Well…I haven’t seen any out and out tokenism in the MCU yet.
Here’s MY IMHO definition of tokenism. And I’m sure everyone will disagree.
One role
You gotta jump through hoops to get there
And it ends up not working
OR the director flat out admits to refusing to do an all-white period piece and throws out a couple of roles for 'inclusivity", (Im looking at you Mary Queen of Scots)
So is Heimdell token? NO!! He’s not even Asgardian, and Idris Elba is great.
Is Valkyrie? No…theres no hoop-jumping and Tessa is a delight.
Various Spider-man roles? NOPE…it works because the focus is their age, its a lot more than one role, and who cares anyway??
Baron Mordo??? Who frigging cares!!!
I will tell you this, if Kaluu ends of being played by a non-Asian and the usual suspects lose their shit over it…Im out. Fucking Kaluu??? You get your knickers out of shape over Kaluu??
Human Torch? (I know…not MCU) Ennnnnnhhhhh…I haven’t seen it. But it seems closer than the others.
Are white comic book fans upset over Storm’s light-skinned portrayal in the X-Men franchise? Because quite a few black comic book fans have negative opinions about this choice and the politics behind it. I’m wondering if the posters who have been emphatic about “accuracy” sympathize with this viewpoint.
People keep mentioning box office “bombs”. I’ve got a couple of other bombs to throw into the discussion. “Exodus: Gods and Kings” and “Gods of Egypt”. Maybe one day Hollywood will create a movie about Egypt that will cast folks with melanin in the lead roles. That is, if Hollywood has any sense.
Personally, what I think tokenism is (or at least, where it gets problematic) is when you’ve got a character whose defining trait is being “the black one” (or “the female one”, or whatever). Heimdall’s defining trait wasn’t that he was the black Asgardian. His defining trait was that he’s a badass who sees to the furthest ends of the Universe (a role which, incidentally, Idris Elba filled very well). So even though he’s the only black guy in the first two Thor films, he avoids being a token.
Well, in the films, Heimdall wasn’t a main character or an action hero per se, and didn’t get nearly as much screen time as Valkyrie. Basically he was a prop. In the comics, Valkyrie was a full-fledged and longstanding member of the Avengers, complete with long blonde braids. It makes no damn sense for her to be black.
When “Will & Grace” first came out umpteen years ago, I remember certain factions decrying that a straight actor got a role that “should” have gone to a gay actor. All I did was roll my eyes and think, Right, 'cause it’s so hard for gay people to get jobs in show business. To reiterate, I’m gay, and that wasn’t something I felt the need to get butthurt about. The right actor for a job is the right actor for the job. But that doesn’t mean ANY actor is right for ANY job.
Think thats bad??? Maisie Williams isnt Scottish. Blu Hunt isnt Cheyenne, Anya Taylor-Joy isnt Russian, Henry Zaga is about 200 shades whiter than Sunspot and Charlie Heaton is fucking English!! Playing a guy from Kentucky??
None of these are insurmountable hurdles for a storyteller who knows what they are doing. A movie with a black Superman wouldn’t even have to show his Kansas backstory. There are creative ways to cover a character’s history without going into unnecessary depth.
Also, there’s no requirement that racism has to be shown even when circumstances suggest it exists. I mean, look at sexism and Lois Lane. Her character was conceived at a time when female reporters were rarities and women were discounted at every turn. Does her depiction ring false simply because you don’t see her being discriminated against? Somehow, even our grandparent’s generation could ignore what looks like exceptionality in our world and accept that in this fictional universe, the paradigm is different. In Metropolis, it’s not a big deal for women to be ambitious, highly regarded journalists for major metropolitan newspapers, even if set in the 1950’s, 80’s, or 2000’s. If sexism exists there, it happens off screen, just like most things that are not central to the story.
I’m not saying it would be a good idea to make a black Superman. I’m just saying it could be done convincingly well without distorting anything critical. If our current trend of rehashing and revamping the same stories continues into the far future, there will be new Superman movies a hundred years from now. To think it’s going to always be Anglo looking white guys playing him is just unrealistic.
That’s actually a very good point. In my O.P. I used Superman as an example of an icon. We all KNOW what he looks like. Now. We know what he looks like now. Athletic white guy about six foot four, 225 pounds or so (forgive me I can’t do the Kyptonian to Imperical conversions), dark hair, preferably with the little lock that forms an “s” on his forehead… gotta have a cape etc… etc…
He’s a fucking ICON!
But, well, icons can change given enough time.
For some damn reason I am reminded of the depiction of Satan in art. It probably took more than a thousand years for that particular iconic bastard to grow his horns and goat legs.
But at that point, it’s a completely different character so why bother? If you’re a filmmaker and you’re “not interested” in filming white characters, then make your own damn characters and your own damn movie. You don’t get to co-opt other people’s work, line your pockets, and call it your “artistic vision.”
I was thinking about asking about a black Batman…then i remembered recent cries of “Its time for a black Alfred”…which immediatly made me think “Will he be played like Robert Guillaime played Benson?”…that would be awesome.
Simon Pegg is English, not Scottish. And he has joked that he’s carrying on the tradition of playing Scotty with a terrible Scottish accent.
But I don’t think that Scots have any particular complaint about being systematically excluded from the American entertainment industry. The same with Russians, Italians, Irish, etc.
Consider Judge Leonard White from Bonfire of the Vanities. Everything he says and does in the book is seen through the filter of his likely racist attitudes and his attempt to grow past them. But in the movie, they undercut this whole theme by making him Morgan Freeman. It really hurt the movie.
It isn’t a completely different character. I actually believe a black Superman’s story of origin could easily be told, Kansas and all. My point, though, is that is that it’s very silly to get hung up on this part of it, when a move could very well flow like the latest comic book installment, with little attention on backstory.
Who is the “you” that you’re referring to? I hope you’re not implying that these movies could only be made by minority filmmakers. Or perhaps you’re implying that “co-opting other people’s work” only occurs when you change a character’s race. Did Brian Singer “co-opt” Superman when he made his sequel to Superman II?
I think what one gets to do with “other people’s work” is entirely up to those other people and who they choose to give the filming rights to, not the cadre of angry basement dwelling misanthropes who consider themselves the “real fans” of the work.
So, a Kal-El story told where he has dark skin instead of light skin can’t be Superman? That’s ridiculous.
Does it change the narrative? Of course it does. Superhero movies adjust the narrative to serve the needs of the story they’re trying to tell ALL THE TIME.
Many of these characters were created at time when white men were in charge of everything and racism/sexism were enshrined in law. It’s high time to free ourselves of the racism of our past, and realize that Superman isn’t white because he’s “supposed” to be white. He’s white because that’s what he was expected to be in 1938.
You’re missing the point. It’s not about the Russians, Italians, Irish, etc. (although the USSR DID say something about the lack of Russians on board the Enterprise back when the Original Series was broadcast, that’s how we got Chekhov).
The point is that the crew of the Enterprise was not only multi-racial but multi-gender and multi-species. This is not such a big deal to us today but back in 1966 it was a big, huge, major deal. It was part of what made Star Trek… Star Trek A mixed crew like that was seen as science fiction because it sure as hell was not the norm in 1960’s America. By the next generation even the aliens were getting mixed races/ethnicities/sub-species/whatever - Vulcans, Klingons, Trill, Andorians (as of Star Trek: Enterprise), the Xindi, Borg… Wait, back up - the aliens in “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield” in the old series came in different flavors, too.
Can you imagine an all white crew on the Enterprise? Can you imagine any major star ship in that universe, at least on the Federation side, as all one ethnicity? It would be weird, and it would be commented on and probably protested. Integration is an inherent characteristic of Star Trek. It always has been. That’s why the casting of all sorts of people in various positions of command gets very little protest (you will always get some protest because bigots and assholes exist).
When diversity becomes the norm it becomes unremarkable.
Marvel making diverse casting choices is also becoming the norm. People are freaking out less and less over it.
Which is not to say it never matters - Black Panther, given its setting, really did need to have a majority African/African descent cast. So did Luke Cage. Wonder Woman had to be played by a woman because being a woman is very much inherent to the character. In a period piece like Captain American: The First Avenger Cap had to be white… but his successor can be anything (and the shield was passed to a black man). But a bunch of characters in Daredevil didn’t have to be played by non-white actors, but were. Kingpin is a major character that can be - and has been - played by both white and black actors. His ethnicity matters less than a lot of other traits. Nick Fury was a white man for most of his run in the comic books (only Ultimate Nick Fury is black) but he is black in both TV and movies because he’s played by Samuel L. Jackson. There is actually no reason Fury couldn’t be played by an actor of a different skin color other than tradition at this point.
Yes, there are times when ethnicity or gender matters a great deal… but not as often as many think. Put a great actor in a role with a great script and often people don’t care about details not vital to the character in the story’s context. There have been instances where a character was conceived as one thing but the actor cast was another (Ripley in Alien being a prime example) and it worked great. Sigourney Weaver worked as Ripley not because Ripley HAD to be a woman but because it was a good story well told. Really - there is not one thing Ripley says or does that couldn’t have been done by a man in that movie. In that sense Ripley’s gender is not important to the story. Neither is Ripley’s race. Reboot the franchise Ripley can be any adult human being.
A big problem is that for decades in Hollywood and TV the ONLY parts a non-white actor could get were those parts that HAD to be played by a non-white actor, everyone else was white. Now we’re finally getting to a point where we have non-white actors getting roles that could be anything - white, black, Asian, multi-racial. And some bigots are getting their panties in a twist over it, claiming it’s pandering or quotas or some bullshit. No, it’s not - it’s long overdue is what it is.