Latina Supergirl cast for Flash movie

[Vakanai]

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.

Yeah, but I meant more specifically that a western would be led with a Native American as the main lead and hero protagonist. I think there actually were a few of those (albeit it probably a white actor playing an American Indian, which shouldn't fly today), but nothing major I can name. Now would be a good time (well not now now, I think filming with Delta out there is crazy unless you mandate everyone involved is vaccinated).

[CosmiComic]

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.

I like plenty of movies with problematic content. But my point is that stuff shouldn't be ignored.

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.

It does matter, because superheroes are an evolving thing and can be made with modern people. Superheroes aren't founded on racism like the old West was

And history can be entertaining. It's not an either/or

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

Yeah

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 just don't like when civilian drama turns the superhero story into something it's not. I'm all for superheroes branching out, but not becoming soap opera (like the CW). As for team ups, I don't need them to necessarily become massive events. Smaller teams, or just small appearances by heroes, is good enough at times for me.

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.

Cyborg is due to Ray Fisher and his conflict with WB. That's right. The other 2, Idk as much. They'll probably be recast, but I kinda feel bad for the actors who thought they might go on to more.

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

Yeah, but I meant more specifically that a western would be led with a Native American as the main lead and hero protagonist. I think there actually were a few of those (albeit it probably a white actor playing an American Indian, which shouldn't fly today), but nothing major I can name. Now would be a good time (well not now now, I think filming with Delta out there is crazy unless you mandate everyone involved is vaccinated).

Good thinking. I'd like to see them as protagonists in modern movies too.

What annoys me is the hypocrisy of claiming the US revolutions are about freedom when they actively suppressed it for most peoples in the country.

[Vakanai]

I like plenty of movies with problematic content. But my point is that stuff shouldn't be ignored.

Never said it should be ignored, just that we can't judge the genre going forward on it, or even old films solely on it.

It does matter, because superheroes are an evolving thing and can be made with modern people. Superheroes aren't founded on racism like the old West was

1. It doesn't matter. Superheroes had their racist and sexist elements too. And I don't see what the modern people thing has to do with anything. We don't need a time machine to cast people to play westerns you know - and it's highly fictionalized, so we don't need to write characters as racists like everyone was back in those days either.
2. And westerns (the film genre) wasn't founded on racism. Yes, it had racist elements in the beginning, but it isn't a foundational pillar. There's a difference between foundational elements and secondary/unrelated elements. It was racist not because that's inherent to the genre, but because it was inherent to Hollywood and America for most of film making history, especially during the first 50-75 years or so - which just happened to be when the Western was the most popular genre.

And history can be entertaining. It's not an either/or

Never said otherwise. Just that most people watching a western aren't doing so expecting it to be anything like actual history. It'd be like watching the Rock's Scorpion King movie and saying "Yep, that's like how ancient Egypt really was!" We don't care about that usually, we just wanna see him slash a mummy with a sword and stuff. Ancient Egypt had slavery, and racism, but nobody wants a Mummy movie to dwell on that stuff. Westerns are the same, we wanna see guys in hats shoot other guys in hats, sometimes on horses.

I just don't like when civilian drama turns the superhero story into something it's not. I'm all for superheroes branching out, but not becoming soap opera (like the CW). As for team ups, I don't need them to necessarily become massive events. Smaller teams, or just small appearances by heroes, is good enough at times for me.

The CW frankly isn't soap opera because of the civilian drama, it's because it's the CW. There could be no civilians at all, just superheroes interacting with other superheroes only (and a lot of times now it is) and it'd still be soap opera because that's what the CW wants. Also, I question what "turns the superhero story into something it's not" even means? Like, what is it supposed to be? How does a civilian cast, which most of them have had, and which most eras until now focused on more than they do now anyway, threaten to change that?

