Michelle Rodriguez Machete Kills

You can get yourself in trouble by telling the truth in Hollywood. Just ask Michelle Rodriguez of “Fast and Furious” and “Machete” fame. Early Saturday morning she was asked by TMZ if she was going to play the Green Lantern, and her response prompted enough backlash by oversensitive online babies that she apologized on Facebook hours later.

TMZ: Michelle, are you going to be the Green Lantern?

Michelle Rodriguez: **Laughing ** That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.

TMZ: Really?

Michelle Rodriguez: Yeah. I think it’s so stupid for like everybody because of this whole  minorities in Hollywood thing…

TMZ: Well, it’s been all over the internet.

Michelle Rodriguez: But it’s so stupid, it’s like, ‘Stop stealing all the white people’s superheroes. Make up your own. You know what I’m saying? What’s up with that?”

Comic book fans are still laughing at how Marvel writer Dan Slott slimed them as racist for having a similar opinion over arbitrarily changing Peter Parker’s race. How long will it be before Mr. Slott starts lecturing Ms. Rodriguez on the importance of turning Guy Gardner into “Lady Gardner,” or John Stewart into “Jane Stewart,” or Kyle Rayner into “Kylie Rayner”?

M Rodriguez
Can you read Michelle Rodriguez’s mind? It says: “I can’t believe I have to apologize to these oversensitive babies for telling the truth.” Since the ‘Fast and Furious’ star is wearing a Nirvana shirt, perhaps it will inspire a screenwriter to pen a tale where Kurt Cobain was born Katy Cobain.

The kind of people who couldn’t sleep at night until a Ghostbusters reboot with an all-female cast was announced obviously started hounding Ms. Rodriguez’s social media accounts because hours later she was posting a sleepy-eyed apology to her Facebook page:

Hey guys, I want to clarify about my comment yesterday. I stuck my foot in my mouth once again. I said that people should stop trying to steal white people’s superheroes. I guess it got taken out of context because a lot of people got offended or whatever. I have a tendency to, you know, speak without a filter — sorry about that. What I really meant was that ultimately at the end of the day there’s a language and the language that you speak in Hollywood is ‘successful franchise.’

I think that there are many cultures in Hollywood that are not white that can come up with their own mythologies. We all get it from the same reservoir of life, the fountain of life. It doesn’t matter what culture you come from. I’m just saying that instead of trying to turn a girl character into a guy — or instead of trying to turn a white character into a black character or latin character I think that people should stop being lazy. People should actually make an effort in Hollywood to develop their own mythology. It’s time to stop. Stop trying to take what’s already there and try to fit a culture into it. I think that it’s time for us to write our own mythology and our own story. Every culture. That’s what I really meant, and I’m sorry if it came off rude or stupid. That’s not what I meant. So, cheers.

When Ms. Rodriguez apologizes for speaking without a filter, what she really means is “I’m sorry for telling the truth.” She laughs at the thought of playing Green Lantern because she knows that she has the creative and intellectual chops to play a new hero — one who will etch out her own special place in American culture — instead of some Green Lantern derivative that is created to appease online diversity activists.

What is more respectable: Michelle Rodriguez playing “Letty Ortiz” in the “Fast and Furious” franchise, or Michelle Rodriguez playing a female Green Lantern knockoff because Warner Bros. dropped the ball with its 2011 attempt? While it is sad that someone like Michelle Rodriguez must apologize to online babies for speaking the truth, it is refreshing to see an artist in Hollywood whose unfiltered self values originality over uninspired diversity.

Michelle Rodriguez FF6

Advertisements

About the Author Douglas Ernst

I'm a former Army guy who believes success comes through hard work, honesty, optimism, and perseverance. I believe seeing yourself as a victim creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. I believe in God. I'm a USC Trojan with an MA in Political Science from American University.

69 comments

  1. Oh, I love this post, well said. It is lazy! And creatively stunted. Also, the world needs more superheros, not recycled ones that have had a sex change and a make over. That laziness is something I’ve encountered a few times. Some women gamers were complaining about women in video games, so there we were with all this alleged talent, and I thought we should design a game with characters the way we like. So of course they promptly kicked me out for suggesting such a thing.

    There’s another odd thing going on in the world, this stealing of our heroes. I don’t understand the origins of that one either, but the attempt to remake Green Lantern is yet another piece of that puzzle.

    1. I think that Ms. Rodriguez’s only error was in the initial wording (i.e, specific heroes “belong” to white people), when what she wanted to say was, “Hey, don’t arbitrarily change a character’s race or gender just because you want more diversity.” She was basically saying the same thing you did before you got kicked out of your gaming group — let’s make new superheroes.

      As I said before, I don’t want Blade randomly turned white, and I don’t want Peter Parker randomly turned black. It’s totally unnecessary and, as Ms. Rodriguez astutely pointed out, lazy.

      Blade is for everyone and Peter Parker is for everyone — but one is clearly black and the other is clearly white. There’s no need to change them to reach a desired diversity quota.

  2. I completely understand where Michelle is coming from. And if I may be controversial, I agree with her.

    “Instead of turning a girl character into a guy, or instead of turning a white character into a black character or Latin character – I think people should stop being lazy and people in Hollywood should take the time to develop their own mythology.”

    Despite her initial reaction to subject, she did clarify what she meant to say. And honestly I do agree with her. Why go around changing character’s eccentricities just for the sake of appeasing the masses? Just go create your own character instead. But no we can’t have that, that’d of course be “creative” and require some actual effort.

    Obviously it’s a heated enough topic as it is, and I’ve gone over it enough already (thanks in part to Dan Slott, screw you), but I think this is a topic that should be debated amongst fans. Maybe then the hipsters who aren’t that familiar with a characters history might actually listen.

    Though that in itself is a difficult task already.

    1. The annoying thing about this specific story is that people will say, “Well, anyone can be the Green Lantern if they’re worthy of the ring!” Yes, we know that, but the debate is — when you get to the heart of it — whether long-established characters should be changed for the “Diversity for The Sake of Diversity Brigade.”

      I don’t know if it was you or someone else who was commenting, but they mentioned that part of the problem is that Marvel and DC try not to age any of their characters. If they allowed characters to age more quickly, then it would open the door for them to seamlessly transition to a more diverse set of heroes. If Peter Parker had to give up the webs to a younger hero, then it would make sense to hand them over to Miles Morales. I’m fine with that. But Marvel can’t just artificially age Peter to do that. It has to be natural, and they’ve consistently shown that they have problems in that department.

    2. That’s kind of why I enjoyed Mayday Parer/Spider-Girl so much. It gave Peter a break from the webs, while also having act more as a mentor to May during her superhero career.

      And yeah I think it may have been someone else who may have made that comment. But whoever made the comment about Marvel and DC having trouble naturally aging characters is correct on that front.

  3. Well a slight “correction.”

    Michelle Rodriguez: But it’s so stupid, it’s like, ‘Stop stealing all the white people’s superheroes. Make up your own. You know what I’m saying? What’s up with that?”

    There isn’t really a “the” Green Lantern (well, depending on the time in comics you’re talking about, but we won’t get into that), they are nothing more than COPS! IN! SPACE!!!!! so that’s a little like saying Michelle would be playing ‘the’ NYPD.

    Also, given that it’s a sci-fi cop department, there’s no shortage of possible roles for any number of people to play without anybody ‘stealing’ a superhero. To say that you’re stealing a “white people’s superhero” is even funnier since many green lanterns aren’t even human beings. I mean one of the Lanterns is an actual planet! (so yes, there’s even a role for Rosie O’Donnell). Off the top of my head, I can picture a few alien women Lanterns that Michelle could play easily. As a (in general) GL fan, this is one time where I agree diversity is important. Except it’s not whether you’re black or white, but green, purple, lizard, germ, insect, or even blind. The best GL stories, have always been the most weird ones.

    1. Yes, we know that, but the debate is — when you get to the heart of it — whether long-established characters should be changed for the “Diversity for The Sake of Diversity Brigade.”

      I think you may have misunderstood me. It wasn’t that the character should be changed, it’s that there is ALREADY diversity all over the GL landscape (here’s just one cover). There are no shortages of women aliens (or gender ambiguous aliens) that Michelle could play. Seriously, look at one of the famous double page spreads from GL (or this one).

    2. Yes, but if Warner Bros. is going to make a movie that costs $100 million or more to create, then they shouldn’t make it from some random woman from the Green Lantern Corps that no one outside your average Green Lantern fan has ever heard of or seen before. They should do it based on the character who a.) has essentially “earned” the right to a movie, and b.) actually has shown up on the radar of moviegoers who don’t give a rip about comics but will see a superhero movie.

    3. Ah, so you mean as a star/central actor to the movie. Eh that’s fair. Though I think Avengers proved an ensemble movie COULD be done, and that would be my dream for GL. XD

    4. In theory, a Green Lantern movie should rock. I didn’t see that 2011 movie because it looked “eh” to me and it got pretty bad reviews. That’s a shame because there’s no reason why a movie like that should fail.

    5. In theory, a Green Lantern movie should rock. I didn’t see that 2011 movie because it looked “eh” to me and it got pretty bad reviews. That’s a shame because there’s no reason why a movie like that should fail.

      The director’s cut (which I do own on blu-ray) is marginally better (I’ve heard the same about Daredevil) but you’re right. A GL movie should be such a no brainer, it’s impressive how much work they seem to have put in it to make it not bad. (but then, while I like Ryan at times, I still say Jensen Ackles is the best pick for Hal Jordan)

  4. I wonder how many know Rodriguez in openly bisexual? Doesn’t that give her “street cred,” and hence, “permission” to opine as she did? 😉

  5. That was the best non-apology ever. She is awesome and totally right. But if they made a Green Lantern movie that didn’t suck, I think she’d make for a good member of the Corp. Besides, anybody can be a Lantern and there are hundreds of them. The only problem fans would have would be if the story gave her another Latern’s backstory instead of her own.

    1. I had to look up her name, because I’ll be damned if I can ever remember any of the alien Lanterns’ names, but I think she’d be good as Katma Tui.

    2. Okay, pitch for a new Green Lantern Movie: Hal Jordan quits the Lantern Corp because his movie was terrible. Enter John Stewart (Idris Elba) who is selected to replace him and trained by Katma Tui (Michelle Rodriguez); they have awesome adventures together, fall in love and get married after they save the galaxy from some… whatever Lanterns are always saving galaxies from.

    3. Idris Elba as John Stewart = Win.

      I can buy that story. However, that’s the thing: Warner Bros. would probably do something stupid and just do a “Katma Tui” solo movie. Then, when your average person says “That’s weird,” suddenly they’re “racistbigotsexist.”

    4. The problem with Green Lantern stories is that you can’t really have them be solos and make them interesting. All of the best GL stories are the ones about the interplay between the characters.

      For instance, the first Green Lantern movie should’ve basically been a super-hero version of Training Day.

  6. These characters were created amongst a culture that prided themselves on being racist, misogynistic, and homophobic. Thus they were made white males as a reflection of this and had nothing to do with who they actually were as a person. Switching the races and genders to reflect the current attitude changes is welcome because its fixing a tainted legacy. Also it seems nobody on this post as any clue what they are talking about because there’s a comic canon version of a Latina green lantern who’s story is pretty fucking awesome and that’s who she’d be playing not John or Hal or Kyle or Guy.

    1. Thanks for the laugh, “CainTheConqueror.” I love that you openly come out in favor of switching a character’s race as a weird form of literary reparations for the culture that shaped John Broome and Gil Kane. Classic.

      Sorry Mr. Conqueror, but the point of this post is that some random member of Green Lantern Corps shouldn’t get a big budget movie before someone like Hal Jordan is done correctly. If the first Spider-Man movie flopped, only someone like you would suggest moving on to Spider-Woman before getting it right.

    2. You do realize Hal Jordan wasn’t the first green lantern? Hal is just as random as any of the other earth members of the corp. Why on earth does he deserve a feature before anybody else? Reparations? That’s a whole ‘nother argument lol But that’s not what this is, it’s the comics industry finally reflecting the diversity amongst its readers. There’s no reason for most of those characters to be white other than the reason I stated. You haven’t effectively countered anything I stated. Times change why such a struggle to keep things reflecting a terrible time in history? Obviously these men were talented, but they were a product of the times. It’s just that simple.

    3. You didn’t say anything that really required much refuting. You think that some random latina Green Lantern (who doesn’t even have her own title) should have producers spend upwards of $100 million on her over Hal Jordan or Kyle Rayner. Okay. You make your pitch to Warner Bros. and I’ll make mine. My guess is that the producers would side with me and Tumblr would side with you.

      What a coincidence that the “good” times in history conveniently exist during your lifetime. That must be because guys like you are fighting the good fight, whereas in the past everyone was just a big racistbigothomophobe.

    4. They already lost their money on Hal I don’t know if you’ve heard. Is anything you’re saying based on facts? It looks like the producers are actually going with a minority character for the green lantern role. Plus my pitch would include facts from articles showing proof that diverse films make on average 95 million dollars more than their none diverse counterparts. Your pitch would be “hey let’s keep things the same.”
      Have you ever actually studied history from the 40s 50s 60s you know, when most of these characters were created? Lol yes the prevailing attitude at the time supported segregation, didn’t want women to vote or leave the kitchen, and thought homosexuals were sexual deviants.

    5. They didn’t lose money on “Hal” — they lost money on a movie left people scratching their heads saying, “How did they screw that up?”

      Congratulations on being able find statistics to say whatever you want to say. I put more stock in the leaked Sony emails. Regardless, I never said I was against “diversity.” I’m against “diversity for the sake of diversity.” If it makes sense, then I support it. If it’s just someone like you citing a brand new latina character who allegedly deserves a movie — over a character who has had decades to build a fan base — then I probably won’t.

      Congratulations: You “studied history” and found out that human beings are fallible. Guess what: they’re still fallible. There are some interesting Islamic State videos online you can watch if you want to see just how low humanity can go. The latest versions involved burning a man alive in a cage and the execution of 21 Christians in Libya. Where was Simon Baz on that one, Cain?

      In 30 years the next version of CainTheConqueror will confront you online and tell you all about the “tainted legacy” of 2015.

    6. I found stats supporting what I say is true and get congratulated so I guess I should give you condolences for not finding stats that support your standing? Wow you really don’t know history. Guess who’s been burning people alive in America for years? Over 300 at a time several times hmm. I’m sure there will be much more progress in 30 years and at that time if they point out something I didn’t realize because of the culture at the time I truly hope I’m not to close minded to help progress this country even more.

    7. The last time I checked, slavery existed in some form in all cultures across all of human history, but it was Western civilization that brought it to a close (for all intents and purposes). I suppose it’s still going on in African countries and the Middle East…but I guess we shouldn’t talk about that, huh? #BringBackOurGirls didn’t bring back the girls. Weird. I thought the power of the hashtag was more reliable than that. Sorry, Michelle Obama.

      Yes, you found a single study by the African American Studies department at UCLA that just so happened to examine a range of movies and television shows and its authors came to conclusions that backed exactly what you would think the African American department at UCLA would find. Shocker. Meanwhile, I’m referencing internal Sony emails that telegraphed to the world … “Yeah, the United States is cool with a black actor in the lead, but our friends in Europe and Asia…they’re a bit behind on the diversity front.”

      Who should I trust: The African American Studies department at UCLA, or Sony Executives who just had an uncomfortable meeting with their accountants? I’ll go with the leaked Sony emails.

      According to The Independent, emails were exchanged between Sony Chairman Michael Lynton, and an unnamed producer just after The Equalizer had been released in September. In an email chain acquired by the British newspaper, the producer declared that The Equalizer’s gross of $191.6 million simply wasn’t enough, and that it had failed to achieve success outside of the United States of America because of the color of Denzel Washington’s skin. He then added that films with an African American Lead don’t generally play well overseas. The producer told the Sony executive that he hoped his comment was not “inappropriate or provocative,” but he was simply looking for a reason why the film hadn’t grossed as much as they’d anticipated.

    8. First of all, Nate saved me the trouble of looking at the internals of your study to show how organizations can cook the books. If you torture numbers long enough, they’ll tell you anything you want to hear. You can sing the praises of the African American Studies department at UCLA all you want, but if it’s obvious that they cherry-picked data to get the results they wanted, then nothing you say can change that.

      Secondly, if you want to discount leaked internal emails from Sony’s top brass — that no one has disputed — then go for it. Excuse me while I laugh, but go for it. There’s a reason why Amy Pascal lost her job… Do you want to see women and gay people treated horribly? Go to the Middle East. Do you want to get a racial wake up call? Try being a black guy in China. Do you want to see slavery? Hang out with Boko Haram’s female sex slaves in Africa for a bit. Hopefully they don’t chop off your head.

      I hate to burst your little social justice bubble (I know you guys like to bash America for its ‘tragic legacy’ on a daily basis), but our country is light years ahead of most of the world when it comes to race.

