*** MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE *** [Staff message on OP]

3,608,075 Views | 27996 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by RikkiTikkaTagem
TexasAggie_02
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:28p, 2/24/15
AG
also, Peter Parker's parents were CIA spies during the cold-war, trying to infiltrate Red Skull's (communist red skull, not the hydra red skull) organization.

Guess you could change that back story.

His upbringing would be very different too (as has been stated). If Marvel can pull it off, then good; but it runs a big risk of playing into stereotypes.

I think they would be best to just forego any origin story at all. Everyone knows how spidey got his powers. Just have him meet the Avengers, and give a brief flash back when he introduces himself. Stark say "i read your file," or something.
Reply Quote
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:31p, 2/24/15
AG
quote:
I think they would be best to just forego any origin story at all. Everyone knows how spidey got his powers. Just have him meet the Avengers, and give a brief flash back when he introduces himself. Stark say "i read your file," or something.

That's basically what they're doing. Is that not common knowledge? They're not doing the origin story for a third time.
Reply Quote
2 edits
redline248
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 3:33p, 2/24/15
AG
quote:
My only response would be - and this is how I've been coming at this argument all along - is that this new version we're going to see on screen, we won't be seeing his backstory. This will be a more fully-formed version from the get-go, and a lot of those potential backstory/origin issues - whether he's white or black - won't be coming into play at all.
Then why in the world wouldn't you go with a white Peter and let everyone bring along the already well known story of how he became Spiderman?

That honestly makes the least amount of sense when put together with everything else you've said on this matter. If Spider man is black, every single person in the theater will want to know why/how it happened.
Reply Quote
3
TexasAggie_02
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 3:33p, 2/24/15
AG
well, everyone is arguing about how effed up the origin will be. I think they should go with Morales, since he is established. But if they do a black peter parker, there won't be a true reboot, so i think a lot of the problems being brought up won't matter b/c they won't be in the movie.
Reply Quote
TexasAggie_02
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to redline248 • 3:34p, 2/24/15
AG
quote:
That honestly makes the least amount of sense when put together with everything else you've said on this matter. If Spider man is black, every single person in the theater will want to know why/how it happened.


he was bit by a black spider. duh.
Reply Quote
7
Bobcat06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 3:37p, 2/24/15
AG
quote:
quote:
I think they would be best to just forego any origin story at all. Everyone knows how spidey got his powers. Just have him meet the Avengers, and give a brief flash back when he introduces himself. Stark say "i read your file," or something.

That's basically what they're doing. Is that not common knowledge? They're not doing the origin story for a third time.
No, it's not common knowledge

Last I'd read from BadAss Digest, Marvel was interested in a full reboot with a teenage Spiderman, with an origin movie coming after Avengers 4 when most of the current Avengers were killed by Ultron.
Reply Quote
1 edit
gravy97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:40p, 2/24/15
AG
Between Iron Man 1 and 2... they "snuck" in a change of actor... the character was not inherently black... he could have been any miliary officer, his race was not an issue that I was aware of (and I don't know if he was white/black/green/whatever in the comics) ... yet they stuck with a black actor to replace the first black actor. Was this racist? Or was the character being a black military officer in this universe enough reason to keep him black? I don't even know what side I'm arguing for here.

Reply Quote
4
Brian Earl Spilner
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:40p, 2/24/15
AG
TCTTS, I get what you're saying, but it just doesn't make sense.

You want them to cast a black actor but basically pretend they didn't. Ignore any and all struggles that would be inherent to a black teenager that a white teenager would never deal with.

But if they're going to do that, why change his race at all? At that point, they're just doing it for the sake of change, to make it a "hot topic" and hope it gets asses in seats. That, to me, is even more offensive.

On the other hand, if you do give the character "minority" issues, that is changing the character of Peter Parker completely, and it might as well be Miles Morales instead of Peter Parker.

I have no problem with them doing either a white Peter Parker or a Black/Hispanic Miles Morales. I have a slight problem with them doing a black Peter Parker for the reasons above. Either go all in on a black Spider-Man and make it Morales, or keep him white and stick somewhat to the comic book Peter Parker.
Reply Quote
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:41p, 2/24/15
AG
quote:
That honestly makes the least amount of sense when put together with everything else you've said on this matter. If Spider man is black, every single person in the theater will want to know why/how it happened.

Do I really have to say this for like the tenth time?

Sony/Marvel is worried that if they go white, with the limited time to explain/introduce Parker in Civil War, that general audiences will be confused as to whether or not it's just the Garfield continuity but with a new actor. This isn't my argument/stance. It's Sony/Marvel's. We know that for a fact.

