Michael B. Jordan as the Man Of Steel?

[The Realist]

Yeah, they'd probably agree with me that Adam West was an iconic Batman.
Serious or not, the 1966 Batman was a seriously great adaptation. It's still talked about and loved by a whole lot of people.

Believe it or not, I seem to recall TG1 himself discussing the Adam West Batman series with some enjoyment and approval (though he's always hated Yvonne Craig's Batgirl, which I'm pretty sure is an actual category of psychological disorder per the DSM-5). But that was before he decided that absolutely everything had to be SUPER ULTRA SERIOUS or it sucks.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Believe it or not, I seem to recall TG1 himself discussing the Adam West Batman series with some enjoyment and approval (though he's always hated Yvonne Craig's Batgirl, which I'm pretty sure is an actual category of psychological disorder per the DSM-5). But that was before he decided that absolutely everything had to be SUPER ULTRA SERIOUS or it sucks.

What's great about some characters, they can be all sorts of tones and things. Batman and Superman are mythological in ways many characters are not. But their very nature of being comic book characters, they are eternal, literally their story never ends, there is never a climax for the characters. A story they are involved with may end, but they go on.

And that affords flexibility in how their stories are told. There is no invalid way of doing Batman or Superman, over 80 years they have cycled through a lot of them.

And one incarnation won't destroy Batman or Superman.

 

[Mudd]

Have we given up on the idea of this alternate earth Superman who is black? Plus what about human who gets his powers or their are some interesting new takes but I do know their will always a desire for the nostigic classic look/version but I don't see why you can't do both. In fact your going to see that in the arrowverse. Jason

Well for the fun of it they could have Jordan be Calvin Ellis from Earth 23, somehow switched here for Clark Kent. The differences between Ellis's Earth and this one would probably be shocking to him and would provide a logical foundation for making the movie about racism itself as an evil rather than about some bald super-genius trying to glom onto all the real estate.

 

[Jayson1]

We need a even more gritty Batman. Time to go all Punisher like using a machine gun. Has cancer,opid addiction and is mentally insane who hullicnate Joker telling him to kill himself. Lives in the actual batcave and talks to the skelton remains of his dead parents. Jason

 

[Mudd]

We need a even more gritty Batman. Time to go all Punisher like using a machine gun. Has cancer,opid addiction and is mentally insane who hullicnate Joker telling him to kill himself. Lives in the actual batcave and talks to the skelton remains of his dead parents. Jason

We're getting that in the Joker sequel.

 

[Awesome Possum]

No, not really.. I have most issues of Batman and Detective Comics of the period where readers sent in letters blasting the TV series, and hoping the comic never embraced what was seen as the worst of the show.



Batman in the comics reacquainted itself with its darker roots in the late 60s, starting with writer Frank Robbins and artist Irv Novick's run, with plots involving such serious issues as capital punishment, murderers setting up the innocent, organized crime (and not in the exaggerated Cagney/Robinson tradition that had become the default portrayal for decades up to that point). Of course, Adams and O'Neil's collaboration to follow was legendary for endless reasons, chief among them, the grim, darker Batman and equally dark themes, including gothic horror on occasion. So Batman's return as a serious comic book character was well established before Miller's '86 opus and the period where Burton made his 1989 film. Before '89, when the concept of bringing Batman to the big screen went from one writer / production team to another, the strongest constant shared by various talents was that it was going to be serious--not like the Dozier TV series, as that was not real Batman, and not what fans wanted to see.

There’s no such thing as real Batman.

 

[JD]

The fact that Superman has been white for 70 year is all by itself a perfect reason to have a black Superman.

 

[theenglish]

You weren't upset that they turned him into a drunk with a floozy of a wife? What about tradition?

Or a Cylon?

But getting upset over the idea of a black Superman is racist no matter how you try to frame or justify it. Superman is an alien who was raised on Earth, he could be any race and it would make almost no change in the mythos. Same goes for a lot of other superheroes like Spider-Man for example. He’s just some kid from Queens who lives with his aunt. There are very few characters who could be argued as being justified in being white like Steve Rogers as Captain America due to the era of his origin being racist and maybe Batman assuming you’re going for the idea that the Waynes are old money with a long history. But even then the right story could change that with little change to who they are at their core.

