Fantastic Four reboot is already screwed up...

[Logan510]

[font:Times New Roman]The biggest issue I have with movie producers changing the race or gender of characters to appeal to a more culturally diverse audience is that it's an especially insidious form of revisionism. In effect, it destroys the childhood memories of all those who grew up with the characters and whose purchases made the publishers successful.

 

History is history, regardless of whether it's fact-based or original fiction from another era. Folks should never take comfort from the revision of history or literature, good or bad, except as caricature (parody). There is no racism involved with wanting to see the characters you grew up with properly respected.

 

It's the proverbial slippery slope. When well intention folks re-envision content to create a new dynamic where does it end? In literature, it often leads down the path of sanitizing the works of authors like Faulkner and Twain to make their words and the deeds of their characters more palatable to specific audiences.

 

Much of America's fiction, written, illustrated and/or filmed prior to our becoming more enlightened and aware of the hurtful nature of bigotry has levels of race and gender bias. Reinvention doesn't make it go away, but it does draw attention to it in a negative way. These were products of their time and meant to be appreciated in context, not redacted or reinterpreted. My [/font]

 

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Though I think there's a big difference between people wanting to excise the n word from Huckleberry Finn and changing the race / gender of an established character arbitrarily. I don't agree with either of those things BTW. ( I'll wait for the mini brains to pop up and call me a racist again ).

[Silver Surfer]

I wonder what Stan Lee thinks about this? Personally I prefer when they stay true to the original story lines and this throws a bit of a wrench in that because of the family connection so I am asking myself why is it even necessary?

[thunsicker]

[font:Times New Roman]The biggest issue I have with movie producers changing the race or gender of characters to appeal to a more culturally diverse audience is that it's an especially insidious form of revisionism. In effect, it destroys the childhood memories of all those who grew up with the characters and whose purchases made the publishers successful.

 

History is history, regardless of whether it's fact-based or original fiction from another era. Folks should never take comfort from the revision of history or literature, good or bad, except as caricature (parody). There is no racism involved with wanting to see the characters you grew up with properly respected.

 

It's the proverbial slippery slope. When well intention folks re-envision content to create a new dynamic where does it end? In literature, it often leads down the path of sanitizing the works of authors like Faulkner and Twain to make their words and the deeds of their characters more palatable to specific audiences.

 

Much of America's fiction, written, illustrated and/or filmed prior to our becoming more enlightened and aware of the hurtful nature of bigotry has levels of race and gender bias. Reinvention doesn't make it go away, but it does draw attention to it in a negative way. These were products of their time and meant to be appreciated in context, not redacted or reinterpreted. My [/font]

 

I agree and don't agree. In that if you do a retelling of Huckleberry Finn and place it in it's time using the n word is appropriate, if you place it in 21st century it seems a bit odd at best. In the same way if you retell the story of the Fantastic Four and place it in the early 60's it would be foolish to make the characters of a different race. If you place them in the 21st century, not so much.

 

EDIT: This is not to say that it HAS to be done, just it doesn't in and of itself ruin the story.

 

EDIT 2: And this is the last I'll post in this thread. Promise.

[Logan510]

I wonder what Stan Lee thinks about this? Personally I prefer when they stay true to the original story lines and this throws a bit of a wrench in that because of the family connection so I am asking myself why is it even necessary?

 

It's not "necessary" and I'm sure that most here know this ( though will jump through a series of hoops to justify it ).

 

I would be willing to bet if asked Stan will say it's terriffic and he wishes he had thought of it back in the day. While I love Stan, I think most will agree he's a human hype machine and given to hyperbole.

[ChrisInBaltimore]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Though I think there's a big difference between people wanting to excise the n word from Huckleberry Finn and changing the race / gender of an established character arbitrarily. I don't agree with either of those things BTW. ( I'll wait for the mini brains to pop up and call me a racist again ).

 

I teach in an 99% African American school and we read Huck Finn. We talked a lot about the changing of the n word to slavery. My students thought it was stupid and don't see it as a big deal. They thought it was more white people being uncomfortable with the word.

 

I wonder if some of that train of thought carries over to this discussion.

[Logan510]

[font:Times New Roman]The biggest issue I have with movie producers changing the race or gender of characters to appeal to a more culturally diverse audience is that it's an especially insidious form of revisionism. In effect, it destroys the childhood memories of all those who grew up with the characters and whose purchases made the publishers successful.

 

History is history, regardless of whether it's fact-based or original fiction from another era. Folks should never take comfort from the revision of history or literature, good or bad, except as caricature (parody). There is no racism involved with wanting to see the characters you grew up with properly respected.

 

It's the proverbial slippery slope. When well intention folks re-envision content to create a new dynamic where does it end? In literature, it often leads down the path of sanitizing the works of authors like Faulkner and Twain to make their words and the deeds of their characters more palatable to specific audiences.

 

Much of America's fiction, written, illustrated and/or filmed prior to our becoming more enlightened and aware of the hurtful nature of bigotry has levels of race and gender bias. Reinvention doesn't make it go away, but it does draw attention to it in a negative way. These were products of their time and meant to be appreciated in context, not redacted or reinterpreted. My [/font]

 

I agree and don't agree. In that if you do a retelling of Huckleberry Finn and place it in it's time using the n word is appropriate, if you place it in 21st century it seems a bit odd at best. In the same way if you retell the story of the Fantastic Four and place it in the early 60's it would be foolish to make the characters of a different race. If you place them in the 21st century, not so much.

 

I think a better example would be Spider-Man. Back in the 60's an open air radiation experiment was not TOO far fetched. Given what we know about radiation now it would be ridiculous. A genetically altered spider makes more sense if the story is set today. Doesn't change the story, doesn't change the character. Arbitrary race / gender changes do both.

[Speedy-D]

[font:Times New Roman]The biggest issue I have with movie producers changing the race or gender of characters to appeal to a more culturally diverse audience is that it's an especially insidious form of revisionism. In effect, it destroys the childhood memories of all those who grew up with the characters and whose purchases made the publishers successful.

 

History is history, regardless of whether it's fact-based or original fiction from another era. Folks should never take comfort from the revision of history or literature, good or bad, except as caricature (parody). There is no racism involved with wanting to see the characters you grew up with properly respected.

 

It's the proverbial slippery slope. When well intention folks re-envision content to create a new dynamic where does it end? In literature, it often leads down the path of sanitizing the works of authors like Faulkner and Twain to make their words and the deeds of their characters more palatable to specific audiences.

 

Much of America's fiction, written, illustrated and/or filmed prior to our becoming more enlightened and aware of the hurtful nature of bigotry has levels of race and gender bias. Reinvention doesn't make it go away, but it does draw attention to it in a negative way. These were products of their time and meant to be appreciated in context, not redacted or reinterpreted. My [/font]

pish tosh!

[Speedy-D]

[font:Times New Roman]The biggest issue I have with movie producers changing the race or gender of characters to appeal to a more culturally diverse audience is that it's an especially insidious form of revisionism. In effect, it destroys the childhood memories of all those who grew up with the characters and whose purchases made the publishers successful.

 

History is history, regardless of whether it's fact-based or original fiction from another era. Folks should never take comfort from the revision of history or literature, good or bad, except as caricature (parody). There is no racism involved with wanting to see the characters you grew up with properly respected.

 

It's the proverbial slippery slope. When well intention folks re-envision content to create a new dynamic where does it end? In literature, it often leads down the path of sanitizing the works of authors like Faulkner and Twain to make their words and the deeds of their characters more palatable to specific audiences.

 

Much of America's fiction, written, illustrated and/or filmed prior to our becoming more enlightened and aware of the hurtful nature of bigotry has levels of race and gender bias. Reinvention doesn't make it go away, but it does draw attention to it in a negative way. These were products of their time and meant to be appreciated in context, not redacted or reinterpreted. My [/font]

 

I agree and don't agree. In that if you do a retelling of Huckleberry Finn and place it in it's time using the n word is appropriate, if you place it in 21st century it seems a bit odd at best. In the same way if you retell the story of the Fantastic Four and place it in the early 60's it would be foolish to make the characters of a different race. If you place them in the 21st century, not so much.