Also, I don't even see the point of the smaller teams or small appearances. All it's used for is to say "Hey! This is a shared universe guys, remember? You should really check out our other books/shows/movies and give us more money!" which is just...no. At least the big team ups have a point, it's a team book/movie/event. You tell big team stories differently than solos. But this "lets just shove another character into someone else's story" thing feels like padding or a distraction. It doesn't interest me or add anything usually.

Cyborg is due to Ray Fisher and his conflict with WB. That's right. The other 2, Idk as much. They'll probably be recast, but I kinda feel bad for the actors who thought they might go on to more.

It's sad for the actors, but Atom only appeared in a small cameo really of SZJL so no way he's staying, and the other actor (not looking up name) was also only MM in that cut. No way is WB keeping them when that cut is non-canon anyway. So expect recasts almost 100% for sure, assuming those characters are likely to show up at all. I can see an Atom movie happening, but Martian Manhunter kind of needs a Justice League movie to be in, and right now I don't see another one happening until after 2027 - a decade after the first one. And that's the soonest I could see it.

Good thinking. I'd like to see them as protagonists in modern movies too.

I think the biggest problem right now is I don't know how many Native American actors there even are right now. But I don't want Johnny Depp playing one again like The Lone Ranger. At this point we need to start treating that the same way we do black face. Find an American Indian who can work as a leading man and cast him.

What annoys me is the hypocrisy of claiming the US revolutions are about freedom when they actively suppressed it for most peoples in the country.

It was about freedom - just not freedom for all. It is hypocrisy, but humans are full of hypocrisy. Doesn't make it untrue, just makes it more complex and nuanced and kind of shitty than we grew up believing and being told.
There's only the one US Revolution that I'm aware of...?

[CosmiComic]

Never said it should be ignored, just that we can't judge the genre going forward on it, or even old films solely on it.



1. It doesn't matter. Superheroes had their racist and sexist elements too. And I don't see what the modern people thing has to do with anything. We don't need a time machine to cast people to play westerns you know - and it's highly fictionalized, so we don't need to write characters as racists like everyone was back in those days either.
2. And westerns (the film genre) wasn't founded on racism. Yes, it had racist elements in the beginning, but it isn't a foundational pillar. There's a difference between foundational elements and secondary/unrelated elements. It was racist not because that's inherent to the genre, but because it was inherent to Hollywood and America for most of film making history, especially during the first 50-75 years or so - which just happened to be when the Western was the most popular genre.

I'm probably not explaining myself very well. My point is, westerns are based on a specific time period where racism was used to justify imperialism. Whereas superheroes, despite also originating from an era more racist than now, can also come from modern time periods, where we're comparatively less racist.

Never said otherwise. Just that most people watching a western aren't doing so expecting it to be anything like actual history. It'd be like watching the Rock's Scorpion King movie and saying "Yep, that's like how ancient Egypt really was!" We don't care about that usually, we just wanna see him slash a mummy with a sword and stuff. Ancient Egypt had slavery, and racism, but nobody wants a Mummy movie to dwell on that stuff. Westerns are the same, we wanna see guys in hats shoot other guys in hats, sometimes on horses.

Idk how many people believe ancient mummies actually were magical. But a lot of the "shoot 'em up" stuff which entertains people is the problematic part of westerns presented as history. I think it's less common in modern westerns, but it does inform an incorrect idea of how the era was like.

The CW frankly isn't soap opera because of the civilian drama, it's because it's the CW. There could be no civilians at all, just superheroes interacting with other superheroes only (and a lot of times now it is) and it'd still be soap opera because that's what the CW wants. Also, I question what "turns the superhero story into something it's not" even means? Like, what is it supposed to be? How does a civilian cast, which most of them have had, and which most eras until now focused on more than they do now anyway, threaten to change that?

By that, I meant "turn it into a soap opera". I stopped watching the CW because it was too "soapy." But anyway, my point is I don't really want too many subplots with civilian characters that take up too much of the limited screen time of a superhero movie, unless it actually figures into the main plot. It can work in a comic, but movies need to be more focused. I'm just not as interested in some lengthy subplot about the hero trying to "get the girl/guy", for instance, if it's not connected enough to the main narrative.

