I agree. Plus, I just love Amy Adams ever since Enchanted.
Supergirl - Season Four
- Thread starter Kai "the spy"
- Start date
I agree. Plus, I just love Amy Adams ever since Enchanted.
I think part of the dynamic (third time I've used that word in two days) for Lois and Clarke is her energy and career aspirations. She's both Clarke's romantic focus and the one who is trying to expose his secret. I kind of think they would be depicted as the 'ages' most people are in the jobs they are in. I mean you could have Lois older but in the world we live in ageism is more entrenched than anything else. It's quietly defines everyone. I think to the reboots of say Sherlock Holmes whereby we have two main characters devised as being older but oh no... later versions had to have them younger as if there were not enough characterisations in everything else we watch depicted as such.
Given that I really don't see a considerably older (though lovely) actress playing Lois. In part it could work, I mean she is often shown as being more worldly.
Given that I really don't see a considerably older (though lovely) actress playing Lois. In part it could work, I mean she is often shown as being more worldly.
You made various assertions without expanding on them and I'm genuinely curious how you'd respond to my question of how you'd judge the character had he been a white male living under equivalent socio economic conditions. Would you have seen his actions differently in that case? Is this really about race per se or is it about the associated poverty and hopelessness?
Frankly your argument seems to lead to the opposite conclusion from that you have drawn, you are effectively taking the position Khalil's path was essentially pre determined because of his colour and that path led to his destructive behaviour, without considering the danger inherent in that position. That line of reasoning becomes self defeating by suggesting an inevitability in the link between colour and criminality, an inevitability completely at odds with the aspirational message of the show. The alternative standpoint, that his arc was the result of choices made then moves us away from the question of his colour and into totally different territory, that of the disenfranchised young male of any colour making toxic decisions to achieve status in conditions of deprivation. That's not a question of his race but rather a negative expression of gender based behaviour, the competitive urge to rise up a pecking order by whatever means are available.
I suggest to you far from being racist @dodge's interpretation actually avoids the racial connotations whereas yours casts young black men in exactly the light you ascribe to her case. By making his behaviour inextricably linked with the specific experience of a black male you are by extension inextricably linking that racial experience with criminality, which is entirely at odds both with your intent and that of the show.
There are plenty of Arrowverse/CW cast members who are in their 40s or 50s -- notably Calista Flockhart, whose character Cat Grant has repeatedly been established as a professional contemporary and rival of Lois Lane's. Not to mention others like David Ramsay, Jesse L. Martin, Danielle Nicolet, David Harewood, Cress Williams, Christine Adams, etc. People don't see 40-something as old anymore. It's more than possible for a performer in their 40s to be an action lead or a romantic lead, on a CW show or anywhere else.
I mean, that's the whole reason it's so odd that the casting call for Lois says 30-something -- because that's not consistent with Arrowverse/CW precedent.
What are you talking about? Based on "His Last Bow," Sherlock Holmes was born in 1854, and Holmes chronologies (such as this one) tend to place their first meeting in A Study in Scarlet in 1881, making Holmes 26-27 at the time, and Watson about 2 years older. This is consistent with Watson's initial perception of Holmes in Scarlet as a medical student, and with Watson being recently discharged from active combat service. The bulk of the stories take place in the later 1880s through the 1890s, putting H&W in their 30s-40s, with their partnership ending c. 1903.
For comparison, Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman began playing Holmes and Watson at the ages of 33 and 38; Jonny Lee Miller and Lucy Liu began playing those characters at ages 39 and 43; and Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law began playing them at 44 and 36 (a rare case of Watson being younger) -- and they were playing the characters around the time of Watson's marriage in 1888, which made Law exactly the right age and Downey a decade too old.
So you have it completely backward. In nearly every prominent modern Holmes adaptation, the actors are older than the characters were originally written to be at the equivalent time in their careers. Perhaps you're getting your impression of Holmes & Watson's age from Basil Rathbone & Nigel Bruce, or Jeremy Brett & Edward Hardwicke, who were in their 40s-50s when they played H&W.
The reason that they're looking for an actress in her early 30s is likely so that there's not a huge age difference between Tyler Hoechlin and whomever they ultimately choose.
I've never believed that Cat Grant is an 'age contemporary' of Lois', merely that she was still working at the Daily Planet at the same time as Lois and Clark and that she saw herself as a professional rival of Lois', which doesn't require them to be even remotely the same age.
