• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Zendaya's role in SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING has been revealed!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Figboy79

Aftershock LA
This is pretty interesting casting. Overall, I'm really liking the casting in this movie. It's not the usual stuff we see.

I have no idea of Zendaya can act, but I'm very interested in seeing this MJ. And come on, she won't be worst than Dunst. That's probably actually mathematically impossible (and I don't even hate Kirsten Dunst, I just didn't like her MJ). All I want is a proper version of MJ. Not the adorable girl next door we've gotten in pretty much every interpretation of the character in film and television. I want to see the fun party girl MJ.
 
What if Zendaya is actually a nuclear plant?

post-62416-The-Wire-Wee-Bey-Brice-OMG-WTF-tm9I.gif
 
Would you accept the goverment building a nuclear plant right next to your house, that might explode in ten years or it might not?
That depends on the context and climate behind it.

I just wanted to provide an argument against consequentialism. If it bothers you, change it with something else whose consequences aren't known, like passing the red light of an empty road.
That also depends on the circumstances.

I'll be honest here. This talk about consequentialism is a bit beyond me, but please continue. I am genuinely curious and perhaps I'd have something to learn.
 

Cynar

Member
They had to screw up the casting somehow. Oh well. Disappointed but red headed characters are getting screwed hard in comics.
 

Fencedude

Member
Would you accept the goverment building a nuclear plant right next to your house, that might explode in ten years or it might not?

There are reasons to not want to live near a nuclear power plant, but I can 100% guarantee that it will never "explode"

Kant says: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. That means that if a maxim, telling lies for example, can't be a universal law (because everybody would be liars, so nobody would believe anyone, so there wouldn't be the concept of lie), then it's unethical. So, you can't say that what's right in one occasion is wrong in another occasion.
Consequentialism says that if the consequences are good, then the act is ethical, if they aren't good, the act is unethical.

Just because you can back it up with a dead philosopher doesn't mean that you AREN'T being a racist jackass.

Just FYI
 
how is it any more important than any other visual identifier that has been altered

how is it any more important than than the osborn's extremely distinctive hair styles or aunt may's age

what make mj's hair so much more important and so much more necessary than white skin, and why must it be transplanted onto a minority actress in a way that white skin would not be

Yo Coffee Dog. Black people can have naturally red hair. We aren't asking for Zarya.

MJ's red hair is a physical characteristic that is close enough to her identity that it defines her. It's like Beast's blue hair or Hulk's green skin.
 
how is it any more important than any other visual identifier that has been altered

how is it any more important than than the osborn's extremely distinctive hair styles or aunt may's age
First off, Aunt May's age is pretty in line with the Ultimate Spider-Man version of Aunt May, which as far as comics go, seems to be the main influence for the movie.

Second, Norman Osborn isn't actually identified by his hair as anything but a joke. It looks awful, isn't remotely iconic for the character outside of people shitting on it. You're essentially comparing something that is seen as a beloved physical trait to something that is seen as a running joke.

Not to mention, I don't think most people could even conjure up Norman Osborn if you asked them to. If anyone knows him, it would be for his super villain alter ego, and people would identify him visually with a Goblin suit and glider. That's far more important for him then his haircut. MJ doesn't have some super hero costume to be her visual identifier, she has her hair.

You also didn't answer my question about the picture of the cast. Because I think that if you answered, you would have said you would assume that whatever girl had red hair was MJ. But you can't say that, because if you did, it would be admitting that red hair is a visual indentifier of the character.
 
First off, Aunt May's age is pretty in line with the Ultimate Spider-Man version of Aunt May, which as far as comics go, seems to be the main influence for the movie.

Second, Norman Osborn isn't actually identified by his hair as anything but a joke. It looks awful, isn't remotely iconic for the character outside of people shitting on it. You're essentially comparing something that is seen as a beloved physical trait to something that is seen as a running joke.

Not to mention, I don't think most people could even conjure up Norman Osborn if you asked them to. If anyone knows him, it would be for his super villain alter ego, and people would identify him visually with a Goblin suit and glider. That's far more important for him then his haircut. MJ doesn't have some super hero costume to be her visual identifier, she has her hair.

You also didn't ask my question about the picture of the cast. Because I think that if you answered, you would have said you would assume that whatever girl had red hair was MJ. But you can't say that, because if you did, it would be admitting that red hair is a visual indentifier of the character.

I'm not disputing, and haven't disputed that it's a visual identifier. It's only a visual identifier of the character because the character has, in the past, been portrayed as a white woman with red hair.

I'm saying that the hair color is about as necessary as the skin color is. And there is something inherently wrong about telling a minority actress to adopt the hair style of prior portrayals of the character when clearly we don't place that kind of weight on the skin color of the character as well.
 

Hydrargyrus

Member
Do we ever see a Spiderman movie where every piece matches like in the comic?

Idk why they always have to change something for the movies...
 
You can't know the consequences.
Sorry, I'm not sure I follow. So I am on an empty road and the light is read. I have the option run the red light but I can't know the consequences? What does that mean? Are you getting at that since I don't know what would happen if I ran the red light, it's better to just fall back to the rules and stay put?
 
I mean, you picked a pretty shitty picture.

These:


Do not look that far off from this:

Regardless of the artist I think she generally appears to be at least mid50s to 60

Marisa Tomei is 51 but let's be honest she looks 40-45 in Civil War. If your argument is that May in MCU looks the same as any comic interpretation I have to disagree. But there's a lot of subjectivity involved when discussing age and appearance
 

Fencedude

Member
Much like having a diverse group of friends, Aunt May getting drastically aged downwards is a good example of how the country has changed in the last 50 years.

If they wanted to maintain the age aspect, then she probably should have become "Grandma May" or "Great-aunt May". Most people just don't have aunts/uncles that much older than their parents nowadays.
 
I'm not disputing, and haven't disputed that it's a visual identifier. It's only a visual identifier of the character because the character has, in the past, been portrayed as a white woman with red hair.

I'm saying that the hair color is about as necessary as the skin color is. And there is something inherently wrong about telling a minority actress to adopt the hair style of prior portrayals of the character when clearly we don't place that kind of weight on the skin color of the character as well.
No it's not. Do you even understand how many people dye their hair for roles in Hollywood? One is asking someone to change their hair color, something millions of people do anyway. The other is disqualifing them because of their race. One would cause a shitstorm of claims of discrimination, and the other is straight up common practice.

Of course they don't hold the same weight. One is literally impossible to change in a person and would eliminate whole groups of people and the other is an already common practice among people in and out of movies.

Also, hair color being a necessary trait is completely based on how well known the character or person is for their hair. You can't make a blanket statment like that when different characters are recognized for certain things.
Just because Aunt May was drawn as a foxy grandma for some creepy reason doesn't mean she was not clearly elderly
Ultimate Aunt May was specifically made younger. She's not supposed to be elderly in the first place. She's supposed to be in her late 40s to early 50s.

Honestly man, you don't seem to know much about the characters or history of these books. Yet you seem really keen on talking as if you know what's happened in them or how the fanbase views them.
 

Fencedude

Member
And that has what to do with the norm in Hollywood to put little guys in high heel shoes? You asked if it was a problem. I just answered truthfully..it is. Could that change? Sure..but I wouldn't hold my breath.

I'm just not getting the impression that people are going to feel like bending over backwards to make sure Tom Holland doesn't feel short.

(I also get the distinct impression that Tom Holland doesn't care much)
 

JeTmAn81

Member
Do we ever see a Spiderman movie where every piece matches like in the comic?

Idk why they always have to change something for the movies...

Because it's an adaptation to a different medium. You always change things to make it fit the context of a movie. For instance, there's a lot less internal monologuing in movies than in comics because there are no dialog bubbles.

That being said, I think Mary-Jane has been a pale-skinned redhead in almost every representation of that character in any medium.
 
What's wrong about it? I can support my perspective: actions do indeed have consequences. To follow your technique, here's an example: If you mix one set of chemicals you get plastic. Another, it explodes in your face.

Casting white actors for black roles consistently has many negative consequences. For the self-worth of people, in varied ways. For black actors looking for work, as a more direct consequence. On the other hand, white actors do not face this struggle, because most roles are already designed for them, and they get offers for many that are not.

So this particular chemical compound blows up in black actors' faces. My reaction is to go with a different compound, until the rules of physics, err, society, rather, change how these chemicals behave when mixed a certain way.



Well, I've been asking why you follow a philosophy that ignores consequences. I think I got my answer.
There is no way to know every consequence before your act. If there is one, I would be interested to know it. There are no standard rules of society. There are more possible consequences, but not sure consequences.
You are actually less self-aware than White Pride Goku and thats pretty impressive.

Can you explain your post?
 

Blader

Member
There is no way to know every consequence before your act. If there is one, I would be interested to know it. There are no standard rules of society. There are more possible consequences, but not sure consequences.

Can you explain what exactly this has to do with the apparent injustice of casting black actors for white characters and not white actors for black characters?
 
while we're on the subject of consequentialism, the primary consequence of The Flash's posts is that we get to read a bunch of diet racism for several pages on end. is this morally just? did i sign up for this shit?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom