Conversations like these always highlight exactly how important skin color is to so many people.
If you can’t imagine a fictional character (especially a comic book character) with different color skin then perhaps you need to stop and ask yourself why someone like Superman can’t be black/Asian/anything but white? Why is Superman’s skin color indelible to his character? Is Superman the color of his skin or the content of his character?
From my perspective, it’s pretty obvious that to a lot of people Superman is the color of his skin and his skin color is the vehicle they use to display the content of his character. To these people, if you change his skin color then it is impossible for him to be the same character because different color skin means different innate characteristics.
I find the idea that a culture that we know had trade links from Afghanistan to Africa and practiced slavery would somehow keep itself pure as the driven snow to be a failure of imagination. And of real-world knowledge of how much people got around in the past - there were Arabs in Kievan Rus, there were Black samurai in Sengoku-period Edo, Mexico had katana-wielding Japanese in its colonial militia before the US was founded…
The idea that an actor’s skin color is so fundamentally critical to the setting represents some kind of cultural fixation or bias, or a failure of imagination.
Again, the real issue with respect to race and casting is the historically systematic exclusion of non-white actors from a large proportion of roles and the over-representation of white men in film. That’s what makes Tom Cruise playing a starring role as a Japanese samurai problematic, not that there couldn’t have been any white men trained as samurai in Japan during that time.
Stories are stories, whether set in an ostensibly historical setting or not. It’s not beyond the human imagination to accept actors of any skin color in any particular role.
Even if I accept your (implied) premise that Tilly and Burnham are emotionally unstable, I don’t think that description reasonably applies to literally any other character in Discovery.
It’s not impossible, but a woman with that trait is subversive. A man with that trait is just part of the patriarchy. That changes the cultural context of the character.
Powers &8^]
Let’s look a bit more closely at the Superman question. Could he have green skin? On one level, the answer is “yes”: He’s not human, he’s an alien, and what’s to say that green isn’t a normal color for Kryptonian skin? But at another level, it wouldn’t work, at least not as Superman has traditionally worked: Part of what defines the character is the fact that, when he’s not wearing the cape and tights, he can blend in with human society, and that really wouldn’t be possible if he had green skin. How other characters perceive and interact with him is part of what defines the character.
Now, then, could he be black (by which I mean the dark brown typical of humans from some parts of Earth)? Again, he could be, but it would change how others around him interact with him. If we’re setting his origin story in the recent past, that might not be a very significant change: Modern-day Metropolitans probably don’t have any problem with a black man working as a reporter, and even recent-times Smallvillains might not have a problem with their neighbors adopting a black kid. On the other hand, if we’re having him arrive on Earth in the early 20th century, then even in Metropolis, the interactions of other characters with him would be completely different.
I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say here. If it’s that “a dark-skinned Superman’s interactions with people in a contemporary setting might be different than a light-skinned Superman’s interactions with people in a contemporary setting,” then, yes, those kinds of considerations might simply just be part of the process when you’re drafting a new story.
The more “realistic” your story is, the more you maybe have to consider it. The more fantastic your story is, the less, perhaps not at all.
That seems self-evident. What I’m not getting is what you think the implication is–this somehow means that Superman can’t be black? That one new Superman story in which Superman is black must someone be reconciled with all the Superman stories written as far back as the 1930s?
As you know Bob, race didn’t have the same meaning in different times and different places. Our current American understanding of race is a particular product of the colonization of the Americas and the Transatlantic slave trade which lead to to the racial caste system. Other places and times didn’t have the same ideas about what “race” meant.
It’s really easy to come up with a plausible back story for a black Viking. Constantinople at the time was the most cosmopolitan city in the world. Norse worked there as Varangian guards, then retired back home once they’d made their fortune. Bringing home a sub-saharan African companion could easily have happened. This could turn out to be the mother of a mixed-race kid, or maybe a child who was later adopted and assimilated.
I’m not saying there were black Vikings on every streetcorner in Trondheim, but there could have been one guy, and that one guy can be in your story. And if he’s part of a Viking group, they aren’t going to constantly be bringing up his different appearance, they’re already used to it. Maybe the Anglo-Saxons they’re pillaging are going to be surprised when they see a strange looking Viking, but so what?
And so, we have this conversation about “Thor”. Yes, of course when a 9th Century Scandinavian imagined Thor, they imagined a person who looked like what they’d expect. Not blonde though, because one of Thor’s kennings is “Red-Beard”. So we’ve already blown canon by casting a blonde guy with no beard as Thor. But of course, if Thor really were real, he wouldn’t be a Scandinavian, but a mythological being. He wouldn’t be human, he’d be something else. He wouldn’t literally resemble a burly Norwegian with a red beard, even though it would be understandable for Scandinavians to imagine him that way, the same way they would later imagine a northern European Jesus.