A young white male does not face the same conditions, thus his reactions/expectations and outcome will be far different than a young , black male. Society--including law enforcement--judges and treats the two in completely different ways, so one cannot judge the two in the same way--particularly in the United States. Basic perception of white and black children--where critical direction of life begins--reveals glaring differences in the judgment of white and black children, hence the mischaracterizing racial negativity used the oh-so "progressive" dodges of the world, no matter which dog-whistle / socio-political catchphrase of the day is employed. It all ends with that negativity painting young black males in a dangerous category that has no good end.
No insult intended, but that's a rather naïve comment. Spot261. Just to give you a sample of the many challenges and/or dangers so many simply cannot understand, the dominant society (white) has (historically) linked criminality and color--setting those perceptions, barriers, treatment and possible outcome in place. Take opportunity: where whites with less education somehow have the same chance to gain employment as a black males with superior education. In criminal justice, black males are viewed/considered a threat and/or criminals or end up in the criminal justice system more than whites. Even white convicts have as much of chance to be employed as blacks with no criminal record. What is this saying? It says A black child growing up in a system like that--one that historically hobbles or crushes his opportunities based on being a black male right out of the gates will not share the same options or emotional responses as a white male, while the white males will never share the same dangers. That's the way it is for too many in black society.
Yet the point you are not addressing is how the "toxic masculinity" charge was applicable to Khalil; dodge had no reason to stick the character with that, yet he did, hence the reason another member suggested his White Privilege might be at play in that case. Being half black, my experiences can take that suggestion to a well-known conclusion: that it was the result of dodge's racist perception of young black males utterly divorced from any understanding of their unique experiences and challenges from the society they must live in. No, its just "that young black man is aggressive. He's a threat"--a centuries-old way of beating down black males into a category where the only treatment is something punitive in nature.
The message of Black Lightning is that the series lead's constant positive messages / warnings (to his daughters) are not applicable to everyone when "shit happens"--especially to a black kid who dared to dream. All of the "you can do it" pep talk falls short when faced with dire circumstances that are made worse by being black in White America, where the same social/financial safety nets, expectations and society's willingness to even extend a chance to you do not exist. That--and emotional concerns only a black male would know--are part of the complicated life the Khalil's in America face, one that cannot be battered by a racist attempt to damn him as the "toxic masculinity" charge.
Last edited:
At last, someone understands how casting works, and there's certainly precedent for it in several Super-productions of the past (listed earlier).
Well said. I do not know how anyone would think Lois had to be within Cat's age range, when its common for professional rivals to have age gaps. If the CW Lois is supposed to be as aggressive in her career as other Lois portrayals in the past, then that might get under the skin of one as ambitious as Cat, as she would see Lois as (one day) attempting to take her position.
Who said Lois' age was part of this "re-imagining?"
One would think you'd be an expert on it since you display so much of it in your posts, alas...
(Food for thought, maybe your subconscious is trying to tell you something about yourself if that's what keeps popping up in your mind as you type up your post...
)
This we know, but it doesn't address my question, how would you judge the character had everything played out on screen exactly as shown, but he were white? This isn't an arbitrary question, nor is it a "reverse racism" argument, it's a very specific question intended to delineate between comments about that which is innate and that which is environmental. Are you making the statement above in reference to the colour of his skin or about the associated poverty and disadvantage? My guess is the second (I can't imagine it being the first) but that poses problems for your argument.
If this is about society's attitudes and you accept there are no innate differences in behaviour and cognition based on race then his behaviour really is better viewed in terms of gender, because it's potentially the negative behaviour of any male faced with those specific circumstances, regardless of colour. By definition that is toxic masculinity and the fact of skin colour doesn't change that. I completely accept that a black male is far more likely to find themselves in such circumstances (and that observation is very much a part of the intent of the show), but this isn't just about the circumstances, it's also about the choices and decisions he makes and colour has no innate bearing on that.
It's not naïve at all, I'm a long way from being ignorant of the social and economic inequalities in the US, but again you aren't quite addressing my point. Your argument is essentially that Khalil's behaviour is inextricably linked to his colour, that the experience of a black males renders them inherently more dangerous than white males. That likely wasn't your intent, but it is a logical extension of your position and you don't seem to be realising how dangerous or self defeating that is.
There is no "black society", any more than there is "white society", "female society" or "male society". There is simply society and cultural groups within it. Labelling Khalil's behaviour as inherently and exclusively part of the black experience is neither helpful nor accurate, it's taking a stance that links criminality to colour and ignores the message of the show. Other characters transcend those stereotypes via their choices despite the prejudices of society, equally had Khalil been white it is difficult to see the situation having played out vastly differently. His decisions and actions where his own, not an artifact of his colour.
