Thanks for the Spoiler to a film that is not even available outside of the cinema....</many thoughts filled with unprintable language which translate to> how hard is it to avoid specific references?
Michael B. Jordan as the Man Of Steel?
- Thread starter Mage
- Start date
Thanks for the Spoiler to a film that is not even available outside of the cinema....</many thoughts filled with unprintable language which translate to> how hard is it to avoid specific references?
There is a fundamental flaw with this argument. There is nothing wrong with admitting that our lives are the result of fundamentally racist social structures that have been constructed by Europeans colonizing other parts of the world. That is not an admission of personal guilt. I am not racist but the advantages that I have had in my life are the result of historically racist practices that are still racist today. This is not an acknowledgement of personal guilt and it comes with complete understanding that there are white people in society who are poor and downtrodden. Empowering others does not depower ourselves. People cannot make the arguments you are making (which are racist arguments) without expecting certain reactions from others. Also, and this is subjective, I believe that one can have racist beliefs without being a racist--the key is to be willing to question and alter those beliefs when we are made aware that they come from racist foundations.
Is it a rule we have to spoiler code stuff from movies until it's out on DVD? I had just assumed once it had been out in theaters for a few weeks it was fair game.
Yep, spoiler code applies until six months after initial release, though there can be exceptions resulting in a longer period. EG, if one is discussing a TV show or movie based on a novel or comic that came out years earlier, spoiler codes are used for discussion of said novels or comics.
I've been spoken to many times by moderators about the spoiler policy.
I've been spoken to many times by moderators about the spoiler policy.
Sorry if I overreacted a bit, but it is not the first time I've been avoiding specific threads to avoid spoilers only to have something mentioned in an unrelated thread that should, theoretically, be safe.
To be fair, I have probably spoiled something in the past too--so it is an understandable error.
From what I have seen in various parts of the internet, getting some white people to admit to even the existence of white privilege is quite a chore. You seem to have cleared that hurdle somehow, even though it does look a little like you're reveling in it.
Baby steps, right?
I think it’s particularly unfair to spoil a completely unrelated film in a discussion. If you go into a Superman thread, being spoiled for Superman movies goes with the territory but you wouldn’t expect to see a spoiler for Terminator casually thrown out there.
Jordan has addressed the rumours - but it doesn’t really leave anybody any the wiser https://batman-news.com/2019/12/27/michael-b-jordan-superman-rumors-12-2019/
I don't think making a white character non-white has the same negative consequences as making a non-white character white. Non-white fans are robbed of an already far more limited supply of characters to represent their communities in our national stories in the case of the latter; white fans, on the other hand, retain a plethora.
I mean, did it really hurt the artistic integrity of Nick Fury to make him black instead of white for the Ultimate line and the MCU? Was anything essential to his character lost?
Well, hold on here. Your idea of a "traditional" Superman is such that he's invalidated if he's played by a non-white actor. You are, in other words, saying you would refuse to watch a story about a black character, because it's not "traditional."
I would encourage you to give serious reconsideration towards whether or not it is a racist thing to refuse to watch a story because it stars black folk.
But let's set that aside a moment.
Do you believe that Superman's whiteness is essential to who he is as a character? Does whiteness confer some sort of element that makes a white version of Superman superior to another?
When I think of Superman, I think of an idealized image of virtue -- the living embodiment of "truth, justice, and the American way." I think of a friendly, out-going, charismatic, compassionate person, a man who is fatherly without being patronizing. I think of someone with profound empathy and compassion and maybe a bit of detachment, but also immense love -- love for Lois especially, but for his family and friends. Confident, and self-sacrificing. And a little bit of mischief on the side.
Now, which of those virtues requires whiteness?
Believing it is wrong to refuse to watch a story because it stars black people is not the same thing as being ashamed of being white.
But does that mean you think of his whiteness as being essential to who he is?
I don't think that's the case at all. In fact, while my personal favorite version of Superman is white -- Christopher Reeve from the Donner film -- I would be excited and intrigued to see a black Superman.
I do not say that because I want to "change something for the sake of changing it." I say that because I love Superman and see him as an aspirational figure, and I think seeing a black version of Superman in contemporary America -- one with the exact same values, personality, and major choices as the original white version of the character, but who is black -- would be like holding up a very powerful mirror to us as a society and asking, "Who are we, really? What do we really believe in?"
If we say we believe in the things Superman stands for -- solidarity, compassion, self-sacrifice, equality, truth, justice -- then why should we even care if Superman is black? Superman is Superman, whether or not he's got white skin. Right?
