Well for many people in support of the "race change" thing it seems their primary reason for holding those views is simply if they are better for the part because there is no one else who physically resembles the characters that can play them well enough, which is something I even understand a little.
Looks kind of like him:
To differentiate them from chocolate and vanilla people.
Except Wally is always colored the same; he's white. Making him black - sorry, "dark brown", or chocolate colored, is a big departure from that....in fact it's probably the polar opposite of how he's always looked. You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
But then again, you'd probably cast Don Knotts as The Incredible Hulk if he could act angry enough.
I'm not ruling out personality, or character traits, or morality or upbringing, they are all equally important. How much more astonishing if a short man beats up a huge man instead of an average or similar sized one does the same? A person's appearance DOES help define who they are.
As I said before, obviously there are variations within each color that make them more middle of the road, HOWEVER, when most people (especially people looking to cast a BLACK or WHITE character, specifically) refer to black or white they mean just that, if they mean "light black" or light brown" or "mixed" then they will say that, and normally they will certainly say that that is what they are casting for. So when someone says "black Wally West", they mean "black Wally West", not some ambiguous definition of the two.
"Beige" and "caramel" are the synonymous, black and white are opposites.
There are big differences between some skin tones, namely what we consider black and white. I'm not talking about an ambiguous black or white person or even someone like The Rock, I am talking about black and white.
Because Samuel L. Jackson doesn't look anything like Chris Evans. Denzel Washington doesn't look like Zack Galifianikis.
Just as they would also reject a human flesh colored Sinestro, like white, brown, black, etc. Humans don't come in technicolors like aliens do, so making Sinestro yellow or green is a fair comparison to making Wally black or T'chala white. What you're saying is more comparable to making Sinestro white or black like a human than changing the color purple he is. Purple is comparable to yellow is comparable to green is comparable to orange in this case.
I did say what I meant, it was you who misunderstood it and required clarification.
Black and white are not the same or similar, if that is what you are arguing, then yes, I disagree.
Maybe not that extreme, but yes, when I think of "black", I generally think of BLACK - not some racially ambiguous looking person. If you'd have said racially ambiguous or "mixed", or "light skinned black person/tan", then that is what I'd have thought of, but most people when they hear black are going to think of just that - black.
When Denny O'Neil told Neal Adams to draw a "black man who looked like he'd been through hell" in Green Lantern/Green Arrow way back in 1970, this is what he drew, and this is how they colored him:
He did not draw a "racially ambiguous", "almost black, almost white", "tan/caramel" person - and I really think that if that is what Denny O'Neil wanted Neal Adams to draw, then he would have, and the character(s) would have been colored accordingly.
Well thank you for leaving it up to me, I appreciate that, but Martin Luther King still doesn't look anything like John F Kennedy, so we'll have to agree to disagree I'm afraid, because my views are not based in your reality. People that look similar or have similar skin colors look similar, sure, but white and black in general do not look similar.
But is not the only source of value for all or any art, either.
Well it begins in a pitch room where somebody, for whatever reason, says "let's make so and so whatever ethnicity instead of what ethnicity they usually are", and then they look for someone that fits that description. Not hard to figure out. They wanted black Perry White...they got black perry White.
That's part of it, like Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan, a previously indian character (and him being indian is actually a pretty important part of his back story/character, too, but regular non Star Trek fans didn't seem to mind his casting because they don't know this), who got the part because Benicio Del Toro (a perfect fit, IMO, even though I enjoyed the movie and performances we got) dropped out. Things like that may be more situational than "let's change this character just for the sake of" mandate from the top - but when you have something that begins that way in script stage, i. e., black Perry White, casting call for Iris West listed as black specifically, then that more than likely IS just a case of PC pandering or some other bogus, unnecessary idea.
So you're reneging and repeating yourself. You think a Turquoise person looks like an Almond person, which is really galling. Here's the cliff notes versions of your disconnects:
1) You have your own definition of black that is different from that of society at large.
