Is anyone not excited about Spider-man in the MCU?

The thing is, I'm famously against race changing characters. I despise & detest the practice. That's why I'm all for newly created black characters to take their place alongside the "old guard". So my objection isn't to the people that want Miles Morales. If they make the Spider-Miles, movie that's fine. I have no interest,but if it'll make people happy,then by all means make the movie. No one will force me to see a Spider Man movie without Peter Parker,by gun point.

I just vehemently object to the thought of side stepping one of the greatest characters in comic history for Miles. Or somehow trying to shove him into a Spider-Man movie for the sake of somehow turning Spidey into a "legacy character."

Just make a separate Spider-Miles film,set apart from continuity.See how well it does. (I'm guessing not well--with the GA at least) Only leave the original Peter alone. Don't kill him off. Don't pair him up with Miles as a side kick. Just let Spidey loose to finally do his thing in the MCU.
 
what exacty is fresh about Spider-Man?

Let's see...

1. How many spandex wearing superheroes exist in Marvel Cinematic Universe ?

2. How many heroes actually have a secret identity and protect it by wearing a mask while operating as a superhero ?

3. How many marvel heroes actually have family and relatives and have to work like ordinary people and worry about money ?

4. How many Marvel heroes (not counting recent addition of Quicksilver) are under 25 ?

Spider-man brings all these attributes (a young hero who wears a spandex costume with a mask, has a secret identity, a family and a job.) which many current heroes in MCU don't have, so he brings something new to MCU.

Which is why I believe inclusion of Spidey is a welcome change for MCU.
 
Last edited:
This entire post is incredible, but this moment captured something I've always struggled to express.

There are people out there who stand on the outside of our interests, who haven't read a thousand comic books or hit every midnight release, who applaud loudly when Marvel makes Thor a woman or Captain America black or Colossus gay. They talk about how it's breaking down barriers or say things like "Welcome to the 21st century" as though these sort of things are automatically an improvement. If you even think about expressing frustration over a pointless change to one of your favorite characters, you'll be called racist, sexist, homophobic, whatever.

It's like they have some checklist, and when they look at a superhero team they need to take roll call.

"Gay character?"
"Here."
"Female character?"
"Here."
"Hindu character?"
"Here."
"Okay, this team is good to go!"

They don't understand that THEY are the ones who are prejudiced. If being a minority or transgender suddenly makes you care about a superhero, than you haven't valued the content of their character. You've judged them by things they can't control.

So when people talk about casting Miles Morales as though his tiny history has earned precedence over Peter Parker, it makes me angry because I know many who want it to happen have never subscribed to a comic in their life, much less even read one with Miles in it. They just want a black Spider-Man. And it's not a two way street. All the people who made fun of fans who were upset because Johnny and Sue Storm apparently have different moms now would go absolutely insane if a white person was cast as Black Panther.

To be clear, I'm not accusing Arach Knight of wanting Miles to be in the MCU for that reason but, the truth is, his only chance of getting there would be due to that sort of thinking. It would be Marvel's attempt to appeal to that crowd by spitting in the face of Peter Parker fans and saying "Screw the dozens of amazing stories Parker has yet to have done on the big screen, we're using the black kid."

The thing is, I'm famously against race changing characters. I despise & detest the practice. That's why I'm all for newly created black characters to take their place alongside the "old guard". So my objection isn't to the people that want Miles Morales. If they make the Spider-Miles, movie that's fine. I have no interest,but if it'll make people happy,then by all means make the movie. No one will force me to see a Spider Man movie without Peter Parker,by gun point.

I just vehemently object to the thought of side stepping one of the greatest characters in comic history for Miles. Or somehow trying to shove him into a Spider-Man movie for the sake of somehow turning Spidey into a "legacy character."

Just make a separate Spider-Miles film,set apart from continuity.See how well it does. (I'm guessing not well--with the GA at least) Only leave the original Peter alone. Don't kill him off. Don't pair him up with Miles as a side kick. Just let Spidey loose to finally do his thing in the MCU.

These goodies. :up:

Though I wouldn't necessarily mind a black Peter Parker if the actor is great and it's not done for PC, but the overall arguments are still solid.
 