Is it so hard to accept that there may be interpretations here other than your own? We played this game with the whole "religious metaphor of the force" debate, where you were so utterly insistent that you knew George Lucas intended the force to be viewed as a specific allegory of Judeo Christian beliefs that you were apparently willing to continue pushing the point even after being shown a video of him being interviewed on the subject and stating it was no such thing.
Her white privilege may well be in play, but so is your male privilege. You cannot have that both ways, any criticism you can make about her having a "blindspot" where it comes to the black perspective race only highlights how you in turn have an equivalent blackspot for the female one. Rather than lecturing about how only your viewpoint can possibly be valid, why not listen in turn and consider there may be more at play here and the portrayals may be more nuanced examinations of the issues at play than you initially saw from your own position?
Just remind y'all... If Lucy Lane isn't completely white, because she was played by Jenna Dewan Tatum, who is 1/4 Lebaneese... Which is mostly white, but for authenticity, unless Sam, played by Glenn Morshower who is so white that he is a ginger, cycled through a few wives in the 1980s, so Lucy and Lois are only half sisters, or one of them is adpoted.
Of course they don't need to explain a slight difference in pigmentation, when for all we know Lucy is addicted to Sun Tanning in those UV booths.
Although if Clark "leaks" solar radiation, like it was BO, while he sleeps next to Lois every night for 8 hours, then Logically after 5 to 10 years of marriage to Clark, Lois should superficially appear to be a different race.
Of course they don't need to explain a slight difference in pigmentation, when for all we know Lucy is addicted to Sun Tanning in those UV booths.
Although if Clark "leaks" solar radiation, like it was BO, while he sleeps next to Lois every night for 8 hours, then Logically after 5 to 10 years of marriage to Clark, Lois should superficially appear to be a different race.
Could you heat a chimichanga overnight next to Clark? Quick way for a busy reporter to have breakfast ready when she gets up.
If Lois didn't need lead bedding before now....
I think you're still not getting it; you seem to be thinking that I'm considering the problems of young black males to be some sort of "fault" of being that race, which would be a ridiculous idea. You must look at this from the view of the oppressors; who set the standards of judgement and (mis) treatment based on race? The dominant, white society. Race (or color, as you put it) matters to the dominant society, so this is the foundation for all that follows: start with the negative perceptions of black children (as seen in one of the links), which are so astoundingly hostile and damning that a black male child is inundated with abuse setting them up (socially & psychologically) to either think less of themselves or realize that they have endless mountains erected to stop them from the idea of progressing.
If they do have the will to achieve, they still understand that theirs is largely a journey of one, knowing that the dominant society--who just so happens to control academia (where abuses still exist for black students), the justice system, still so much of the basic job market, etc., is ready--in one way or another--to make their path as Hellish as possible. Add criminal justice abuses, and a general of opportunity afforded to whites, and that is what is what the Khalil's of the world face, Spot. When they are trying to make it out, but something insurmountable prevents that, some fall into antisocial behavior (including some choosing to bet on offers from the Tobias types), but in no way is that the fantasized "toxic masculinity", but the reaction of a black youth seeing his fate and self determination ripped from his hands, all the while knowing he's not going to get help from the dominant society that damned his existence in the first place. It is impossible understand the plight and behavior of a Khalil unless one accepts the conditions...the system that shapes and/or manipulates or roadblocks the world he lives in all stemming from the foundation of race.
In consideration of U.S. history, that's so tragically wrong that its difficult know where to start. White society is the one and only dominant culture of the United States--the ruling class so ingrained that even its criminals (as referenced in one of the links) are considered equal to or favored over black people in terms of basic human value, perception, job opportunity, etc. This cannot be erased, watered down, or tossed in the spin machine to produce a benign, even field of American society merely populated by groups within. That might sell for some song on a nationalistic holiday, but not in the real United States.
Its telling that exactly 50 years ago, the historic tome The Kerner Report - The National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders--recognized the undeniable existence of the dominant white society and its participation in the unequal lives of black Americans:
In the 426 page report, America as being run by White society and being responsible for the plight of black Americans was a repeated conclusion...because white society exists as the dominant, ruling group of the United States, which brings this back to the present, where anyone who actually had intimate conversations with many black Americans on the state of the race in the U.S. often echo the report's quote and other conclusions, which means "institutions" and "society" go hand in hand to mean the ruling race of America, and its detrimental effects on them. There's no point in dancing around what has been and remains a fact of American life.
