an already established character's race does not make a character better. How can it?

How can a single character be diverse? Since you can't add diversity to a character, I must be talking about story. All you have to do is imagine a "story" where everything is the same to see that diversity is desirable. Some people don't like certain types of diversity, sure, but the principle is sound.

3. When the **** did I bring up California? Also, I find it completely asinine and narrow-minded that you claim I 'don't like diversity'. 'People don't like diversity' or 'people who like the way things were in the 60's' is the kind of narrow-minded name calling that causes this kind of discussion to be a hassle anyway. I know what that means. You're nicely calling me a racist. Good to know bro. I'm a racist. Thanks for pointing that out. Too bad the KKK wouldn't let me in because I'm Jewish.

Are you not referring to people in California when you say them changing the race of a character is stupid? I could have said Hollywood, for clarity, but I wanted to highlight how remote your idea of political correctness being involved in these decisions is. And it's true, those particular descriptions do imply support of a segregated society, however I do not pretend to know your motivation, it could be fear of change, it could be callous indifference, it could be any number of things, I just don't know. If I had to guess, I would suspect it involves a very strong vision of what these movies "should" be like. Regardless of why, your actions and statements are that you prefer some things the way they were in the 60s. That's simple fact. Why is up to you.

4. If you were smart, which you apparently are not, you would know the reason I brought up changing black/hispanic characters to white was not because I want to do that, it was to make a point. The point was changing the race of any character is stupid and pointless. If race is part of what makes us then changing the race is changing the character. If race doesn't matter, than you shouldn't care one way or another. Its a catch 22. I want my characters to be how they originally intended to be. I'll fight just as hard to keep Black Panther black as I will Spiderman white.

Oh, I understood the point, it's the same point that everyone who makes that suggestion has. My counterpoint, were the ideas of diversity and updating. With a principle of diversity, changing over-represented types to underreprsented types increases diversity, but not the other way around. So if racial diversity is a value, then it doesnt' go either way at all, does it?

For updating, many fans ignore the fact that these characters were originally intended to represent the sixties and seventies. That's not how we want them to be now. We want them to be updated... except for race. Don't update that, keep that the same, but it's okay to change everything else from what was originally intended. This of course draws the question of what exactly was originally intended, and that would actually be a great convo for this thread.

But yeah. Thanks for calling me a racist. You showed us how to have class in a simple discussion. When someone disagrees with you, just call them names!

When someone mimics actions of those who I know to be ill motivated, I simply point out the similarities, for the benefit of all involved, and let those people decide what to do with that. I do not claim to know your character, even though you claim to know the character of others. So by your standard, you are the one without class.

Also, DC could easily sell Batwing, he's a pretty cool character, if they actually marketed the hell out of him and had him appear in other Batman comics and stuff. Again, the companies are lazy. I know creating a new popular character is hard work, but it can be done pretty easily if you actually do the hard work. Deadpool rose to fame when they started putting him in everything from Cable and Deadpool, to multiple titles ex. Marvel decided to market the hell out of him because he had sort of a following and now he's one of the most popular comic characters even outside of the comic community. He even has his own video game now. In the grand scheme of things, its easier to kill off a character so many people love like Peter Parker, and put a new face in an already established suit then to create a new unique one.

Like you said, it's much easier to do a legacy character, especially if the original has run it's course, than to do a new character. Another issue is that companies are made up of people. One person at the top being interested in Deadpool doesn't make him appear in multiple titles in a way that makes people like him. A lot of people at Marvel love Deadpool, and that's why he's become what he's become, no one has undermined or questioned the character at all, even to the point where some were sick of him. "Why is Deadpool being crammed down my throat." No one says this of Spider-Man or Wolverine, because he's "supposed" to be everywhere. So I wouldn't describe what happened to Deadpool as "easy," nor would simply marketing do the same for Batwing. There's a lot of timing to it. You've got to have that small following to capitalize on.

Oddly, though, you do have to give them a new suit, but having the same name makes it easier to get other people on board. And while you might think it's stupid, Miles Morales' Spider-Man is one of the few consistently great books there are.

[Endeavor]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

So, no, Endeavor, these are not good arguments, by any means.

I believe his points about diversity having to be thought of as something more than race are valid, and that is what I was commenting about, not his beef with your point of view or assumptions of your beliefs.
I will add that I disagree with you on comics and superheroes being about physically superior beings and therefore automatically excluding the obese and handicapped. That might have been true in the golden and silver age of comics but there is no reason to continue with that mentality nowadays.

[Endeavor]

Originally Posted by Spider - Man

You actually think I'm Endeavor? I live in Durham, NC.

No, you misunderstood. He didn't say you and I were the same person.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by Endeavor

I believe his points about diversity having to be thought of as something more than race are valid, and that is what I was commenting about, not his beef with your point of view or assumptions of your beliefs.
I will add that I disagree with you on comics and superheroes being about physically superior beings and therefore automatically excluding the obese and handicapped. That might have been true in the golden and silver age of comics but there is no reason to continue with that mentality nowadays.

I like the way you post, sir. I agree, diversity is definitely more than about race. And I would agree that handicaps do not necessarily prevent physical superiority, ala Daredevil, or, in a way, Professor X. Powers can 'make up' for that and still allow a differently abled person to carry that power fantasy wish fulfillment. I would suggest that the tendency is for their limitations to become a big part of the story, certainly their origin story, and that it's more interesting that way, but sometimes that theme can conflict with other themes of the character. Spider-Man's free spirited jesting wouldn't be the same, story-wise, if he were deaf. There are exceptions, however... I remember a character in a wheelchair on an old cartoon called Extreme Ghostbusters, and the chair never came up. He just rolled through and kicked massive amounts of tail. It was a little bit awesome.

So now you have me thinking about characters who I wouldn't mind seeing with physical handicaps. Kudos.

[Endeavor]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

I like the way you post, sir.

Likewise

So now you have me thinking about characters who I wouldn't mind seeing with physical handicaps. Kudos.

I've actually been giving this some thought in regards to the kind of characters I'd like to see in the MCU, even before we started the discussion in this thread (suggested Echo to make an appearance in the SHIELD show).
I find "flawed" characters very interesting, for the same reasons you mentioned. I think that's probably why I've gravitated to Marvel more often than other companies, because they tend to be good at having characters with complex personal issues. I think when you add a physical disability, that ups the ante even more.

[weezerspider]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

So? You were wrong. A picture made it funny. That's all that happened.



How can a single character be diverse? Since you can't add diversity to a character, I must be talking about story. All you have to do is imagine a "story" where everything is the same to see that diversity is desirable. Some people don't like certain types of diversity, sure, but the principle is sound.



