Just to put this out there, but is there any reason the norse Gods would be white? I mean assuming these are the existed-since-the-beginning-of-man type of Gods, wouldn't they be the original color of man? You know, black?
I was thinking about this and 'glowing' special effects for gods. Mostly 'cause of that horrible horrible 3d movie with the kraken that was out. I don't know the name. I've successfully repressed most of it from my memory.
I mean, people don't glow. So is that realistic? I think not. Does it break suspension of disbelief?
Like, if these guys were bright glowing red with lightning eyes and thunder talking, would the movie not work?
Actually now that you mention it, that's a good point.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would imagine people raising far less of a shitfit if Heimdall were just to have a non-human appearance, like a shining light or booming voice or guy made of lightning or whatever.
Actually now that you mention it, that's a good point.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would imagine people raising far less of a shitfit if Heimdall were just to have a non-human appearance, like a shining light or booming voice or guy made of lightning or whatever.
Notice that nobody is saying "Heimdall isn't like that at all in the comics, if you look at how Walt Simonson drew him blah blah blah....." Focusing on the Eddas or other real-world source material to pick out one thing different in the movie, while ignoring the tons of other shit Marvel did that would have the skalds rolling in their graves, is somewhat telling.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Comes down to this for me: Marvel can do whatever the fuck they like with their own characters. I actually wouldn't mind seeing a black captain america or spiderman. Maybe it'll work better (patriot is a great character in the comics). It's different then the original mythos, but the race of a character is rarely part of their heritage. Tchala? Yes. Blade? maybe. Heimdal? nope.
A white character that race would be an important part would be someone who's very character requires that he/she be white. Magneto is a good example.
jeddy lee on
Backlog Challenge: 0%
0/8
PS2
FF X replay
PS3
God of War 1&2 HD
Rachet and Clank Future
MGS 4
Prince of Persia
Comes down to this for me: Marvel can do whatever the fuck they like with their own characters. I actually wouldn't mind seeing a black captain america or spiderman. Maybe it'll work better (patriot is a great character in the comics). It's different then the original mythos, but the race of a character is rarely part of their heritage. Tchala? Yes. Blade? maybe. Heimdal? nope.
A white character that race would be an important part would be someone who's very character requires that he/she be white. Magneto is a good example.
You could make a black or gay Magneto, since the Nazis persecuted them as well. Well, I guess since he was supposed to be a kid when he was in the camps, he probably wouldn't be gay, although he'd have to be super fucking old by now anyway so what's a retcon or two?
Actually I think a modern reimagined Magneto with some recent atrocity as part of his past (he could be Rwandan or something) would be fascinating...but the fans would throw a shitfit, no doubt.
How is this any different to Nick Fury being black in the Ultimates universe?
Nick Fury is an American - The take-no-prisoners counterpart to Captain America. The US is multicultural, as opposed to the rather monopigmented universe of the Nordic deities. If Idris Elba played someone from Niflheim, it wouldn't cause comment, either.
Comes down to this for me: Marvel can do whatever the fuck they like with their own characters. I actually wouldn't mind seeing a black captain america or spiderman. Maybe it'll work better (patriot is a great character in the comics). It's different then the original mythos, but the race of a character is rarely part of their heritage. Tchala? Yes. Blade? maybe. Heimdal? nope.
A white character that race would be an important part would be someone who's very character requires that he/she be white. Magneto is a good example.
Oh come on. The reason we need white Magneto is so he can be played by Ian McKellan.
Comes down to this for me: Marvel can do whatever the fuck they like with their own characters. I actually wouldn't mind seeing a black captain america or spiderman. Maybe it'll work better (patriot is a great character in the comics). It's different then the original mythos, but the race of a character is rarely part of their heritage. Tchala? Yes. Blade? maybe. Heimdal? nope.
A white character that race would be an important part would be someone who's very character requires that he/she be white. Magneto is a good example.
Oh come on. The reason we need white Magneto is so he can be played by Ian McKellan.
Comes down to this for me: Marvel can do whatever the fuck they like with their own characters. I actually wouldn't mind seeing a black captain america or spiderman. Maybe it'll work better (patriot is a great character in the comics). It's different then the original mythos, but the race of a character is rarely part of their heritage. Tchala? Yes. Blade? maybe. Heimdal? nope.
A white character that race would be an important part would be someone who's very character requires that he/she be white. Magneto is a good example.
