Movies: DC Universe

[Jussi]

Positive discrimination is unfortunately a necessary step for change.

That being said, not sure THIS particular issue is a good example of positive discrimination.

Exactly because this is based on a comic.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

That's fine. Create a different character than an alt. Kal-El/Clark Kent then.

Is your issue really only a name? Because if so I think that only underlines the insignificance of the concern.

Can he work at the Daily Planet? Can he date Lois Lane? Be friends with Jimmy Olsen? Can he grow up on a farm in Kansas? Honestly, this all may be moot. Not sure if the intent would be to have a Black Kal-El and drop him into the same traditional circumstances and see what happens or if it would be to completely the change the circumstances. If it's the latter then that's certainly fuel for your point. But if it's the former it seems silly to only change the name if you're going to keep a lot of the other elements the same.

We'll see what they do. This is what I'm genuinely curious about and why I think it could be an interesting and worthy venture.

 

[Shockmaster]

Positive discrimination is unfortunately a necessary step for change.

That being said, not sure THIS particular issue is a good example of positive discrimination.

If you look up the definition of discrimination, then there's no way one can conclude it can ever be positive.

 

[beowulf]

They changed Nick Fury from White to Black and no one cared.

.

That happened in the comics before the screen, back in 2002. Also Fury is not as big as Superman who is arguably DCs biggest character.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

If you look up the definition of discrimination, then there's no way one can conclude it can ever be positive.

Let's do it then:

the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

That's not positive, indeed. It is not because of the "unjust" and "prejudicial" qualifier.

Now, this one:

recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

This one can be looked at positively. When you understand a difference and what it intails (being Black in America for example), you can take action to modify the situation. That's what positive discrimination aim to do. You artificially give people chances they would not have. You do it because they have the skills, but their are systemic issues preventing them from reaching a goal. You "discriminate" in order to change the system.

Does it work or not? That's a debate we won't have here, but your attempt at discussing semantics failed.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

That happened in the comics before the screen, back in 2002. Also Fury is not as big as Superman who is arguably DCs biggest character.

True. However, why does it matter? Says more about the people being pissed at such a trivial thing than it says about the change itself.

As pointed out earlier, how does it affect the CORE of the character? It does not. So, if it does not, why does it matter?

 

[beowulf]

True. However, why does it matter? Says more about the people being pissed at such a trivial thing than it says about the change itself.

As pointed out earlier, how does it affect the CORE of the character? It does not. So, if it does not, why does it matter?

While for some it is just pure racism, for others it is changing a character they have grown up watching and reading about and suddenly BOOM big change. Just like when they changed Thor to female or when fans went berserk when Marvel suddenly made Captain America a sleeping Hydra agent after all these years. That backfired so hard they had to recon it lol

 

[Scandale du Jour]

While for some it is just pure racism, for others it is changing a character they have grown up watching and reading about and suddenly BOOM big change. Just like when they changed Thor to female or when fans went berserk when Marvel suddenly made Captain America a sleeping Hydra agent after all these years. That backfired so hard they had to recon it lol

Thing is, we do not know if they are changing the character. They are just changing his skin color.

I mean, I was more pissed at Superman killing Zod in Man of Steel than I am at them considering a Black actor for the role. THAT was big change. Melamine levels is not a big change.

To me, it is a very minor deal. I understand people are not seeing it the same way and I am afraid there is a lot of underlying racism. When you take the time to think about it, you realize how small of a change it truly is.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

While for some it is just pure racism, for others it is changing a character they have grown up watching and reading about and suddenly BOOM big change. Just like when they changed Thor to female or when fans went berserk when Marvel suddenly made Captain America a sleeping Hydra agent after all these years. That backfired so hard they had to recon it lol

But these types of changes, eventual retcons or not, are exactly why it always feels a little silly to me when folks get worked up about an issue like this. There isn't an entertainment media as fungible as comics. Stories and characters and circumstances change all the time and sometimes in radical ways. There's constant death and resurrection and different timelines and reboots and relaunches and yada yada yada.

Back to my point a few posts ago ... the classic Superman stories will still be there and I have no doubt there still will be more classic Superman comics and movies. So what if one tries something different? Comics have done shit like that practically since the beginning of the medium.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Thing is, we do not know if they are changing the character. They are just changing his skin color.

I mean, I was more pissed at Superman killing Zod in Man of Steel than I am at them considering a Black actor for the role. THAT was big change. Melamine levels is not a big change.

To me, it is a very minor deal. I understand people are not seeing it the same way and I am afraid there is a lot of underlying racism. When you take the time to think about it, you realize how small of a change it truly is.

You think it's a small change completely changing the race of a long-established, iconic character? I don't see it that way and it doesn't make me a racist.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

You think it's a small change completely changing the race of a long-established, iconic character? I don't see it that way and it doesn't make me a racist.

Considering the character has never been about "race", yeah, it is a rather small change.

They had a Black Jimmy Olsen in Supergirl, must have pissed you off

Btw, I did not say it made you a racist. I said that there was a lot of underlying racism in reactions like yours. If yours is all about being true to the character, I'll gladly believe you.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Thing is, we do not know if they are changing the character. They are just changing his skin color.

Exactly. Wait and see if you have something to complain about... As of now, people are just complaining because the dude ain't the color they like? What if he was blond?

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

The issue that I have is that this isn't what it's meant to be. Racial equality would've been leaving the casting of Superman open to all races and going with the most suitable candidate, regardless of race. It also would've been leaving the director's chair open to all races and going with the most suitable candidate, regardless of race. Instead, Warner Bros. is actually announcing that they're restricting the casting of Superman to only actors of a certain race and the hiring of the director to only directors of a certain race. That's actually racial discrimination, yet we're expected to applaud it. I doubt that many people would be as supportive if their team announced that it would be considering only black players for its 1st round draft pick, instead of selecting the best player available. Like with Byfield becoming the highest-drafted black player ever, if Superman ends up being black, and the director, too, it should be for the right reasons, not because of skin color, IMO.

I understand your point, and when it comes to the director, I agree that it's pretty dumb and only answers to a fad that I don't think is particularly interesting. As for the character, it's pretty usual. If they wrote the character to be Black, they'll hire a Black dude. I think it's business as usual.

 

[ItsAllPartOfThePlan]

This just reeks of hypocrisy. They seem to be doing this to appear woke, but they do nothing with Ray Fisher, who has legitimate complaints.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

This just reeks of hypocrisy. They seem to be doing this to appear woke, but they do nothing with Ray Fisher, who has legitimate complaints.

As open as I am to the idea this is absolutely a fair point given their recent issues. I do wonder how invested they really are in this idea or if this is just an attempt to tamp down some of the criticisms they've faced of late. A bit of the ol' "I can't be racist. I have a Black friend!" bit. Absolutely right to question their motivations.

That said, that doesn't mean the potential product can't be a worthy or interesting movie.

 

[Osprey]

Positive discrimination is unfortunately a necessary step for change.

I disagree. MLK didn't fight for blacks to receive opportunities that whites didn't. He fought for them to receive the same opportunities (not to be confused with results). Eventually, all white people came around to it because it was only fair. Do you imagine that that would've happened if they felt like things were unfair? There's really no such thing as "positive" discrimination because it's always negative to someone else, and that tends to lead to division, not unity.

I don't think that MLK would've been in favor of making Clark Kent black because he would've figured that the benefits wouldn't have been worth the resentment. Instead of taking superheroes away from whites, I think that he would've been in favor of giving blacks their own superheroes.

Perhaps a middle ground would be the character of Calvin Ellis, which I admit that I only just learned about. He's not the Superman that we know as Clark Kent, but, rather, a Superman who has the same outfit and powers. A neat possibility there is that Kent and Ellis could team up from time to time, something that could actually promote racial cooperation.

A Black Superman? It’s happened and could again

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

This just reeks of hypocrisy. They seem to be doing this to appear woke, but they do nothing with Ray Fisher, who has legitimate complaints.

Wow, that was off radar to me, just read an article, thanks for the head's up. I agree that it makes the whole thing a little sour.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

I disagree. MLK didn't fight for blacks to receive opportunities that whites didn't. He fought for them to receive the same opportunities (not to be confused with results). Eventually, all white people came around to it because it was only fair. Do you imagine that that would've happened if they felt like things were unfair? There's really no such thing as "positive" discrimination because it's always negative to someone else, and that tends to lead to division, not unity.

I don't think that MLK would've been in favor of making Clark Kent black because he would've figured that the benefits wouldn't have been worth the resentment. Instead of taking superheroes away from whites, I think that he would've been in favor of giving blacks their own superheroes.

Perhaps a middle ground would be the character of Calvin Ellis, which I admit that I only just learned about. He's not the Superman that we know as Clark Kent, but, rather, a Superman who has the same outfit and powers. A neat possibility there is that Kent and Ellis could team up from time to time, something that could actually promote racial cooperation.

A Black Superman? It’s happened and could again

To guarantee the same opportunities, you have to take steps to make sure these opportunities are really available and given based on merit. That takes some "artificial" push at times hence "positive discrimination". It is, IMO, a necessary evil.

I mean, I agree that MLK would prefer new Black heroes/role model to changing existing ones.

My point about Superman is mostly that it does not bother me because the character has never been about his race.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I disagree. MLK didn't fight for blacks to receive opportunities that whites didn't. He fought for them to receive the same opportunities (not to be confused with results). Eventually, all white people came around to it because it was only fair. Do you imagine that that would've happened if they felt like things were unfair? There's really no such thing as "positive" discrimination because it's always negative to someone else, and that tends to lead to division, not unity.

I don't think that MLK would've been in favor of making Clark Kent black because he would've figured that the benefits wouldn't have been worth the resentment. Instead of taking superheroes away from whites, I think that he would've been in favor of giving blacks their own superheroes.

Perhaps a middle ground would be the character of Calvin Ellis, which I admit that I only just learned about. He's not the Superman that we know as Clark Kent, but, rather, a Superman who has the same outfit and powers. A neat possibility there is that Kent and Ellis could team up from time to time, something that could actually promote racial cooperation.

A Black Superman? It’s happened and could again

I do want to push back on the idea that this is "taking away" a superhero from white people. White Superman still exists and will always exist. Christopher Reeve doesn't suddenly become Black or get erased from history. And I'm pretty sure DC will still make traditional Superman comics.

That said, I'm certainly not opposed to the idea of a Black Superman who is not Kal-El. And that could be what they do here, right?

I wrestled with similar ideas here while watching Falcon and The Winter Soldier. Part of me was like why can't Falcon just be Falcon right? I wasn't opposed to him being Captain American in any way, more the implication that being Falcon wasn't good enough, that he would have to change to be some thing else. Why can't he just be Falcon and get the shield? But the reality (in that story and in our real world) is that Falcon as a character has no inherent meaning. But Captain America certainly does. The creators of that show had something they wanted to say about being Black in America and they needed the history and symbolism of Captain America to do it.

As has been noted, the races of other characters have been changed. But Jimmy Olsen doesn't really have any inherent meaning, nor does Nick Fury.

But you know what superhero has a lot of baked-in history and meaning? Superman.

You don't make this move if you don't have something you want to say. Fair to question DC itself, but I can guarantee you Te-Nehisi Coates has something he wants to say. Perhaps that can be said with a completely new character, but it might not be as effective as taking a character everyone is very familiar with and changing him.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Christopher Reeve doesn't suddenly become Black

Now that would be something I'd want to see.

 

[GKJ]

Folks, let’s just keep in mind to not stray down the road of politics if you’re going to stay with this discussion point.

 

[Voight]

That happened in the comics before the screen, back in 2002. Also Fury is not as big as Superman who is arguably DCs biggest character.

& arguably the most popular/well known superhero in the world. At least top 3 in that regard.

 

[Osprey]

I do want to push back on the idea that this is "taking away" a superhero from white people. White Superman still exists and will always exist. Christopher Reeve doesn't suddenly become Black or get erased from history. And I'm pretty sure DC will still make traditional Superman comics.

That said, I'm certainly not opposed to the idea of a Black Superman who is not Kal-El. And that could be what they do here, right?

I wrestled with similar ideas here while watching Falcon and The Winter Soldier. Part of me was like why can't Falcon just be Falcon right? I wasn't opposed to him being Captain American in any way, more the implication that being Falcon wasn't good enough, that he would have to change to be some thing else. Why can't he just be Falcon and get the shield? But the reality (in that story and in our real world) is that Falcon as a character has no inherent meaning. But Captain America certainly does. The creators of that show had something they wanted to say about being Black in America and they needed the history and symbolism of Captain America to do it.

