Spoilers Black Panther grade and discussion thread

[gblews]

I'm not so sure. Tony Stark is who he is because of what he inherited (in every sense) from his father, who (in the MCU, at least) grew up working-class. However, both his parents had steady jobs that probably paid better than if they'd been black, which gave Howard the foundation to start building his fortune. And Howard lied about his background to avoid discrimination, which would've been impossible if he hadn't been white.

Likewise, while it's entirely possible a black Steve Rogers might've been subjected to horrifying medical experimentation in the '40s, he still would've been serving in a segregated Army, and kept even further away from the front lines than he was as a USO act. Black enlistees had a three-year waiting period before they could begin combat training, and the Tuskegee Airmen weren't even deployed until 1944.

A black Steve Rogers or Tony Stark would be as different as a white T'Challa would be (which, as some wags have pointed out, is basically just "Thor"). That's not necessarily a reason those characters couldn't be reimagined as black, though (it's not like there's a shortage of popular white headlining superheroes). Captain America would probably work better, you could swap in the segregation thing for the PR-monkey thing in the film, though I have trouble thinking of how African-American Tony Stark wouldn't end up being a lot more like Whiplash (son of a brilliant inventor whose work and legacy was stolen by others while he was erased), or maybe just one-man Wakanda, creating all these technological wonders that are ignored by others either because they can't believe they were made by someone like him, or hidden because other people would take the credit.

But how does any of this show that Steve Rogers' and Tony Starks' race were integral to their respective stories? How does their being white play an indispensable role in who the two characters are?

You wouldn't have to write Tony Stark or Steve Rogers any differently if both characters had been black. Tony Starks' most important attributes, his intellect, looks, integrity, courage, ingenuity. There are probably others that I'm missing, but I don't think any that I've missed are dependent on Tony being white. If the character is written as black, you can then fill in his backstory however you want. He could be from money or he could be from poverty. His father could still be white Howard Starks, or he could be black Howard Starks. Tony could still be Tony without losing anything of real importance about him. Same for Cap.

My point is, by changing the race of characters like Starks and Cap, you lose nothing of real importance about the characters.

However, Black Panther's race is an integral part of the character's story. If you change the character's race to white (in particular), you don't get Thor, you get Tarzan, a really offensive situation. If you turn BP white, you lose the compelling story of a black heroic/leader of a black nation located on the African continent, which has never been conquered, colonized, and robbed of it's most precious natural resources. You'd almost surely have to change the Wakandans to white and that would cost you the poignancy of the whole wealthy, technologically advanced black African country never been colonized, story.

I think it's a rare occurrence, but there are certain instances when a character's (even a fictional character's) race is important to the character;s story and who the character is. That is not the case with Tony Stark and Steve Rogers, but is with BP.

 

[gblews]

Again, yet another white YouTuber has a problem with the film because of its all black-cast, and is using reverse racism and whataboutism to justify what they're saying:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I can't figure out what is pissing these people off more, the movie's quality, the movie's reception by fans and critics, or the box office success. All I can say is, I'm delighted by their anger.

The film has the second highest weekend ever at $108 million and has been outpacing The Avengers since the first Sunday with the exception of the second Friday (missing by less than half a million). At this rate, and I don't see any sign of the film slowing down, Black Panther will not only be Marvel's biggest film, but the biggest superhero film ever.

This is really the best answer to the haters. l

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Much like how The Wire has inspired courses dissecting its content, Black Panther has also inspired one teacher to further the conversation started by the film.

The conversations and inspirations that have come from this movie transcends it to some extent.

I think the spectacle of Afrofuturism and representation conceal some of the flaws. I have some problems with it as a superhero movie for a few reasons. The CGI is really shaky at times especially in some of the action scenes with lots of obvious "dolls" being thrown around. Even some of the scenes like Klaue's missing arm or scenes in the spirit world where the digital eraser seemed a bit too obvious.

Another problem I had was with Black Panther's suit which, and this may be faithful to the comics, I don't know, made secondary threats seem pointless. I mean shooting him just makes him stronger and even the cars are all made from vibranium so why should I care about the action scenes? (I did think the whole virtual cockpit deal was fun)

Finally, I thought dispatching Klaue(sp?) was too easy and then Killmonger seemed to suddenly appear back in the story, the flow of it all just seemed off to me. It seemed kind of odd too that Killmonger seemed to legitimately take the throne of king and that it was almost like T'Challa was the cheating usurper.

