YW. I feel like alot of us are starting to sound like our parents "back in my day" type lectures about the purity of comics is utter bullshit. Back in my day everyone smoked, my mom smoked my dad smoked my babysitter smoked until one day some SJW said hey you can die from lung cancer and ruined America.
^ See how idiotic that sounds? thats y i do an internal eye roll whenever someone waxes nostalgia about the grand old days when everything was "pure".
Originally posted by SquallX
I ****ing hope not.Rumors is, Cavill signed a contract to play Superman at least 3 more times.
I'm against picking black actors to play white characters, but...
... Cavill is an extremely wooden actor, while Jordan is flexible and can act.
Then again, Superman is a wooden character, lol.
Reading Grant Morrison's run on Doom Patrol.
If a man's writing is a window into their soul, Morrison must have a pretty black soul. Some of the stuff he writes isn't even explainable by substance abuse... More like a goth kid who never really grew out of the phase, and dialed the faux nihilism up to 11.
He's still a great writer and I love him, just saying.
Originally posted by Sin I AM
I feel like alot of us are starting to sound like our parents "back in my day" type lectures about the purity of comics is utter bullshit.
Currently Marvel functions as follows: The editors decide what kind of stories should be written, the writers are hired to write those stories, and the artists are instructed to draw whatever the writer writes.
And in this overly bureaucratic system a lot of the creativity and interest is lost. Writers and illustrators naturally want to be part of the creative process, not write someone else's stories.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
To be honest, I don't see a problem with anyone playing a character or reinventing a character or giving a new iteration. I was really against a woman playing Doctor Who, but she has been lots better than Smith or Capaldi. That might be the writing of course. Remember Men used to play women in the theatre anyway. Take Superman who would have thought a short Brit would be playing him, or Wolverine a tall Canadian. Ffs, when I was growing up Nick Fury was a White man about the age I am now. I've been reading Superman 45+ years, I've seen many of versions of him, we have had Green Lantern replaced by a Ginger Retard (Guy), A black Engineer and ex Soldier John, An Artist, and then Hal has returned. All this Social Justice Warrior, it's political correctness, it's feminazi shit, I just don't see it. It's people telling different stories and doing something different with a character. Make Bond Black, Make Doctor Who a woman, turn Superman into Supermyn make her transgender and make her sexually dysfunctional with a learning disability; just give me a good story. Let's be honest, a villain with a plan who is bigger than the last villain with a plan and puts our hero through hell before they finally come good in the final act, will generally always be the plot.
He/She/Gender non=specified may not be my Superman/myn, Superman now isn't my Superman, My Superman was Christopher Reeves... He or She or Gender Unspecified will be someones Supermyn. As would a Black/Indian/Chinese Superman/myn.
There's nothing wrong with making weird changes... in the comics. You want to let someone else be Superman for a while? Go ahead. You can make them whatever ethnicity/sexuality you want. Go nuts.
But like Stan Lee said: Peter Parker's a white, nerdy, straight guy from Queens.
Spider-Man? That's a different case entirely.
In a movie? Where you're adapting a medium that's as visual as it is literary? No. If you're going to use tentpole characters, you have to remember why they're tentpole characters in the first place. And people might say "well, how would changing their race/sexuality make a difference?", when the truth is, making a change that severe to any character is changing, at least in part, what makes them the character they are.
It's not like when you adapt Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings and have at least some leeway in terms of how characters are supposed to look.
Also, Wolverine is Canadian. Hugh Jackman is Australian. Just thought that was funny. 😛
You don't see how comics are more agenda-driven than they've ever been? Really? I mean, it's not like they're hiding it very well. And yeah, people will say "well, comics were always political/agenda driven". And sure, you have a smidge of an argument there. But the agenda used to be "don't do drugs" or "don't judge people by their race/sexuality".
Comics used to be about making people think. Now it's about making people think what the writers want you to think. And it's not just comics. You see this in sci-fi too.
And as far as Hawkman goes... Eh. If it's Carter Hall I won't like it, but Hawkman being Hawkman, it could be ****ing anything.
Originally posted by Astner
No. Older comics are better, and there are a number of reasons for that. The Marvel-method is the most obvious. Back in the day writers outlined stories and let the artists draw the stories however they wanted, and when it was finished the writer would put in speech bubbles. This allowed for a creative flow that gave the artists a lot of opportunities to experiment and produce dynamic and interesting visuals while at the same time giving the writer an opportunity to revise his story.Currently Marvel functions as follows: The editors decide what kind of stories should be written, the writers are hired to write those stories, and the artists are instructed to draw whatever the writer writes.
And in this overly bureaucratic system a lot of the creativity and interest is lost. Writers and illustrators naturally want to be part of the creative process, not write someone else's stories.
This exactly.
Grant Morrison could never have made it in the current climate, if he was just starting out. They never would have given him such free reign to experiment.
Originally posted by Sin I AMBack in my day my pregnant sister smoked in the bathroom with the whole family.
YW. I feel like alot of us are starting to sound like our parents "back in my day" type lectures about the purity of comics is utter bullshit. Back in my day everyone smoked, my mom smoked my dad smoked my babysitter smoked until one day some SJW said hey you can die from lung cancer and ruined America.^ See how idiotic that sounds? thats y i do an internal eye roll whenever someone waxes nostalgia about the grand old days when everything was "pure".
Originally posted by -Pr-
There's nothing wrong with making weird changes... in the comics. You want to let someone else be Superman for a while? Go ahead. You can make them whatever ethnicity/sexuality you want. Go nuts.But like Stan Lee said: Peter Parker's a white, nerdy, straight guy from Queens.
Spider-Man? That's a different case entirely.
In a movie? Where you're adapting a medium that's as visual as it is literary? No. If you're going to use tentpole characters, you have to remember why they're tentpole characters in the first place. And people might say "well, how would changing their race/sexuality make a difference?", when the truth is, making a change that severe to any character is changing, at least in part, what makes them the character they are.
It's not like when you adapt Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings and have at least some leeway in terms of how characters are supposed to look.
Also, Wolverine is Canadian. Hugh Jackman is Australian. Just thought that was funny. 😛
You don't see how comics are more agenda-driven than they've ever been? Really? I mean, it's not like they're hiding it very well. And yeah, people will say "well, comics were always political/agenda driven". And sure, you have a smidge of an argument there. But the agenda used to be "don't do drugs" or "don't judge people by their race/sexuality".
Comics used to be about making people think. Now it's about making people think what the writers want you to think. And it's not just comics. You see this in sci-fi too.
And as far as Hawkman goes... Eh. If it's Carter Hall I won't like it, but Hawkman being Hawkman, it could be ****ing anything.