 

I think a better example would be Spider-Man. Back in the 60's an open air radiation experiment was not TOO far fetched. Given what we know about radiation now it would be ridiculous. A genetically altered spider makes more sense if the story is set today. Doesn't change the story, doesn't change the character. Arbitrary race / gender changes do both.

Only as far as it bothers you. If you're big into hair and they change a characters hair to red, you might flip. I personally wouldn't care. Same with race. You give a character brown skin or boobs, I'll barely notice (wait, wait!!!). It's a lot less bothersome than crappy dialog and big plot gaffes.

[Prince Namor]

Have you seen The Incredibles?

 

I have... what's your point?

 

Wow, is that an act?

 

So, you have no point? Are you presuming that the mere existence of "The Incredibles" somehow validates a point you have yet to make?

 

Because The Incredibles was basically a retelling of the FF?

 

Was it? I don't remember it being set in the Marvel Universe, for starters...

 

Does it just take four people with superpowers to constitute a "retelling" of the FF story for you? If so, you should have no problem with a black Human Torch...

 

Yes, I don't understand this either. If Logan somehow managed to become enamored with all of the changes that the Incredibles made to the Fantastic Four and views it as "basically a retelling of the FF," why would he have such a problem with the minor change of Johnny Storm's race? I rather agree with him that the Incredibles is a great FF-like story--yet if you can enjoy that, what the heck does it really matter if they change something as minor as Johnny Storm's race?

 

Still thinking that changing Johnny's race is SIGNIFICANTLY less minor to some people than others.

 

So you have no problem if they make his character a homosexual as well?

[Logan510]

[font:Times New Roman]The biggest issue I have with movie producers changing the race or gender of characters to appeal to a more culturally diverse audience is that it's an especially insidious form of revisionism. In effect, it destroys the childhood memories of all those who grew up with the characters and whose purchases made the publishers successful.

 

History is history, regardless of whether it's fact-based or original fiction from another era. Folks should never take comfort from the revision of history or literature, good or bad, except as caricature (parody). There is no racism involved with wanting to see the characters you grew up with properly respected.

 

It's the proverbial slippery slope. When well intention folks re-envision content to create a new dynamic where does it end? In literature, it often leads down the path of sanitizing the works of authors like Faulkner and Twain to make their words and the deeds of their characters more palatable to specific audiences.

 

Much of America's fiction, written, illustrated and/or filmed prior to our becoming more enlightened and aware of the hurtful nature of bigotry has levels of race and gender bias. Reinvention doesn't make it go away, but it does draw attention to it in a negative way. These were products of their time and meant to be appreciated in context, not redacted or reinterpreted. My [/font]

 

I agree and don't agree. In that if you do a retelling of Huckleberry Finn and place it in it's time using the n word is appropriate, if you place it in 21st century it seems a bit odd at best. In the same way if you retell the story of the Fantastic Four and place it in the early 60's it would be foolish to make the characters of a different race. If you place them in the 21st century, not so much.

 

I think a better example would be Spider-Man. Back in the 60's an open air radiation experiment was not TOO far fetched. Given what we know about radiation now it would be ridiculous. A genetically altered spider makes more sense if the story is set today. Doesn't change the story, doesn't change the character. Arbitrary race / gender changes do both.

Only as far as it bothers you. If you're big into hair and they change a characters hair to red, you might flip. I personally wouldn't care. Same with race. You give a character brown skin or boobs, I'll barely notice (wait, wait!!!). It's a lot less bothersome than crappy dialog and big plot gaffes.

 

If you can compare hair color ( unless they're gingers to race / gender..I honestly don't know what to say

[slym2none]

Yeah---not gonna read through all 90 pages of this, but have folks mentioned that in the new Superman movie not only is Perry White black but also Jimmy Olsen's been changed to a (gasp!) GIRL?

 

 

 

 

 

-slym

[Bosco685]

Fassbender is about the only thing I could stomach. I believe we saw the same movie, I'm not so sure if we're both fans of these characters though.

 

Wait a minute!

 

So if I enjoyed a comic book-based movie that didn't follow the original source material completely, I am less than a fan of the comics?

 

That seems a little extreme, if I am understanding you correctly.

 

 

I never said completely, how about hardly at all?

 

[COI]

Threads like this are the reason people make fun of fanboys.

[Dr. Balls]

Threads like this are the reason people make fun of fanboys.

 

[Silver Surfer]

Have you seen The Incredibles?

 

I have... what's your point?

 

Wow, is that an act?

 

So, you have no point? Are you presuming that the mere existence of "The Incredibles" somehow validates a point you have yet to make?

 

Because The Incredibles was basically a retelling of the FF?

 

Was it? I don't remember it being set in the Marvel Universe, for starters...

 

Does it just take four people with superpowers to constitute a "retelling" of the FF story for you? If so, you should have no problem with a black Human Torch...

 

Yes, I don't understand this either. If Logan somehow managed to become enamored with all of the changes that the Incredibles made to the Fantastic Four and views it as "basically a retelling of the FF," why would he have such a problem with the minor change of Johnny Storm's race? I rather agree with him that the Incredibles is a great FF-like story--yet if you can enjoy that, what the heck does it really matter if they change something as minor as Johnny Storm's race?

 

Still thinking that changing Johnny's race is SIGNIFICANTLY less minor to some people than others.

 

So you have no problem if they make his character a homosexual as well?

 

Why don't they just try to cover all the bases so everyone can be happy. Visible minority, adopted, handicap and how about a transgender as well.

[COI]

Have you seen The Incredibles?

 

I have... what's your point?

 

Wow, is that an act?

 

So, you have no point? Are you presuming that the mere existence of "The Incredibles" somehow validates a point you have yet to make?

 

Because The Incredibles was basically a retelling of the FF?

 

Was it? I don't remember it being set in the Marvel Universe, for starters...

 

Does it just take four people with superpowers to constitute a "retelling" of the FF story for you? If so, you should have no problem with a black Human Torch...

 

Yes, I don't understand this either. If Logan somehow managed to become enamored with all of the changes that the Incredibles made to the Fantastic Four and views it as "basically a retelling of the FF," why would he have such a problem with the minor change of Johnny Storm's race? I rather agree with him that the Incredibles is a great FF-like story--yet if you can enjoy that, what the heck does it really matter if they change something as minor as Johnny Storm's race?

 

Still thinking that changing Johnny's race is SIGNIFICANTLY less minor to some people than others.

 

So you have no problem if they make his character a homosexual as well?

 

Why don't they just try to cover all the bases so everyone can be happy. Visible minority, adopted, handicap and how about a transgender as well.

 

[Bosco685]

 

Why don't they just try to cover all the bases so everyone can be happy. Visible minority, adopted, handicap and how about a transgender as well.

 

Too late with that one. The transgender option was tossed out many pages ago.

[Silver Surfer]

 

Why don't they just try to cover all the bases so everyone can be happy. Visible minority, adopted, handicap and how about a transgender as well.

 

Too late with that one. The transgender option was tossed out many pages ago.

 

Ok missed that but there is no way I'm slogging through 80 pages of this stuff.

[Bosco685]

 

Why don't they just try to cover all the bases so everyone can be happy. Visible minority, adopted, handicap and how about a transgender as well.

 

Too late with that one. The transgender option was tossed out many pages ago.

 

Ok missed that but there is no way I'm slogging through 80 pages of this stuff.

 

 

I totally understand.

 

Some are okay with changes (small or large). Some are hardcore fans that will not stand for any deviation. There is no 100% answer.

 

 

Well, other than making multiple versions of the same movie. Like comic variants.

[vaillant]

Threads like this are the reason people make fun of fanboys.

 

Almost 1000 posts…