Superman's Ethnicity

[marhawkman]

I'm all for colour blind casting of characters. Except in certain situations. You wouldn't, for example, cast Black Lightning with a Caucasian actor. You could, however look outside the United States for an actor to play the character. And you wouldn't cast a First Nations character with an non-aboriginal actor--but there have been multiple instances of Canadian First Nations actors playing American First Nations characters (and often from different nations or tribes).

For example, Illyana Rasputin, it's not going to look the part if she's not a blonde Caucasian. The same is true of Danielle Moonstar, needs to be someone who looks the part. Both of them have a clearly defined ethnicity.

I think if replacing a less represented people with a typically represented people was the equal to its opposite, you'd have a huge pool of examples. 21 is just another example of replacing potential minority roles.

If in the one case Jordan was stunt casted (not sure how that's even determined) then there was no reason to also cast his dad as a black male as well. Peter pan was played by grown women and Arthur Curry is being played by Jason Momoa, but those aren't really casting decisions people spew hate speech over. And I'm not sure they're considered stunt casting. It sounds like a very convenient term.

There aren't really any young, talented actors I'd like to see go for an ethnically different Superman. The role requires a lot to carry basically the whole story and franchise. Not sure why people so passionately denied a character like Heimdall, though.

Aquaman is defined as being from a kingdom in the Pacific Ocean. Jason Momoa is Polynesian. Kinda fits. Yes, I know that he doesn't look like that in the comics, but the other Atlanteans often have been.

Heimdall is similar, he's defined as being Asgardian. Non-white Asgardians are a thing in the comics, so the only stretch is how he can be the biological brother of Sif, who doesn't look like him.

Back to Johnny, unfortunately the definition of "stunt casting" might be one of those "I know it when I see it" vague deals. I think changing a character from white to black always catches some attention, but I think casting their father as black, hence making Sue adopted (I think; I confess to never having watched the film and having no regrets about not having seen it, either), sort of doubles down on the attention it's going to bring. I don't fault a movie maker for bringing in more diversity, and doing so doesn't automatically make a movie worse or anything. I do think, though, that there's a certain amount of grumbling about the decision that's "fair" (another loosely defined term I unfortunately am stuck with using). And while adoption is a plausible explanation, it's just one extra detail that had to be manipulated to make the story work. I feel like it'd have been more seamless if they cast Jordan for Reed Richards.

I don't think there's a general rule for when race switching is good or bad (though I tend to think it's generally a not ideal), and it's something more case-by-case. Michael Clarke Duncan as Kingpin didn't bother me, Heimdall doesn't bother me, but for some reason Johnny's casting feels somewhat manufactured, like I get the impression the studio wanted the casting and race change to be part of the publicity.

In the comics, Johnny and Sue are biological siblings, changing that is what the problem was, not the color of their skin.

It's funny that the Storm siblings never get to have a family resemblance like they do in the comics. First you got Chris Evans and Jessica Alba. Then you got Michael B. Jordan and Kate Mara. I don't care which skin tone or hair colour they have--but it would be cool if they looked like they shared the same DNA.

Chris and Jessica weren't a stretch. Sure, they're not similar enough that I'd peg them as siblings seeing the two of them in a crowd, but I'd seen actual siblings less similar.

[Kuwagaton]

With Peter Pan, getting a woman to play Peter never made sense to me as a kid, but there's a lot of practicality to it. The combination of child labor laws and aging make casting young boys for the part of an ongoing production a hassle, and now you have the choice of either getting a woman to play the part (which doesn't look right) or a man (which also doesn't look right). Maybe you're better off going with the actor who sounds the part when she sings. With Peter Pan, you can cast a boy for a movie or a short-lived TV show, but for something ongoing like Broadway you're kind of forced with casting bad option 1 or bad option 2. I think if they cast a woman for a Peter Pan movie, it would come across as stranger to the audiences, and to date, I can't think of a large-scale, live-action Peter Pan movie whose lead was a woman.

I put words in bold that simply the way I read them, sound like reasons made to merely ignore why Betty Bronson, Mary Martin, Mia Farrow, and Alicia Williams were all able to override the practical reasons you gave.

The obvious argument people make when they argue stunt casting is that "if you have to change the character for the actor, just do a different character. " but hey, females played Peter Pan in movies.

Although I completely understand your other point, that there's a strange bunch who will fight something regardless. I just think it's fair to acknowledge double standards.

Back to Johnny, unfortunately the definition of "stunt casting" might be one of those "I know it when I see it" vague deals. I think changing a character from white to black always catches some attention, but I think casting their father as black, hence making Sue adopted (I think; I confess to never having watched the film and having no regrets about not having seen it, either), sort of doubles down on the attention it's going to bring. I don't fault a movie maker for bringing in more diversity, and doing so doesn't automatically make a movie worse or anything. I do think, though, that there's a certain amount of grumbling about the decision that's "fair" (another loosely defined term I unfortunately am stuck with using). And while adoption is a plausible explanation, it's just one extra detail that had to be manipulated to make the story work. I feel like it'd have been more seamless if they cast Jordan for Reed Richards.

You don't really need much plausibility for explaining skin color in a movie about rock monsters from another dimension, imo. But honestly it's completely plausible for a brother and sister through one dad looking that different. It's common, where I'm from, so it was weird that they even bothered mentioning adoption. But having seen the movie, I can't say that having Sue as an adopted daughter made her lesser in character.

You'd think a bunch of people saw the movie with how the presence of Jordan bothered them and the outpouring of bad reviews. But nope, box office flop. More people dislike the movie than have seen it, taking your word for it at least.

Aquaman is defined as being from a kingdom in the Pacific Ocean. Jason Momoa is Polynesian. Kinda fits. Yes, I know that he doesn't look like that in the comics, but the other Atlanteans often have been.

Atlantis is in the Atlantic ocean. Not Polynesian. Arthur is the son of a white man, a blond with bright eyes, just the same as Johnny Storm but a few decades older. Aquaman played by Momoa is a stretch but it gets a pass.

Heimdall is similar, he's defined as being Asgardian. Non-white Asgardians are a thing in the comics, so the only stretch is how he can be the biological brother of Sif, who doesn't look like him .

So the interesting thing, to bring this back to Superman, is that Kryptonians are like Amazons in that they're completely fictional. They also have non whites in their numbers. But how likely is it that people, probably not many, would cry foul for a black Clark or Diana? People say they would only care if their parents weren't black, or if the movie plain "gave them sucky vibes " without having seen it, but aside from all that wouldn't there be a clear issue?

[marhawkman]

Well, In part it's a matter of how easily recognizable a character is.

[Naruto1996]

Superman was created by jews: jerry siegel and joe shuster
And published by Dc Comics, Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc who have Jewish roots
The character was created as a metaphor for Jewish immigrants fleeing Europe in World War II

Therefore he is a Jewish hero

Superman is not the american icon but the jewish hero

Therefore its ethnic group is Jewish

[gwangung]

I put words in bold that simply the way I read them, sound like reasons made to merely ignore why Betty Bronson, Mary Martin, Mia Farrow, and Alicia Williams were all able to override the practical reasons you gave.

The obvious argument people make when they argue stunt casting is that "if you have to change the character for the actor, just do a different character. " but hey, females played Peter Pan in movies.

Just to be accurate, casting Peter Pan as a woman is a tradition begun by the very first iteration of Peter Pan on stage. (and, I think, it continues with the musical version...the non-musical versions often will cast males).

[Kuwagaton]

Yes, but many old plays like Macbeth would cast men as women where no one does that for film adaptations these days. They're not bound to the precedent by any means, one of probably several reasons being that Pan and many other subjects of plays are public domain. It ultimately just comes down to wanting to cast a certain person and proceeding with that decision. Sometimes people justify it, sometimes they get irrate.

