Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Nombrecomun

General DC Discussion

2,979 posts in this topic

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.

No one's on a soapbox, StillKirok.

It's just that you seem to be living in the 1950s.

First of all; in regards to the creators of Superman being Jewish? Yes, indeed they are. But 'Jewish' is not a race; its a religious identity. Believe it or not, one can be Jewish and caucasian.

Don't you think that (maybe) Superman was created as caucasian because there were no other examples of heroes of other ethnicities in those days? Do you really think a Punjabi or Samoan Superman would've sold comic books in lily-white America of the late '30s? THAT'S why he was created as white. To sell books. Superman was created in segregationist America. He was made to appear caucasian because that was the cultural bias at that time. Even professional sports teams (!) had no non-white players in those days. That is not the case today.

It's not people giving into political correctness (BTW, the 1990s called; wants its phrase back). It's about waking up to a new, pluralistic reality. The world is changing; particularly the United States.

Lily-white heroes do not reflect the America of today. That non-inclusive vision of America is dead (and I say good-riddance).

Dean Cain looked the part.

So Cain's OK because he could 'pass', right?

Not unlike the dumb Redskins whiners.

I don't think its "whining" to protest a racial epithet that evokes an image of mass genocide. It'd be like having a pro-sports team called "The Yellow Menace."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really think a Punjabi or Samoan Superman would've sold comic books in lily-white America of the late '30s? THAT'S why he was created as white. To sell books.

That Benny's station commander couldn't be black wasn't just some plot contrivance to add dramatic tension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really think a Punjabi or Samoan Superman would've sold comic books in lily-white America of the late '30s? THAT'S why he was created as white. To sell books.

That Benny's station commander couldn't be black wasn't just some plot contrivance to add dramatic tension.

No, it was a hard look at the realities of popular entertainment in those days. One of the reasons that "Far Beyond The Stars" is one of my favorite DS9s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aquaman is not some obscure character that only 50 people know.

He's actually one of the most well known characters DC has. He's been around since 1941, had his own title for decades, even today, was a founding member of Justice League, had his own cartoon in the 1960s, and was featured prominently in pretty much every incarnation of Justice League for over 45 years.

If you know the main DC characters, you know Aquaman.

As for Superman's race, being "lily white" (I'll ignore that racist description), of course selling comics mattered, and the character become iconic. Changing the guy's COSTUME is stupid, let alone his race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aquaman is not some obscure character that only 50 people know.

He's actually one of the most well known characters DC has. He's been around since 1941, had his own title for decades, even today, was a founding member of Justice League, had his own cartoon in the 1960s, and was featured prominently in pretty much every incarnation of Justice League for over 45 years.

If you know the main DC characters, you know Aquaman.

As for Superman's race, being "lily white" (I'll ignore that racist description), of course selling comics mattered, and the character become iconic. Changing the guy's COSTUME is stupid, let alone his race.

Lily-white is adjective; not racist. It describes a political movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily-White_Movement

You have real guts to accuse anyone on this board of racism, StillKirok...

And I'm pretty sure the much-maligned orange and green scaly tights will be the first to go. Aquaman would be laughed right off the screen...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aquaman is not some obscure character that only 50 people know.

No. A lot of people know Aquaman. Like this:

BBThalloween01.gif

He's a punch line, and that's what he's been for a long time. I'm old enough to have played Superfriends on the playground and, let me tell you, no one was Aquaman, and no one wanted to be.

If you know the main DC characters, you know Aquaman.

Since the movie's not really being made for people that have an emotional investment in the characters...

As for Superman's race, being "lily white" (I'll ignore that racist description), of course selling comics mattered, and the character become iconic

Perfect. Thanks for agreeing. Superman's ethnicity was a choice for its time to appeal to an audience. In the 21st century it's absolutely reasonable that another choice could be made to appeal to a changed audience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'm pretty sure the much-maligned orange and green scaly tights will be the first to go. Aquaman would be laughed right off the screen...

No question whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Aquaman had a reputation as having dumb powers, but DC took care of that in the comics. Not one complaint about Aquaman was over his being blond, and a good script can certainly make Aquaman more of the badass he is today. But no matter what the opinions are of Aquaman, he's iconic.

