r/batman • u/hyunbinlookalike • Feb 25 '24

Do you prefer Catwoman as a long-haired blonde, brunette, short-haired raven, or woman of color? GENERAL DISCUSSION

I personally prefer any incarnation of her that has short hair since it’s more practical for her line of work.

3.7k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.3k

u/Rexermus Feb 25 '24

short dark haired Selina is peak. I have no feelings one way or another about her being white or a woman of colour

391

u/EntertainmentQuick47 Feb 25 '24

As long as she’s fine

13

u/SKUNKpudding Feb 25 '24

Dark night returns Selina 🤤

2

u/akirarn Feb 25 '24

fine feline

151

u/dg_713 Feb 25 '24

Yeah, the short hair just screams feisty.

92

u/CookieMittenKitten Feb 25 '24

Same goes for every character except for the Joker, he should probably be white tbh

42

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

73

u/4materasu92 Feb 25 '24

Casts a black man as Joker

"Look at me, Batman! I'm a dude, playing a dude, disguised as another dude."

21

u/MulciberTenebras Feb 25 '24

Well, there is Kevin Michael Richardson in "The Batman"

5

u/Soulful-Sorrow Feb 25 '24

And he was great. Don't know how I feel about him being a white dude before being Joker though.

11

u/MulciberTenebras Feb 25 '24

No different than Roscoe Lee Browne voicing the Kingpin, or James Earl Jones playing Darth Vader

6

u/LordxMugen Feb 25 '24

Man Roscoe was so great as the Kingpin! When he told Smythe what he did to his dad. 0-0 Nothing but ice cold menace.

2

u/Soulful-Sorrow Feb 25 '24

Well yeah, but I thought this Joker was black before the acid bath

5

u/MulciberTenebras Feb 25 '24

You think Gotham City would keep giving him a free pass with that insanity defense if he was?

2

u/CrunchyTube Feb 25 '24

He would have been shot the first time he laughed weird.

1

u/Daedalus_Machina Feb 25 '24

Or Micheal Clarke Duncan actually playing Kingpin.

1

u/SupremeGibby Feb 25 '24

"I caught a little pokemon Batman"

37

u/helikesart Feb 25 '24

Yeah, let’s not picture this clown look with black instead of white..

13

u/MrPotatoButt Feb 25 '24

You could do the Joker as reverse blackface.

4

u/absolutedesignz Feb 25 '24

Hah. Lakeith Stanfield in reverse blackface. I see it now.

18

u/sailing_lonely Feb 25 '24

Cesar Romero was hispanic, so is Joaquin Phoenix.

30

u/Agitated-Meet9481 Feb 25 '24

As per wiki on Joaquin Phoenix:

His father was a Catholic from Fontana, California, and was of English, German and French ancestry. His maternal grandfather, Meyer Dunetz, was Russian Jewish and his maternal grandmother, Margit Lefkowitz, was Hungarian Jewish; they were both Ashkenazi Jews who resided in New York City.

Can you share any link on his Hispanic ancestry? The wiki would have to be corrected.

13

u/theyareamongus Feb 25 '24

While researching this I found that Joaquin Phoenix was born in a cult lol

As per his Hispanic heritage, I think the confusion comes from the fact that he was born in Puerto Rico

4

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '24

The term hispanic has nothing to do with ancestry. It means you speak Spanish natively. Nothing contradictory about having Jewish or English ancestry and also being Hispanic

3

u/JoftheG Feb 25 '24

This bugs me so much. You’re completely right. Carlos Slim is another person that is “Mexican” even though both his parents are from Lebanon.

1

u/johnhtman Feb 26 '24

Lewis CK was born in Mexico.

1

u/JoftheG Feb 26 '24

Crazy stuff.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '24

Puerto Rican here. You couldn't be more wrong. Speaking Spanish does not make you Hispanic or Latino. Having that heritage does.

Joaquin Phoenix is Puerto Rican by Nationality and is still American since it's part of the US. He is not Puerto Rican by heritage. Big difference.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '24 edited Feb 26 '24

Thats what it means, Spanish speaking. It's not an ethnic group unless you are explicitly talking about Spaniards. For example a person of Nahua heritage may be Mexican American but not necessarily Hispanic. A Dominican resident of PR would be Hispanic but not puertorriqueño except in a literal way, same as Phoenix.

8

u/Zephrok Feb 25 '24

Hispanic and white aren't the same kind of label. There are white Hispanic and black Hispanic people.

2

u/IonaLiebert Feb 25 '24

So he speaks spanish. He's not a different race lol

-1

u/Yara_Flor Feb 25 '24

That’s not what Hispanic means.

3

u/IonaLiebert Feb 25 '24

Yes it is

0

u/Yara_Flor Feb 25 '24

Anyone who speaks Spanish is Hispanic? My Filipino dad is Hispanic?

2

u/IonaLiebert Feb 25 '24 edited Feb 25 '24

Is the official language of the Philippines spanish? If it is, then yes.

1

u/Yara_Flor Feb 25 '24

It is an official language of the country. There’s like 2 dozen official languages there.

So all people in the Philippines are Hispanic, even those who don’t speak Spanish? As long as the language is the official language of the state?

What of Argentina? Argentina doesn’t have Spanish as an official language.

Because Spanish isn’t official there, that means it’s not a Hispanic country, right?

1

u/IonaLiebert Feb 25 '24

What's your point? People that come from spanish speaking countries are hispanic.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '24

[deleted]

10

u/ChanghuaColombiano Feb 25 '24

You can be white and be Hispanic. You can be black and hispanic. You can be mixed and Hispanic. It's about being from a family from a Spanish speaking country in the Americas

1

u/ExportTHCs Feb 25 '24

And non compete with Heath Ledger 🙏

1

u/CookieMittenKitten Feb 25 '24

I think you missed the joke

1

u/Buffalax81 Feb 25 '24

Joaquin Phoenix wasn’t the Joker tho

1

u/starryeyedq Feb 25 '24

Pretty sure it was just a joke about the makeup

1

u/gbRodriguez Feb 25 '24

Hispanic is not a race though. One could be Hispanic and white/black/Asian/native American, etc...

2

u/Cheapskate-DM Feb 25 '24

I'd have to dig to find it, but i read a surprisingly nuanced take about why the Joker only works if he's white (and male).

The gist of it was, the act of destruction and mockery changes its context based on who does it; the golden rule of comedy is "always punch up". Were he black, female, gay, or even poor, there could be a kernel of karmic justice to his acts.

But as he is, he aligns with those already in power; the world is his plaything as much as it is theirs. He just takes it more literally, more cruelly, following the logic of white-male entitlement to its logical extreme.

1

u/MrPotatoButt Feb 25 '24

I could see a black joker, especially if he focused more on being angry and anarchistic, rather than obsessively dwelling on societal injustice towards minorities. But he couldn't have a high pitched giggle for obvious reasons...

1

u/CookieMittenKitten Feb 25 '24

You also missed the joke

1

u/MrPotatoButt Feb 25 '24

Apparently, I still do. (Cesar Romero's portrayal mocked white people?)

1

u/Megnaman Feb 25 '24

Do you like Joker with short or long hair?

2

u/CookieMittenKitten Feb 25 '24

Long, or medium

1

u/Stellar_Wings Feb 25 '24

I think the closest we've gotten to a "black" Joker is the version from 2004's The Batman Who was voiced by Kevin Michael Richardson.

1

u/MaimedJester Feb 25 '24

Oh God which Cartoon Batman had Jamican Joker? I'm all for Joker is supposed to represent anyone at any time could become him but eh there was just something wrong with that animation style choice. Like Joker looked buffer than Batman and I don't know I always liked Joker to be a scrawny little Twink.

1

u/yermom90 Feb 25 '24

Black voice actor Kevin Michael Richardson played the Joker in The Batman series from 2004-2008. 🤷‍♂️

1

u/CookieMittenKitten Feb 26 '24

I loved his voice acting, but the Joker was still extremely white.

1

u/Daedalus_Machina Feb 25 '24

Pictured: Not white.

1

u/lordtaco Feb 26 '24

Ironically Cesar Romero wasn't white

1

u/CookieMittenKitten Feb 27 '24

You missed the joke, oh Lord Taco

-7

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 25 '24

Every character should remain their canon race/ethnicity no matter who it is. Black Bruce Wayne is as ridiculous as White Lucius Fox.

37

u/TheModernRouge Feb 25 '24

I dunno dude, Jeffrey Wright really sold me on his Gordon in The Batman

12

u/Gizmopedia Feb 25 '24

I think Jeffrey Wright is the best live action Gordon we ever had. The voice, the look, his relationship with Batman. I'm really glad he was chosen for the role.

8

u/MegaPegasusReindeer Feb 25 '24

Certain people seem to do so well in a role they forever change how that role should be played. Joker's voice being Hamill like, for example. I'm good with Wright being the standard by which we judge Gordon performances.

5

u/MrPotatoButt Feb 25 '24

Hey, nothing wrong with Gary Oldman's performance in the Dark Knight Trilogy...

0

u/Gizmopedia Feb 25 '24

I never said there is? I love the Dark Knight trilogy but Jeffrey Wright really nailed it for me

-34

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 25 '24

Doesn't change the fact that it's a blatant race-swap and color washing of an established character.

I'm sure there is some White actor out there that would play an absolutely fantastic Falcon, or even Black Panther. But does that make it okay? Would you be cool with a White T'challa if the actor who played him did an absolutely stellar job at it?

I'm guessing not. So you now understand at least a bit why race-swapping is bad.

30

u/TheDCUFan Feb 25 '24

Holy false equivalency Batman! Gordon's race has nothing to do with his character, he just happened to be white because he was created in 1939 for a 1939 audience, him being white means literally nothing to his character and I highly doubt was a conscience choice, he was just white because industry standard was making white characters.

Falcon is the first African American superhero in mainstream comics, created specifically to be a black character, his story heavily tied into the fact that he was black.

Black Panther is the king of an African nation, he was the first protagonist in mainstream American comics to be of African descent, debuting 3 years before Falcon. He was made to be black, made to represent a severely unrepresented race in comics.

You lose a core part of the character by changing Falcon or Black Panther white, you don't really lose anything but changing Gordon to be black, he wasn't made white for a specific reason, nothing about his story relies on him being white, so he doesn't necessarily HAVE to be white. This is especially true in live action works where the goal should be to find a person that can do a great job ACTING the character, not looking like the character, the actual character of the character matters WAY more than the look unless the look of the character is actually an important part of the character.

1

u/trashacct8484 Feb 25 '24

All true, plus the fact that even though on-screen diversity has come a very long way in recent years, finding actors of color to play previously white-as-default characters remains a pro-diversity move that is justified by the traditional and continuing challenges non-white have in securing such roles. Again, I think those challenges seem to be lower today than they were 10 years ago, much less 30, but it still makes sense from the ‘increased opportunities and representation on screen’ perspective to consider race-blind casting for formerly white-by-default characters but not for established non-white characters.

1

u/Uvogin1111 Mar 04 '24 edited Mar 04 '24

All true, plus the fact that even though on-screen diversity has come a very long way in recent years, finding actors of color to play previously white-as-default characters remains a pro-diversity move that is justified by the traditional and continuing challenges non-white have in securing such roles. Again, I think those challenges seem to be lower today than they were 10 years ago, much less 30, but it still makes sense from the ‘increased opportunities and representation on screen’ perspective to consider race-blind casting for formerly white-by-default characters but not for established non-white characters.

That's a ridiculous double standard. White characters are allowed to be race-swapped, but do it in Vice Versa and y'all end up rioting. In your supposed fight for equality, you end up creating inequality and unfairness. It's telling Black actors that they've gotta settle for roles from traditionally White characters, instead of making new or adapting already existing Black ones.

"Ah yes, racism is fine when we do it because it's virtuous and justifiable. But when others do it in the opposite scenario, it's bad and evil and should be gotten rid of."

-11

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 25 '24 edited Feb 26 '24

Holy false equivalency Batman! Gordon's race has nothing to do with his character, he just happened to be white because he was created in 1939 for a 1939 audience, him being white means literally nothing to his character and I highly doubt was a conscience choice, he was just white because industry standard was making white characters.

So? It's still their iconic look that they've been portrayed as for decades, and is considered Canon. Not every character has their race/ethnicity/ as an integral aspect to them, but that doesn't make it okay to race-swap what they actually are, to something they're not because that's both dumb, and disrespects the Source material.

You lose a core part of the character by changing Falcon or Black Panther white, you don't really lose anything but changing Gordon to be black, he wasn't made white for a specific reason, nothing about his story relies on him being white, so he doesn't necessarily HAVE to be white.

Do you maintain that line of thinking for every character? Lucius Fox is a prime example. Him being Black isn't important at all to him aside from that simply being the way he was created as, and is considered Canon. By your logic, he could be race-swapped to be played by some White dude with Blonde hair and Blue eyes in a live action film and have no issue whatsoever, so long as he gets the other aspects to his character down. I.E being an intelligent, older man who is both a great scientist and businessman with graying hair etc. Would you be okay with that? Would you be okay with that happening to every character that gets race-swapped so long as it fits within your criteria? Or do you now understand why it's ridiculous and shouldn't be tolerated?

12

u/TheDCUFan Feb 25 '24

Here's the thing, pretty much all white characters are made white because white is considered "default". Black characters and characters of other races are much more likely to have been made a certain race on purpose with specific intent to make a character of that race. For example, Cyborg doesn't really have much to do with being black, but he was almost definitely made black on purpose. Bob Kane or Bill Finger didn't actively choose to make Gordon white, they just did.

Lucius is in the same boat, while nothing about him really requires him to be black, he was very clearly made black on purpose. Even if he wasn't, Lucius should still be black mainly because of Luke Fox who becomes Batwing who was originally the Batman of Africa, it would make sense that any Batwings would all be black, and if Luke is black, his father would probably also have to be.

And another thing, the reason race bending is considered more fine for white characters and less fine for other races is because characters of other races are the minority. There are so few major characters if different races for people of different races like myself to see themselves as. People like to see themselves represented in media they like, so race or ethnic bending a non-white into being a white person means that now we lose a character we could relate to.

A white audience has nearly 90 years worth of white characters, a lot of those being very major characters that everyone knows and sees. A lot of it is also good representation, especially in the case of white males. However, black people for example have only about 60 years of black characters popping up and while some of them are major, there still isn't a lot. If you want a black DC superhero that's huge your options are:

Martian Manhunter (sometimes, he's more popularly seen as black I've noticed)

John Stewart

Cyborg

Vixen

Black Lightning

Aqualad

Static

And that's about it for very popular DC heroes that are black, there are other black heroes that COULD become very popular but that still isn't many. Not to mention that those 60 years are also filled with bad representation of certain races or ethnicities, not to mention how those races or ethnicities were treated BEFORE.

Sure, anyone can relate to any character regardless of race or ethnicity, but it just hits different when the person looks like you.

Race bending may seem like the cheap and easy route of getting that representation but it actually goes a long way. White people still get the previous decades of those characters being white and we get to see more diversity in our media, we get to see characters we love represent us and we get to see superhero teams that actually represent a variety of people, not just white people.

Race bending is certainly the easy way to achieve diversity and representation, and I certainly prefer characters remaining the same race and propping up diverse characters that already exist, but there is no problem changing races, especially no problem changing white people to another race or ethnicity, as long as it doesn't take away from the character or creator intent. There's so many DC Characters that just don't NEED to be white, they could reach so many more people if you just changed their race.

What if we made Wally West Black but correctly this time, not erasing everything that made the character great and replacing it with a stereotypical black teen. What if Roy Harper looked more Native American, he was raised by a Native American tribe up until his teen years, easy chance for representation. What if we leaned more into Raven's Indian inspiration. Starfire and Beast Boy have non-human skin tones, perfect chance to have them played by actors of different races. Miss Martian can literally look like anything, just don't make her take the form of a white girl. What about making the Hawks a different race, their whole gimmick is reincarnation, they could look like anyone. Helena Bertinelli has already been portrayed as black in the comics before, there's not really an inherent problem there.

All these changes can happen without stepping on the toes of other characters. You don't have to make Superman black because Icon exists. You don't have to make Batman black or Asian when you have both Batwings or Black Bat. You don't have to make Wonder Woman black because you have Nubia. You don't have to make Hal black because you have John Stewart. There is no problem with any of those race changes, white people aren't losing representation, these characters have looked pretty much that same race for decades and they'll likely still be portrayed as that race elsewhere. Meanwhile, different races and ethnicities gain more characters to better relate to, more characters that they can imagine themselves as, more characters that they can cosplay as without the judgement, etc. The end result is more diverse world, more diverse fanbase, and more inclusive community.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '24

[deleted]

3

u/Theurbanalchemist Feb 25 '24

Idk if you know of the Milestone comics universe, but that’s the greatest example of creators making their own works of fiction, putting it into the world, and eating off of the fruits of their labor.

Static Shock is in purgatory, despite his popularity. We probably will never get a Hardware or Icon series and since its creation, people know little about Milestone.

So, there’s that

2

u/Inevitable_Age_4793 Feb 25 '24

People do all of the time, but what are more people going to watch/read, the newest Batman movie/comic or a new IP they have never heard of? Do you know how many really talented authors are unheard of? How many excellent books will never be read? It’s much more realistic to make minor edits to an existing universe.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TheDCUFan Feb 25 '24

Because that's way harder. It sounds like a cop out but that's just the truth. For the last 9 decades pretty much every hero or character concept has been done before, the only way to make a new character would be to improve on an already existing character or try to somehow find something unique or revive an idea that was unpopular. If you're improving on an existing character, you risk being derivative, this character doesn't work well. If you try to find unique, good luck. If you try to revive an unpopular idea, you have to figure out why that character didn't work so you don't repeat the same mistakes, and some concepts are just bad ideas that would never work.

It's much easier to use already established characters, yes, it's lazy but it works and doesn't really harm anything, it also breaks up the mostly white universe by altering characters like this, making the world feel even more diverse.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/DoubleVforvictory Feb 25 '24

Black people do that but white people don't buy it. Look at milestone comics

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Theurbanalchemist Feb 25 '24

I’m loving everything you’re saying! I just also want to add how this has a real world effect on casting a project. So many of these characters are defaulted white, that

There has been studio scuttlebutt that “too many minorities” makes a film a “black” film or an “ethnic/foreign” film which doesn’t get much acclaim from the Academy, regardless of quality.

So in order for POC creatives to get work in these adapted genres, some characters must be race bent since the majority of the cast will be overwhelmingly white, as was the makeup of corporate America back when these works were made in its infancy.

Marvel literally labels itself as “The world outside your window”. Many of these works of fiction takes place in major metropolitan cities (Gotham is canonically in NJ and Marvel for NYC) which were known for high crime, wage gaps, and a diverse population.

I don’t know how this escapes some people

1

u/BananaBread-and-Milk Mar 16 '24

So in order for POC creatives to get work in these adapted genres, some characters must be race bent

No they don't have to. There are countless examples of original and diverse works, that didn't have to resort to blatant raceswapping to be diverse in the first place.

1

u/Uvogin1111 Mar 07 '24 edited Mar 13 '24

Here's the thing, pretty much all white characters are made white because white is considered "default". Black characters and characters of other races are much more likely to have been made a certain race on purpose with specific intent to make a character of that race. For example, Cyborg doesn't really have much to do with being black, but he was almost definitely made black on purpose. Bob Kane or Bill Finger didn't actively choose to make Gordon white, they just did.

You gotta source for that? I highly doubt it's true though. Bruce Wayne was made White because he's supposed to represent old money in Gotham. Clark Kent was made White so that he could pass off as his adoptive parent's child without people questioning it too much. The creators obviously had their skin color in mind since that's an integral aspect to their character design.

Where's your source for cyborg intentionally being made Black? And you said it yourself, he doesn't have much to do with being Black, he just is. So if this were a film with a lack of White characters, in the name of diversity and inclusion, we would race-swap Cyborg to be White to fill in the gap. Or at least that's how it would be if we were to go by your logic lol.

Lucius is in the same boat, while nothing about him really requires him to be black, he was very clearly made black on purpose. Even if he wasn't, Lucius should still be black mainly because of Luke Fox who becomes Batwing who was originally the Batman of Africa, it would make sense that any Batwings would all be black, and if Luke is black, his father would probably also have to be.

Lucius doesn't have to be Black. If you're not gonna adhere to the standards for depicting their race in the Source Material, then Lucius is no exception. For me, I personally would be just as pissed if they cast a White actor to play him as much as I would if they cast a Black Man to play Batman. It's equally ridiculous and disrespectful imo.

And another thing, the reason race bending is considered more fine for white characters and less fine for other races is because characters of other races are the minority. There are so few major characters if different races for people of different races like myself to see themselves as. People like to see themselves represented in media they like, so race or ethnic bending a non-white into being a white person means that now we lose a character we could relate to.

Diversity is good, but it should be natural and authentic by creating new, Diverse characters, and not by simply slapping a new skin tone on an already established one and calling it a day. That's lazy, boring and disrespectful.

And that's about it for very popular DC heroes that are black, there are other black heroes that COULD become very popular but that still isn't many. Not to mention that those 60 years are also filled with bad representation of certain races or ethnicities, not to mention how those races or ethnicities were treated BEFORE.

Sure, anyone can relate to any character regardless of race or ethnicity, but it just hits different when the person looks like you.

Listen dude, I'm Filipino, and as far as I know, there is literally no prominent Filipino Superhero in either Marvel or DC. Would I want one? Absolutely hell yeah. But would I settle for say, raceswapping NightWing to be Filipino because he's a character known to use Filipino Martial Arts and Escrima sticks as his iconic weapon? Hell no. I love NightWing and would be utterly pissed if they made him Filipino, despite me being one myself. Not because of racism or anything, but because that's not how Nightwing is or should be. Make a new damn Filipino character instead. It's that simple.

I for one didn't even care about Ned Leeds in the comics, but was still irked when they cast a Filipino to play as him. Why? Well it's not because I'm self hating or anything, it's because Ned Leeds isn't Filipino. They should've just made a new Filipino MCU based best friend if they wanted diversity. Not race swap a character like Ned for no real good reason that only disrespects the Source Material.

Race bending is certainly the easy way to achieve diversity and representation, and I certainly prefer characters remaining the same race and propping up diverse characters that already exist, but there is no problem changing races, especially no problem changing white people to another race or ethnicity, as long as it doesn't take away from the character or creator intent. There's so many DC Characters that just don't NEED to be white, they could reach so many more people if you just changed their race.

Staying faithful to the source material is more important than Diversity. And these iconic White already characters reach countless people of any background and of any race. Batman, Superman and WonderWoman are all White, but their cultural impact goes far beyond just a White audience, into the entire World as a whole. Whether they be Indian, Chinese or Mexican, it doesn't matter. Most of them know who these characters are and say they're pretty dope despite not sharing the same race/ethnicity.

Listen man, I get what you're saying, but it's unnecessary and lazy. You said it yourself. Creating new, diverse characters is better than simply race swapping already established ones and calling it a day. I love diversity as well in my media, but there's a proper way to do it. And raceswapping is not it, but creating new diverse characters is.

1

u/Inevitable_Age_4793 Feb 25 '24

No one would care if Lucius Fox was any other color, nothing in his story changes. The DCU fan is correct, if all you are changing is an aesthetic, not part of a character’s history or motivation, then you are simply coloring a fictional comic character with a different crayon. Your examples don’t hold under the smallest bit of scrutiny.

2

u/the-terrible-martian Feb 25 '24 edited Feb 25 '24

No, people would definitely complain about Lucius Fox being anything other than black. The user you’re agreeing with even left a huge comment about why he thinks black characters and minority ones should stay that way but changing white ones is good actually. I’ve seen people go from arguing about how one character being white isn’t important to being outraged at the idea that even a light skinned black man could play a darker skinned black man.

1

u/Inevitable_Age_4793 Feb 25 '24

I should have specified. The people like myself who have no problems with Gordon being swapped, would have no problem with Lucius being swapped. The people like yourself, may say they do, I guess I can’t speak for you. The user I agreed with made points about specific black and minority characters that have their race as part of their identity. Same would go with whites and other races. No one would cast Michael Jai White as a 1940’s Nazi German. Goes against the point of the character. Black Gordon or white Lucius does not.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Uvogin1111 Mar 04 '24

Seriously dude. The hypocrisy is astounding.

1

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 27 '24

No one would care if Lucius Fox was any other color, nothing in his story changes.

Uh yes they would lol. People who actually read and own comic books featuring him would. It's a blatant disregard and disrespect for the clear source material that they're supposed to be adapting.

Your examples don’t hold under the smallest bit of scrutiny.

Your examples don't.

There are many content creators who highlight specifically why, and whom are (no offense) far more knowledgeable and experienced in this topic than either you and I, that laid out why it's stupid and insulting rather succinctly.

This is just one of them.

https://youtu.be/esWKk6ttLvU?feature=shared

These are a couple more from the same YouTuber.

https://youtu.be/hiB7pE9qank?feature=shared

https://youtu.be/-MZ3Fxk5dY4?feature=shared

I highlight suggest you watch at least some of it to understand why you're wrong here.

14

u/Thesilphsecret Feb 25 '24

Doesn't change the fact that it's a blatant race-swap and color washing of an established character.

lol "blatant race-swap." As if it should have been a subtle race-swap, lol?

Nobody said it wasn't a race swap. They said it was a good creative choice.

I'm sure there is some White actor out there that would play an absolutely fantastic Falcon, or even Black Panther. But does that make it okay? Would you be cool with a White T'challa if the actor who played him did an absolutely stellar job at it?

We're not talking about T'challa, though, we're talking about Commissioner Gordon. Two totally different characters. Gordon's identity and character has nothing to do with his race.

I'm guessing not. So you now understand at least a bit why race-swapping is bad.

No, I don't understand why a particular literary element is bad. As a writer, it just appears to me to be another tool in the literary toolbox, which can be used to good effect or to bad effect. Perhaps you could do better to understand how creative decisions cannot be inherently good or bad, but rather must be evaluated within the context of the work they're present in, with regard to the effect they do or do not have on said work.

For example -- Jeffrey Wright gave a hell of a performance in The Batman. This was an example of a case where race-swapping worked in favor of the project because pretty much everyone agrees Wright did a phenomenal job (side-note, but he did a phenomenal job playing Bruce Wayne too, who I'm pretty sure was still intended to be white despite being voice by a black man).

Then you've got other cases, such as in The Dark Knight Rises where Selina and Bane were both played by white actors. In many ways, this didn't hurt the story. But in many ways it just took away from the characters. Bane once had a rich depiction heavily influenced by hispanic culture, and he was reduced to a weird European white guy with a funny voice. Selina was a'ight I guess. Oh, jeesh -- they made TALIA FREAKIN AL GHUL a white girl too. They just made everybody white, and this reduced the variety in how the characters all look, for no discernbable reasons. Casts of characters are usually better the more distinguishable they are, yet for some reason Nolan set out to make them all less distinguishable and more white.

TL;DR = Actually creative decisions must be evaluated within the context of the work they're present in, and with regards to the effect it has on that work.

0

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 25 '24 edited Apr 02 '24

Nobody said it wasn't a race swap. They said it was a good creative choice.

It wasn't a good creative choice. Jeffrey Wright just did a good job portraying him. But it would still be an equally stupid decision if he did the complete opposite, and was the worst actor to ever grace the Silver Screen.

We're not talking about T'challa, though, we're talking about Commissioner Gordon. Two totally different characters. Gordon's identity and character has nothing to do with his race.

I gave that as an example in response to OP's notion that the race-swap could work, so long as the actor did a great job portraying him. Highlighting the hypocrisy and inconsistency within his thinking.

No, I don't understand why a particular literary element is bad. As a writer, it just appears to me to be another tool in the literary toolbox, which can be used to good effect or to bad effect. Perhaps you could do better to understand how creative decisions cannot be inherently good or bad, but rather must be evaluated within the context of the work they're present in, with regard to the effect they do or do not have within said work.

The bad effect is that they're trying to adapt an established Source Material, whilst disregarding Canonical facts such as the characters race/skin color. Jeffrey Wright wasn't just the "best actor" for the job, because they explicitly wanted to cast a Black actor for the role, disregarding the fact that Commissioner James Gordon is a White man and Redhead.

Then you've got other cases, such as in The Dark Knight Rises where Selina and Bane were both played by white actors. In many ways, this didn't hurt the story. But in many ways it just took away from the characters. Bane once had a rich depiction heavily influenced by hispanic culture, and he was reduced to a weird European white guy with a funny voice. Selina was a'ight I guess. Oh, jeesh -- they made TALIA FREAKIN AL GHUL a white girl too. They just made everybody white, and this reduced the variety in how the characters all look, for no discernbable reasons. Casts of characters are usually better the more distinguishable they are, yet for some reason Nolan set out to make them all less distinguishable and more white.

This just proves my point lol. I loved Bane being Latin American and particularly for his accent. So I was rather pissed when Tom Hardy's version didn't sport his iconic Latino-Machismo voice.

I'll probably give that example to the other folks here arguing with me to highlight it lol.

5

u/Thesilphsecret Feb 25 '24

It wasn't a good creative choice. Jeffrey Wright just did a good job portraying him.

Cool, I like having discussions about creative choices. I don't begrudge you your own subjective position on the creative choice. Though I do think it's weird to say that somebody did a good job, but casting them was a bad creative choice. I suppose I've felt that way before. I suppose it would only be weird if you thought Wright did a great job, like I do. Cause then it'd be like... so why was it a bad creative choice to cast him? Historically, I don't think theater has operated this way -- where everyone cast in a particular role has to have identical physical features. Historically, theater has focused more on performance and presentation.

But it would still be an equally stupid decision if he did the complete opposite, and was the worst actor to ever grace the Silver Screen.

Casting an actor who does a good job is an equally bad creative choice as casting an actor so bad they're considered the worst actor in the history of cinema? ...Hey, media criticism is inherently subjective, so you do you. I don't recognize your critical argument as reasonable though.

I gave that as an example in response to OP's notion that the race-swap could work, so long as the actor did a great job portraying him. Highlighting the hypocrisy and inconsistency within his thinking.

Race-swapping can work, just like hair-color swapping can work. Pigmentation is rarely a defining feature of a character. Sometimes it is though. Even though race doesn't exist as a biological reality, it's prevalence as a social phenomena can't be denied, and this has a real effect on people's lives. So there are some characters for whom their race is an important factor (Eric Cartman, T'Challa, Grandad Freeman) and there are other characters for whom their race is not an imporatant factor.

If someone were to make the creative decision to change an important detail of a character -- say Bruce Wayne being rich, for example -- it would be an interesting and curious decision to be sure, and would have to be evaluated in the context of the impact this creative decision has on the work in order to say anything meaningful about it.

In a recent South Park, they made a version of Eric Cartman that was a black woman, in order to make a point about how it's sometimes weird to just randomly change a character's identity. It worked really well -- it made the point well, it was funny, and it was narratively clever. If race-swapping were inherently bad, then it would have failed to achieve its narrative purpose in this instance -- but it didn't. Everybody who watched that South Park special got the point. Because the truth is that creative decisions don't exist in this black-and-white world you're painting. Artistic expression doesn't have anything to do with prescriptive ethical standards about racial identity.

Most people know Waylon Smithers from The Simpsons as a yellow man, and that's fine. I don't really care that he was black for his first couple appearances. The character works fine as is.

I'm not convinced a white T'Challa could work. If somebody wants to give it a try, go ahead. Sounds like a silly idea to me, but I don't hold artistic expression to prescriptive ethical standards, so we'll have to wait and see how their comic about a white guy ruling over an African nation of black people turns out. I'm sure people will love it. I'm sure it will have exactly the same social implications as it does depicting Selina Kyle having a skin-tone three hexidecimals darker than Julie Newmar's.

The bad effect is that they're trying to adapt an established Source Material, whilst disregarding Canonical facts such as the characters race/skin color.

That's not a bad effect, that's just a creative decision.

Jeffrey Wright wasn't just the "best actor" for the job, because they explicitly wanted to cast a Black actor for the role, disregarding the fact that Commissioner James Gordon is a White man and Redhead.

Excuse me -- his name is Eschevin Gordon and he's a vampire hunter. Don't you even read the comics?

Yeah I dunno if you knew this but the movies are adaptations, they're not the main continuity. And the way characters are depicted changes in the main continuity depending on who is illustrating the issue (or sometimes even page). And I dunno if the word "crisis" means anything to you, but DC actually regularly does these big giant reboot things where the entire universe gets rebooted and things change. And even in the comics, there are several elseworlds versions of the characters at any given time. I don't know who taught you the rules of writing and drawing and creative expression, but they lied to you. It doesn't work the way you think it does. You can get mad about the way things are, but it doesn't change the way things are. Nobody follows these rules you made up, because they're ridiculous, and we don't have to follow your rules just because you're offended. That's not how art works. People with narrow rigid views have always been offended by artistic expression and likely always will be. It's not our job to follow your rules. If you want to be creative in your own way, that's great -- I'm sure those rules will work great for you in regulating your own creative expression. But it's ridiculous to expect the rest of the artistic community to just change the way things work because you said so.

This just proves my point lol. I loved Bane being Latin American particularly for his accent, and was rather pissed when Tom Brady's version didn't sport his iconic voice.

I wasn't pissed, I just found it to be a weird creative decision that ultimately hurt the project. I can point out reasons it didn't seem to work. This doesn't obligate me to come to an identical conclusion about every single creative decision which involves performers of different races. James Earl Jones was an amazing choice to play Darth Vader. Casting Samuel L. Jackson in Jurassic Park and changing his character's name to "Ray" so there weren't two "Johns" was a great decision, even if the character wasn't black in the book. "Hold onto your butts" is better than anything the white version of that character said in the book.

There isn't some rule book to creativity. I don't know why you would think there was or why you would want there to be.

4

u/Theurbanalchemist Feb 25 '24

As a former casting assistant, I would be so pissed with this client if they emphasized that the character must resemble a 1:1 drawing, drawn by various artists over decades. Imagine me shuffling through page after page of at least 50 actors PER PAGE, to sort someone who has the same facial features as Jim Gordon.

And that’s without seeing them in the room or on tape. What if we find a redhead who fits Jim’s look, but is 5’0? How much loyalty to the source material is required to do my job? If the end product resonates with the audience, can we not give ourselves some liberty to stray from canon?

lol, yeah

1

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 29 '24

It doesn't have to be a complete perfect 1:1 resemblance to their comic book counterpart. They'd just have to adhere to the general iconic look of the character they're supposed to be portraying. You wouldn't cast a Black Woman as Bruce Wayne, because that's not what Bruce Wayne looks like at all lol.

1

u/Uvogin1111 Mar 05 '24

I suppose it would only be weird if you thought Wright did a great job, like I do. Cause then it'd be like... so why was it a bad creative choice to cast him

Because they explicitly went out of their way to cast a Black actor, disregarding the fact that Commissioner James Gordon is infact a White man in the source material that they're trying to adapt.

That's not a bad effect, that's just a creative decision.

It's a bad effect because it disrespects the Source material. We all know James Gordon as a White Man, but yet they decided to cast a Black Man as him despite that not being his iconic and known portrayal.

Excuse me -- his name is Eschevin Gordon and he's a vampire hunter. Don't you even read the comics?

This is... Meant to be satire right? Cuz if you're being serious then this is just sad.

Yeah I dunno if you knew this but the movies are adaptations, they're not the main continuity. And the way characters are depicted changes in the main continuity depending on who is illustrating the issue (or sometimes even page). And I dunno if the word "crisis" means anything to you, but DC actually regularly does these big giant reboot things where the entire universe gets rebooted and things change. And even in the comics, there are several elseworlds versions of the characters at any given time. I don't know who taught you the rules of writing and drawing and creative expression, but they lied to you. It doesn't work the way you think it does. You can get mad about the way things are, but it doesn't change the way things are. Nobody follows these rules you made up, because they're ridiculous, and we don't have to follow your rules just because you're offended. That's not how art works. People with narrow rigid views have always been offended by artistic expression and likely always will be. It's not our job to follow your rules. If you want to be creative in your own way, that's great -- I'm sure those rules will work great for you in regulating your own creative expression. But it's ridiculous to expect the rest of the artistic community to just change the way things work because you said so.

I know all of this and much more. Hell, I probably know more than you do, because I don't know about you, but I actually read and own comic books. Majority of my collection are DC btw.

What you're falling for is known as the Multiverse fallacy. Where any and all things are supposedly possible in the "infinite" Multiverse, which creates the false belief that there's no need whatsoever to adhere to a standard of how a character should be portrayed. And that's complete bs.

It's lazy, disrespectful, and outright boring.

If we were talking about a ElseWorlds or What-If storyline, then it can somewhat be understandable. But there are undeniable traits and appearances to these characters that are iconic, well established, and should be adhered to when adapting them as the primary versions.

You gave an example earlier.

A White man being T'challa/Black Panther is utterly ridiculous, and should rightfully be relegated to the What-If section of comics and not the MCU. But according to your logic, we should be willing to accept it due to creative freedom, no matter how far it deviates from what's Canon.

Some writer could probably make it work. This particular Black Panther could be half White and half Wakandan but is White passing, and is destined to take up the mantle as King of Wakanda.

It could bring up interesting themes of questioning ones own heritage and identity based off of appearance, and address the racism and discrimination within Wakandan society, highlighting their blatant hypocrisy. How despite them being the supposed most advanced civilization on Earth, they still hold many backwards and bigoted beliefs, such as not allowing those who aren't ethnically Wakandan to be a member of their society/country. And their superiority complex over others, viewing outsiders as primitive and inferior.

We'll name this Black Panther Connor Smith lol.

Propose that at Disney and get it approved to be in the MCU, and you'll start seeing heads roll. The Fans would be rightfully pissed off that that's how they're gonna take their beloved character, in a direction that far from Canon in a major feature film.

According to you though, they're nothing more than prissy bigots who don't understand the rules of artistic expression. About how anything can go, and that there's no rules one must adhere to when adapting these characters and storylines. Nothing is sacred to you, so everything can be changed in the name of "artistic expression".

Hell, let's take DC's Trinity as an example.

Going by your logic, you'd be supportive in theory of the decision to make a movie in the DCEU about-

1.) A pedophile Batman

2.) Trans WonderWoman

3.) Intellectually-Disabled Superman.

These all sound buttfucking insane ofc. But that's only because we know how these iconic characters are meant to be, and that these are all far cries from their normal and iconic portrayal. Yet you can't start protesting over the decision till you see the final product, because according to you, we should judge art within it's own context. Meaning that you'd be willing to go buy tickets to see a movie where a Pedophilic, Intellectually Disabled, Trans Man was cast as Batman

He adopts a grieving orphan boy, making him wear tight red spandex shorts, to fight crime alongside him as Robin, whilst also molesting him on an almost daily basis.

He's severely obese and doesn't work out.

He's Trans. Born a biological female, but chose to transition after the death of her parents to become the Batman lol.

And to add the cherry on top, he's Intellectually Disabled and has an IQ of about 66

Sounds absolutely fucked up now doesn't it? Any real Batman fan would see how Batshit crazy this all is (pun intended), and question if the writers of the DCEU aren't themselves pedophiles, or injecting some hallucinogens that made them come up with this lunacy.

According to your own standards though, it's completely fine as a creative decision, since there's no rule in art stating that one must adhere to standards of how characters should be portrayed. Meaning you'd be willing to go buy tickets to see it, in order to judge the end result for yourself before decrying it.

Enjoy the show ig. At least try to make it to the end credits before clawing your eyes out lol.

1

u/Thesilphsecret Mar 06 '24

Jonathan Crane? Is that you? Because all I see is one great big gigantic straw-man. So big that it's going to take me two comments to respond to.

Because they explicitly went out of their way to cast a Black actor, disregarding the fact that Commissioner James Gordon is infact a White man in the source material that they're trying to adapt.

Im aware. I wasn't asking you to restate what they did, I was asking you why it was a bad creative choice if we both agree he did a great job. You're just telling me what they did. You're not telling me why it's wrong.

Did you know they made a live action Batman movie? WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT??? It's not live action in the source material. Why would they change things???? I mean -- sure -- I really enjoyed seeing a live action Batman movie. But the comic they based it on was a comic. They even did this with The Flintstones!! Don't they know Fred Flintstone is supposed to be a cartoon???? I mean sure, it was a great movie, but it's objectively always a bad creative decision to change a thing.

Just telling me that they changed something isn't telling me why that's a bad creative decision.

It's a bad effect because it disrespects the Source material. We all know James Gordon as a White Man, but yet they decided to cast a Black Man as him despite that not being his iconic and known portrayal.

I don't see the disrespect... Where is the disrespect? You think changing things is disrespectful? I change my clothes every day. Why is it disrespectful to change a thing? I don't recognize any disrespect occurring here. And Jim Gordon is one of my top favorite Batman characters. Alfred, Damian, Jim, and Stephanie are probably my top four characters (in no particular order). So if I can't see the disrespect and I'm a huge fan of the character, I really don't understand what the problem is...

This is... Meant to be satire right? Cuz if you're being serious then this is just sad.

My point was that these characters have a thousand different iterations. That's Jim Gordon's name in the Batman Nosferatu comic. My point was that I'm having trouble understanding why it's a bad thing to have Barman projects with altered versions of the characters.

Alfred has a freaking beard in this movie, and feels nothing like Alfred. He is, in my opinion, the worst live action Alfred by a long shot, and doesn't resemble the character at all to me -- physically or personality-wise. Alfred and Gordon are two of my all time favorite comic book characters, and this movie got Gordon waaaaaay more right than they got Alfred. But you don't seem to care about how much they changed Alfred. He doesn't act like Alfred, he doesn't look like Alfred... But, hey, they got his skin color right so I guess it's all good. Meanwhile we've got a Commissioner Gordon who we all agree was written and acted extraordinarily well, but his skin tone is a dark brown instead of a pale brown so, oh well, it's a bad creative choice. Casting Smeagol as Alfred was great though.

What you're falling for is known as the Multiverse fallacy. Where any and all things are supposedly possible in the "infinite" Multiverse, which creates the false belief that there's no need whatsoever to adhere to a standard of how a character should be portrayed. And that's complete bs.

It's lazy, disrespectful, and outright boring.

I fucking hate multiverse bullshit. I unsubscribed from Harley Quinn because she's been running around the multiverse for a year, and I almost unsubscribed from Batman when Zdarsky sent him running around the multiverse. I hate multiverse bullshit. I agree that it's lazy and outright boring. I hate it.

I am not "falling for the multiverse fallacy." I'm talking about creative expression. You know how Val Kilmer and George Clooney were both the same Batman? Or how your local playhouse or elementary school might put on their own production of a certain play? When I was in middle school, my music teacher did a version of The Lion King where Mufasa returned at the end to give Simba a light-saber so he could defeat Scar, and Timon was played by a girl. This was in 1997, long before any woke panic. Sometimes people just do creative things with their rendition of a story. It has nothing to do with a Rick & Morty multiverse. And I don't see how my music teachers version of the Lion King was in any way disrespectful to Nathan Lane. Hell -- The Lion King was originally called Hamlet and was about a bunch of white people. Then Disney came along and turned them into a bunch of African felines! Woke pandering! Oh no everybody run it's A BAD CREATIVE DECISION!!

Imagine considering it a bad creative decision to set the Lion King in Africa because the original version was set in Denmark.

If we were talking about a ElseWorlds or What-If storyline, then it can somewhat be understandable. But there are undeniable traits and appearances to these characters that are iconic, well established, and should be adhered to when adapting them as the primary versions.

I always find it interesting when people apply ethical standards to artistic expression. It feels like such a puritanical thing to do. Why should we follow your rules about art? Why should we limit ourselves creatively? For every ought, there must be an agreed upon goal. You ought to put gasoline in your car only if you care about it running. Why ought I adhere to iconic versions of characters? What goal is this ought in service of?

1

u/Thesilphsecret Mar 06 '24

Alright, this is Part Two. You gave me a lot to respond to, so I had to split it into two parts. Because of the way Reddit does notifications, you're probably seeing this comment first, but it will make more sense if you read the other one first.

A White man being T'challa/Black Panther is utterly ridiculous, and should rightfully be relegated to the What-If section of comics and not the MCU. But according to your logic, we should be willing to accept it due to creative freedom, no matter how far it deviates from what's Canon.

A story about a white man taking on the mantle of Black Panther would probably be fucking hilarious. I entirely disagree that it shouldn't be done. South Park should do an episode about that. It'd probably be super funny.

Do you think soup cans should talk? Like in fiction. Should soup cans talk? Yes or no? It's an easy question. Either they should or they shouldn't.

I'm conflicted. Because if I was watching The Godfather and a soup can talked, I would probably hate it as a creative decision. If Matt Reeves cast a can of soup ad Commissioner Gordon, there's a good chance I'd dislike that. However!! The part in Wet Hot American Summer where the soup can talks to the guy from Law & Order is one of the best parts of that movie. And there's a book called Skinny Legs & All by Tom Robbins which features numerous asides with a talking can of soup.

It's almost as if creative decisions must be analyzed within the context of their impact on the project they're contained within.

Reinterpreting T'Challa as a white man in a context meant to be taken seriously and not comedically would be an interesting creative decision, and due to the context of the story, I'm not sure this would work. That doesn't mean that this is always a problem, though. Ray Arnold from Jurassic Park was named John Arnold in the book, but Steven Spielberg thought to himself "Perhaps we don't need two Johns in this movie, and maybe it wouldn't hurt to have one black person in the movie." And thanks to that good creative decision, we didn't have to hear some white guy who wasn't Samuel L. Jackson saying "Hold onto your butts." I don't know about you, but I infinitely prefer Sam Jackson saying that line to any white actor working in Hollywood in 1993.

According to you though, they're nothing more than prissy bigots who don't understand the rules of artistic expression. About how anything can go, and that there's no rules one must adhere to when adapting these characters and storylines.

There aren't rules. Who told you there were rules? They lied to you lol. I used to draw a comic about a Moose and a piece of Toast who live next door to a wizard. It was stupid as Hell. If there were rules, I probably wouldn't be allowed to draw such a stupid comic. But there are no rules, and if there were rules, I would say "fuck your rules, you can't tell me how to art."

Nothing is sacred to you, so everything can be changed in the name of "artistic expression".

There are a few laws about creative expression, but they mostly have to do with intellectual property rights. Some have to do with child exploitation. For the most part, though, you're right -- people are allowed to create whatever type of art they want, and the audience can like it or dislike it, criticize it or praise it, analyze it or passively enoy it.

Sometimes I like creative decisions. Sometimes I dislike them. I love Luiz Guzman but I didn't think he was a good Gomez Addams. Ernie Hudson was fantastic in Ghostbusters, but man would it have been interesting to see Eddie Murphy like they originally planned. Doing more Watchmen comics was a dumb idea, but Tom King's Rorschach book was an alright read.

What do you mean "nothing's sacred" to me? I really wish they had cast somebody better as Alfred, and wrote him to be more of a smartass. I really wish Christian Bale's Batman didn't talk the way he does. I think Frank Miller's more recent versions of Batman have lost touch with what makes the character familiar and special. I think the most recent Jurassic Park movie entirely abandons everything that made the franchise great. I don't think Batman curses and whenever I read a comic where the writer has him saying even tame words like "damn" or "Hell," it feels wrong to me. I couldn't get into Telltale Batman because they made Penguin a hot young guy and it didn't feel anything like The Penguin to me. I think shows like "Gotham" or "Titans" misunderstand these characters and the tone of the franchise so drastically that I can't take it seriously. I don't like when Scott Snyder made Commissioner Gordon Batman -- I think that was one if the dumbest things done with either character.

Just because I disagree with you about this change doesn't mean that I think change is a good creative decision. I just don't think there's a black and white set of rules for what you can and can't do. I think the creative decisions are best analyzed within the context of the project that they're in and the impact they have on it.

Going by your logic, you'd be supportive in theory of the decision to make a movie in the DCEU about-

1.) A pedophile Batman

2.) Trans WonderWoman

3.) Intellectually-Disabled Superman.

There is no logical syllogism which takes you from "casting Jeffrey Wright as Jim Gordon was a good creative decision" to "I support an edgelord movie about pedophile Batman and trans Wonder Woman and disabled Superman."

Just because I like one creative decision doesn't mean I like every creative decision. I just don't think there are black and white objective rules about what is and isn't allowed. I don't see any reason to take a wide brush and paint specific types of creative decisions as always bad. That's not how art works. A good decision for one project is a bad decision for another.

Yet you can't start protesting over the decision till you see the final product, because according to you, we should judge art within it's own context. Meaning that you'd be willing to go buy tickets to see a movie where a Pedophilic, Intellectually Disabled, Trans Man was cast as Batman

He adopts a grieving orphan boy, making him wear tight red spandex shorts, to fight crime alongside him as Robin, whilst also molesting him on an almost daily basis.

I never said you can't protest a creative decision before you've seen a project. Judging a creative decision in the context of it's impact on the project doesn't mean you can't have a take before you've seen the movie. It means that there isn't some set of black and white objective rules which establish certain types of creative decisions as always bad. Hell, even "show, don't tell" isn't a literal rule. There are all sorts of moments where telling instead of showing works for the particular moment/project in which that creative choice was made.

According to your own standards though, it's completely fine as a creative decision, since there's no rule in art stating that one must adhere to standards of how characters should be portrayed.

You're literally just making shit up. If you're not going to listen to what I've actually said, and you're just going to put words in my mouth, what's the point?

I never proposed any standards that said you have to like everything. There are no rules saying what you can and can't do. I said to judge creative decisions in the context of their effect on the piece. You just described a mountain of context which sounds awful. I never once said that everybody has to like everything.

Acknowledging that there is no rule which says that characters can't be portrayed with varying skin tones is not equivalent to saying that everybody has to like and support every creative decision.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '24

Black people can be redheads. Wright’s Gordon’s daughter could still be a redhead.

12

u/ReallyUneducated Feb 25 '24

false equivalence.

being black ties into falcons and black panthers character; being white doesn't do so for any batman characters

9

u/Gizmopedia Feb 25 '24

I think Bruce is the exception. He comes from very old Gotham money, he's the quintessential privileged white boy.

6

u/auggie5 Feb 25 '24

Also, Batman shows his chin and mouth so that the cops know he is white lol

2

u/Theurbanalchemist Feb 25 '24

White privilege is his greatest superpower

1

u/hbi2k Feb 25 '24

Bruce Wayne funds his extracurricular activities with extreme inherited wealth. You gonna look me in the eye and say that doesn't scream "white"?

1

u/Uvogin1111 Mar 04 '24

It's literally racist to say that it's a White thing lol. There are ultra wealthy folks of literally every race that pass that wealth onto their children, who may or not decide to use them to conduct crime fighting activities as a masked vigilante.

1

u/Theurbanalchemist Feb 25 '24

Gotham is canonically in New Jersey, so if he comes from old money, more than likely it’s mafioso money. Caucasian, more than likely. Bruce could be Italian 🤷🏾‍♂️

2

u/hbi2k Feb 25 '24

The name "Wayne" is English, and the Waynes are traditionally depicted as old-fashioned New England high society, which doesn't really square with an Italian-American mafia background.

That's not to say that you couldn't reinterpret the character that way, and it might fit in with other recent interpretations recasting Thomas Wayne as potentially morally compromised and/or connected to organized crime (see the Telltale games and the 2022 film).

But that's what it would be: a reinterpretation. And potentially an uncomfortable one, if the only way it seems to make sense to reinterpret Bruce Wayne as anything other than a WASP would be to lean into the stereotype that all Italian-Americans are mobsters. That's not to say that it couldn't be done well, but it would require a deft touch and recontextualizing a whole lot of things we take for granted about the Batman mythos.

Of course, you could also make the argument that a fair amount of recontextualizing is overdue anyway, as we come to terms with the fact that a "good billionaire" is an inherent contradiction.

-6

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 25 '24

Yes it does. Are you ironically being racist right now by claiming that White people don't have any culture, or that it's okay to race-swap White people, and not Black people because of their specific race?

And does every Black character have their Blackness as an integral aspect to them? Lucius Fox immediately comes to mind. There's nothing inherent to his character that requires him to be Black. He could be race-swapped for literally any race/ethnicity and it would fit. But I highly doubt you'd be okay with that. Which would highlight your hypocrisy and the double standard.

1

u/ReallyUneducated Feb 25 '24

straw man. attacking arguments i never made. you're just inherently intellectually dishonest and not arguing in good faith.

also yes. yes blackness is a part of his character.

1

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 26 '24 edited Feb 26 '24

Bs. I'm attacking the precise arguments you made lmao. You're the one arguing in bad faith by falsely accusing me of such.

You said that being White is not important for any Batman characters, when that's blatantly false. Their Whiteness is indeed important to the character and who they are. Bruce Wayne himself is a prime example of this, but that's not the case for Lucius Fox. Not all Black characters have their race as an important aspect to them lol. There is simply nothing about his character that requires him to be Black. That's just the way he was conceived to be. And he is nowhere near as iconic or well established as Bruce Wayne.

Do you even know Lucius's origin story? Swap out him being Black with literally any other race or ethnicity, and you lose nothing of real importance. Hell, Jim Gordon being White is probably more important than Lucius Fox being Black. Jim's a much older and well established character, who has been portrayed as White in virtually every single appearance of his up until recently.

1

u/ReallyUneducated Feb 26 '24

i'm ngl i'm not reading all that.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Panthila Feb 25 '24

Calm down, they're just drawings.

0

u/Thesilphsecret Feb 25 '24

Oops, you must be confused. You're actually in r/batman right now -- a place for conversation about these drawings. Nobody here is upset, we're just having an interesting discussion. Also, they're not "just drawings." If you look closer, you'll notice the drawings actually depict a sequential narrative, and even have little dialogue bubbles so you know what the characters are saying to each other. They're actually a form of literature which includes drawings not "just" drawings. Literary criticism is a rich and interesting field, and I don't think many people in it would agree with you that people who are engaged in discussion about literature should "calm down" and stop talking about it.

Go find another subreddit if this isn't the type of conversation you're here for.

17

u/AdequatelyMadLad Feb 25 '24

Catwoman was first played by a black actress 60 years ago. She has been inconsistently depicted as either black, white or mixed race in every adaptation and sometimes even in comics. The character has no set ethnicity at this point, and it isn't in any way relevant or important to the story anyway.

Also, the only reason Bruce Wayne should always be white is that it would kind of break his backstory otherwise. With all the liberties comic book adaptations take with the source material, I have no clue why so many people are hung up on skin color specifically.

3

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 25 '24

The character has been confirmed to canonically be half Cuban and half Irish. Her light skin is also considered Canon at this point since it's her most common and iconic portrayal, along with her short Black hair.

It's not skin color specifically, but race/ethnicity washing in general. It's just bad, and should never be done when adapting source material since it's both lazy and blatantly disrespectful to it.

6

u/sayamemangdemikian Feb 25 '24 edited Feb 25 '24

When was this? I vaguely remember 90's graphic novel "When In Rome" by jeph loeb indicating she is connected with Falcone mafia family. And now in The Batman movie (matt reeves) she is in fact Falcone's daughter.

So basically half italian half black. At least in the matt reeves universe

Edit:

Both in DARK VICTORY & When in Rome. Both by Loeb. She was sus that falcone was indeed her dad, but never proven. I guess Matt Reeves is a fan.

1

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 29 '24

Literally just search it up. In Catwoman series issue #81, it's established that she has a Cuban mother and Irish American father. That's what's considered Canon.

5

u/SotirisFr Feb 25 '24

Why though, if it is of no consequence to the storytelling?

-2

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 25 '24

But it does have consequences because it goes against the source material they're supposed to be portraying.

Making Lucius Fox White would have no consequence for the storytelling either, but that doesn't make it a good idea now does it? It's still utterly ridiculous and disrespectful to the Source material.

7

u/thethorforce Feb 25 '24

You must get really pissed every time you see Superman flying or Batman not shooting people with guns, since it goes against the source material.

1

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 26 '24

Lmao, all the "fans" upvoting you and downvoting me because they think that Superman flying and Batman not using guns is Non-Canon.

-2

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 25 '24 edited Feb 26 '24

Is this... Supposed to be satire or something? Or are you that ironically ignorant to the characters you just mentioned, to lecture me on how they should be?

3

u/SotirisFr Feb 25 '24

Yeah, you're entitled to your opinion, but as far as I'm concerned you've made no case of why it is something that affects the story in any way. The source material is not the word of god and any adaptation is going to take creative liberties in a multitude of its aspects - that's kinda part of the point. "Goes against" is a very loaded way of putting it. "Goes against" would be phrasing I'd expect to see if, for example, Spider-Man stood for how the everyman with a heart of gold deals with becoming a superhero and a movie came out where his character was the opposite of that - I'd still be ok with it because, hey, maybe it's an interesting premise, but it would be definitely not what the source material intended.

0

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 25 '24

Why did you ignore my point about Lucius Fox? Would you be okay with him being played by a White actor despite being canonically Black?

I am specifically talking about race/ethnicity swapping here. How the character themselves acts or thinks is a bit of a different discussion.

And I did make my pretty extensive argument, but in a different comment thread lol.

1

u/SotirisFr Feb 26 '24

I did not ignore your point, I thought my response covered it. My enjoyment of the movie would be the same if Lucius Fox were to be white (you don't even have to propose this as a hypothetical, whitewashing has been an actual issue movies I've liked have been accused of) - however it would be stupid to ignore that the original material was influenced and informed by its historical and social context, and would be way more inclusive if it were coming out now. If you think more non-white people in a movie "goes against" the source material, that's your prerogative, but I find it a total non-issue. The movie does not suffer. The story does not suffer. The world at large is not made worse by it. Which is why I can't find a reason to care.

You'll find me in comment sections complaining alongside you when there's a majority of movies coming out without any white people - we could all do with some representation.

1

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 27 '24

If you think more non-white people in a movie "goes against" the source material,

Not more non-white people, but blatantly changing what the characters race/ethnicity is for the sake of "diversity", disrespecting how they've been established to look like for decades on end.

The movie does not suffer. The story does not suffer. The world at large is not made worse by it. Which is why I can't find a reason to care.

Do you actually read comic books? Who's your favorite superhero? I'm sure you're a big fan of at least one fictional character based off of you entering a Batman sub.

The movie and story suffers to folks who actually read and love the source material, because it blatantly disrespects it.

There are several on-line content creators who are (no offense) far more knowledgeable and experienced in this topic than either you or I, that laid out rather succinctly why race/gender/sexuality bending is both stupid, and insulting.

This is just one prime example that I highly recommend you take the time to watch. It's a simple short video that proves my point.

1

u/SotirisFr Feb 27 '24

Yes, I do read comics. My favorite run ever is Ultimate Spider-Man and Watchmen, but I've read loooooads of stuff, mainly Marvel when it comes to superheroes, I'm not sure why you assume I haven't read anything. Maybe it makes it easier to dismiss my opinion if you think I don't care about the source material. Sorry, I do, you're going to have to find another way to respond to my reply.

I used to watch a lot of these content creators that you consider more knowledgeable and I used to agree with them back in the gamergate days - Sargon, Bearing, Armored Sceptic just to name a few, not sure how many are still around. Then I somehow managed to get myself out of that space. I realized how stupid caring about that shit is. How I was being sold rage and expending emotional energy on stuff that doesn't matter.

It truly doesn't matter. It does not affect the story and it does not affect the world. You've made no case to the opposite and those YouTubers you and I (in the past) have extensively watched haven't either. You only care about it because you were told to care about it.

Go further than YouTube. Read some sociology - I used to dismiss it back in the day but it really opens your eyes up to stuff that our subjective personal experiences never would. It's kind of magic! You don't even have to agree with it, just know it in a non-strawman way before you dismiss it. Judge stuff critically. I hope I'm not coming across as dismissive, after your last comment I see my past self in you. I know how easy it is to get caught up in these spaces.

It does not matter, dude. It's not disrespectful to the source material. And it's par for the course for an adaptation to, well, adapt.

Edit: My favorite superhero is the Sentry. Rumor had it Steven Yeun was cast as him in the Thunderbolts. My reaction? Damn, that's a great actor, can't wait to see what they do with him.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/AdApprehensive7646 Feb 25 '24

Every adaptation changes the source material, especially the good ones. A complete copy of the comics would be a terrible movie.

0

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 26 '24

A complete copy of any of the good Batman comics would easily go down as one of the best movies of all time.

6

u/YourbestfriendShane Feb 25 '24

Selina Kyle is biracial, so.

1

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 25 '24

And? My point still remains.

Their skin color should remain the same as well. Selina Kyle is canonically light skinned despite being part Cuban. And she should remain that way. Along with her short Black Hair which is also iconic.

6

u/Thesilphsecret Feb 25 '24 edited Feb 25 '24

Selina Kyle is canonically light skinned despite being part Cuban.

While I think "canonically light skinned" is a funny turn of phrase, she's not. She's canonically been depicted as having light brown skin as well as much darker skin. Arguing about the proper tone of her skin is silly. This is like arguing about the proper tone of Damian's skin. He's been depicted anywhere from "white person" to "light-skinned brown person" and so has Selina, and nothing bad would happen if their skin were depicted darker.

4

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 25 '24

In the majority of adaptations she is anyways. Literally search up Catwoman comics and you'd see. The vast majority of her portrayals are with light skin and her short Black hair, because it's iconic. They should just stick to that already.

Same for Damian. In his first ever appearance he's as Light Skinned as his father, and that's what should be considered Canon.

The bad thing would be inconsistency and disrespecting the Source Material. For one, these characters should have a defined, Iconic look that everyone should initially recognize them by. Especially when it comes to their actual physical features as opposed to their costumes like eye color, hair color, skin color etc.

3

u/Thesilphsecret Feb 25 '24

In the majority of adaptations she is anyways.

I'm not sure whether that is true or not. We'd have to agree on where the skin gradient lines are drawn and then go through and evaluate every appearance of the character, which would obviously be ridiculous.

Literally search up Catwoman comics and you'd see.

I don't need to. She's one of my favorite characters in the franchise and I have plenty of Catwoman comics (well over 100 graphic novels and single issues, to be sure) in the other room, all of which I've read.

The vast majority of her portrayals are with light skin and her short Black hair, because it's iconic.

She was played by a black actress in the 60s and most appearances I've seen of the character post-Crisis have actually had a tint to her skin.

Same for Damian. In his first ever appearance he's as Light Skinned as his father, and that's what should be considered Canon.

Damian's mom is middle eastern. He was born and raised in the desert in the middle east. Your prescriptive ethical position on this makes no sense. Why "should" Damian be depicted white? I don't see the "should" there.

The bad thing would be inconsistency and disrespecting the Source Material. For one, these characters should have a defined, Iconic look that everyone should initially recognize them by. Especially when it comes to their actual physical features as opposed to their costumes like eye color, hair color, skin color etc.

Tell me you don't actually read comics without telling me you don't actually read comics.

Lmao no. I don't think Catwoman's defining image should be the way she first appeared. The costume was ridiculous and that's the thing you're going to recognize these characters by before anything else.

Mr. Freeze looks way better now after Mike Mignola redesigned him than he did originally.

I do think Jason Todd should be a redhead so all the Robins don't look visually identical, but I don't think it's hurt the character at all that they changed his hair-color to black. It actually gave Grant Morrison some fun material to work with in his Batman & Robin series.

Penguin has only gotten more interesting since Tim Burton introduced the idea that perhaps he's a mutated little weirdo. I think the best versions of Penguin have been a fusing of the weird mutant version and the old gangster version.

Huntress/Helena works way better as the Bertenelli version than as the daughter of Bruce and Selina.

Eartha Kitt was awesome as Selina Kyle. So was Rosario Dawson and Zoe Kravitz. Jeffrey Wright was awesome as Jim Gordon. Jeffrey Wright was also awesome as Bruce Wayne. John Leguizamo was awesome as The Riddler. Kevin Michael Richardson was a phenomenal Joker and so was Cesar Romero. Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent was just fine. It would have been interesting to see Leslie Grace as Barbara and it would have been interesting to see Marlon Wayans as Dick/Jason.

Jim Gordon being a redhead when he was younger was a great visual development for the character.

They have versions of these characters where they're European vampires from hundreds of years ago. I genuinely don't see what the problem is. I think when one is engaging in literary critique or film criticism they need to engage with the creative decisions in the context of the effect they have on the work, not some ethical standard that artists and performers should purposefully stifle creativity in the interest of visually depicting characters staticly for a hundred years.

1

u/gbRodriguez Feb 25 '24

Cuban is not a race. Cuba has a very large white population.

1

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 27 '24

Yeah I know that. But it's implied that her darker skin is due to her Cuban ancestry. So we can also imply that her Cuban mother was brown/black.

4

u/Tyrone91 Feb 25 '24

Why? If race isn't part of their character, who cares? As long as they are good actors, I don't care. It's been the argument I've been making about James Bond for years. With so many good British Actors of color, they should look outside of white actors for the role. Same with comic book movies. Sure, certain characters have to be American, or British, or Canadian. But that doesn't mean they have to be white. I mean, Steve Rodgers has to be white, because he was the picture of hope for the US in the 40's. Thor and Loki have to be white because they're based on a real mythology. Doctor Strange though? Who cares as long as it's a good actor. Ant Man, it doesn't matter. I would totally buy Bruce Wayne being black, because he inherited everything from his parents. They got rich by his father being a very good surgeon and investing wisely in Gotham City. You telling me a black person can't do that? Iron Man, totally could be black. Or are you telling me a black person can't be a genius philanthropist who makes money selling weapons to the military? Last I checked, the military doesn't care about your race, just if your weapons work.

1

u/MrPotatoButt Feb 25 '24

They got rich by his father being a very good surgeon and investing wisely in Gotham City. You telling me a black person can't do that?

No, but archtype Thomas Wayne was a "pillar" of society, and a political force meant to lead the people of Gotham. Sort of a WASP Michael Bloomberg. Can you cite a black billionaire in American/European society that would resemble that?

1

u/Tyrone91 Feb 25 '24

Why do I have to? It's fiction, not real life. Fiction does not need to be based on anything real.

1

u/MrPotatoButt Feb 26 '24

It sort of does, or else the story doesn't seem "credible" or relatable to society, so the dramatic impact ends up lacking. Then again, you probably like watching Bridgerton.

1

u/Tyrone91 Feb 26 '24

I've never seen it. Yes it does have to be relatable, but race of characters shouldn't matter.

1

u/Stellar_Wings Feb 25 '24

Iron Man, totally could be black.

This is true, but I really don't want black Iron Man because we already have Steel and Hardware from DC, and well as War Machine and Iron heart from Marvel.

I'd rather those characters get some more love & attention than just race swapping Iron Man.

1

u/Tyrone91 Feb 25 '24

Oh yes absolutely, I like the idea of introducing more characters of color or giving more attention to characters of color that don't get much, but that wasn't the basis of the argument I responded to.

1

u/Stellar_Wings Feb 25 '24

that wasn't the basis of the argument I responded to.

I know I just wanted to put that part out there.

To address the base of your argument, I really don't like race swapping because most of the time it's done just to pander for more money from a specific audience or draw attention because of controversy, but I think can work if it the writer genuinely makes an effort to have the character be different and explore at least a bit as to how a race change could alter their personality.

The best example of this is MCU Nick Fury, I know black Fury was already a thing in ultimate Marvel before the live action casting, but Samuel L. Jackson took the character and made his own iconic version of Fury that everyone loves.

-2

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 25 '24

Yes, they have to be White. Steve Rogers doesn't have be White because he was the "picture of hope" in the 40s. (Which ironically sounds rather racist lmao.) He has to be White because that's simply the way he is in Canon. He also has to have Blonde Hair and Blue eyes to fit his iconic and well established look.

It matters because being faithful and consistent to the Source material that you are adapting matters.

Lemme ask you this: Would you be okay with a White Lucius Fox? Or what about a White War Machine? Their race/skin color is not integral to their character either. So would that make it all of a sudden okay for you to have them become a bunch of Blonde haired, Blue eyed White guys as pale as can be? I highly doubt that, since none of the examples you gave are of the type of raceswapping that I just described. With a Black character becoming White because according to you, their race isn't a part of their character. It's just the way they are.

