Captain Marvel

[P-90]

I mean that’s kind of a good explanation and kind of not.

On one hand, it’s true that it took until GotG’s success for Disney to really see that they can use obscure characters and as long as the story is good, people will go see it. And unfortunately given the racist and sexist history (and present) of comics, most of the non-white male heroes aren’t A-listers.

But on the other hand, 10 years tho? Like they felt like white Americans would be okay with a talking raccoon but not a superpower Black man? Lol I mean prior to 2008, Thor wasn’t that well known either (he never had a major cartoon in the last two decades), so they could have easily had Black Panther or Shang Chi or any number of other characters be their headliners at that time.

I honestly don't believe it's as 'black and white' as that (pun sort of intended), most white male characters in the comics are also not A-list, only a small handful of character, most of whom first appeared during the renaissance in the 60's (with a few notable exceptions such as Wolverine) became icons of the industry and when even movies based on them either bomb at the box office or are not received warmly by fans (Daredevil, the recent Fantastic Four etc.) then I completely understand movie companies not wanting to risk losing money on lesser known characters.

Let’s be clear: Iron man was a lesser known character prior to 2008 and they had no issue making a film about him.

The fact is that it was irrelevant what comic book fans liked or knew because these films were made to appeal to a much larger audience, so it doesn’t really matter about their history. And it’s a history that only someone who was straight up lying to themselves can’t see was much more racist, sexist and alot of things when compared to today. I mean no person is going to say 1962 socially is the same as today (first of all a Black man couldnt even legally marry a white woman in parts of the country lol). So it doesn’t matter who was created in the Silver Age (or Golden age) because the studios could have chosen any number of characters to create their franchise around. They themselves chose Iron Man, again outside of comics was not well know (same for Thor who didn’t even have a 90s cartoon as I said above). We’ll get to the argument about risk below.

I genuinely don't believe there is a culture of 'isms' in the comic book industry (not more than was the acceptable societal 'norm' in the past and definitely not today), nor do I believe that movie companies (who's first priority above all else is to make money) would put the kibosh on movies featuring black or female heroes if they truly believed they would be a success, they're too ruthless to make such decisions. Again I don't believe there's some conspiracy to keep black or female heroes out of movies just that the most well known icons the industry, those characters with literally generations of fans just happen to be predominantly straight white males.

If we’re talking about “conspiracy” like the Illuminati, then of course not. And it’s not as nefarious or over the top as you’re making it in an attempt to discredit my argument. But if we’re talking about groups of people plotting something then sure movie execs make decisions like that. Like you said, they would do what they think will succeed. And even though they keep getting “surprised” (Hollywood has a history of forgetting that Black people will support stuff about them and then be all “surprised” at the success of the films- see Get Out, Best Man holiday, Girls Trip, etc), execs do (or did) believe that minority led films would not be successful to larger white audiences and global ones. This isn’t some left-wing conspiracy, this is straight up things they’ve said before...feel free to google it.

And don’t say “just happen” as though it was something that arose naturally or by chance. It happened because of industry choices and practices that favored some groups of people over others. It was caused by discriminatory factors that disrupted actual free market forces (if execs were true free market folks they would have been capitalized on appealing to broader audiences). You can definitely argue it isn’t as true today but in the 1960s? Cmon now...

As for Thor, he's one of the most beloved and important members of the Avengers so if you're planning a franchise based on that team then it's a no-brainer to introduce him to the public at large (alongside Cap, Iron Man and Hulk)

But this isn’t the comics, this is a new film universe that could have been structured any way they chose. Last time I checked: Black widow wasn’t a founding Avenger but look at the films. Or conversely, why wasn’t Wasp in the film since comics matter so much? Lol...the fact that someone’s mind could grasp adding another white dude to the OG MCU Avengers lineup (Hawkeye) but not a Black dude (because it’s not “canon”) should kinda say something lol

And Thor was a non-factor to non-comic fans before the films (unless of course you remember the 80s classic: Adventures in babysitting)...so why is it less of a risk to make a film on him so early on than Black Panther or hell Rage or Night thrasher lol? I mean we saw that markets were cool with bad-ass Black dudes with attitudes lol

Not being American I can't speak for them but I don't believe they, or white people in general are as racist as you seem to believe, I've been an avid Marvel reader for well over twenty years and not once in all that time have I ever met anyone who was a fan or the comics/cartoons/movies that was a genuine racist.

