Latina Supergirl cast for Flash movie

[CosmiComic]

That's one thing though - you're thinking of it as romanticizing the past - I don't think most people consider it the past anymore than they think Robin Hood is an accurate history of England.

As for the view of the white man - that's not a reason to dismiss the genre, but a reason to expand it to include more diverse views going forward.

Some people think these fictionalized histories are real. That's why we have stuff like MAGA, for example

And I'm not dismissing westerns just because of White men. I'm saying the entire history there is violent and imperialistic, and not really something we need to revere. I tend to like westerns that buy less into the whole "America is great" stuff.

[marhawkman]

Some people think these fictionalized histories are real. That's why we have stuff like MAGA, for example

And I'm not dismissing westerns just because of White men. I'm saying the entire history there is violent and imperialistic, and not really something we need to revere. I tend to like westerns that buy less into the whole "America is great" stuff.

Heh... "white" wasn't the core of the issue. It was land grabbing. This was the tail end of a massive imperialistic expansion phase, not all of it by "white" people. In one way the "western" genre is the end of that. But arguably in a bad way.

[CosmiComic]

Heh... "white" wasn't the core of the issue. It was land grabbing. This was the tail end of a massive imperialistic expansion phase, not all of it by "white" people. In one way the "western" genre is the end of that. But arguably in a bad way.

It wasn't all by White people, but the ones in charge, and the ones responsible for demonizing Native American people, despite those people resisting being colonized (ironic considering America's history of revolutions). And there were clear racial lines and hierarchy drawn between White, Native American, Asian and Black people, the latter of which are often removed from these movies despite participating in westward expansion

[marhawkman]

It wasn't all by White people, but the ones in charge, and the ones responsible for demonizing Native American people, despite those people resisting being colonized (ironic considering America's history of revolutions). And there were clear racial lines and hierarchy drawn between White, Native American, Asian and Black people, the latter of which are often removed from these movies despite participating in westward expansion

Heh, you're leaving out the Mexicans, but you got most of it. And the Mexicans make it extra complicated. The revolutionaries had more natives that the Spanish loyalists... and the revolutionaries won in the end... then attacked the Alamo.

[Vakanai]

I don't need team ups all the time, but I don't buy into the idea that they necessarily hurt solo heroes.

I never said that they hurt heroes. Just that I prefer the solo stories more typically.

But it can be from both. And IMO, too many civilian character becoming distracting. Having different heroes together makes it feel like the characters are on par, whereas just one hero among civilians can come off like the heroes are "above" everyone

If it's written poorly then, maybe. And honestly there's just as much chance as one hero being written better or other heroes being written worse to elevate a writer's favorite character. Honestly I don't think one is inherently better or worse, just different, and appeals to different tastes. Hence why we can not agree.

I guess I don't really agree, because I've never seen them become too common

Depends - if you enjoy it more, then your idea of how often is too common will differ from someone who likes it less.

That's all true, although Idk exactly what WB is thinking. I'm not sure how much of the Snyderverse is being rebooted

Most likely all the divisive elements - so MoS/BvS/SS/JL - the characters will remain (some) but those movies will be ignored and retconned and contradicted going forward.

[Vakanai]

Some people think these fictionalized histories are real. That's why we have stuff like MAGA, for example

And I'm not dismissing westerns just because of White men. I'm saying the entire history there is violent and imperialistic, and not really something we need to revere. I tend to like westerns that buy less into the whole "America is great" stuff.

I don't think they think those fictionalized histories are real. MAGA's not because people think cowboys from the Wild West are real. We have stuff like MAGA because of FOX news, conservative talk radio, racism, conspiracy theory thinking, conservative think tanks adopting marketing advertising strategies, Evangelicalism - basically, lots of reasons. But not because someone out there thinks John Wayne's filmography is historically accurate.

And honestly, if that's you're reason for not liking westerns, you honestly shouldn't like any period piece at all - almost all American history and Western Civilization/European/Caucasain history is very violent and imperialistic. But again, this isn't history, it's mostly fiction. So I still don't buy into the story these movies are getting people to revere any of it.

Also, I don't know which Westerns you've watched, but almost none of them buy into "America is great" that I've seen. It's mostly just flimsy action stuff, not particularly patriotic by and large.