Oh come on. The reason we need white Magneto is so he can be played by Ian McKellan.
Comes down to this for me: Marvel can do whatever the fuck they like with their own characters. I actually wouldn't mind seeing a black captain america or spiderman. Maybe it'll work better (patriot is a great character in the comics). It's different then the original mythos, but the race of a character is rarely part of their heritage. Tchala? Yes. Blade? maybe. Heimdal? nope.
A white character that race would be an important part would be someone who's very character requires that he/she be white. Magneto is a good example.
Sure, Marvel can cast who they want for these roles.
But we have decades of comic books showing us what major characters like Captain America and Spider-Man look like. I can't see any producer going against that and casting a black woman as Captain America.
Characters like Heimdall are different- even most comic book fans would be hard-pressed to remember what the character really looks like in the comics. Casting a black actor doesn't really go against decades of iconic imagery.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
But we have decades of comic books showing us what major characters like Captain America and Spider-Man look like. I can't see any producer going against that and casting a black woman as Captain America.
I think casting Captain America as someone not white would be the best thing Marvel could do for him, given his representation of the country and the USA's proud status as a melting pot.
It should be noted that there has been a black Captain America (the first one, in fact, in terms of Marvel U history). One of the guys poised to pick up the mantle is also black.
I'm a Thor fan, not some guy off the street, so get ready.
I don't like the casting decision, but before you get the uncontrollable urge to get out your pitchforks and torches, hear me out. I really like Thor, always have, and I really like all his supporting characters. My reason for wanting someone else to play Heimdall is that it's simply not in line iwth the source material. Heimdall had red hair, like me and I always enjoyed that. I really liked Heimdal as a character. The ever vigilant guardian. But that's not really the whole issue to me. The problem is that I want the movie to be exactly like the Thor comics, or at least the Strazynski run. However, I am already very upset with this movie. From the trailer alone you can see how much this movie strays from the source material. It's ridiculous. I'm sure it will be good, but it won't be much like the comics. Almost no mention of Donald Blake, no limp, no cane. Might as well call it Glor instead of Thor.
I don't know how much Heimdal is going to be featured in the movie, but it would be cool if it was a lot becuase to me he could be a pivotal character quite easily seeing as he guards the rainbow bridge and all that implies.
This crap with the race thing is silly. The marvel character Heimdal wasn't black so I don't see why he should be played by a black guy. I lump that in with Thor having a beard. In the "good" Thor comics guess what? No beard. I guess the actor looked to soft without it. (I hate the ultimate universe by the way, so hold your horses on the beard thing.) It's not about race, it's just not accurate, but like I said it's basically a knock off movie at this point.
I understand the economic and political correct reasons for casting a black guy, but you had a perfectly good character, "the Executioner", you could have thrown in there and boom you have a bad ass character who is black or something like it already.
I'm just pissed that they're basically raping the already rickety canon of Thor and at this point a black Heimdal is a drop in the bucket.
Apparently if I watch the movie where Idris Elba plays "Stringer Bell" I'll do a 180 on this one. We'll see.
So, you understand the economic and political reasons for casting a black guy, but you don't understand that he might have been the best actor for the role? Why is THAT not the only thing people are judging this on?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
It should be noted that there has been a black Captain America (the first one, in fact, in terms of Marvel U history). One of the guys poised to pick up the mantle is also black.
If you want to read about this buy Captain America Truth or maybe The Truth, can't remember. It's collected in a trade.
Radiclus on
0
Options
David_TA fashion yes-man is no good to me.Copenhagen, DenmarkRegistered Userregular
But we have decades of comic books showing us what major characters like Captain America and Spider-Man look like. I can't see any producer going against that and casting a black woman as Captain America.
Characters like Heimdall are different- even most comic book fans would be hard-pressed to remember what the character really looks like in the comics. Casting a black actor doesn't really go against decades of iconic imagery.
So you're saying noone would cast a black man as the Kingpin?
Though I agree with you, there are some iconic characters that need to look the way they look, for whatever reason. Often there really isn't a good reason, like Sue Storm just looking wrong if she wasn't blonde. And then there are characters who were never defined by their looks or had their looks defined by something stronger than ethnicity. Or in the case of Heimdal, was barely defined.
I haven't read the entirety of this monstrosity, but I would like to point out that whoever offered Othello as a rebuttal for why race matters in casting is a total dumbass goosebag.
Heimdall can be black because there's nothing about Heimdall that is context dependent about his race. Heimdall can be Mexican, or Martian, or be the living skin of a leather briefcase.
You should probably do this then before throwing out a post like this.
If you did you would see the conversation moved past thor pages and pages ago and onto the proper role of race in casting decisions.
But we have decades of comic books showing us what major characters like Captain America and Spider-Man look like. I can't see any producer going against that and casting a black woman as Captain America.
I think casting Captain America as someone not white would be the best thing Marvel could do for him, given his representation of the country and the USA's proud status as a melting pot.
A latino Captain America would be amazing.
Then you'd have to ditch his entire back-story. Cap came about as part of a WWII super-soldier program. The US military was segregated in WWII, and there's no way the government back then was going to pick a non-white guy to be their poster-child.
If you wanted to have someone other than Steve Rogers as Captain America, that's fine. But then you'd be telling a completely different origin story. It would be like having a Wolverine movie where someone other than Logan was Wolverine. Torturing the source material to make a social point just leads to bad movies, IMO.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Then you'd have to ditch his entire back-story. Cap came about as part of a WWII super-soldier program. The US military was segregated in WWII, and there's no way the government back then was going to pick a non-white guy to be their poster-child.
If you wanted to have someone other than Steve Rogers as Captain America, that's fine. But then you'd be telling a completely different origin story. It would be like having a Wolverine movie where someone other than Logan was Wolverine. Torturing the source material to make a social point just leads to bad movies, IMO.
Eh. Granted I'm not into comics, or terribly concerned about fictional continuity, but at some point isn't a reboot or retcon going to be warranted for those sorts of stories just to keep them vaguely relevant?
Like is it that important that Captain America has a WWII origin, or could it just be updated to be a different war, say, Vietnam or Desert Storm? Iunno, superheroes (especially in movies) seem to be very fluid in their storytelling. There are fifty million versions of Batman's origin, for example, and they're all valid. The idea is what matters, not the specifics.
But we have decades of comic books showing us what major characters like Captain America and Spider-Man look like. I can't see any producer going against that and casting a black woman as Captain America.
Characters like Heimdall are different- even most comic book fans would be hard-pressed to remember what the character really looks like in the comics. Casting a black actor doesn't really go against decades of iconic imagery.
So you're saying noone would cast a black man as the Kingpin?
Though I agree with you, there are some iconic characters that need to look the way they look, for whatever reason. Often there really isn't a good reason, like Sue Storm just looking wrong if she wasn't blonde. And then there are characters who were never defined by their looks or had their looks defined by something stronger than ethnicity. Or in the case of Heimdal, was barely defined.
Depends on the black man. When I first saw the shots of Michael Clarke Duncan, I thought "dude really looks like the Kingpin." In Kingpin's case, there are more important iconic aspects to his appearance than race. The white suit, cigar, bald head and big-ass muscles are what I think of when I think of Kingpin. And Duncan's gravelly, intimidating voice is exactly how I imagined Kingpin would sound. Casting Duncan as Kingpin took nothing away from the character.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Actually now that you mention it, that's a good point.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would imagine people raising far less of a shitfit if Heimdall were just to have a non-human appearance, like a shining light or booming voice or guy made of lightning or whatever.
Notice that nobody is saying "Heimdall isn't like that at all in the comics, if you look at how Walt Simonson drew him blah blah blah....." Focusing on the Eddas or other real-world source material to pick out one thing different in the movie, while ignoring the tons of other shit Marvel did that would have the skalds rolling in their graves, is somewhat telling.
For instance Mjolnir in the eddas is a throwing hammer with a extra short shaft. Its not as depicted in the Marvel comics: a warhammer. The short shaft is a result of Loki interfering with Mjolnirs forging in order to win a bet(long story). Thor is the only one that can wield it, not because he is the most worthy, but because he is the only one strong enough.
Also Heimdall has nine mommies and not in a "Rachel has two mommies +7" kinda way. 9 women straight up gave birth to him at the same time. (Don't ask, I don't know how that happened either). He is also the father of mankind because he fucked our great grandmother or something. (handson creation that).
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Eh. Granted I'm not into comics, or terribly concerned about fictional continuity, but at some point isn't a reboot or retcon going to be warranted for those sorts of stories just to keep them vaguely relevant?
Like is it that important that Captain America has a WWII origin, or could it just be updated to be a different war, say, Vietnam or Desert Storm? Iunno, superheroes (especially in movies) seem to be very fluid in their storytelling. There are fifty million versions of Batman's origin, for example, and they're all valid. The idea is what matters, not the specifics.