Are you not referring to people in California when you say them changing the race of a character is stupid? I could have said Hollywood, for clarity, but I wanted to highlight how remote your idea of political correctness being involved in these decisions is. And it's true, those particular descriptions do imply support of a segregated society, however I do not pretend to know your motivation, it could be fear of change, it could be callous indifference, it could be any number of things, I just don't know. If I had to guess, I would suspect it involves a very strong vision of what these movies "should" be like. Regardless of why, your actions and statements are that you prefer some things the way they were in the 60s. That's simple fact. Why is up to you.



Oh, I understood the point, it's the same point that everyone who makes that suggestion has. My counterpoint, were the ideas of diversity and updating. With a principle of diversity, changing over-represented types to underreprsented types increases diversity, but not the other way around. So if racial diversity is a value, then it doesnt' go either way at all, does it?

For updating, many fans ignore the fact that these characters were originally intended to represent the sixties and seventies. That's not how we want them to be now. We want them to be updated... except for race. Don't update that, keep that the same, but it's okay to change everything else from what was originally intended. This of course draws the question of what exactly was originally intended, and that would actually be a great convo for this thread.



When someone mimics actions of those who I know to be ill motivated, I simply point out the similarities, for the benefit of all involved, and let those people decide what to do with that. I do not claim to know your character, even though you claim to know the character of others. So by your standard, you are the one without class.



Like you said, it's much easier to do a legacy character, especially if the original has run it's course, than to do a new character. Another issue is that companies are made up of people. One person at the top being interested in Deadpool doesn't make him appear in multiple titles in a way that makes people like him. A lot of people at Marvel love Deadpool, and that's why he's become what he's become, no one has undermined or questioned the character at all, even to the point where some were sick of him. "Why is Deadpool being crammed down my throat." No one says this of Spider-Man or Wolverine, because he's "supposed" to be everywhere. So I wouldn't describe what happened to Deadpool as "easy," nor would simply marketing do the same for Batwing. There's a lot of timing to it. You've got to have that small following to capitalize on.

Oddly, though, you do have to give them a new suit, but having the same name makes it easier to get other people on board. And while you might think it's stupid, Miles Morales' Spider-Man is one of the few consistently great books there are.

1. My opinion that a character sucks isn't wrong. In the mainstream universe, 616, Spiderman isn't a legacy character. Spiderman 2099 and Ultimate Spiderman are different canon, so I'm not necessarily wrong in that category either.

2. Ok so stories need to be diverse. I agree, but we have some of that already for a jumping off point. Captain America stories are diverse thanks to Falcon. Iron Man stories are diverse thanks to Rhodey. Spidey's got the Robinsons, Prowler ect. If your assuming I want all characters in each story to be a particular race, your once again making offensive assumptions. It also gives the option of not only creating new 'diverse' heroes, but new diverse supporting characters. That would solve that problem, not to mention there is already those characters as I've just mentioned.

3. The fact is I want the comic characters to be as close to the source material in film. Also, not every comic book character was created in the 1960's. Again, you worded it like that for a reason. I'm not stupid.

4. Sorry, but when someone seemingly implies I'm racist, I get a little pissed off. Also, comparing someone with 'ill motivated' people over something like this is extremely offensive. If when you were in school you wouldn't compare your teachers to Hitler because, like a dictator, they had ultimate authority, would you?

5. So we agree. Its EASIER for Marvel or DC or whoever to legacy characters or whatever. I think thats lazy. Nine times out of ten, the easiest way to do something in art, especially storytelling, is sloppy and weak. I don't want Marvel doing that. Do the hard thing and the hard work will be rewarded with some great characters.

But, the internet is a silly thing and emotions can't always be correlated, so perhaps I assumed too much on you implying I'm racist, but you clearly wrongly assumed a few things on my thoughts on the subject. Regardless, it doesn't matter. I apologize for being a bit hostile.

[Spider - Man]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Hmmm... sounds like we're both wrong on that one. The original comment was made by weezerspider, when you responded, I never noticed that you were not the originator of that line of conversation. The comment to Endeavor at the end of the line was for Endeavor, not you, as is indicated by my direct response to his comment about you, Spider - Man, as opposed to the statement by you, that I quoted. So, sorry for the confusion, but again you claim to know what I'm thinking, despite evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps in your zeal to show how clever you are, you shouldn’t address one poster in a response to another. I don’t claim to know what you think. I have read what you have posted which has been about nothing but diversity in the context of race. I merely pointed out that if you truly value diversity, there is much more to it than race which your posts suggest is all you care about.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

If hundreds of issues is the standard, then the issue is not race, as no character other than those who already have films can do that. I think the line is about 1965. If that's your point: you're correct! That's totally irrelevant to the discussion though.

So what IS the standard? And it is completely relevant. You and others seem to be of the opinion that making an all white cast less white and more black or Asian or Latino or whatever automatically makes something better. Worse, you claim that the best way to do this is to change the race of existing characters as opposed to adding new ones. You have tried to make a distinction between science and art. ‘Better’ is subjective as all art is. This is all about opinion of which each person has their own and there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ which I have been saying. The problem with those peoples’ opinions (changing white to black automatically makes things better) is when they try to pass them off as fact, as you do. The reason it is a problem is that the numbers don’t back it up. The ultimate (no pun intended) white to black change in the comic world has to be the new Ultimate Spider-Man. Black people finally got what they wanted: the greatest superhero in the world made into their own race. This was gonna be the proof they’d all been looking for to show that if all these heroes had just been created in the modern day, many more of the most popular heroes would be black or Latino or whatever and would be just as successful as their white incarnations. From what I understand the writing on the series is brilliant. So why has it not even reached the quarter mark and is already scheduled for cancellation? Why are sales so low?

Funny you choose 1965 so you can exclude Panther, arguably the most popular black character. But Wolverine and the modern day X-Men came later and have had much greater success. The Punisher, likewise. Now as I said ‘success’ and ‘sustainability’ are subjective but if you compare apples to apples, it is clear that black heroes just don’t have the staying power of white ones. That isn’t a knock and it isn’t an opinion. It is a fact.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

The difference is that improvement was in a sentence about updating, which is not always true. Making things better was in a sentence about diversity. I think everyone else was enlightened enough by the period between the two sentences, and the fact that diversity and updating are not synonyms.

Your words: On one hand, changing race is like changing the types of cars and buildings you see in the background. If you're updating a property to the modern era instead of the 60s, that includes removing the whitewash. On the other hand... adding diversity just makes things better overall in general.