This entire post is incredible, but this moment captured something I've always struggled to express.

There are people out there who stand on the outside of our interests, who haven't read a thousand comic books or hit every midnight release, who applaud loudly when Marvel makes Thor a woman or Captain America black or Colossus gay. They talk about how it's breaking down barriers or say things like "Welcome to the 21st century" as though these sort of things are automatically an improvement. If you even think about expressing frustration over a pointless change to one of your favorite characters, you'll be called racist, sexist, homophobic, whatever.

It's like they have some checklist, and when they look at a superhero team they need to take roll call.

"Gay character?"
"Here."
"Female character?"
"Here."
"Hindu character?"
"Here."
"Okay, this team is good to go!"

They don't understand that THEY are the ones who are prejudiced. If being a minority or transgender suddenly makes you care about a superhero, than you haven't valued the content of their character. You've judged them by things they can't control.

So when people talk about casting Miles Morales as though his tiny history has earned precedence over Peter Parker, it makes me angry because I know many who want it to happen have never subscribed to a comic in their life, much less even read one with Miles in it. They just want a black Spider-Man. And it's not a two way street. All the people who made fun of fans who were upset because Johnny and Sue Storm apparently have different moms now would go absolutely insane if a white person was cast as Black Panther.

To be clear, I'm not accusing Arach Knight of wanting Miles to be in the MCU for that reason but, the truth is, his only chance of getting there would be due to that sort of thinking. It would be Marvel's attempt to appeal to that crowd by spitting in the face of Peter Parker fans and saying "Screw the dozens of amazing stories Parker has yet to have done on the big screen, we're using the black kid."

I think you're rather missing the appeal of actually being represented in the media where you weren't before. I mean imagine if every Marvel lead up until now had been a black woman. How would white guys feel about that? Diversity is important. Sometimes it's handled clumsily, but the truth is people can be very stubborn and might not accept new characters taking on major roles regardless of race/gender/sexuality. Hence why older characters are getting changed. Maybe it could be done better but their hearts are in the right place.
 
There are people out there who stand on the outside of our interests, who haven't read a thousand comic books or hit every midnight release, who applaud loudly when Marvel makes Thor a woman or Captain America black or Colossus gay. They talk about how it's breaking down barriers or say things like "Welcome to the 21st century" as though these sort of things are automatically an improvement. If you even think about expressing frustration over a pointless change to one of your favorite characters, you'll be called racist, sexist, homophobic, whatever.

They don't understand that THEY are the ones who are prejudiced. If being a minority or transgender suddenly makes you care about a superhero, than you haven't valued the content of their character. You've judged them by things they can't control.

All the people who made fun of fans who were upset because Johnny and Sue Storm apparently have different moms now would go absolutely insane if a white person was cast as Black Panther.

To be clear, I'm not accusing Arach Knight of wanting Miles to be in the MCU for that reason but, the truth is, his only chance of getting there would be due to that sort of thinking

1) Stop spreading lies about me. I never once said Miles should be the lead version of Spider-Man in the MCU. I only argued that declaring any version of a character to be illegitimate is poor reasoning, for the myriad of reasons I have already addressed in previous posts. I did however state that I am NOT a fan of Miles Morales, highlighting that my position is objective rather than biased. Miles annoys me, but my preference has nothing to do with the objectivity of Miles in fact being Spider-Man.

2) T'Challa's entire origin is rooted in him being a Black African belonging to an ancient yet advanced civilization. Altering his race would not be arbitrary: it would change the core idea of the character. Making the Human Torch a Black man has no bearing on Johnny Storm's origin or character. It is possible for Sue and Johnny to be adopted and still retain their status as siblings.

The ultimate point is that you are drawing a false equivalence. Ethnic identity can be an important factor for a character, but not often. Magneto? Ethnicity is important. Storm? It's important. Spider-Man and Human Torch? Not so much.

3) Privileged people have no need to think about seeing themselves represented in the media: the mainstream culture already caters to their interests. The desire of marginalized groups to see themselves included in societiy's popular culture is sensible and in no way is a will born of prejudice. Warner Bros./Cartoon Network infamously cancelled Young Justice, a cartoon with diversity, because too many girls watched the show. DC Entertainment infamously prohibited the depiction of a homosexual marriage in the Batwoman comic.Yet you seem angered that women, Blacks and homosexuals desire representation, even though the market at times excludes them, purposefully so. I am myself a conservative, but objectively speaking, there is no wrong in people desiring to see images like themselves in the media.
 
2) T'Challa's entire origin is rooted in him being a Black African belonging to an ancient yet advanced civilization. Altering his race would not be arbitrary: it would change the core idea of the character. Making the Human Torch a Black man has no bearing on Johnny Storm's origin or character. It is possible for Sue and Johnny to be adopted and still retain their status as siblings.

The ultimate point is that you are drawing a false equivalence. Ethnic identity can be an important factor for a character, but not often. Magneto? Ethnicity is important. Storm? It's important. Spider-Man and Human Torch? Not so much.
I haven't read the entire conversation you've been having with the poster you quoted, but I'll respond to this part of your post

The fact that they changed Johnny's ethnicity JUST for the sake of diversity is what I don't was necessary, or a good idea. Moreover, there already are plenty of black superheroes (in the MCU alone - this is fox's CU so there's that), so if they did this to add diversity, why didn't they grab a brown or Asian actor? When they change a character from literature who was white, it is ALWAYS turned into a black character, I can't think of a single scenario where it's otherwise. Iron Man had Yensin be Middle Eastern instead of Asian but that's because the film was supposed to be contemporary. So for this very reason, them making Johnny Storm black just because, in and of itself to me was a complete misfire.

Moreover, if Johnny Storm's ethnicity wasn't important to retain because his race has nothing really to do with his role in the story, would it be perfectly fine to change lucius fox into a white character? there's nothing about his character that makes him have to be black, other than the fact that he's been black in every iteration, yes? (I get why they'll never do that - I just want my point to get across).
 
^Lucious could be any ethnicity his creator went put of their way to make him Black and since he's generally the only significant black character in the Batman Mythos they would generally be wise to keep him black in any continuity where he crops up

and Miles' origin requires Peter Parker to die first. I'd say the chances for MM are extremly low
the Ultimate Origin is set up with Peter's death but a movie adaptation doesn't need that

I would say almost non-existent lol.. Everyone clamoring for his introduction anytime soon is setting themselves up for a world of disappointment.
I don't think anyone here really believe Sony/Disney/Marvel have the balls for Miles or Black Peter but that's a far cry from saying it wouldn't be awesome.

I love Ultimate Peter from USM but Film wise I'm done with Tights and done with Peter if the mcu film slate has to get ****ed in the ass than at the very least do something other than another rehash of Peter as we already had 2 versions; a 3rd will make 3 in 10 years
 
Last edited:
How about they have Tobey Maguire reprise his role to retcon the the first 2 Sam Raimi Spider-Man as part of the MCU?

They don't have to do an origin reboot just use those first 2 and disregard the 3rd film and the Garfield films then we can just go straight to business.
 
How about they have Tobey Maguire reprise his role to retcon the the first 2 Sam Raimi Spider-Man as part of the MCU?

They don't have to do an origin reboot just use those first 2 and disregard the 3rd film and the Garfield films then we can just go straight to business.

he's too old. they want a young, innocent, late teenage, vulnerable spiderman.
 
I could see them not wanting to bring back an older Spider-Man actor and getting a new get but I really really really ****ing hope they skip the goddam origin this time. Anyone who watches the ****ing movie has already seen, read or heard about his ****ing origin and Uncle Ben. At best, do what TIH did and make a 30 intro to do it or just put "GOT BIT, UNCLE DIED, FIGHT CRIME" during the title.
 
Let's see...

1. How many spandex wearing superheroes exist in Marvel Cinematic Universe ?

2. How many heroes actually have a secret identity and protect it by wearing a mask while operating as a superhero ?

3. How many marvel heroes actually have family and relatives and have to work like ordinary people and worry about money ?

4. How many Marvel heroes (not counting recent addition of Quicksilver) are under 25 ?

Spider-man brings all these attributes (a young hero who wears a spandex costume with a mask, has a secret identity, a family and a job.) which many current heroes in MCU don't have, so he brings something new to MCU.

Which is why I believe inclusion of Spidey is a welcome change for MCU.

I would also add that Spidey's rogues gallery is better than every other single Marvel character that the MCU has. Captain America is second.
 
Whatt'ya talking about? What about the Hulk? He has... A big smashy guy and army guy! Those have tons of potential. Cap has the Nazi and his best friend. Thor has... his brother. Iron Man kinda killed everybody. Umm... Maybe you're right?
 
^Lucious could be any ethnicity but since he's generally the only significant black character in the Batman Mythos they would generally be wise to keep him black in any continuity where he crops up

the Ultimate Origin is set up with Peter's death but a movie adaptation doesn't need that

I don't think anyone here really believe Sony/Disney/Marvel have the balls for Miles or Black Peter but that's a far cry from saying it wouldn't be awesome.

I love Ultimate Peter from USM but Film wise I'm done with Tights and done with Peter if the mcu film slate has to get ****ed in the ass than at the very least do something other than another rehash of Peter as we already had 2 versions; a 3rd will make 3 in 10 years
Several things here.

1. It's not about having balls, it's about having the brains to make the right Spider-man movie that most people want to see. More people want to see a Peter Parker movie than some unknown kid from an alternate reality, so a Peter Parker movie would make more money. Peter Parker is THE spider-man, period end of statement.

2. The MCU film slate isn't getting "****ed" as you put it, I'm sure they set up the general framework of phase 3 to accommodate for any possibility. If Marvel has proven anything it is that they always have a solid plan and an idea where their universe is headed so I'm more than confident that acquiring Spider-man was not a curveball, but a planned move that went through months and months of planning. The leaked emails all but confirm that.

3. As I mentioned above, Marvel always has a plan and knows what they are doing and when handling the third reboot I am 100% certain they will attempt to avoid as many things as possible from the previous films. Luckily Webb and co. repeated a good deal of the story the second time around, they were largely similar, so Marvel get's to treat the whole reboot as a blank canvas where they can pick and chose the best elements of the mythos to tell the proper story and I know for a fact the origin story will not be one of those elements.
Utter pedantic entitled un-self aware fanboy nonsense right here. I see the martyr act from the FF threads is spreading.
What about his post do you disagree with? Every word of it rings true.
 
Last edited:
^Lucious could be any ethnicity but since he's generally the only significant black character in the Batman Mythos they would generally be wise to keep him black in any continuity where he crops up
that's the point. I'm guessing somewhere along these arguments were about changing ethnicities, so to add another significant character to be batman mythos on screen, offscreen wherever, if they felt the necessity they'd just change the character's ethnicity. i think they did with the commissioner in BB but that character was different anyway because he wasn't crooked.
 
I haven't read the entire conversation you've been having with the poster you quoted, but I'll respond to this part of your post

The fact that they changed Johnny's ethnicity JUST for the sake of diversity is what I don't was necessary, or a good idea. Moreover, there already are plenty of black superheroes (in the MCU alone - this is fox's CU so there's that), so if they did this to add diversity, why didn't they grab a brown or Asian actor? When they change a character from literature who was white, it is ALWAYS turned into a black character, I can't think of a single scenario where it's otherwise. Iron Man had Yensin be Middle Eastern instead of Asian but that's because the film was supposed to be contemporary. So for this very reason, them making Johnny Storm black just because, in and of itself to me was a complete misfire.

Moreover, if Johnny Storm's ethnicity wasn't important to retain because his race has nothing really to do with his role in the story, would it be perfectly fine to change lucius fox into a white character? there's nothing about his character that makes him have to be black, other than the fact that he's been black in every iteration, yes? (I get why they'll never do that - I just want my point to get across).

1) Michael B. Jordan was cast because he previously worked with Josh Trank. Josh Trank directed Chronicle, another science fiction film produced by 20th Century Fox. Trank is also the director of The Fantastic Four and he brought Jordan along with him. The situation between Trank and Jordan is no different than Johnny Depp and Tim Burton or Quentin Tarantino and Uma Thurman. Directors enjoy working with the same actors, if possible.

Although liberals may have celebrated the casting as a diversity call, the reality is that Jordan's casting was good old fashioned Hollywood cronyism and nothing more. Here is a quote from Miles Teller on how Trank handled casting (Teller plays Mr. Fantastic in the upcoming film).

"I know Josh really had to [pull for me]. Josh did for all of the characters. For Jamie, he really vouched for [him]. For Mike, he was like, ‘This is my guy’ from the bat."

http://www.themarysue.com/miles-teller-fantastic-4-casting/

Political correctness had no part in the casting of Michael B. Jordan as the Human Torch.

2) Lucius Fox's ethnicity is a non-factor of his portrayal. Fox could be any ethnicity and his role in the Batman mythos would remain unchanged.

3) The ethnicity of non-White characters is changed all the time in comicbook films specifically, and movies in general.

- R'as Al Ghul: A 500 year old Arab, whose name is itself in Arabic. In the Nolan Batman trilogy, R'as is played by an Irish White male. No one complained.

- Bane: In comics, half White, half Latino (the fictional country of Santa Prisca). In the Nolan trilogy, Bane spoke no Spanish, had an accent that had little to do with a Caribbean region Spanish and was played by fully White Tom Hardy. No one complained.

- Chapel: In the Spawn comicbooks, Chapel is a Black male. In the movie, Chapel is turned into a White woman named Jessica Priest.

- Terry: Al Simmon's best friend, also made into a White person, though originally Black in the comics. The producers publicly stated that they changed the characters into White people because they didn't want to stigmatize the film as being a "Black people movie." And even with that on record, no one complained.

- Talia Al' Ghul: Arab daughter of an Arab man. Played by a White French woman.

- Avatar the Last Airbender: Aang and Katara, played by White children rather than by a Chinese and Inuit child respectively. That time though, people did complain, quite a bit.


I could keep going on, but the point is made. It isn't as if "race bending" (the pop-culture term for changing the ethnicity of an established character) is a one sided affair. It happens more or less across the board, though the impact/consequence is not equivalent for all ethnic groups.

4) The primary argument is not about whether or not established characters should be subject to race bending or gender bending, but rather the issue is whether or not such actions are detrimental to a particular ethnic community or the accuracy of the character's established narrative.

If race bending alters the core mythos of a character, then it should be avoided. For instance, Magneto's entire world view is shaped by his experience as a Jewish child in a Nazi concentration camp. Having Magneto not be Jewish would undermine the core mythos of the character.

Race bending Lucius Fox would be unimportant as his role and motivations are not attached to his ethnic identity. Conversely, changing T'Challa into a White person would be damaging, as it would white wash a narrative about Black Africa and erase a visible minority.

Likewise, making Wonder Woman Mexican, Black or Chinese instead of Greek would pose a problem similar to making T'Challa White. Why? Because Wonder Woman being Greek is a significant aspect of her overall characterization.

The situation is not simplistic, and each alteration requires an examination of the specific context brought about by the change. There is no hard and fast rule of "every character should stay the same" or "change every character for diversity sake." Sadly, the discourse on diversity in comics is rife with the voices of the prejudice, bigots, the ignorant and the entitled. You have very conservative bigots and extremely liberal zealots that make the entire situation untenable, and both factions pose the same danger.

In the end, these are narratives about fictional characters: they do not exist. Therefore, there is no obligation to keep their characterization set in stone. They will change with the times, and the times will also change. What is meaningful now may not be meaningful later. Getting hostile or irritated over movie casting choices...well...life is truly too short for such a waste of a resource as precious and limited as time.
 
1) Michael B. Jordan was cast because he previously worked with Josh Trank. Josh Trank directed Chronicle, another science fiction film produced by 20th Century Fox. Trank is also the director of The Fantastic Four and he brought Jordan along with him. The situation between Trank and Jordan is no different than Johnny Depp and Tim Burton or Quentin Tarantino and Uma Thurman. Directors enjoy working with the same actors, if possible.