In Cap's case, changing his origina story to Vietnam or Desert Storm would involve basically changing decades of continuity that actually makes sense (which is unusual in comics). There are a bunch of other characters who share the same origin. His greatest enemy is a Nazi super-scientist, for example. Changing his origina story would be like retconning Superman's home planet.
You could re-boot the whole story to make Cap hispanic or black, I suppose. But in his case, it would be a pretty blatant example of ethnic pandering.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Then you'd have to ditch his entire back-story. Cap came about as part of a WWII super-soldier program. The US military was segregated in WWII, and there's no way the government back then was going to pick a non-white guy to be their poster-child.
If you wanted to have someone other than Steve Rogers as Captain America, that's fine. But then you'd be telling a completely different origin story. It would be like having a Wolverine movie where someone other than Logan was Wolverine. Torturing the source material to make a social point just leads to bad movies, IMO.
Eh. Granted I'm not into comics, or terribly concerned about fictional continuity, but at some point isn't a reboot or retcon going to be warranted for those sorts of stories just to keep them vaguely relevant?
Like is it that important that Captain America has a WWII origin, or could it just be updated to be a different war, say, Vietnam or Desert Storm? Iunno, superheroes (especially in movies) seem to be very fluid in their storytelling. There are fifty million versions of Batman's origin, for example, and they're all valid. The idea is what matters, not the specifics.
Yeah, You can take Captain America out of WWII, but you can't take WWII out of Captain America. I see that you're saying do an Ironman type update to the war, but with the current cannon that would be like rebooting Marvel completely. I couldn't imagine that ever happening.
However, You could have a whole movie based off of Captain America The Truth, which tells the story of a black guy that was tested with the super soldier serum before Steeve Rogers.
In Cap's case, changing his origina story to Vietnam or Desert Storm would involve basically changing decades of continuity that actually makes sense (which is unusual in comics). There are a bunch of other characters who share the same origin. His greatest enemy is a Nazi super-scientist, for example. Changing his origina story would be like retconning Superman's home planet.
You could re-boot the whole story to make Cap hispanic or black, I suppose. But in his case, it would be a pretty blatant example of ethnic pandering.
I think as a one-off or film it would be pretty interesting, at least. Especially given the current debate about immigration and changing demographics in America.
Then again I have pretty much zero problems with reboots/retcons/remakes as long as I find them interesting enough to warrant it.
I'm not demanding Marvel reboot the entire franchise, here. Month-to-month comics are their own beast.
I just think superheroes are more interesting when they're reworked and reimagined frequently to explore their own symbolism. Like how Batman gets a million little side-stories dealing with various aspects of him or characters in the Batman universe.
Eh. Granted I'm not into comics, or terribly concerned about fictional continuity, but at some point isn't a reboot or retcon going to be warranted for those sorts of stories just to keep them vaguely relevant?
Like is it that important that Captain America has a WWII origin, or could it just be updated to be a different war, say, Vietnam or Desert Storm? Iunno, superheroes (especially in movies) seem to be very fluid in their storytelling. There are fifty million versions of Batman's origin, for example, and they're all valid. The idea is what matters, not the specifics.
In Cap's case, changing his origina story to Vietnam or Desert Storm would involve basically changing decades of continuity that actually makes sense (which is unusual in comics). There are a bunch of other characters who share the same origin. His greatest enemy is a Nazi super-scientist, for example. Changing his origina story would be like retconning Superman's home planet.
You could re-boot the whole story to make Cap hispanic or black, I suppose. But in his case, it would be a pretty blatant example of ethnic pandering.
I agree 100% on the importance of WW2 in Cap's background. I'm not sure I agree with the idea that making him black or hispanic would be pandering, though.
I mean, there's an in-continuity example of a black man who got the treatment before Captain America. It's there, and he could have become Captain America instead if it weren't due to circumstances. Changing the race of the character known as "captain america" when you change mediums seems completely in bounds to me. It would change small parts of the character's background, but not that much to my view.
Touche! The Hades thing is correct. This is because part of the suspension of disbelief with Disney cartoons extends to things like Colour. Hades, in that case, was stylistically different. On the other hand, if Mulan was a black guy whose dad was Chinese? I'd have laughed, then said it was internally inconsistent.
