there is a difference between a character like blade who happens to be a minority, and a character whose experiences are informed by being a minority. Blade's an oddball example because he's not actually human; lots of the reasons an actual person might be concerned about ethnicity just don't really apply to him.
t'challa not only happens to be black, he's an explicitly african political leader. A film that dealt with how african metahumans interacted with the postcolonial western/white world could be pretty interesting, but black panther usually hasn't been used that way (not the least because wakanda is portrayed as a weird combo of technologically advanced, isolated and stereotypically african in terms of visual style.)
I don't think calling him Black Panther is really a problem though
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
as far as downey/iron man goes, assuming he still likes the role and the scripts are good, why would he ever stop? I mean, how ridiculous would his salary demands have to be for marvel to be like 'nope, not making that movie?'
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
as far as downey/iron man goes, assuming he still likes the role and the scripts are good, why would he ever stop? I mean, how ridiculous would his salary demands have to be for marvel to be like 'nope, not making that movie?'
"Ok, Mr. Downey, we've agreed to your monetary demands, are there any other conditions?"
"I want you to eat a piece of shit. Right now. I'm gonna drop a deuce on this conference table and you are going to go to town on it."
"Um ... maybe we can recast?"
"Donald, stop talking and do what Rob asked while I sign the paperwork."
as far as downey/iron man goes, assuming he still likes the role and the scripts are good, why would he ever stop? I mean, how ridiculous would his salary demands have to be for marvel to be like 'nope, not making that movie?'
Marvel Studios was lauded in Hollywood for just how cheaply they made movies and a big part of that was how they kept actor salaries way down. Remember, when Iron Man hit RJD was doing small roles mostly in minor pics after his earlier departure for drug shenanigans. He wasn't anything like the star he is now.
Now...he is easily the biggest name* in Marvel's stable and the most secure in telling them "Fuck you, pay me." Several of the other leads have commented on how Downey has given them advice and support in them telling Marvel "Fuck you, pay me."
*Only Jackson comes close and he's just kind of weird about his roles anyways. I always got the impression he's playing Fury because he damn well wants to.
The problem with Black Panther, what what I've gathered of what I've skimmed off the net, and seeing as he is characterized on EMH, is that it seems like if it came down to saving the entire world, or saving Wakanda, he would let the world burn to keep his homeland safe. Contrast that to Captain America, who I could absolutely see sacrificing the USA if it meant the other 6.7 billion people on the planet lived.
I see that as less "problem" and more "story opportunity".
That said, just on its face, a black superhero named "Black Panther" seems way blaxploitation to me, especially (unless I'm forgetting someone) being the first black superhero to get his own movie. The character himself may be entirely inoffensive, but that name just seems like baaaaaad optics.
It makes him hard to fit into the current Avenger's/MCU mold though, without turning him into an outright villain.
Not at all. Have some conflict that threatens the world, including Wakanda. BP helps out. Midway through, it turns out that Wakanda can actually be saved by abandoning the Avengers. It'd just be a variation on the "sacrifice the many to save a few loved ones" trope, and could totally be done in a sympathetic manner.
And it'd be nice showing off more superheroes who are a little more nuanced. Most of the MCU supes are either unambiguously good or unambiguously bad. You have a few, like Black Widow, who have complicated pasts, but when she shows up on the screen, you know which side she's fighting on. Even in Cap2, you never really considered that she was going to suddenly become an antagonist. And then you have... Loki, I guess, but even when he's being good you know he's still a villain.
This is one area where I think Fox's X-Men flicks have the upper hand - you have characters whose motivations sometimes align with heroes, but sometimes don't, and it makes for interesting conflict.
I'm prepared for A:AoU to shake things up a bit with SW and QS.
And you don't see any potential issues with the idea of the black guy abandoning the team to protect his own interests?
Not really? He wouldn't be the first black guy in the MCU, and every other one has been pretty bad-assed and unambiguously working for the greater good. My only qualm is in giving the first MCU film devoted to a black guy a title that has "Black" in it.
Not to mention we just got arguably the best Marvel movie that had one of the most awesome black superheroes portrayed so far.
You know why? Because Falcon was awesome. So very awesome.
