Unless I'm missing it (and, if I am, some moderator-type should feel free to move my comment there), the good folks at Captain Comic's have avoided the firestorm that has hit certain places because Michael B.Jordan has been cast as Johnny Storm in the forthcoming FF film. I'm fine with the choice-- the movies are their own entity-- but I'm annoyed that they've stated Sue and Johnny will not be siblings. I think that decision removes an essential part of the FF's squabbling family dynamic.

Anyone else?

 

Views: 4456

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

In the movie The Lost World: Jurassic Park (AKA Jurassic Park II), Ian Malcolm's (Jeff Goldblum) daughter Kelly (Vanessa Lee Chester) is black. I was impressed that the movie never attempted to "explain" why she wasn't white. Her casting was probably the only thing in the movie that didn't disappoint me*. They didn't have to do this. In the book,The Lost World: A Novel by Michael Crichton, which is mostly better than the movie, the gratuitous kid part(s) are actually two white kids, a boy and a girl (his students, not his children) who like computers and baseball, respectively. The characteristics of these two kids are combined into the Kelly character. IIRC, in both the book and the movie the kids sneak aboard rather than being intentionally brought into a dangerous situation. I find that in today's world I don't even notice family groups containing different races. "Race" is actually bad terminology since we are all ONE race, the human one.

* In the book it is made clear they are using satellite phones and specially constructed electric utility vehicles because this island is extremely primitive. In the movie they introduced the Cadillac Escalade SUV to the world, with no gasoline supply available. Also, the book has a very cinematic motorcycle vs multiple velociraptors chase which is not exploited in the movie. Also it should be noted that Vanessa Lee Chester has worked consistently ever since.

Mr. Silver Age said:

Seriously,  comicdom is just so predictable.

You could change that to "fandom of any kind." Try Googling "Jack Reacher" and "Tom Cruise" as a recent one. The word "outrage" pops up a lot. They didn't shorten "fanatic" for nothing.

I read a piece in the Washington Post where they spoke to novelist Jim Grant about that. In the case of Jack Reacher, the character is described in the novels as being 6'5", and 250 pounds of muscle. But when they went casting for the movie, they couldn't find anybody who is 6'5", and 250 pounds of muscle, who also could act. Not even the late Michael Clarke Duncan was that big, and plus, he was unavailable, y'know, being dead. (Although, if they had cast him, I gather more people might have complained about him being Black than being dead.)

So, they figured, what's the most important characteristic about Jack Reacher? It isn't size, it's attitude. And that's how they selected Tom Cruise; they felt he conveyed that to their satisfaction.

'Skipping it' when it comes to characters you've loved for years is not an immediate option. For some the process of separation takes years and the journey from really caring to really angry to really bitter to really indifferent is a long, slow painful one.

Detective 445 said:

 

If I was a writer and created a character that was Asian, I think it would be safe to assume that Asian ethnicity was part of my vision for the character.  Now if another writer came along later and wanted to use this character but changed him to a Native American, I think it would be a safe assumption that this writer was departing from the original established version of the character I created. I think that’s fairly obvious.

 

Should anyone have a problem with the change?  I don’t see why they should. Who cares?  If the new version really bothers someone that much, they should just skip it.

 

I doubt if we are ever going to see any film director produce a 100% accurate, all encompassing, definitive translation of a superhero from comic to film. It’s really not even possible.   Even if you remove the fact that changes have to be made to any written source in order to make it work on film, you are still never going to arrive at a version which satisfies everyone as being true to the source.

Ron Pearlman wasn't available?

ClarkKent_DC said:

Mr. Silver Age said:

Seriously,  comicdom is just so predictable.

You could change that to "fandom of any kind." Try Googling "Jack Reacher" and "Tom Cruise" as a recent one. The word "outrage" pops up a lot. They didn't shorten "fanatic" for nothing.

 

I read a piece in the Washington Post where they spoke to novelist Jim Grant about that. In the case of Jack Reacher, the character is described in the novels as being 6'5", and 250 pounds of muscle. But when they went casting for the movie, they couldn't find anybody who is 6'5", and 250 pounds of muscle, who also could act. Not even the late Michael Clarke Duncan was that big, and plus, he was unavailable, y'know, being dead. (Although, if they had cast him, I gather more people might have complained about him being Black than being dead.)

So, they figured, what's the most important characteristic about Jack Reacher? It isn't size, it's attitude. And that's how they selected Tom Cruise; they felt he conveyed that to their satisfaction.

You have a great sense of humor.

ClarkKent_DC said:

 Not even the late Michael Clarke Duncan was that big, and plus, he was unavailable, y'know, being dead. (Although, if they had cast him, I gather more people might have complained about him being Black than being dead.)

A Google search tells me Ron Pearlman is 6'2".

Mark S. Ogilvie said:

Ron Pearlman wasn't available?

ClarkKent_DC said:

Mr. Silver Age said:

Seriously,  comicdom is just so predictable.

You could change that to "fandom of any kind." Try Googling "Jack Reacher" and "Tom Cruise" as a recent one. The word "outrage" pops up a lot. They didn't shorten "fanatic" for nothing.

 

I read a piece in the Washington Post where they spoke to novelist Jim Grant about that. In the case of Jack Reacher, the character is described in the novels as being 6'5", and 250 pounds of muscle. But when they went casting for the movie, they couldn't find anybody who is 6'5", and 250 pounds of muscle, who also could act. Not even the late Michael Clarke Duncan was that big, and plus, he was unavailable, y'know, being dead. (Although, if they had cast him, I gather more people might have complained about him being Black than being dead.)

So, they figured, what's the most important characteristic about Jack Reacher? It isn't size, it's attitude. And that's how they selected Tom Cruise; they felt he conveyed that to their satisfaction.



Richard Willis said:

You have a great sense of humor.

ClarkKent_DC said:

 Not even the late Michael Clarke Duncan was that big, and plus, he was unavailable, y'know, being dead. (Although, if they had cast him, I gather more people might have complained about him being Black than being dead.)

Thank you.

  I think that he is a better actor than Tom Cruise.

ClarkKent_DC said:

A Google search tells me Ron Pearlman is 6'2".

Mark S. Ogilvie said:

Ron Pearlman wasn't available?

ClarkKent_DC said:

Mr. Silver Age said:

Seriously,  comicdom is just so predictable.

You could change that to "fandom of any kind." Try Googling "Jack Reacher" and "Tom Cruise" as a recent one. The word "outrage" pops up a lot. They didn't shorten "fanatic" for nothing.

 

I read a piece in the Washington Post where they spoke to novelist Jim Grant about that. In the case of Jack Reacher, the character is described in the novels as being 6'5", and 250 pounds of muscle. But when they went casting for the movie, they couldn't find anybody who is 6'5", and 250 pounds of muscle, who also could act. Not even the late Michael Clarke Duncan was that big, and plus, he was unavailable, y'know, being dead. (Although, if they had cast him, I gather more people might have complained about him being Black than being dead.)

So, they figured, what's the most important characteristic about Jack Reacher? It isn't size, it's attitude. And that's how they selected Tom Cruise; they felt he conveyed that to their satisfaction.

Hmm. I've never liked ripping on Cruise for his acting, as I think he does a good job. He does get roles that others would perhaps do better at because his name adds a lot of box office, but I don't see him mailing it in either.

A physically larger actor might have worked better, even if not 6'5" and 250. However, it's what you get sometimes. Sort of like the Halle Berry Catwoman movie.
Was there this much outrage when Johnny Depp was cast as Tonto? If not, there should have been.

Quite a few people complained about Depp-Tonto on basic principles, just as many people were annoyed with the White-as-Asian (and one instance of Black-as-Asian) casting in Cloud Atlas. Yes, that film had actors playing multiple parts, but the Asian-as-White characters (stupid as they looked) were incidental characters, and we have no offensive history of such casting, the way Hollywood has a history of offensive "Yellowface." The Black-as-South-Seas casting seemed to pass by as far as I can tell-- but I could be wrong.

.
Randy Jackson said:

Was there this much outrage when Johnny Depp was cast as Tonto? If not, there should have been.

There was some, but there was a story put out that Depp is part Native American.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Welcome!

No flame wars. No trolls. But a lot of really smart people.The Captain Comics Round Table tries to be the friendliest and most accurate comics website on the Internet.

SOME ESSENTIALS:

RULES OF THE ROUND TABLE

MODERATORS

SMILIES FOLDER

TIPS ON USING THE BOARD

FOLLOW US:

OUR COLUMNISTS:

Groups

© 2019   Captain Comics, board content ©2013 Andrew Smith   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service