It would be grammatically correct to replace ‘updating’ with ‘making improvements’ in the context of your sentence. The problem is that it then makes your whole point grammatically incorrect. You’re basically saying: ‘On one hand changing race is making an improvement but on the other hand diversity (changing race, by your definition) makes everything better. It would be the same as saying ‘On one hand it is great but on the other hand it is wonderful’. Doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

The context of the conversation is diversity. Out of context, you're right, dying a white dress black will not make it better. Certainly, when a dress being white has meaning for the story, and is in fact diverse, that would make it worse! This actually proves my point, that diversity is aesthetically superior until it conflicts with the story.

You never mentioned context. You made an absolute statement – a black dress is better than a white one. Again your logic is flawed. Diversity is subjective, specifically the amount of diversity. The diversity you support is to change the race of a white character to another (presumably your own). When you make another statement – diversity makes everything better – again, it is flawed in that you make it absolute. There can be innumerous changes made to a story that won’t conflict with it but in no way make it better and in fact make it worse (having the FF wear pink uniforms for instance).

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

In the context of our discussion, where everything is white, something being a different color would make the story more interesting. Why is this thing black, what does that mean for the story? Having everyone wearing different colors, now it actually starts to look like the real world, like these are real people we live around.

And again, all of the diverse changes I mentioned would fit into that ‘real world’ scenario you claim you so desire yet don’t voice support for.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

In a thread about race, I have also mentioned diversity of personality and clothing styles, among other things. I would be in favor of such a film if I lived in a world where everyone had severe mental and physical handicaps.

And as I said, making the FF’s unis pink would not make ANYTHING better.

And EVERYONE has to be handicapped to warrant including that demographic? Not ‘everyone’ is black. Or white. Why does this one segment of society require 100% compliance to justify inclusion?

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

I should be, but later in this post you express that you feel the motivation is to fill some sort of quota. So, the response is actually spot on.

These are your words from another thread about changing race of the Human Torch: While nearly 40% of people in America are not white. Only 10-20% of superheroes are not white, and the disparity gets even larger when you consider white characters are figured much more prominently and often and respectfully than minority characters. So if I apply the principle of Representation to comics, then changing white characters to blacks supports Representation but changing black characters to white does not.

See how you use numbers? These are statistics. That makes it science, not art. When you start throwing numbers around, you are no longer talking aesthetics no matter how deluded you are that you think so. YOU are the one who brought ‘population samples’ to the discussion of race and diversity. I merely made the numbers more specific using available demographic data. So if it is a slippery slope, it began with your comments, not mine.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Well... all the people who make the films seem to think that updating the property is more important than staying true to the comics, so I'll go ahead and join them in their delusions about art, even when mixing it up or updating happens to include race.

So you now have the ability to know what ‘all the people making these films’ are thinking? Are YOU a mind reader? And again you correlate ‘updating’ with ‘changing race’ which you say is the same as ‘diversity’.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Okay, if that's where you want to go.

Fallacy is not whether information is true or not, it is the intellectual integrity of how you use it. In this case the Slippery Slope fallacy is when the arguer presupposes that an undesirable action leads to an even more undesirable action, without establishing the cause and effect. In this case, representing racial diversity, does not necessarily lead to representing racial diversity based on population samples. (and if so, of what, of the country? The city? the state? the job field?) Not only would it be silly to do so, but there are many counter examples of diversity that have done no such thing, thus disproving the relationship you assumed. As such, your argument becomes textbook slippery slope.

See above about who started the ‘fallacy’ of basing racial diversity on population samples. So funny how if someone keeps you yammering long enough you wind up talking yourself into a corner. And yes, it is silly to try and make comics represent race statistically analogous to reality. You should never have attempted to claim legitimacy for it in the first place.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

But you're not content to slide there, you then continue to warn about the dangers of this path, by creating an even more extreme example where not only are all types of diversity represented - even ones that do not fit the motivation given for using racial diversity - even ones that conflict with the very essence of the story. And not just represented, but make up the entirety of the central cast, the entirety of the story, where they are overrepresented. You've painted a picture where a little less under-representing of one thing is supposed to lead to over-representing of something totally different. Then you've labelled anyone who disagrees with this textbook fallacy a hypocrite, adding a little ad hominem kickback at the bottom of the slippery slope.

So no, Spider - Man, just no.

I never warned about the danger of anything. If I did, please quote me. Your motivation for using racial diversity is clear: your favorite hero is white, you are not (your words) so you WANT to see the races of white characters changed to satisfy your own desires. There is nothing wrong with that. The problem is you’re not content with it just being about what you personally want. You have to somehow try and justify why doing so is actually ‘right’ when right or wrong don’t even apply. And again, using ‘overrepresented’ is based on numbers. If we’re not using racial diversity based on population samples, what exactly are you basing the terms ‘over-‘ and ‘under-represented’ on? I would argue that not having any member of the FF be black did not hurt sales one bit and that changing the race of one would not help sales in the long run.
When I was a kid, Jimmie Walker was the coolest cat around. All my friends used to do the strut and say “Dyno-mite!” Michael Jordan is one of my heroes. But never once did I ever think “I just wish one of them was white so I could relate to them more” or “Man, if JJ was white and adopted into the family, it would sure make the story more interesting!”
I didn’t say you were a hypocrite for not agreeing with me. I said you are a hypocrite for throwing around the term diversity in such a broad manner but then only pigeon-holing it specifically to race to suit your own desires while denying the legitimacy of other minorities’ desires to be represented based on the same argument.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Physically superior. And not talking about capability. So we have Ad hominem, slippery slope with an Ad Hominem chaser and now just outright misquoting. This is your argument? This is you giving it to me? This is *me* being delusional?

Physically superior is subjective. Superman is physically superior to Spider-Man in strength. A friend of mine lost both legs in Iraq, got a set of Cheetah running legs and has won many competitions against men who still had both their legs. I don’t know you but would bet a week’s pay he could beat you in a race so in that context he is physically superior to you. But you using the distinction ‘physically superior’ as a definition to deny that anyone who is physically handicapped could be physically superior is insulting. And yes, delusional.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

You can also do that with race. So what's the problem, again?

There is no problem. It again all comes down to opinion. In mine, merely changing the race of an existing character does nothing to enhance a story. I do not think that if Stan Lee had somehow changed Johnny black in issue #27 of the FF, it would have done anything to improve to stories, the sales, anything. It might have made the small comic-reading portion of 11% of the American public happy.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

There's no quota. Each story has its own advantages of different levels and types of diversity. I would suspect the filmmakers care about story more than how many black or gay or whatever superheroes there are in other people's stories as well.

There's that darned telepathy again. When has this ever happened? When has a race ever been changed to fill a quota?

