New "black Superman" film from JJ Abrams and Ta-Nehisi Coates

[BeardFaceMan]

Why not just make an Icon movie then?  Why fundamentally alter a preexisting character and use them to shoehorn in a statement upon racism?

Because no one has heard of Icon and everyone has heard of Superman so a Superman film would make far more money, which is the one and only point of this type of film? Just spitballing, like.

[St_Eddie]

Because no one has heard of Icon and everyone has heard of Superman so a Superman film would make far more money, which is the one and only point of this type of film? Just spitballing, like.

Had anyone heard of Black Panther outside of comic geeks prior to it making $1.347 billion?

[madhair60]

They made Superman Russian and that was fine, he's been chinese too, they've even made him a supervillain and that was fine, all "Elseworlds" or alt timelines or whatever. No problem making black Superman, none of this is real anyway. wasn't a russian agenda. wasn't a chinese agenda. wasn't an evil agenda. doesn't need to be a "woke agenda", that was the problem with Kathleen Kennedy heading up Star Wars as well as I recall? something along those lines. it's a "woke agenda" cos it's addressing contemporary issues which happen to revolve around race and sex/gender and that makes nerds uncomfortable by making them examine their attitudes. it's the woke agenda when it's about women/poc. i wonder the fuck why that is. it's this idea that of course superman can't address black culture, that would be fundamentally changing an existing character, the blacks can use their own character, they can participate in contemporary culture on OUR terms, but don't mess with OUR character (who has been messed with constantly, for decades, often to great acclaim). it's SUCH shit.

[BeardFaceMan]

Had anyone heard of Black Panther outside of comic geeks prior to it making $1.347 billion?

Yes.

[chveik]

none of this is real anyway.

WAIT WHUT

it's a "woke agenda" cos it's addressing contemporary issues which happen to revolve around race and sex/gender and that makes nerds uncomfortable by making them examine their attitudes. it's the woke agenda when it's about women/poc. i wonder the fuck why that is. it's this idea that of course superman can't address black culture, that would be fundamentally changing an existing character, the blacks can use their own character, they can participate in contemporary culture on OUR terms, but don't mess with OUR character (who has been messed with constantly, for decades, often to great acclaim). it's SUCH shit.

and the sad thing is, they hardly ever adress those issues in a meaningful way. people are just getting riled up over fuck all

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Why not just make an Icon movie then?  Why fundamentally alter a preexisting character and use them to shoehorn in a statement upon racism?

For a laugh

It is pretty funny

[St_Eddie]

They made Superman Russian and that was fine, he's been chinese too, they've even made him a supervillain and that was fine, all "Elseworlds" or alt timelines or whatever. No problem making black Superman, none of this is real anyway. wasn't a russian agenda. wasn't a chinese agenda. wasn't an evil agenda. doesn't need to be a "woke agenda", that was the problem with Kathleen Kennedy heading up Star Wars as well as I recall? something along those lines. it's a "woke agenda" cos it's addressing contemporary issues which happen to revolve around race and sex/gender and that makes nerds uncomfortable by making them examine their attitudes. it's the woke agenda when it's about women/poc. i wonder the fuck why that is. it's this idea that of course superman can't address black culture, that would be fundamentally changing an existing character, the blacks can use their own character, they can participate in contemporary culture on OUR terms, but don't mess with OUR character (who has been messed with constantly, for decades, often to great acclaim). it's SUCH shit.

Talk about taking my words in bad faith.  Yeesh.  If I don't like to see empowered black people and women in films, then why is Jackie Brown one of my favourite films?

...the blacks can use their own character, they can participate in contemporary culture on OUR terms, but don't mess with OUR character (who has been messed with constantly, for decades, often to great acclaim). it's SUCH shit.

Why do you assume that I care one whit about Superman, much less that I might consider him "my" character?  I couldn't give a fig.  Superhero nonsense.  I just don't like cynically created Hollywood bullshit.

[bgmnts]

Yes.

Eh?

[Joe Oakes]

Been done.

Preferred the gangsta rap version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPvYdnvK9kU

[Replies From View]

What next a ginger Silver Surfer? !!🌊🌊🌊🌊

yeah called a ginger surfer obviously

[Mister Six]

Why not just make an Icon movie then?  Why fundamentally alter a preexisting character and use them to shoehorn in a statement upon racism?

Because more people will watch a Superman movie, so it'll make its budget back.

Also, as I said in the next five years we'll have films featuring Robert Pattinson's Batman, Michael Keaton's Batman and Ben Affleck's Batman; and Spider-Men played by Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield and Tom Holland, plus however many Spider-Mans will be in the Spiderverse sequel; and in the last five years we've had two popular cinematic Jokers. This is in addition to all the DC TV stuff which has its own Supermen and Flashes and so on (with movie Flash even turning up in TV Flash's show for a cameo), and the two Quicksilvers in the X-Men and MCU movies (who crossed over, kind of, in Wandavision).

