One Solution to the #OscarsSoWhite Problem

[Grumman]

Hell, why not go that route with Marvel movies Spiderman (unless he's supposed to be the same as the current movie Spiderman)? I mean, its a new continuity, and its not like Marvel has an overabundance of major non-white male characters, at least in the films (their TV/Netflix lineup is better, with Agent Carter, Jessica Jones, Agents of SHIELD, etc.).

I would love to see a Spider-man movie with a black lead with nothing but a line or scene explaining one (or both) of Parker's parents were black. He still gets bullied for being a nerdy runt by Flash. He still gets to make out with Dunst. He still deals with great power yadda yadda without his race playing into it. As far as the movie universe is concerned, being black or white or whatever does not matter.

I'd hate it, and would not pay to see it. If you have the choice of staying with the source material and changing it, you should always stay with the source material unless you have a damn good reason to do otherwise.* If your only argument in favour of changing it is that it doesn't matter whether Peter Parker is black or white, then he should be white, because Peter Parker is white.

If you don't like that kind of restriction on your creative direction, you shouldn't be making movies which only exist to be reasonably faithful adaptations of another person's work.

* As an example of a damn good reason to do otherwise, I would have been in favour of the Hobbit movies replacing a few of the male dwarves with female dwarves. But this would actually serve a useful purpose: since Peter Jackson wanted each dwarf in Thorin's party to be visually distinct from all the others, spreading them out over a broader range of demographics would increase the distance between each dwarf and their most similar neighbour and hence make them more distinct.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hell, why not go that route with Marvel movies Spiderman (unless he's supposed to be the same as the current movie Spiderman)? I mean, its a new continuity, and its not like Marvel has an overabundance of major non-white male characters, at least in the films (their TV/Netflix lineup is better, with Agent Carter, Jessica Jones, Agents of SHIELD, etc.).

I would love to see a Spider-man movie with a black lead with nothing but a line or scene explaining one (or both) of Parker's parents were black. He still gets bullied for being a nerdy runt by Flash. He still gets to make out with Dunst. He still deals with great power yadda yadda without his race playing into it. As far as the movie universe is concerned, being black or white or whatever does not matter.

I'd hate it, and would not pay to see it. If you have the choice of staying with the source material and changing it, you should always stay with the source material unless you have a damn good reason to do otherwise.* If your only argument in favour of changing it is that it doesn't matter whether Peter Parker is black or white, then he should be white, because Peter Parker is white.

If you don't like that kind of restriction on your creative direction, you shouldn't be making movies which only exist to be reasonably faithful adaptations of another person's work.

I take continuity and consistency very seriously within a given continuity.

However, a reboot is a different deal. Especially when you get into speculative fiction, where you can run into things like alternate realities, multiple continuities within the same "reality". And this is especially fucking true in comics.

At that point, it is actively negative to make each new variation just like the original, because its redundant, boring, and pointless.

But no, you can't change anything except, occasionally, the most superficial things or fans will whine. Because God forbid you ever do a remotely original interpretation of the premise.

Of course, their are many things you can change other than the main character's race. But at the same time, I'm not aware of any reason why Peter Parker has to be white. And given a choice between mindless adherence to the status quo and doing something different in a new continuity, I tend to lean toward the former unless the change would fundamentally alter the basic premise/themes/essence of the work.

And I am also in favour of giving directors the freedom to cast the actor they feel is best for a role when at all possible.

* As an example of a damn good reason to do otherwise, I would have been in favour of the Hobbit movies replacing a few of the male dwarves with female dwarves. But this would actually serve a useful purpose: since Peter Jackson wanted each dwarf in Thorin's party to be visually distinct from all the others, spreading them out over a broader range of demographics would increase the distance between each dwarf and their most similar neighbour and hence make them more distinct.

So why not, for example, make Peter Parker black?

Reasons for doing so could range from affirmative action (yeah, conservatives hate it, but some people think its a good idea), to a way of comparing how Peter's life might be different if he was black, to simply having a particular actor the director likes for an adaptation, among other things.

So it seems to me that what you're really saying when you object to Parker being black is that his whiteness is a more important quality to you than pretty much anything else. And if so, with all due respect, you need to ask yourself why that is.

[Grumman]

So it seems to me that what you're really saying when you object to Parker being black is that his whiteness is a more important quality to you than pretty much anything else. And if so, with all due respect, you need to ask yourself why that is.

No, I'm not saying that his whiteness is more important than pretty much anything else, I'm saying his whiteness is true. If you want to make a movie in which Peter Parker is black, or gay, or a woman just for the sake of it, and don't care that you are stepping away from the source material for no benefit, you are shit at your job. If you want to make a movie that is about how your protagonist is unlike Peter Parker because of his race, don't call him Peter Parker.

[The Romulan Republic]

All of that boils down to your' ignoring the legitimate reasons why one might make Parker black, female, or gay, and dismissing it as "just for the sake of it" (which flagrantly ignores and misrepresents my post) and an admission that you consider his whiteness integral to the character.

[Purple]

I genuinely do not see why people have a problem with "whiteness" or "heterosexuality" but not with "blackness" or "asianness" being integral to a character. Like I want to openly ask everyone here who thinks it should be no problem to make Peter Parker black. Would you have a problem if it was a black character being turned white?

[The Romulan Republic]

I genuinely do not see why people have a problem with "whiteness" or "heterosexuality" but not with "blackness" or "asianness" being integral to a character. Like I want to openly ask everyone here who thinks it should be no problem to make Peter Parker black. Would you have a problem if it was a black character being turned white?

I don't have a problem with whiteness or heterosexuality or whatever being integral to a character. I have a problem with it being treated as integral when it really isn't. What that is central to Parker's character requires him to be white?

As to the other way around, it really shouldn't be any different. However, because of the history of racism, and the lack of good roles for minorities, the latter can be seen as more damaging and offensive.

However, I personally may give a pass to a filmmaker who switches characters from non-white to white and so on if they also do it the other way around (as in Nolan's Batman films).

But their are probably a lot of people who would consider me racist for saying that.

[Purple]

I don't have a problem with whiteness or heterosexuality or whatever being integral to a character. I have a problem with it being treated as integral when it really isn't. What that is central to Parker's character requires him to be white?

It's not the racial identity in its own right but the wider social context that is attached to it. We might not like it in this day and age and certainly in history race is sadly more than just the color of ones skin. It effects ones heritage, subculture and all sorts of social factors. And what this means is that changing the race of a character brings with it the implication that you need to change all of those as well. At which point it's no longer that character.

Now of course there is the second option of just treating race as a coat of paint. But can you imagine how many people that would piss off?

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, my view is essentially that race only matters because racists have decided that it matters- it has little or no particular inherent significance, but tends to have significant affects on one's life in practice because assholes have decided that it should, and worked to shape society accordingly. And therein is a dilemma- race matters because racists have made it matter, and its hard to see any way to break out of that cycle.

However, I think their is a middle ground between "race is a coat of paint" and "change the race=change everything about the character."

My attitude towards adaptations/remakes is that their are always going to be some changes, and that pretty much anything is acceptable as long as the core of who that character is remains. The extent to which that is defined by race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. varies depending on the individual case.

Now, take the Doctor of Doctor Who. I would probably bet money on their being a female Doctor after Capaldi, and its not a problem. Not just because of the whole regeneration thing in the show, but because the Doctor's identity is defined primarily by traits that have nothing to do with gender. The Doctor is an intelligent, educated, eccentric, morally ambiguous adventurer who is protective of the people and places he cares about but is willing to engage in "necessary evil". None of that is gender specific.

Whereas you couldn't make Buffy from the Buffy the Vampire Slayer or the Wives from Fury Road male and have it work because their is a specific theme of female empowerment and in the case of some of the wives, pregnancy is a plot point.

[Purple]

That's the thing. The way I see it the "core" of a character is not just the character him self but the entire world within which that character exists. If you just pick a character up and transplant him to a completely different world than that's not faithful to said character. So how much the race of a character matters is dependent on how much race matters for that particular person in that particular world.

[Lord Revan]

When it comes to changes in gender, sexuality or race for me in reboots/alternative versions it's "does this add anything usefull to the story/character" since having a minority character just to have a minority character is just as bad as having no minority characters and depending on the story it might make the story worse.

For example you got a story set in what's modern day Finland in the middle ages, having a black character there for the sake of having a black character in the movie would most likely be bad for the movie as having a non-white person be present in medival Sweden or heaven forbid pre-crusade Finland would be very uncommon and would need a good reason to be there (especially for Finland as the nation didn't exist but what is now Finland was collection of tribes with no real unity.

[Elheru Aran]

For example you got a story set in what's modern day Finland in the middle ages, having a black character there for the sake of having a black character in the movie would most likely be bad for the movie as having a non-white person be present in medival Sweden or heaven forbid pre-crusade Finland would be very uncommon and would need a good reason to be there (especially for Finland as the nation didn't exist but what is now Finland was collection of tribes with no real unity.

I'm reminded of the shitty Robin Hood movie with Kevin Costner. They stuck Morgan Freeman in there mostly just to have a black character... but the actual plot reason for him wasn't *terrible*--that is, he was a Moor, imprisoned with Robin in Palestine after the Crusades, and he accompanied Robin back to England. Farfetched and somewhat implausible? Sure. But not impossible (albeit the movie did a pretty ham-handed job with the actual character, but what can you do).

[Civil War Man]

I genuinely do not see why people have a problem with "whiteness" or "heterosexuality" but not with "blackness" or "asianness" being integral to a character. Like I want to openly ask everyone here who thinks it should be no problem to make Peter Parker black. Would you have a problem if it was a black character being turned white?

I wouldn't, all things being equal. However, not all things are equal. One of the reasons that it's so hard for many minority actors to find good roles is because the roles that should be available to them are having white people cast in them instead, and that's been going on for decades.

[TheFeniX]

I'd hate it, and would not pay to see it. If you have the choice of staying with the source material and changing it, you should always stay with the source material unless you have a damn good reason to do otherwise.* If your only argument in favour of changing it is that it doesn't matter whether Peter Parker is black or white, then he should be white, because Peter Parker is white.

Everyone got a little off-point that I was making, but that's fine. It's a good discussion to have. But why does his race matter when it's never mattered anymore than a "white character, so we can ignore race" way?

Cast a 20-something Will Smith. Hell, Freddie Prine Jr. is half-Hispanic and he never has problems getting white roles.

But making racism part of the character? Having him "crack-wise" or just having Hollywood shoe-horn in racial comedy? No, that's not part of the character.

It's not the racial identity in its own right but the wider social context that is attached to it. We might not like it in this day and age and certainly in history race is sadly more than just the color of ones skin. It effects ones heritage, subculture and all sorts of social factors. And what this means is that changing the race of a character brings with it the implication that you need to change all of those as well. At which point it's no longer that character.

My Uncle is white, but also Cajun. He's just tan and used to get hassled by airport security all the time because he "looked" Arabic. Shit's cost him jobs and he's dealt with immigration agents. My best friend is half-Hispanic. He's literally never dealt with racism from his own admissions, meanwhile my other Hispanics friends with a more stereotypical look and last name get hassled a lot more.

Race matters a whole lot less than what you can pass for. But when has shit like that ever been an issue in Spider-man? The continuity itself doesn't deal much with racism and what with all the crazy shit going on, race doesn't seem to be nearly the issue it is here in reality.

Now of course there is the second option of just treating race as a coat of paint. But can you imagine how many people that would piss off?

Let them get mad.

I'm reminded of the shitty Robin Hood movie with Kevin Costner.

Dude, I will cut you. With a fucking spoon. Yes, terrible as a Robin Hood movie, but awesome movie.

[Grumman]

I'd hate it, and would not pay to see it. If you have the choice of staying with the source material and changing it, you should always stay with the source material unless you have a damn good reason to do otherwise.* If your only argument in favour of changing it is that it doesn't matter whether Peter Parker is black or white, then he should be white, because Peter Parker is white.

Everyone got a little off-point that I was making, but that's fine. It's a good discussion to have. But why does his race matter when it's never mattered anymore than a "white character, so we can ignore race" way?

