• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

THR: JJ Abrams' Superman Won't Be Part of the DCEU Universe, Will Feature a Black Kal-El

Jun 13, 2018
385
790
480
Blow me. This isn't Hollywood making an earnest attempt to create new stories that appeal to black audiences. It's Hollywood milking an audience that they know will pay for their shit movies, no matter how bad they are. It's modern day blaxploitation. Wake up.
Are you black? Or are you just an offended white dude mad you're not being pandered too?

Blaxploitation is clearly not a term or genre you know or understand.

You're also not clever for realizing that yes a profit-driven industry is creating a product to sell and realizes that thanks to things like Black Panther there's a sizable market it can make movies for. That's capitalism. And if anything in this primary example its not "blaxploitation" because this will be a high budget major product aimed at everyone. You're just mad that it means making a product that isn't solely aimed at you. So you need to frame it as if those "blacks" are idiots and that of course anything aimed at them is some cynical thing of lower quality. Like why does it automatically have to be a shit movie? Why can't it be an earnest movie? And why do you think the "blacks" will just eat it up. You seem to imply the "blacks" eat up Black Panther because it was a black movie and it would have done it regardless of its quality. As if it must be a bad movie. Maybe the "blacks" don't agree with you. Most people don't agree with you.

Sorry, but thanks for your bitter tears.
 
Last edited:

Hatemachine

Banned
Mar 7, 2021
297
583
455
Are you black? Or are you just an offended white dude mad you're not being pandered too?
You sure seem fixated on identity politics

Blaxploitation is clearly not a term or genre you know or understand.
lol

You're also not clever for realizing that yes a profit-driven industry is creating a product to sell and realizes that thanks to things like Black Panther there's a sizable market it can make movies for. That's capitalism. And if anything in this primary example its not "blaxploitation" because this will be a high budget major product aimed at everyone.
Well you're right that it fits under the banner of capitalism. No one is arguing that the studio doesn't have the right to make the film, and my original point is that it's going to make a shitload of money. Having a larger budget doesn't nullify the idea of blaxploitation though, it just means there are higher stakes.

You're just mad that it means making a product that isn't solely aimed at you.

If I'm mad about anything, it's that DC ditched the Snyderverse, which had a fantastic and diverse cast to begin with.

So you need to frame it as if those "blacks" are idiots and that of course anything aimed at them is some cynical thing of lower quality. Like why does it automatically have to be a shit movie? Why can't it be an earnest movie? And why do you think the "blacks" will just eat it up.

They're certainly not idiots. Quite the opposite. The black community turns up in strength to support content that is oriented towards them, and the bean counters in Hollywood take note of it, which has now led to Hollywood making bigger investments towards them in films such as Black Panther and black Superman.

Madea Goes to Jail
IMDB: 4.5/10
Budget: $17.5M
Box Office: $90.5M

Norbit
IMDB: 4.1/10
Budget: $60M
Box Office: $159.3M

Daddy Day Care:
IMDB: 5.6/10
Budget: $60M
Box OIffice: $164.4M


Hollywood ran a similar experiment a few years back with "Crazy Rich Asians" which worked out spectacularly for them. We would have the sequel already if production on everything didn't get shut down for COVID. Perhaps the future of the industry is more content oriented towards specific racial demographics? Sounds like progress. Maybe we can eventually get to the point where we have the same movie but acted by different ethnic casts released simultaneously.

You seem to imply the "blacks" eat up Black Panther because it was a black movie and it would have done it regardless of its quality. As if it must be a bad movie.
It was thoroughly mediocre.

Maybe the "blacks" don't agree with you. Most people don't agree with you.
Good thing this is the internet and we all have freedom of expression.

Sorry, but thanks for your bitter tears.
lol
 

Madonis

Member
Oct 21, 2018
1,588
1,209
365
There are multiple "Black Superman" characters in the comics who could be used for this (including Steel), but it seems they're not doing that.

Instead, it sound like they're too cowardly and will just create a Black Clark Kent. Which is the least interesting option by far.

It's like creating a Black Hal Jordan as Green Lantern instead of using John Stewart, who already exists and has his own characterization.

I'm all for diversity in terms of using new characters or existing ones, but not for mere "race-swapping" and keep everything else the same.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Shaqazooloo
Jun 13, 2018
385
790
480
You sure seem fixated on identity politics
Um....that's rich considering you are the person who said "unfortunate the blacks will watch this movie" implying that black people would feel obligated to see a movie because it has a black lead. So it's pretty dumb to play this card when that's you started off. Do you even understand what you are saying?

But the answer is that you clearly are not, so it's funny that you are so concerned that you call the "blacks" watch or don't watch? If you are so above identity politics why do you care? I mean I know why, but tell us. Why do you assume to have insight in this monolith group you have described and seemingly have a concern of what they watch?