Mulan is not a god. So, you're willing to accept Hades being blue, but not Heimdall being brown. I guarantee you that if they'd made Heimdall blue, you may still think it was silly, but you would not be arguing that it was internally inconsistent. Nobody would be arguing that, nobody would be complaining that he wasn't adhering to the Scandinavian roots of this decidedly non-Scandinavian production, nobody would be kicking up any kind of fuss over anything except aesthetics. And yet there's at least one swarthy god in Norse legend, and no blue ones that I know of.
I would like you to ask what you mean by 'If they reproduce as gods do, rather than through mortal genetics'. How do Gods reproduce? According to Norse mythology, Loki shapeshifted in to a female horse, was forcefully mated with by Svaðilfari and gave birth. They didn't give birth to a frog, or a chinese dude or a large Twinkie wrapped in cellophane - They gave birth to a horse, Sleipnir.
Loki also sired a gigantic wolf, a huge snake, and a humanoid goddess, all by the same mother.
In order for this to not be inconsistent within the terms of the story, Heimdall would have to be one of the following:
1) A Child of black parents. This would mean he wasn't the sister of Sif or related to the Aesir.
2) A shapeshifter, like Loki.
3) A master of makeup.
4) Have this specifically explained as part of his mythology.
You are continually ignoring the fact that this is based on a comic book. Heimdall being black isn't consistent with Norse myths. That has no bearing on whether it's internally consistent, since there's already a huge divorce from the myths. As I've pointed out already, there's no reason to assume Heimdall is the brother of Sif in this adaptation unless it's explicitly stated so. There's no reason to assume the Aesir in this adaptation have no power over their appearance, until you've seen the movie and found out whether or not it's stated or implied. And there's no reason to assume that Heimdall can't be black even if both of those are true. There's no reason to make any of the assumptions you're making, unless you're expecting an accurate portrayal of Norse myths, which this clearly isn't.
Eh. Granted I'm not into comics, or terribly concerned about fictional continuity, but at some point isn't a reboot or retcon going to be warranted for those sorts of stories just to keep them vaguely relevant?
Like is it that important that Captain America has a WWII origin, or could it just be updated to be a different war, say, Vietnam or Desert Storm? Iunno, superheroes (especially in movies) seem to be very fluid in their storytelling. There are fifty million versions of Batman's origin, for example, and they're all valid. The idea is what matters, not the specifics.
In Cap's case, changing his origina story to Vietnam or Desert Storm would involve basically changing decades of continuity that actually makes sense (which is unusual in comics). There are a bunch of other characters who share the same origin. His greatest enemy is a Nazi super-scientist, for example. Changing his origina story would be like retconning Superman's home planet.
You could re-boot the whole story to make Cap hispanic or black, I suppose. But in his case, it would be a pretty blatant example of ethnic pandering.
I agree 100% on the importance of WW2 in Cap's background. I'm not sure I agree with the idea that making him black or hispanic would be pandering, though.
I mean, there's an in-continuity example of a black man who got the treatment before Captain America. It's there, and he could have become Captain America instead if it weren't due to circumstances. Changing the race of the character known as "captain america" when you change mediums seems completely in bounds to me. It would change small parts of the character's background, but not that much to my view.
I liken it to making historically accurate movies. What if there was a movie telling the story of Abraham Lincoln was played by a Blonde short guy with no beard. I know you're going to say that one is based on true events and one on fiction, but for a super fan like myslef, it sort of matters, but so does every other little minute detail, so I'll never be happy.
Eh. Granted I'm not into comics, or terribly concerned about fictional continuity, but at some point isn't a reboot or retcon going to be warranted for those sorts of stories just to keep them vaguely relevant?
Like is it that important that Captain America has a WWII origin, or could it just be updated to be a different war, say, Vietnam or Desert Storm? Iunno, superheroes (especially in movies) seem to be very fluid in their storytelling. There are fifty million versions of Batman's origin, for example, and they're all valid. The idea is what matters, not the specifics.
In Cap's case, changing his origina story to Vietnam or Desert Storm would involve basically changing decades of continuity that actually makes sense (which is unusual in comics). There are a bunch of other characters who share the same origin. His greatest enemy is a Nazi super-scientist, for example. Changing his origina story would be like retconning Superman's home planet.
You could re-boot the whole story to make Cap hispanic or black, I suppose. But in his case, it would be a pretty blatant example of ethnic pandering.
