Nadira wrote:

warlocc wrote:

In a world where "diversity" means "exclude straight white males", we wind up with threads like this, and arguing over nonsense...

Feeling prosecuted doesn't make you so.

Even now with the 'influx' of female led action(ish) movies the standard is still very much male.

The new star wars episodes? Female led but the dashing action hero is very much straight white and male (yes, I know technically the actor is technically latino but that's still white and his ethnic background is downplayed as much as possible in the cinematography. There also is a vague hint at a Poe-Flynn bromance that would be hilarious if the dudebros had picked up on it and gotten all apoplectic about instead of it realising it was a poorly executed attempt to show they are best buds and market test the possibility of the two together in a road movie style spin off)

Rogue one? Again, female led, but the cast, and in particularly the action oriented crew is predominantly straight white and male (though less jarringly so than the original trilogy)

Then entire marvel universe is straight white and male and remains so on the movie screen. There's a smurfette and the obligatory love interest here and there (and hamfisted attempts to turn the smurfette into a love interest), but there is no risk any time soon that female characters are going to take over the shows.

Same I might add is true for the DC movies, even with Wonder Woman and her successfull movie. Of the extensive cast there is one character, and a side character who hardly gets any screen time at that, who is not straight, white and male.

The entire human cast of the transformers franchise (granted, I am not at all familiar with that series so I have to go with hearsay and promotional pictures. Plus I am not sure those really counts as movies), all straight white and male except for the token pretty female love interest.

So, yes, the publishers are deliberately applying rule one of gender and minority sensitive writing in a cynical ploy to appeal to the 85% of the population their product was actively scaring away. And those handful of high profile gender or race swaps are still a tiny drop in the tens of thousands of generic, boring, straight white lantern jaws.

Male white protagonist is still the norm for over half the games published and the only thing you will see in marketing for about 95% of the games. (with 40% of the games offering a choice to play either and only a pathetic 10% of the games, at best, having a non straight white male as the only playable character.

If you want to argue that straight white male characters are being excluded from movies, games and comics you will have to come up with a lot better statistics than I think you will be able to.
And while you're at it, also try to come up with arguments why this non-existent exclusion is a bad thing exactly. In my opinion the story about the female Thor kept faithful to the mythos and was intersting both in her overcoming the big bad of the arc and in her trying to get accepted in her own right as both capable and deserving of the title. A muslim ms Marvel is interesting for similar reasons. It gives us more than the standard superhero story, as it adds the story of a teenage girl trying to reconcile her superpowers, her family, culture and religion and the gender expectations that come with both being a girl and a superheroine in America.

It doesn't mean that all characters should be non straight, white and male, but we are very far indeed still from the saturation point, and afer ten millennia of hearing only the straigh male story (the white part is one two and a half millennia old), it can only be beneficial to learn through stories that this is, indeed just another minority among the near infinite variety of humanity.

What does any of that have to do with what I said? Again, proving my point that we argue nonsense these days.

Project_Hero wrote:

Brand X wrote:

Huckleberry wrote:

I still doubt you. Just because you say it is so, does not make me believe it. Perhaps we just travel in different circles.

Could just as easily be misunderstandings.

You undressing her with your eyes?
No. Just curious what she's into.
Well, she thinks you're undressing her with her eyes. So stop it.
What? That's only for 9 and 10s, she's clearly a 4. Time to see if she's really a fan!

And thus began the misunderstandings! \o/

Wow, that's terrible on multiple levels.

Well, the it's meant to be a terrible joke on both parties. The first for assuming someone is trying to undress them with their eyes (especially considering, it's not as if it's just one gender doing it), instead of just being curious what their interested in reading.

The second part is clearly a jab at egos. Why assume they're undressing you with their eyes? Are you that good looking? Do you think people just do that to just anyone? Do you think they don't have standards? I mean seriously, the ones getting called out for undressing people with their eyes, are likely the ones getting called out for only wanting super models. So, jab at ego :p

warlocc wrote:

Nadira wrote:

warlocc wrote:

What does any of that have to do with what I said? Again, proving my point that we argue nonsense these days.

In that case, chalk me down as another person who doesn't understand what you are trying to say.

Would you mind expanding your first one liner so we might learn?

What I'm saying is, we have a segment of the population redefining what words mean, and rational debate turns into irrational arguments because of it.
Diversity is a good thing and the media could use more of it. Especially Hollywood. But the word means, and I quote- "a range of different things", not "everything except the thing I don't like", which is how it's too often used today.

You mean like how things are "Too Political" just means "Contains politics I don't agree with"?

And I have never seen Diversity used in such a fashion. Something doesn't need to contain a white man in it to be considered diverse because, news flash, white men are over abundant in everything else. A diverse selection of cheeses doesn't need to contain any of those fake cheese slices, or cheese wiz.

Diverse means "a range of different things" and not "contains everything."

warlocc wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

You mean like how things are "Too Political" just means "Contains politics I don't agree with"?

And I have never seen Diversity used in such a fashion. Something doesn't need to contain a white man in it to be considered diverse because, news flash, white men are over abundant in everything else. A diverse selection of cheeses doesn't need to contain any of those fake cheese slices, or cheese wiz.

Diverse means "a range of different things" and not "contains everything."

Why so confrontational? Still proving my point.

Project_Hero wrote:

You mean like how things are "Too Political" just means "Contains politics I don't agree with"?

Sure, that's a fair example, I'm sure someone has used it that way.

Project_Hero wrote:

And I have never seen Diversity used in such a fashion.

I have. Very recently, while they were politicizing a popular movie.

Project_Hero wrote:

Something doesn't need to contain a white man in it to be considered diverse because, news flash, white men are over abundant in everything else.

I didn't say they need to, just that deliberately excluding people you don't like, be they white, black, purple, or green, is just as bad as having no diversity at all.

When we try to balance a thing out, we have to be careful not to swing the pendulum too far.

By "politicizing a new movie" do you mean "having politics I don't agree with"?

Because every movie can be viewed as being political. Art is a statement, always. Even art that tries to not make a statement is making a statement. Every artist infuses their work with their politics.

Brand X wrote:

I'd say it goes back to being akin to "well, I want realism in my movies...unless it's a diversity issue, then we can throw that out the window, because I need such and such minority groups to be played as if they're everywhere. Unless it's throwing white men into a non white men dominated movie, then I'm just upset (ie...The Wall upseting people with Matt Damon in it :p As if they would've watched it without Matt in it).

In case you haven't noticed the world is pretty diverse. Anything set in a modern setting should be diverse. If not the main characters then secondary or tertiary characters.

I can't really think of a movie where "realism" takes a back seat to diversity. Even in medieval Europe there were people of color around. Rare, possibly, but they existed. Possibly if a movie was about Vikings and they never really left home, then maybe you can justify an all white cast? But I'd need some historian to verify that the Vikings never say, took any people of color back home, either as slaves or what have you.

Brand X wrote:

You just had to find justification. :p

However, let's go with some of those.

Black actor cast in a viking movie to be...a slave. Yeah. That would go over well today. :p

Let's go with that area...I know it's not the exact area...but England. Where the population is 3% black. That's 3 out of 100 people. But the call diversity doesn't want it to be 3 out of 100. They want it to be half the cast. Why isn't there any Mexican's in that movie taking place in England? Racist against Mexican's now? Also, they should be the main or one of the main characters, not just a background character.

The call for diversity!

They complain about a non asian playing the part of an asian made character in Ghost in the Shell, but when a non asian but Cuban. Nevermind she still looks white. Death Note? Yeah. No complaints about non asians there.

At that point, I just wonder if people hated Scarlet. :p

It's a continuous trend in the movie industry to pass on people of color to cast white people.

Sure, 3% so then why couldn't a movie set in England have black characters? Iirc there's quite a few in London, and many others of other ethnicities. When I lived there even out in small towns they had people of color, and quite a few of them. So, yeah, diversity.

I have no idea what this means "but when a non asian but Cuban"

And yes, the part Scarlet Johansson played could have and probably should have been given to an Asian actress. Which Death Note are you talking about, iirc there were two live action Japanese productions, and the Netflix one. And the Netflix one did get accused of white washing, and probably had a bunch of people complaining about them casting a black actor. But if I remember correctly they had changed the setting of that to America, didn't they? So in my opinion the changes are fine and make sense for the setting. But the whole movie was apparently not very good so there's that.

No one's going to complain that there's no mexicans in a British made or set movie. They will complain that there's no black people, or Indians, or the plethora of other people's that inhabit the island, especially if it's set in London or other large city.

Brand X wrote:

Well, I said England as UK. But you're missing the point. Because the complaints are often not about "Well, what would we see" and all about "What are we not seeing"

The idea isn't that there isn't non whites in areas. It's that it's not as many as people always think. Hell, I live in a city where it's basically half white half mexican with less than 1% of anything else. Which was a bit of a culture shock coming from and growing up in San Diego.

Rosa Salazar (looks white...is Cuban) is playing Alita. While I've recently found one article complaining, in general, no where near the level of Scarlet playing Major.

Netflix Death Note, I did not see complaints on the black actor. However, I like how you then have to excuse it as "Well, they moved it."

Here's another complaint coming from those crying for diversity. Black actress cast to play a black character in a live action adaption (JEM) and they complained they didn't cast someone blacker. Which I feel goes to show, those who cry about more diversity can't make up their mind. Those complaining about diversity, complained about white washing a white actor playing a white character (Iron Fist). Also recently, complaints that not every show and movie isn't representing the trans community (the community that makes up less than .5% of the population of the US :p).

Those who complained about Scarlet not being Japanese, couldn't even name a Japanese female actress with any acting ability and name recognition by the way. :p Often, after saying "Japanese actress!" going with someone who's Japanese and also, older and not as well known.

Which goes back to part of the She-Ra. "It's not the unrealistic woman physique!" Which, where do we often hear about the unreal body type most often? Women magazines! Written and directed by women! "How to get the perfect beach body!"

I'm usually more of the idea "Why not just cast who's best for the part or help sell tickets"

She-Ra. Why did they remake She-Ra? Why not make a new show with different characters? Well obviously it's because they want to get in the old fans, since they want to use an old IP instead of making their own. So, why complain about the complaints? They knew the complaints would be coming. They had no faith in their idea using original characters.

Movies/shows tend to show a very small slice of life, why shouldn't the slice that they show be diverse? They exist, so movies should show that. Instead of creating some sort of fictional white supremacist vision where people of color can be ignored.

I know pretty much nothing about either the Ghost in the Shell movie nor the Netflix Deathnote. I said that them moving the setting to America was a good move, as was changing the names of the characters. So you don't have a white guy trying to pass themselves off as Light Yagami, he was Light Turner instead. It would have been better if they took the basic premise and fully Americanized it, then it would have been more or less their own thing. But what can you do.

The iron fist issue was more that they had an old, played out and antiquated, trope that they could have fixed and put an interesting spin on the character. They chose instead to cast a guy with no martial arts background. They could have changed anything and everything about Iron Fist because nothing about Iron Fist matters. Because no one cares about Iron Fist.

It's telling that no Japanese female actress could be named nor do many/any have name recognition. This movie could have been used to get one of those actresses name recognition and have them become a household name. Instead they just cast a white person. This is the problem. How are non white actors going to become a big name actor when any parts they could play get given to white people?

The woman's magazine point is likely far more complex than you are presenting it. I don't have the knowledge on the subject to go into it.

Several plays have cast who they thought were best for the role. And white people complained. See black Hermione Granger, and there was another more recent one that I learned of but now don't remember, and my google Fu is failing me. Also when studios do that they're often lambasted (by white people usually men) for trying to be too PC, or being diverse for diversities sake. Or some other racist dog whistle.

The creator of new She-Ra has a successful award winning children's comic book series called Lumberjanes. So, she did make her own thing before. It's possible she was picked up to do She-Ra because the company who owns the rights needed to do something with them, or possibly she was a fan of She-Ra and approached the IP holder with a show pitch. Judging from her twitter she is a fan of the previous show. Oh she has another book too, Nimona. And they're getting a crap ton of support and fan art. All of it is super good.

Why should every show be diverse, if not all groups in life aren't diverse? I'm not actually against diversity. I just hate it being forced on things. "This movie didn't have the diversity I wanted! Make it happen!" Is not what I care for :p I prefer this "This movie doesn't have the diversity I wanted. Guess I won't watch it."

We don't get the second, which is why I not for the complaining for it :p

What's telling about the Japanese female actress is actually simple math. Asian population of the US is 5.6% Japanese population of the US is .4% Now, out of that .4% figure half is female. Now out of that .2% of the population (roughly 650,000 people) how many even want to be an actress? Out of those that want to be an actress how many fell into the age range of what is likely mid 20's to mid 30's? How many of those in that age range could actually act? Numbers keep going down.

Now assume there's someone who fits that mark. What happens next? She gets the part of course! Then everyone is wondering why she's always getting the part and not giving it to another, when the pool to grab it from was already small.

Simple math.

No. Instead they decided to keep to the source material. Danny Rand is a white guy martial artist. Goes back to the same people complaining about changing things from one source material but complaining about not changing another source material.

Maybe instead of changing the character Iron Fist, they should have been saying, make a Gen-13 show (diverse cast there), Armor centered show X-Men series, Sunfire centered show maybe, or even Jubilee! Would love a Gen-13 or Jubilee show myself O.O

The women's magazine point is actually fairly simple. It's not men pointing to a celebrity and saying "How to look this sexy!"

Black Hermoine Granger is back to the source material. Granger was white. Yes, JK likes to say "Well, I never stated her race in the books." she did however okay all the cover art. She agreed with Emma to be cast. That all came about because of JK herself really. Though, personally, I'm of the thought, the play wasn't connected to the movies.

However, the drive to force diversity is going to cause some backlash when they feel it's done to be forced.

Lumberjanes. Never heard of it *goes and googles* Seems to be successful enough to be having a film adaption made, though with Disney buying, I wonder if it will still happen. Still goes back to, work on an original IP instead of banking on the original fans, which is the point of rebooting old IPs, and crying when they're not liking what they see at first.

Reboots don't bank on the old fans. It's to bring the show to new fans. If it was for the old fans it would be either a continuation of the show would have "grown up" with the audience. See Samurai Jack and Avatar the last Airbender to legend of Korra.

Last Airbender featured a 12 year old kid who aged up during the show, and was aimed at younger kids. It's follow-up legend of Korra stared an older character (around 16 I believe) and was aimed at young teens.

Transformers Animated was not aimed at pre-existing fans of the original G1 series, though it did have many nods and references to that series.

Reboots are and always will be for new fans. You can tell by the fact that anyone who decides to do a reboot gets a load of angry fans claiming that rebooting such a thing "is ruining their childhood."

Now on to the other points.

Because a movie can be an idealized version of a world. If there is no good reason a movie shouldn't be diverse, it should be. The range of that diversity can vary based on movie.

650,000 people is a lot of people. Now how many would become actors or actresses if given the chance? How many do you think don't follow their dream because they're told that there isn't a future in it for them? How many go somewhere else to be an actor or actress?

Iron Fist's source material doesn't matter because Iron Fist doesn't matter.

People can and likely have, done both.

The point you are trying to make may be simple, but the topic of it is complex. There are reasons that women's magazines are like that.

I thought that "the best person for the role should be cast?" Or does that only work when it's a white person getting the role of a minority actor and not the other way around? So what if it conflicts a little with the source material? Usually a character being white has no real impact on a character. For example there is no reason James Bond needs to be white. He needs to be suave and English but he doesn't need to be white.

The world is diverse, and people want to see their people in movies and shows. There's enough space for everyone. I'd rather see less angry white guy action movies, honestly.

Project_Hero wrote:

Movies/shows tend to show a very small slice of life, why shouldn't the slice that they show be diverse? They exist, so movies should show that. Instead of creating some sort of fictional white supremacist vision where people of color can be ignored.

Really? If there's no diversity, it's fictional and white supremacist?

Actually, 5 out of 300 movies is considered a ton by hollywood, as that's what we hear about super hero movies "It's all super hero movies now!" :p

Girls can have thick arms/shoulders too.

Honestly you seem to have a very narrow view of how women should look, Lothic.

Her proportions are fine. I don't see this "uncanny valley" you describe. It's not as if her legs are especially thin, her waist is wider than her head (the same can't be said for some comic book art), and her arms aren't super thick or defined.

It's not like she's walking around with Spongebob style Anchor arms.

She looks like a young athletic girl.

Lothic wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

Her proportions are fine. I don't see this "uncanny valley" you describe. It's not as if her legs are especially thin, her waist is wider than her head (the same can't be said for some comic book art), and her arms aren't super thick or defined.

It's not like she's walking around with Spongebob style Anchor arms.

She looks like a young athletic girl.

Perhaps I should have said this a couple of hundred posts ago but I think we're just going to have to "agree to disagree" on this one...

I'll summarize by saying that while most of the "Internet flak" about this new She-Ra is clearly based on people claiming that she's not "sexy" enough I'm willing to stand apart from those people and say it's not a question of "sexiness" as much as it's simply about crappy disproportional artwork. Again I wish the "official" artwork could have been done by one of those fan artists you found.

Some of the fan art on her Twitter was done by the crew, not sure if any of the images I shared were.

Possibly you'll like how it looks in motion more than stills.

Nadira wrote:

warlocc wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

Movies/shows tend to show a very small slice of life, why shouldn't the slice that they show be diverse? They exist, so movies should show that. Instead of creating some sort of fictional white supremacist vision where people of color can be ignored.

Really? If there's no diversity, it's fictional and white supremacist?

You're being hyperbolic here.

I didn't say it, he did. I merely called it out because throwing out labels like 'white supremacist' over crappy make believe Hollywood movies minimizes the real problem that white supremacists actually are.

Nadira wrote:

It only makes it potentially problematic.
If a story is set in, say, an american football team, ancient Greece or the frontlines of WW2, then having an almost exclusively male cast is to be expected. (an almost exclusively white cast would not be in the first case but could be in the last two).
However, a story in a modern day office setting should expect to have a more diverse cast, simply because the office is not exclusive white and male (at least not since the 1950s of the mad men).

The bigger, but more hidden, problem of course is that even if the cast is more diverse the protagonists (who drive the action and provide the motivation for the story) still tend to be white, straight and male. /THIS/ is what is currently being challenged by a (small) number of high profile movies.

And I challenge the claim that is central to your complaint, namely that white men are being written out of movies entirely (or even largely)
Looking over the movies that were released in the past couple of months I see few that are not dominated by white straight men, and few that are at risk of accidentally passing the Bechdel test (which is really the lowest possible bar for having female representation in a movie)

That wasn't my complaint at all. My complaint was that words are being misused and people are too hostile in discussions. I provided an example and Project_Hero provided a second one.
That we argued my example is off topic, really.

When they made Bridesmaids, all female cast, no one spouted off about agenda.

When they made Ghostbusters all female and spouted off Girl Power and suck it original Ghostbusters and Ghostbuster fans, it was considered a feminist agenda.

Ocean's 8 was close to the same as Ghostbusters, but really, it didn't have the backlash of Ghostbusters at all. Instead people just went "Why?" To me, I thought, "Why not?" However, the part that failed Ocean's 8 and for sure made it out as an agenda movie, was them blaming white male critics for not giving it a higher RT score and white males (who the movie was not made for, as per the comments made by those in the movie) not showing up to watch it.

Infact, whenever a movie fails that doesn't seemed to be made for white males, they blame white males and not the fact, that those who the movie was made for, didn't show up. White males make up roughly 36% of the population (and that includes white hispanics...so talk about racism in statistics there :p) but females make up just over 50% of the population.

So Ocean's 8 really should've said, "Ocean's 8 failed because women didn't show up to the movie" as it was made for women.

However, notice white males showed up to Wonder Woman, Black Panther and Get Out. White males show up to movies that have female leads and non white male leads. It's only when a movie bombs or gets bad reviews or doesn't sell enough dvds, do they blame that roughly 36% of the population.

They did a Groomsmen movie. The Hangover.

I mean that's basically a male version of bridesmaids, right?

Project_Hero wrote:

They did a Groomsmen movie. The Hangover.

I mean that's basically a male version of bridesmaids, right?

That's what Bridesmaid was. Hangover with female cast. No one got upset. Doesn't matter if it's in the title. Since it did well on it's Box Office vs Production Cost.

Of course, Ocean's 8 did well on BO vs PC too, but they still blamed white males for it not doing as well as they wanted.

I remember the comments of Bridesmaid capitalizing on The Hangover with an all female cast. I don't recall any backlash for it.

Of course, The Hangover wasn't an older movie franchise.

Lothic wrote:

Brand X wrote:

I remember the comments of Bridesmaid capitalizing on The Hangover with an all female cast. I don't recall any backlash for it.

Of course, The Hangover wasn't an older movie franchise.

Well as I just pointed out a few posts ago The Hangover did technically pre-date Bridesmaids by a couple of years (June 2009 vs. May 2011). But it's true the Hangover II (May 2011) and Hangover III (May 2013) movies hadn't technically established it as a "franchise" yet.

Still I suspect that most of the reason Bridemaids likely didn't get much "why the heck would they make an all-female cast version of that!" backlash was because culturally speaking people already [b]know and accept[/b] the concept of a group of women being a bunch of bridesmaids. It wasn't something that Hollywood had to "make up" in order to justify it. On the other hand doing an all-female Ghostbusters was clearly a "gimmick" somebody though of that had no real rationale or basis for being made. It was purely a "constructed" movie and I think most of the flak it received was based on it being a "made that way on purpose" situation.

They probably thought that having just another all male group of Ghostbusters as a reboot wouldn't be enough for public interest.

Let's wait another like, what, 20 years? And we'll probably see them try to reboot it again with a mixed cast.

Huh. The 2016 Ghostbusters movie actually did pretty well critically if Rotten Tomatoes is to be believed. 74% critically and 51% audience which is surprising as I'd expect a lot of people to review bomb the thing. All in all for all the flack people give it it's just an average movie that people will likely forget about in a few years and go "Oh, yeah, that was a thing wasn't it?"

Such is the fate of all mediocre reboots.

Not being anything more than a casual fan of Star Trek, I liked the new movies. Well, the first and third one.

But they definitely reminded me more of Star Wars than Star Trek.

Project_Hero wrote:

Not being anything more than a casual fan of Star Trek, I liked the new movies. Well, the first and third one.

But they definitely reminded me more of Star Wars than Star Trek.

I liked it [I]because[/I] it was more like Star Wars. But I’m a Star Wars guy. ;)

Also, Into Darkness reminded me of Mass Effect in some parts (technology-wise) so it had that bonus.