So funny you accuse me of thinking I’m telepathic while claiming to intuit what the filmmakers care about. And again, you are the one who brought up percentages of society as represented by race so yes, that would indicate that upping the number of minorities is tantamount to meeting some quota to you. As I said earlier, if you want to use terms like over- and under-represented, the numbers have to be based on something, not some esoteric fluff.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Then your opinion is based on fantasy/fallacy, as opposed to observation and reality, and is irrelevant to the discussion of the thread.

No, you take your opinion and try to express it as a moral truth, as a fact. I say that smacks of you feeling entitled, like expecting that companies SHOULD change some characters black is in fact simply the way it should be, that to do otherwise is wrong.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

So are you retracting your advice to not take the route of making white characters other races? Or should I take this as your inability to justify such a viewpoint?

I’m not retracting anything. I never offered advice, only opinion. And I offered it AS opinion as opposed to you trying to do so as fact. You can take it anyway you want. I’m sure to take it other than you’ve implied would only serve to open your eyes to how biased your viewpoint is. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, just that you seem incapable of seeing it.

[BATZARRO WWD]

Originally Posted by Human Torch

Superman.There's no real memorable black character in Supes history,so they have to resort to race changing to make a prominent role for a black character. That's the race changing that is the most offensive to me.

There are some. There is probably no room in this movie for them, though. A movie's got a limited amount of time to tell it's story, and I think shoehorning John Henry Irons in there just to have a black guy is not better than changing a preexisting character to a black guy. At least if Laurence Fishbourn played "Superman's boss" it doesn't significantly change the story, except that Superman's boss now happens to be black. Unless Superman and Perry White are famous for their racial discussions.

Is it gimmicky? A little. But it's not like their changing Krypton to be future Earth or something. Back when I was a kid they made Harvey Dent black and it turned out okay. But then they made Two Face white and suddenly racial accuracy's not that important.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by Spider - Man

Perhaps in your zeal to show how clever you are, you shouldn’t address one poster in a response to another. I don’t claim to know what you think. I have read what you have posted which has been about nothing but diversity in the context of race. I merely pointed out that if you truly value diversity, there is much more to it than race which your posts suggest is all you care about.

Okay. No more cleverness. You concluding that my staying on the topic of the thread suggests that's all I care about is not reasonable. Don't read into me being on topic.

So what IS the standard? And it is completely relevant. You and others seem to be of the opinion that making an all white cast less white and more black or Asian or Latino or whatever automatically makes something better. Worse, you claim that the best way to do this is to change the race of existing characters as opposed to adding new ones. You have tried to make a distinction between science and art. ‘Better’ is subjective as all art is. This is all about opinion of which each person has their own and there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ which I have been saying. The problem with those peoples’ opinions (changing white to black automatically makes things better) is when they try to pass them off as fact, as you do. The reason it is a problem is that the numbers don’t back it up. The ultimate (no pun intended) white to black change in the comic world has to be the new Ultimate Spider-Man. Black people finally got what they wanted: the greatest superhero in the world made into their own race. This was gonna be the proof they’d all been looking for to show that if all these heroes had just been created in the modern day, many more of the most popular heroes would be black or Latino or whatever and would be just as successful as their white incarnations. From what I understand the writing on the series is brilliant. So why has it not even reached the quarter mark and is already scheduled for cancellation? Why are sales so low?

I have specifically stated situations and reasons in which diversity, of any type, is counterproductive. I have not claimed that one way is better, but both are equal, you are the one who claims one is better than the other. And what Black people, exactly, wanted Spider-Man to be Black?

Funny you choose 1965 so you can exclude Panther, arguably the most popular black character. But Wolverine and the modern day X-Men came later and have had much greater success. The Punisher, likewise. Now as I said ‘success’ and ‘sustainability’ are subjective but if you compare apples to apples, it is clear that black heroes just don’t have the staying power of white ones. That isn’t a knock and it isn’t an opinion. It is a fact.

The X-Men franchise pre-dates 1965, and the Punisher has not supported hundreds of issues. So, the point stands. New characters are not on the level of *those* franchises, regardless of race. Certainly Black Panther has more staying power than, I dunno, Gravity. You are noting that the most popular white characters are more popular than the most popular black characters. That's true, you're using that observation to say that white characters tend to be more popular than black characters. This is not true. The most popular black characters are more popular than 90-99% of white characters. So there's no direct correlation between race and popularity.

What we do see is a direct correlation between time created and popularity. This not only explains the weak correlation between race and popularity, but also explains why the spottily written Luke Cage is more popular than the much better written Invincible.

Your words: On one hand, changing race is like changing the types of cars and buildings you see in the background. If you're updating a property to the modern era instead of the 60s, that includes removing the whitewash. On the other hand... adding diversity just makes things better overall in general.

It would be grammatically correct to replace ‘updating’ with ‘making improvements’ in the context of your sentence. The problem is that it then makes your whole point grammatically incorrect. You’re basically saying: ‘On one hand changing race is making an improvement but on the other hand diversity (changing race, by your definition) makes everything better. It would be the same as saying ‘On one hand it is great but on the other hand it is wonderful’. Doesn’t make a lot of sense.

I agree, that's not usually how 'on one hand' is used, but that's exactly how I meant it. It's generally good on both hands.

You never mentioned context. You made an absolute statement – a black dress is better than a white one. Again your logic is flawed. Diversity is subjective, specifically the amount of diversity. The diversity you support is to change the race of a white character to another (presumably your own). When you make another statement – diversity makes everything better – again, it is flawed in that you make it absolute. There can be innumerous changes made to a story that won’t conflict with it but in no way make it better and in fact make it worse (having the FF wear pink uniforms for instance).

I don't often mention context. I generally hope that the reader will take my statements as though it's part of a series of posts. If I say "you have telepathy," that's an absolute statement, but to take it as a belief in super powers, which is what it would be outside of the context of this conversation, instead of commentary on presumptuousness would be an incorrect reading. I expect everyone to do the same for all my statements, but you're free to interpret them as you think best.

Again, I do not make it absolute, and no, changing everything to be another color cannot be diversity if they're still all the same color.

And again, all of the diverse changes I mentioned would fit into that ‘real world’ scenario you claim you so desire yet don’t voice support for.

And again, the real world isn't completely composed of severe handicaps as your FF proposal is.

And as I said, making the FF’s unis pink would not make ANYTHING better.

What does that have to do with diversity or story? You're still equating diversity for story purposes with random changes for no reason.

And EVERYONE has to be handicapped to warrant including that demographic? Not ‘everyone’ is black. Or white. Why does this one segment of society require 100% compliance to justify inclusion?

You weren't talking about inclusion, you were talking about exclusion of others, about 100% of the main characters, so yes, a segment of society would need to be nearly everyone, unless the story is about that segment of society.

