Excellent points all around, CandidGamera.
Well, I am not. I can see how one could read that into my comments if one had an agenda, but I do not feel that way.
Let me rephrase myself, and hopefully this will clear up any confusion. Gina Torres would make a fine Wonder Woman, I suppose. However, she wouldn’t make a good Diana. BTW, she would make an OUTSTANDING Promethea, but I digress. As I mentioned in my previous post, I think that the actor/actress portryaing the role should look the part, and should embody the character as much as possible. If they made a Wonder Woman movie starring Gina Torres, I would definitely go see it, but a lot of people in the theater would be (understandably) confused, since Wonder Woman has been consistently portrayed as white.
Next to none, and not many.
As you well know, her appearance and portrayal has also remained almost constant throughout the years as well, so that hasn’t changed either, except for throw-away stories and intentional shake-ups.
Oh please. :rolleyes: Nobody is trying to systemitize or prolong racism. You seem to be jumping at shadows and convinced that all of the early creators were just horrible racists. The times were different, to be sure, and comics have come a long way in promoting diversity. But I believe that casting a black woman solely because the original character “had” to be created white is not a good enough reason, and is just as racist (only in reverse) as you apparently view the original.
What you don’t seem to understand (or simply refuse to understand) is that appearance is very important for recognizability when casting and marketing a movie to an audience. Tell me: Why did Freddie Prinze Jr have to wear a blond wig in the Scooby Doo movies? Was it to make him look more like Fred, or was it because Fred “had” to be created as a blond guy instead of hispanic so kids would watch the cartoon? :rolleyes:
I assume you mean in the role of “Red”. It very well may have stunk. Can you imagine if they’d had to cast Chris Tucker for the role of Andy Dufresne?
Fair enough, but casting a black woman solely because she is black is just as racist as only casting a white woman who looks exactly like Diana but can’t act her way out of a paper bag but passing up a talented black actress who would do great.
It is? I thought it was about some kids who hung out in a junkyard. To each his own, I guess.
No I did not. Again, the ONLY reason Nubia was mentioned was a. A poster stated that there were no black Amazons and b. You stated Diana was unique. I have never stated that it wouldn’t make a bit of difference…what I HAVE said, is that Wonder Woman DOESN’T have to be a white person…because and here we go again The ‘Title’ of Wonder Woman can and has been given to other people. As there ARE black Amazons THEN Gina Torres or any other woman including REDHEADS should not automatically be discontinued SOLELY on the basis of skin or hair color. How many times must I repeat this, before you stop? Show me one post in which I said it MADE NO difference. I get it, you’re a big Wonder Woman fan.
I quess we’ll gonna have to disagree. I don’t consider John Stewart a well developed character prior to recently. He was just around, again Guy Garnder was more developed…and I don’t believe John Stewart was in the Crisis either.
I’m not going to explain this to you again.
Again you are being dishonest. Headline means Featured. Until Luke Cage no Black person Headlined a book…does the Black Panther count? No, the book wasn’t titled The Black Panther, it was titled Jungle Action. There was no doubt, that when you purchased a book called “Wonder Woman”, you were buying Wonder Woman even if there was a side story included.
Maybe you should be, you might learn something…
Again the number of books a character is doesn’t define the character. The Mosaic books are toss aways. It’s nice that they kept the character alive and around, but he was unfocused and still under-developed. Compare John Stewart in Mosaic, with the one currently. Not the same character.
I challenge you to defend the assertion that Mr. Terrific was made black for reasons of “diversity”.
[/QUOTE]
Is Mr. Terrific LAME now?
And Diana’s still unique. That’s the point I’m trying to get across.
Actually, no, I’m not. I’ve bought her book now and then because of tie-ins or guest-stars, but I’ve never been a fan of the character.
You haven’t read Crisis then. Or Anything Stewart’s been in since 1980. Stewart was, as I recall, the sole Green Lantern of Earth at the beginning of the Crisis. He ran into some trouble when trying to defend one of the Monitor’s “tuning forks” as, in the present period, the Main Power Battery on Oa was attacked.
Thank you. The muddled facts were becoming tiresome. 
I can only respond to what you say, not what you meant to say.
Considering your grasp of DCU History, I have to doubt that you’ve even read Mosaic. I’ve read most of the series, and while it was, as a whole, uninteresting, the character of John Stewart is there in true and fundamental form.
I don’t see ‘diversity’ - I see ‘the character’s circumstances meshed well with having him be black’.
I mean… you quoted that excerpt, so you had to have read it, right?
Dishonest. Her “portrayal” is night and day with what it was in 1942. Her costume is different, her personality is different, her history is different, her occupation is different, her mission is different, her name is different, her powers are different, her supporting cast is different, the type of story is different, etc. Shall I go on?
Oh :rolleyes: yourself. Racism is systematized. The only way to fight it is to fight it. You can’t solve the racial injustices of the past that continue to this day by pretending they don’t.
No, most of them were liberal New York jews. But because of the racist attitudes that pervaded at the time, their creations had to be white. Those effects rebound to today.
Where have I suggested this? Where has anyone? Torres was mentioned because some people think she’s got the stuff to play the part. The objection to her casting by you and Candid is her race; it’s not the reason anyone wants to give her the part – it’s just immaterial.
Again, you assume that we’re demanding Torres be cast because she’s black. I admit to skimming some of the posts in the thread, so correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t see anyone suggesting this. We’re saying only that she should not be denied the role because she’s black anymore than she should be denied service at a Woolworth’s lunch counter.
Then you’re not paying attention.