Ok? I'm waiting to see what you think it is, because your logic seems to be " movies made for black people equals exploiting" which btw no one would use that word to describe a movie that is not going for that genre rooted in 70s film. Blaxeplotion is more a genre now then anything and even then it was in fact use to describe specific movies. So you are using it incorrectly and also very stupidly. A high budget Superhero movie with a black lead that will be aimed at everyone is not going to be a "blaxeplotion movie" unless we follow your logic in that movie with a black lead and welcoming to black audiences=blaxeplotion, which is incredibly stupid and also well pretty funny logic for the person above "identity politics".

They're certainly not idiots. Quite the opposite. The black community turns up in strength to support content that is oriented towards them, and the bean counters in Hollywood take note of it, which has now led to Hollywood making bigger investments towards them in films such as Black Panther and black Superman.
Yes and? You really haven't put forth an argument as to why this is bad and "unfortunate". Why are you so concerned with a black lead Superman? Why would it be unfortunate if it was made and it did well? Why do you automatically assume it would be bad? Why the concern?

It was thoroughly mediocre.
Yes I agree and? Doesn't change the fact that the consensus is it was a good movie and yes African American audiences responded well to it. You and I don't get to decide what's bad for other people and if people would like more media of something they liked, that's not an unfortunate thing. Again, I'm confused as to why you have such a problem here.

If I'm mad about anything, it's that DC ditched the Snyderverse, which had a fantastic and diverse cast to begin with.
Which is happening regardless of this movie. So again why do you care that they are taking Superman in a direction that may appease audiences that you don't identify with? Why do you think it's such a terrible thing that they would do that? Especially when they've had decades of other types of Superman version. What is the big deal?
 
  • Love
Reactions: sol_bad

highrider

Member
Dec 18, 2010
11,815
7,074
1,175
54
washington d.c.
Ehh, I don’t care really I’m not invested in any of the characters across marvel or DC, but I enjoyed Man of Steel, I’ll take some more of that. As far as a black Superman I fully expect studios to jump at low hanging virtue fruits.
 

Shubh_C63

Member
Dec 6, 2016
1,022
799
420
India
I am fine with everything at this point. Kinda pissed because how the idea of Black Superman came because its trending! thing, but a salesperson job is to sell right. Who am I to disagree on what people want.

Good thing they treat it as a standalone thing which they can very well reference in later if it hit the right notes. I thought origin of Joker standalone movie would had been a disaster as they won't do this character justice but I was dead wrong. I am excited for this actually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rayven_king

Clear

Member
Feb 2, 2009
13,179
8,758
1,365
I kinda came here to post that. Though he has better clips from this podcast of his. Youngrippa hits the nail on the head with this stuff. The clip below I feel is the real meat and potatoes of this.


For those that defend WB in this instance... please watch the Youngrippa videos.

This is so on point.

I'd also add to clarify why I made the Blacula comparison.

Blaxploitation in the 70's was largely* a product of white people aiming product at black urban audiences. Which you can take issue with, especially as the product was pretty basic, BUT, there can be no debate about whom the intended audience being served was. Blackness was front-and-centre in these movies.

Compare that to these modern releases: The difference between cape-movies and horror/trash is largely budgetary. This isn't high-brow stuff! Its still exploitation fodder at heart. The real difference comes at whom these pictures are intended to appeal to, because no its sure as shit not black folks!

It seems to me the core demographic is white liberals who get a little thrill about being able to signal their virtue for liking "black" characters, with general audiences drawn in by the pre-existing branding to fill out the numbers. Which is why as Youngrippa points out they co-opt traditionally white heroes and summarily ignore the many original black heroes in the comics.

Its blatantly dishonest and fucking RACIST.

*Obviously, black film makers like Melvin Van Peebles opened the door for this, but predominantly it became standard Hollywood bandwagon-jumping.
 

Hatemachine

Banned
Mar 7, 2021
297
583
455
Um....that's rich considering you are the person who said "unfortunate the blacks will watch this movie" implying that black people would feel obligated to see a movie because it has a black lead. So it's pretty dumb to play this card when that's you started off. Do you even understand what you are saying?

But the answer is that you clearly are not, so it's funny that you are so concerned that you call the "blacks" watch or don't watch? If you are so above identity politics why do you care? I mean I know why, but tell us. Why do you assume to have insight in this monolith group you have described and seemingly have a concern of what they watch?


Ok? I'm waiting to see what you think it is, because your logic seems to be " movies made for black people equals exploiting" which btw no one would use that word to describe a movie that is not going for that genre rooted in 70s film. Blaxeplotion is more a genre now then anything and even then it was in fact use to describe specific movies. So you are using it incorrectly and also very stupidly. A high budget Superhero movie with a black lead that will be aimed at everyone is not going to be a "blaxeplotion movie" unless we follow your logic in that movie with a black lead and welcoming to black audiences=blaxeplotion, which is incredibly stupid and also well pretty funny logic for the person above "identity politics".


Yes and? You really haven't put forth an argument as to why this is bad and "unfortunate". Why are you so concerned with a black lead Superman? Why would it be unfortunate if it was made and it did well? Why do you automatically assume it would be bad? Why the concern?


Yes I agree and? Doesn't change the fact that the consensus is it was a good movie and yes African American audiences responded well to it. You and I don't get to decide what's bad for other people and if people would like more media of something they liked, that's not an unfortunate thing. Again, I'm confused as to why you have such a problem here.


Which is happening regardless of this movie. So again why do you care that they are taking Superman in a direction that may appease audiences that you don't identify with? Why do you think it's such a terrible thing that they would do that? Especially when they've had decades of other types of Superman version. What is the big deal?
The issue - which I believed to be very self-evident but apparently I was wrong - is that Hollywood has identified that in the current climate it can create movies that pander to racial demographics, simultaneously get showered with money and praise by the woke audiences and cash in big time. This changes the conversation in Hollywood from, "how can we create a compelling movie that audiences will want to watch?" to "how can we leverage identity politics to get people into the theater?" Hollywood has been mostly creatively bankrupt for decades, as evidenced by the piles of unoriginal sequels and reboots. Hollywood realizing it can lean harder and harder on identity politics to sell its movies just further removes us from a space where Hollywood is forced to produce quality content in order to make money.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

FunkMiller

Member
Aug 14, 2014
8,098
25,215
990
Yes


Eh. The trades report so much about the going’s on at WB that don’t turn out to be true, so forgive me if I don’t trust that a John Stewart GL movie is happening until an official announcement direct from WB, preferably with director and actor also announced.
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
Jun 10, 2004
39,914
66,707
2,525
California
manabyte.com
Eh. The trades report so much about the going’s on at WB that don’t turn out to be true, so forgive me if I don’t trust that a John Stewart GL movie is happening until an official announcement direct from WB, preferably with director and actor also announced.
WB did announce it. They made a logo for it and everything. They announced it back before JL came out. Back then Johns was writing it and Tom Cruise was going to be Hal but he bailed because Hal died in the script.So it went into re-wites.

 

sol_bad

Member
Jan 17, 2006
6,869
4,980
1,730
The issue - which I believed to be very self-evident but apparently I was wrong - is that Hollywood has identified that in the current climate it can create movies that pander to racial demographics, simultaneously get showered with money and praise by the woke audiences and cash in big time. This changes the conversation in Hollywood from, "how can we create a compelling movie that audiences will want to watch?" to "how can we leverage identity politics to get people into the theater?" Hollywood has been mostly creatively bankrupt for decades, as evidenced by the piles of unoriginal sequels and reboots. Hollywood realizing it can lean harder and harder on identity politics to sell its movies just further removes us from a space where Hollywood is forced to produce quality content in order to make money.

Why does it have to be called "pandering"? It's OK to target films at different audiences.

Is a movie about gay characters "pandering" to gay people?
 

FunkMiller

Member
Aug 14, 2014
8,098
25,215
990
WB did announce it. They made a logo for it and everything. They announced it back before JL came out. Back then Johns was writing it and Tom Cruise was going to be Hal but he bailed because Hal died in the script.So it went into re-wites.


Dude, that was years ago! With everything that’s changed in the meantime, that’s not an announcement that means anything anymore. After the massive fuck up of the DCEU everything’s different. I’ll wait for a more recent confirmation before believing a John Stewart GL is happening.
 
Last edited:

ManaByte

Gold Member
Jun 10, 2004
39,914
66,707
2,525
California
manabyte.com
Dude, that was years ago! With everything that’s changed in the meantime, that’s not an announcement that means anything anymore. After the massive fuck up of the DCEU everything’s different. I’ll wait for a more recent confirmation before believing a John Stewart GL is happening.
It’s still coming, which is why the HBO Max series can’t use Hal or John.
 

Hatemachine

Banned
Mar 7, 2021
297
583
455
Why does it have to be called "pandering"? It's OK to target films at different audiences.

Is a movie about gay characters "pandering" to gay people?
You really need me to explain to you why black Superman is pandering to blacks? Take the night and think it over. If you're still struggling I'll explain it tomorrow.
 

sol_bad

Member
Jan 17, 2006
6,869
4,980
1,730
You really need me to explain to you why black Superman is pandering to blacks? Take the night and think it over. If you're still struggling I'll explain it tomorrow.

I don't need a night, please explain. Are the comics with black Krypton's also pandering?

Is this pandering because the character is black and a president?
 

Hatemachine

Banned
Mar 7, 2021
297
583
455
I don't need a night, please explain. Are the comics with black Krypton's also pandering?

Is this pandering because the character is black and a president?
It comes down to the intentions of the creator. Are they producing it because they think it's a great story that will appeal to an audience? Or are they producing it because they see it as an opportunity to suck money out of audience? In the case of race swapping Superman there's no question that it's the latter.