It’s a Bad Sign when someone behind a movie like that says “don’t look at the source material”. You look at the source material AND still do something different - case in point is O Brother, Where Art Thou? which is based (rather loosely, admittedly) on Homer’s Odessy. * OBWAT *is very different than the Greek classic but it’s also very good in its own right.
Me, too - they were goofy and ocassionally awkward but they were very much an homage to the original source material. They were flawed but they were also fun. I own 'em, too. (I’ve been an FF fan for about 45 years now).
DON’T WATCH IT! DON’T DO IT, MAN! Even free that turd is overpriced 'cause you’ll never get that 100 minutes of your life back. You’d have to PAY me to ever watch that piece of crap again. Watch something else you might actually enjoy.
That worked in no small part because the rest of the movie was good, too. It was a good story well told. If you don’t have a good story all the effects in the world don’t matter.
I still don’t feel the proper solution is to just take the long established characters and make changes to them in an attempt to level things. Bring in the Miles Morales and Riri Williams characters. Pass the shield down to Sam Wilson. Right now they all are still sort of hanging on, but there’s no reason you can’t retire Peter Parker, Tony Stark, and Steve Rogers and continue the characters’ identities forward.
DC’s New 52 gave us a comic book Wallace West who is black like on the CW, who (now) exists alongside the Wally West that once was the Flash and Kid Flash and didn’t exist but does again now. At least I think so anyway, because DC continuity is really a tangled spaghetti mess because they keep rebooting everything. If you wanted to make a black Superman movie and he was Supes from Earth-R or some such, that too would be fine. Maybe he’d hit huge enough that people started preferring him to the original.
Finally, I agree that the character on TV they call James Olsen is a good character, and I like him in the show. But I like the nerdy, bow-tie wearing, freckly, little cub reporter/photographer Superman’s Pal Jimmy Olsen too. The problem is in giving manly Guardian guy the James Olsen moniker and making him a photographer who worked with/was friends with Superman. If they called him anything else, the character of Jimmy Olson might one day arrive with his “Gee Mister Kent!” schtick intact.
I find this line of thought curious. Nobody reads the comics for Peter Parker, they read for Spiderman. The Peter Parker alter ego is an aspect of the Spiderman character. Changing Spiderman’s alter ego to an entirely different character–from Peter Parker to Miles Morales–is a much bigger change than it would be to just change Peter Parker to being a black dude.
Sure. This sounds like earlier, when Omniscient was sneering at me because I didn’t know that Morales was from P-235 Omicron Delta or something in the comics. The overwhelming majority of the comics-movie-watching public is barely aware of Marvel/DC continuity, and a director/screenwriter who handwaves all that is probably making a sound financial decision, and IMO is 100% making a sound artistic decision, because all that continuity stuff impedes instead of promotes awesome storytelling.
Nice thing is, if you go back to your old comics issues, the bowtie wearing carrot-top is right where you left him. Adaptations don’t, and cannot, destroy the original.
How is that a problem? Any storytelling choice closes off other choices within that story. The storytellers for Supergirl made their choice, and it works inside that story, and that’s what matters.
I don’t purport to speak for anyone other than myself, except generally in that I’ve heard quite a lot of people express the same sentiments about this subject. I’m not entitled to Peter Parker, Bruce Wayne, etc., nor do I insist on any sort of creative input, demand anything from anybody, start internet petitions, call for people to be fired or anything like that. Nevertheless, any time somebody like me protests any sort of changes out of love for the original characters or stories, inevitably we get lumped in with the worst elements like those you are talking about above and then dismissed out of hand. That’s what I was trying to get at. “Fans” and “fanboys” aren’t the same thing, but they are often treated the same way if they have anything remotely negative to say.
Stan Lee and Steve Ditko had a long-time tussle over the co-creation of Spider-Man. Lee was a writer, and he believed that Spider-Man would still be Spider-Man no matter who drew him in the beginning. If he had been given a costume with white, yellow, and black stripes, you could still have told the same stories. Peter Parker could have been a foot taller or shorter, or had curly hair and acne. So long as he was still nerdy and awkward and he’d still have been essentially Peter Parker. Ditko argued that the look of the character- the design of the costume, the way he moved, posed, and dressed when in civvies- was as important a part of the character and the story-telling process as the dialogue and text was in the comics medium. Ditko eventually won that fight and I think the prevailing view amongst most comics fans is that he has the right of it. Comics are very visual, and while deviating from the books on your way to the screen is inevitable in some ways, it comes down to a matter of degree.