So, as a shorthand, giving Parker a different skin color would automatically say to audiences: this is a different Peter Parker continuity, without having to awkwardly explain, if he were white, that it's NOT the version who killed Electro, saw Gwen die, etc.

There's going to be a confused audience either way you go. But going black MIGHT make it easier to just introduce him and move on, without having to over explain the fact that he's not Garfield recast.
Reply Quote
1 edit
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bobcat06 • 3:44p, 2/24/15
AG
quote:
quote:
quote:
I think they would be best to just forego any origin story at all. Everyone knows how spidey got his powers. Just have him meet the Avengers, and give a brief flash back when he introduces himself. Stark say "i read your file," or something.

That's basically what they're doing. Is that not common knowledge? They're not doing the origin story for a third time.
No, it's not common knowledge

Last I'd read from BadAss Digest, Marvel was interested in a full reboot with a teenage Spiderman, with an origin movie coming after Avengers 4 when most of the current Avengers were killed by Ultron.

Why would an origin movie come AFTER they've already introduced a fully-suited Spider-Man in Civil War? The only thing that's been announced is that the post Civil War Spidey movie will be a stand-alone Spidey movie. That doesn't mean origin story. Maybe they'll hint at his origin through a flashback or two in that movie, but it's been made clear that they're not doing another origin movie. Take that too the bank.
Reply Quote
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Brian Earl Spilner • 3:46p, 2/24/15
AG
quote:
TCTTS, I get what you're saying, but it just doesn't make sense.

You want them to cast a black actor but basically pretend they didn't. Ignore any and all struggles that would be inherent to a black teenager that a white teenager would never deal with.

But if they're going to do that, why change his race at all? At that point, they're just doing it for the sake of change, to make it a "hot topic" and hope it gets asses in seats. That, to me, is even more offensive.

On the other hand, if you do give the character "minority" issues, that is changing the character of Peter Parker completely, and it might as well be Miles Morales instead of Peter Parker.

I have no problem with them doing either a white Peter Parker or a Black/Hispanic Miles Morales. I have a slight problem with them doing a black Peter Parker for the reasons above. Either go all in on a black Spider-Man and make it Morales, or keep him white and stick somewhat to the comic book Peter Parker.

Please see my above explanation (just below your post).
Reply Quote
Brian Earl Spilner
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:49p, 2/24/15
AG
quote:
Sony/Marvel is worried that if they go white, with the limited time to explain/introduce Parker in Civil War, that general audiences will be confused as to whether or not he's just the Garfield continuity but with a new actor. This isn't my argument/stance. It's Sony/Marvel's. We know that for a fact.
Post a link where it explicity says this, because I find it hard to believe any movie studio could possibly give audiences so little credit.

You have to change his skin color to make it clear it's a new character? Do they really think people are that stupid? Did DC have to make Superman black for Man of Steel, just a few years after Superman Returns?

Come on man. It would take about 3 lines to establish that it's a new Spider-Man.
Reply Quote
1
Quad Dog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:50p, 2/24/15
AG
Reply Quote
6
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:52p, 2/24/15
AG
quote:
You want them to cast a black actor but basically pretend they didn't. Ignore any and all struggles that would be inherent to a black teenager that a white teenager would never deal with.

It's pretty a huge leap/generalization to say that stereotypical race struggles are inherent to ALL black teenagers. Again, for the hundredth time, PROGRESS would be having a black character who isn't dealing with race issues. That would be one of the points made in going down this road. He can literally just have black skin. That doesn't mean we have to checkmark every racial struggle and associate with his character.
Reply Quote
Tmoneyag99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Brian Earl Spilner • 3:52p, 2/24/15
AG
quote:
quote:
Sony/Marvel is worried that if they go white, with the limited time to explain/introduce Parker in Civil War, that general audiences will be confused as to whether or not he's just the Garfield continuity but with a new actor. This isn't my argument/stance. It's Sony/Marvel's. We know that for a fact.
Post a link where it explicity says this, because I find it hard to believe any movie studio could possibly give audiences so little credit.

You have to change his skin color to make it clear it's a new character? Do they really think people are that stupid? Did DC have to make Superman black for Man of Steel, just a few years after Superman Returns?

Come on man. It would take about 3 lines to establish that it's a new Spider-Man.