You think it's my reality to see light brown "black" people and biracial people as "black" even though they are always put in that box. Terrence Howard, Beyonce and the like are unambiguously black, and they look more like Johnny Depp and Nichole Scherzinger than they do Chris Rock and Octavia Spencer. This is to say nothing of people like Halle Berry, Lisa Bonet, Boris Kudjoe, Corbin Bleu, who hardly any one knows they're biracial and not "just black," and heck, Wentworth Miller, Derek Jeter, Maya Rudolph, Lenny Kravitz and Sting who hardly anyone knows they're biracial , but are often put in the "white" box. This, and the filmography of any movie with more than three black people in it should show you that "black" is not synonymous with Chocolate, not by any means, and it's painfully obvious, no one who does casting for any reputable agency sees things this way. It's just you and your personal definition.
Are there chocolate "black" people? Are there "black" people who look very different from most "white" people? Yes! But your "logic" is that because SLJ/Chris Rock/MLK/That Guy from that One Comic Appearance don't look like most "white" people, that no "black" person looks like Wally West... this is simple deductive fallacy.
2) Just as you regard all black people as the same, you regard all white people as the same.
Wally West is never colored white. He's been varying shades of light brown, different shades, but you seem to think he's always been the same exact color, even though he has not. You say that all the different noses he's had are the same nose, and all the different skin tones he's had are the same. This is observably not true, but you count artists interpretation as the same, so an artists interpretation of Wally West as black should carry the same weight. Mysteriously it doesn't.
3) You make uneven comparisons.
The Sinestro thing is just bad, you basically had to just ignore my statements and repeat yourself (that's the main reason why this conversation is ending, btw). The whole equating big differences with little differences is also bad, but you're not going to shake that one. In your mind, "black" is "chocolate" and everyone sees it that way (despite countless films and comics But what's really funny is the height thing. You note that changing the height can change the story, so here's the real kicker, what really strikes me:
Does making Wally West "black" change his story? Even if they do make him dark brown, does that change anything about anything he does? Is he less heroic, less lovable, less impetuous? Changing his height can change the story, make it more or less dramatic, like you stated, but does changing this aspect of Wally West change anything other than his skin tone, and maybe hair texture?
You say that muscles define Arnold and height defines Coleman, it has determined what roles they can play in their chosen profession of acting. That actually makes sense, okay. But does "white" define Wally West? Is there anything about Wally West as a person that requires being "white?"
Or put another way, if Wally West got transferred into a "black" kid's body, would he be any less Wally West? Would he no longer be himself? Would you like him more? Less?
Bonus) This pandering thing is so inconsistent. Casting "white" actors (or adapting "white" properties) is never called pandering, even though it is, and no other change from source material is called pandering, fanservice isn't even called pandering, but this change? "This is pandering, and can only be pandering."
There are a dozen reasons for race changes: the creators like black people, the creators like diversity, the creators want a more urban feel, the creators want to be different, the creators have a specific actor in mind, the creators think/know they can get "black" actors cheaper... and all these come in to play. And even if it is pandering, the same pandering that happens with white actors and girls in skimpy clothes and only casting attractive people... why is it a bad thing,
exactly? No reason.
So yeah, I enjoyed this discussion, but when you stop addressing my counterpoints and start repeating yourself, I can confidently say it's not going anywhere, that you're not looking for information, you just want to win, in which case:
You win. Martin Luther King Jr. shouldn't play Wally West, and the only thing Martin Luther King Jr. is good for is pandering to black people.
Good discussion.
Changing the hair for a character like The Flash is KIND of a big deal, but not AS big a deal as it would be to change his entire body because 1) it's his entire body and not just a portion of it, and 2) The Flash wears a cowl/mask, and his hair is covered most the time.
I haven't seen big deals made over any hair changes on the same spectrum, so they can't be that big a deal, especially since in a superhero TV show, they actually
aren't in costume most of the time, still no big deal, so what you're saying can't be true. Regardless, most of his body is clothed all the time, so it's an equally small area that's changing color, possibly to a lesser degree.
Like...this:
VS this:
Yeah....pretty irrelevant, right? They look like they could be brothers.
In today's world two people that look like that could very well could be brothers. Regardless, the change in skin tone is roughly equal to the change in hair from Comic book Ollie to Arrow Ollie. No worries there, so no worries here either.