–Cliffy
I didn’t remember John Stewart in the crisis and still believe that the quantity of a characters appearace, especially in a second rate series doesn’t add to it’s characterization. Your opinion differs, fine.
What is John’s fundmental form? The angry John? The Wise, John? The Selfless, John? Which John were you going to pick up when you read a copy of Mosaic? The same John that was leader of the Darkstars? The same John that screwed up in the Cosmic Odessey? The John who was so guilty about the death of his sister, that became paralized? That John?
I don’t know what you’re talking about, I didn’t define headlining in the terms you claim I did…unless you’re playing the old “misunderstanding” game. If I’m not clear, ask for clarification. Anything else is… poor form.
John Ostrander has a history of creating “minority” characters for the sake of diversity, especially within group settings. It is not a far reach to infer that his Mr. Terrific was cut out of the same desire. Unfortunately, I don’t have Mr. Ostrander’s number so I can’t ask him; all I can provide is what I can find.
You can agree or not.
You asked me DEFEND, not prove. I believe my first link did just that. I believe this link adds to it.
Believe what you want.
All of the above. Human beings are complex psychological animals.
Well, I can defend an assertion that the sky is purple by linking to the Constitution, but I wouldn’t really be doing a very good job.
You are being dishonest again…but I see there is no point in continuing. Thanks for your participation.
peace.
No, I’m not. I’m arguing by exaggeration. To translate : “Neither of your articles says anything about Terrific II’s creation being “Diversity” oriented.” I could just say that, but it’s funnier my way.
Yes you are. You asked me defend my position that Terrific creation was diversity oriented. Yes it would be nice to have a quote saying, “I created Mr. Terrific because…” I haven’t found it…yet.
However I have a quote from the creator saying he chose Mr. Terrific to be black. Why? His rational is, that in re-reading Mr. Terrific’s origin, he felt it would now be better suited for an Inner-City African-American. Why? Why couldn’t it be an Inner-City Latin, or Irish or Jew or whatever? Other groups besides blacks live in the inner city. He made a choice, what prompted that choice? I don’t know. I do know that some people get in hissy, when someone admits to re-creating a white character other than white because of ‘diversity’.
It would have been great, if the interviewer followed up and asked about diversity concerning Mr. Terrific; he didn’t. However we do KNOW that diversity is important to the creator of Mr. Terrific, especially when it comes to group settings. He said so.
It is not a reach to infer, using what we know about the creator to DEFEND the suggestion that his new verison of Mr. Terrific was moviated by a desire for diversity. Circumstantial? Absolutely.
Again, believe what you want.
To me, what you’ve given me is as good as asserting Stalin was influenced by aliens, then giving me an article on Stalin, then one on Aliens.
Which might help, but Ostrander didn’t create Terrific as a part of a group setting.
That’s your opinion.
Which might help, but Ostrander didn’t create Terrific as a part of a group setting.
[/QUOTE]
Please. Ostrander wrote for the JSA in the past. Of course he was planning Terrific to go into the group. Do you have a link that specifically says that he envised Terrific as a SOLO character?
He debuted as a supporting character in the Spectre. If the idea from the beginning was to jam him into the JSA, there’s no sign of it. Innocent until proven guilty, I say.
Very convenient. I didn’t say he was “jammed” into the JSA; like one would an after-thought. I said he was created with him joining the group in mind. Another misunderstanding no doubt.
Mr. Terrific appeared twice in the Spectre. Once in issue #54, where he is introduced and takes on the role of the New Mr. Terrific and the second in issue #62 when he as Mr. Terrific goes to the funeral of Jim Corrigan. He’s joined by some of the JSA members, clearly a signal of the things to come. Written by John Ostrander.
guilty or not?
You’re reading too much into terminology. I could’ve just as easily said “place” or “put.”
Well, gee, let’s think. Mr. Terrific II shows at the funeral… couldn’t possibly be because Corrigan, as the Spectre, had helped him turn his life around. Nope, nothing to do with it. And clearly the JSA were there to foreshadow Terrific II’s joining the team, and not at all to show their respects for a man who was their colleague for 50 years.
I can only respond to what you say, not what you meant to say.
Dishonest…again.
And if the difference between ‘jam’ and ‘put’ were pertinent to the conversation, that’d mean something.
No, just sarcastically disrespectful. To continue the courtroom analogy, how does a defense attorney clear his client of the crime? By presenting a plausible alternate theory of the crime back up by the facts. So I presented a plausible alternate theory for Terrific II’s presence at the funeral.
Dishonest. To Jam something and put something have different meanings, they are not interchangable.
Have I been disrespectful towards you? I don’t believe so. To each their own, I guess.
Look, stories can have mulitple meanings. Everything you said is absolutely correct…however that doesn’t mean that the creators weren’t also giving clues to what the future of the look of JSA was going to be, especially considering that the writer had previously written for the JSA.
I didn’t say or imply that Hott was placed there for SOLE purpose of forshadowing the future of JSA. You are dishonest when you deliberately “misunderstand” my point, to aviod admitting it has merit. Again, it’s poor form.
peace.
They are ‘to place forcefully’ and ‘to place’ - since whether or not it was forceful is immaterial to this debate, they are equivalent.
There’s no reason to think it’s foreshadowing, since it is fully and adequately explained by other circumstances already in existance.
He debuted as a supporting character in the Spectre. If the idea from the beginning was to jam him into the JSA, there’s no sign of it. Innocent until proven guilty, I say.
He debuted as a supporting character in the Spectre. If the idea from the beginning was to place him into the JSA, there’s no sign of it. Innocent until proven guilty, I say.
These two sentences don’t convey a different meaning to you? Then it’s me.
Perhaps a lurker or two, might step in?