As for the orange shirt, it could easily be toned down, though in reality, his more modern look works too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

, but DC took care of that in the comics

You mean the comics that most ticket buyers won't/don't read? So?

Not one complaint about Aquaman was over his being blond,

And few but you will care if he's not. Like it or not, that's the absolute truth. Just because something has always been one way doesn't mean it can't be another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, all this flack for casting someone who still looks pretty Caucasian to me! Amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, all this flack for casting someone who still looks pretty Caucasian to me! Amazing.

I know, right??

According to Wikipedia, Momoa is half Hawaiian (dad), and his mother is German, Irish and native American. No big deal, you'd think.

Sweet Jeezus, it's not as if they cast the guy who played Urkel ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet Jeezus, it's not as if they cast the guy who played Urkel ....

LMAO!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, all this flack for casting someone who still looks pretty Caucasian to me! Amazing.

I know, right??

According to Wikipedia, Momoa is half Hawaiian (dad), and his mother is German, Irish and native American. No big deal, you'd think.

Sweet Jeezus, it's not as if they cast the guy who played Urkel ....

And just what would be wrong with that? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, all this flack for casting someone who still looks pretty Caucasian to me! Amazing.

I know, right??

According to Wikipedia, Momoa is half Hawaiian (dad), and his mother is German, Irish and native American. No big deal, you'd think.

Sweet Jeezus, it's not as if they cast the guy who played Urkel ....

And just what would be wrong with that? ;)

You know, he'd make an amazing Clark Kent....

tumblr_lagtv6VOFf1qzfpevo1_500.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this phony Aquaman movie trailer and I couldn't resist... :giggle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G255fHPals4#t=61

He is kind of the Barney Fife of the Justice League, isn't he? :laugh:

I think Momoa could only do the character favors by transforming him into a 6'4" scarred, warrior/badass; as opposed to a orange tights-wearing towhead who talks to dolphins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean the comics, that created the characters, defined them, and along with the cartoons, made them iconic. The comics set the guidelines for the writers. They either follow them, and make a good movie, or they decide to "modernize" and they don't.

And at no point did I ever say Momoa was the wrong race. I said he was the wrong choice. He would make a good superhero, but not Aquaman. Submariner? Yes. Aquaman? No.

When they cast the wrong type of actor, they open themselves up to complaints about the casting, and while some believe all publicity is good, that's just not true. Man of Steel had a similar issue by casting a Brit as Superman. STID had a similar issue by casting Cumberbatch as Khan. It's a sign that the people in charge have no concept of the iconic characters they are writing for, and usually these same people produce a bad movie.

And so far, about the only casting decision that looks right is Gadot. Ben Affleck as Batman? That'll go over about as well as George Clooney. Even the TITLE of this movie, Batman VERSUS Superman, is a sign of stupidity.

Again, other than Frank Miller coming up with ridiculous scenarios, the idea that Superman would need more than half a second to dispatch with Batman is a joke. Give Batman a suit of Kryptonite and ten years to prepare, and it wouldn't make a difference.

These people decided that Superman should be dark and brooding. SUPERMAN is NOT brooding.

So yeah, when they cast Momoa as Aquaman, it's just another bad sign from a group that hasn't made a really good DC movie in a very long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And at no point did I ever say Momoa was the wrong race. I said he was the wrong choice.

Really? Seems like half of this thread was about your being upset that he didn't have blonde hair.

Saying he is the 'wrong choice' is even more ridiculous; on what do you base that? Are you privy to his audition tapes? Maybe (just maybe) he gave a stellar audition and got the part because he was right for it...

Man of Steel had a similar issue by casting a Brit as Superman.

Really? If I hadn't IMDBd him before I saw "Man Of Steel", I'd never have guessed that Cavill was British. His American accent was impeccable. Fretting over an actor's birthplace is silly; they're actors. It's (literally) their job to be other people (!). TDK trilogy had a Welsh Batman and no one cared. Lois Lane in the '78 movie was played by Canuck Margot Kidder. Cornfed Iowan Capt. Kirk was first played by a Jewish actor from Montreal (my birth city, in fact). This is only an issue in your head, no one else's.

Even the TITLE of this movie, Batman VERSUS Superman, is a sign of stupidity

It has precedence in DC comics. As much as I'm not keen on the idea of them fighting, I'd say this is one area where they're being faithful to the comics.