That's what's really odd about these comparisons. Are you saying that black Wally West is different from white Wally West because Michael Jai White is different from Warren Beaty? That it's not that they're from different eras with different skill sets and interests and families... no, it's one being white and one being black,
that's what makes them different!?
Actually Arrow is a lot like what the Green Arrow comics of the 40s and 50s were, which is a Batman imitation but with an arrow motif, except for much of Arrow (until recently) it's been a Nolan Batman imitator (the present day equivalent of old school Kirby GA being an almost Batman knockoff back then).
How I would love to see hot tempered, cynical, smart mouthed, goateed Ollie show up in the show and suck some of the blandness out of the recent "avenger" Oliver Queen on Arrow and give him some damn personality, but hey - that's just me, a pedantic comic fan (it worked on JLU, they even managed to taper some of his polticalness from what it was in the 70s).
Many Ollie fans would, but none of them spout drivel about pandering and disrespecting the character when that doesn't happen.
So, if comics accuracy is not the concern, and present day equivalents are acceptable, then a black Wally West shouldn't even get a mention. It should, in fact, be praised for forward thinking, like the Baleman imitating sometimes is.
"That's on you" - LOL. Oh, you gonna take us to school, huh?
If it's on... you... why would I take you to school!? It's on you.
Well here is a newsflash for you: The BEST reviewed comic book movies and the highest grossing, most successful ones ARE the ones that are closest to the source material. Because they show the characters as they are and let them be as awesome as they're supposed to be and people dig them for the same reasons people like myself have dug the comic books for years, i.e., MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
Like... seriously? People still believe this?
These are the faithful comic book movies:
Watchmen (64%)[185M]
Sin City (78%)[158M]
Kick Ass (77%) [96M]
300 (60%)[456M]
Daredevil
Most Successful/Highly Rated Comic Book Movies:
Avengers (92%)[1500M] - Loki, Thor, IM and Hulk being there is the same. EVERYTHING else from personalities to dialogue to relationships to plot points to motivations to powers to you name it is unfaithful, and loved, including a high profile race swap.
The Dark Knight (94%)[1004M] - More faithful than Avengers. The Joker is an insane theatrical criminal, Bruce Wayne calls himself Batman and has martial arts, stealth and gadgets. EVERYTHING else is unfaithful and loved. Extra points for the high profile raceswap in Begins and two more the Dark Knight rises.
Spider-Man 2 (94%)[783M] - More faithful than Dark Knight. He's mostly missing homemade web shooters. He got bit by a spider and got Spider-powers in the first film, he made the transition from high school to college.
Iron Man (93%)[585M] - More faithful than Spider-Man. Tony's origin is largely the same, and he fights a villain who is actually from the comics in this one (though he ends up fighting really unfaithful amalgams later, and totally pissing off fans in his most unfaithful billion dollar film later). Still, his relationships and the story points are all brand new. Kicked off the modern comic book movie though, apparently.
So it seems the less faithful something is, the better shot it has at being successful. Ones that take liberties are consistently above 75% fresh at rotten tomatoes. Ones that are doggedly adherent and faithful consistently get below 75%.
But you're on the right track. These successful movies allow people to dig them for the same reasons. Oddly, it's very rare one of the reasons is "because they're white." Wally West's case, for instance. The more a production takes what people dig about the characters and throws away everything else, the more successful they are. There's nothing faithful about Avengers without the Pyms, or a Batman who isn't the World's Greatest Detective, or a Spider-Man who isn't brilliant enough to make his own web-shooters... but its still the character, and loved for the same reasons, even when these things that supposedly define them are are taken away, because the truth is everything about a person doesn't define them. The popularity of these unfaithful characters is proof of that.
Here's how Whedon puts it when asked about the unnecessary and disrespectful change of removing Pym from Ultron:
Joss Whedon said:
We’re basically taking the things from the comics for the movies that we need and can use. A lot of stuff has to fall by the wayside.
But what does that scrub who couldn't even get a Wonder Woman movie made know, anyway?
)
t:
