AVENGERS - movie Discussion, News, Interviews, Pics till release 2012

[captcalhoun]

Amazing Spider-Man 2 needs Iceman and Firestar in it.

[Agenda]

captcalhoun wrote:

---

Amazing Spider-Man 2 needs Iceman and Firestar in it.

You mean, "The Spectacular Spider-Man" followed by "Web of Spider-Man" ?

[Skywalker]

I'm hoping the third movie will be called Your Neighborhood-Friendly Spider-Man.

[Captain Craig]

Skywalker wrote:

---

I'm hoping the third movie will be called Your Neighborhood-Friendly Spider-Man.

I think pedantic is the word this board likes to use: Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-man.

[Skywalker]

Ugh. Epic fail, Skywalker.

[Obiwanshinobi]

How about "Spider-Man, Spider-Man: Radioactive Spider-Man?"

[InklingStar]

Dennis wrote:

---

It's a red herring because it's a false dichotomy - filmmakers don't do it instead of making good movies, and casting non-whites or women in any role has never actually done damage in and of itself to a single film or tv show or play. When you scratch the surface of arguments against it, you always run quickly into nothing more substantial than reflexive narrow mindedness at best and often outright bigotry masquerading as demands for "faithfulness."

It's a fabricated issue - a problem that doesn't actually exist outside of the context of a conversation in which it's being complained about. Most objections to "political correctness" are simply unwillingness to be required to treat people with courtesy and respect.

I mean, here the knock against the movie is that the director might give Scarlett Johannson a more entertaining, sharper character to play than a comic book writer assigned to a minor character decades ago? Quelle horreur - but it won't cost the studio a single ticket sold to anyone other than a few politically-motivated head counters, easily made up by improving the movie for the vast majority who don't obsess about such things.

I do not wish to derail the thread any further but I must quickly respond to this. I disagree that arguments against political correctness are often nothing more than covers for bigotry. Going back to the Hobbit example I would not support changing some of the Dwarves to women not because I am bigoted and sexist, but because that is not what is in the text. This sort of change would alter the meaning of the story. On the other hand, casting a black actor as Heimdall in Thor did not alter the story in any way, and the actor did great with the role. Same thing with Michael Clarke Duncan as the Kingpin in Daredevil. It really did not alter the story to change the character's skin color, and Duncan was awesome in the role. (Am I the only one who likes that movie, by the way?)

I think that complaints against excessive PC really stem from frustration over a perceived lack of respect for original materials. Rather than accusing such people of bigotry, racism, and sexism, you should see them in the same light as a Star Trek fan finding fault with the rebooted movie because of how it differs from the original series. (For the record, I liked both.)

[Turtletrekker]

Joss Whedon talks Avengers and Buffy at Comic-Con.

[Nerys Myk]

captcalhoun wrote:

---

Amazing Spider-Man 2 needs Iceman and Firestar in it.

As his friends? That would be amazing!!!!!

[Admiral_Young]

Fox would have a problem with Iceman Firestar who knows if she belongs to anyone lol.

[Obiwanshinobi]

Firestar is a mutant right? Probably Fox then.

[captcalhoun]

^she's been a New Warrior and an Avenger, so ... complicated.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

InklingStar wrote:

---

Going back to the Hobbit example I would not support...

No.

The Hobbit is not an example - it's a distraction and a red herring.

Why? Simple - because no one did this.

Attempts to present these objections as something other than narrow-minded always rely upon these kinds of hypotheticals, because the case can't be made by actual examples. That's why it's invalid.

One more time:

It's a red herring because it's a false dichotomy - filmmakers don't do it instead of making good movies, and casting non-whites or women in any role has never actually done damage in and of itself to a single film or tv show or play.

Go look at on-line talkbacks and objections to replacing Peter Parker with a black character in Marvel's Ultimates line. Other than complaints about killing off Peter, direct complaints about the move come across as reactive, narrow-minded and/or bigoted. The only posters who think they're avoiding this are those who resort to what they consider to be ridiculous hypotheticals, ie "Geez, why don't they just replace Thor with a one-armed octogenarian lesbian?"

The case can't be made based on facts, hence the need to resort continually to "what if they...?" arguments.

On the other matter, "respect for source material" does not equal treating it as holy writ in every detail. Frankly, fans who want strangers to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of their money on putting some comic, fifty year-old sf pulp novel or video game up on the big screen but won't allow any adaptation to popular taste, current attitudes or audience preference should just be satisfied with the source material itself and stop expecting studios to risk fortunes on their behalf.

[Shazam!]

InklingStar wrote:

---

I trust Joss Whedon will not feel the need to go the Buffy or River route and make Black Widow smarter, wittier, and physically stronger than the other guys just to provide "balance".

I could see Joss Whedon screwing with the fans by writing a scene where all the dudes are taken down and then in walks Black Widow...

...who gets taken down with one punch.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

If Whedon wants to improve a character or make her more interesting, then more power to him. It'll make for a better movie and give Johannson a better role to play.

Or are we talking hypotheticals again rather than addressing facts?