      As Entertainment Weekly reported March 7, 2007:

      “Dreamgirls has earned more than $101 million in the U.S. and Canada, but Paramount expects it will make little more than $60 million abroad. Which is particularly problematic in an era when Hollywood increasingly depends on foreign box office to drive profits. These days, 52 percent of movie earnings come from international markets. As BET Networks entertainment president and House Party director Reginald Hudlin says in the Times’ story, ‘I always call international the new South. In the old days, they told you black films don’t travel down South. Now they say it’s not going to travel overseas.’ At home, frequent box office champ Will Smith seems like the biggest star on the planet, but the Times quotes industry watcher James Ulmer as saying that Smith ranks no better than No. 12 in terms of worldwide bankability.

      Who’s to blame? ‘The international marketplace is still fairly racist,’ Ulmer tells the Times.”

      Is a BET’s entertainment president “authentically black” enough for you, Cain? He’s saying exactly what Sony executives said in their internal emails. Weird. But hey, colleges never cook the books on their own “studies,” right?

    9. It had a production budget of 200 million dollars. That does not include advertising and distribution which on average is at least another 50 million that they do not have to disclose to the public. So yes they lost money because their total pull world wide was 219 million. Against at minimum spending 250 million

    10. In the motion picture industry, a box office bomb or flop is a film that is viewed as highly unsuccessful or unprofitable during its theatrical run, sometimes preceding hype regarding its cost, production, or marketing efforts.[1][2] To earn this dubious distinction, the film must also fail to earn more than the reported cost of its production, distribution, and marketing by a wide margin.

    11. We were discussing if it lost money, and it did not that is a fact. It did not do well and it took time to earn a profit sure but it did not lose money that is the facts. I am not saying it was a good investment but I am just clarifying a mistake in your statement.

    12. My statement was made just for the point that it wasn’t a good investment. I haven’t seen the DVD sales in awhile but they hadn’t been over that very conservative 50 million mark the last I’d checked. Which from what I’ve seen means they still lost on the investment. I’d like to see the sales and I’ll try and find the actual budget as well. because waiting 4 years to say you’re profitable doesn’t really seem to have anything to do with what I’m saying. And even then I still doubt they saw a profit with such a slim margin.

    13. You said they lost money should I quote that here for you? I showed it did not, I agree that it was not a good investment. I provided a link with some information that shows some other sales info not including merchandise and digital direct that would easily put it over the 50 mil mark you mentioned.
      I suggest you stop digging the whole you are in.

    14. You provided links that proved they lost money, you have yet to send me links to where they made money. Not digging a HOLE just pointing out that you have yet to actually discredit anything I’ve said and it seems your knowledge of the film industry is limited at best.

    15. If you think that clearly you cannot understand math, the numbers prove you wrong especially since they do not include digital sales and many other merchandise types that are included in the project. I would also watch your accusations of knowledge since you have no clue of who I am or what I do. You are either a troll or not able to comprehend simple business.

    16. I think Cain should just admit that at the end of the day — when all was said and done — the studio technically “made” money on Green Lantern — but not enough to warrant taking such a huge risk on a sequel. With DVD sales, etc., my guess is that they just got over the hump.

      This subject was also covered in the leaked Sony emails. Movies that you would think were clearly a “flop” actually made money when streaming video, DVD, and other factors were included. Since Sony’s leaked emails weren’t vetted by the faculty in the African American Studies department at UCLA, we should just not pay any attention to them, though. 😉

    17. Correct, he does not understand all of the other factors such as licensing agreements or a big one such as the video game sales. It made money but it did not make enough money for them to want to make a sequel. I don’t blame them either since it could not make money on just the box office.

    18. FYI don’t also forget the cash made on toy sales and other merchandise agreements. Overall it made money, just not much for the investment indicating other opportunities were better.

    19. Plus my pitch would include facts from articles showing proof that diverse films make on average 95 million dollars more than their none diverse counterparts. Your pitch would be “hey let’s keep things the same.”

      WHAT???? Based on what math? Let’s see…
      http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/
      Top 10:
      1 Avatar
      2 Titanic
      3 Marvel’s The Avengers
      4 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
      5 Frozen
      6 Iron Man 3
      7 Transformers: Dark of the Moon
      8 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
      9 Skyfall
      10 Transformers: Age of Extinction

      Ummm… sure they’re “diverse” if you count non-human lifeforms as a form of diversity. If anything, box office seems to say, “don’t bet on humans” more than any alteration of skin color.

    20. Hey man so sorry didn’t see your comment. here’s some statistics from a reputable source

      Boxofficemojo isn’t a reputable source? Weird since the report you linked to says: “Data for this report were compiled from a variety of sources… include The Studio System, Variety Insight, the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), Nielsen, and Box Office Mojo.”

      Also let’s see here… so they took cast diversity interval for the 172 films viewed. The highest was 21-30% which contains… 25 films. Meanwhile the 10% or less category covers… 88 films (oh, and still made more money than the 3 “31% and more” categories so… apparently there’s a cap to how much diversity can be in a film and it still make money, same on RoI). So what’s the films that fell into those categories? Weirdly… no data on that. (hiding anything are they?) They didn’t list the highest grossing film of the year (HP 7.2) nor the next 3. The ones they list as hitting that magical diversity number are Pirates 4 (#5), Rise of the Planet of the Apes (#11), Green hornet (#32, WHICH I will note, is less than Green Lantern, who hit 24) and Hangover 2 (#3). So, of 25 films, only 2 of which made top 10 in the year… seems your statement is a little “cooked.” (though if anyone can find where they actually break down the % on each of the 200 movies, I’d be much obliged, can’t seem to locate it)

      Also, this report looks at 2011. It’s 4 years out of date now.

      Finally, notice end note #1: “These films included the top 200 theatrical films for 2011, ranked by worldwide box office, minus 28 foreign films.” Wonder why foreign films don’t count…

      Oh wait! There’s the 2015 report! That at least gets up to 2013!

      Let’s see… this time they list in 2013 as Hunger Games 2 (#1), Iron Man 3 (#2), Star Trek 2.2 (#11) and GI Joe 2 (# uh… 25). And what’s the selection? Hmmm… they don’t say, but they do mention that the < 10% club covered 50 films. And in 2012 we have… 15 films meeting the highest box office. Which include… Madagascar 3 (#10 – so I guess non-humans do count for diverse?), MIB3 (#14) and Django Unchained (#15). The 10% less club? 64.

      Hmm… yep, once again we see a cooking of books. So it seems you're unintentionally lying about how diverse casts always do better than not (of course notice it's always diverse CASTS, never analysis on minority LEADS).

      That this site is considered reputable just shows how little that word means any more.

    21. These characters were created amongst a culture that prided themselves on being racist, misogynistic, and homophobic. Thus they were made white males as a reflection of this and had nothing to do with who they actually were as a person.

      So any time an African culture created African stories, or Arab cultures created Arabic yarns, or Pacific cultures created Oriental tales, those are all reflections on a pride in being racist, misogynist, and homophobic?

      I guess that means any time a role is “white-washed” (like… ugh… Jake G. in Prince of Persia) nothing wrong was done and they were just fixing a tainted legacy, eh? I must admit, I hadn’t heard that claim before.

      Also it seems nobody on this post as any clue what they are talking about because there’s a comic canon version of a Latina green lantern who’s story is pretty fucking awesome and that’s who she’d be playing not John or Hal or Kyle or Guy.

      Who??? I haven’t read much modern GL since Johns left but there wasn’t any latina GLs. Well Kyle Rayner was revealed as half-latina (because nobody could tell from the art) but I don’t think even the most militant Hal Jordan fan would say Kyle’s that girly or Michelle is that manly.

    22. By your statement I’m sure you have never read more than one African tale. There are plenty of diverse characters in African tales and many women heroes. Actually many of the heroes are women in African tales. I suggest a book called “The People Could Fly” It will clear up any misconceptions you have about African literature.
      As far as white washing it’s wrong let’s look at it from this viewpoint. If you’re already full, why take food from the kid who never gets to eat? Whites get about 92 percent of the leading roles in film according to the latest UCLA report. So if you ALREADY have 92 percent why whitewash any more? It wouldn’t make sense.

    23. This is her. Jessica Cruz http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Jessica_Cruz_%28Prime_Earth%29

      Uh… not a green lantern any more than Carol Ferris is.

      By your statement I’m sure you have never read more than one African tale. There are plenty of diverse characters in African tales and many women heroes. Actually many of the heroes are women in African tales. I suggest a book called “The People Could Fly” It will clear up any misconceptions you have about African literature.

      Well there are plenty of diverse characters in european and american tales. Seems you have some misconceptions to clear up yourself.

      As far as white washing it’s wrong let’s look at it from this viewpoint. If you’re already full, why take food from the kid who never gets to eat? Whites get about 92 percent of the leading roles in film according to the latest UCLA report. So if you ALREADY have 92 percent why whitewash any more? It wouldn’t make sense.

