Article from Film Threat

[That-Guy]

Darwyn Cooke prooved you wrong, dude. One, the idea of ebony wasn't racist. The way he was drawn was racist as hell, but the character in and of himself wasn't. Actually, having a black character of that magnitude in the depression era was progressive. Besides, when he looks differently, he's really useful for the Spirit. The hero having somebody to talk to/confide in/explain plans to is an incredibly useful plot device. They wouldn't even have to give him an origin. The audience sees a black kid driving a cab, they get the idea pretty quickly.
I also loved the way Cooke wrote him. He was like a really level-headed, down-to-earth version of Short-Round from Temple of Doom. He bounced off Denny so well.

Well, considering that we're discussing a character named EBONY WHITE, I think that there was little bit more than the way he was drawn that was racist. Good for Darwyn Cooke for depicting the character differently and maybe even good for Eisner for writing him as a hero, but I think that the name and the appearance of the character are enough to argue that initially, the character was intended (at least somewhat) to poke fun at African Americans.

 

[Mercurius]

Well, considering that we're discussing a character named EBONY WHITE, I think that there was little bit more than the way he was drawn that was racist. Good for Darwyn Cooke for depicting the character differently and maybe even good for Eisner for writing him as a hero, but I think that the name and the appearance of the character are enough to argue that initially, the character was intended (at least somewhat) to poke fun at African Americans.

But, then again, Eisner poked fun at everyone.

 

[theMan-Bat]

Yeah, but the point is not my liking or disliking: is it being bad. Or you will tell me you don't find that a corny line?

No, I find that a good poetic line.

Yeah, and if characterization of such well-known characters must have that, it is because they're out of character.

Man, I have to explain everything in detail!

Which characterizations of the characters are we to regard as representing the "real" versions? I go with the creators original characterizations. I love the original tougher Golden Age versions of Superman and Wonder Woman by their creators, which Miller's is closer to. A tougher feminist Wonder Woman. And think of her history. She comes from an island of women who have been victimized and raped by men. What positive information would she have heard about men growing up? And Wonder Woman is an Amazon warrior. Amazon culture of ancient Greece and ancient Greek evokes spartan warriors. She didn't want to restrain herself. She has a warrior's heart and she showed an understandably deep loathing of men considering that she comes from an island of women who have been victimized and raped by men. I don't want a squeaky clean immaculate do-gooder Wonder Woman. Superman with more of an attitude and not flying yet as Siegel created him. In All-Star Batman Hal Jordan speaks in an antiquated fashion saying things like “all we’ve seen is him [Batman] tossing the young fella into the car…” And I love how he's wearing the old Gil Kane version of the costume. He is a simple, nice guy. The way he was created. Miller has gone on record several times stating that he was upset several years back when they gave Hal a DUI (in the Emerald Dawn II storyline), and, a few years later, they would make him a mass murderer. He felt that it was unnecessary to add that level of darkness to that character (i.e. Batman is a character that lends himself to a darker treatment; there’s no need to do that with GL). "Why Green Lantern became a drunk driver when he can fly always loses me," Miller explains. "And I'm told they turned him into a mass murderer as well. The fun's gone out of it. I want to try my hand at bringing it back." For Miller, Green Lantern represents a simpler more innocent time in superhero comics. So, he puts him in the Gil Kane costume. And Jack Cole's Plastic Man was awful jolly, happy-go-lucky wisecracking wackyness. I love seeing how each character interacts with EACH OTHER. It's their differences from each other that really help in keeping it interesting. They all have their differences, their different points of view. The interaction between the characters really makes the book work for me. And half the appeal surrounding Batman, to me, is based on the controversy of his vigilante status and how he stands out from the superheroes. Miller is able provide enough comic relief so that it doesn't become bogged down.

 

[Mercurius]

No, I find that a good poetic line.

t:t:t:t:t:t: Hahahahahaha. Priceless.

Needing to read a good deal more poetry, then, Batty. With total urgency.

 

[[A]]

off-topic but.. I find it funny that they wrote g--damn.. is god a bad word..?

 

[theMan-Bat]

off-topic but.. I find it funny that they wrote g--damn.. is god a bad word..?

Yeah, that's amusing to me, too.

 

[theMan-Bat]

t:t:t:t:t:t: Hahahahahaha. Priceless.

Needing to read a good deal more poetry, then, Batty. With total urgency.

Art is subjective. A matter of preference.

 

[IDrawDeadPeople]

Hey! It's my favorite issue of AllStar Batman and Robin! The one where the Justic League reveal their new team battle cry...

Superman to WonderWoman: "Damn you..."

WonderWoman to Superman: "Damn you..."

Batman to Superman: "Damn you..."

Green Lantern to Batman: "Damn you..."



Now, THAT'S creative writing.

 

[Mercurius]

Art is subjective. A matter of preference.

Oh, yeah? So there's no difference between good and bad artists, geniuses and failures?

Demagogic cheap rhetoric not helping ya, Batty.

 

[theMan-Bat]

Oh, yeah? So there's no difference between good and bad artists, geniuses and failures?

Demagogic cheap rhetoric not helping ya, Batty.

Whether or not somethings good art is subjective (is it aesthetically pleasing to you, etc.). An individual is free to make up his or her own mind; opinions are subjective ideas held by individuals. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and aesthetic judgments are subjective.

 

[Mercurius]

Whether or not somethings good art is subjective (is it aesthetically pleasing to you, etc.). An individual is free to make up his or her own mind; opinions are subjective ideas held by individuals. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and aesthetic judgments are subjective.

I'll need to repeat it, for it seems you forgot to read it. Here it goes:

Oh, yeah? So there's no difference between good and bad artists, geniuses and failures?

Demagogic cheap rhetoric not helping ya, Batty.

 

[theMan-Bat]

I've already given my answer to that above, Mercurius. Take it, or leave it.

 

[Sun_Down]

So a whiny, jealous, petty little fanboy had a temper tantrum and wrote an "article" where he basically just attacks Miller personally, uses cool words like "misanthropy" to sound smart and flat-out lies to prove his points? And then all but one or two of you jump on his johnson? Geez people.

I wonder if this is the same Mike Watt that wrote these gems.

 

[Mercurius]

So a whiny, jealous, petty little fanboy had a temper tantrum and wrote an "article" where he basically just attacks Miller personally, uses cool words like "misanthropy" to sound smart and flat-out lies to prove his points? And then all but one or two of you jump on his johnson? Geez people.

I wonder if this is the same Mike Watt that wrote these gems.

In spite of all your whiny, jealous and petty name-calling, he said a good number of true things there. t:

 

[Mercurius]

I've already given my answer to that above, Mercurius. Take it, or leave it.

t:t:t: LOL. I'll take your confusion as the answer, of course.