Also, I don't even see the point of the smaller teams or small appearances. All it's used for is to say "Hey! This is a shared universe guys, remember? You should really check out our other books/shows/movies and give us more money!" which is just...no. At least the big team ups have a point, it's a team book/movie/event. You tell big team stories differently than solos. But this "lets just shove another character into someone else's story" thing feels like padding or a distraction. It doesn't interest me or add anything usually.

Why's it padding or distracting? Maybe there's a reason for it. I wouldn't be so cynical as to assume it's just "we're selling something else". For me, the point is just seeing the two different heroes interact with one another. These characters do share a universe, so I don't see what's wrong with one of them showing up in another's series every now and then. And I thought too many events in comics have become problematic.

It's sad for the actors, but Atom only appeared in a small cameo really of SZJL so no way he's staying, and the other actor (not looking up name) was also only MM in that cut. No way is WB keeping them when that cut is non-canon anyway. So expect recasts almost 100% for sure, assuming those characters are likely to show up at all. I can see an Atom movie happening, but Martian Manhunter kind of needs a Justice League movie to be in, and right now I don't see another one happening until after 2027 - a decade after the first one. And that's the soonest I could see it.

You're probably right, although I think a JL movie could show up sooner than that

I think the biggest problem right now is I don't know how many Native American actors there even are right now. But I don't want Johnny Depp playing one again like The Lone Ranger. At this point we need to start treating that the same way we do black face. Find an American Indian who can work as a leading man and cast him.

Any kind of "color-face" is wrong. But I think there aren't that many Native American actors partially because Hollywood doesn't invest in any.

It was about freedom - just not freedom for all. It is hypocrisy, but humans are full of hypocrisy. Doesn't make it untrue, just makes it more complex and nuanced and kind of shitty than we grew up believing and being told.
There's only the one US Revolution that I'm aware of...?

The Texas Revolution and the American Civil War, if those count

[Vakanai]

I'm probably not explaining myself very well. My point is, westerns are based on a specific time period where racism was used to justify imperialism. Whereas superheroes, despite also originating from an era more racist than now, can also come from modern time periods, where we're comparatively less racist.

And I don't really see what that has to do with anything? Again, it's a highly fictionalized genre, no one is glorifying either of those things in most western films, certainly not in modern ones. I don't see how history's past crimes should influence today's entertainment.

Idk how many people believe ancient mummies actually were magical. But a lot of the "shoot 'em up" stuff which entertains people is the problematic part of westerns presented as history. I think it's less common in modern westerns, but it does inform an incorrect idea of how the era was like.

Except again, no one believes it's being presented as history, and it doesn't form any idea of the era at all, just an idea of what sells in a film.

By that, I meant "turn it into a soap opera". I stopped watching the CW because it was too "soapy." But anyway, my point is I don't really want too many subplots with civilian characters that take up too much of the limited screen time of a superhero movie, unless it actually figures into the main plot. It can work in a comic, but movies need to be more focused. I'm just not as interested in some lengthy subplot about the hero trying to "get the girl/guy", for instance, if it's not connected enough to the main narrative.

And I don't want too many subplots about some other heroes taking up another hero's plot. And if the civilian stuff isn't relevant to the main plot, then the writer is failing at their job. It has to tie into the main narrative, yeah. But the same is for all things, including other heroes teaming up in the main hero's movie.

Why's it padding or distracting? Maybe there's a reason for it. I wouldn't be so cynical as to assume it's just "we're selling something else". For me, the point is just seeing the two different heroes interact with one another. These characters do share a universe, so I don't see what's wrong with one of them showing up in another's series every now and then. And I thought too many events in comics have become problematic.