You miss the point again. When Jefferson delivers his positive messages of hope/future to Khalil, the teen turned it around using his own, disastrous situation as a successful counter-argument, knowing hope, and "you can do it" speeches/ideas fail to change or provide a way out the life he and his mother have been forced to live (an oft-repeated complaint of Freeland's black characters). Unlike Jefferson & Lynn's daughters who have parents who are a powerful combination of a firm black empowerment identity supported by the fact they were able to overcome many of White society's obstacles, the Khalils of the world see that as a one-in-a-million story that just slipped through the cracks. They do not have a natural expectation that experiences/progression like that of Lynn & Jefferson can be shared/achieved on any wide scale.
Anyone can have whatever "Interpretations" they want, but it does not mean they are correct. What are they based on? Thorough research on the state, condition and psychology of young black males in America? Intimate conversations about those matters with black males--their families? No, that did not happen, as the entire issue of dodge's "toxic masculinity" charge was not based on any knowledge, research or experience with young black males (and certainly was not mentioned to be the result of it), which in its absence, all boils down to the same, ready-to-fire racist judgements about a character type that is as far removed from dodge's judgement as possible.
I've provided relevant links to reports/studies as well as my own experiences being half-black and living the black experience--personally knowing what many in black communities across this country have said/experienced over time about their lives. There's no parallel to that in the judgment of the Khalil character, otherwise it would have been mentioned.
Hit the brakes. I had quotes from Lucas and others who developed the original Star Wars which countered your video, but Neroon dropped a "Cease and Desist" on that thread, so there it ended before I could reply.
That's tit for tat and not at all based on truth; dodge's most recent accusations are not based on anything ever posted or implied about casting choices and age and "having no issue with older man and younger women"; that was all a lie dodge wanted to push. On the other hand, the Khalil matter is based on a terrible judgement (and its lack of a foundation at all) actually posted.
Last edited:
More of your bullshit which does not remove the fact that you are a habitual liar (as seen in this thread) and masking as a progressive--until black males are involved then your true, racist self cannot be contained.
I'm not the mod in this forum, so you can feel free to dismiss what I say, but I think you really need to back off a bit and reassess how you're handling this discussion. You're coming on way too strong here, and it's not a good look.
Understood.
I'm far from the only person that has called out the sexist and misogynist content of your posts here, if you think people aren't wise to your bullshit by now you're only kidding yourself.
@TREK_GOD_1 please bear in mind I'm not looking to engage you in another endless cycle of pointless antagonism, on the contrary I'm in many ways totally on board with a lot of what you are saying but suggesting to you to consider the value in taking other perspectives on board. We all come from different backgrounds and have very different lenses through which we view the world. If you knew me away from here (or indeed as well as some of the people in here I've befriended over the years) you'd probably consider some of our interactions and your assumptions about my own experiences in a very different light. Likely you wouldn't be so quick to label my deliberate choice to stay open minded as being a sign of naivete and you certainly wouldn't feel I needed the realities of inequality and disadvantage explained to me in quite the way you do.
Yeah, I'm getting that you aren't assigning blame based on race, but what I'm suggesting to you is that arguments such as the one you put forth are treacherous in the extreme. They lend themselves to being misrepresented in exactly the way I described by becoming a label of criminality by proxy. This is why I drew such a clear distinction between that which is innate to the person and that which is a societal pressure associated with prejudice over that person's colour. When you say "this is the result of the black man's experience" in a way which precludes other outcomes you open yourself up to inadvertently feeding into the prejudice that associates colour with criminality.
I'm not sure what you interpret by the phrase "toxic masculinity" but it's a long way from "sexism". It's a broad
(and admittedly inexact) umbrella term which encompasses a variety of behaviours whose roots lie in dysfunctional and damaging male strategies to dealing with the world. Those behaviours don't exist in a vacuum, they are shaped and influenced by the environment and racial prejudice is absolutely part of that environment. That prejudice and the discrimination that comes from it, both direct and structural is exactly the sort of preconditions which can shape behaviours encompassed by the term. That the underlying causes and drivers of that behaviour an be thus identified doesn't invalidate the label. It's still toxic masculinity, having a framework for understanding the causality does not make the term any less relevant.
But this is what I said, there's one society in the US, not several exclusive to specific demographics. That it is dominated by white culture is in no doubt, but to talk about "white society" and "black society" is misleading in that it implies a false divide in the dynamics, a binary nature to the US which does not recognise how intertwined those cultures now inextricably are having effectively defined and shaped each other for centuries.
Granted, but there's a lot of lineage between statistical likelihood and determinism, which is what your original case implied as read. You may not have intended that implication but that's exactly the point I have been trying to warn you about, making statistical trends become deterministic labels which can be used to justify and compound exactly the sort of prejudices which lead to the issue in the first place.
