|
Davros1 posted:I find it funny that some of the people I follow on Twitter who are vehemently defending this casting by saying ANYONE who disagrees with it is racist, not a single one of them was championing Marvel making a movie about the black female Capt Marvel. Nope, they were all sooooooo thrilled that Brie Larson was cast instead. Everyone knows that a truly progressive movie needs to star a young, white woman. Try to keep up  .
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:54 |
|
|
Elfgames posted:pretty sure nolan batman ends with "batman sucks, bruce should go live on an island and be happy" A sense of closure doesn't mean you hate the character. I mean hell, for a comic (albeit different character) example, All Star Superman ends with him chilling in the sun. Yeah maybe he'll be back eventually but dude is gone for the near future.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
Nobody gave a poo poo about Heimdall, who is a minor supporting character in the Thor books. A few people did protest, but I think it was on principle, not because they are huge Thor nerds or they actually worship the Norse gods. Mary Jane, by contrast is a major supporting character, and one fans have always known as a white redhead. It's not even racism. Fans reacted positively to Rags Morales once they understood that Peter Parker would continue appearing in other ongoing books.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:Nobody gave a poo poo about Heimdall, who is a minor supporting character in the Thor books. A few people did protest, but I think it was on principle, not because they are huge Thor nerds or they actually worship the Norse gods. What principle?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
Natalie Portman says she is finished with her role in the MCU. Kat Dennings and Stellan Skarsgård are also both not in Thor 3.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Natalie Portman says she is finished with her role in the MCU. Looking like the best Thor so far.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:What principle?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:"Blackwashing white characters is reverse racism." Haha, what a lovely principle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Natalie Portman says she is finished with her role in the MCU. Thank loving God.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:"Blackwashing white characters is reverse racism." wtf does that even mean
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:wtf does that even mean All castings of minority actors as historically white characters are automatically motivated by racism. We're right in the middle of a white genocide, don't you get it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:Nobody gave a poo poo about Heimdall, who is a minor supporting character in the Thor books. A few people did protest, but I think it was on principle, not because they are huge Thor nerds or they actually worship the Norse gods. Mary Jane, by contrast is a major supporting character, and one fans have always known as a white redhead. It's not even racism. Fans reacted positively to Rags Morales once they understood that Peter Parker would continue appearing in other ongoing books. Yeah, nah, that's still racism. Reserving the right to hate a creative decision until the character is either subservient or so long as you can have some assurance that a 'white role' hasn't been disappeared from the canon is racism. Remember, there's a difference between racial prejudice - which is just the superficial and often misinformed assumption about a particular social group - and racism, which is an ideological hierarchy of values predicated on race.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:All castings of minority actors as historically white characters are automatically motivated by racism. We're right in the middle of a white genocide, don't you get it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:I just don't understand what that's supposed to mean, like, casting non-white actors in roles originally portrayed as white is in fact it's own form of racism because ?????? <--- last extremely advanced step that I don't understand Its racism because its impossible that a minority could be cast in a traditionally white role just because they are a good actor and the director/studio thinks they are right for the part. It must be that the director wanted to gently caress with people by not casting a white person, that's the only possible motivation. Its the classic case of racists projecting their own twisted worldview onto others.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Its racism because its impossible that a minority could be cast in a traditionally white role just because they are a good actor and the director/studio thinks they are right for the part. It must be that the director wanted to gently caress with people by not casting a white person, that's the only possible motivation. I'm really just trying to walk through their statement here honestly, is it like - all things being equal, a white actor would be better (because white ppl are inherently better actors?) but out of a desire for attention/some rly dope new type of racism that involves minorities getting more opportunities the director instead chose to cast a black person who is a worse actor (because black ppl are inherently worse actors?). So it's to the detriment of the film because instead of getting a good actor (white) they chose to get a worse actor (non-white)?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:I'm really just trying to walk through their statement here honestly, is it like - all things being equal, a white actor would be better (because white ppl are inherently better actors?) but out of a desire for attention/some rly dope new type of racism that involves minorities getting more opportunities the director instead chose to cast a black person who is a worse actor (because black ppl are inherently worse actors?). So it's to the detriment of the film because instead of getting a good actor (white) they chose to get a worse actor (non-white)? it's basically the same argument people have been using against affirmative action for decades.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:it's basically the same argument people have been using against affirmative action for decades. I feel like I'm missing the step where it matters that the character was originally white.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:I'm really just trying to walk through their statement here honestly, is it like - all things being equal, a white actor would be better (because white ppl are inherently better actors?) but out of a desire for attention/some rly dope new type of racism that involves minorities getting more opportunities the director instead chose to cast a black person who is a worse actor (because black ppl are inherently worse actors?). So it's to the detriment of the film because instead of getting a good actor (white) they chose to get a worse actor (non-white)? There's also some "canon" aspects too, like "Peter Parker must be white because he's always been white. You can invent a new guy who's explicitly not Peter Parker and he can be non-white, but there can never be a black family named Parker the names their kid Peter and he later grows up to be Spider-Man". There were similar reactions when I asked why Hal Jordan couldn't be black. "Because we have a black Green Lantern already!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:Yeah, nah, that's still racism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:Apologies, my language was clumsy. The people who objected to Heimdall's blackwashing on principle were probably racist. But most fans, those who objected to Johnny Storm and now Mary Jane being blackwashed, are not racist. They just want their beloved characters to remain true to what they know. What about being non-white is untrue 2 the characters? also..."blackwashing"...?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
My favorites are the people who claim Mary Jane is only defined by her red hair. "She has no other traits therefore she has to have the iconic red hair!!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
You have to understand that when a social group's perspective is privileged for so long and so broadly, for a large portion of the population (even for people who aren't in that social group!) it ferments this really fragile sense that any loss is "discrimination." The big joke being that of course there's discrimination, but that discrimination isn't always bad. Like, of course affirmative action is discrimination, but it's discrimination in favor of historical disenfranchised groups, so who gives a gently caress? Similarly, if we take for granted that Jon Watts isn't colorblind and he really did have this thought, "Wow, a black Mary Jane, that would be really cool," that would be discrimination, but that still wouldn't make it racist or morally wrong. Kurzon posted:Apologies, my language was clumsy. The people who objected to Heimdall's blackwashing on principle were probably racist. But most fans, those who objected to Johnny Storm and now Mary Jane being blackwashed, are not racist. They just want their beloved characters to remain true to what they know. Colorblindness is racism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:But most fans, those who objected to Johnny Storm and now Mary Jane being blackwashed, are not racist. They just want their beloved characters to remain true to what they know. Nah that's still racist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:Apologies, my language was clumsy. The people who objected to Heimdall's blackwashing on principle were probably racist. But most fans, those who objected to Johnny Storm and now Mary Jane being blackwashed, are not racist. They just want their beloved characters to remain true to what they know. If you think the race of Peter Parker or Mary Jane is important enough that changing it means not being "true" to the characters, that's racist. Its a form of racism that lacks self-awareness but that's probably the worst kind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:I find it funny that some of the people I follow on Twitter who are vehemently defending this casting by saying ANYONE who disagrees with it is racist, not a single one of them was championing Marvel making a movie about the black female Capt Marvel. Nope, they were all sooooooo thrilled that Brie Larson was cast instead. Wait, to clarify, you're a hypocrite if you support a decision to cast a minority actress, but don't simultaneously demand that all other roles ever also be cast as minorities?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
The funniest thing is when fans actually attempt to defend their colorblindness, like by saying "Hey, I would be just as upset if Mary Jane was blonde!" Because, like, that's exactly the same, and making it clear that your fetishism is actually ultra-irrational makes it look less racist when you don't want Miles Morales "taking Peter Parker's job."
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
U telling me this character's name is Mary Jane but she doesn't smoke weed?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
My dad always used to buy us Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck comics and similar when we were kids but never superhero comics except for a few issues of Peter Porker, the Spectacular Spider-Ham so it's always a little weird to me when I see her depicted as a human and not a water buffalo. That not my Mary Jane. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:The funniest thing is when fans actually attempt to defend their colorblindness, like by saying "Hey, I would be just as upset if Mary Jane was blonde!" Because, like, that's exactly the same, and making it clear that your fetishism is actually ultra-irrational makes it look less racist when you don't want Miles Morales "taking Peter Parker's job." Look when I watch a spiderman movie I expect my fetishes to be catered to, got it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Amid the Zendaya/MJ stuff, Tiffany Espensen, a Chinese-American actress was cast as "Cindy". Fingers crossed that this is Cindy Moon aka Silk (though I thought it would have been cool that Anna Akana's super fly writer chick was Cindy the time frames don't match up)
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:If you think the race of Peter Parker or Mary Jane is important enough that changing it means not being "true" to the characters, that's racist. Its a form of racism that lacks self-awareness but that's probably the worst kind. I get where you're coming from, but I think there's an overlap in racists that cry foul and those that would be just as upset about Superman losing his red trunks. Some people are really hung up on things your average person doesn't care about when it comes to film. It can be hard to tell the two apart.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
If her hair is red in the movie and people still bitch about her being black, that's when you can tell the real racists from the idiots. I really kind of wish we could get the original Mary Jane's character without the baggage it was weighed down with. A super feminist character who wasn't going to put up with any poo poo, but without the writing and understanding of some dudes from the 70s. That'd REALLY gently caress with the morons who just want her as a fetish idol. It's a big reason why I'm annoyed about this being the Ultimate take on the character- there she's way less of a force of personality and way more 'perfect love interest for Peter'
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Super feminist? Wasn't she just a shallow party girl who agreed to date Parker on a lark, and in fact put up with lots of poo poo when she didn't know he was Spider-man?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:Apologies, my language was clumsy. The people who objected to Heimdall's blackwashing on principle were probably racist. But most fans, those who objected to Johnny Storm and now Mary Jane being blackwashed, are not racist. They just want their beloved characters to remain true to what they know. On the Nerdist FB page I've seen the "I'm not racist but" statement used 50+ times as well as the word "Negress." It's still people being racist. I love this casting because Zendaya has a cool name and she looks like she could grow up to be a super model. Just give her a single red streak in her hair to shut up the whiners and we're going to go.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
To be fair, the only defining characteristic of Mary Jane for the majority of her time since being introduced in 1965 has been that she was the redhead that Peter likes (Gwen Stacey was always blonde, and Betty Brandt was always a brunette/black-haired person). None of the women in Peter's life really had any more depth than that. It's why there were so many jokes that Emma Stone should have been re-introduced as a redhead named Mary Jane after the Gwen Stacey character finally died in a Spider-man movie (with nobody ever commenting on their similar physical appearance in-movie).
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Batman and Gordon are actively working against the corruption. It would be ridiculous to assume they didn't. There's even a comic that's all about the group of cops that Gordon hand picked. Wasn't a big part of Dark Knight about how they were working with Dent to ferret out corruption? And what do you suggest Batman do, create his own super prison? The fact that all Batman does is turn them in to the authorities is a good thing. Also a Batman that kills has no logical reason to leave the Joker alive so that whole interaction doesn't make much sense. Note the contradiction: a vigilante fighting for the law. The resolution to the cognitive dissonance is to believe that Batman, a wealthy criminal obsessed with a childhood trauma less severe than that carried by the average poor person in Gotham, is above the people he assaults because he stops short of killing them. Yet he'll never succeed in "working against the corruption" because it feels good to terrify thugs and break their limbs, both for Batman and for fans enjoying a certain kind of power fantasy. Batman needs his world to exist, and he'll never solve Gotham's problems because that would end the fun. The only good portrayal of Batman I can think of off the top of my head--good as in he's genuinely a good guy trying to make a difference--is Batman '66, a legally deputized member of the Gotham PD who obsessively follows the letter of the law. The first episode is about Batman receiving a lawsuit after being tricked into falsely arresting the Riddler.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Just name her Makayla Jane to please the fans. Let them think Mary Jane is in the setting somewhere, studying in Vancouver or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
When I saw Civil War in the theater, two preteens sitting behind me were aghast and appalled that a young petite nerdy dude was playing Peter Parker Comic Books bring out the worst in all human life. Who would've thought.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:When I saw Civil War in the theater, two preteens sitting behind me were aghast and appalled that a young petite nerdy dude was playing Peter Parker U got a real optimistic world view if that's the worst in human life
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:54 |
|
|
Kurzon posted:Just name her Makayla Jane to please the fans. Let them think Mary Jane is in the setting somewhere, studying in Vancouver or something. Do the Jimmy Olsen thing and make Mary Jane a codename used by
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 17:03
|
|