So having a black Superman alongside Henry Cavill's Superman and whoever's playing Supes in the TV show is hardly out of line with the current trend. It's certainly not precluding any further white Superman adventures.

So why does this bother you so much?

Had anyone heard of Black Panther outside of comic geeks prior to it making $1.347 billion?

Yes, Black Panther was introduced in Captain America: Civil War, the massive crossover film that included all of the Avengers (including Iron Man in a substantial role) and also featured the much-publicised introduction of Spider-Man into the MCU. That film made $1.2 billion.

Even if he hadn't appeared in Civil War, being part of the massively successful rolling MCU franchise would assist the film in the way that the DCEU's continuing failure to build up steam would not.

[Blumf]

Who will Black Superman fight?

[Mister Six]

Who will Black Superman fight?

Sylvester Stallone?

[St_Eddie]

So why does this bother you so much?

Who said that it did?  I just don't care for awkward forced agendas, delivered with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer to the face and retroactively altering existing characters and their raison d'être in order to serve that agenda.  I'm not losing sleep over it.  I'm merely expressing my opinion on the matter.  As for why I don't care for it; I've already explained why previously within this thread.

I'm all for more diversity and representation in film.  I just want that process to be organic and to not be ham-fistedly crowbarred into an existing property where it doesn't naturally fit.  I'm reluctant to elaborate further because what's the point?  Anything I say will only be taken in bad faith and lead to more unjust insinuations of bigotry from certain folk.

[Goldentony]

superman should have been richard pryor in superman 3, if aything at least superman 3 is a richard pryor film which thinking about it now have a higher hit rate than superman films

[chveik]

I just want that process to be organic and to not be ham-fistedly crowbarred into an existing property where it doesn't naturally fit.

i don't think you understand the logic of this type of comic book characters. the 'existing property' is not much more than a blank slate. and what's organic about the process of making a superhero film in the first place?

[St_Eddie]

i don't think you understand the logic of this type of comic book characters.

True enough.

[Magnum Valentino]

They made Superman Russian and that was fine, he's been chinese too, they've even made him a supervillain and that was fine, all "Elseworlds" or alt timelines or whatever. No problem making black Superman, none of this is real anyway. wasn't a russian agenda. wasn't a chinese agenda. wasn't an evil agenda. doesn't need to be a "woke agenda", that was the problem with Kathleen Kennedy heading up Star Wars as well as I recall? something along those lines. it's a "woke agenda" cos it's addressing contemporary issues which happen to revolve around race and sex/gender and that makes nerds uncomfortable by making them examine their attitudes. it's the woke agenda when it's about women/poc. i wonder the fuck why that is. it's this idea that of course superman can't address black culture, that would be fundamentally changing an existing character, the blacks can use their own character, they can participate in contemporary culture on OUR terms, but don't mess with OUR character (who has been messed with constantly, for decades, often to great acclaim). it's SUCH shit.

Covid's changed you man, you could have said this in a single sentence half-loaded with cuss words a month ago you freshly articulate bastard :-(

I think the Black Panther argument is pretty valid here. That character had no real name value outside of comic fans before Marvel made it into one of the biggest films of all time. The same is also true of Iron Man. I don't have a problem with Hollywood (too vague) "taking away" (from who, I'll just read a shelf of great existing Superman books forever if I want) my own (he's not mine) Superman (who's a white guy). My reaction to this is exactly as Mister Six said, it's not only an example of Hollywood's bankruptcy of ideas, but also DC's refusal to learn from the lessons of Iron Man and Black Panther that if the film is good enough and the story is good enough people will come to see it even if they've never heard of the character because word catches like fire on the internet.

The stories of Miles Morales and John Henry Irons being inspired to become heroes themselves because of the actions of their respective inspirations are sitting there ready to go, both pretty good and easily developed and fit to pitch to an audience that'll lap these films up without much resistance.

My only real resistance is to the very specific notion of having a black Clark Kent Superman at the same time or a few years after a white Clark Kent Superman because it just looks like they haven't a notion, which to be fair does appear to be the case with DC films.

Even though having more colour in the roster of these films which are designed to appeal to kids really is a good thing, it just looks like it's been done for the wrong reasons, which is to cynically exploit a sensitive issue to make many millions of dollars, but then...ah fuck it, I don't think I have another tier  to my thinking here. I think I'm just frustrated they won't try a harder option than [biggest name] plus [shallow race discussion] equals [box office records].

