Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Nombrecomun

General DC Discussion

2,979 posts in this topic

And of all the states in the US, which one better screams 'Aquaman' than Hawaii?

LOVE IT!!!!

Btw, I need clarification: what's "towhead"? I'm assuming something to do with blonde but I don't know this word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And of all the states in the US, which one better screams 'Aquaman' than Hawaii?

LOVE IT!!!!

Btw, I need clarification: what's "towhead"? I'm assuming something to do with blonde but I don't know this word.

Very, very, very blonde.

5104147450_c8271aa06f_z.jpg

For example? This kid.... ^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sehlat Vie - what version of Green Lantern do you want Nathan Fillion to play?

Um.... Hal Jordan, I suppose (?). I read that, before Ryan Reynolds was cast, Fillion was up for it. He would've hit it out of the ballpark, IMO.

But back to the relevant question, I'm sorry but I'm afraid I'm not much of a GL fan. More of a Marvel guy myself. :P

I think considering the lack of diversity in the comic book world - they will opt for John Stewart incarnation of Green Lantern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sehlat Vie - what version of Green Lantern do you want Nathan Fillion to play?

Um.... Hal Jordan, I suppose (?). I read that, before Ryan Reynolds was cast, Fillion was up for it. He would've hit it out of the ballpark, IMO.

But back to the relevant question, I'm sorry but I'm afraid I'm not much of a GL fan. More of a Marvel guy myself. :P

I think considering the lack of diversity in the comic book world - they will opt for John Stewart incarnation of Green Lantern.

868.gif

Wrong 'Jon Stewart' I take it? :giggle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL!!!

But yeah, from that diversity perspective Having John Stewart would be good. Even better if they have him as an 'older' guy and not a young re-imagining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL!!!

But yeah, from that diversity perspective Having John Stewart would be good. Even better if they have him as an 'older' guy and not a young re-imagining.

At least we'd have a Green Lantern who was intentionally funny and could entertain an audience; not the sad, unwatchable mess that was the 2011 movie...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That movie was its own Rifftrax parody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aquaman is not a minor footnote in DC canon. He's one of the main JLA members, and is well known to generations. He's not Superman/Batman, but he's not exactly Booster Gold either.

Nick Fury was not as iconic as Aquaman, and don't get me started on Hollywood's PC garbage. I hate when they change characters around just so they can smugly pat themselves on the back about how enlightened they are and then call those that don't agree with the dumb decision racist. You want a diversity character? Create one. See Stewart, John. Or Static Shock. Or Cyborg. They exist and are pretty damn good.

Nick Fury, as far as I know, only made it out of the comic book in a direct to video movie starring Hasselhoff and a few sporadic cameos in cartoons. He was a minor character until Samuel L. Jackson made him more relevant.

To say that no one except comic fans know anything about Aquaman is absolutely ridiculous. There are generations of kids that grew up watching Superfriends and Justice League, not to mention earlier generations reading his own title that lasted decades. Aquaman is a big deal.

That's like when people try to argue that the general public doesn't know that Shatner and Nimoy played Kirk and Spock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To say that no one except comic fans know anything about Aquaman is absolutely ridiculous. There are generations of kids that grew up watching Superfriends and Justice League, not to mention earlier generations reading his own title that lasted decades. Aquaman is a big deal.

To you. You aren't the masses that DC wants in the seats. And even on Superfriends Aquaman was not a big deal. He was Ensign Ricky to Superman's Kirk and Batman's Spock.

Nick Fury was not as iconic as Aquaman, and don't get me started on Hollywood's PC garbage. I hate when they change characters around just so they can smugly pat themselves on the back about how enlightened they are and then call those that don't agree with the dumb decision racist.

They no doubt changed the character to fit the actor and caliber of actor they could get. And Nick Fury is all the better for it. Probably nothing PC in it.

Edited by prometheus59650

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick Fury was not as iconic as Aquaman, and don't get me started on Hollywood's PC garbage. I hate when they change characters around just so they can smugly pat themselves on the back about how enlightened they are and then call those that don't agree with the dumb decision racist. You want a diversity character? Create one. See Stewart, John. Or Static Shock. Or Cyborg. They exist and are pretty damn good.

Nick Fury, as far as I know, only made it out of the comic book in a direct to video movie starring Hasselhoff and a few sporadic cameos in cartoons. He was a minor character until Samuel L. Jackson made him more relevant.

Thanks for making my point so perfectly; "Nick Fury was not iconic... UNTIL SAMUEL L JACKSON made him more relevant."

My original point was that the actor brings something NEW to the role that makes the character more accessible and more relevant to the moviegoing audience (who are far more multitudinous that the handfuls of fanboys who read the Aquaman comics.... I don't know a single person in my circle of geeky friends who reads Aquaman, and I know a lot of comic fans). Sam Jackson wasn't hired because of any kind of movie 'quota' system; he was hired because he puts butts in movie theatre seats. Plain and simple. And guess what? It worked.

I'd bet you that most people don't even know (or give a s#!t) who Nick Fury, Aquaman or The Justice League are, and for good reason; they're niche. This is why I keep trying to illustrate the point that movies are a different animal than comic books; they have to appeal to MILLIONS worldwide; not just a couple thousand (if that many) fanboys who slavishly read the comic books every month...

The decision to hire Sam Jackson was not a political one; it was an economic one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and don't get me started on Hollywood's PC garbage. I hate when they change characters around just so they can smugly pat themselves on the back about how enlightened they are and then call those that don't agree with the dumb decision racist. You want a diversity character? Create one.

As for the perceived 'injustice' made to previously white characters recast for differing ethnicities?

This too, is an economic decision and not a political one.

I don't know if you've looked all around America lately, but the faces I've seen coast-to-coast aren't particularly monochromatic.

And these people would like to see some of their faces up on that screen once in a while, too. Ultimately, it's good for box office not political correctness. Politics doesn't fill movie seats; shrewd business/creative decisions DO. Most of these 'iconic' comic book characters were created in a time of pre-segregation. You can't do a modern adaptation of these characters without acknowledging that we live in a rapidly diversifying 21st century, and not pre-1963 Alabama. If we stuck to 'traditional' casting only for these pre-1970 comic book characters, you'd see just wave after wave of white people on screen. That does NOT reflect this world we're in now, and modern audiences would be disenfranchised (modern audiences are whom these movies are MADE for, by the way). And besides; what is so 'wrong' about making a white character black? Or a blond haired character Polynesian? And 'creating a new character' is fine on paper, but it wouldn't carry the same clout as a previously established one, and in Hollywood's current risk averse environment, no one would gamble a multi-million $$ budget on an untested franchise property with no history whatsoever.

But as for adding a bit of ethnic diversity to the big screen? How is that in ANY WAY offensive to anyone? Who gets 'hurt' here? The character is what counts. If the actor does his or her job well (and Sam Jackson certainly did a hell of a more memorable job than David Hasselhoff!)? It's a win-win for everyone.

And look at how the long-ignored demographic of teenaged girls is finally booming; the Twilight Series (as bad as it is), the new movie "Fault in our Stars", etc. These movies are making money hand-over-fist. Ten years ago, there were NO movies for this niche market and now Hollywood can't make movies for teenaged girls fast enough. The decision to start making more teenaged girl-themed movies wasn't a political one, it was purely economic; based on the insane box office generated by Twilight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd bet you that most people don't even know (or give a s#!t) who Nick Fury, Aquaman or The Justice League are, and for good reason; they're niche. This is why I keep trying to illustrate the point that movies are a different animal than comic books; they have to appeal to MILLIONS worldwide; not just a couple thousand (if that many) fanboys who slavishly read the comic books every month...

Utterly this.

I don't know if you've looked all around America lately, but the faces I've seen coast-to-coast aren't particularly monochromatic.

In just a few decades, white faces will be a minority. A significant one, but one nevertheless. That Hollywood is beginning to reflect that truth is not a shock.

And besides; what is so 'wrong' about making a white character black? Or a blond haired character Polynesian?

Because, apparently, how the character first appeared is the only thing it can ever be.

Edited by prometheus59650

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because,, apparently, how the character first appeared is the only thing it can ever be.

Lynda Carter is half-Mexican, and I never heard a SINGLE complaint... certainly not from me. Orale!

2402757-wonder_woman___lynda_carter_uppelennysquiggy.jpg

So what is Nick Fury if now black (and cool)? Or if Aquaman hails from Hawaii (a logical state for a water-based hero to hail from, I might add...).

Casting actors who better reflect the more diverse world we live in makes sense, both economically and logically. Movies aren't made just for the Osmond family, you know....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because,, apparently, how the character first appeared is the only thing it can ever be.

Lynda Carter is half-Mexican, and I never heard a SINGLE complaint... certainly not from me. Orale!

2402757-wonder_woman___lynda_carter_uppelennysquiggy.jpg

Because OMFG look at her. Perfect body. Perfect face. She just...had it going on and she's still gorgeous.

Casting actors who better reflect the more diverse world we live in makes sense, both economically and logically. Movies aren't made just for the Osmond family, you know....