Although liberals may have celebrated the casting as a diversity call, the reality is that Jordan's casting was good old fashioned Hollywood cronyism and nothing more. Here is a quote from Miles Teller on how Trank handled casting (Teller plays Mr. Fantastic in the upcoming film).

"I know Josh really had to [pull for me]. Josh did for all of the characters. For Jamie, he really vouched for [him]. For Mike, he was like, ‘This is my guy’ from the bat."

http://www.themarysue.com/miles-teller-fantastic-4-casting/

Political correctness had no part in the casting of Michael B. Jordan as the Human Torch.

2) Lucius Fox's ethnicity is a non-factor of his portrayal. Fox could be any ethnicity and his role in the Batman mythos would remain unchanged.

3) The ethnicity of non-White characters is changed all the time in comicbook films specifically, and movies in general.

- R'as Al Ghul: A 500 year old Arab, whose name is itself in Arabic. In the Nolan Batman trilogy, R'as is played by an Irish White male. No one complained.

- Bane: In comics, half White, half Latino (the fictional country of Santa Prisca). In the Nolan trilogy, Bane spoke no Spanish, had an accent that had little to do with a Caribbean region Spanish and was played by fully White Tom Hardy. No one complained.

- Chapel: In the Spawn comicbooks, Chapel is a Black male. In the movie, Chapel is turned into a White woman named Jessica Priest.

- Terry: Al Simmon's best friend, also made into a White person, though originally Black in the comics. The producers publicly stated that they changed the characters into White people because they didn't want to stigmatize the film as being a "Black people movie." And even with that on record, no one complained.

- Talia Al' Ghul: Arab daughter of an Arab man. Played by a White French woman.

- Avatar the Last Airbender: Aang and Katara, played by White children rather than by a Chinese and Inuit child respectively. That time though, people did complain, quite a bit.


I could keep going on, but the point is made. It isn't as if "race bending" (the pop-culture term for changing the ethnicity of an established character) is a one sided affair. It happens more or less across the board, though the impact/consequence is not equivalent for all ethnic groups.

4) The primary argument is not about whether or not established characters should be subject to race bending or gender bending, but rather the issue is whether or not such actions are detrimental to a particular ethnic community or the accuracy of the character's established narrative.

If race bending alters the core mythos of a character, then it should be avoided. For instance, Magneto's entire world view is shaped by his experience as a Jewish child in a Nazi concentration camp. Having Magneto not be Jewish would undermine the core mythos of the character.

Race bending Lucius Fox would be unimportant as his role and motivations are not attached to his ethnic identity. Conversely, changing T'Challa into a White person would be damaging, as it would white wash a narrative about Black Africa and erase a visible minority.

Likewise, making Wonder Woman Mexican, Black or Chinese instead of Greek would pose a problem similar to making T'Challa White. Why? Because Wonder Woman being Greek is a significant aspect of her overall characterization.

The situation is not simplistic, and each alteration requires an examination of the specific context brought about by the change. There is no hard and fast rule of "every character should stay the same" or "change every character for diversity sake." Sadly, the discourse on diversity in comics is rife with the voices of the prejudice, bigots, the ignorant and the entitled. You have very conservative bigots and extremely liberal zealots that make the entire situation untenable, and both factions pose the same danger.

In the end, these are narratives about fictional characters: they do not exist. Therefore, there is no obligation to keep their characterization set in stone. They will change with the times, and the times will also change. What is meaningful now may not be meaningful later. Getting hostile or irritated over movie casting choices...well...life is truly too short for such a waste of a resource as precious and limited as time.
i'm not reading all that, at least not right now; i'm not trying to pick an argument with you - I just wanted to make a point.

here's one thing I'll say in response: lucius fox's ethnicity may seem irrelevant to his character, but you'll never see them change it because he was originally written to black. for this originality, it technically is relevant or is perceived to be because no one would ever make him appear different because he was originally not white.
 
i'm not reading all that, at least not right now; i'm not trying to pick an argument with you - I just wanted to make a point.

here's one thing I'll say in response: lucius fox's ethnicity may seem irrelevant to his character, but you'll never see them change it because he was originally written to black. for this originality, it technically is relevant or is perceived to be because no one would ever make him appear different because he was originally not white.