[Vakanai]

It wasn't all by White people, but the ones in charge, and the ones responsible for demonizing Native American people, despite those people resisting being colonized (ironic considering America's history of revolutions). And there were clear racial lines and hierarchy drawn between White, Native American, Asian and Black people, the latter of which are often removed from these movies despite participating in westward expansion

So did comic book movies (well, theatrical serials). But it's 2021, people of color can star in and lead western movies. No reason to judge the genre on the way things used to be. Django Unchained was great. There's nothing inherent to the western that can't be updated or changed for modern times and sensibilities, that's the beauty of fiction.

[CosmiComic]

Heh, you're leaving out the Mexicans, but you got most of it. And the Mexicans make it extra complicated. The revolutionaries had more natives that the Spanish loyalists... and the revolutionaries won in the end... then attacked the Alamo.

Wasn't the Alamo full of Americans who moved in there and wanted to expand slavery?

I don't think they think those fictionalized histories are real. MAGA's not because people think cowboys from the Wild West are real. We have stuff like MAGA because of FOX news, conservative talk radio, racism, conspiracy theory thinking, conservative think tanks adopting marketing advertising strategies, Evangelicalism - basically, lots of reasons. But not because someone out there thinks John Wayne's filmography is historically accurate.

And honestly, if that's you're reason for not liking westerns, you honestly shouldn't like any period piece at all - almost all American history and Western Civilization/European/Caucasain history is very violent and imperialistic. But again, this isn't history, it's mostly fiction. So I still don't buy into the story these movies are getting people to revere any of it.

Also, I don't know which Westerns you've watched, but almost none of them buy into "America is great" that I've seen. It's mostly just flimsy action stuff, not particularly patriotic by and large.

Maybe MAGA isn't the best example.

But my point is a lot of older westerns romanticize an era where White people were violent colonists. And they always portrayed White people as heroes, Native Americans as villains, and Black people as non-existent.

I like historical movies, as long as they don't gloss over too much, or are accurate enough

So did comic book movies (well, theatrical serials). But it's 2021, people of color can star in and lead western movies. No reason to judge the genre on the way things used to be. Django Unchained was great. There's nothing inherent to the western that can't be updated or changed for modern times and sensibilities, that's the beauty of fiction.

Westerns aren't exactly the same. Superheroes continue into the modern era while westerns are restricted to a brief era in the past.

[CosmiComic]

I never said that they hurt heroes. Just that I prefer the solo stories more typically.

Ok

If it's written poorly then, maybe. And honestly there's just as much chance as one hero being written better or other heroes being written worse to elevate a writer's favorite character. Honestly I don't think one is inherently better or worse, just different, and appeals to different tastes. Hence why we can not agree.

I guess it depends on the writers' favoritism. Ideally, the writers shouldn't make the characters act OOC just because they favor some over others.

Depends - if you enjoy it more, then your idea of how often is too common will differ from someone who likes it less.

I guess so. Maybe it's because I'm newer to comics than some here (I'm just guessing that from comments), but I'm not as familiar in the whole hero + civilian format from older comics, so I don't really care for it as much. I don't need to see the heroes' parents, gf/bf, best friends, boss, neighbor, etc., all the time. One or two is enough for me.

Most likely all the divisive elements - so MoS/BvS/SS/JL - the characters will remain (some) but those movies will be ignored and retconned and contradicted going forward.

I hope the other characters aren't forgotten. Guys like Martian Manhunter, atom, and even Cyborg should come back at some point

[marhawkman]

Wasn't the Alamo full of Americans who moved in there and wanted to expand slavery?

Uh what? The battle was fought because Pres. Santa Anna was a dictator wanna-be, and was trying to force those who disagreed with his rule to submit by force. The Alamo was because Santa Anna wanted to crush the Texan Revolution. Santa Anna ordered that no prisoners would be taken and to execute anyone who didn't die in battle. Now the question of why there was a Texan Revolution? That's a long discussion.

But my point is a lot of older westerns romanticize an era where White people were violent colonists. And they always portrayed White people as heroes, Native Americans as villains, and Black people as non-existent.