As has been noted, the races of other characters have been changed. But Jimmy Olsen doesn't really have any inherent meaning, nor does Nick Fury.

But you know what superhero has a lot of baked-in history and meaning? Superman.

You don't make this move if you don't have something you want to say. Fair to question DC itself, but I can guarantee you Te-Nehisi Coates has something he wants to say. Perhaps that can be said with a completely new character, but it might not be as effective as taking a character everyone is very familiar with and changing him.

In your first sentence, you said that no one is taking Superman away from anyone, but, in your last, you acknowledged that they might be taking a character that everyone is very familiar with and changing him. That's basically the same thing.

Suggesting that people will still always have Christopher Reeve's version of Superman isn't a good argument, IMO. If Black Panther's ethnicity were suddenly changed, would it be OK because blacks would still always have Chadwick Boseman's version? No, that would still feel like something is being taken away from them. It's similar with Superman. Just as Black Panther is a lot of black people's first real superhero that looked like them, so, too is Superman to a lot of people. You even acknowledge that he has a lot of baked-in history and meaning. He's most males' first superhero, the one that they pretended to be when they were really little. He means something to a lot of people. You shouldn't just radically change his appearance because you have an agenda (or "something to say") and expect people who don't feel as if it's the Superman that they've always known to simply be happy with re-runs of the old movies. He's been represented a certain way for 80 years. That's just who the character is.

You wouldn't re-cast Luke Skywalker as black just because nothing about him specifically says that he can't be. You'd cast someone who sort of looks like Mark Hamill, since a somewhat wimpy-looking, light-brown-haired white boy is what everyone knows the character to be.

BTW, you lost me on the middle part because I don't know anything about the winter falcon or furry nick.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

In your first sentence, you said that no one is taking Superman away from anyone, but, in your last, you acknowledged that they might be taking a character that everyone is very familiar with and changing him. That's basically the same thing.

Suggesting that people will still always have Christopher Reeve's version of Superman isn't a good argument, IMO. If Black Panther's ethnicity were suddenly changed, would it be OK because blacks would still always have Chadwick Boseman's version? No, that would still feel like something is being taken away from them. It's similar with Superman. Just as Black Panther is a lot of black people's first real superhero that looked like them, so, too is Superman to a lot of people. You even acknowledge that he has a lot of baked-in history and meaning. He's most males' first superhero, the one that they pretended to be when they were really little. He means something to a lot of people. You shouldn't just radically change his appearance because you have an agenda (or "something to say") and expect people who don't feel as if it's the Superman that they've always known to simply be happy with re-runs of the old movies. He's been represented a certain way for 80 years. That's just who the character is.

You wouldn't re-cast Luke Skywalker as black just because nothing about him specifically says that he can't be. You'd cast someone who sort of looks like Mark Hamill, since a somewhat wimpy-looking, light-brown-haired white boy is what everyone knows the character to be.

BTW, you lost me on the middle part because I don't know anything about the winter falcon or furry nick.

You keep viewing this as a zero-sum game when it isn't.

Say we're kids again and you have a Superman toy and I have a Superman toy. When you want to play with your Superman you want him to protect Metropolis from Lex Luthor and you stick to all the rules you know in the comics. When I play with my Superman, I decide he's actually best friends with Lex Luthor and they solve crimes together while they fly around space in the Millennium Falcon.

I haven't changed your Superman at all. Your Superman still exists. I'm just choosing to do something different with mine. You don't want to play with me, fine! But I haven't actually impacted your ability to play with your Superman as you see fit. Enjoy it!

I'd watch a show called Winter Falcon and Furry Nick.

 

[xtra]

I do wonder the reasoning behind changing kal-el as opposed to going with one of the actual black supermans they do have.

it seems that DC is actually just getting desperate to be part of the conversations that Marvel tapped into with Black panther.

In my mind if they wanted to be part of the conversation they should go with jon Stewart; or a real cyborg film but this seems more pandering than anything.

that said depending on the trailer like all DC movies I’ll decide if I want to see it. DC doesn’t get blind trust for their movies after how badly they screwed up the last few.