You refused to read a pointed response to your incorrect statements, then proceed to make a generalization which is also incorrect, especially given the information contained in my previous response. Lucius Fox's ethnicity could be just as easily changed as R'as, Talia or Bane, because none of those three are their original ethnicity. That Lucius remained the same could be best explained by a number of possibilities, but necessity would not be among those reasons. And again, non-White characters have often been made White in comicbook movies.
 
Last edited:
You refused to read a pointed response to your incorrect statements, then proceed to make a generalization which is also incorrect, especially given the information contained in my previous response. Lucius Fox's ethnicity could be just as easily changed as R'as, Talia or Bane, because none of those three are their original ethnicity. That Lucius remained the same could be best explained by a number of possibilities, but the necessity would not be among those reasons. And again, non-White characters have often been made White in comicbook movies.


it's not incorrect just because you think it is. you say no one complained about bane but not many people complained about it in general because the interpretation of him nolan made satisfied most fans. I for one didn't like that they didn't keep his spanish origin. one could also argue that ra's al ghul was indeed arab - british arab if you must, arabs in general typically can have white complexion and look like how ra's looked in the batman movies. the chanting in the pit was supposedly moroccan, so there's that. the generalization ain't incorrect either - when we reach the day they make lucius fox white, then it is incorrect. and I cannot think of a single non-white comic character, a major one, who's been made white.
 
The thing is, I'm famously against race changing characters. I despise & detest the practice. That's why I'm all for newly created black characters to take their place alongside the "old guard". So my objection isn't to the people that want Miles Morales. If they make the Spider-Miles, movie that's fine. I have no interest,but if it'll make people happy,then by all means make the movie. No one will force me to see a Spider Man movie without Peter Parker,by gun point.

I just vehemently object to the thought of side stepping one of the greatest characters in comic history for Miles. Or somehow trying to shove him into a Spider-Man movie for the sake of somehow turning Spidey into a "legacy character."

Just make a separate Spider-Miles film,set apart from continuity.See how well it does. (I'm guessing not well--with the GA at least) Only leave the original Peter alone. Don't kill him off. Don't pair him up with Miles as a side kick. Just let Spidey loose to finally do his thing in the MCU.
I'm with you here. For the most part, I agree with what you said
 
I just love how this whole thread's devolved into a race debate.

It just proves my point: the only thing Miles has going for him is the fact he's a minority. Would we really be having this conversation otherwise? No. Maybe we would over the idea of Spider-Man being black, but no one would be advocating for the idea of not having Peter Parker.

No one has given any reason as to how Miles is more interesting or has a more complex mythos or is higher in demand, which are pretty much the main requirements here and what Peter has on Miles.

I'll say it again: if you're advocating for a black Peter Parker, just say that. Because that's exactly what you're all doing now. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but it doesn't change the fact it's not an argument in favor of Miles as a character. Peter Parker + black =/= Miles Morales.
 
I just love how this whole thread's devolved into a race debate.

It just proves my point: the only thing Miles has going for him is the fact he's a minority. Would we really be having this conversation otherwise? No. Maybe we would over the idea of Spider-Man being black, but no one would be advocating for the idea of not having Peter Parker.

No one has given any reason as to how Miles is more interesting or has a more complex mythos or is higher in demand, which are pretty much the main requirements here and what Peter has on Miles.

I'll say it again: if you're advocating for a black Peter Parker, just say that. Because that's exactly what you're all doing now. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but it doesn't change the fact it's not an argument in favor of Miles as a character. Peter Parker + black =/= Miles Morales.

I don't even know how that happened, but glimpsing upon it I decided to give my 2 cents, and it's the same 2 cents I give everywhere because I see this around, a lot.
 
it's not incorrect just because you think it is. you say no one complained about bane but not many people complained about it in general because the interpretation of him nolan made satisfied most fans. I for one didn't like that they didn't keep his spanish origin. one could also argue that ra's al ghul was indeed arab - british arab if you must, arabs in general typically can have white complexion and look like how ra's looked in the batman movies. the chanting in the pit was supposedly moroccan, so there's that. the generalization ain't incorrect either - when we reach the day they make lucius fox white, then it is incorrect. and I cannot think of a single non-white comic character, a major one, who's been made white.