I was able to figure out real quick we had a new Hulk in Avengers when Eric Bana and Edward Norton were nowhere to be found.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
BigTimeAlum
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 3:54p, 2/24/15
AG
quote:
BigTimeAlum - That's the first reasonable argument I've heard, and I appreciate the measured, level-headed response. What you said, for the most part, makes sense, and your point is well taken. Thank you for expressing your point in a way that goes beyond, "I want him to be white because he's white." I can totally be on board with that argument.

My only response would be - and this is how I've been coming at this argument all along - is that this new version we're going to see on screen, we won't be seeing his backstory. This will be a more fully-formed version from the get-go, and a lot of those potential backstory/origin issues - whether he's white or black - won't be coming into play at all. It'll just be wise-cracking Parker-as-Spiderman fighting villains. So none of that race stuff would ever come into play.

That said, even if this were a new origin story, those issues you mentioned don't HAVE to come into play. A black kid can get picked in any number of ways without bringing race into the equation. So much of that type of stuff can be ignored.
Completely agree. You absolutely can just ignore it, but then what's the point? Also, without a back-story, there will be mass confusion on his introduction. If the first time we see this new Peter Parker is when he is unmasked in Cap 3, I think it will completely baffle the audience and become so central to the discussion, the rest of the movie won't matter.
Reply Quote
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Brian Earl Spilner • 3:55p, 2/24/15
AG
quote:
quote:
Sony/Marvel is worried that if they go white, with the limited time to explain/introduce Parker in Civil War, that general audiences will be confused as to whether or not he's just the Garfield continuity but with a new actor. This isn't my argument/stance. It's Sony/Marvel's. We know that for a fact.
Post a link where it explicity says this, because I find it hard to believe any movie studio could possibly give audiences so little credit.

You have to change his skin color to make it clear it's a new character? Do they really think people are that stupid? Did DC have to make Superman black for Man of Steel, just a few years after Superman Returns?

Come on man. It would take about 3 lines to establish that it's a new Spider-Man.

I don't mean to sound all insidery, but YES, studios really do think audiences are this stupid. That's why so many movies are so bad.

That, and there's a difference here in comparison to the example you're giving. The Garfield movies existed WHILE the MCU has been in play. And this new Spider-Man will have be coming only four years after Garfield. There was seven years between Superman Returns and Man of Steel, and they had an entire movie/marketing campaign to make it clear it's a completely different iteration. Sony/Marvel won't have that same luxury here.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Brian Earl Spilner
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BigTimeAlum • 3:56p, 2/24/15
AG
quote:
You absolutely can just ignore it, but then what's the point?
Exactly. This is my point.
Reply Quote
AliasMan02
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Tmoneyag99 • 3:56p, 2/24/15
AG
quote:
quote:
quote:
Sony/Marvel is worried that if they go white, with the limited time to explain/introduce Parker in Civil War, that general audiences will be confused as to whether or not he's just the Garfield continuity but with a new actor. This isn't my argument/stance. It's Sony/Marvel's. We know that for a fact.
Post a link where it explicity says this, because I find it hard to believe any movie studio could possibly give audiences so little credit.

You have to change his skin color to make it clear it's a new character? Do they really think people are that stupid? Did DC have to make Superman black for Man of Steel, just a few years after Superman Returns?

Come on man. It would take about 3 lines to establish that it's a new Spider-Man.


I was able to figure out real quick we had a new Hulk in Avengers when Eric Bana and Edward Norton were nowhere to be found.


That makes no sense because the Ruffalo Hulk is the same one as the Norton Hulk.
Reply Quote
1
Bobcat06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 3:56p, 2/24/15
AG
quote:
Why would an origin movie come AFTER they've already introduced a fully-suited Spider-Man in Civil War? The only thing that's been announced is that the post Civil War Spidey movie will be a stand-alone Spidey movie. That doesn't mean origin story. Maybe they'll hint at his origin through a flashback or two in that movie, but it's been made clear that they're not doing another origin movie. Take that too the bank.
The stated reason they got rid of Garfield was they were wanting to re-introduce the character starting with an origin story. If they did a flashback heavy non-linear story like Batman Begins, they could reshape the character's thematically while still using a full grown Spiderman in Civil War.
Reply Quote
GiveEmHellBill
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:57p, 2/24/15
AG
In the past in the MCU, there have been several different people holding the mantle of the heroes we all know. These people were created by Marvel and were introduced as the "new" hero.

James Rhodes was Iron Man for several years.
Beta Ray Bill held Mjolnir for awhile and was the God of Thunder.
Bucky Barnes held Cap's shield when he was "dead."

This list doesn't even include all the villains who has changed names/faces over the years.

My point is, as long as they aren't making someone up or changing the character for the sake of change, I don't care. I really don't.