It just always comes across as such to me. I guess in a similar way how civilian characters just seem to get in the way of the story for you. Difference in interpretation, tastes, etc. It just feels like distracting padding and an attempt to try and get you interested in buying some other hero's book while you're already content trying to read the one you got, etc.

You're probably right, although I think a JL movie could show up sooner than that

It could, but I highly doubt it. Not before 2027 most likely, not with the stink of the previous one still so fresh and strong.

Any kind of "color-face" is wrong. But I think there aren't that many Native American actors partially because Hollywood doesn't invest in any.

I think you're right, and I think Hollywood needs to change that.

The Texas Revolution and the American Civil War, if those count

As I'm not a Texan, I honestly can't say anything about the Texas Revolution - it's something we weren't taught in American History. Guess it matters more to Texans being taught state history, I don't know. But no, the Civil War doesn't count as a revolution, at least I don't count it as such.

[marhawkman]

It does matter, because superheroes are an evolving thing and can be made with modern people. Superheroes aren't founded on racism like the old West was

It may seem trivial and pedantic, but racism and classism have very different reasons for existing, and a lot of what you're complaining about was classism.

As I'm not a Texan, I honestly can't say anything about the Texas Revolution - it's something we weren't taught in American History. Guess it matters more to Texans being taught state history, I don't know. But no, the Civil War doesn't count as a revolution, at least I don't count it as such.

Enh, it was more about Santa Anna being a jerk. while he was nominally anti-slavery.. Santa anna was in many other ways an authoritarian tyrant... For example, he ordered his men to execute all of the surviving Texans after the end of the Battle of the Alamo. The guy was nice to people loyal to him, but if he decided you weren't loyal? sucks to be you. The who Mexico/Texas war got started because Santa Anna and the glorious revolution to force the Spanish monarchy out of power... resulted in fragmenting what used to be a single country into several smaller countries, since... in many cases, the only thing the people had in common was wanting the Spaniards out of power.

Any kind of "color-face" is wrong. But I think there aren't that many Native American actors partially because Hollywood doesn't invest in any.

There's more than you'd think. it's just that when in ordinary clothes.. they don't stick out in a crowd because most people think "Hispanic"... Which... well... what makes Hispanic people different from Spaniards is being part Native American.

[Darkspellmaster]

Enh, it was more about Santa Anna being a jerk. while he was nominally anti-slavery.. Santa anna was in many other ways an authoritarian tyrant... For example, he ordered his men to execute all of the surviving Texans after the end of the Battle of the Alamo. The guy was nice to people loyal to him, but if he decided you weren't loyal? sucks to be you. The who Mexico/Texas war got started because Santa Anna and the glorious revolution to force the Spanish monarchy out of power... resulted in fragmenting what used to be a single country into several smaller countries, since... in many cases, the only thing the people had in common was wanting the Spaniards out of power.

Funny thing is my home state of Illinois has Santa Anna's wooden leg on display. Apparently it was stolen by a officer from one of the Illinois Regiments:

In 1847, his artificial leg was captured by soldiers of the 4th Illinois Infantry, which is why it's in the Illinois State Military Museum.

And it's still here even though Texas, and I think Mexico, both want it.

There's more than you'd think. it's just that when in ordinary clothes.. they don't stick out in a crowd because most people think "Hispanic"... Which... well... what makes Hispanic people different from Spaniards is being part Native American.

Yeah Native Americans (Indigious People) actors are out there, there's a number of them, but you don't see them in a lot of movies because writers tend to not think about them as much when it comes to writing stories, and Casting directors don't think about them when casting. And There's all sorts of skin tones with Natives that some get mistaken for being "white" from Southern European nations.

[CosmiComic]

And I don't really see what that has to do with anything? Again, it's a highly fictionalized genre, no one is glorifying either of those things in most western films, certainly not in modern ones. I don't see how history's past crimes should influence today's entertainment.

My point is that westerns are based in a specifically period of colonization, and superheroes aren't

Except again, no one believes it's being presented as history, and it doesn't form any idea of the era at all, just an idea of what sells in a film.