The part you’re referring to was clearly a joke and was actually aimed poking fun at execs and what they think people will support. You’re placing some words in my mouth in that regars, I didn’t call anyone racist (or sexist). And I can almost guarantee based on this post that you’re idea of a geniune racist is prolly someone with a noose in their hand and spouting out super-harsh racist rhetoric on Gab while drawing Nazi iconography on a poster or something extreme like that..so we’ll agree to disagree on that one point, especially since it’s irrelevant to the conversation or the points I made. I just wanted to make sure my joke was clear.

1) I didn't say Iron Man was well known outside of the comic book or the cartoons just that if you're planning a movie franchise based on the Avengers then Iron Man is one of the most popular characters from that team and definitely one of the handful of characters that ha to be featured.

2) Discredit you? yeah no there's also no conspiracy against you (and I addressed my comment in an above post, it was sarcasm)

3) Movie execs may have stated that 'black' led projects wouldn't be successful to larger white audiences but that in of itself is not a prejudice and therefore 'racist' that's most likely will be backed up by numbers, whether it's 'morally right' or not making a movie about a specific group with a specific audience in mind will obviously be less well received by all others. That is true of all movie industries, they tailor there films to best suit there primary audience (usually the predominant group). Western based entertainment media (including Hollywood in the US) is based in nations that are predominantly white, of course there are going to be far more white people and white characters in our media, that's not in any way racist that's just the reality of the nations we live in. Also western media is by far the most diverse on the planet, no other industry even comes close, every other entertainment industry around the world caters almost solely to one racial group which is completely understandable given they are the majority in those nations. I really get angered by the fallacy that there is a some kind of inherent racism in western media.

4) Yeah again I in no way said the world wasn't more acceptably racist in the sixties, in every generation there are things that are deemed acceptable that aren't later, even as little as fifteen years ago some things that were acceptable aren't now.

5) The Avengers movie is based on the comics and Thor is one of the teams most popular characters (as are Cap, Iron Man and Hulk) and while of course they 'could' of had a black character I will never believe there was any racism behind the choice not to, that is frankly a laughable idea to me, if one day there's a memo leaked that proves me wrong then on that day I'll change my but until then, yeah nah! Why not Rage or any other black character? well why not all the other heroes that never made the cut, why not Hercules, Moon Knight, Wonder Man etc. why not work out a deal with FOX earlier and feature Spider-Man or Wolverine. There were many popular heroes who didn't get picked that us fans would love to see in live action.

6) Yeah don't assume you know what my view of a genuine racist is, I understand perfectly. I understand you may have had first hand experience with prejudice in the form of racism and I genuinely feel sorry for you if you have, I hate all discrimination (even 'positive' discrimination) but as I've stated before and above those people are not the 'norm' they are a minority that in no way represent the vast majority and the idea that they do is no more true or acceptable than the views they espouse.

For every racist white comic book fan you encounter remember there are literally millions out there who aren't. We've all suffered prejudice and discrimination in some form, it may not always be based on race or gender but that doesn't make it less wrong.

[P-90]

Do I think there was a consciously or aware racist element to why it look longer than many would have hoped to see a person of colour head up an MCU movie? Nah, not really. But I do think there's been social ignorance for want of a better word that didn't really appreciate the market demand for films featuring BAME characters, or maybe an uncertainess about how to feature and utilise BAME characters effectively.

I wouldn't want T'Challa to have been given the token Hawkeye role of a barely spotlighted founder member, as I think his personal story deserved more, even though BP isn't a fav character of mine and both Falcon and War Machine's are closely related to the mythos of Cap and Iron Man respectively, though I like their MCU interpretations to date, even with the actor swap for the latter.