      You’re the one that used the logic that whitewashing was good. Now whites do NOT have 92 percent of the roles in Indian or Japanese or Korean cinema (a quick survey of movie posters alone prove that) so clearly, by your logic, whites need to be in more eastern cinema.

    24. again do research before speaking on things. You gave a cursory glance at some movie posters and figured that was enough for an educated statement? Try again sir.

      Hmm… I looked through your links and saw nothing about whites being 92 percent in Indian, Japanese or Korean cinemas. What am I supposed to be “trying again” now?

  7. My opinion:
    I agree the first movie should have been with Hal and it could have been like training day (that would be great)
    Second movie with John Stewart
    Third movie something very big and Jon and Hal team up.

  8. I agree the first movie should have been with Hal and it could have been like training day.
    Second movie with John Stewart
    Third movie something very big and Jon and Hal team up.

    There has been many GL’s but Hal was the most popular know one making him a logical choice that could be used as a springboard for more. If done right GL could have had a wide franchise with each movie building on the other much like Star Trek where each movie could expand the universe.
    Hal was not the first but if you look the original Alan Scott he is not nearly as well known.

  9. CainTheConqueror,
    Diversity is additive there is no need to take at all. The very method of taking is also subtraction, every time you make one character with a particular culture you are suffering from an opportunity cost of another culture as well. The population is growing so if you change the proportion of growth just like diversity over time it will equal out.
    Saying one bowl is full is also wrong since when has there been a limit on fictional characters. The whole bowl theory is flawed from its inception.

  10. One reason to consider John Stewart is that many kids grew up with him while watching the JL cartoon. The character has had more exposure for kids that Hal has been getting.

    1. Ah you got to it before I did. Yeah I was about to say that Doug is slightly off about Hal being the “more known” GL. Thanks to the animated ‘verse, Stewart is more known among younger generations than Hal.

      Indeed I’d say the easiest way to tell someone’s age is to ask them what the real name of GL is. If they say, Hal, John, or Kyle, you’ll know about how old they are.

      I would watch the SHIT out of a John Stewart movie with Idris Elba though. Or he should be the voice of Killowag at least.

    2. Yeah… well that gets back to our old debate about how Captain America SHOULD be something of a legacy character, but he really is tied to “steve rogers.”

    3. The one GL I know the most is (big shock) John Stewart thanks to the Timm/Dini cartoons. I never learned about Hal until I was like 15 or so.

      Also as to the whole diversity debate, I agree with Doug. One shouldn’t do something new just for the sake of being new.

    4. Cain’s earlier post was incredibly telling. He admitted that he liked it when characters were switched from white to minority because it was some form of creative reparations needed to atone for the sins of American culture circa [insert date here since no one ever claimed the country was perfect]. He admits that the decision isn’t based upon what is best for the character or story, but what is “best” for him in terms of exacting revenge for America’s “tainted legacy.” His mind is focused on something external to the creative endeavor, which is why I can’t help but laugh.

      Who would you rather having writing your comic books or movie scripts? Me, who tries to determine what is the most honest and true representation of the character, or Cain, who makes alterations to characters based upon grievances he has with dead Americans?

  11. Just for the record since I gave him time, even Cain’s copy and past post about a flop worked against him. If you continue reading from his copy and pasted post:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_office_bomb

    “If a studio recoups the production and marketing costs of a film, then it can be considered a success. Otherwise, if it does not do so by a significant margin, it is referred to as a box office bomb, even though international distribution, sales to television syndication, and home video releases often mean some films that are considered flops in North America eventually make a profit for their studios. ”

    I love it when nuts try to make a point and hide the truth. Notice Cain never came back when facts worked against him.

    1. I don’t think Cain was that interested in having his worldview challenged. I was happy once he admitted that characters should have their race changed as a form of creative reparations for the faults of previous generations. That says it all right there, although if I can keep him talking then that’s even better.

  12. “These characters were created amongst a culture that prided themselves on being racist, misogynistic, and homophobic. Thus they were made white males as a reflection of this and had nothing to do with who they actually were as a person. Switching the races and genders to reflect the current attitude changes is welcome because its fixing a tainted legacy.”

    I have no knowledge of who this Cain character is, but the logic behind this comment makes me want to drink… profusely.

    Essentially he’s saying we should put aside creative thinking, and just lazily pander to an audience that can never be satisfied by race-changing characters just for the sake of being politically correctness.

    This is why we can’t have nice things. lol

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s