But some people do buy it as history. When the movies constantly putting White guys as the heroes for the purpose of entertaining, despite them not really being so during that period, it's doesn't really matter whether it was intended to be factual or not

And I don't want too many subplots about some other heroes taking up another hero's plot. And if the civilian stuff isn't relevant to the main plot, then the writer is failing at their job. It has to tie into the main narrative, yeah. But the same is for all things, including other heroes teaming up in the main hero's movie.

But usually the other heroes showing up is relevant to the plot at hand, whereas civilian stuff sometimes isn't, or it detracts too much from the main plot.

It just always comes across as such to me. I guess in a similar way how civilian characters just seem to get in the way of the story for you. Difference in interpretation, tastes, etc. It just feels like distracting padding and an attempt to try and get you interested in buying some other hero's book while you're already content trying to read the one you got, etc.

I've never really felt that unless it's some kind of big event. It's a shared universe, so I expect that to some extent.

It could, but I highly doubt it. Not before 2027 most likely, not with the stink of the previous one still so fresh and strong.

I keep seeing people say they liked the ZSJL, though

I think you're right, and I think Hollywood needs to change that.



As I'm not a Texan, I honestly can't say anything about the Texas Revolution - it's something we weren't taught in American History. Guess it matters more to Texans being taught state history, I don't know. But no, the Civil War doesn't count as a revolution, at least I don't count it as such.

The Civil War was a revolution, though, wasn't it? They rebelled against the USA just like the USA rebelled against England.

[CosmiComic]

It may seem trivial and pedantic, but racism and classism have very different reasons for existing, and a lot of what you're complaining about was classism.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.

Enh, it was more about Santa Anna being a jerk. while he was nominally anti-slavery.. Santa anna was in many other ways an authoritarian tyrant... For example, he ordered his men to execute all of the surviving Texans after the end of the Battle of the Alamo. The guy was nice to people loyal to him, but if he decided you weren't loyal? sucks to be you. The who Mexico/Texas war got started because Santa Anna and the glorious revolution to force the Spanish monarchy out of power... resulted in fragmenting what used to be a single country into several smaller countries, since... in many cases, the only thing the people had in common was wanting the Spaniards out of power.


There's more than you'd think. it's just that when in ordinary clothes.. they don't stick out in a crowd because most people think "Hispanic"... Which... well... what makes Hispanic people different from Spaniards is being part Native American.

Hispanic/Latino isn't even a race, despite Hollywood acting like it. Canada has an analogous group, the Metis, but no one calls all Canadians the same race.

Nonetheless, it would be nice if Native American characters got more visibility in movies

[marhawkman]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.

People in history have been evil jerks to one another for a wide variety of reasons. Calling all of it "racism" is to not understand what you're talking about and to mis-attribute motive. The whole colonial expansion thing had the concept of "civilized people vs savages". This wasn't drawn based on ethnic or racial lines, but cultural status.... which is why so many of the Conquistadores fathered children with women who were natives. It didn't matter to them that the children were only half Spaniard.

Hispanic/Latino isn't even a race, despite Hollywood acting like it.

"isn't a race"? according to whose definition? It is most certainly a subset of the human race. Whether it's a "race" or "ethnic group" is a pedantic technicality.

[Vakanai]

My point is that westerns are based in a specifically period of colonization, and superheroes aren't

And my point is still just that I don't see the import or why it matters?

But some people do buy it as history.

I doubt that, but if any do - does it matter what some gullible and not bright people think about ye olden days?

When the movies constantly putting White guys as the heroes for the purpose of entertaining, despite them not really being so during that period, it's doesn't really matter whether it was intended to be factual or not

The solution to that is not to ditch of condemn the genre, but to put more minorities as the heroes in future films.

But usually the other heroes showing up is relevant to the plot at hand, whereas civilian stuff sometimes isn't, or it detracts too much from the main plot.

I don't know about that, I've seen it often be the case where it isn't relevant at all, and plenty more times where the civilian stuff is plot relevant. Maybe it only seems that way to you because you like one over the other, so the examples supporting your preference stand out more than those contrasting it?

I've never really felt that unless it's some kind of big event. It's a shared universe, so I expect that to some extent.

I've felt the opposite - it's usually felt put in as some sort of obligation or advertisement it feels like more than a natural thing. Whereas the events feel more natural simply because to me they fall under "team title" more than "solo title" (even if in a solo book/show/what-have-you).

I keep seeing people say they liked the ZSJL, though

I keep seeing people saying things like it wasn't good or that it was better than the theatrical but still not great as well, and check the numbers - not that many people have seen it. The Snyder cut has not moved the needle towards a sooner second chance for the JL. A JL movie isn't happening any time soon. It could be like Batman Begins - that wasn't a full decade later than B&R bombed, so I could see a JL movie maybe happening 8 or 9 years after 2017's JL, but I'm still highly skeptical it'd be that soon, and it certainly won't be sooner.

I understand you want it sooner because you like I love the JL, but with how disappointing the last film performed there's no logical reason to believe it'll happen at all in the next 4/5 years (it's already been 4 years, so another 4/5 puts it at 8/9 years, which is the soonest it could happen).

The Civil War was a revolution, though, wasn't it? They rebelled against the USA just like the USA rebelled against England.

I don't think so, otherwise isn't literally every civil war a revolution? Then why would we have two different names for them if they were the same thing? Certainly most Americans don't consider the Civil War a revolutionary war.

[CosmiComic]

People in history have been evil jerks to one another for a wide variety of reasons. Calling all of it "racism" is to not understand what you're talking about and to mis-attribute motive. The whole colonial expansion thing had the concept of "civilized people vs savages". This wasn't drawn based on ethnic or racial lines, but cultural status.... which is why so many of the Conquistadores fathered children with women who were natives. It didn't matter to them that the children were only half Spaniard.

Really? Because I think it was absolutely based on racial lines. These people were viewed as inferior because it allowed European invaders to denigrate them and excuse subjugating them and taking their land. Yes, race as we define it today didn't exactly exist back then. But it came from colonial ideals designed to justify imperialism. And it still has effects today. Try telling people affected by decades of racism and White supremacy that "people in history have been evil jerks." I don't think that really helps them.

"isn't a race"? according to whose definition? It is most certainly a subset of the human race. Whether it's a "race" or "ethnic group" is a pedantic technicality.

It's not pedantic. Race, as vague as it is, refers to someone's background. White = European, Black = African. What does Hispanic mean? that one speaks Spanish? Because that's a European language. But not everyone who speaks it has the same origin. Are you going to call everyone speaking English the "Anglo race"?

[CosmiComic]

And my point is still just that I don't see the import or why it matters?

Because if the filmmakers don't address the reality of those periods, they are glorifying the problematic aspects.

I doubt that, but if any do - does it matter what some gullible and not bright people think about ye olden days?

I think it does, to some extent. I realize it's not always easy to be historically accurate, but repeated the racist cliches of older movies can affect what people think.

The solution to that is not to ditch of condemn the genre, but to put more minorities as the heroes in future films.

Ok. But, IMO, pointing out the racism in the genre is condemning it, to some extent

I don't know about that, I've seen it often be the case where it isn't relevant at all, and plenty more times where the civilian stuff is plot relevant. Maybe it only seems that way to you because you like one over the other, so the examples supporting your preference stand out more than those contrasting it?

Maybe. I guess it depends on what one likes. I just don't really care a huge amount if I see a hero's whole family or whatever. I don't mind it, but I don't care if it's not there. One or two regular side characters is enough for me.

I've felt the opposite - it's usually felt put in as some sort of obligation or advertisement it feels like more than a natural thing. Whereas the events feel more natural simply because to me they fall under "team title" more than "solo title" (even if in a solo book/show/what-have-you).

