‘Superman & Batman’ movie will follow ‘Man of Steel’

Haha, wow. I suppose Sammy L's Nick Fury was stunt casting too, huh?

 

Indeed.

 

Stunt casting way back in the first Ultimates comic I guess.

 

Laurence Fishburne is black

 

I understand Samuel L Jackson is too

 

Wow, it's like Snyder is begging me to not even Redbox this thing.

"Points!"


So, just to be clear, this Aquaman guy is the cousin of Channing Tatum in Jupiter Ascending, right?

 

And it was, all in the grand adherence to diversify for diversity sake. I love Fishburne, great actor but Perry White is a two note character and Fishburne's talent was wasted in that role.
I realize comments like that on this highly charged liberal board seem radical and they get their feathers ruffled.
Fishburne was too good for such a bland role and even a great actor can only do so much with "Lane stay away from this story".

No, actually SLJ was asked about the permission for his likeness to be used from the start when Marvel created their alternate Ultimates Universe line. His casting was the honoring of a contract, verbal(?), in some form that he'd be asked to play the character if he ever came to film. I had/have zero problems with SLJ as Fury, hope you had a good chuckle though.

 

I'm a huge fan of Momoa, so I was happy when they cast him, and I think he looks great here.
Honestly, while it is a very different look from the comics, if it's going to get us away from the white haired blonde dude, I'm all for it.
I haven't read the article in the link about the tattoos and stuff, but I think it's a great idea to connect Atlantis to Polynesian culture. Sure, it's different from the comics, but I think it'll bring a unique spin to this version. And I believe Polynesian cultures tend to deal a lot with the sea, so it's not a totally rediculous connection to make.
I can understand the frustration of some of the old school fans who want to see the exact character from the comics, but we've gotten plenty of versions of that in the past so I'm all for doing something different. And even with all of the changes that were made, there are still other aspects of the character that could easily be left intact.

 

Besides...

Character is not about hair color or skin color. It's not about costume. It's about how a person acts and thinks and feels and interacts with others. Anyone who says someone isn't the same character just because he has a darker complexion or a less colorful wardrobe is misusing the word "character."

Heck, Henry Cavill looks a lot like Superman -- but the character he was playing in Man of Steel didn't have a lot in common with Superman. Character isn't something you can see in a still photo.

 

So if they cast a lame white actor or a lame black actor, it would have been okay for you. So if they cast Forest Whitaker it would been okay, since wouldn't be wasting Fishburne's talents. Or is Whitaker to high profile as well. Would Danny Glover or heck Bernie Mac or Charles S Dutton been a better level of actor for the part?

 

Had they gotten Bernie Mac to play Perry White it'd certainly blow my mind.

 

Cool. Rob Zombie joined the Justice League.

 

Relax, cupcake, it was a joke.

I'm well aware that his likeness was use for the Ultimates version of Fury. Like I said; been reading comics for 30 years.

 

And a fresh adaptation can redefine them. Creations of the imagination aren't meant to be carved in stone, forever unchanging. Living things, including living ideas, grow and evolve. An adaptation is not a slavish copy, not if it's any good. It's a response to the source material, part of a dialogue between past and present. Sometimes a response echoes the source, and sometimes it provides a counterpoint.

And yet the screen Wolverine has never worn his character's trademark cowl. Change can be, and has been, accepted if the changed version is good enough.

Except Ledger's version was just a guy wearing whiteface and hair dye, which is a huge departure.

Well, I'll concede that I have a hard time seeing that crew-cut white guy in the old comics as Nick Fury. But of course he is the same character in every way that actually matters. Jackson's appearance is just one part of what he brought to the role.

Of course no character interpreted by an actor is going to be exactly the same as the character was on the page, or as interpreted by a different actor. But that's a feature, not a bug. Actors are supposed to bring something new and different to their interpretation of a role. That's why we cast actors to play roles in the first place: because we want to see how they can make those characters fresh and different by filtering them through their own personalities and performance styles. And an actor who does it well can totally redefine how we see a character, and that's a good thing.

In any case, it's a clear sign of bias to single out race as the deal-breaking difference while being fine with changes in height or hair color or nationality or whatever. It's an indefensible double standard to say that turning Jimmy Olsen from a redhead to a brunet is fine but changing him from white to black is a "change of character."

 

I never thought of the character as having a crew cut. I think they are different types of characters myself, I wonder if anyone has ever put the Sam Jackson version in the old Steranko comics. I'm curious how well that would work.

Everyone does this when there's a charge of whitewashing/racebending. Does that statement only work in one direction? Or when one likes the change?