Most of the classic super-heroes were created in an era where they had to be white in order to be socially acceptable. Times have hopefully changed since then, so I would think the question should be, "Is it acceptable to change the ethnicity of a character if the only reason that character is white was because of the societal standards of the time?" I don't think one can make the argument for traditionalism in this case.

In a nutshell

1. Black private dick That's a sex machine to all the chicks
2. The man who would risk his his life for a brother, man
3. The cat who won't cop out when there's danger all around
4. Bad mother....

Shut your mouth!

 

[gblews]

So you'd think me racist for being upset that Col Tigh was changed from a black actor in the original BSG to a white actor in the new BSG?

As I keep saying, these are fictional characters whose race is not a factor in who the character is or to their identities. Therefore, the characters you mentioned can be any race.

BTW, you seem really hung up on race, which is...interesting.

No kidding..I suppose recasting Lavendar Brown in The Half Blood Prince as a white woman after she had already been played by a black actress in Prisoner of Azkhaban is perfectly fine since it was never specifically stated in the book what her color was. While we are at it, let's remake Shaft with a hispanic or Japanese guy. There's no rule that says it HAS to be played by a black actor right?. Get real.

This type of one dimensional thinking is just too common these days. As I have also written, even a fictional character's race might in some cases be important, although not in any of the examples you gave. Shaft could be Hispanic or Asian, or female, or gay or lesbian.

Wouldn;t you agree?

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Believe it or not, I seem to recall TG1 himself discussing the Adam West Batman series with some enjoyment and approval (though he's always hated Yvonne Craig's Batgirl, which I'm pretty sure is an actual category of psychological disorder per the DSM-5). But that was before he decided that absolutely everything had to be SUPER ULTRA SERIOUS or it sucks.

Don't get that twisted: I've said Semple's early treatment of the Dozier series had the characters not making an ass of themselves, many scenes at night and/or in the shadows, and villains actually acting evil, instead of what it would become once Semple bailed--a joke, which angered 60s comic fan enough to send letters to DC complaining about how awful the series was / misrepresenting the characters.

The fact that Superman has been white for 70 year is all by itself a perfect reason to have a black Superman.

No, what you've described is tokenism, as it would be casting a black man only because someone thought "it was time" instead of what should be the motivation--a purely creative reason. Audiences--black audiences are not stupid: more than likely, they would not see this as the result of their desire, but white Hollywood trying (once again) to prove how "groundbreaking" / "socially conscious" they are, and people see that offensive crap coming a mile away.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

My main thing with Superman is I like him as the whole "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" guy. If they kept those qualities I could be open-minded about a black Superman. I could see where his experiences with that background could really feed into building those values and with the right script could be powerful.

Casting a short, blading, unathletic, and gravely voiced comedic actor to play one of the greatest and most physically defined (and occasionally dashing) superheroes ever created was bull, and beyond disappointing. Val Kilmer has ever been my cup of tea, but he made a superior Wayne/Batman--by leaps and bounds--over the dumpy mess that was Keaton.

Thankfully no one will ever go in that direction for a Batman movie ever again.

Oh, so now your discriminating against my people, eh? Dammit, I bet there are more of us short, balding, unathletic guys as a percentage of the population and yet here we are only ever presented as the butt of jokes! Our day will come!!!

Superman's powers come from the sun, where's my fat Supeman?




I probably should add some smileys in there somewhere...

 

[theenglish]

No, what you've described is tokenism, as it would be casting a black man only because someone thought "it was time" instead of what should be the motivation--a purely creative reason. Audiences--black audiences are not stupid: more than likely, they would not see this as the result of their desire, but white Hollywood trying (once again) to prove how "groundbreaking" / "socially conscious" they are, and people see that offensive crap coming a mile away.

I agree with you. Nobody wants tokenism, but there are at least three very good reasons for making the movie:

1. Michael B. Jordan apparently wants to do it. When you have a talented actor who is really pushing for a role that will provide a new and unique perspective on the character of Superman than why not consider it?
2. The source material is already there. Morrison has already provided a new and original take on a Superman character that fits within the established Mythos. The CW and Into the Spiderverse have already established that audiences are willing to accept the concept of the Multiverse.
3. Audiences have already embraced Mile Morales as a solid alternate take on Spider-Man, so studios should know that this could be a financial success if done with care and commitment to quality.