These are your words from another thread about changing race of the Human Torch: While nearly 40% of people in America are not white. Only 10-20% of superheroes are not white, and the disparity gets even larger when you consider white characters are figured much more prominently and often and respectfully than minority characters. So if I apply the principle of Representation to comics, then changing white characters to blacks supports Representation but changing black characters to white does not.

See how you use numbers? These are statistics. That makes it science, not art. When you start throwing numbers around, you are no longer talking aesthetics no matter how deluded you are that you think so. YOU are the one who brought ‘population samples’ to the discussion of race and diversity. I merely made the numbers more specific using available demographic data. So if it is a slippery slope, it began with your comments, not mine.

Wow, that was a discussion with you, and you're back to finish it!? Okay. I was responding directly to your comment about it being a double standard. I said:

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

The principle many people apply to superheroes is "Representation." They feel that...

And then I went to describe in detail my perceptions of the viewpoints of others, with the expressed and repeatedly stated purpose of contradicting the idea that it is a double standard. It has little to do with what I feel is or is not acceptable.

So you now have the ability to know what ‘all the people making these films’ are thinking? Are YOU a mind reader? And again you correlate ‘updating’ with ‘changing race’ which you say is the same as ‘diversity’.

I have the ability to see what they've done, as we all do, which indicates what they "seem to think" - those were my words. Updating can include changing race which can bring diversity. There's clear demonstrated correlation.

See above about who started the ‘fallacy’ of basing racial diversity on population samples. So funny how if someone keeps you yammering long enough you wind up talking yourself into a corner. And yes, it is silly to try and make comics represent race statistically analogous to reality. You should never have attempted to claim legitimacy for it in the first place.

That also didn't happen. I did not suggest matching character populations to population samples, and the fallacy is the bridge, which I explained in detail to you. It sounds as though you may not have read all of it, if you are not aware of this and describe my counterpoints as 'yammering.'

I never warned about the danger of anything. If I did, please quote me. Your motivation for using racial diversity is clear: your favorite hero is white, you are not (your words) so you WANT to see the races of white characters changed to satisfy your own desires. There is nothing wrong with that. The problem is you’re not content with it just being about what you personally want. You have to somehow try and justify why doing so is actually ‘right’ when right or wrong don’t even apply. And again, using ‘overrepresented’ is based on numbers. If we’re not using racial diversity based on population samples, what exactly are you basing the terms ‘over-‘ and ‘under-represented’ on? I would argue that not having any member of the FF be black did not hurt sales one bit and that changing the race of one would not help sales in the long run.

"As I and many others have said repeatedly, if anyone wants diversity, create more characters."
"So let them do what they will and let the results speak for themselves."

That's a warning where I come from. If I said that I want the races changed, please quote me. I also was clear on the relation between diversity and story and sales is not a direct or instantaneous one. Over- and under- represented are based on population samples, but that's still not the same as setting a quota for population, neither does it create any of the other fallacious links that you suggested.

When I was a kid, Jimmie Walker was the coolest cat around. All my friends used to do the strut and say “Dyno-mite!” Michael Jordan is one of my heroes. But never once did I ever think “I just wish one of them was white so I could relate to them more” or “Man, if JJ was white and adopted into the family, it would sure make the story more interesting!”

That actually would have made the story more interesting, but that's not the story they wanted to tell. Also, relatability is an entirely separate discussion.

I didn’t say you were a hypocrite for not agreeing with me. I said you are a hypocrite for throwing around the term diversity in such a broad manner but then only pigeon-holing it specifically to race to suit your own desires while denying the legitimacy of other minorities’ desires to be represented based on the same argument.

I keep disproving this pigeonholing thing over and over again. Then you suggest changing everything else to something different, something that conflicts with the story, and you call that diversity, and because I do not support this change which is not diversity, you call me a hypocrite. So you're right, it's not based on simple disagreement. It's much deeper than that, but still, demonstrably false.

Physically superior is subjective. Superman is physically superior to Spider-Man in strength. A friend of mine lost both legs in Iraq, got a set of Cheetah running legs and has won many competitions against men who still had both their legs. I don’t know you but would bet a week’s pay he could beat you in a race so in that context he is physically superior to you. But you using the distinction ‘physically superior’ as a definition to deny that anyone who is physically handicapped could be physically superior is insulting. And yes, delusional.

I don't think anyone would question Superman's physical superiority. That aside, a delusion is a strong conviction held despite superior evidence to the contrary. You did not present such, and then in my last post, I noted how those with physical disabilities can be superior if they have powers (or prostheses) that make up for that handicap. So it can't be a delusion if it is let go in the face of superior evidence.

And as I said, I wasn't talking about capability, I was talking about story, the story of a handicapped person is not the story of a physically superior person, but someone overcoming their limitations to do things that they could not have done before. Now, as demonstrated by Daredevil, that idea is not mutually exclusive with that of a power fantasy. That said, some superhero stories don't really fit with the handicap subplot very well, Fantastic Four, outside of Ben, would be among them. Spider-Man, surprisingly, would.

There is no problem. It again all comes down to opinion. In mine, merely changing the race of an existing character does nothing to enhance a story. I do not think that if Stan Lee had somehow changed Johnny black in issue #27 of the FF, it would have done anything to improve to stories, the sales, anything. It might have made the small comic-reading portion of 11% of the American public happy.

So... there's no problem changing the race of a character. So black Johnny Storm is perfectly okay?

So funny you accuse me of thinking I’m telepathic while claiming to intuit what the filmmakers care about. And again, you are the one who brought up percentages of society as represented by race so yes, that would indicate that upping the number of minorities is tantamount to meeting some quota to you. As I said earlier, if you want to use terms like over- and under-represented, the numbers have to be based on something, not some esoteric fluff.

Hmmm... I guess you could take it that way, but the rest of my statements clarify why I used those percentages. And it still doesn't create the slippery slope, that you claimed was a logical consequence.

No, you take your opinion and try to express it as a moral truth, as a fact. I say that smacks of you feeling entitled, like expecting that companies SHOULD change some characters black is in fact simply the way it should be, that to do otherwise is wrong.

The only subjective thing I've suggested as truth is that diversity is a good thing. Certainly, as a principle, this is true. Biodiversity, division of labor, etc. Where have I said that not changing the race of characters is wrong? Quote me.

I’m not retracting anything. I never offered advice, only opinion. And I offered it AS opinion as opposed to you trying to do so as fact. You can take it anyway you want. I’m sure to take it other than you’ve implied would only serve to open your eyes to how biased your viewpoint is. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, just that you seem incapable of seeing it.