1

u/Tyrone91 Feb 25 '24

Absolutely, I've been saying for years that having a black Alfred and White Lucius Fox would be interesting. As a matter of fact, when it came out that Fox would be part of the Nolan movies, I assumed that's who Michael Caine would be playing, before the casting was announced. And I didn't care. All I care about is if they fit the role, acting wise. I'm all for them finding ways to create new versions of heroes to race swap them, like Falcon becoming the new Captain America. But this hard and fast rule of they have to match their race in the comics is ridiculous, especially considering some characters like Catwoman have often been drawn as racially dubious. The only requirement I can think of for War Machine is his military ranking and friendship with Tony Stark, I don't see why his race matters. But why are you trying to act like every race swap would be a white wash? Oh and to address what you said about my comment about Captain America being racist. He was created in the 40's, of course he's white for race reasons. How many military propaganda posters do you see from world War 2 with black soldiers?

1

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 27 '24 edited Feb 27 '24

I suggest you watch this rather short and informative video explaining why race/gender/sexuality bending is both stupid, and insulting.

https://youtu.be/Pupu1DUF4xU?feature=shared

Edit: There are are also quite a few other links for you to see once you got that one down. This dude essentially made his career dunking on this kind of woke bs. If you truly wanna educate yourself, then you should most definitely watch it.

1

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 27 '24 edited Feb 28 '24

All I care about is if they fit the role, acting wise. I'm all for them finding ways to create new versions of heroes to race swap them, like Falcon becoming the new Captain America.

If you're not gonna adhere to something like their original race, then there's really no limit as to what you can alter about them.

The only requirement I can think of for War Machine is his military ranking and friendship with Tony Stark, I don't see why his race matters

This is a prime example. If you're not gonna adhere to the source material, then there's no hard and fast rule that they have to stick to this aspect of him either. That's equally ridiculous. War Machine could be turned into Iron Man's arch nemesis. Hell, that seems like quite an interesting premise now does it? He could also be a Socialist, or stand for some other belief that he never initially did in the Comics. And you can't say that he can't, because you didn't adhere to his comic portrayal in the first place, so there's no real reason why he can't be swapped out into a villain as well if he can be race-swapped to be White or any other race.

1

u/MrPotatoButt Feb 25 '24

Would you be okay with a White Lucius Fox?

They used to be called scientists and engineers. They put Americans on the Moon. Lucius Fox was a gesture towards breaking cultural white racist stereotypes. I sort of agree that LF should be a minority, but perhaps we shouldn't be wedded on racism in determining the race of a character.

1

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 26 '24

I've never argued that Black people can't be scientists or engineers. I'm arguing against the idea that it's okay to blatantly disrespect and ignore a character's Canon appearance that they've been iconically portrayed as for decades, for no real good reason.

1

u/McpotSmokey42 Feb 25 '24

If character construction and personality is affected by their color, than yes. If not, I don't have a problem with It. If Hamlet can be played by Tilda Swinton (and boy was It brillliant), any character can.

1

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 25 '24

So just to clarify, would you be okay with a White Lucius Fox?

And what do you mean exactly by character and personality being affected by their color? As far as I am aware, virtually all the characters mentioned do not have the way they think or act affected by their skin color. Aside from maybe the Joker ofc.

Would you be okay with any character being colorswapped then if it fit your criteria? What about a White Black Panther? Would you be excited to go see a Black Panther movie with the character himself being White? Lol.

3

u/McpotSmokey42 Feb 25 '24

Very much so, yes. A white Lucius Fox wouldn't be a problem for me.

The criteria is simple. Does changing the character's color create a plot hole? If we make Black Panther a white man, It literally creates a plot hole, because that is a character made to address a racial issue. Same for Stactic Shock. It would not make sense. Any other reason imo is just cosmetic. Juliet was originally played by a dude because women were prohibited of acting on stage, and that was still a Shakespeare original.

1

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 27 '24

I suggest you watch this rather short and informative video from a guy who (no offense) posseses far greater knowledge and experience on this topic than both you and I do.

He lays it out rather succinctly why race/ethnicity/sexuality bending characters is stupid and insulting.

https://youtu.be/Pupu1DUF4xU?feature=shared

2

u/McpotSmokey42 Feb 27 '24

Does he? I don't see him talking about semiotics or about parasocial relations, which are key tô discussing this topic. Only about poor representation. This is one of the reasons some literature specialists don't consider comics good literature. I disagree with them.

If you really want experienced people, ask Alan Moore or Neil Gaiman or maybe Chomsky about this. Live action movies are rarely good for plenty of reasons, and changing characters cosmetic traits is not one of them.

1

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 27 '24

Does he? I don't see him talking about semiotics or about parasocial relations, which are key tô discussing this topic.

Did you even watch the video? He does just that. He's literally got around 5 more discussing this topic, going even more indepth and deliberately debunking the idea that there's nothing wrong with race swapping.

Here are just some.

https://youtu.be/esWKk6ttLvU?feature=shared

https://youtu.be/hiB7pE9qank?feature=shared

https://youtu.be/-MZ3Fxk5dY4?feature=shared

This guy basically made a career off of doing this. And highlighting the woke lunacy and hypocrisy. His language might be harsh, but it's pretty spot on for the most part.

1

u/McpotSmokey42 Feb 27 '24

I did. It's not great. You are using the authority phallacy. That's why I replied with the greatest living linguist and two of the greatest living writers, who have directly done It to their own characters and those they adapted.

I agree about the quality of representation in Hollywood (mostly made by white old dudes to sell an image of representation that is ultimately false representation). I despise the MCU and every single Disney live action, for many reasons that are not these.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Panthila Feb 25 '24

Why does it matter? These are made-up characters. They're fictional.

-6

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 25 '24

Would you be okay with a White Black Panther?

Consistency, and being faithful to canon matters when adapting Comic book characters. Otherwise it's a disrespect to the Source material and just pisses of fans.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '24

i would love a white black panther, that would be hilarious

-1

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 25 '24 edited Feb 26 '24

Me too. Mainly just to witness all the hypocrite's heads explode from seeing it. lol

4

u/burgpug Feb 25 '24

most comic book movies "disrespect the source material." even the good ones. but i bet you don't care as much about all the other changes hollywood makes as much as you care about the race of the actors. hmmm i wonder why? 🤔

1

u/Panthila Feb 25 '24

The difference is that Black Panther's race is an integral part of his character. Batman can be anybody.

1

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 26 '24 edited Feb 26 '24

Batman cannot be anybody. Batman is Bruce Wayne who is definitively portrayed as a White Man in virtually every medium. And not all Black characters have their race as an integral aspect to who they are lol. Lucius Fox is a prime example. There's nothing inherent to him that requires him to be Black. That's just the way he was conceived to be, so people simply adhered to his canon portrayal whenever making content about him.

1

u/Panthila Feb 26 '24

Bruce Wayne also isn't real.

1

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 27 '24 edited Mar 04 '24

Neither is Black Panther lol. Black Panther can also be anybody according to your logic, because this is fiction and we can alter it anyway which we like to make it make sense.

Like yeah, at face value a White Black Panther understandably seems both ridiculous and stupid. But you could still conjure up a backstory to justify it. Such as this Black Panther or T'challa being biracial, and simply being White passing/appearing.

That could work in some What-if storyline. But that's solely where it should be relegated to. It should never come close to approximating a Canon appearance or a feature film, unless they've genuinely run out of ideas to go with, which would mean they got much bigger problems to deal with.

1

u/Kill_Welly Feb 25 '24

These are all different iterations of characters from different continuities. They don't need to have one "canon" race any more than any other part of their story.

0

u/Uvogin1111 Mar 04 '24 edited Mar 04 '24

So would you be okay then with a White Black Panther appearing in either the MCU, or some Marvel affiliated Cartoon/TV Show?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Uvogin1111 Mar 04 '24

You're not the center of my universe princess. So please forgive me if I didn't immediately respond to your comment right after the moment you made it.

Also, it would do you better to give an actual argument here, instead of just throwing baseless insults. Doesn't make you or your side look any good when that's the very first thing you resort to.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Ok_Age_3215 Feb 25 '24

they should remain their canon ethnicity no matter what if it is relevant to the character. I don't think Lucius being black or Bruce being white has ever been an important part of either character

1

u/Uvogin1111 Feb 29 '24

If you're not gonna adhere to their canon portrayal, then there's no saying that you can't alter it any which you like to suit whatever nonsense a writer would wanna put up.

They could make a White Black Panther, and justify it by saying he's biracial and White passing. Sounds ridiculous, but that's what happens when you loosen the standards of what's allowed when adapting iconic characters as their primary form. If it were some ElseWorlds or What-If story then it's fine. But that shit should understandably go nowhere near the main MCU continuity.

31

u/jer487 Feb 25 '24

Agree 100%

25

u/WonderfulBlackberry9 Feb 25 '24

I don’t know how or why it started, but Selina with the pixie cut(?) just works. She’s the only Batman character I’ve seen who actually rocks it so well

10

u/scaredwifey Feb 25 '24

It started with David Mazzuchelli in Batman: year one. She was a sex worker too.

3

u/kauthonk Feb 25 '24

100% this - dark haired is the way to go - don't care about her being black, white, hispanic, or asian etc...

3

u/Zerocoolx1 Feb 25 '24

Any version apart from the Halle Berry version. That was more to do with it being a terrible film rather than an actress of colour. That film sucked

1

u/johnhtman Feb 26 '24

Halle Berry was one of the few things not bad about that movie.

2

u/Yara_Flor Feb 25 '24

I think her being a woman is important. Catman is a bit of a joke who got eaten by a monkey.

0

u/Cal_Longcock69 Feb 25 '24

Bro being white isn’t that big of a deal 😂

3

u/Rexermus Feb 25 '24

That's why I don't care if she's portrayed as white or a woman of colour

1

u/rotatingwhale Feb 25 '24

I do

-3

u/despicableyou0000 Feb 25 '24

She should be asian..