Of course, that's what would make it amazing: To see a traditional Superman, who happens to be black, and see the black Superman challenge an America unwilling to admit certain truths about itself. And to see Superman call America to truth and justice, as he always does, no matter what skin he happens to be wearing at that moment.
Something else to chew on:
Captain America is another superhero traditionally depicted as white, who embodies an aspirational image of virtue: His birthday is July 4, his favorite sport is baseball, his favorite food is apple pie, and he really does always do the right thing. Superman and Captain America embody the same archetypes.
They are also both white.
But.
Captain America -- Steve Rogers -- is also an Irish Catholic, the son of an immigrant. When Captain America was created in the 1940s, Irish Americans were only about 60 years off from being considered non-white. Yes, that's right -- the Irish in the late 1800s/early 1900s were not considered "white." They were considered to be part of a separate, inferior race; they weren't white, they were Celtic. There are plenty of racist depictions of Irish Americas as these barbaric caveman-looking creates, drunk and violent and such. The usual anti-Irish stereotypes, but employed in earnest rather than ironically.
This is because there has never been a historically consistent definition of whiteness; the history of white people is a history of people who weren't considered white being allowed into ranks of whiteness (provided they agreed to hate the black man as much as those who'd been called white for longer).
So, in a very real sense, we've already got this icon of Americana that implicitly challenges both the definition of whiteness and the definition of Americanness, simply by virtue of being an Irishman who calls himself "Captain America."
So.... does it bother you that Captain America is Irish Catholic, instead of a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant? If not, why not?
Captain America is another superhero traditionally depicted as white, who embodies an aspirational image of virtue: His birthday is July 4, his favorite sport is baseball, his favorite food is apple pie, and he really does always do the right thing. Superman and Captain America embody the same archetypes.
They are also both white.
But.
Captain America -- Steve Rogers -- is also an Irish Catholic, the son of an immigrant. When Captain America was created in the 1940s, Irish Americans were only about 60 years off from being considered non-white. Yes, that's right -- the Irish in the late 1800s/early 1900s were not considered "white." They were considered to be part of a separate, inferior race; they weren't white, they were Celtic. There are plenty of racist depictions of Irish Americas as these barbaric caveman-looking creates, drunk and violent and such. The usual anti-Irish stereotypes, but employed in earnest rather than ironically.
This is because there has never been a historically consistent definition of whiteness; the history of white people is a history of people who weren't considered white being allowed into ranks of whiteness (provided they agreed to hate the black man as much as those who'd been called white for longer).
So, in a very real sense, we've already got this icon of Americana that implicitly challenges both the definition of whiteness and the definition of Americanness, simply by virtue of being an Irishman who calls himself "Captain America."
So.... does it bother you that Captain America is Irish Catholic, instead of a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant? If not, why not?
Making him non-white does potentially change the subtext of Superman somewhat. Sometimes he's a savior type who represents the best of humanity, sometimes he's seen as a threat or alien presence, making him non-white would add a different context to that. Perhaps, it would be an intriguing one worth exploring, but I think to say it makes no difference isn't correct.
Are you saying it would make him a more Messiah-figure like as his skin color would be closer in tone to Jesus Christ's actual skin color?
Not necessarily what I was thinking but at the same time that you saying something like that is my point, it brings new meaning or additional subtext to it for people. I'm sure there would be "What does it mean that ... " type articles and discussion about the change.
https://collider.com/michael-b-jordan-black-superman-project-val-zod-hbo-max/
Michael B. Jordan is now developing a Val-Zod limited series for HBO Max!
Michael B. Jordan is now developing a Val-Zod limited series for HBO Max!
Saw this in another thread--it is so cool to see this in production. Jordan has to be rivaling Chris Evans or Ryan Reynolds for number of super-hero roles by now.
EDIT: I didn't notice the Val-Zod thing is a reference the the New 52 Earth 2, and not the Earth 23 version. I wonder if this is what the production is actually going with (placing it on Stargirl's Earth) or if they really mean the Earth 23 version.
EDIT: I didn't notice the Val-Zod thing is a reference the the New 52 Earth 2, and not the Earth 23 version. I wonder if this is what the production is actually going with (placing it on Stargirl's Earth) or if they really mean the Earth 23 version.
Last edited:
I'm more excited for this than the movie. Question though. Which version do people think is more interesting. Calvin Ellis or Val-Zod?
