• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Black Panther grade and discussion thread

How do you rate "Black Panther"?


  • Total voters
    113
So, if I understand you correctly here, it seems like what you're saying is that the Heimdall character needed to show some signs that he was being played by a black actor, is that correct? That some explanation was required for the fact that Heimdall was played by a black actor. Correct? If I'm right, why? (to both observations) BTW, obviously the filmakers disagreed with your position.
No, I'm saying Heimdall isn't a black character. He is a blank character played by a black actor. In this case it literally does not matter who plays the character because he is an alien and his phenotype matters not a whit.
So, having Starks and Rogers played by black actors would require that their characters be written as "black" Americans?
Yes.
Starks and Rogers played by white actors aren't required to be "white", are they, unless you think that being super smart, having courage and integrity, being rich (in the case of Starks) are characteristics of being "white". None of those, even being rich, are "racial" characteristics. This goes to my overall point, that the races of Starks and Rogers have no real significance to who the characters are, other than the fact that the character's were originally written and played by white actors.
Their race doesn't matter, their experience in an America that thinks race matters as to the content of your character does.
The only significance the characters' race has, is in one's head.
Race doesn't exist, but it does have an impact.
So far, the only reasons you've given as to why you think Rogers and Stark cannot be played by black actors is essentially because if the actors are black this would require that the characters be written as "black" and that would, apparently, have to differ so much from a white actor, that it wouldn't work. Do I need to point out here that it is very likely that perhaps your own personal beliefs about black stereotypes are at work here. If not, please explain to me why not.
It would require they be written with some level of plausibility, in which case you can not ignore the changes to their story required by changing their race.
Steve Rogers is a fictional character, Jesse Owens was not. Not including the impact of racism on Jesse's story would be a factual and dramatic error. Steve Rogers and Tony Starks are fictional. You can write their backstories any way you want, regardless of race. If the characters are played by black actors or originally written as black, that would only require they be written as "black" if the film's makers are writing the two as black Americans.
You can write them as unicorns from space if you want, but if you don't make that plausible within the context of the story it is going to be a bad story.
What significant thing(s) do you lose by having Starks and Rogers played by black actors? This has been my question from the beginning but the only response I've gotten is your reasons why you think they just can't be played by black actors.
You don't lose anything, but you do change it. Social equality does not mean sameness. Writing black, white, asian, etc. characters the same is disingenuous and almost always defaults to writing them as white. Race may not exist, but racism does and societal structural racism especially can not be ignored.
 
^ I take the point you’re making Venardhi but we’re not talking about Saving Private Ryan or the like here. The MCU’s 1930s and 1940s had Howard Stark almost perfecting flying cars and had Hydra, rather than the Nazis, being the main villain in WWII (at least, Cap’s main villain). I’m not in favour of pretending that racism didn’t exist in the army or other institutions but surely in the fantastical (as in non-historical) context of Captain America’s history, racism or his/Howard’s race doesn’t have to be an issue?
 
When you erase the racial context I just don't see the point.

What is more interesting of a story? For me, having that context is literally the only reason to do it. Black kid subjects himself to an experiment and then deals with the systemic racism of the 40s (and nazis) to become a war hero knowing after he wins this war he has to go back to a country that doesn't want him as its hero? That's compelling shit man.
 
When you erase the racial context I just don't see the point.

What is more interesting of a story? For me, having that context is literally the only reason to do it. Black kid subjects himself to an experiment and then deals with the systemic racism of the 40s (and nazis) to become a war hero knowing after he wins this war he has to go back to a country that doesn't want him as its hero? That's compelling shit man.

Remove the fantasy element and that was a widespread, real world complaint of black WWII veterans, who sacrificed everything for a nation permeated with one of the true evils of human history. For a work of fiction, yes, that's compelling.
 
Their race doesn't matter, their experience in an America that thinks race matters as to the content of your character does.
This thinking reminds me of those old movies that feature an interracial couple, usually a black man and white woman. When they reveal their intention to marry, the woman's parents tell them that they (the parents) don't mind, but "think of what your children will face". It's the rest of America that wouldn't accept a black actor playing Cap or Starks. This type of thinking is why it has taken so long to get a "Black Panther", because the people in charge believed that it wouldn't be accepted.
It would require they be written with some level of plausibility, in which case you can not ignore the changes to their story required by changing their race.

You can write them as unicorns from space if you want, but if you don't make that plausible within the context of the story it is going to be a bad story.

You don't lose anything, but you do change it.

Social equality does not mean sameness. Writing black, white, asian, etc. characters the same is disingenuous and almost always defaults to writing them as white. Race may not exist, but racism does and societal structural racism especially can not be ignored.
With respect to the bolded text, that is correct, you don't lose anything. This is part of the point I have been trying to make from the start. There is no substantive reason Cap and Stark could not be played by black actors just as there is no substantive reason both have to be played by white actors. The only argument against them being portrayed by black actors is the belief that "people wouldn't accept it, which means that the only argument against it is racism.

What you refer to as "writing them the same" is really a reference to writing a character as race neutral. Cap and Stark are both written as race neutral, meaning the character's race has no significant meaning or impact on the character's story or who the character is. The only reason the characters appear white is because that is the how their creators happened to have chosen to make them look. In the case of the movies, Cap and Stark are white only because the actors chosen to play them are white. But there is nothing written into either character that requires them to be portrayed by white actors.

But when your default setting is white, meaning that you see every character played by a white actor as in-universe white, then "race neutral" means "white". Nick Fury was written as race neutral, believe it or not, that's why it was so easy to change his presentation in the comics to black, and to have him then portrayed by a black actor in the films. Sam Jackson is black without question, but Nick Fury is not, or you might say, he is the same race as whichever actor is playing him.

It's done all the time. Ever see a Denzel Washington movie? How about a Will Smith movie? Many of the characters Denzel and Will play aren't black in-universe, though I imagine for some people, even fans, they aren't able to separate skin color from character either.

The problem isn't the race of the actor in most cases, the problem is with the observer. Sometimes the observer has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
 
Last edited:
Racism has nothing to do with the factual (non)existence of race, much like religion hasn't anything to do with the factual (non)existence of God(s). Belief in something does not make it real.
 
Racism has nothing to do with the factual (non)existence of race, much like religion hasn't anything to do with the factual (non)existence of God(s). Belief in something does not make it real.

You keep saying race doesn't exist, and I understand the term has no meaning from a scientific standpoint, but groups of people have observable common phenotypes just like every other animal (Scottish Terrier vs. Great Dane). So I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
 
You keep saying race doesn't exist, and I understand the term has no meaning from a scientific standpoint, but groups of people have observable common phenotypes just like every other animal (Scottish Terrier vs. Great Dane). So I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
I'm saying that race as a phenomenon does not exist. Humans can not be broken up into races or breeds or any other phenotypically based categorization by any reasonable definition. Breeds are bullshit anyways.
By the same token, denial of real things does not make them unreal.
The burden of proof is not on the denial.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top