The problem with Black Panther, what what I've gathered of what I've skimmed off the net, and seeing as he is characterized on EMH, is that it seems like if it came down to saving the entire world, or saving Wakanda, he would let the world burn to keep his homeland safe. Contrast that to Captain America, who I could absolutely see sacrificing the USA if it meant the other 6.7 billion people on the planet lived.
I see that as less "problem" and more "story opportunity".
That said, just on its face, a black superhero named "Black Panther" seems way blaxploitation to me, especially (unless I'm forgetting someone) being the first black superhero to get his own movie. The character himself may be entirely inoffensive, but that name just seems like baaaaaad optics.
It makes him hard to fit into the current Avenger's/MCU mold though, without turning him into an outright villain.
Not at all. Have some conflict that threatens the world, including Wakanda. BP helps out. Midway through, it turns out that Wakanda can actually be saved by abandoning the Avengers. It'd just be a variation on the "sacrifice the many to save a few loved ones" trope, and could totally be done in a sympathetic manner.
And it'd be nice showing off more superheroes who are a little more nuanced. Most of the MCU supes are either unambiguously good or unambiguously bad. You have a few, like Black Widow, who have complicated pasts, but when she shows up on the screen, you know which side she's fighting on. Even in Cap2, you never really considered that she was going to suddenly become an antagonist. And then you have... Loki, I guess, but even when he's being good you know he's still a villain.
This is one area where I think Fox's X-Men flicks have the upper hand - you have characters whose motivations sometimes align with heroes, but sometimes don't, and it makes for interesting conflict.
I'm prepared for A:AoU to shake things up a bit with SW and QS.
And you don't see any potential issues with the idea of the black guy abandoning the team to protect his own interests?
Not really? He wouldn't be the first black guy in the MCU, and every other one has been pretty bad-assed and unambiguously working for the greater good. My only qualm is in giving the first MCU film devoted to a black guy a title that has "Black" in it.
Not to mention we just got arguably the best Marvel movie that had one of the most awesome black superheroes portrayed so far.
You know why? Because Falcon was awesome. So very awesome.
Falcon was amazing. I was completely expecting him to come off as stupid and pointless and for me to hate him but almost immediately after he showed on screen I was completely on board with him.
there is a difference between a character like blade who happens to be a minority, and a character whose experiences are informed by being a minority. Blade's an oddball example because he's not actually human; lots of the reasons an actual person might be concerned about ethnicity just don't really apply to him.
Blade's not an oddball, it's that his movies never get into racial politics that a person in his position would be in in real life. They kinda sorta did that in Blade 3 but do you really want unrestrained David Goyer putting that topic in a movie? Blade didn't care about race, unless you're a vampire - then you're dead to him, but nobody in his universe did either. I enjoyed how they made Frost a liberal/progressive villain, it made him more dangerous.
Action/super-hero movies aren't really going to deeply explore issues like this. The Iron Man movie didn't even go into how politically warped the corporate world and military/government would make the situation worse by getting the armors and how corporations do dirty business with hostile powers like the Ten Rings.
t'challa not only happens to be black, he's an explicitly african political leader. A film that dealt with how african metahumans interacted with the postcolonial western/white world could be pretty interesting, but black panther usually hasn't been used that way (not the least because wakanda is portrayed as a weird combo of technologically advanced, isolated and stereotypically african in terms of visual style.)
I don't think calling him Black Panther is really a problem though
Priest's comics went into that. It was comic book craziness, of course. But that territory isn't foreign to Black Panther. They can also explore this with BP's movies.
as far as downey/iron man goes, assuming he still likes the role and the scripts are good, why would he ever stop? I mean, how ridiculous would his salary demands have to be for marvel to be like 'nope, not making that movie?'
I'd prefer he pass the torch before Tony becomes old Indiana Jones.
I mean if nothing else they could use him in whatever the next couple avengers movies are, assuming he hasn't aged out of the part by then. If nothing else he'd be useful as a draw and in the kind of fulcrum for other character development role he plays for a lot of Avengers.
and anyway as long as he sticks with his current 'just give me a cut of the profits' negotiating model, taking a 'fuck you pay me' approach should be relatively safe for the studio
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Blade is a superhero who happens to be black. Nothing about him is specific to a particular race or even gender.
Do they have to go "he's black! He's black!" 20 times in order for it to count as a "black superhero" or something?