Marvel has already introduced a minority holding the name of Spider-Man: Miles Morales. He is established, has his own backstory and motivations. Please, use him instead of changing the race of Peter Parker. If there was no Morales, then I wouldn't have a problem with making Parker black. But they have already have a minority Spider-Man who has a good amount of recognition and popularity among comic fans. Utilize him.

tl,dr: They want a minority Spider-Man? They have one: his name is Miles Morales. There's no need to change Peter Parker's race. That is actually an insult to those minority fans who've embraced Miles Morales because he's one of their own.
Reply Quote
7
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:58p, 2/24/15
AG
quote:
I was able to figure out real quick we had a new Hulk in Avengers when Eric Bana and Edward Norton were nowhere to be found.

But it's still the SAME continuity. Even Bana's Hulk informed Norton's Hulk's background to a degree. It's a totally different animal when introducing a new Parker into a different continuity from the OTHER Spider-Man movies that were going on WHILE the MCU was in play.
Reply Quote
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bobcat06 • 3:59p, 2/24/15
AG
quote:
quote:
Why would an origin movie come AFTER they've already introduced a fully-suited Spider-Man in Civil War? The only thing that's been announced is that the post Civil War Spidey movie will be a stand-alone Spidey movie. That doesn't mean origin story. Maybe they'll hint at his origin through a flashback or two in that movie, but it's been made clear that they're not doing another origin movie. Take that too the bank.
The stated reason they got rid of Garfield was they were wanting to re-introduce the character starting with an origin story. If they did a flashback heavy non-linear story like Batman Begins, they could reshape the character's thematically while still using a full grown Spiderman in Civil War.

Guys, I PROMISE you we're not getting another origin story, in any way. This isn't a guess on my part. It's a fact.
Reply Quote
Brian Earl Spilner
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:03p, 2/24/15
AG
It would be cool if the standalone Spider-Man movie was happening in parallel to the MCU. Show him living through the Avengers 1, maybe even show him being inspired by Captain America or something like that.
Reply Quote
jeffk
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:07p, 2/24/15
AG
Wow, Hollywood really doesn't think highly of the intelligence of the average movie-goer, do they?

Problem is, I'm not sure they haven't over-estimated it.
Reply Quote
1
BigRobSA
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:07p, 2/24/15
Hell, just make Spidey never seen out of uniform. Then, unless he starts speaking ebonics, or Spanish, or in some nasally whiteboy tone, you'll never know who/what color Peter actually is.

If he's just joining in the fights, and there's no backstory, there's no need to even see anything but CGI badassery outta the webslinger anyway.

E'rybody happy!
Reply Quote
Saxsoon
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 4:15p, 2/24/15
AG
quote:
Why on Earth does it matter if Peter Parker is black or white?
Because there is already an established character that is black/hispanic.
Reply Quote
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Brian Earl Spilner • 4:18p, 2/24/15
AG
quote:
It would be cool if the standalone Spider-Man movie was happening in parallel to the MCU. Show him living through the Avengers 1, maybe even show him being inspired by Captain America or something like that.

Would love that. And that's basically how they'll be treating him from here on out. The stand-alone Spider-Man movie will obviously take place within the MCU chronology. So, Spidey's adventures in his 2017 stand-alone movie will take place between the events of Guardians of the Galaxy 2 and Thor 3, which will all, of course, be before Avengers: Infinity War Part 1, which Spidey will likely be part of as well. And who's to say they won't flashback for a scene or two and show Parker (or whoever he is) watching the events of Iron Man 2 - or whatever other previous Marvel movie - unfold.
Reply Quote
1 edit
redline248
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BigRobSA • 4:24p, 2/24/15
AG
quote:
Hell, just make Spidey never seen out of uniform. Then, unless he starts speaking ebonics, or Spanish, or in some nasally whiteboy tone, you'll never know who/what color Peter actually is.

If he's just joining in the fights, and there's no backstory, there's no need to even see anything but CGI badassery outta the webslinger anyway.

E'rybody happy!


Except the actor.
Reply Quote
BigRobSA
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to redline248 • 4:31p, 2/24/15
quote:
quote:
Hell, just make Spidey never seen out of uniform. Then, unless he starts speaking ebonics, or Spanish, or in some nasally whiteboy tone, you'll never know who/what color Peter actually is.

If he's just joining in the fights, and there's no backstory, there's no need to even see anything but CGI badassery outta the webslinger anyway.

E'rybody happy!