Originally Posted by Spider - Man

As I and many others have said repeatedly, if anyone wants diversity, create more characters.

Anyone includes filmmakers.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by weezerspider

1. My opinion that a character sucks isn't wrong. In the mainstream universe, 616, Spiderman isn't a legacy character. Spiderman 2099 and Ultimate Spiderman are different canon, so I'm not necessarily wrong in that category either.

It doesn't make it any less funny though.

2. Ok so stories need to be diverse. I agree, but we have some of that already for a jumping off point. Captain America stories are diverse thanks to Falcon. Iron Man stories are diverse thanks to Rhodey. Spidey's got the Robinsons, Prowler ect. If your assuming I want all characters in each story to be a particular race, your once again making offensive assumptions. It also gives the option of not only creating new 'diverse' heroes, but new diverse supporting characters. That would solve that problem, not to mention there is already those characters as I've just mentioned.

No one has that problem. What people experience is: I'm doing the story of Fantastic Four. How do I make this thing modern? I've got this great black actor that I like to work with... what do I do? Making up a new black member of the Fantastic Four isn't an option. If you're going to make up a black blind girl to fall for The Thing... why not just call her Alicia Masters, because that's what she is, essentially.

3. The fact is I want the comic characters to be as close to the source material in film. Also, not every comic book character was created in the 1960's. Again, you worded it like that for a reason. I'm not stupid.

So, you want all the comics based in the 60s to be period pieces like X-Men First class? If not, then you don't want it to be as close as possible, you want it changed in certain ways. We can extend this to any decade just as easily, but virtually every franchise made after the 70s are significantly diverse already.

I did word it like that for a reason, but, as I've explained, it's not to call you racist.

4. Sorry, but when someone seemingly implies I'm racist, I get a little pissed off. Also, comparing someone with 'ill motivated' people over something like this is extremely offensive. If when you were in school you wouldn't compare your teachers to Hitler because, like a dictator, they had ultimate authority, would you?

That's understandable, that why I took the time to clarify the implication. to further clarify: The implication is that everyone who supported racism was not necessarily racist themselves. Some were just averse to change. That did not make them racist, did it? This is not a passing coincidence like liking 60s music. Many people who supported segregation had absolutely no problem with black people whatsoever. That's just the reality of racism. You really only need a few racist people as long as everyone else buys into the status quo, they'll keep enforcing decisions based on racism in perpetuity, without ever being racist themselves.

So when someone says something to the effect of "I just want things to stay the same" when it comes to race, I immediately think of all of those people. Maybe it's not nice to compare you to all those complicit folk, but the correlation seems so direct, I feel like it bears mentioning.

5. So we agree. Its EASIER for Marvel or DC or whoever to legacy characters or whatever. I think thats lazy. Nine times out of ten, the easiest way to do something in art, especially storytelling, is sloppy and weak. I don't want Marvel doing that. Do the hard thing and the hard work will be rewarded with some great characters.

But, the internet is a silly thing and emotions can't always be correlated, so perhaps I assumed too much on you implying I'm racist, but you clearly wrongly assumed a few things on my thoughts on the subject. Regardless, it doesn't matter. I apologize for being a bit hostile.

I don't think the issue is laziness so much as safety. It's a safer investment of time and energy and resources to remake a flagging character as a minority. Anything you do with an original character would be enhanced by having a popular legacy behind him. Now it's true, that that legacy does inspire laziness, where they don't feel like they have to make a name for this character because they already have a famous name, right? I see that.

[OnTheAir]

I'm an African-American, and in general all race changes in comics and comic-based movies bother me. That's not to say that Sam Jackson, Kerry Washington and Michael Clarke Duncan didn't do well in their roles...they did. They're all talented actors, as are Laurence Fishburne and Jamie Foxx, who I am sure will do a great job as Perry White and Electro. Further, I am happy to see actors who share my ethnicity get opportunities in potential blockbuster films. But I'm old, and I'm a traditionalist. My preference is to see a character's race remain consistent between their comic book history and their portrayal on screen.

Additionally, I have no desire to see a Black Spider-man, Human Torch, Superman, Wonder Woman, Catwoman or anyone else. I want to see development of the Black characters that already exist, and the creation of new ones. I want to see some talented writer at Marvel give me a reason to become even more invested in Monica Rambeau. Make me care about Falcon for the first time ever. Someone at DC make me fully embrace Mal and Karen Duncan. But giving me a Black Captain America or Firestorm? Personally, I find that to be lazy and uninspired.

[Endeavor]

Originally Posted by OnTheAir

I want to see development of the Black characters that already exist, and the creation of new ones. I want to see some talented writer at Marvel give me a reason to become even more invested in Monica Rambeau.

Thank you!

I don't understand why this hasn't happened already. I think Rambeau is awesome and I'd love to see her in the limelight.
If Jessica Drew was resurrected from obscurity and made a key player again then why can't they do the same with Monica?

Even when they create new characters that show promise they end up giving up on them prematurely. Cecilia Reyes over at the X-books is a good example.

[weezerspider]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

So when someone says something to the effect of "I just want things to stay the same" when it comes to race, I immediately think of all of those people. Maybe it's not nice to compare you to all those complicit folk, but the correlation seems so direct, I feel like it bears mentioning.



I don't think the issue is laziness so much as safety. It's a safer investment of time and energy and resources to remake a flagging character as a minority. Anything you do with an original character would be enhanced by having a popular legacy behind him. Now it's true, that that legacy does inspire laziness, where they don't feel like they have to make a name for this character because they already have a famous name, right? I see that.

Regarding the bolded statement, your quite the narrow-minded person, aren't you? Comparing someone who wants their comic book character to be like the comics to people who were ok with segregation is so obliviously offensive its laughable you think this is an appropriate response. I guess you believe all Muslims are terrorists, because they share a few small beliefs that extremist shared.

Taking the safe route is just as meh in art. Safe and lazy are the same words when it comes to storytelling. Neither benefits good storytelling.

You are quite the narrow-minded person, comparing people to racists and segregations and such, acting like its no big deal. I don't have time to discuss this and fill this thread in a pissing contest. My last comment tried to make peace, but once again you make offensive comparisons. I'm done. If you want to civilly discuss the issue without the name calling and offensive comparisons, I'm happy to. Until then, good day.

[Spider - Man]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Okay. No more cleverness. You concluding that my staying on the topic of the thread suggests that's all I care about is not reasonable. Don't read into me being on topic.