It has nothing to do with what I think. You initially claimed that no one changes the ethnicity of non-White comicbook characters. I then give you a list of non-White comicbook characters that had their ethnicity changed to White. Aside from your offering excuses about a couple of those changes, you retreated to specifying that no one would ever change Lucius, which is itself an unknowable claim, inherently making it fallacious and weak. How could you know with any certainty that Lucius Fox would not one day be rewritten as another ethnicity? Logically speaking, it is impossible for you to know that information, in the literal sense of impossible.

Next, Liam Neeson is White and Irish. His portrayal of R'as Al Ghul was accomplished with the same neutral accented voice that Neeson applies to all of his roles (Aslan, Zeus, Bryan Mills). Aside from the character being named R'as, and Bruce being captured in an odd take on the Lazarus pit in a Middle-Eastern nation, there is no direct claim in the film that R'as Al Ghul is an Arabic figure. And if he is, then Neeson's accent does no favors to impress upon anyone that the character is supposed to be an Arab from the era of the Ottoman Empire. In sum, he wasn't portrayed as Arab.

Lastly, I already listed Chapel and R'as Al Ghul, both of whom are prominent characters belonging to non-White ethnic groups. Both characters were not portrayed as their original ethnicity. But if those two do not fit your criteria, then try Speed Racer. Yes, Speed Racer, the Japanese manga character that was recently portrayed by Emile Hirsch, a White guy. Speaking of White people and Japanese comicbook characters, you also have Dragon Ball Z, which also has a White actor playing the lead role of a character that is meant to look Asian. It is safe to assert that Son Goku is a major comicbook character.
 
I just love how this whole thread's devolved into a race debate.

It just proves my point: the only thing Miles has going for him is the fact he's a minority. Would we really be having this conversation otherwise? No. Maybe we would over the idea of Spider-Man being black, but no one would be advocating for the idea of not having Peter Parker.

You and Flint are largely responsible for this nonsense. From what I read, most people said they wanted to see Marvel use Miles Morales because we have already had five movies and two franchises starring Peter and there is little else that can be done with the character in yet another reboot. In other words, people just wanted to see something fresh.

I chimed in after you and Flint decried Miles Morales as not being the "definitive" Spider-Man, which itself was an asinine comment that did not contribute anything productive to the discussion. After outlining the futility in attempting to declare that there is only one Spider-Man, despite there being many versions of the character, you and others then began to cry about people only wanting Miles because he is Black.

Not a SINGLE person that said they desire to see Miles in the reboot ever mentioned wanting to see the character in the film because of his ethnicity. You and other posters assumed that the only reason people could want Miles is because he is Black, and you even went as far as to suggest that people should just ask for a Black Peter Parker, because what they "really" want is a Black Peter Parker. Mind you, NO ONE asked for that in this thread. You just postulated that this was what people really wanted.

If you are going to invite ignorance into the discussion, do not be surprised when people call out the close-minded nature of comments that focus on race. That's the problem with race baiters. No one was discussing race, but suddenly, you start complaining about Miles' ethnicity, and some other poster begins crying about Michael B. Jordan being cast as the Human Torch, even though this is the SPIDER-MAN thread.
 
1. It's not about having balls, it's about having the brains to make the right Spider-man movie that most people want to see. More people want to see a Peter Parker movie than some unknown kid from an alternate reality, so a Peter Parker movie would make more money. Peter Parker is THE spider-man, period end of statement.

This is the key thing that people are failing to accept. The Spider-Miles concept is something only a handful of fanboys are clambering for. It's not gonna sell for the general public. Not by a longshot. Everyone knows Spidey as Peter Parker and I honestly doubt that's gonna change in the future either.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,377
Messages
22,094,205
Members
45,889
Latest member
Starman68
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"