I find a second viewing often changes my mind about different things so I reserve final judgment until then but I think it was a solid Marvel movie with fantastic trappings maybe held back a little bit by trying to be a Marvel movie. Plus, I won't be distracted trying to figure out why Shuri seems familiar (Black Mirror/"Black Museum").

 

[Mage]

I thought it was a great movie, that needed about 15 minutes to find its tempo. It slowed down a bit somehow around the middle, but that might have been me.

Other than that, it was great to have a very motivated villian. Solid acting all around, good characters and plot. The parallels to our current world-society were there but not too on the nose. The midcredit scene was well placed in the credits. Had that been the actual last scene, it would have totally destroyed the movie and make it preachy instead of an example.

So yeah, an A for me, can't wait to rewatch as well.

 

[Noname Given]

The film has the second highest weekend ever at $108 million and has been outpacing The Avengers since the first Sunday with the exception of the second Friday (missing by less than half a million). At this rate, and I don't see any sign of the film slowing down, Black Panther will not only be Marvel's biggest film, but the biggest superhero film ever.

To be fair, Avengers is going on 6 years old, and ticket prices were slightly lower. It's still an incredible showing for the film; and it's getting the money because it is a good and entertaining film that audiences like (which is the hallmark for the majority of the MCU films to date.)

 

[The Nth Doctor]

To be fair, Avengers is going on 6 years old, and ticket prices were slightly lower. It's still an incredible showing for the film; and it's getting the money because it is a good and entertaining film that audiences like (which is the hallmark for the majority of the MCU films to date.)

Not just, but Black Panther is a black cultural event. That alone is why I think it'll have the legs to continue to do strong business.

But fair point on the ticket prices. According to Box Office Mojo, The Avengers has made $705 million adjusted for inflation, compared to $623 million unadjusted. We'll see in a month or so if Black Panther can hit that high inflation mark.

 

[JD]

This is cool.
In honor of the success of PB, Disney will be donating $1 million to The Boys & Girls Club of America's STEM program. They will use the money to open 12 new STEM Centers of Innovation in multiple cities in the US.
As a big supporter of the sciences I love that Disney using the success of Black Panther to help promote STEM programs.

 

[kirk55555]

Okay, for those who hate rap music a lot, please tell me what the filmmakers were supposed to use? Like it ore not, it's a part of world culture.

Well, since they barely used any rap/etc in the film apparently its not a very important part of world culture. They were "supposed" to use what they did use, orchestrated (I think thats the right word) music that sounds like it would be from a place like Wakanda. The bits of rap or hip hop or whatever were a bit annoying, but it was probably a bit under 2 minutes combined (not counting the credits, which we did not sit through which meant I had to goolge the end credit scenes), so it wasn't a huge deal for me.

In the end, they could have cut the few instances of rap/etc and not effected the movie in any way except positively, but its inclusion was so slight it didn't really effect the movie much in the first place.

 

[Venardhi]

But how does any of this show that Steve Rogers' and Tony Starks' race were integral to their respective stories? How does their being white play an indispensable role in who the two characters are?

You wouldn't have to write Tony Stark or Steve Rogers any differently if both characters had been black. Tony Starks' most important attributes, his intellect, looks, integrity, courage, ingenuity. There are probably others that I'm missing, but I don't think any that I've missed are dependent on Tony being white. If the character is written as black, you can then fill in his backstory however you want. He could be from money or he could be from poverty. His father could still be white Howard Starks, or he could be black Howard Starks. Tony could still be Tony without losing anything of real importance about him. Same for Cap.

You COULD swap in black actors to play them, but they wouldn't be honest or authentic portrayals of who those people would be and how the rest of the world would view them if they were black. In another 10-20 years you could have a black Tony Stark without needing to do much fiddling, but as long as Steve's origins are tied to WW2 he will always need to be white or you may as well just make a new character for all the changing you'll need to do to him.

 

[gblews]

You COULD swap in black actors to play them, but they wouldn't be honest or authentic portrayals of who those people would be

Really? Why would that be? Why would black actors playing the roles make the characters inauthentic? So you would only be willing to accept white actors in the roles of Stark and Rogers? Why would the character's race legitimize them?