Here I was referring to @dodge's interpretation of Khalil and I stand by my position both interpretations are valid, both can coherently co exist. His situation is defined by the society he lives in and his behaviours reflect that, but that does not alter the toxic end result of that process, nor the fact that his thinking and decision making is inherently masculine. Interpretations are not objective things, they are not "correct" or "incorrect", they are subjective and shaped by the experiences of the individual. That's what makes them so valuable as a resource, they allow us to consider how the world appears from someone else's point of view.
Not having seen these links I can't comment except to say I never questioned the Judeo Christian influences, but GL has on many many occasions clearly explained how a number of world religions fed into the shaping of SW. That quotes doubtless do exist referring to those influences you discuss does not actually counter my point that there was more to that process than you are acknowledging.
I can't agree with the latter statement, but with regard to Parker Posey I read her objections as being to preconceptions and attitudes which certainly seem to come across in your response to what was, in essence, a purely whimsical and humorous suggestion. I winced when I read your post and clearly several others drew similar conclusions. Maybe it might be worth considering the convergence there of entirely independent viewpoints. Just a thought.
Yeah, I'm getting that you aren't assigning blame based on race, but what I'm suggesting to you is that arguments such as the one you put forth are treacherous in the extreme. They lend themselves to being misrepresented in exactly the way I described by becoming a label of criminality by proxy. This is why I drew such a clear distinction between that which is innate to the person and that which is a societal pressure associated with prejudice over that person's colour. When you say "this is the result of the black man's experience" in a way which precludes other outcomes you open yourself up to inadvertently feeding into the prejudice that associates colour with criminality.
I'm not sure what you interpret by the phrase "toxic masculinity" but it's a long way from "sexism". It's a broad
(and admittedly inexact) umbrella term which encompasses a variety of behaviours whose roots lie in dysfunctional and damaging male strategies to dealing with the world. Those behaviours don't exist in a vacuum, they are shaped and influenced by the environment and racial prejudice is absolutely part of that environment. That prejudice and the discrimination that comes from it, both direct and structural is exactly the sort of preconditions which can shape behaviours encompassed by the term. That the underlying causes and drivers of that behaviour an be thus identified doesn't invalidate the label. It's still toxic masculinity, having a framework for understanding the causality does not make the term any less relevant.
But this is what I said, there's one society in the US, not several exclusive to specific demographics. That it is dominated by white culture is in no doubt, but to talk about "white society" and "black society" is misleading in that it implies a false divide in the dynamics, a binary nature to the US which does not recognise how intertwined those cultures now inextricably are having effectively defined and shaped each other for centuries.
Granted, but there's a lot of lineage between statistical likelihood and determinism, which is what your original case implied as read. You may not have intended that implication but that's exactly the point I have been trying to warn you about, making statistical trends become deterministic labels which can be used to justify and compound exactly the sort of prejudices which lead to the issue in the first place.
Here I was referring to @dodge's interpretation of Khalil and I stand by my position both interpretations are valid, both can coherently co exist. His situation is defined by the society he lives in and his behaviours reflect that, but that does not alter the toxic end result of that process, nor the fact that his thinking and decision making is inherently masculine. Interpretations are not objective things, they are not "correct" or "incorrect", they are subjective and shaped by the experiences of the individual. That's what makes them so valuable as a resource, they allow us to consider how the world appears from someone else's point of view.
Not having seen these links I can't comment except to say I never questioned the Judeo Christian influences, but GL has on many many occasions clearly explained how a number of world religions fed into the shaping of SW. That quotes doubtless do exist referring to those influences you discuss does not actually counter my point that there was more to that process than you are acknowledging.
I can't agree with the latter statement, but with regard to Parker Posey I read her objections as being to preconceptions and attitudes which certainly seem to come across in your response to what was, in essence, a purely whimsical and humorous suggestion. I winced when I read your post and clearly several others drew similar conclusions. Maybe it might be worth considering the convergence there of entirely independent viewpoints. Just a thought.
Yeah, I could see where it could be a combination of the two things coming together to create the situation we ended up seeing.
I'm starting to think at think there is no point trying to discuss anything involving sex (as in men and women, not the act) with @TREK_GOD_1, since it's pretty clear where his attitudes on that front lie, and he's obviously never going to change.
I'm starting to think at think there is no point trying to discuss anything involving sex (as in men and women, not the act) with @TREK_GOD_1, since it's pretty clear where his attitudes on that front lie, and he's obviously never going to change.