This is essentially a question of peoples’ opinions. I’ve read yours throughout the thread and it basically sounds like “anybody can do anything with anything and all art is valid” and so on. Which is fine for you and your tastes. I’m just saying that for me, there are some characters that are too dear.
I’m starting with the last bit first and working my way up. You’re right that it’s not a problem for the show, or anything like that. Their James Olson character works where he is. I actually DO like him! The “problem” I mean is mine, and I only say it’s a problem from the standpoint of somebody who would like the bow-tie cub reporter Jimmy Olson to maybe show up someday on the show, it’s going to be a gazillion times less likely than if they had named him absolutely anything else.
I know that the adaptations don’t destroy the original, and I know that the potential movie audience are not made up of comics nerds. This is all just what my own feelings and opinions are. And I hope nobody takes what I’m saying as “sneering.” But comics are chock full of alternate versions of established characters, from other dimensions, different timelines, etc.
But insofar as the bit about nobody reading Spider-Man for Peter Parker, you’re just completely off-base here. Most comics are not like the cartoons, and they aren’t the kid-oriented funnybooks of the 40’s and 50’s either. If all you see of the genre is the movies or cartoons, then you might think all the secret identity stuff is secondary, but it isn’t. It’s been an absolutely vital part of the mix since the 60’s.
Spider-Man has always been my #1 favorite character, and Peter Parker’s civilian ID is why. He has a huge cast of well developed supporting characters! What made him unique back in the day was how he had a very real personal life with problems people could relate to. He had an Aunt perpetually at death’s door, homework and school to balance, was a social dud who got bullied as Peter Parker by Spider-Man’s biggest fan. The cops thought he was a criminal and the paper that he sold photos of Spider-Man to used them to smear his reputation. His best friend’s father was his psychotic arch-enemy! But when nerdy Pete put on the mask he turned into a cool guy with a sharp wit, a hero who could do amazing things, save the city, and take down the villains. At the same time, at least half of his personal problems stemmed from him being Spider-Man. The whole “my life is a total mess but down deep I’m really awesome” bit was what made the stories. Even with all the stuff he could do, he couldn’t get a date, or he’d lose his homework, or he’d oversleep because he was out all night fighting the Rhino. Not only that, but as the years went by, they let Peter grow up, finish high school and college, shed his nerdy demeanor and grow in confidence. He got the girl, got married, went on to start a successful career. In the actual comics, Peter’s identity as Peter is indispensable. It was kind of a new way to do comics, but that kind of storytelling eventually took over the industry.
Miles Morales’ Spider-Man is a very popular character not just because he has similar powers, but because he also has a real life outside the suit. His problems are different, but he has family issues, identity issues, and all the other stuff we make drama out of. And he resonates a lot with a younger audience and others who feel more represented now that he’s in the mix. That’s why I’m perfectly okay with Miles being Spider-Man, Riri putting on the IronHeart armor, and Sam Wilson taking up the shield. Because they are going to have their own stories, and probably good ones.
Hmm… that’s odd. This wonderful, rich description of the importance of Peter Parker as a character is strangely missing his race. Does his race matter?
I think I didn’t make myself clear. Of course the tension between the kid and the costume is an important aspect of the Spiderman character. I’d go so far as to say it’s the genius of the character. I’m unaware of any previous character from myth or legend who quite balances two disparate components like these, and there’s no way I’d argue that Spiderman without the kid inside would be as interesting.
But the comic isn’t called Peter Parker. It’s called Spiderman.
If you keep the power-set more-or-less the same, you’ve still got Spiderman. If you create tension between a teenager who’s struggling with normal teenage stuff, and the superhero he becomes when he dons the mask, you’ve got the character. You can change nearly everything else about that teenager and still have the character of Spiderman. You can change his first name from Peter to Miles, and his last name from Parker to Morales; you can remove Aunt May; you can change his ethnicity and his racial identity. You can change Peter Parker to Pavitr Prabhakar, a boy in Mumbai, and still have Spiderman.
So when you say you can make all those changes, but you better not leave Peter Parker exactly the same except make him black, I’m a little perplexed.
I haven’t been following what DC is doing on TV. But I will say that while I can accept a black Jimmy Olson, I can’t accept a Jimmy Olson who isn’t an awkward, inexperienced dweeb.
Consider, though, that Supergirl’s story happens after Superman is well-established: due to timey wimey bullshit, Supergirl (Kal-El’s older sister) is actually younger than Kal-El himself. Superman grew up.
So did Jimmy.
And it’s acknowledged in the pilot, IIRC, that Kara/Supergirl is expecting Jimmy Olson to show up and be an awkward dweeb. When a hottie shows up (the actor was previously a fashion model) and gently but firmly corrects her “Jimmy” to “James”, she doesn’t actually bite a knuckle, but she wants to.