[leo619]

Lets also not forget that Miles is the pet character of probably marvels biggest writer of the last 2 decades so of coarse he was going to get a bigger push that Val who was in a fringe book that got destroyed by bad writing. Plus lets be honest Marvel knew a new black Spider man would get them a ton of press. In fact it was their good press with Miles which has led them to where they are now with every character being replaced.

Oh I definitely agree that having Miles being written by one of Marvel's biggest writers at that time (and probably currently) helped out Miles immensely. Sara Pichelli is one of my favorite artist at marvel, and overall they deliver a top quality product that couldn't be denied. So essentially, they took a novel idea, and knocked it out of the park to create the most popular legacy character in the last decade.


So with that, you would think DC would be like...Hmm....they have finally found a way to make a minority hero successful (Which DC hasn't been able to do since what, the early 2000's?). Make him a legacy character, give him a top tier artist and writer, and put out a top quality product. Marvel continue to capitalize on this, with all new wolverine and mighty thor selling well. So what does DC do, they start the process. Create Val Zod, give him a unique angle of being a pacifist, gives him all the tools in story to be successful, but than saddles him to some of the most horrible writing possible. *Facepalm*

It was like, DC, you're almost there, you literally have a gold mine sitting in your backyard that Marvel has PROVEN could work, and instead you do this?

Question: Was it ever anybody's intent at DC for Val-Zod to actually be "Superman's Miles Morales," or did some people just assume that's what he was going to be or should have been?

This discussion reminds me of the scene that Simon Pegg apparently wrote into the script of Star Trek Beyond (which haven't seen yet) that was filmed depicting John Cho, as the rebooted timeline's Sulu, spending time with another man as a means of showing to the audience that (reboot) Sulu was gay, and either showed or told George Takei, the original actor to play Sulu, about it, expecting him to be happy about it because Takei himself is gay, and then being surprised when his reaction essentially was, "That's not what Gene Roddenberry created him to be."

Well I highly doubt anyone is going to outright state that Val Zod is going to be Marvel's Miles Morales. Competition will never outright say, we're basing this off of what the competitor is doing. After all, Marvel's Legacy attempts to be heavily based off of DC's rebirth. But Marvel will never out and out say, we're doing this because of rebirth.


With that said, the similarities between Miles and Val Zod are very strong. Both minority black heroes. Both part of a alternate universe. Both did not want to use their abilities at the beginning. Both share a introverted personality (though there's stark contrast between val zod's pacifistic nature vs Miles hidden anger issues), both receive guidance from an original mantle supporting cast (Miles with Gwen and Val Zod with Lois) and both took over the original mantle eventually.

Like it shows, it was a fantastic formula, and if given the proper push it deserved like Miles, Val Zod could EASILY have been DC's biggest legacy hero. Of course, that was not the case. Saddled with the Earth 2 book which after Taylor went down the tubes, it was given some of the worst writing seen. And that's why it's so mind boggling, because it's like DC had a golden opportunity, and rarely have I seen something so squandered before as Val Zod.

[Ascended]

Superman was created by jews: jerry siegel and joe shuster
And published by Dc Comics, Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc who have Jewish roots
The character was created as a metaphor for Jewish immigrants fleeing Europe in World War II

Therefore he is a Jewish hero

Superman is not the american icon but the jewish hero

Therefore its ethnic group is Jewish

He cant be both?

[Jim Kelly]

In the first part of the 20th century, a lot of the people working in the comics industry--and the American entertainment industry in general--were Jewish. Harry Donenfeld and Jack Liebowitz, who had bought National Allied from Major Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson, were both Jewish immigrants, having come to America when they were kids (Donenfeld from Romania and Liebowitz from Ukraine).

Jewish immigrants assimilated into the culture of their new homeland. You could say they were students of that culture. They had to figure out how to be American, so they would be accepted and not shunned by the dominant culture. That understanding of what made American culture tick proved to be profitable as they produced entertainment that appealed to the American psyche.

Superman is like the ultimate immigrant, assimilating into the dominant culture as Clark Kent and becoming a pop culture icon as Superman.

[Ascended]

When I asked why he "cant be both" I was being facetious. Sorry, I guess that didnt come across well. Dammit, should've used an emoji.

[Kyer]

Response to opening post:

Absolutely loathe it when a character's foundation (race or sex) is twisted about. Really not all that happy with most Elseworlds but that's more because didn't care for the plots. Am fine with new characters being every color or of the rainbow though.

You want an example of poor, rural whites? I can tell you the story of my grandmother who grew up a labor and sex slave in her own town/county/country because of a quirk of birth that she had no control over. Though she turned out a good and loving grandmother, her early experiences messed up her whole adult life. Bigotry is color blind. It's an equal opportunity mindless hatred/power trip.

That said I would like to see an multi-universe story where Kryptonians didn't look a thing like humans of any color. How would that change how an ophaned Kal-El would be treated on Earth?

[Chris24601]

Atlantis is in the Atlantic ocean. Not Polynesian. Arthur is the son of a white man, a blond with bright eyes, just the same as Johnny Storm but a few decades older. Aquaman played by Momoa is a stretch but it gets a pass.

I think the pass is pure Game of Thrones cred. Momoa played badass Khal Drogo and thus all of the residual badassery is passed to Aquaman.

Unlike Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman where the character has greater stature in public consciousness than the actor who plays them Momoa is actually a bigger name in pop culture than Aquaman and so Aquaman is elevated by association. He gets a pass on race/appearance because no one is joking about how he's the guy who "talks to fish" precisely because of the actor playing him.

[DochaDocha]

I think the pass is pure Game of Thrones cred. Momoa played badass Khal Drogo and thus all of the residual badassery is passed to Aquaman.

Unlike Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman where the character has greater stature in public consciousness than the actor who plays them Momoa is actually a bigger name in pop culture than Aquaman and so Aquaman is elevated by association. He gets a pass on race/appearance because no one is joking about how he's the guy who "talks to fish" precisely because of the actor playing him.

Yeah, I think there's a combination of who the actor is and the popularity of the character that makes a big deal. Get Momoa to play an unpopular Aquaman, and not too many people will mind. In fact, they might accept it because people who know who Aquaman is probably think he's a joke character. Get Momoa to play Superman and I think you start hearing loud grumbles.

[Francisco]

I wonder if instead of making Clark a Kansas farmboy they should have made him a New Yorker? Perhaps he should have been just an orphan from Brooklyn/Queens/The Bronx/ who grew up to become The Superman, while posing as mild mannered ace reporter for the Daily Planet Clark Kent.

[Osiris-Rex]

Response to opening post:

Absolutely loathe it when a character's foundation (race or sex) is twisted about. Really not all that happy with most Elseworlds but that's more because didn't care for the plots. Am fine with new characters being every color or of the rainbow though.

You want an example of poor, rural whites? I can tell you the story of my grandmother who grew up a labor and sex slave in her own town/county/country because of a quirk of birth that she had no control over. Though she turned out a good and loving grandmother, her early experiences messed up her whole adult life. Bigotry is color blind. It's an equal opportunity mindless hatred/power trip.

That said I would like to see an multi-universe story where Kryptonians didn't look a thing like humans of any color. How would that change how an ophaned Kal-El would be treated on Earth?

I think Clark should have light colored skin because that is they way he has always been depicted. But I think some of the other Kryptonians should have dark skin.
Similar to how Tuvok on Star Trek Voyager was played by Tim Russ, and African-American actor. Because similar to Earth, people on Vulcan who lived near the
equator had darker skin. I would think on Krypton the Kryptonians living near the equator would also have darker skin.