Could they have featured a different BAME character in a central role? Perhaps, after all Cage was a big part of the New Avengers during the early years of the MCU, but I feel Luke's story in the MCU as told through the Netflix series has been (to me as a white Brit lol) a believable and enjoyable interpretation of the character, that tells more of a story than a single movie would have done.

I think more than anything is was commercial conservatism rather than anything, shown to be a massively incorrect appraisal of the market given BP's box office successes (even though to me it is not quantifiably "better" than other MCU origin movies).

This is exactly what I've been trying to say..
As you can probably tell I don't exactly have the necessary vocabulary or education to properly get my point across most of the time, what I actually write often tends to be taken in a different way to that which I intend and then I dig myself a further hole trying to correct myself.

As for BP I thought it was okay, that's it, to me the movie in of itself was a mediocre superhero movie with some iffy visuals. While I understand the significance some put on it rightly or wrongly I don't feel it was as good as the majority of the other MCU movies let alone 'the best movie ever'

[P-90]

Y’know, I was going to weigh in, but BC has it right and I don’t have the emotional energy to do this all over again.

Look, I know you and others on here have a certain view of me and the 'type' of person I am, but as I posted above I don't have the necessary education or vocabulary to adequately put my point across, what I post is very often misinterpreted and taken in a way in which it wasn't intended. Then I tend to drag myself further down into the pits of misunderstanding by trying to hastily correct myself, it rarely works. I don't expect you to change you mind about me I just ask that in the future you give me the benefit of the doubt and don't just dismiss me as a racist or sexist and therefore have nothing of value to say. I try to research an issue as thoroughly as I can before posting a comment on it, so often if I disagree with something it's not because of any type of 'ism' it's because I've either found it to be provably untrue or it's just not what I have personally experienced in over twenty years of being a Marvel comic book obsessive, often I just don't have the ability to explain how and why without is coming across negatively.

I might as well tell you the truth, I've suffered from paranoia and a severe anxiety disorder for roughly fifteen years and have only stepped outside my house a handful of times in over a decade (it would probably even out to about a couple of times a year) which is another reason why I'm so backwards when it comes to conversation. Marvel comics have been one of the few constants in my life since I was eleven years old and they are one of the things that I genuinely believe have kept me sane during my long difficulties, for me it's a similar passion to that wrestling fan who went viral 'it's still real to me damn it!', when I complain about things such as unnecessary retcons and replacing long established character with copies it's genuinely not based on any prejudices as it may seem (presumably based of the views of others you've met) it's because it's been such an important part of my life and I hate when the characters get messed with, it feels personal to me. And yes I know that's all pretty pathetic and in reality I shouldn't take it all so seriously but I do, I can't help it.

[Anna Raven]

No judging from me P90. Like I said I wasn't going to lump you into any groups. But it's one of the positive things about this community that we can have opinions and arguments, and yet we always do our best to not be mean to each other.

[Blackcyclops]

I’m just going to be honest, I don’t think you’re a bad person or racist or sexist...but I think it’s painfully naive to believe that there cannot be racist ideologies behind the decisions of a Hollywood exec (or that somehow Hollywood is clear of bias). This doesn’t mean a foaming at the mouth hatred of all non-whites, that’s probably (although hard to say, given what leaks out so very often) not it. But an underlying cultural idea that perceives as people of color in a particular light that diminishes their diversity and complexity? Oh hell yes!

This argument about “the majority of the country being white so it makes sense to have majority white characters” doesn’t hold water because A)if that was the case, then depictions on screen should accurately match the US population and USC (among others) yearly report shows that’s not true and B)presence alone doesn’t mean anything, when negatively or simplistically portrayals of non-white characters is the real issue (and thus my point about a Black hero led film). And that is still an issue Hollywood has...and that’s not even talking about how women are portrayed and non-binary people or the trans community.