I was more talking about how frequent big events have become and how that can affect solo books. But I don't see how it's more natural than in just a regular solo.

I keep seeing people saying things like it wasn't good or that it was better than the theatrical but still not great as well, and check the numbers - not that many people have seen it. The Snyder cut has not moved the needle towards a sooner second chance for the JL. A JL movie isn't happening any time soon. It could be like Batman Begins - that wasn't a full decade later than B&R bombed, so I could see a JL movie maybe happening 8 or 9 years after 2017's JL, but I'm still highly skeptical it'd be that soon, and it certainly won't be sooner.

I understand you want it sooner because you like I love the JL, but with how disappointing the last film performed there's no logical reason to believe it'll happen at all in the next 4/5 years (it's already been 4 years, so another 4/5 puts it at 8/9 years, which is the soonest it could happen).

I guess so.

I don't think so, otherwise isn't literally every civil war a revolution? Then why would we have two different names for them if they were the same thing? Certainly most Americans don't consider the Civil War a revolutionary war.

I guess it depends on the definition of a revolution

[marhawkman]

Really? Because I think it was absolutely based on racial lines. These people were viewed as inferior because it allowed European invaders to denigrate them and excuse subjugating them and taking their land. Yes, race as we define it today didn't exactly exist back then. But it came from colonial ideals designed to justify imperialism. And it still has effects today. Try telling people affected by decades of racism and White supremacy that "people in history have been evil jerks." I don't think that really helps them.

Heh, like I said, you're using "racism" just because you feel like it, and not because it's what the actual motive was. And really "White supremacy"? you're invoking THAT as the reason the Conquistadores left Spain to conquer foreign lands in the name of the Spanish crown? no... just... no. Like I said, it's some sort of supremacy, but not that one. Imperialism was based in the idea of "we're the best therefore we're going to take over". Race wasn't the main motive. It was all about money and power. The Spanish and the Portuguese actually signed a treaty with each other that agreed they would only try to annex certain parts of the globe. thus avoiding the issue of fighting over foreign territories. It was a competition to see who could become the most wealthy and powerful.

It's not pedantic. Race, as vague as it is, refers to someone's background. White = European, Black = African. What does Hispanic mean? that one speaks Spanish? Because that's a European language. But not everyone who speaks it has the same origin. Are you going to call everyone speaking English the "Anglo race"?

What a load of garbage. You really think everyone in Africa was Black at some point? You're right about the background part, but wrong about literally everything else. The color of your skin doesn't have any more to do with your "race" than your hair color.

[CosmiComic]

Heh, like I said, you're using "racism" just because you feel like it, and not because it's what the actual motive was. And really "White supremacy"? you're invoking THAT as the reason the Conquistadores left Spain to conquer foreign lands in the name of the Spanish crown? no... just... no. Like I said, it's some sort of supremacy, but not that one. Imperialism was based in the idea of "we're the best therefore we're going to take over". Race wasn't the main motive. It was all about money and power. The Spanish and the Portuguese actually signed a treaty with each other that agreed they would only try to annex certain parts of the globe. thus avoiding the issue of fighting over foreign territories. It was a competition to see who could become the most wealthy and powerful.

I don't think you're quite understanding me. Racism wasn't a motivation to colonize, but a tool to keep justifying it after the fact. That's what created modern versions of racism and White supremacy. And by the time the Old West rolled around, racism was entrenched in American history. Not to mention religious bigotry.

What a load of garbage. You really think everyone in Africa was Black at some point? You're right about the background part, but wrong about literally everything else. The color of your skin doesn't have any more to do with your "race" than your hair color.

How is it a load of garbage? And when did I say everyone in Africa is Black? I meant darker-skinned people from Africa are called Black, just like lighter-skinned people people from Europe are called White. Of course skin color varies between individuals in racial categories. But how does that refute anything I was saying before? I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at