First, I don’t pretend to know all that you care about so would be in no position to declare it reasonable or not. The topic is apparently diversity which you say you have given examples of with relation to race, personality and clothing. I pointed out that you having such a narrow focus on diversity in the entirety of everything that could constitute it, ignoring so much more, indicates that you are only focused on the aspects of diversity that specifically address your personal desires. I said there was nothing wrong with that in itself except that you then try to make your opinion something more than opinion, attempting to use representation or diversity as a moral right instead of just a preference.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

I have specifically stated situations and reasons in which diversity, of any type, is counterproductive.

“adding diversity just makes things better” – not ‘usually’ makes things better. So how can you reconcile these two statements.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

I have not claimed that one way is better

See above. You make it too easy.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

you are the one who claims one is better than the other.

Show me.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

And what Black people, exactly, wanted Spider-Man to be Black?

Well, I don’t know them each by name but I can draw a logical conclusion when a bunch of people state on this very board how it is not enough to merely add new black characters because they just don’t gain the popularity of the classic ones and the only way to really even the playing field is to make some of the more popular white characters black. You don’t really get much more popular than ol’ Spidey. So I would conclude that all of those in favor of changing more popular white characters black would have Spidey at or near the top of their list. Just common sense based on posts in this and similar threads.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

The X-Men franchise pre-dates 1965,

Which is why I specifically stated the MODERN DAY X-men team and title (launched in ’74 I think).

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

and the Punisher has not supported hundreds of issues. So, the point stands. New characters are not on the level of *those* franchises, regardless of race.

So by your logic, Black Panther should be more popular than Wolverine. I won’t even go any further. If you think you have an argument there, you’re deluded beyond help.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Certainly Black Panther has more staying power than, I dunno, Gravity.

Fine. So to rank the popularity of ALL the comic characters, where do you imagine Black Panther falls on the list? Luke Cage? Just curious to see your opinion. Or maybe you actually have some data to show this. Until you can provide a better measuring stick, I conclude that sales figures are the best indicator of popularity.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

You are noting that the most popular white characters are more popular than the most popular black characters. That's true, you're using that observation to say that white characters tend to be more popular than black characters. This is not true. The most popular black characters are more popular than 90-99% of white characters. So there's no direct correlation between race and popularity.

That means nothing. So you’re saying that out of, what, 5000 trademarked characters that Panther is as high as #50? And as low as #500? His popularity is nearly lost at that level. Again, if he is so popular, why doesn’t he currently have a title running? To accept that the reason for the failure of titles for black characters to sustain any significant run is simply because there aren’t enough people interested in reading them means that you would have to accept that changing a popular white character black would not ensure that title’s success. If I am wrong, tell me why the new Ultimate Spider-Man is scheduled for cancellation in ’14. As I said, all reports indicate that the comic is great, the writing phenomenal. Why do you think it is being cancelled?

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

What we do see is a direct correlation between time created and popularity. This not only explains the weak correlation between race and popularity, but also explains why the spottily written Luke Cage is more popular than the much better written Invincible.

a. I’ve already debunked the ‘time created’ correlation and given good support for race being the factor in the failure of minority-featuring comics to sustain a run.
b. I didn’t even know Cage had a comic currently out. In March, Invincible came in 137. If you see Cage on there, let me know.
http://www.comichron.com/monthlycomicssales/2013/2013-03.html

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

I agree, that's not usually how 'on one hand' is used, but that's exactly how I meant it. It's generally good on both hands.

Well, on one hand, that’s silly but on the other, it’s laughable.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

I don't often mention context. I generally hope that the reader will take my statements as though it's part of a series of posts. If I say "you have telepathy," that's an absolute statement, but to take it as a belief in super powers, which is what it would be outside of the context of this conversation, instead of commentary on presumptuousness would be an incorrect reading. I expect everyone to do the same for all my statements, but you're free to interpret them as you think best.

Well, as I’ve already shown your tendency to present conflicting views, it is hard to follow your ‘context’ thru a series of posts. I have to take each one at face value.

And BTW, I just read your post in the BP thread where you said you wanted a film where Panther has got ‘it’ figured out all along, a statement that another poster (apparently on behalf of anyone who read it) asked you to clarify. You then attempt to do so and then admit that even your attempt is convoluted. See, this is one of your problems as I see it – you seem to live in your own little world and when you ramble off some random thought that skitters across your brain, you automatically assume everyone just knows what you’re thinking. Case in point, your context.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Again, I do not make it absolute, and no, changing everything to be another color cannot be diversity if they're still all the same color.

Ok, fine. You said “Having everyone wearing different colors, now it actually starts to look like the real world, like these are real people we live around.” So we could have the FF all dressed in different colored uniforms: one red, one green, one yellow and one pink. BY your definition, this would make it more like the real world. I wonder how many people would pay to go see a ‘real world’ FF movie of your design?

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

And again, the real world isn't completely composed of severe handicaps as your FF proposal is.

Well, I never said the world was ‘completely composed’ of handicapped people. But surely somewhere, there are groups that consist solely of handicapped people. Unless you are now advocating for a true demographically accurate representation of this group as relates to the real world, something you earlier said you did NOT want because that creates a slippery slope. Just another example of you trying to take both sides.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

What does that have to do with diversity or story? You're still equating diversity for story purposes with random changes for no reason.

I already conceded that you could make the uniforms each a different color. That is something YOU said would make it more like the real world. The fact that that has nothing to do with the story is on YOU.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

You weren't talking about inclusion, you were talking about exclusion of others, about 100% of the main characters, so yes, a segment of society would need to be nearly everyone, unless the story is about that segment of society.

Well, with only 4 main characters, I’d like to see how you could possibly include every demographic. By your logic, failure to do so is ‘exclusion’. So how would you make it so no one was excluded?

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Wow, that was a discussion with you, and you're back to finish it!? Okay. I was responding directly to your comment about it being a double standard. I said:

It’s not that big of a stretch. The topic is basically the same and didn’t take place that long ago. That has nothing to do with being ‘back to finish it’. I just considered us ‘continuing’ it.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

And then I went to describe in detail my perceptions of the viewpoints of others, with the expressed and repeatedly stated purpose of contradicting the idea that it is a double standard. It has little to do with what I feel is or is not acceptable.

So, for the record, you’re not a proponent of representation? That’s good.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

I have the ability to see what they've done, as we all do, which indicates what they "seem to think" - those were my words. Updating can include changing race which can bring diversity. There's clear demonstrated correlation.

You said: “all the people who make the films seem to think that updating the property is more important than staying true to the comics so so I'll go ahead and join them in their delusions about art, even when mixing it up or updating happens to include race.” – another absolute statement to try and make it seem like not just the majority but in fact 100% of the filmmakers see things as you do, that updating the property (I am assuming you are referring to changing race) being more important than staying true to the comics when in fact this has only been the case a handful of times.