It's like a hand me down or something. Your older brother's school jumper took in at the waist cause you're a skinnier kid than he was. It's not a case of not wanting 'the black audience' abstract to have something that's ours but changed, but wanting that abstract audience to have something even better.

Honestly.

[St_Eddie]

Covid's changed you man, you could have said this in a single sentence half-loaded with cuss words a month ago you freshly articulate bastard :-(

I think the Black Panther argument is pretty valid here. That character had no real name value outside of comic fans before Marvel made it into one of the biggest films of all time. The same is also true of Iron Man. I don't have a problem with Hollywood (too vague) "taking away" (from who, I'll just read a shelf of great existing Superman books forever if I want) my own (he's not mine) Superman (who's a white guy). My reaction to this is exactly as Mister Six said, it's not only an example of Hollywood's bankruptcy of ideas, but also DC's refusal to learn from the lessons of Iron Man and Black Panther that if the film is good enough and the story is good enough people will come to see it even if they've never heard of the character because word catches like fire on the internet.

The stories of Miles Morales and John Henry Irons being inspired to become heroes themselves because of the actions of their respective inspirations are sitting there ready to go, both pretty good and easily developed and fit to pitch to an audience that'll lap these films up without much resistance.

My only real resistance is to the very specific notion of having a black Clark Kent Superman at the same time or a few years after a white Clark Kent Superman because it just looks like they haven't a notion, which to be fair does appear to be the case with DC films.

Even though having more colour in the roster of these films which are designed to appeal to kids really is a good thing, it just looks like it's been done for the wrong reasons, which is to cynically exploit a sensitive issue to make many millions of dollars, but then...ah fuck it, I don't think I have another tier  to my thinking here. I think I'm just frustrated they won't try a harder option than [biggest name] plus [shallow race discussion] equals [box office records].

It's like a hand me down or something. Your older brother's school jumper took in at the waist cause you're a skinnier kid than he was. It's not a case of not wanting 'the black audience' abstract to have something that's ours but changed, but wanting that abstract audience to have something even better.

Honestly.

Extremely well said and eloquently put.  You were able to better articulate what I've been attempting to say throughout this thread.

[Goldentony]

the bad guy needs to be Bizarro ie Lee Evans or James Woods someone

[Mister Six]

Who said that it did?

You, when you wrote a big post complaining about it, and then some more posts after that. And then again when you wrote:

I just don't care for awkward forced agendas, delivered with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer to the face and retroactively altering existing characters and their raison d'être in order to serve that agenda.  I'm not losing sleep over it.  I'm merely expressing my opinion on the matter.  As for why I don't care for it; I've already explained why previously within this thread.

I'm all for more diversity and representation in film.  I just want that process to be organic and to not be ham-fistedly crowbarred into an existing property where it doesn't naturally fit.  I'm reluctant to elaborate further because what's the point?  Anything I say will only be taken in bad faith and lead to more unjust insinuations of bigotry from certain folk.

None of us know how this is going to turn out. It'll probably be shit because it's a DC film, but still. Too early to tell. Everything you write, however, suggests that you're more uncomfortable with being confronted by certain racial realities than anything else (Jackie Brown, a film written and directed by a white man, based on a book by a white man, that doesn't address racial politics in any meaningful way, isn't proof that this discomfort doesn't exist).

Also the idea that agendas don't fit into Superman - a character made by a couple of young Jewish ladd who used him to tackle social ills like slum landlords and who has been used in various politically related stories over the last 80+ years - is ridiculous.

[St_Eddie]

I'm just too scared to face the realities of racism and the darkness within the world because I don't necessarily agree with the approach that they're taking with a popcorn flick?  Okay then.  Also, yes it's early stages and the script isn't finished yet but I don't think that my cynicism is unfounded.  This is modern Hollywood and a DC film.  Could it be a decent movie?  Sure.  Do I think it will actually be a good movie?  I rather doubt it.  Either way, I won't know because I have zero interest in watching it or any other Superman movie.

Having said that, I will now bow out of the thread.  I don't think that anyone's going to listen to anyone else and it would only inevitably devolve into argumentative circles.  I've said my piece on the matter.  No point reiterating it over and over, I guess.

[Mister Six]

I think the Black Panther argument is pretty valid here. That character had no real name value outside of comic fans before Marvel made it into one of the biggest films of all time. The same is also true of Iron Man.

As I said above, BP had name value because he was introduced (and had a whole subplot) in Captain America 3, which was also The Avengers 3 and Iron Man 4 and attracted fans of almost every MCU character PLUS Spider-Man fanatics. And even if he hadn't appeared in that film, BP still had the momentum of ten years of Marvel movies behind it. The DCEU is a sputtering disaster that couldn't even break $700 mil on a Justice League movie, so all those headwinds are unavailable here.

Iron Man doesn't work as a comparison because that was a unique franchise. Icon is basically "What if Superman was black?" [nb]It's a bit more complicated than that, but fundamentally...[/nb]which immediately means any film adaptation has to deal not just with all the usual difficulties that come from establishing a new character, but the additional stigma of being a knock-off of a much better known superhero.

In 1993, that concept had to be funnelled through the Icon character because DC wasn't going to make an ongoing black Superman series at that pont. Today, DC is willing to have a proper go. So why not do it?

Regardless of whether this ends up shit (the writer is Ta-Nehesi Coates, so it should at least be a fairly honest effort on his part, regardless of how cynical the execs' motivations may be) I do think there is considerable value in this exercise. Superman is such a famous, iconic character that changing one part of his essence and seeing how that affects all the other well-known aspects of his character and world can achieve a more immediately illuminating effect than you might have with an original character.

It's something you can only really do with him and a handful of other fictional people - James Bond being another. So have at it, I say.

[Magnum Valentino]

Just to avoid confusion on two points you've picked up on there Mister Six, the point that I'm making about Iron Man and Black Panther both is that they weren't characters with cultural cache before Marvel Studios had a really good go at making films about them, regardless of which films they were introduced in.

People (the people who go see films, take their kids, tell their friends but who do NOT read comics) probably already know who Hulk, Spider-Man and at a push Captain America are. Marvel's success has been on making big money off characters people hadn't heard of, and I'm not talking about how Ant-Man probably fared well at box office, I'm talking building your entire franchise around Iron Man and I'm talking Black Panther being one of the biggest films of all time.

Pick a character, invest the resources into promoting the film, make sensible choices with casting, writer and director, you can make almost anything work, and it's easier now the fanbase is there.

I'm not addressing the issue of "Icon" which I haven't read, or indeed any specific 'what if Superman was not white/American/a good guy' stories, or even the significance of those stories exploratively or functionally - my whole point in one phrase is "use existing or new characters because tailoring existing characters on this way is cynical at worst and patronising at best", in this very specific context.

However! I completely agree that the value of using the existing Superman as framework against which to look at an alternative means that making this film properly and in line with what some of you have said as far as what the story can do would be interesting as an exercise in reflection, progression and dissecting and analysing in a meaningful way (if handled right) the influence of context on content...but is this really the way to do it? In the format with the absolute most eyes on it, in a 'one chance at it' format? I don't think so. That's probably why I have so much to say even if it's quite narrow in focus. At the end of the day, I don't trust DC to make a good film, which means I don't trust their judgment (or justification) for doing this in the first place.

[BeardFaceMan]

Eh?

It means the opposite of 'no', as in 'yes, people had heard of Black Panther'. Expanded upon here -

Yes, Black Panther was introduced in Captain America: Civil War, the massive crossover film that included all of the Avengers (including Iron Man in a substantial role) and also featured the much-publicised introduction of Spider-Man into the MCU. That film made $1.2 billion.

Even if he hadn't appeared in Civil War, being part of the massively successful rolling MCU franchise would assist the film in the way that the DCEU's continuing failure to build up steam would not.

Can't really believe saying that a Superman film would make more money than an Icon one is up for debate, really.

If I don't like to see empowered black people and women in films, then why is Jackie Brown one of my favourite films?

One step away from "I can't be racist because I have a black friend" there.

[Chedney Honks]

Great to see a superhero thread.

[Magnum Valentino]

When they cast Jackie Chan as Jimmy Olsen you'll change yer tune Ched

[Replies From View]

Nobody has asked the question yet of why so many additional supermen are suddenly now needed


Back when I was a kid they had one really strong superman that could do anything.  Honestly, I'm not joking - he did everything himself like flying and zapping the great wall of china with his eyes whilst simultaneously nodding "you're welcome".  He didn't need a clone to give him a bunk up over a fence and loads more clones to make sure all the doors were held open.  If he had a dog or something that could hoover up kryptonute with its beak that would be a useful pet.  But he didn't have one and that's literally all he would need; not like 15 spare superman pals.

Sooner or later they're going to put all the supermen into a big burley brawl fight from the matrix reloaded and then you'll be sorry



Be careful what you wish for!!

[Replies From View]

Great to see a superhero thread.

These guys want one superman to lick the end of the cotton, one to do the threading, one to puncture the first bit of what they are mending with the needle to get it started...


JUST HAVE ONE SUPERMAN THAT CAN DO ALL THE SEWING

[wooders1978]

Black Panther is a mediocre film that would have failed were it not part of the MCU & the woke PR machine shilling it as a "moment" in a cringe worthy and condescending way, which of course people absolutely lapped up

As for a black superman, I'm all for it if, you know, the film is actually good and not some lecture on racial politics as Eddie says earlier in the thread