Except the actor.
Exactly...no actor needed. Pay some scrub to read lines into a mic, boom, done.
Reply Quote
Bobcat06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BigRobSA • 4:44p, 2/24/15
AG
Reply Quote
1 edit
fig96
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BigTimeAlum • 4:53p, 2/24/15
AG
quote:
quote:
BigTimeAlum - That's the first reasonable argument I've heard, and I appreciate the measured, level-headed response. What you said, for the most part, makes sense, and your point is well taken. Thank you for expressing your point in a way that goes beyond, "I want him to be white because he's white." I can totally be on board with that argument.

My only response would be - and this is how I've been coming at this argument all along - is that this new version we're going to see on screen, we won't be seeing his backstory. This will be a more fully-formed version from the get-go, and a lot of those potential backstory/origin issues - whether he's white or black - won't be coming into play at all. It'll just be wise-cracking Parker-as-Spiderman fighting villains. So none of that race stuff would ever come into play.

That said, even if this were a new origin story, those issues you mentioned don't HAVE to come into play. A black kid can get picked in any number of ways without bringing race into the equation. So much of that type of stuff can be ignored.
Completely agree. You absolutely can just ignore it, but then what's the point? Also, without a back-story, there will be mass confusion on his introduction. If the first time we see this new Peter Parker is when he is unmasked in Cap 3, I think it will completely baffle the audience and become so central to the discussion, the rest of the movie won't matter.
From a marketing standpoint, especially if Sony wants to make the 27 million Spidey movies they seem to have queued up, I'd keep Parker as caucasian. Then introduce Miles Morales in a subsequent film, hence a chance to do another origin film that's at least somewhat different, then you also have opportunities to spin that off into an All-New Ultimates series or cross the two over.

Then again, All-New Ultimates would involve Marvel, Fox, and Sony characters, so no telling what would happen there.

Also, a relevant question with all this: is Miles Morales property of Sony or Marvel? The Marvel/Sony deal pre-dates him by a long shot.
Reply Quote
TexasAggie_02
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:04p, 2/24/15
AG
  • keep Parker white
  • kill him off in "Infinity Wars: Part 1"
  • Sony makes new origin movie with Morales
  • Morales is in "Infinity Wars: Part 2"
Reply Quote
2
MooreTrucker
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 5:06p, 2/24/15
AG
quote:
quote:
If you make Spider-Man black, then by definition, you are changing the character.

No, you're not. You're changing the COLOR of the character. "Character" - in the narrative/cinematic sense - refers to personality traits. In other words, "character" is what makes a person tick. In the case of Peter Parker, his "whiteness" isn't a definitive characteristic of his personality. Not in any way, shape, or form. For some characters, sure, the fact that they are black or white absolutely defines who they are as a person and how the world sees them. But not in the case of Peter Parker. Having him be a skinny black kid in high school does not change - in any way - anything about his personality. He can literally be the exact same character, just with a different skin color.

Besides, insisting he be white for NO OTHER REASON than he's always been white, and you want him to remain that way, IS a somewhat offensive stance to take. To prefer a white Peter Parker, just because you want him to be white, by its very definition, means you DON'T want to watch a darker-colored Peter Parker on screen. It means, by your own admission, you'll get less enjoyment from watching a darker-colored human being on the screen than you would from a white Parker. And that's messed up. Plain and simple. I know it's coming from a place non-racist innocence - I totally get that - but you can't argue that it's sound reasoning. Saying, "I just want to see the white Peter parker I grew up with" - ESPECIALLY after you've already seen that version TWICE before - whether you mean for it to be or not, is a form of discrimination. If, traditionally, Uncle Ben was in the KKK, or Parker was somehow defined by his whiteness in high school - then sure, changing him to be black would be stupid. But Peter Parker's skin color does not affect the way he operates as a character. That is an inarguable fact.
No, I'm using character in the sense of "a person in a novel, play, or movie." The character of Peter Parker aas portrayed in the comic books is a white guy, and to change his skin color makes him a different character...a black guy.

I'm a white guy. If you portray me in a movie with Will Smith, that ain't me because I'm white and he's not.

I'm still not getting how that's racist.
Reply Quote
4
Quinn
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TexasAggie_02 • 5:06p, 2/24/15
AG
quote:
  • keep Parker white
  • kill him off in "Infinity Wars: Part 1"
  • Sony makes new origin movie with Morales
  • Morales is in "Infinity Wars: Part 2"
- Have Donald Glover play Parker
- Have Ansel Elgort play Morales
- ???
- Profit
Reply Quote
2
First Page Last Page
Page 31 of 800 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.