Superman-batman-fight-9.jpgSuperman-Versus-Batman-Movie.jpg << Alex Ross even got in on the action...

STID had a similar issue by casting Cumberbatch as Khan.

And yet you've said many times that you liked STID (I didn't, but that's another matter). Is it possible you might actually like this movie, too? I'm not saying this new movie is a guaranteed winner (I'm not even that big a DC fan to be honest; though I loved the DK trilogy) but I'd prefer to give it a chance before I throw it to the wolves over silly things like Aquaman not being blonde, or a Brit playing Superman (Clark Kent, I remind you, is also an foreigner masquerading as 'one of us'; I think the idea of having a non-American pretending to be an American is actually ideal...).

Again, other than Frank Miller coming up with ridiculous scenarios, the idea that Superman would need more than half a second to dispatch with Batman is a joke. Give Batman a suit of Kryptonite and ten years to prepare, and it wouldn't make a difference.

Maybe they start out as enemies (maybe Lex Luthor begins a Superman-xenophobic witch hunt, and Batman gets caught up in it? Who knows...) and become allies. It doesn't mean they'll spend the whole movie duking it out. And Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor almost killed Superman with a single lump of Kryptonite wrapped around his neck (only Ms. Tessmacher saved him from drowning); Batman is far more ingenious....

Again, other than Frank Miller coming up with ridiculous scenarios, the idea that Superman would need more than half a second to dispatch with Batman is a joke.

Frank Miller is, IMO somewhat overrated, although I've read his Dark Knight Returns and I found his take on Batman (as an aged, embittered 'Clint Eastwood' type) to be fascinating. Yes, "Spirit" sucked, but he's also done some incredible work and shouldn't be so easily dismissed. Have you ever READ Miller's The Dark Knight Returns (where Superman & Batman fight)? It made sense...

So yeah, when they cast Momoa as Aquaman, it's just another bad sign from a group that hasn't made a really good DC movie in a very long time.

Really? You thought the Dark Knight trilogy was no good?? I thought it was one of the best (if not THE best) superhero movie series ever made. They made a combined box office haul of over $2.3 billion (!!). Hardly a sign that they haven't 'made a really good DC movie in a long time.' Bear in mind, they make these movies for a general audience; not for rabid comic book fans ONLY. Based upon their successes? I'd say they've done a few things right here and there...

Edit:

Ben Affleck as Batman? That'll go over about as well as George Clooney.

First off; Clooney was saddled with an unworkable, stupid-as-all-hell script. If he were allowed to bring some of his "From Dusk Till Dawn" mojo to the role, and if Joel Shumacher hadn't been allowed anywhere near it? It might've been a great movie; at least Clooney might've been terrific in it. He's a great actor given the right role; loved him in "The Descendants" and "Up In The Air"; two terrific movies... even if they weren't based on comic books or graphic novels.

As for Affleck?

The guy is an Oscar winning screenwriter and producer. He's more than acquitted himself from the fiasco of "Daredevil" by delivering magnificent performances in "Chasing Amy" (his best movie, IMO), "Argo", "Good Will Hunting" (which he cowrote) and even "The Town" (great crime drama, that was). If the only basis of your dismissal of Affleck is because of "Daredevil" then I think you're being terribly shortsighted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean the comics, that created the characters, defined them, and along with the cartoons, made them iconic. The comics set the guidelines for the writers.

Guidelines that are not set in stone. God is not going to smite them or initiate The Rapture because, decades after they were created, new people decide to take them a different way.

They either follow them, and make a good movie, or they decide to "modernize" and they don't.

And that's where the disagreement lies. You seem to be of the belief that following these guidelines is a primary if not the sole element that decides whether or not the film will be good. One needs look no further than Green Lantern to see that that's simply not so. They followed the lore quite well and the film is garbage. The film is garbage because the script is garbage. The direction and editing certainly don't help matters, but that they followed the lore did not guarantee a good movie.

And at no point did I ever say Momoa was the wrong race. I said he was the wrong choice.

Why? Will it be fine if he dyes his hair blonde then? Because then he'll be blonde. If that wouldn't fix the problem you perceive, why wouldn't it?

When they cast the wrong type of actor, they open themselves up to complaints about the casting, and while some believe all publicity is good, that's just not true. Man of Steel had a similar issue by casting a Brit as Superman.

