That's fair, but it's not just that the LIKELIHOOD of him being white or black or whatever is high. It's that their identities and who they fight for/against are wrapped in it. Look, I don't really care much about the "well actually" of it all because there are always exceptions. If Wolverine was originally drawn as a black guy, no one would be referencing what you just did to explain why it didn't seem right. Do that for Black Panther and everyone would rightfully be raising an eyebrow. I mean, does anyone at ALL think about where Wolverine came from when they see Hugh Jackman running around? Is anyone wondering why he doesn't have a Canadian accent? Now imagine Hugh Jackman running around as Black Panther and leading Wakanda. We ALL know why that looks and seems silly.
But, since it's opened, let me peel back the (probably unintentionally) bad faith arguments really being stated in this can of worms by using some other examples.
Hamilton: The initial complaint is couched in "this movie will be bad because 'woke agenda'". Nothing about writing or character motivations or their financial lineage. However, Hamilton is almost universally acknowledged as a fantastic play. It's quite literally a historical retelling of some of the founding of the nation. Were the founding forefathers black and Puerto Rican and Dominican? Was George Washington a black man? Were literally any power brokers at that time Black? Does it make Hamilton any less fantastic because of the fact that the entire cast is? Is the argument that Hamilton isn't good because Thomas Jefferson isn't white and I'm pissed about it a valid one? That's what's being said about a Black Wolverine. A fictional character mind you.
The Danish Girl: Eddie Redmayne played a trans character. If y'all were being ideologically consistent, you'd be upset about this. The "Wolverine should only be played by a white man" argument is the same as "any gay/trans character should be played by a gay/trans" person. However, I'd venture to think that your argument at that time was "actors act" or some variation of that when LGBTQ folks were upset about it. It was about merit and who was talented enough. Not the actual lineage or traits of the character. Further, this was a story that was based on actual people. Shouldn't that carry some weight?
So, you're free to suggest that Black Panther and his identity is just as tied to the color of his skin as Wolverine. I think it's a bit silly, and I'm sure deep down you do too, but whatever. I'd only ask you to maybe do a little introspection and ask yourself why, when minorities take a traditionally white role, you find a way to parse everything to prove why it's wrong or there's an agenda or it will "piss you off", but when a white dude gets a role that a minority (arguably) could/should have, you're freely able to justify it by "it's acting" and you find nothing wrong with it at all.
You don't need to respond to this. I'm honestly not going to read it because I'm not interested in debating this any further. I know that sentence comes off as snarky, but it's absolutely not intended to be. It just serves no purpose and I honestly just get disappointed in seeing people holding these views.
www.polygon.com
www.yahoo.com