[Spider - Man]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

That also didn't happen. I did not suggest matching character populations to population samples, and the fallacy is the bridge, which I explained in detail to you. It sounds as though you may not have read all of it, if you are not aware of this and describe my counterpoints as 'yammering.'

I read it all. You used numbers to show whites and non-whites as percentages of real society and as percentages as represented in comics to at the very least support someone else’s view of representation. Why bother with the numbers at all unless you wanted to see some change to that variable specifically? You used the terms under- and over-represented. Tell me how there can be perfect representation, neither over- nor under-, UNLESS it is in line with real world (a term you seem to repeatedly voice support for) percentages? Once again, you try to play both sides.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

"As I and many others have said repeatedly, if anyone wants diversity, create more characters."
"So let them do what they will and let the results speak for themselves."

That's a warning where I come from.

I don’t know what the ‘warning’ is as there are 2 distinctly different sentences that don’t relate to each other. The first is my opinion that creating more black or other ethnic characters is a better choice than changing the race of existing characters. The second is simply me stating the way it is. They will make the movie they want to make and it will be successful or it won’t be. I really don’t understand your feeling like I’m ‘warning’ you.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

If I said that I want the races changed, please quote me.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

I want the damn races changed and I want them changed NOW!

Nah, that was just a bit of fun. But you did say: I'll go ahead and join them in their delusions about art, even when mixing it up or updating happens to include race.

If it doesn’t say you want it, it definitely sounds like you favor it!

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

I also was clear on the relation between diversity and story and sales is not a direct or instantaneous one. Over- and under- represented are based on population samples, but that's still not the same as setting a quota for population, neither does it create any of the other fallacious links that you suggested.

I would like to see if you are capable of making a post without using the words ‘fallacious’, ‘ad hominem’ or ‘slippery slope’. These seem to be your favorite buzz words and I’m sure you’ve gotten plenty of practice in using them.

See what I said above about this. I’m not wasting my time addressing the same thing repeatedly.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

That actually would have made the story more interesting, but that's not the story they wanted to tell. Also, relatability is an entirely separate discussion.

Good thing because you’d have probably been the only one watching. So much for your ‘diversity’. And the ability to relate is VERY closely tied to the discussion we’re having as far as many on here are concerned. Or have you not read any of the posts stating that one of the reasons for desiring the change of race of some of the more popular characters is so that the minority readers can feel more relatable to them?

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

I keep disproving this pigeonholing thing over and over again. Then you suggest changing everything else to something different, something that conflicts with the story, and you call that diversity, and because I do not support this change which is not diversity, you call me a hypocrite. So you're right, it's not based on simple disagreement. It's much deeper than that, but still, demonstrably false.

I laid out a laundry list of diverse changes that could be implemented to include all manner of heretofore excluded segments of society that you, in all your pontificating about the value of diversity, never once acknowledged. All you were focused on was changing the race…oh, and diverse clothing. Sorry, forgot that all-important one! SO you have disproved nothing. You only even agreed that including handicapped people was a good idea when endeavor replied with how good of an idea HE thought it was. Sheesh!

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

I don't think anyone would question Superman's physical superiority. That aside, a delusion is a strong conviction held despite superior evidence to the contrary. You did not present such, and then in my last post, I noted how those with physical disabilities can be superior if they have powers (or prostheses) that make up for that handicap. So it can't be a delusion if it is let go in the face of superior evidence.

Yes, your last post responding to endeavor after he basically restated what I had said which you first tried to downplay the legitimacy of.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

And as I said, I wasn't talking about capability, I was talking about story, the story of a handicapped person is not the story of a physically superior person, but someone overcoming their limitations to do things that they could not have done before. Now, as demonstrated by Daredevil, that idea is not mutually exclusive with that of a power fantasy. That said, some superhero stories don't really fit with the handicap subplot very well, Fantastic Four, outside of Ben, would be among them. Spider-Man, surprisingly, would.

So making Johnny Storm black would automatically ‘fit’ in with the FF but making him a bilateral amputee would not? Again this is you trying to state your opinion as fact and it’s becoming very tired. You couldn’t see the story value in having Johnny lose his legs in the crash of the ship? The once confident ladies man now a cripple? Can’t you see the sheer dramatic value of this crippled man realizing that when his power is activated, he can fly?!

Yeah, I can see how important ‘story’ is to you.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

So... there's no problem changing the race of a character. So black Johnny Storm is perfectly okay?

Haha! YOu sound like you’re asking my permission. “Would you have a problem with me crossing your property?” “Is it okay if I asked your wife to dance?”

Listen, the people who make these movies don’t give a **** about what I have a problem with or what you have a problem with. All we have is our own opinions and preferences. And as the saying goes, that and $1.55 will get you a cup of Starbucks.

I would prefer that they don’t make Johnny black but what am I gonna do if they do? What are you gonna do if they don’t? You ask stupid questions.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Hmmm... I guess you could take it that way, but the rest of my statements clarify why I used those percentages. And it still doesn't create the slippery slope, that you claimed was a logical consequence.

‘Slippery slope’ – everyone drink a shot. So tell me, why did you bother trying to get me to understand a view that someone else held? Why did you feel you needed to go as far as to bring races in America represented as percentages into the conversation? The fact is, you used numbers to show the difference between the proportional number of non-white people in the real world and the proportional number of non-white people in comics, how it was wrong IF you were a proponent of representation (basically, there’s too many white people in these comics!) and somehow there was no mention of a slippery slope. But when I used statistical numbers to say let’s make sure everyone is represented as they are in the real world (and I was being facetious – as you said, how do we represent 0.9% of a person – just to show how ridiculous the notion was in the first place) suddenly now it’s a slippery slope. So as long as you just use vague approximations of the numbers, no slippery slope. Try to get too specific – slippery slope. More like Dr.Cosmic use numbers = good to go. Spider – man uses numbers = slippery slope. What a crock.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

The only subjective thing I've suggested as truth is that diversity is a good thing. Certainly, as a principle, this is true. Biodiversity, division of labor, etc. Where have I said that not changing the race of characters is wrong? Quote me.

The bolded is an absolute statement, no qualifiers. But you also said: I have specifically stated situations and reasons in which diversity, of any type, is counterproductive.

Ok, so let me just ask you: is NOT changing the race of any of the FF in the new film wrong?

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Anyone includes filmmakers.

*sigh* yes, cos, I said: if anyone wants diversity, create more characters.

So yes, if anyone INCLUDING FILMMAKERS wants diversity, let them create more characters (as opposed to changing the race of existing ones). I guess for once we agree.

[metaphysician]

How exactly is "true to the source material" 'lazy'?