Did they? I remember a few articles that mentioned that Cavill was a Brit. I don't remember any of them implying that that was a problem. Can you link to any? Now, some fansites may have gotten their blankie capes in a twist over it, but that's not the same thing. Also, complaints do not equal disappointing box office, as the $668M it pulled in illustrate.

So let them complain. If the movie is something worth seeing people will come see it.

And so far, about the only casting decision that looks right is Gadot.

if you want to get all caught up in nitpicks like "looking the part," Gadot is absolutely the wrong choice. She lacks any physical heft for the part. Now they will probably have her bulk and tone up a bit which should help the issue, but right now she doesn't have the body for it. WW is not a stick figure. That said, I'm going to wait and see the movie.

Ben Affleck as Batman? That'll go over about as well as George Clooney.

Clooney had nothing whatsoever to do with that film's failure. Again, as with Green Lantern, the writing and the stylistic choices doomed it. Clooney was a perfectly acceptable Batman for what the films were at the time. The script was lame. The script was doomed to be lame in part because it fell into one of the traps that many superhero movies fall into, that of having too many villains. That alone ends up chopping up any narrative flow you might have in the film.

Add to that the completely horrible direction of Schumacher when it comes to the even more cartoonish presentation and the bizarre choice to put one of the best physiques in Hollywood inside a cheap plastic robot suit that looks like an 8 year-old made it when he can just otherwise stand there and look intimidating. Like so.

Arnold-Schwarzenegger-in--007.jpg

Schumacher took a crap script and made it worse. Batman and Robin basically killed his career and rightly so.

Even the TITLE of this movie, Batman VERSUS Superman, is a sign of stupidity.

Why? As Sehlat actually illustrates they've fought before.

Edited by prometheus59650

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it all boils down to this:

Either one is open to change or they aren't.

If you go into the movie closed off to any possibility of enjoying it? You won't. Period.

If you go into the movie fully aware that it IS a movie and not just a plagiarized comic book? You might even like it a bit...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change for the better is ok. Like when they made Aquaman into more of a badass, it worked.

But change because they want to be politically correct, or totally disregard an iconic character's appearance, powers, and the things that made the character iconic, does not work.

It takes a level of arrogance for a writer to step into someone else's universe and make changes that THEY feel is appropriate, and almost always, the changes are stupid.

An example--when asked to write a draft for a Superman movie, JJ Abrams famously wanted to make Lex Luthor into a hidden Kryptonian.-

WTF?

Just THINKING of that makes a writer unqualified to play in the Superman sandbox.

As for the title.

Batman is a hero

Superman is a hero.

Heroes fight villains.

Having a scene or two with conflict is NOT the same thing as an entire movie dedicated to them fighting to the point where they title the movie that way.

And yes, they've fought before, but in a FIRST adventure, they should be allies. They may not like each other's methods entirely, but they work well together. Again, the cartoon did it right and did it well in WORLD'S FINEST (which is what the title of this movie should be).

And again, the nature of Superman's powers absolutely means that Batman wouldn't have a chance.

As for Gadot, by the time that movie comes out, that woman is going to be with personal trainers and put on a lot of muscle. Christopher Reeve did that for Superman. I'm not worried about that at all.

I think if Momoa dies his hair blonde, it would absolutely help. I'd have to see it, though he's still more of a Submariner to me than an Aquaman. His eyes, his look, just screams Namor.

The comics are a lot more than guidelines--they are what made the characters iconic. The best comic book movies stuck with the comics for the most part. It's very rare that changes are for the better. They are usually changes based on some ignorant writers' bad idea.

As for Green Lantern, they followed a lot of the lore, but it was a bad script. And I didn't feel like Reynolds was a good Hal Jordan. The character felt off to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change for the better is ok.

If I slip you some money for S&H, can you send me that copy of the film that you apparently have that shows that it's not changed for the better? That's really the only way you'd know at this point.

But change because they want to be politically correct, or totally disregard an iconic character's appearance, powers, and the things that made the character iconic, does not work.

Look at this:

Legend_of_Isis_cover.jpg

Take this with you back to ancient Egypt. Tell them the stories in this book. Would those people recognize anything but the name? Might they put you to death for re-imagining? How many Egyptians today are annoyed that these things are re-imagined after being so steeped in their civilization, not for decades, but thousands of years. The simple point is that icons change as culture changes. What reaches one generation doesn't reach another.

It takes a level of arrogance for a writer to step into someone else's universe and make changes that THEY feel is appropriate,

Well, when that's what you're hired to do, they can't be faulted for doing it..

An example--when asked to write a draft for a Superman movie, JJ Abrams famously wanted to make Lex Luthor into a hidden Kryptonian.-

WTF?
Just THINKING of that makes a writer unqualified to play in the Superman sandbox.

And why would that end the universe? As with NuTrek, the existence of Benedict CumberKhan hasn't stopped my MontalKhan Blus from working.

And yes, they've fought before, but in a FIRST adventure, they should be allies.

Yet it actually makes more sense to me that they begin as enemies and find common ground.

And again, the nature of Superman's powers absolutely means that Batman wouldn't have a chance.

I got it. It's okay to cherry pick comic canon when the result doesn't suit your perception of the characters.That's fine, but then it's not at all fair to call any change to Aquaman "wrong" while still asserting that "Batman wouldn't have a chance." In the comics he clearly did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change for the better is ok. Like when they made Aquaman into more of a badass, it worked.

For you. But as you're demonstrating here I'm sure there were other fans decrying the loss of his short hair, orange shirt, blah blah blah blah.

But change because they want to be politically correct, or totally disregard an iconic character's appearance, powers, and the things that made the character iconic, does not work.

How is this change anything to do with political correctness? I don't see that. Again, you disprove your own point. Aquaman's appearance changed dramatically from the classic set up to this modern marine warrior with no shirt, beard, long hair, and missing a hand(spoilers?). That's quite damn radical makeover in my book. And you're complaining about hair colour??????? And certainly his personality completely changed. This new version is a radically different Aquaman than what I grew up watching. For the better I might add.

Heroes fight villains.

And yet we see time and time again hero fights hero most recently with the very cool Avengers in which Hulk fights Thor, Thor fights Iron Man, Iron fights War Machine in Iron Man 2, etc..... It's happened all throughout comic book history. Now, I don't like it either. My son is convinced that any time a superhero meets another they must fight(not a good social learning). However, it's pretty much established that this is pretty much norm in the comic book world.

Edited by Nombrecomun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just curious at what point some of you came to the conclusion that a poorly made DC movie is the end of the universe?

It's a stretch that was never made in any comment I have made.

As for magically producing a copy of the movie, one should be smart enough to figure out that when a group of people have consistently made mistakes, and produced bad movies, when you see signs of not learning from those mistakes, the odds are, you're going to see another bad movie.

One definition of insanity is to repeat the same mistake expecting a different outcome.

Avengers was not called Hulk v. Thor.

Those battles were minor parts of the movie that were handled in a short amount of time. And Hulk and Thor were at least somewhat evenly matched.

As for the changes to Aquaman in the comics, you're agreeing with me about a change for the better, since I have commented on that. Good for you.

There were reasons for those changes. There is no reason to cast Momoa over a blond actor who looks the part more. Again, this is Jason Momoa, not Al Pacino. Momoa is a dime a dozen actor.

And if people think that Batman could have a shot against Superman in any capacity, even a comic writer who just happens to be a Batman fan, it's ridiculous.

Superman can move at the speed of light. He could use his heat vision from miles away. He could vaporize Batman before Batman even twitched.

Kryptonite? Tell that to Metallo, who is enhanced, RUNS on Kryptonite, and still can't stop Superman, when Superman holds back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Step away from the comic books...slowly. It will be ok. Trust me. :)

As for the changes to Aquaman in the comics, you're agreeing with me about a change for the better, since I have commented on that. Good for you.

We're both on the same page about Aquaman's more modern appearance as a good thing. No one is disagreeing with you about that. What I don't understand is if you're able to make that leap from clean cut Aquaman of the Golden Age to the heavy metal long hair, bearded angry warrior guy(which is a quite a drastic change in physical appearance as well as personality-wise) then why can't you go that one step in accepting someone with brown hair. I really don't get it. That's what I'm pointing out in your argument. It doesn't make sense. It's such a small thing compared to the previous radical changes that you seem to be ok with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The line must be drawn HEAR?!

No pun intended,

Share this post


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