The movies are not comics, so any character could have been made a founding Avenger. But they chose the team they chose and it was seen as normal and okay and the idea of putting someone non-white in there seems too crazy. That’s why I question those decisions and the fact you can’t see them just maybe means this argument will go nowhere because you aren’t American and can’t see the issues there. You bring up these other characters but it doesn’t refute my point but sidestep it. And I guess that’s just where we’ll have to leave it.

And I’m sorry if it felt like an attack but when you say “geniune” racist it feels like a distraction and diminishes the greater power of racist ideologies like white supremacy and how they impact thinking in a society.

[Spectral Knight]

The movies are not comics, so any character could have been made a founding Avenger. But they chose the team they chose and it was seen as normal and okay and the idea of putting someone non-white in there seems too crazy.

Gotta disagree on this with you a bit BC. Yeah, the movies are not a straight adaption of the comics canon, but equally, they are the basis and influence for the MCU canon. I think any BAME character that was chosen for the initial group would have needed a fairly established history of association with the team to build the new MCU canon from.

Unfortunately there's not been a huge amount of BAME characters who've been a long term member of the Avengers. BP, Falcon, War Machine (including Jim's tenure as Iron Man), Cage, and the Monica Rambeau CM stand out. Of those none (to me) work as a founding member of the team, or at least without not being introduced earlier. On the plus side, Sam L Jackson's Fury added diversity through adapting the ultimate comics version rather than the Caucasian Fury of 616.

Has it taken too long for a BAME character (or a woman led character for that matter) to head up a movie? Yup with you completely, whilst I liked Dr Strange, that could easily have shifted positions with BP with little reworking needed of either film and Thor 2 didn't really add enough to the MCU canon that it couldn't have been dropped for a Black Widow solo flick. Hindsight is a wonderful thing though.

To get the discussion more back on track towards Carol's movie, honestly haven't minded CM being pushed back though and I think from all the reports she'll be s complete badass... who might well have been over powered for the conflicts we've seen so far, but will allow her to be a massive force as the MCU canon continues to develop

[Milkshake08]

Not to ignore the discussion prior (because racism and sexism are huge parts of the American film industry and always have been, and is something studios are working on but not necessarily doing the best job because the positions of power already existing are hostile to certain groups), but I again find it amusing y'all liked this trailer better. I liked it, but the first was more inspiring. This one was more generic.

Cool to see that mohawk tho.

Also, I couldn't care less if they don't include the Mahr-vell. This is Carol's story, and it doesn't need to be a retread of the 70's version. She's literally the only Avenger I really like, so I'mall for them tweaking her history to make it more palatable for a modern audience, and frankly sell her to a bunch of people that are told frequently to get out of the comics/nerd world. It's coming up fast!

[P-90]

The movies are not comics, so any character could have been made a founding Avenger. But they chose the team they chose and it was seen as normal and okay and the idea of putting someone non-white in there seems too crazy.

Gotta disagree on this with you a bit BC. Yeah, the movies are not a straight adaption of the comics canon, but equally, they are the basis and influence for the MCU canon. I think any BAME character that was chosen for the initial group would have needed a fairly established history of association with the team to build the new MCU canon from.

Unfortunately there's not been a huge amount of BAME characters who've been a long term member of the Avengers. BP, Falcon, War Machine (including Jim's tenure as Iron Man), Cage, and the Monica Rambeau CM stand out. Of those none (to me) work as a founding member of the team, or at least without not being introduced earlier. On the plus side, Sam L Jackson's Fury added diversity through adapting the ultimate comics version rather than the Caucasian Fury of 616.

Has it taken too long for a BAME character (or a woman led character for that matter) to head up a movie? Yup with you completely, whilst I liked Dr Strange, that could easily have shifted positions with BP with little reworking needed of either film and Thor 2 didn't really add enough to the MCU canon that it couldn't have been dropped for a Black Widow solo flick. Hindsight is a wonderful thing though.

To get the discussion more back on track towards Carol's movie, honestly haven't minded CM being pushed back though and I think from all the reports she'll be s complete badass... who might well have been over powered for the conflicts we've seen so far, but will allow her to be a massive force as the MCU canon continues to develop

I think Carol should be powerful but I don't think she should be more powerful than Thor or Hulk (or even Doctor Strange though his is a different type of power)

[Spectral Knight]

All top tiers in the power rankings. Hulk's brute strength tops them all, but Carol's energy projection and flight speed makes her a completely different opponent. We've not really seen Thor's full power set on film (and probably won't ever) but I think he's the closest to Carol so far in terms of crazy physical strength, flight and blaster type attributes...but I think they'll push Carol as more of a blaster than a tank to reference old CoH types. Strange is completely different and very hard to compare. Plus he's dead...atm...LOL

[P-90]

I’m just going to be honest, I don’t think you’re a bad person or racist or sexist...but I think it’s painfully naive to believe that there cannot be racist ideologies behind the decisions of a Hollywood exec (or that somehow Hollywood is clear of bias). This doesn’t mean a foaming at the mouth hatred of all non-whites, that’s probably (although hard to say, given what leaks out so very often) not it. But an underlying cultural idea that perceives as people of color in a particular light that diminishes their diversity and complexity? Oh hell yes!

This argument about “the majority of the country being white so it makes sense to have majority white characters” doesn’t hold water because A)if that was the case, then depictions on screen should accurately match the US population and USC (among others) yearly report shows that’s not true and B)presence alone doesn’t mean anything, when negatively or simplistically portrayals of non-white characters is the real issue (and thus my point about a Black hero led film). And that is still an issue Hollywood has...and that’s not even talking about how women are portrayed and non-binary people or the trans community.


The movies are not comics, so any character could have been made a founding Avenger. But they chose the team they chose and it was seen as normal and okay and the idea of putting someone non-white in there seems too crazy. That’s why I question those decisions and the fact you can’t see them just maybe means this argument will go nowhere because you aren’t American and can’t see the issues there. You bring up these other characters but it doesn’t refute my point but sidestep it. And I guess that’s just where we’ll have to leave it.

And I’m sorry if it felt like an attack but when you say “geniune” racist it feels like a distraction and diminishes the greater power of racist ideologies like white supremacy and how they impact thinking in a society.

I never meant to imply that there were no racist Hollywood execs, as I said there's racists in any group of people with a significantly number, I don't however believe that there not being a black character in the original Avengers movie lineup is due to racism, to conflate one with the other feels like a very big leap to me.

In a predominantly white country there should obviously be more white people and characters featured in their media, in the same way as in predominantly black or Asian nations there should be (and usually is) mostly black and Asian characters. I do agree however that it's not the inherent number of minority characters featured that needs to be addressed but historically their characterisation.

Again, with respect I think you're unfairly jumping to conclusions with about those involved with the creation of the original Avengers movie with absolutely nothing tangible to base those conclusions on. I don't believe there was in any way a specific decision not to feature a black character because of their race, I think they just chose the characters they did because they're the ones they chose. Also we're not talking about a movie franchise that began in the 60's were talking about a movie that was released in 2012, black actors had been successfully headlining big Hollywood movies for decades.

The word 'racist' has a very specific definition, a high percentage of instances that are followed by accusations of being racist are actually not. The words 'racist' and 'sexist' are now thrown about with such ease that they've begun to lose their (what should be their shocking) impact, also I truly believe that when everything everyone says and does on a daily basis garners accusations or racism and sexism it does a tremendous disservice to those who have suffered genuine racist and sexist discrimination and abuse and their ability to be taken seriously when they're brave enough to come forward.

As for the issue of gender identity, I've nothing really to add other than to say that the whole 'only trans actors can play trans characters' is one of the dumbest most unhelpful things I've heard in a long time.

[tokenBG1009]

I think "racist" is one of those words used in these conversations that needs to have a different connotation behind it. Believing a certain demographic won't sell is racist, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. "Prejudiced" is probably a more accurate term in this case. "Racist" has generally always had a negative meaning behind it. I don't think Marvel or Disney execs were sitting in a boardroom rubbing their hands evilly and talking about how they're not going to make a minority starring movie. I don't care what anyone thinks, Black Panther would not have done as well in 2008. It probably wouldn't have had the money behind it it did either so it would've most likely been a lower quality movie anyways.

