I think it cheapens the artistic integrity for one thing to have these demands ahead of time "white must be black now because we said so - it's politically correct, nevermind there's no better reason for it".
Why is a better reason needed? It won't effect the movie itself in any significant way and it will add some much needed diversity to the cast. How is that not an adequate reason to change things.
The GA doesn't care about old characters, either, most the people who saw MOS probably couldn't tell you who Perry White is or know to ask "where's Jimmy Olsen?", so having a new black supporting character who is just as prominent as the other members of Superman's supporting cast wouldn't turn any heads at all or run anyone the wrong way - the GA would not question his or her significance. Characters like Perry White are hardly cultural icons, at least not in the sense Superman and Batman are.
This goes for black Alfred too, btw.
I completely disagree with that, for a couple of reasons. For started, Jimmy Olsen is absolutely a cultural icon. Most people know Jimmy Olsen is the kid that works at the Daily Planet with Clark and Lois. He's part of pop culture, no question. Second, there's plenty of room for characters like Jimmy and Perry to be more than just people for Superman to talk to. A good Superman movie is one that uses the supporting cast to enrich the story.
That goes especially true for Alfred. Alfred is a fantastic and vital character to any Batman story.
Yeah cuz that worked well.
The play that the movie was based on is fantastic.
No one knows what Jesus looked like....there are no pictures in the bible.
But historically he's been portrayed as a white dude.
Because PCness sucks, and nobody likes it except "progressive" PC heads.
That didn't answer my question. I asked how changing the race of a character from a superhero comic in order to have more diversity is any different than changing the race of characters in new productions of old plays or in movie adaptations of literary classics? What is the difference between those two things?
Even the audiences they're trying to appeal to can tell that they're being pandered to and that it's lame, that's why instead of reacting like "oh good, one of me in the media!" when a stereotypical character is represented (as is usually the case with PCness) they groan and roll their eyes and hope people forget about it.
1: Don't make the character a stereotype. Problem solved. It really isn't hard to portray a non-white character in a non-seyerotypical fashion.
2: Don't you think it's a little weird that you refer to changing a character's race represent a minority group as "pandering" when you yourself are not a member of that group, but instead the group that said character belongs to normally?
It could be that there are more whites on average than different ethnicities in america and therefore our films reflect that for one thing, so it is an accurate representation of society in a way,
Well, it's not, because the percentages of different ethnic groups being presented in the media is completely out of step with the actual racial makeup of the United States. African Americans make up 12.6 %, but popular films with black lead characters don't come close to 12.6 % of Hollywood's annual output.
but I digress, Fresh Prince's characters are all predominantly black, much like how people say some of the comics feature predominantly white characters (which even that isn't really true, particularly these days), so the same wisdom that says this is a problem in one movie would have to say it's a problem in another.
No. Not at all. That is, again, a false equivalency. The under representation of non-white characters in popular media is a problem because non-white characters are underrepresented
overall. As it is, the balance is shifted disproportionately in favor of white people. What we're talking about is shifting that towards a reasonable balance. Fresh Prince having an all black cast isn't any kind of problem, because not enough shows have that in the first place.
As far as media goes on the whole though, people of all races are represented, but I highly doubt the way to represent more people of different races is to change the race of an existing character, it's not fair to the other races, for one thing, because anybody can see what a joke that is, it's practically insulting and disrespectful to do that instead of having the brains to make a new character, especially in the interest of representing a particular group of people - don't they deserve one they can truly call "their own" instead of getting an established hand me down character from another group of people?
It's not about any of that. These characters aren't just fictional characters, they're
icons, and they're apart of the mainstream of popular culture. Changing their race is pop culture saying "you guys don't have to be relegated to your own not-white-people land, you matter too, and we're sorry for saying you didn't." That's important, and if nothing is lost in the process of doing that then I feel that we should.
Brainiac has pet polar bears that accompany him places he goes on earth. They don't do anything, they're just there.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
This is stupid, as are most unnecessary changes. Even if a character is boring that's fair ground to change them, because it makes them interesting. Such is not the case with much of what we've talked about.
Why do you have such a problem with changing things that don't effect the story one way or the other?
In the story itself, none unless they go out of their way to point out he's black and talk about his blackness and make it a focal point of the film,
So don't do that and we'll be fine.
however, given that these characters have such of a long established history people who know what they're supposes to be/look like see it and there is no way to separate this from it at all to those viewers and it's incredibly evident to them that it is very "executive decision", there because of some mandate, PC pandering BS, and that comes off as very forced and unnatural. It becomes insulting to oneself to try and view it and accept it as a legitimate natural story in spite of all this.
Or people will think to themselves "huh, that character's not usually played by a black/asian/latino/arab/whatever person. Whatever." And then they'll keep watching the movie.
In other words, changing a character people like the way it is is likely to get more attention than using an established character to represents different parts of society. So black people will see black Superman and think "WTH? Superman's white... I'm not buying this sellout BS" instead of going "oh thank God they made Superman black! He's just like me and I can like and identify with the character now!"
...it's always amazing to me how low people rate the integrity of other races, a sensible black person is going to have the same reaction a sensible white person has, which is "this is stupid, why did they change this?". This is like saying I can't identify with black characters because I'm not black or blacks can't identify with white characters because they're not white.
If you change a character's race to look like that of another's, does that mean they were unable to identify and like the character and alienated by it the way it was before? And if so, does doing so in favor of one race therefore alienate and cause the previous race to no longer identify and like the character like they did before? And if not, if both are able to identify and like the character regardless of which race the character is and which race they are, then what is the point in changing the character?
There is none.
I have said this many times before in conversations like this:
This is not and has never been about relatability. This is about
representation. Relatability is based on the audience-member's ability to sympathize and empathize with the characters. Representation is about popular media stating clearly that groups of people not normally represented do, in fact,
matter. Representation is much more important than relatability.
How do you know the story doesn't require someone like Steel to be there and why couldn't it? Perhaps they've tailored a way to have him in there and need him and it makes sense....why not do that?
There's no reason not to do that. Just like there's no reason not to change a major white character's race.
I think both would be terrible as either and should never happen. Not only are both wrong visually but in terms of personality and acting as well.
And hope you never have any influence over movies, lol.
Are you kidding me?
Will Smith has the charisma, the warmth, the earnestness, the vulnerability, and the strength and gravitas that every good Superman needs. I Am Legend, while not a great movie, is a perfect display of all of the qualities he possesses that are perfect for the Man of Steel. His loneliness in that movie, his drive to fix the broken world, his warmth and humor, and his portrayal of the pre-apocalypse all work scientist/family man and the post-apocalypse tired and lonely warrior
that is some grade A Clark Kent right there.
And if Mr. Glass in Unbreakable doesn't prove Sam Jackson has the chops to play Luthor, I don't know what does.