He’s a grown-up. He has a fiancee. He’s the same character, but in a different stage of his life. His teenage awkwardness and dweebishness? Behind him.
Because it does matter to me what he looks like. See post number 404 above regarding the Lee/Ditko controversy and what makes comics different, at least in my mind, than other print media. In the near 50 years I’ve been ready these comics I’ve seen Peter Parker probably tens of thousands of times. He’s as iconic to me as any fictional character could ever be, and part of that includes his looks. I’m not arguing that you can’t do a good movie with a Peter Parker as a black man. I’m saying that it won’t please me or anyone else who wants to take the character straight out of the books and throw him onto the screen insofar as that can be done. The more things you change on the way, the less appealing I’m going to find it.
I’m a little perplexed by your perplexedness.
If you change all the things that you mention you 100% can still tell a great Spider-Man story, but it’s going to be somebody else besides Peter Parker in the suit. Maybe this is part of where I am having a disconnect with some of the other posters here, and it’s probably my inability to express the core issue I have here. Spider-Man could absolutely be black, or Indian, or gay, or whatever, but Peter Parker simply is none of those things (on our earth). I know him. I’ve known him my whole life and if you try to take away that person and replace him with somebody else, yet still insist he’s the Peter Parker I’ve always had, I am not going to believe you. The Peter Parker you give me in exchange is always going to feel like some weird imposter to me.
But you could certainly tell many of the exact same stories with some of those other versions of Spider-Man, (plus some others that Parker wouldn’t be right for.) I really enjoy the Miles Morales version of Spider-Man, because he’s an interesting character in his own right. He’s not “replacing” or in some way canceling out the Peter Parker version of Spider-Man that I’ve read for so long. He exists alongside the established character. Same as Amadeus Cho when he was the Hulk, or when Falcon/Bucky took their turns as Cap.
I find it amusing that the “fanboys” think they are the most hardcore, or most loyal, or most spendy (I mean, who gives a shit if you bought the action figures?), of fans. The most hardcore, the most loyal, and definitely most spendy fans of superhero comics I know are…decidedly not “fanboys”. They’re just fans. Like me.
Yeah - but the Cliffs Notes on it have been around since… well… Homer. The basic plot is well known and quite a few bits - like sirens and the cyclops - are part of our cultural heritage.
And they didn’t tell anyone NOT to read the original, which is the real take-away point here.
That’s on you, buddy. Nothing about the character you describe requires him to be white. You want him to be white because you’re comfortable seeing him as white, he was white in 1962 when he was created and nobody has written him differently.
They always replace Peter Parker with someone else in the movies. If it’s well written and well acted, you’ll get over it.
But… that’s exactly my point…? Peter Parker *is *a white guy. He always has been. It’s part of him the way your race is part of you and mine is part of me. I’m a parent, and a grandparent, and I work in IT, and I’m a veteran, and I’m a comic book nerd, and I’m a Tolkien geek, and I don’t watch sports, and I like doing yardwork, and none of that requires me to be white. But I am, have always been so, and always will be. Had I been born black, or female, or gay, all those things above might still be true, but I would have had a lot of different life experiences. I would be a fundamentally different version of me. You might be able to tell a story that only relies on the things that are the same for “original me” and “Asian lesbian me” and they would both work, but that doesn’t mean that the two versions are the same…
I’m a bit at a loss. Half the time the arguments in this thread seem to have this underlying assertion that race doesn’t matter at all to someone’s identity, and you can change it willy nilly in any way you want and have the exact same person you started with, and I don’t get that. Either our race is an important part of how we see ourselves and each other, or it’s not. If it is, then changing a character’s race-- and I’m talking about a long-established and fully fleshed out character here, not some background bit player-- makes a difference. Not better, not worse, but different. And if it doesn’t make a difference then why are we even talking about it?
I don’t have a problem with the Ultimate version of Nick Fury existing alongside the original version. They didn’t erase the old version to make room for the new one. They are two different people, with different backstories, even though they both end up running S.H.I.E.L.D. at some point. You could make a different version of Peter Parker, who happened to be black, and have him also be Spider-Man. (There are LOTS of weirder versions of PP/Spidey than that out in the multiverse.) But that’s not the same thing as taking the original Peter Parker and zapping him black all of a sudden.
The current Peter Parker is a teenager of this millennium, is he a different Peter Parker or has he been zapped to be a youth of today instead of the sixties all of a sudden? Your distinction is just weird, man.