So if Elves or Dwarves or Goblins or Klingons really existed, they wouldn’t resemble any modern ethnicities except by coincidence. Sure, when JRR Tolkein imagined Elves, he probably imagined them as white people. But even if they were “fair”, meaning pale skinned, that wouldn’t mean they should look like northern Europeans, any more than dark skinned people from South Asia always look like dark skinned people from Africa. It’s a failure of imagination. Just like Japanese people imagine mythological beings and aliens that look Japanese, Indians imagine Indians, and white Americans tend to imagine white people. But we all recognize that’s a failure of imagination, right?
The comic book version of Thor is literally an alien from another world. He’s not a deified Scandinavian, in the comic book version causality ran the other way, the Norse imitated the Asgardians rather than the other way around. And so since comic book Thor isn’t actually Scandinavian, why must he look Scandinavian? Since he’s an alien, isn’t it more likely that he’d look like Beta Ray Bill than Chris Hemsworth?
It’s OK when people imagine fictional characters that look like themselves. But don’t get upset when other people imagine the same fictional characters looking different. That’s just silly.
It represents a distraction and creates disbelief. If you put a white or black (thanks again MrDibble) samurai into a 13th-16th century Japan setting, then it needs to be explained. If a director wants to set the movie in 1780’s Japan and point out that there really was a black samurai then, great. It’s an interesting fact, and if the director works the fact into the movie well, it could enhance the movie. But simply having a black man in a 13th-16th century Japanese samurai movie without explanation creates the question of why is he there. And if the movie makes strong use of Japanese imagery and setting, the black character creates dissonance rather than enhancing the movie. On the other hand, put a black samurai in a 2080 Japan movie – hey why not.
Thanks, Mr Dibble, and Lemur, these are exactly some of the lines of reasoning I was hoping that folks would start opening their minds to.
Maybe no actual black person ever appeared in a Norse village pre-Christianity (how can we be certain anyway?). Maybe no actual Norseman who believed in the divinity of Thor imagined Thor as a black man. So what? Why should that constrain us now today? It’s certainly not some natural limitation of the human mind that would prevent such a story from being accepted by an audience.
I will agree that in any sort of realistic setting, changing the color of Superman’s skin would change how different people interacted with him but that is a failing of the society in which he lives.
My question is this: Would changing the color of Superman’s skin change his innate characteristics (honest, forthright, high in moral fiber, etc.)?
You state this like it’s a universal truth. It’s not.
Maybe a black Thor is a distraction to you and creates disbelief to you, or to some set of viewers. That doesn’t mean it does to everyone. And the second time everyone views it, the distraction and disbelief goes away. Eventually, you have a generation of viewers for whom this is nothing unusual.
It needs to be explained? Maybe to Wrenching Spanners of 20 minutes ago it needed to be explained. Now that Wrenching Spanners has read Mr. Dibble and Little Nemo’s posts does the Wrenching Spanners of now need it to be explained? And what about all the other people who might never have needed an explanation?
The human mind is perfectly capable of understanding and accepting stories that have unexplained elements that might seem strange or incongruous. You just note it and move on.
For example, in Kindergarten Cop, Arnold Schwarzenegger plays a Los Angeles police detective named John Kimble. Schwarzenegger has a heavy Austrian accent. So far as I can recall, there is never any explanation given why John Kimble, an L.A. cop, would have an Austrian accent. Sure, they could have explained it. But really an explanation wouldn’t have fundamentally changed anything about the story. Okay, an L.A. cop with a strong Austrian accent. Maybe it could happen. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter to the story.
My point was that a character is more than just what’s inside that one person, but all of their interactions with the rest of the world. And skin color might or might not change that, depending on the setting. You could write about a green-skinned Superman in any setting, but he would definitely end up being a very different character than the one we have. You could write about a dark brown-skinned Superman in any setting, but in some settings he would end up being a very different character (though in other settings, he might only be a slightly different character).
And no, you don’t have to make your version of Superman consistent with the versions of Superman who have come before. But it’s certainly an option. And if you choose that option, then that constrains how the character can look.
Or, of course, you could write a story about a completely different character who flies and is bulletproof, but who looks like an Earthling human from Africa. Or you could write a story about a flying, bulletproof green alien.