For sure. Why not appeal to a broader base if you can do so without fundamentally altering the character? (White and blonde is not a fundamental characteristic)

Momoa will do just fine. He won't blow anyone's socks off acting wise. I mean, I see no Oscars in his future, but he's a decent actor with a commanding screen presence and that's kind of what you want for a master of teh world's sea creatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because,, apparently, how the character first appeared is the only thing it can ever be.

Lynda Carter is half-Mexican, and I never heard a SINGLE complaint... certainly not from me. Orale!

2402757-wonder_woman___lynda_carter_uppelennysquiggy.jpg

Because OMFG look at her. Perfect body. Perfect face. She just...had it going on and she's still gorgeous.

Casting actors who better reflect the more diverse world we live in makes sense, both economically and logically. Movies aren't made just for the Osmond family, you know....

For sure. Why not appeal to a broader base if you can do so without fundamentally altering the character? (White and blonde is not a fundamental characteristic)

Momoa will do just fine. He won't blow anyone's socks off acting wise. I mean, I see no Oscars in his future, but he's a decent actor with a commanding screen presence and that's kind of what you want for a master of teh world's sea creatures.

The same argument could be made for Arnold Schwarzenegger and his Terminator movies; sure, there were no Oscar statues to show for his performances in those movies, but his presence was also undeniably a huge part of those movies' appeal. And the fact that he spoke such clumsy English made him more 'believable' as a robot, IMO. Like a robot that learned English from a malfunctioning Speak 'N Spell.

As for Momoa? I'd say presence and charisma are 3/4 of the way home for creating a superhero character onscreen. The last quarter will be whatever else he brings to the table as a performer, and that is (as yet) untested.

PS: And yes, Lynda Carter was truly a divine gift when I was a (hormonal) kid... :P:laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no comic book expert but I understood that the Nick Fury character was changed to a Samuel Jackson look alike in the comics as some reboot prior to the movies. Casting him in the movies just made damn sense since he was already established as the modern version. Plus, he really attracts an audience.

UltimateNickFury.jpg

Most of these 'iconic' comic book characters were created in a time of pre-segregation. You can't do a modern adaptation of these characters without acknowledging that we live in a rapidly diversifying 21st century, and not pre-1963 Alabama. If we stuck to 'traditional' casting only for these pre-1970 comic book characters, you'd see just wave after wave of white people on screen. That does NOT reflect this world we're in now, and modern audiences would be disenfranchised (modern audiences are whom these movies are MADE for, by the way).

A-fuckin'-men!!! Bingo. Yahtzee. Jackpot, etc...Absolutely right.

One more point I'd like to add to this race thing. For many decades it was "ok" for white actors to put on some face paint and pretend to be some minority. Speak in some 'funny' manner to sound ethnic or foreign. Total crap. We know it's ridiculous now but the reason it happened is because we lived in a segregated America. When minorities were introduced it was to play the criminal, the druggie, the hooker, you name it. All the "good people" parts were taken up by whites. You can still see a version of this with the 90's show COPS. As others have pointed out a lot of the major superhero characters have already been established. People would react harshly if Superman was portrayed by a Korean. I understand that. So, ok, go for minor characters that few have heard of. I'm fine with that. Especially when you can get someone as good as Sam Jackson. It's a no-brainer.

I actually think we're not open enough as we should be. It seems like every minority part is African American. That's not diverse enough for me considering the amount of variety we have here. People are gonna really have a cow when we see Latinos playing major parts.

Lynda Carter is half-Mexican, and I never heard a SINGLE complaint... certainly not from me. Orale!

2402757-wonder_woman___lynda_carter_uppe

Her being half-Mexican is the FURTHEST thing on my mind!!! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't take "Aquaman is a big deal" seriously. He's been a punch line for decades. Popular cartoons or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't take "Aquaman is a big deal" seriously. He's been a punch line for decades. Popular cartoons or not.

It's really is just that simple.

Edited by prometheus59650

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People would react harshly if Superman was portrayed by a Korean.

For me, it depends on the actor. If he were a very brawny, physically-abled actor who had oodles of charisma? I really think don't it wouldn't matter too much (not to me, anyway).

Besides; Kal-El is an extraterrestrial. Who says people from the planet Krypton should all look caucasian??

And again, Superman was played by an Asian-American actor already (half-Japanese Dean Cain; born Dean Tanaka) back in the 1990s. I thought he looked just fine in the part.

I actually think we're not open enough as we should be. It seems like every minority part is African American. That's not diverse enough for me considering the amount of variety we have here. People are gonna really have a cow when we see Latinos playing major parts.

I very much agree.

I would love to see more Asian actors represented.

It stil kills me that one of the best roles for an Indian actor (Khan Noonian Singh; a magnificent, Napoleonic character with oodles of style and charm) has NEVER been played by an Indian actor (and don't tell me there is a shortage of Indian actors; there is the entire Bollywood community, for chrissakes! India is overflowing with talented actors).

A good friend of mine was once a unit production manager on a small, Indian-American indie movie co-production and there was no shortage of Indian talent to draw from (she took some pride in that, as she is Indian-American).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Samuel L. Jackson didn't make Fury more iconic. Marvel did, by making him more prominent in their mainstream movies.

Aquaman is already iconic.

Of course, Jason Momoa is no Samuel L. Jackson.

As for Superman, no one is saying that all people from Krypton should look Caucasian. But Superman IS Caucasian. The creators created him that way. That holds true for lots of comic book characters.

Deal with it.

If a heroic character of color is wanted, the writers should create one. Race changes are done solely for PC reasons, as the idea that no Caucasian actor is available is completely absurd. It's all about smug writers trying to get attention for the wrong reasons, and then of course their idea of writing is "blow up a building."

There's a reason DC movies tend to suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Samuel L. Jackson didn't make Fury more iconic.

So the actor had NOTHING to do with it, right?

I'm sorry, but that statement is just so much bubkes. No one in the movie-going public even gave a solid stool specimen for Nick Fury outside of comic book circles until Sam Jackson was cast.

I'd be willing to bet that most people outside of comic geeks thought that the character was created for Sam Jackson...

As for Superman, no one is saying that all people from Krypton should look Caucasian. But Superman IS Caucasian.

He's an EXTRATERRESTRIAL from ANOTHER galaxy! Please tell me you're kidding with this stuff.

The character was created at a time when black Americans in the south were drinking from separate fountains and using separate restrooms. Of COURSE he was going to be made to look white, for chrissakes.

That is not what the character has to be in the 21st century. We (thankfully) no longer live with such a narrow, culturally-enforced view of what defines being an American.

And re: Superman.

What about Dean Cain being half-Japanese? The show ran for four seasons. On a major TV network (not cable). Not bad for a superhero show (which tend to last about as long as a gallon of milk in my fridge).

Deal with it.

Funny, I was going to say the exact same words to you about Jason Momoa playing Aquaman.... :giggle:

Race changes are done solely for PC reasons,

That's just bulls#!t.

Did you EVER think that perhaps it is done to reflect the increasing cultural diversity in the United States??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be willing to bet that most people outside of comic geeks thought that the character was created for Sam Jackson...

Everyone I know did, save for two comic book junkies, neither of whom objected to Jackson.

What about Dean Cain being half-Japanese? The show ran for four seasons. On a major TV network (not cable).

Because he can pass?

That's just bulls#!t.

Did you EVER think that perhaps it is done to reflect the increasing cultural diversity in the United States??

I may well see an an interpretation obviously non-white Superman in my lifetime. It would almost be worth it solely for the freakout of the Kirok's of the world. Literalist interpretations like that are just going to fall by the wayside as more and more faces stop looking one way. Others are going to want to see versions of these heroes that look like them.

Edited by prometheus59650

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying the actor had nothing to do with it, but had his role been minor, Fury would not be anything special still.

Had Samuel L. Jackson been cast as say, Joe Schmoe, agent of Shield, it would be no different. Nick Fury really wasn't an iconic character, so it makes changing things around easier.

Superman is an extra terrestrial, who happens to physically be a Caucasian male. Superman was created by a couple of Jewish guys. And yes, he's white. There is nothing racist about making him white. The only reason to change his race is to say, "look at how enlightened we are! We are changing his race!"

It's just another case of PC dummies going too far.

Not unlike the dumb Redskins whiners.

Dean Cain looked the part.

Bruce Lee would not.

As for Momoa, again, it's dumb political correctness at best. Aquaman is an iconic character, and he's a blond.

The fact that writers care more about something this idiotic is a sign that they will make a bad movie, like they did with Man of Steel and Superman Returns.

And again, there is nothing wrong with cultural diversity, but if someone wants a character of color, create one. But changing a character's race is the smug, "look at how enlightened I am," attitude where they can pat themselves on the back and get outraged when people object. Kind of like what's happening in this thread.

Get off your soapboxes.

Edited by StillKirok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Momoa, again, it's dumb political correctness at best. Aquaman is an iconic character,

To, like, 50 people. For 9.9999999999999999999987631% of the people that will buy tickets...they simply don't care.

The fact that writers care more about something this idiotic is a sign that they will make a bad movie,

That they care about putting butts in the seats? Well, then Hollywood should just stop making movies then.

Kind of like what's happening in this thread.

Get off your soapboxes.

Right back at you.This literalist interpretation is the other side of the coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0