I like historical movies, as long as they don't gloss over too much, or are accurate enough

the trick is in making it accurate and not a distortion of events. that requires not treating it as "x was bad" but the nuance of how much each faction was bad, and who they were bad to. some of the Native American tribes were murderous jerks. Some of them... not all of them.

[CosmiComic]

Uh what? The battle was fought because Pres. Santa Anna was a dictator wanna-be, and was trying to force those who disagreed with his rule to submit by force. The Alamo was because Santa Anna wanted to crush the Texan Revolution. Santa Anna ordered that no prisoners would be taken and to execute anyone who didn't die in battle. Now the question of why there was a Texan Revolution? That's a long discussion.

I've read the Texans from the USA wanted to keep slavery.

the trick is in making it accurate and not a distortion of events. that requires not treating it as "x was bad" but the nuance of how much each faction was bad, and who they were bad to. some of the Native American tribes were murderous jerks. Some of them... not all of them.

We're all aware several Native American tribes and people were violent. That's pretty much all that's shown of them in a lot of westerns. What's often ignored is the violent imperialism of White America in the old west

[Vakanai]

Maybe MAGA isn't the best example.

But my point is a lot of older westerns romanticize an era where White people were violent colonists. And they always portrayed White people as heroes, Native Americans as villains, and Black people as non-existent.

I like historical movies, as long as they don't gloss over too much, or are accurate enough

Yes - older movies, and not even all of them. One can like and even love the genre, acknowledging the faults and injustices common in all film making of the time, focusing on the good examples of the genre and hoping for a more inclusive offering of movies from it going forward.

Westerns aren't exactly the same. Superheroes continue into the modern era while westerns are restricted to a brief era in the past.

Literally doesn't matter, it's a highly fictionalized version that we all realize is not true to history, doesn't need to be true to history, and can and should be improved upon for modern audience's entertainment. The real Dark Ages were bad too but we still fictionalize it for entertainment too. History is great for history books and the History Channel - not so interested in seeing it on the big screen.

[Vakanai]

I guess it depends on the writers' favoritism. Ideally, the writers shouldn't make the characters act OOC just because they favor some over others.

And ideally writer's wouldn't make all the complaints you have about solo hero stories. But no writer is perfect.

I guess so. Maybe it's because I'm newer to comics than some here (I'm just guessing that from comments), but I'm not as familiar in the whole hero + civilian format from older comics, so I don't really care for it as much. I don't need to see the heroes' parents, gf/bf, best friends, boss, neighbor, etc., all the time. One or two is enough for me.

Same, mostly newer to comic books and still have a relatively small collection to most on here. So maybe my preference is coming from the other media side - always liked the solo hero tv shows/cartoons/movies more than the team ups on average, where the civilian stuff has traditionally been more needed - especially the shows (traditionally, CW's been kind of changing that) for good serial storytelling on a budget.

I hope the other characters aren't forgotten. Guys like Martian Manhunter, atom, and even Cyborg should come back at some point

Yes and no - Yes, they shouldn't and probably won't be forgotten, no they probably won't be the same as the Snyder versions - Martian Manhunter and Atom will most likely be recast, MM will have a different design. Cyborg for sure will be recast and probably won't reappear in quite some time - has nothing to do with Flash rebooting things and Snyder's stuff getting ditched, but because of the falling out between the Cyborg actor (Fisher I think?) and WB.

[Vakanai]

We're all aware several Native American tribes and people were violent. That's pretty much all that's shown of them in a lot of westerns. What's often ignored is the violent imperialism of White America in the old west

Reason enough to make more Westerns showing that and putting Native Americans in more lead and heroic roles.

[marhawkman]

Reason enough to make more Westerns showing that and putting Native Americans in more lead and heroic roles.

Heh, funnily enough the OLD westerns did just that, regularly..... so much so that it used to be a standard trope. "Tribe A is nice, Tribe B will try to kill us if we so much as set foot on their land."

Nowadays people forget that because... nice tribes are typically talked about more than seen. But this is because it's a movie, not a documentary, and even documentaries... tend to gloss over the "boring parts". There are a few rare exceptions where a violently territorial tribe gets invoked as a reason not to go a certain path, and NOT seen because people don't go that way at all. Why? Because not all westerns have natives as the bad guys. Sometimes it's white guys who are the bad guys.