Those films skirted Star Trek canon by happening in an alternate timeline/reality.

Brand X wrote:

I went to Ghostbusters, expecting better. In the end, I reviewed it as "Did you like RIPD? Then you should like Ghostbusters."

Though I didn't care for the total lack of there ever being the previous Ghostbusters :/

Honestly it's better that way, then it's not a sequel or a sort of pseudo sequel reboot thing (like Superman returns) not tying it to the originals in anything but name is a good move as then it does nothing to the originals.

Treat it as an alternate universe. Like a Marvel what if, or DC Elseworlds.

Not like you can't do that if it was a sequel, but as far as nerd stuff goes Ghostbusters 2016 is a seperate canon from the original movies.

Same as most transformers cartons are their own seperate canon.

If you like a reboot, cool, if you don't you can just ignore it and enjoy the version you do like.

Edit: Most of this isn't directed at you specifically, Brand, just used your post as a sort of jumping on point.

Superman returns being a weird pseudo sequel I think weakened it. If it was just a straight up reboot it might have done better.

Yeah, the super feats (or at least what I remember of them) were pretty cool.

I love love LOVE the rebooted Khan! That felt like a true super soldier that I never got from the original Khan.

In fact, the only thing I really didn't like on the second ST movie, was Zachary yelling KHAN, which did not sound as awesome as William yelling Khan. Also, I didn't care for Pine's delivery of the death lines. To dragged out. The whole, I'm scared and such. I feel it would've played out better, if they had just left it to Leonard's lines from Wrath of Khan.

Kirk: Is the crew *dying pause* safe?
Spock: Yes Captain.
Kirk: Jim, Spock.
Spock: Captain?
Kirk: Friends call each other by their names, Spock, and you have been and always will be, my friend. *dies*
Spock: KHAAAAAAN!

There we go!

Now, obviously, they haven't been friends as long as they were in Wrath of Khan, but I feel it would work. :)

Player2 wrote:

Nadira wrote:

Then entire marvel universe is straight white and male and remains so on the movie screen.

I know it's a drop in the bucket, but Black Panther would disagree with you.

Not to mention...

War Machine. Falcon. Nick Fury. Black Widow. Maria Hill. Scarlet Witch. Gamora. Hemdall. Valkyrie. Groot. Mantis. Wasp. Drax. Hogun. Sif.

So, there's a list of just heroes I could think of for the MCU that are played by, or in the case of Groot, voiced, by those who are not white males.

Brand X wrote:

Player2 wrote:

Nadira wrote:

Then entire marvel universe is straight white and male and remains so on the movie screen.

I know it's a drop in the bucket, but Black Panther would disagree with you.

Not to mention...

War Machine. Falcon. Nick Fury. Black Widow. Maria Hill. Scarlet Witch. Gamora. Hemdall. Valkyrie. Groot. Mantis. Wasp. Drax. Hogun. Sif.

So, there's a list of just heroes I could think of for the MCU that are played by, or in the case of Groot, voiced, by those who are not white males.

The difference is that none of those characters had their own dedicated film. Black Widow was slated to get her own movie but that got shelved.

If you branch out to TV in the MCU, you can include Luke Cage and Jessica Jones who have their own successful series (2 seasons each so far).

[img]https://img00.deviantart.net/b47f/i/2018/226/d/5/ccc_119_collab_by_fooray-dck5vwq.jpg[/img]

Updated she ra that is both super athletic... and an actual girl.

thats the point of my post... its the new costume, but looks like a girl instead of a boy in drag.

Pretty sure that's He-Man in the background.

You can see he gave her a slight chest bump for breasts. Truthfully, as I looked at it when Fooray posted it (I follow the artist on DA...one of my fave commissions came from him :) ) I thought it gave some mixture of masculine and feminine and really heavy on that eyebrow.