The movie versions of the two characters are based on the comic book representations of Stark and Cap and were created in a time when racism ruled the comic book industry (along with so many others), which precluded use of a black or any other than white presentation of the characters. In other words, the characters' race was determined by nothing more than racism.

There currently is no compelling reason for the two to not be played by other than white actors. If you think there is a reason, please elaborate.

and how the rest of the world would view them if they were black.

As long as they conduct themselves as heroes, America and the rest of the world would view them as such, I would think. Of course we all know that the racists among us would have a problem with it no matter how heroic they were.

In another 10-20 years you could have a black Tony Stark without needing to do much fiddling, but as long as Steve's origins are tied to WW2 he will always need to be white or you may as well just make a new character for all the changing you'll need to do to him.

Well retroactively, the WW2 origin would not have been a problem. As long as black Captain America was kicking Nazi ass the way he did, it would not be implausible to show him leading the white Howling Commandos (since this is the way the tale has been retconned). Cap himself was shown having to prove himself before they even accepted him in all of his "whiteness". If you use the original origin, with Cap fighting Nazi's alone (or for a time, with Bucky), that would make it even easier for a black Cap.

 

[JD]

I don't see a problem with black Tony Stark, but black Steve Rogers would have to have a very different backstory, just because of the realities of what a black man's life in the '40s would be like. If anything though, it could actually make for an even more inspirational character since would have had to overcome even worse hardships to be respected as Captain America.

 

[Venardhi]

Really? Why would that be? Why would black actors playing the roles make the characters inauthentic? So you would only be willing to accept white actors in the roles of Stark and Rogers? Why would the character's race legitimize them?

They would not be authentically black characters. Casting black faces for white roles is not representation. Heimdall is not a representative character, for instance, in spite of being played by a black man. It required no changes to his character to account for Idris Elba playing him, but that would not be true for someone living on earth, much less one that grew up in 20th century America.

The movie versions of the two characters are based on the comic book representations of Stark and Cap and were created in a time when racism ruled the comic book industry (along with so many others), which precluded use of a black or any other than white presentation of the characters. In other words, the characters' race was determined by nothing more than racism.

True, and also not really relevant.

There currently is no compelling reason for the two to not be played by other than white actors. If you think there is a reason, please elaborate.

Exactly what has already said. You can't just swap out their skin color and pretend that their life in that skin up to that point hasn't changed them. You can write a black Tony Stark or a black Steve Rogers, but they won't be the same characters. In comparison, Peter Parker or Bruce Banner would require considerably less of a change.

As long as they conduct themselves as heroes, America and the rest of the world would view them as such, I would think. Of course we all know that the racists among us would have a problem with it no matter how heroic they were.

This is pure fantasy as far as Cap's WW2 origins. This is a time when an open member of the Ku Klux Klan was sitting on the supreme court, when Jesse Owens returned from Berlin with only the barest recognition from the government while white athletes dined with the president, a time where slavery was still in living memory for much of the country and black men could be killed for little more than a look or a word or a lie from the wrong person.

Well retroactively, the WW2 origin would not have been a problem. As long as black Captain America was kicking Nazi ass the way he did, it would not be implausible to show him leading the white Howling Commandos (since this is the way the tale has been retconned). Cap himself was shown having to prove himself before they even accepted him in all of his "whiteness". If you use the original origin, with Cap fighting Nazi's alone (or for a time, with Bucky), that would make it even easier for a black Cap.

The question isn't "could Captain America be black?" it's "would a black Captain America be the same character?" The answer to the first question is obviously Yes, and to the second is just as obviously No.

 

[Skywalker]

I always assumed that Steve Rogers was designed by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby to deliberately resemble the Aryan ideal, blond-haired and blue-eyed, as a way to turn the racist idea of the Übermensch back onto Nazi Germany and make it into a force for good.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

You wouldn't have to write Tony Stark or Steve Rogers any differently if both characters had been black.

That's untrue, and the reasons why have to do with how well the characters' origins mesh with real world history of WWII-era USA.

Making Tony's father Howard black, an implication of not writing Tony "any differently," would be incongruous for a prominent aerospace tycoon of the WWII era based loosely on Howard Hughes. On the other hand, if you keep Howard Stark's race as white, and modify Tony's backstory by having him be adopted, then Tony's struggles with his father's legacy that occupied a lot of screen time in IM2 wouldn't work the same. Yes, Tony's story could be adapted to have him be an adopted heir to Howard's fortune and enterprises, but that's not the same as not writing Tony any differently.

A black Captain America wouldn't have been a believable public face for Army propaganda in the US of the 1940s, given the level of segregation both within the armed forces and in the country at large. Given that resisting his relegation to a mere showpiece was part of what drove Captain America to act in The First Avenger, that alone is enough to contradict the idea that he wouldn't need to be written any differently. But moreover, a black Captain America acting in the field would have had a profound effect on the idea that racial segregation was appropriate in the Army. With a black Cap, it would be implausible for white soldiers not to be reevaluating the appropriateness of serving alongside other soldiers of the same race as Captain America and implausible for effects and fallout of that shaking up of the status quo not to circle back and affect Steve's story on a personal level. Again, TFA could be adapted into a workable story with a black Cap, but the idea that a black Cap wouldn't have to be written any differently than a white Cap just misses too much.

Tony Starks' most important attributes, his intellect, looks, integrity, courage, ingenuity. There are probably others that I'm missing, but I don't think any that I've missed are dependent on Tony being white. If the character is written as black, you can then fill in his backstory however you want. He could be from money or he could be from poverty. His father could still be white Howard Starks, or he could be black Howard Starks. Tony could still be Tony without losing anything of real importance about him. Same for Cap.

My point is, by changing the race of characters like Starks and Cap, you lose nothing of real importance about the characters.

However, Black Panther's race is an integral part of the character's story. If you change the character's race to white (in particular), you don't get Thor, you get Tarzan, a really offensive situation. If you turn BP white, you lose the compelling story of a black heroic/leader of a black nation located on the African continent, which has never been conquered, colonized, and robbed of it's most precious natural resources. You'd almost surely have to change the Wakandans to white and that would cost you the poignancy of the whole wealthy, technologically advanced black African country never been colonized, story.

I think it's a rare occurrence, but there are certain instances when a character's (even a fictional character's) race is important to the character;s story and who the character is. That is not the case with Tony Stark and Steve Rogers, but is with BP.

 

[Starkers]

While the main character was T'Challa, he was outshined by all of the women around him. Nakia, Okoye, Ramonda, and especially Shuri stole the film from T'Challa thanks to the performances of Lupita Nyong'o, Danai Gurira, Angela Bassett, and Letitia Wright, respectively. I can only hope future Marvel films (and films in general) will have so many beautifully-realized female characters in lead and supporting roles.

Awesome film, I can really only find two flaws, the first is this, well the point that the titular character is one of the least interesting things about the film, but that's ably compensated for by how awesome the supporting cast is. Not sure if I love Shuri or Okoye more, they were both fantastic characters. Special mention of Jordan as well, Killmonger was a great villain. Really everyone is at the top of their game, and I think Boseman kinda loses out because he's the noble straight man almost who everyone else bounces off/revolves around. It's not that he isn't good, it's just that around midway through I kinda wished I was watching Okoye the movie.

Second minor gripe is that I thought some of the cgi looked ropey, but hell, give me great characters and ropey cgi over photorealistic effects and cardboard characters any day!

Anyway, top draw film, and much as I like The Last Jedi, something like this really highlights how clunky that film is in places.

I want Coogler to direct a Bond film now.

 

[LJones41]

I didn't find T'Challa uninteresting. He was simply more familiar, thanks to his appearance in "Civil War". Hell, a good deal of his family drama was already played out in the 2016 movie. And he is an introverted character in compare to most of the other characters around him in this latest film.

Then again, most people seemed to be more impressed by flashier characters.

 

[gblews]

They would not be authentically black characters. Casting black faces for white roles is not representation. Heimdall is not a representative character, for instance, in spite of being played by a black man. It required no changes to his character to account for Idris Elba playing him, but that would not be true for someone living on earth, much less one that grew up in 20th century America.

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.

Exactly what has already said. You can't just swap out their skin color and pretend that their life in that skin up to that point hasn't changed them. You can write a black Tony Stark or a black Steve Rogers, but they won't be the same characters. In comparison, Peter Parker or Bruce Banner would require considerably less of a change.