Yes in that I'm drawing a difference between a superhero who just has a race (like Blade) and one who is defined by their race (like Black Panther).
Black Panther isn't just a superhero who is black, he's a character designed for maximum blackness by a couple of white guys in the 1960s. And it shows.
We were talking about Blade.
"Happens to be black" is kind of a shitty thing that only people who aren't black say. (maximum blackness is also kinda sketchy.)
Blade is a Black hero because he is a hero who is black. There's no "happens to be" here. He doesn't suddenly not count as a black superhero because he not running on a bunch of stereotypes.
You're boiling a persons race down to some sort of quantitative amount, and I don't know about anyone else, but I'm finding it troubling.
EDIT: I mean, as an example of how gross I'm finding the language you're using is, what exactly are you defining as "maximum blackness."
You're boiling a persons race down to some sort of quantitative amount, and I don't know about anyone else, but I'm finding it troubling.
EDIT: I mean, as an example of how gross I'm finding the language you're using is, what exactly are you defining as "maximum blackness."
It's a pretty undeniable fact that a character's race in a film can be more or less apparent depending on the role.
There is a difference between, say, Heimdall being black because fuckyeah Idris Elba is awesome, and something like Soul Plane being written and cast specifically to target black demographics, and something like Blacula which is flat-out a blaxpoitation film.
I interpreted "maximum blackness" as referring to something like blaxpoitation, though the term is... a bit unsubtle.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Blade is a superhero who happens to be black. Nothing about him is specific to a particular race or even gender.
Do they have to go "he's black! He's black!" 20 times in order for it to count as a "black superhero" or something?
Yes in that I'm drawing a difference between a superhero who just has a race (like Blade) and one who is defined by their race (like Black Panther).
Black Panther isn't just a superhero who is black, he's a character designed for maximum blackness by a couple of white guys in the 1960s. And it shows.
We were talking about Blade.
"Happens to be black" is kind of a shitty thing that only people who aren't black say. (maximum blackness is also kinda sketchy.)
Blade is a Black hero because he is a hero who is black. There's no "happens to be" here. He doesn't suddenly not count as a black superhero because he not running on a bunch of stereotypes.
You're boiling a persons race down to some sort of quantitative amount, and I don't know about anyone else, but I'm finding it troubling.
EDIT: I mean, as an example of how gross I'm finding the language you're using is, what exactly are you defining as "maximum blackness."
I have no idea wtf you are on about, but for some reason you aren't getting it, so I'll explain again.
Blade is a character who is not defined by his race. He is black but that is not a core component of his character.
Black Panther is a character specifically made to embody various black stereotypes and assumptions. Most of the major components of his character are based on his race.
Hopefulyl that clears this up so I don't have to find yet another way to say the exact same thing.
Age of Ultron spoilers directly from the last draft script!
Ultron goes to Wakanda and not a Black Panther is in sight.
Deal with it, he's a shitty boring character anyways. Well to be fair, he's not as boring as Namor (and captain britain! god his shit is fucking terrible!) but whatever, this whole racism roundabout is going nowhere.
Blade is a superhero who happens to be black. Nothing about him is specific to a particular race or even gender.
Do they have to go "he's black! He's black!" 20 times in order for it to count as a "black superhero" or something?
Yes in that I'm drawing a difference between a superhero who just has a race (like Blade) and one who is defined by their race (like Black Panther).
Black Panther isn't just a superhero who is black, he's a character designed for maximum blackness by a couple of white guys in the 1960s. And it shows.
We were talking about Blade.
"Happens to be black" is kind of a shitty thing that only people who aren't black say. (maximum blackness is also kinda sketchy.)
Blade is a Black hero because he is a hero who is black. There's no "happens to be" here. He doesn't suddenly not count as a black superhero because he not running on a bunch of stereotypes.
You're boiling a persons race down to some sort of quantitative amount, and I don't know about anyone else, but I'm finding it troubling.
EDIT: I mean, as an example of how gross I'm finding the language you're using is, what exactly are you defining as "maximum blackness."
I have no idea wtf you are on about, but for some reason you aren't getting it, so I'll explain again.
Blade is a character who is not defined by his race. He is black but that is not a core component of his character.
Black Panther is a character specifically made to embody various black stereotypes and assumptions. Most of the major components of his character are based on his race.
Hopefulyl that clears this up so I don't have to find yet another way to say the exact same thing.
Again, the conversation was about Blade.
El Jeffe asked if there were any other movies with black superheroes and when someone responded with blade, you jumped up to correct that person that "Blade is a superhero who happens to be black. Nothing about him is specific to a particular race or even gender." which, in a vacuum, I questioned why that's relevant to the original question of "would black panther the first black superhero movie."
I mean, in said vacuum, it looks like you're saying Blade doesn't count as a Black hero because he isn't flagrantly black. I mean, now I know you were trying to inject an argument against black panther into a conversation that wasn't talking asking about Black Panther (because he, you know, hasn't gotten a movie yet, so he can't be the answer to Jeffe's question.) but at that point, it felt like a really questionable thing to bring up.
I probably let this color my judgement in your follow-up post, where you clarified against that, but using comments like "maximum blackness" is sketchy to me because it implies certain stereotypes are more indicative than others, which in itself is stereotyping. Like, who is more "maximum black": Black Panther, or Luke Cage, who is his own bundle of stereotypes in his original incarnation? What's more stereotypical black here, tribal african warrior or street gangmember?
But I'm probably getting hung up on your terminology, and I get your point here, so now that I've explained myself, I'll cede your point that Black Panther has more stereotypical elements than Blade.
I disagree that it's a distinction that matters when asking the question "Would Black Panther be the first black superhero movie."
The problem with Black Panther, what what I've gathered of what I've skimmed off the net, and seeing as he is characterized on EMH, is that it seems like if it came down to saving the entire world, or saving Wakanda, he would let the world burn to keep his homeland safe. Contrast that to Captain America, who I could absolutely see sacrificing the USA if it meant the other 6.7 billion people on the planet lived.
I see that as less "problem" and more "story opportunity".
That said, just on its face, a black superhero named "Black Panther" seems way blaxploitation to me, especially (unless I'm forgetting someone) being the first black superhero to get his own movie. The character himself may be entirely inoffensive, but that name just seems like baaaaaad optics.
Meteor Man? Blade?
Followed immediately by this as a response to that start:
So I don't know if you completely forgot that or something, even though you respond directly to it, but that's the context of this conversation. It was explicitly begun as a discussion of Black Panther and his origins. (As ElJeffe says, very blaxploitation) And I'm responding in the context of the discussion iteslf. So I'm not sure what your issue is there. This isn't a discussion just about Blade, since Blade emerged from a conversation about black superheroes, specifically Black fucking Panther.
As for the rest, I don't understand the issue with "maximum blackness". It's a reference to the same shit ElJeffe is talking about. A characterization rooted in racial assumptions and stereotypes. It's like making an asian superhero and calling him Chin Chan and making him a martial arts expert and ninja who wields magical chopsticks and is great at math and who's mother is totally overbearing and critical of anything but the very best and that's what pushes him to be the best superhero ever! It's cramming all these characteristics into one character to try and make them super-asian as a way to go "See, we are being inclusive!".
What's more stereotypical black here, tribal african warrior or street gangmember? It doesn't matter. Either one works for what's being discussed.
shryke on
0
Options
Brainiac 8Don't call me Shirley...Registered Userregular
So I'm going to make a guess for the Movie panel and say that Marvel will announce Guardian's 2 for one of the mystery dates they posted a couple days ago.
Why? Because Marvel seems to be marketing this thing big time hoping that it'll be the next big thing, and also Gunn has said he wants to do a sequel.
With that said, Mantis and Jack Flag had better be in the sequel. Why Flag? Because he hates cosmic stuff and his reactions are hilarious!
Blade is a superhero who happens to be black. Nothing about him is specific to a particular race or even gender.
Do they have to go "he's black! He's black!" 20 times in order for it to count as a "black superhero" or something?
Yes in that I'm drawing a difference between a superhero who just has a race (like Blade) and one who is defined by their race (like Black Panther).
Black Panther isn't just a superhero who is black, he's a character designed for maximum blackness by a couple of white guys in the 1960s. And it shows.
We were talking about Blade.
"Happens to be black" is kind of a shitty thing that only people who aren't black say. (maximum blackness is also kinda sketchy.)
Blade is a Black hero because he is a hero who is black. There's no "happens to be" here. He doesn't suddenly not count as a black superhero because he not running on a bunch of stereotypes.
You're boiling a persons race down to some sort of quantitative amount, and I don't know about anyone else, but I'm finding it troubling.
EDIT: I mean, as an example of how gross I'm finding the language you're using is, what exactly are you defining as "maximum blackness."
I have no idea wtf you are on about, but for some reason you aren't getting it, so I'll explain again.
Blade is a character who is not defined by his race. He is black but that is not a core component of his character.
Black Panther is a character specifically made to embody various black stereotypes and assumptions. Most of the major components of his character are based on his race.
Hopefulyl that clears this up so I don't have to find yet another way to say the exact same thing.
I'm not certain which "stereotypes and assumptions" the warrior-king of a techno-utopian African kingdom embodies.
So I'm going to make a guess for the Movie panel and say that Marvel will announce Guardian's 2 for one of the mystery dates they posted a couple days ago.
Why? Because Marvel seems to be marketing this thing big time hoping that it'll be the next big thing, and also Gunn has said he wants to do a sequel.
With that said, Mantis and Jack Flag had better be in the sequel. Why Flag? Because he hates cosmic stuff and his reactions are hilarious!
i'd rather have adam warlock, phyla-vell and moondragon (and sure, mantis) than jack flag but we'll probably just get richard.
of course theres already a new member been stupidly spoiled everywhere for gotg 2 but eh they may change that before too long.
While critics have hailed Guardians of the Galaxy as a Marvel masterpiece, their one big complaint was the lack of a traditional post-credits scene, which has become a staple of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Don't worry, true believers! There is a post-credit scene coming, it just won't be shown until opening night, in theaters, so that it's not spoiled before fans get to see it.
James Gunn directed the scene himself, and while it does connect to other Marvel movies because of certain characters involved, it will be its own thing, and purely tied into Guardians of the Galaxy. It was previously hinted that this credits cookie (what they were called back in the old days) will add a 'new element' to Marvel.
Speaking with Total Film, the director explained that the scene was shot two days after the Hollywood premiere this past weekend.
"Oh we have a post-credit sequence for you! Oh, do we ever! Yes, well we are connected, first of all we are connected...because of certain characters...but we have a post-credit sequence that's all our own! That in all honestly we have just been doing the past few days so I think it's going to be a great deal of fun for people. You don't even want to know what it is! Pure joy, pure joy, that's two words!"
In a second interview, this time with Screen Rant, James Gunn gave some more background on the scene in question and hinted at what we can expect.
"It's directed by me, it will be out and it introduces something really awesome to the Marvel Universe that people will get to see, but not until the movie comes out in theaters, we're saving it."
Does this make you even more excited for Guardians of the Galaxy?
Guardians of the Galaxy comes to theaters August 1st, 2014 and stars Chris Pratt, Dave Bautista, Zoe Saldana, Michael Rooker, Ophelia Lovibond, Lee Pace, Glenn Close, Karen Gillan. The film is directed by James Gunn.
skeldare on
Nintendo Console Codes
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
While critics have hailed Guardians of the Galaxy as a Marvel masterpiece, their one big complaint was the lack of a traditional post-credits scene, which has become a staple of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Don't worry, true believers! There is a post-credit scene coming, it just won't be shown until opening night, in theaters, so that it's not spoiled before fans get to see it.
James Gunn directed the scene himself, and while it does connect to other Marvel movies because of certain characters involved, it will be its own thing, and purely tied into Guardians of the Galaxy. It was previously hinted that this credits cookie (what they were called back in the old days) will add a 'new element' to Marvel.
Speaking with Total Film, the director explained that the scene was shot two days after the Hollywood premiere this past weekend.
"Oh we have a post-credit sequence for you! Oh, do we ever! Yes, well we are connected, first of all we are connected...because of certain characters...but we have a post-credit sequence that's all our own! That in all honestly we have just been doing the past few days so I think it's going to be a great deal of fun for people. You don't even want to know what it is! Pure joy, pure joy, that's two words!"
In a second interview, this time with Screen Rant, James Gunn gave some more background on the scene in question and hinted at what we can expect.
"It's directed by me, it will be out and it introduces something really awesome to the Marvel Universe that people will get to see, but not until the movie comes out in theaters, we're saving it."
Does this make you even more excited for Guardians of the Galaxy?
Guardians of the Galaxy comes to theaters August 1st, 2014 and stars Chris Pratt, Dave Bautista, Zoe Saldana, Michael Rooker, Ophelia Lovibond, Lee Pace, Glenn Close, Karen Gillan. The film is directed by James Gunn.
new element? cumberbatch shows up as doctor strange, calling it.
or warlock coming out of the cocoon at the collectors place from the end of thor 2 maybe
I'm going to drop the Black Panther/Blade argument since we're pretty far away from the original starting point and the whole argument is mostly due to me getting annoyed at initial statements you made and not properly taking your current arguments into consideration. So, sorry for that and sorry to everyone else for mucking up this thread. My bad.
That shit needs to change. Voice Acting a CGI character in a Live Action movie is something that needs to be recognized on the same level as it would be if that character were a regular human.
Pages of discussion about black heroes and not one mention of Luke Cage who is getting his own TV miniseries? (if I missed a mention, my bad. I'm skimming).
That shit needs to change. Voice Acting a CGI character in a Live Action movie is something that needs to be recognized on the same level as it would be if that character were a regular human.
There was a discussion of this in the Movies thread (I think), but the issue is complicated by the fact that an animated character isn't the product of one person in the same way that a traditional role is. If Rocket winds up being an excellent character, it's because of Bradley Cooper and also a team of a dozen artists and animators. Regardless of whether the process deserves the same legitimacy as traditional acting (and I definitely think it does), it's as much a different beast as directing an animated film versus directing a live-action movie.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I'd argue that the animated character is also affected by the director and writers, the same as other characters.
Especially when facial expressions or even entire body movements (through mo-cap) are integrated into the animation, the voice actor provides most of the relatability to the character.
shryke, any reason to be such an abrasive goose? Again, as per your quote, here's what ElJeffe wrote: "That said, just on its face, a black superhero named "Black Panther" seems way blaxploitation to me, especially (unless I'm forgetting someone) being the first black superhero to get his own movie." I'm bolding the bit that I was specifically responding to: being the first black superhero to get his own movie. Black Panther, while blaxploitative, isn't the first black superhero, although he might be the first whose ethnicity is foregrounded. In that sense, bringing up Blade is doubly relevant: he is a black superhero who got his own series of movies, yet he's not played as the representative black dude, which would make him a valid counterpoint, wouldn't it?
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
shryke, any reason to be such an abrasive goose? Again, as per your quote, here's what ElJeffe wrote: "That said, just on its face, a black superhero named "Black Panther" seems way blaxploitation to me, especially (unless I'm forgetting someone) being the first black superhero to get his own movie." I'm bolding the bit that I was specifically responding to: being the first black superhero to get his own movie. Black Panther, while blaxploitative, isn't the first black superhero, although he might be the first whose ethnicity is foregrounded. In that sense, bringing up Blade is doubly relevant: he is a black superhero who got his own series of movies, yet he's not played as the representative black dude, which would make him a valid counterpoint, wouldn't it?
Irrelevant to the point. Undead Scottsman complained that it was completely out of context for the discussion. Which is just not true as demonstrated by the quote that began it. This isn't being abrasive, this is pointing out that getting pissy at me because you don't remember where the discussion started is silly. I took the point you bolded there in the context of the first part of the sentence. It's still perfectly on topic and so there's no call for complaining that it's not. Frankly, I don't know what your fucking problem is or why you felt you needed to bring this back up yet again, but you need to get the fuck over it.
As to whether it's a valid counterpoint, that depends on what you think the original point was. I think because of exactly what I mentioned about the difference between Blade and Black Panther, that the Blade movies don't really work to show that Black Panther's blackploitative nature wouldn't be an issue. Blade is probably the first comicbook movie staring a black lead, but it's definitely one with no real focus on race at all.
Posts
t'challa not only happens to be black, he's an explicitly african political leader. A film that dealt with how african metahumans interacted with the postcolonial western/white world could be pretty interesting, but black panther usually hasn't been used that way (not the least because wakanda is portrayed as a weird combo of technologically advanced, isolated and stereotypically african in terms of visual style.)
I don't think calling him Black Panther is really a problem though
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
"Ok, Mr. Downey, we've agreed to your monetary demands, are there any other conditions?"
"I want you to eat a piece of shit. Right now. I'm gonna drop a deuce on this conference table and you are going to go to town on it."
"Um ... maybe we can recast?"
Marvel Studios was lauded in Hollywood for just how cheaply they made movies and a big part of that was how they kept actor salaries way down. Remember, when Iron Man hit RJD was doing small roles mostly in minor pics after his earlier departure for drug shenanigans. He wasn't anything like the star he is now.
Now...he is easily the biggest name* in Marvel's stable and the most secure in telling them "Fuck you, pay me." Several of the other leads have commented on how Downey has given them advice and support in them telling Marvel "Fuck you, pay me."
*Only Jackson comes close and he's just kind of weird about his roles anyways. I always got the impression he's playing Fury because he damn well wants to.
Not to mention we just got arguably the best Marvel movie that had one of the most awesome black superheroes portrayed so far.
You know why? Because Falcon was awesome. So very awesome.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
Falcon was amazing. I was completely expecting him to come off as stupid and pointless and for me to hate him but almost immediately after he showed on screen I was completely on board with him.
Blade's not an oddball, it's that his movies never get into racial politics that a person in his position would be in in real life. They kinda sorta did that in Blade 3 but do you really want unrestrained David Goyer putting that topic in a movie? Blade didn't care about race, unless you're a vampire - then you're dead to him, but nobody in his universe did either. I enjoyed how they made Frost a liberal/progressive villain, it made him more dangerous.
Action/super-hero movies aren't really going to deeply explore issues like this. The Iron Man movie didn't even go into how politically warped the corporate world and military/government would make the situation worse by getting the armors and how corporations do dirty business with hostile powers like the Ten Rings.
Priest's comics went into that. It was comic book craziness, of course. But that territory isn't foreign to Black Panther. They can also explore this with BP's movies.
I'd prefer he pass the torch before Tony becomes old Indiana Jones.
and anyway as long as he sticks with his current 'just give me a cut of the profits' negotiating model, taking a 'fuck you pay me' approach should be relatively safe for the studio
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
We were talking about Blade.
"Happens to be black" is kind of a shitty thing that only people who aren't black say. (maximum blackness is also kinda sketchy.)
Blade is a Black hero because he is a hero who is black. There's no "happens to be" here. He doesn't suddenly not count as a black superhero because he not running on a bunch of stereotypes.
You're boiling a persons race down to some sort of quantitative amount, and I don't know about anyone else, but I'm finding it troubling.
EDIT: I mean, as an example of how gross I'm finding the language you're using is, what exactly are you defining as "maximum blackness."
It's a pretty undeniable fact that a character's race in a film can be more or less apparent depending on the role.
There is a difference between, say, Heimdall being black because fuckyeah Idris Elba is awesome, and something like Soul Plane being written and cast specifically to target black demographics, and something like Blacula which is flat-out a blaxpoitation film.
I interpreted "maximum blackness" as referring to something like blaxpoitation, though the term is... a bit unsubtle.
I have no idea wtf you are on about, but for some reason you aren't getting it, so I'll explain again.
Blade is a character who is not defined by his race. He is black but that is not a core component of his character.
Black Panther is a character specifically made to embody various black stereotypes and assumptions. Most of the major components of his character are based on his race.
Hopefulyl that clears this up so I don't have to find yet another way to say the exact same thing.
Deal with it, he's a shitty boring character anyways. Well to be fair, he's not as boring as Namor (and captain britain! god his shit is fucking terrible!) but whatever, this whole racism roundabout is going nowhere.
Again, the conversation was about Blade.
El Jeffe asked if there were any other movies with black superheroes and when someone responded with blade, you jumped up to correct that person that "Blade is a superhero who happens to be black. Nothing about him is specific to a particular race or even gender." which, in a vacuum, I questioned why that's relevant to the original question of "would black panther the first black superhero movie."
I mean, in said vacuum, it looks like you're saying Blade doesn't count as a Black hero because he isn't flagrantly black. I mean, now I know you were trying to inject an argument against black panther into a conversation that wasn't talking asking about Black Panther (because he, you know, hasn't gotten a movie yet, so he can't be the answer to Jeffe's question.) but at that point, it felt like a really questionable thing to bring up.
I probably let this color my judgement in your follow-up post, where you clarified against that, but using comments like "maximum blackness" is sketchy to me because it implies certain stereotypes are more indicative than others, which in itself is stereotyping. Like, who is more "maximum black": Black Panther, or Luke Cage, who is his own bundle of stereotypes in his original incarnation? What's more stereotypical black here, tribal african warrior or street gangmember?
But I'm probably getting hung up on your terminology, and I get your point here, so now that I've explained myself, I'll cede your point that Black Panther has more stereotypical elements than Blade.
I disagree that it's a distinction that matters when asking the question "Would Black Panther be the first black superhero movie."
So I don't know if you completely forgot that or something, even though you respond directly to it, but that's the context of this conversation. It was explicitly begun as a discussion of Black Panther and his origins. (As ElJeffe says, very blaxploitation) And I'm responding in the context of the discussion iteslf. So I'm not sure what your issue is there. This isn't a discussion just about Blade, since Blade emerged from a conversation about black superheroes, specifically Black fucking Panther.
As for the rest, I don't understand the issue with "maximum blackness". It's a reference to the same shit ElJeffe is talking about. A characterization rooted in racial assumptions and stereotypes. It's like making an asian superhero and calling him Chin Chan and making him a martial arts expert and ninja who wields magical chopsticks and is great at math and who's mother is totally overbearing and critical of anything but the very best and that's what pushes him to be the best superhero ever! It's cramming all these characteristics into one character to try and make them super-asian as a way to go "See, we are being inclusive!".
What's more stereotypical black here, tribal african warrior or street gangmember? It doesn't matter. Either one works for what's being discussed.
Why? Because Marvel seems to be marketing this thing big time hoping that it'll be the next big thing, and also Gunn has said he wants to do a sequel.
With that said, Mantis and Jack Flag had better be in the sequel. Why Flag? Because he hates cosmic stuff and his reactions are hilarious!
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
I'm not certain which "stereotypes and assumptions" the warrior-king of a techno-utopian African kingdom embodies.
i'd rather have adam warlock, phyla-vell and moondragon (and sure, mantis) than jack flag but we'll probably just get richard.
of course theres already a new member been stupidly spoiled everywhere for gotg 2 but eh they may change that before too long.
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
uggh i fucking hope not. i mean i'm not that big a fan of richard rider nova series myself but he is still a hell of a lot more entertaining than sam.
new element? cumberbatch shows up as doctor strange, calling it.
or warlock coming out of the cocoon at the collectors place from the end of thor 2 maybe
Well, Vin did motion capture too
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
Jim Starlin says GoTG is the best thing ever. hype. (might be a big spoiler in that link for those who don't know which characters are in the film. )
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Screen Actors Guild. Different pay scales, etc...
They have some weird rules.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
There was a discussion of this in the Movies thread (I think), but the issue is complicated by the fact that an animated character isn't the product of one person in the same way that a traditional role is. If Rocket winds up being an excellent character, it's because of Bradley Cooper and also a team of a dozen artists and animators. Regardless of whether the process deserves the same legitimacy as traditional acting (and I definitely think it does), it's as much a different beast as directing an animated film versus directing a live-action movie.
Especially when facial expressions or even entire body movements (through mo-cap) are integrated into the animation, the voice actor provides most of the relatability to the character.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I've never been to a modern IMAX.
My body is not ready.
Irrelevant to the point. Undead Scottsman complained that it was completely out of context for the discussion. Which is just not true as demonstrated by the quote that began it. This isn't being abrasive, this is pointing out that getting pissy at me because you don't remember where the discussion started is silly. I took the point you bolded there in the context of the first part of the sentence. It's still perfectly on topic and so there's no call for complaining that it's not. Frankly, I don't know what your fucking problem is or why you felt you needed to bring this back up yet again, but you need to get the fuck over it.
As to whether it's a valid counterpoint, that depends on what you think the original point was. I think because of exactly what I mentioned about the difference between Blade and Black Panther, that the Blade movies don't really work to show that Black Panther's blackploitative nature wouldn't be an issue. Blade is probably the first comicbook movie staring a black lead, but it's definitely one with no real focus on race at all.