 

[ichab]

This type of one dimensional thinking is just too common these days.

We have a very different view on what constitutes one dimensional thinking. IMO, that would be color swapping characters because the writers lack the imagination to create interesting ones of their own. So they try and piggyback off an established franchise. It hasn't worked and it never will.

As I have also written, even a fictional character's race might in some cases be important, although not in any of the examples you gave. Shaft could be Hispanic or Asian, or female, or gay or lesbian.

Wouldn;t you agree?

No, not in the least. Have you even watched the Shaft films?

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I ask this as a serious inquiry as I'm not invested in the answer but want to know how people think for who it does matter, is it important that Clark Kent be black? Personally, I find it easier to deal with such a change in Superman, let's say, if it's not CK or say MM as Spider-Man instead of PP.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

I ask this as a serious inquiry as I'm not invested in the answer but want to know how people think for who it does matter, is it important that Clark Kent be black? Personally, I find it easier to deal with such a change in Superman, let's say, if it's not CK or say MM as Spider-Man instead of PP.

Green Lantern did first.

 

[Forbin]

BTW, you seem really hung up on race, which is...interesting.

What?? Where do you get THAT shit from?? Fuck right off with that. I'm not the one calling everyone with a differing opinion a racist. I made, like two comments in the whole thread. I simply am in the camp that the character should continue to look the way he's always looked. I have no other considerations than that.

This ENTIRE THREAD has been about race, and I'm the one you start actually calling a racist? Fuck off, pal.

 

[suarezguy]

Superman now isn’t the same character he was in the 1930s and obsessing over his race having to be a certain way is the very definition of racism.

How is your life affected by him being a different color? You aren’t losing anything

Well a particular movie depiction that's bad, or even if it's OK or good, can prevent another movie depiction of a character, including one closer to the material, being made for some 20 years or more, far from a crisis or a personal loss, let alone great personal loss, but something that people that are big fans of a character as previously portrayed would consider disappointing.

ETA:

Most of the classic super-heroes were created in an era where they had to be white in order to be socially acceptable. Times have hopefully changed since then, so I would think the question should be, "Is it acceptable to change the ethnicity of a character if the only reason that character is white was because of the societal standards of the time?"

In adapting a series or character that is 50+ years old with over 500 issues, I think the adaptation benefiting from the existing nostalgia fans have makes sense, being more innovative can work but isn't necessarily better.

That said it is a better idea to change the appearance of a character when they have, like Superman (and already previously Perry White), already had well-done live-action portrayals, that way it really is more of an alternate take rather than a comic book character never having a close movie adaptation.

 

[Captaindemotion]

We’ve had two different depictions of Superman on the big screen in the last decade and a half, by actors who look like they could’ve walked off the pages of the comic and come to life, yet the films didn’t really set the world on fire. Not to mention the two versions on the small screen. Maybe it’s time to mix it up a bit.

 

[BillJ]

We’ve had two different depictions of Superman on the big screen in the last decade and a half, by actors who look like they could’ve walked off the pages of the comic and come to life, yet the films didn’t really set the world on fire. Not to mention the two versions on the small screen. Maybe it’s time to mix it up a bit.

Better to continue cranking out mediocre films.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Don't get that twisted: I've said Semple's early treatment of the Dozier series had the characters not making an ass of themselves, many scenes at night and/or in the shadows, and villains actually acting evil, instead of what it would become once Semple bailed--a joke, which angered 60s comic fan enough to send letters to DC complaining about how awful the series was / misrepresenting the characters.

lol. Fans complaining! I'm shocked, SHOCKED.
Regardless of whatever percentage actually complained, the show was successful and iconic. Snyder would be so lucky.

Better to continue cranking out mediocre films.

And that's what WBs will do. It would be such a risk to cast Jordon, the PR blow back from certain fans, #NotAllFans... As much as middle America likes to believe Hollywood is all liberal sex parties, the industry is, in fact, quite conservative. They won't take a business risk like this.