Because accuracy matters. You aren't making a movie called The Man Who Spins Webs, about superhero Paris Peterson. Your movie only exists because it's taking advantage of how much it's like the comics. So if you deliberately make your movie less like the comics which are the only reason your movie and your job exists - and not because of budget constraints or to reduce runtime or because you think it would make the movie better or because you're somehow so incompetent you can't find a white guy to play the white guy who is the main character, but just because you refuse to leave well enough alone - you suck.

[TheFeniX]

While I understand your sentiment, you've got a few issues working against Hollywood continuing to lean on "white character is white." Namely, they keep rehashing old IPs and themes to death. But my problem with your reasoning is Parkers race really doesn't factor in. He's more the stereotypical nerdy kid. If Japan licensed a version set in Tokyo, would you still expect him to be white? India? China? Even with different nationalities at play: the themes that make Spiderman work could still play extremely well. His race continues to mean less in more ethnically diverse cities like New York, or at least how comics depict them where race is not a huge deal.

How would you feel about Chris Hemsworth being Spiderman? Could you buy him being bullied by flash? Being passed over by the ladies? There's a certain physicality of Spiderman that need to be there, but I don't see race being one of them. (EDIT: An age appropriate, he's in his 40s now): Clifton Collins could do it. He's a decent looking actor but can also be extremely nerdy when he needs to be. To me, he'd be a perfect minority fit for Spiderman.

Wolverine wasn't anything like we picture him now and he didn't even get a race swap from what I know. So, I don't take comic book cannon seriously because there are numerous examples of them messing with established characters because they could.

The fact is: people keep looking at long standing characters asking "why should we change them?" when they've been changed over the years either way. Look at Superman's power-creep. Look at Batman is general. Shit used to be so camp. Then it got serious, then camp again, now it's grim dark. There's new generations of fans to be made and they just don't care about these things because they aren't old-hat fans.

[The Romulan Republic]

Comic book canon is virtually a contradiction. And the movies never follow the comics perfectly. Of course they don't, because when you have a vast, often ridiculous, and sometimes contradictory canon, its literally impossible.

So when people can swallow comic and comic film continuities' inherent contradictions and absurdities, but not changes to race/gender/etc., what that tells me is that they consider those qualities more innately important and defining than other attributes of someone's character. In other words, they define people by their race, gender, etc.

And as to Grumman's argument that if you change it from the comics without a good reason, you suck... well, again, every adaptation changes things. The fucking comics contradict themselves. But somehow, I doubt he gets so worked up about every unnecessary little change in a comic book movie. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if he was really consistent, he'd kind of have to hate every comic book movie, wouldn't he?

He also snidely discounts the possibility that someone might genuinely think changing a character's race/gender/etc. would improve the film, or that they might consider a non-traditional casting choice the best actor for the part.

All of which tells me that Grumman probably has some deep biases he's not being honest about.

[Purple]

Honestly speaking, now that I think of it I agree with him. If your adaptation diverges significantly enough from the source material than it really should not have the right to call it self an adaptation. If Japan licensed a version of Spiderman that happens in Tokyo and with an all Japanese cast I honestly would not call that Spiderman.

As for comic books changing over time I am not a fan at all, so someone who is might be able to correct me if I am wrong but it is my understanding that for the most part they change rather slowly. As in you get one version of a character and they stick with that for years on end before changing it to a new one that once again sticks for years on end etc. So each generation will want to see their version put on the screen.

Like again, not a comic book fan but I experienced something similar with the Batman movies. I loved the old campy ones. And when I saw the new dark ones I basically hated them for the crime of being completely different. And I know that both are actually consistent with the character, just different versions that existed at different times in comic history.

[The Romulan Republic]

My questions, then, are as follows:

1. How big a change is too big a change?

2. How much significance do you place on changes to race, gender, etc.?

3. If you place more significance on those things than most other changes, why?

4. Is the degree of significance you attach to those qualities absolute, or does it vary based on the character/situation (as with my example of the Doctor as a character not defined by gender vs. Buffy as one who is, at least in part?).

[Purple]

My questions, then, are as follows:

1. How big a change is too big a change?

I can't exactly write down a hard and fast set of rules. But I would say a good few examples are:
1. LOTR - Movies vs Book - Completely fine

2. Hobbit - Movies vs Book - Unacceptable changes, especially in parts 2 and 3. The whole golden dwarf thing is the most egregious. But the way they handled Beorn and the spiders are equally bad.

3. Batman & Robin vs Modern Batman movies - If I was used to one type the other would be an unacceptable change.

4. American vs Japanese Godzilla - A complete change of place. The characters appearance and powers have changed significantly. Overall barely acceptable.

In essence it's the point where your first reaction as a fan of the original work is not to judge the adaptation as "good" or "bad" in its own right but as "this isn't what I paid for".

2. How much significance do you place on changes to race, gender, etc.?

That depends entirely on the context of the characters. As a general rule biological gender changes should only happen if the work is a parody or if it's some sort of mirror universe thing where everyone gender is reversed. Sexual orientation meanwhile is more complex. Racial changes are only acceptable if they change nothing about the characters nature.

4. Is the degree of significance you attach to those qualities absolute, or does it vary based on the character/situation (as with my example of the Doctor as a character not defined by gender vs. Buffy as one who is, at least in part?).

This entirely. As a general rule the best thing to do is to ask the question: Is this the exact same person.
If the answer is no, than a change is unacceptable. If it is yes it is acceptable. If it is maybe than it is again acceptable.

Like for example a homosexual Peter Parker would not make sense as his B plot is always about girlfriends. Where as a black or female doctor would work just fine because it changes nothing about the person behind the face.

[Soontir C'boath]

Except what's really so essential to Spiderman that he has to be white especially when he wears a goddamn mask? He's from New York City living in fucking Queens which is probably the most diverse county in the goddamn country. If you were to have went to my high school there was pretty much a mix of anyone across the world and you're seriously going to tell me that the 2002 movie should still be set in the 1960's? Get the fuck out of here.

[Purple]

Except what's really so essential to Spiderman that he has to be white especially when he wears a goddamn mask? He's from New York City living in fucking Queens which is probably the most diverse county in the goddamn country. If you were to have went to my high school there was pretty much a mix of anyone across the world and you're seriously going to tell me that the 2002 movie should still be set in the 1960's? Get the fuck out of here.

That is why I personally would object more to a complete shift (as in moved to Japan, all Japanese cast in Japan) or making him homosexual (thus really complicating his B plot) than just making him Japanese or black but keeping him in america. The later could work without much change to the character. But I think you can get what I mean.

[Soontir C'boath]

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers.

[Soontir C'boath]

My questions, then, are as follows:

1. How big a change is too big a change?

I can't exactly write down a hard and fast set of rules. But I would say a good few examples are:
1. LOTR - Movies vs Book - Completely fine

2. Hobbit - Movies vs Book - Unacceptable changes, especially in parts 2 and 3. The whole golden dwarf thing is the most egregious. But the way they handled Beorn and the spiders are equally bad.

3. Batman & Robin vs Modern Batman movies - If I was used to one type the other would be an unacceptable change.

4. American vs Japanese Godzilla - A complete change of place. The characters appearance and powers have changed significantly. Overall barely acceptable.

I should point out to you that the old fairy tales aren't exactly retold the same way by Disney either.

[Purple]

None of these have much to do with race except with changes to the storyline of which then I should point out to you that the old fairy tales aren't exactly retold the same way by Disney either.

You should have noticed that my argument is in fact not just about race but changes in general. Changes in race are not a magical special category. They are just a change like any other and thus are acceptable or not under the same criteria that applies to any other type of change. Thus any criteria we establish for one is valid for the other for as long as it is not oddly specific.

[Soontir C'boath]

None of these have much to do with race except with changes to the storyline of which then I should point out to you that the old fairy tales aren't exactly retold the same way by Disney either.

You should have noticed that my argument is in fact not just about race but changes in general. Changes in race are not a magical special category. They are just a change like any other and thus are acceptable or not under the same criteria that applies to any other type of change. Thus any criteria we establish for one is valid for the other for as long as it is not oddly specific.

See edit which when I cut that out still holds valid. Disney movies as a whole have been held in high regards despite moving away from the original telling.