I agree 100% on the importance of WW2 in Cap's background. I'm not sure I agree with the idea that making him black or hispanic would be pandering, though.
I mean, there's an in-continuity example of a black man who got the treatment before Captain America. It's there, and he could have become Captain America instead if it weren't due to circumstances. Changing the race of the character known as "captain america" when you change mediums seems completely in bounds to me. It would change small parts of the character's background, but not that much to my view.
I liken it to making historically accurate movies. What if there was a movie telling the story of Abraham Lincoln was played by a Blonde short guy with no beard. I know you're going to say that one is based on true events and one on fiction, but for a super fan like myslef, it sort of matters, but so does every other little minute detail, so I'll never be happy.
This kind of precludes debate about whether Idris Elba is a good choice.
Yeah but frankly, comic book movies aren't made for the fans.
No offense but you guys are a teeny teeny minority buying a product that's not very profitable anymore.
True, but the movies use iconic characters who even non-fans have some knowledge of. And Marvel is especially protective of their brand and their characters.
Even if making the X-Men a bunch of pirates monkeys would lead to a more profitable movie, Marvel wouldn't agree to it. And after the Catwoman movie debacle, I think both Marvel and DC are going to be very hesitant to allow their major characters to be messed with by Hollywood hacks.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
So, you understand the economic and political reasons for casting a black guy, but you don't understand that he might have been the best actor for the role? Why is THAT not the only thing people are judging this on?
Black people only ever get jobs (as something other than janitors, busboys, or bus drivers) because of affirmative action -- didn't you get the memo? I mean I guess it's OK when it's one of their movies, but gosh why do they have to intrude on regular-people cinema?
I spend more time studying Norse mythology than most people, and I can tell you that this entire situation is much more ironic than it seems at first glance.
What everyone seems to be missing is the fact that Heimdal (aka Rig) created the caste system. He created Thrall, the first slave so that the higher classes of people could have servants. They could have cast him as any other male God, but they chose the one known as the 'White God', and the 'God of Slavery'. I don't know if this was accidental or not, but you have to admit it is funny.
True, but the movies use iconic characters who even non-fans have some knowledge of. And Marvel is especially protective of their brand and their characters.
Even if making the X-Men a bunch of pirates monkeys would lead to a more profitable movie, Marvel wouldn't agree to it. And after the Catwoman movie debacle, I think both Marvel and DC are going to be very hesitant to allow their major characters to be messed with by Hollywood hacks.
Well, yeah, obviously there are limits to how far you can alter a premise before people will go "wait, huh?" And bad concepts will always exist (although, having seen some of Catwoman, they could have stuck to the original origin/concept and the dialogue alone still would have sank the film). But I don't think stuff like fandom and tradition should get in the way of making an interesting book or film. Sometimes subverting those traditions can make us see previously stale franchises in a new light, and see them in ways we didn't before. I mean, it's better than just rebooting every 10 years, in my opinion.
It should be noted that there has been a black Captain America (the first one, in fact, in terms of Marvel U history). One of the guys poised to pick up the mantle is also black.
If you want to read about this buy Captain America Truth or maybe The Truth, can't remember. It's collected in a trade.
Hm, never heard of that. I feel like it could totally make sense - they were effectively doing medical experiments on the guy. Makes sense that in the '40s they would use a black man to do that (without telling him what they were doing). Could add a really interesting twist on the character.
Posts
Actually now that you mention it, that's a good point.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would imagine people raising far less of a shitfit if Heimdall were just to have a non-human appearance, like a shining light or booming voice or guy made of lightning or whatever.
Notice that nobody is saying "Heimdall isn't like that at all in the comics, if you look at how Walt Simonson drew him blah blah blah....." Focusing on the Eddas or other real-world source material to pick out one thing different in the movie, while ignoring the tons of other shit Marvel did that would have the skalds rolling in their graves, is somewhat telling.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
A white character that race would be an important part would be someone who's very character requires that he/she be white. Magneto is a good example.
PS2
FF X replay
PS3
God of War 1&2 HD
Rachet and Clank Future
MGS 4
Prince of Persia
360
Bayonetta
Fable 3
DS
FF: 4 heroes of light
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
You could make a black or gay Magneto, since the Nazis persecuted them as well. Well, I guess since he was supposed to be a kid when he was in the camps, he probably wouldn't be gay, although he'd have to be super fucking old by now anyway so what's a retcon or two?
Actually I think a modern reimagined Magneto with some recent atrocity as part of his past (he could be Rwandan or something) would be fascinating...but the fans would throw a shitfit, no doubt.
Nick Fury is an American - The take-no-prisoners counterpart to Captain America. The US is multicultural, as opposed to the rather monopigmented universe of the Nordic deities. If Idris Elba played someone from Niflheim, it wouldn't cause comment, either.
Oh come on. The reason we need white Magneto is so he can be played by Ian McKellan.
Magneto is Semitic.
So really, they did have a gay Magneto.
But we have decades of comic books showing us what major characters like Captain America and Spider-Man look like. I can't see any producer going against that and casting a black woman as Captain America.
Characters like Heimdall are different- even most comic book fans would be hard-pressed to remember what the character really looks like in the comics. Casting a black actor doesn't really go against decades of iconic imagery.
Rigorous Scholarship
I think casting Captain America as someone not white would be the best thing Marvel could do for him, given his representation of the country and the USA's proud status as a melting pot.
A latino Captain America would be amazing.
I prefer to think that it's a way to keep the white supremacists away from the movie.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I'm a Thor fan, not some guy off the street, so get ready.
I don't like the casting decision, but before you get the uncontrollable urge to get out your pitchforks and torches, hear me out. I really like Thor, always have, and I really like all his supporting characters. My reason for wanting someone else to play Heimdall is that it's simply not in line iwth the source material. Heimdall had red hair, like me and I always enjoyed that. I really liked Heimdal as a character. The ever vigilant guardian. But that's not really the whole issue to me. The problem is that I want the movie to be exactly like the Thor comics, or at least the Strazynski run. However, I am already very upset with this movie. From the trailer alone you can see how much this movie strays from the source material. It's ridiculous. I'm sure it will be good, but it won't be much like the comics. Almost no mention of Donald Blake, no limp, no cane. Might as well call it Glor instead of Thor.
I don't know how much Heimdal is going to be featured in the movie, but it would be cool if it was a lot becuase to me he could be a pivotal character quite easily seeing as he guards the rainbow bridge and all that implies.
This crap with the race thing is silly. The marvel character Heimdal wasn't black so I don't see why he should be played by a black guy. I lump that in with Thor having a beard. In the "good" Thor comics guess what? No beard. I guess the actor looked to soft without it. (I hate the ultimate universe by the way, so hold your horses on the beard thing.) It's not about race, it's just not accurate, but like I said it's basically a knock off movie at this point.
I understand the economic and political correct reasons for casting a black guy, but you had a perfectly good character, "the Executioner", you could have thrown in there and boom you have a bad ass character who is black or something like it already.
I'm just pissed that they're basically raping the already rickety canon of Thor and at this point a black Heimdal is a drop in the bucket.
Apparently if I watch the movie where Idris Elba plays "Stringer Bell" I'll do a 180 on this one. We'll see.
If you want to read about this buy Captain America Truth or maybe The Truth, can't remember. It's collected in a trade.
So you're saying noone would cast a black man as the Kingpin?
Though I agree with you, there are some iconic characters that need to look the way they look, for whatever reason. Often there really isn't a good reason, like Sue Storm just looking wrong if she wasn't blonde. And then there are characters who were never defined by their looks or had their looks defined by something stronger than ethnicity. Or in the case of Heimdal, was barely defined.
You should probably do this then before throwing out a post like this.
If you did you would see the conversation moved past thor pages and pages ago and onto the proper role of race in casting decisions.
If you wanted to have someone other than Steve Rogers as Captain America, that's fine. But then you'd be telling a completely different origin story. It would be like having a Wolverine movie where someone other than Logan was Wolverine. Torturing the source material to make a social point just leads to bad movies, IMO.
Rigorous Scholarship
The one with Keanu Reeves and Denzel Washington?
Eh. Granted I'm not into comics, or terribly concerned about fictional continuity, but at some point isn't a reboot or retcon going to be warranted for those sorts of stories just to keep them vaguely relevant?
Like is it that important that Captain America has a WWII origin, or could it just be updated to be a different war, say, Vietnam or Desert Storm? Iunno, superheroes (especially in movies) seem to be very fluid in their storytelling. There are fifty million versions of Batman's origin, for example, and they're all valid. The idea is what matters, not the specifics.
Rigorous Scholarship
I thought that was an excellent casting. Much better than going for someone without the kingpin's physical presence that happened to be white.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
For instance Mjolnir in the eddas is a throwing hammer with a extra short shaft. Its not as depicted in the Marvel comics: a warhammer. The short shaft is a result of Loki interfering with Mjolnirs forging in order to win a bet(long story). Thor is the only one that can wield it, not because he is the most worthy, but because he is the only one strong enough.
Also Heimdall has nine mommies and not in a "Rachel has two mommies +7" kinda way. 9 women straight up gave birth to him at the same time. (Don't ask, I don't know how that happened either). He is also the father of mankind because he fucked our great grandmother or something. (handson creation that).
You could re-boot the whole story to make Cap hispanic or black, I suppose. But in his case, it would be a pretty blatant example of ethnic pandering.
Rigorous Scholarship
Yeah, You can take Captain America out of WWII, but you can't take WWII out of Captain America. I see that you're saying do an Ironman type update to the war, but with the current cannon that would be like rebooting Marvel completely. I couldn't imagine that ever happening.
However, You could have a whole movie based off of Captain America The Truth, which tells the story of a black guy that was tested with the super soldier serum before Steeve Rogers.
I think as a one-off or film it would be pretty interesting, at least. Especially given the current debate about immigration and changing demographics in America.
Then again I have pretty much zero problems with reboots/retcons/remakes as long as I find them interesting enough to warrant it.
I just think superheroes are more interesting when they're reworked and reimagined frequently to explore their own symbolism. Like how Batman gets a million little side-stories dealing with various aspects of him or characters in the Batman universe.
I mean, there's an in-continuity example of a black man who got the treatment before Captain America. It's there, and he could have become Captain America instead if it weren't due to circumstances. Changing the race of the character known as "captain america" when you change mediums seems completely in bounds to me. It would change small parts of the character's background, but not that much to my view.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Loki also sired a gigantic wolf, a huge snake, and a humanoid goddess, all by the same mother.
You are continually ignoring the fact that this is based on a comic book. Heimdall being black isn't consistent with Norse myths. That has no bearing on whether it's internally consistent, since there's already a huge divorce from the myths. As I've pointed out already, there's no reason to assume Heimdall is the brother of Sif in this adaptation unless it's explicitly stated so. There's no reason to assume the Aesir in this adaptation have no power over their appearance, until you've seen the movie and found out whether or not it's stated or implied. And there's no reason to assume that Heimdall can't be black even if both of those are true. There's no reason to make any of the assumptions you're making, unless you're expecting an accurate portrayal of Norse myths, which this clearly isn't.
I liken it to making historically accurate movies. What if there was a movie telling the story of Abraham Lincoln was played by a Blonde short guy with no beard. I know you're going to say that one is based on true events and one on fiction, but for a super fan like myslef, it sort of matters, but so does every other little minute detail, so I'll never be happy.
No offense but you guys are a teeny teeny minority buying a product that's not very profitable anymore.
This kind of precludes debate about whether Idris Elba is a good choice.
Even if making the X-Men a bunch of pirates monkeys would lead to a more profitable movie, Marvel wouldn't agree to it. And after the Catwoman movie debacle, I think both Marvel and DC are going to be very hesitant to allow their major characters to be messed with by Hollywood hacks.
Rigorous Scholarship
Black people only ever get jobs (as something other than janitors, busboys, or bus drivers) because of affirmative action -- didn't you get the memo? I mean I guess it's OK when it's one of their movies, but gosh why do they have to intrude on regular-people cinema?
What everyone seems to be missing is the fact that Heimdal (aka Rig) created the caste system. He created Thrall, the first slave so that the higher classes of people could have servants. They could have cast him as any other male God, but they chose the one known as the 'White God', and the 'God of Slavery'. I don't know if this was accidental or not, but you have to admit it is funny.
Well, yeah, obviously there are limits to how far you can alter a premise before people will go "wait, huh?" And bad concepts will always exist (although, having seen some of Catwoman, they could have stuck to the original origin/concept and the dialogue alone still would have sank the film). But I don't think stuff like fandom and tradition should get in the way of making an interesting book or film. Sometimes subverting those traditions can make us see previously stale franchises in a new light, and see them in ways we didn't before. I mean, it's better than just rebooting every 10 years, in my opinion.
Hm, never heard of that. I feel like it could totally make sense - they were effectively doing medical experiments on the guy. Makes sense that in the '40s they would use a black man to do that (without telling him what they were doing). Could add a really interesting twist on the character.