So, having Starks and Rogers played by black actors would require that their characters be written as "black" Americans? 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.

The only significance the characters' race has, is in one's head.

The movie versions of the two characters are based on the comic book representations of Stark and Cap and were created in a time when racism ruled the comic book industry (along with so many others), which precluded use of a black or any other than white presentation of the characters. In other words, the characters' race was determined by nothing more than racism.

True, and also not really relevant.

My quote above is probably THE most relevant in all of my posts on this subject, but I do understand the need to brush it aside as 'irrelevant".

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.

This is pure fantasy as far as Cap's WW2 origins. This is a time when an open member of the Ku Klux Klan was sitting on the supreme court, when Jesse Owens returned from Berlin with only the barest recognition from the government while white athletes dined with the president, a time where slavery was still in living memory for much of the country and black men could be killed for little more than a look or a word or a lie from the wrong person.

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.

If you filmed a biopic on the life of Byron De la Beckwith, the Klansman who killed civil rights leader, Medgar Evers, you could have a black actor playing the title role, but because De la Beckwith's was a real life character and his race was integral to who the character was and his motivations, though it might work on some existential artistic level, you would lose a large portion of what makes his story compelling. But these are real life characters. Rogers and Straks are not and most importantly, the character's races are irrelevant to who the characters are. Both characters are written as race neutral, like Tuvok on Voy.

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.

The question isn't "could Captain America be black?" it's "would a black Captain America be the same character?" The answer to the first question is obviously Yes, and to the second is just as obviously No.

Could Captain America be played by a different white actor and still be the same character? If so, why? Do you think there is some explanation required for why Rogers and Starks are portrayd by white actors? If not, why? If so, why?

 

[bigglesworth]

Just my $0.02. I believe Rogers and Stark could easily be played by black actors (or asian, latino, etc...) as long as their values remained present. Rogers is a boy scout , with a healthy dose of super-soldier serum, who always does what he believes is the moral and just thing. Stark is a genius billionaire playboy philanthropist. It's those values/characteristics that define the character. There's plenty of black folks that are moral and just, in the case of Rogers. In the case of Stark, there's plenty of black people who are wealthy and give generously to various causes. I'm not sure there's any real person on Earth (of any color) who might match Stark's intellect, so I'll just leave that to fiction.

Now if one wants to argue about image that's different. Rogers has always been portrayed as a tall, muscular, white guy with blonde hair. As an example I don't think audiences would buy Danny DeVito as Steve Rogers, but I might be wrong.

 

[JD]

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.

So, having Starks and Rogers played by black actors would require that their characters be written as "black" Americans? 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.

The only significance the characters' race has, is in one's head.


My quote above is probably THE most relevant in all of my posts on this subject, but I do understand the need to brush it aside as 'irrelevant".

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.

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.

If you filmed a biopic on the life of Byron De la Beckwith, the Klansman who killed civil rights leader, Medgar Evers, you could have a black actor playing the title role, but because De la Beckwith's was a real life character and his race was integral to who the character was and his motivations, though it might work on some existential artistic level, you would lose a large portion of what makes his story compelling. But these are real life characters. Rogers and Straks are not and most importantly, the character's races are irrelevant to who the characters are. Both characters are written as race neutral, like Tuvok on Voy.

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.

Could Captain America be played by a different white actor and still be the same character? If so, why? Do you think there is some explanation required for why Rogers and Starks are portrayd by white actors? If not, why? If so, why?

Would the characters be existing in a real world setting where they would have to address the racial issues of the eras when Steve and Tony's father, and even Tony himself, would have to be addressed or in an idealized world where nobody cares what race people are?
The characters themselves with all of their characteristics could easily still work if they were black, the issue is how they would fit into the world around them.

 

[David cgc]

So, having Starks and Rogers played by black actors would require that their characters be written as "black" Americans? 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.

No, we think being given combat training within three years of enlistment during World War II, getting a bank loan to start a company in the 1930s, and not being redlined and force to live in underprivileged neighborhoods are characteristics of being white in America.

There's a tendency in our culture to treat straight white christian males as the default form of humanity, seeing that people are defined by how they differ from that baseline, but that's not the case. Whiteness is not blankness. Being a white man in America is to have certain benefits conferred upon you (privileges, if you like), above and beyond what others receive, and that shouldn't be ignored. Just swapping in a black (or, for that matter, female) actor as Steve Rogers or Tony Stark as-written in the last two-dozen or so movies would be nothing less than a whitewash (if you'll pardon the term), erasing the very real history of racism that not only would prevent such people from living those lives, but prevented them from being written as black in the first place.

Now, as we've said, it's possible to rewrite those characters to fit in with how the world would've treated them in their backstory, but there would be major changes that would affect who they are in a fundamental way. Steve Rogers grew up in the 1940s, where opportunities he took advantage of as-written were flatly denied to black men. Tony Stark is a character who is explicitly the product of a privileged legacy that could not plausibly have come about when it did without making Howard the hero and Tony the ancillary character. Bruce Wayne has the same problem. Sure, wealthy industrialist is a stock character, except, again, that's treating whiteness as unremarkable. Wealth white industrialist, even wealthy asian industrialist, are stock characters, but do you know how many black billionaires there are in the world? Ten. Out of over two thousand. Only three of those are American; Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, and a venture capitalist who is, apparently, very good at his job. None of them are inventors, or tech magnates, or captains of industry in their own right, never mind the children of such people. Because America didn't allow people like black Howard Stark to happen. It'd only barely allow him to happen today.

And, as has also been stated, those were probably the worst two characters to pick as examples of straight white males where you could swap out their demographics without affecting their stories. Peter Parker, Clint Barton, Bruce Banner, any given Asgardian, Peter Quill, Scott Lang, Hank Pim, Stephen Strange, Phil Coulson, take your pick. Over on the DC side, Clark Kent is practically begging to be anything that isn't a visible example of "legacy" Americana. He's an immigrant, for God's sake, maybe it'd help if he looked like a real-world first-generation American and not like he just walked off the Mayflower.

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.

You're the one who gave examples of why the Black Panther being black was integral to his character and story that didn't have anything to do with racial stereotypes, just how being played by a white man with the same script would recontextualize him. Just apply the same form of reasoning to Steve Rogers and Tony Stark.

If you were to change him to a white man with no other changes, BP suddenly morphs into a Tarzan-like figure, which would be a much less compelling story to the point of maybe being offensive.

If you change all the other characters to white, then you lose the weight behind a story of a black African country which has never been colonized and which has been disguised as a poor third world nation. Its different with most other Marvel characters, Tony Stark's race is not an integral part of his story. Steve Roger's race is not an integral part of his story, so yes, its easy to change the race of those characters.

You don't see how these issues apply just as much to pretending racism didn't exist in 20th century America? Or, even worse, ignoring that racism existed entirely?

You know what just replacing Chris Evans with a black actor does with the Captain America script? It tells us that segregation in the Army was justified, because black soldiers actually didn't fight as well as white ones, because the one that did was integrated. The movie would make it clear that there was one, and only one, black soldier who was able to rise through the ranks and lead the white fighting men. If segregation can't keep Captain America down, then all the other guys who look like him really aren't good enough. If racist business practices can't keep a black Howard Stark from becoming one of the richest men alive before anyone ever heard of Rosa Parks, then there must be a reason why there are only ten black billionaires in the world and not hundreds of them that isn't "centuries of white-promoting power structures designed to make it impossible for minorities to succeed."

Changing these characters' races without taking into account how the world around them would treat them differently is the worst kind of tokenism, because it says that structural discrimination and historical racism aren't real, and that the reason for racial inequalities in society is simply that it takes the best black man in the world to match any white man who's just above-average, at most. Tony and Steve would be "one of the good ones," which implies that most black people must be one of the bad ones.

I find that notion repellant. And I am now terrified about hitting "post," because I know someone is going to take a sentence of this out of context and accuse me of holding or advocating that belief. In fact, to be clear, I'm not happy that Captain America and Iron Man have backstories built upon their whiteness. I would not have a problem reimagining them as black, or asian, or Native American, or women, or anything, so long as they were reimagined, taking into account to circumstances that real people with those backgrounds have to face in their lives. My point was simply that it wouldn't make any sense to simply recast those characters as nonwhite without revamping their entire story, in the same way that you were saying that a hypothetical "White Panther" would have to be entirely different from the movie we just watched.