I'm not racist if I won't go into white suburbs and try to sell people NWA CDs. I'm prejudiced for believing I couldn't sell them in white suburbs.

Not to ignore the discussion prior (because racism and sexism are huge parts of the American film industry and always have been, and is something studios are working on but not necessarily doing the best job because the positions of power already existing are hostile to certain groups), but I again find it amusing y'all liked this trailer better. I liked it, but the first was more inspiring. This one was more generic.

Cool to see that mohawk tho.

Also, I couldn't care less if they don't include the Mahr-vell. This is Carol's story, and it doesn't need to be a retread of the 70's version. She's literally the only Avenger I really like, so I'mall for them tweaking her history to make it more palatable for a modern audience, and frankly sell her to a bunch of people that are told frequently to get out of the comics/nerd world. It's coming up fast!

Agreed. The first trailer was better. This one should have come first though, preferably without the punch spoiler. This is the trailer to suck people in. The first one was the inspiring trailer.

[Nu-D]

I liked the first trailer more.

I’d be fine with Carol being stronger than Hulk and Thor in brute strength. There’s no reason the strongest character in a fantasy needs to be male. Or large.

I would expect Dr. Strange and Wanda to be able to do things to Carol she can’t solve. Wrap her up in a time warp bubble, or flip her perceptions inside-out, or stuff like that. But if it came down to power blasts mano-a-mano, Carol would win.

[Blackcyclops]

I’m just going to be honest, I don’t think you’re a bad person or racist or sexist...but I think it’s painfully naive to believe that there cannot be racist ideologies behind the decisions of a Hollywood exec (or that somehow Hollywood is clear of bias). This doesn’t mean a foaming at the mouth hatred of all non-whites, that’s probably (although hard to say, given what leaks out so very often) not it. But an underlying cultural idea that perceives as people of color in a particular light that diminishes their diversity and complexity? Oh hell yes!

This argument about “the majority of the country being white so it makes sense to have majority white characters” doesn’t hold water because A)if that was the case, then depictions on screen should accurately match the US population and USC (among others) yearly report shows that’s not true and B)presence alone doesn’t mean anything, when negatively or simplistically portrayals of non-white characters is the real issue (and thus my point about a Black hero led film). And that is still an issue Hollywood has...and that’s not even talking about how women are portrayed and non-binary people or the trans community.


The movies are not comics, so any character could have been made a founding Avenger. But they chose the team they chose and it was seen as normal and okay and the idea of putting someone non-white in there seems too crazy. That’s why I question those decisions and the fact you can’t see them just maybe means this argument will go nowhere because you aren’t American and can’t see the issues there. You bring up these other characters but it doesn’t refute my point but sidestep it. And I guess that’s just where we’ll have to leave it.

And I’m sorry if it felt like an attack but when you say “geniune” racist it feels like a distraction and diminishes the greater power of racist ideologies like white supremacy and how they impact thinking in a society.

I never meant to imply that there were no racist Hollywood execs, as I said there's racists in any group of people with a significantly number, I don't however believe that there not being a black character in the original Avengers movie lineup is due to racism, to conflate one with the other feels like a very big leap to me.

In a predominantly white country there should obviously be more white people and characters featured in their media, in the same way as in predominantly black or Asian nations there should be (and usually is) mostly black and Asian characters. I do agree however that it's not the inherent number of minority characters featured that needs to be addressed but historically their characterisation.

Again, with respect I think you're unfairly jumping to conclusions with about those involved with the creation of the original Avengers movie with absolutely nothing tangible to base those conclusions on. I don't believe there was in any way a specific decision not to feature a black character because of their race, I think they just chose the characters they did because they're the ones they chose. Also we're not talking about a movie franchise that began in the 60's were talking about a movie that was released in 2012, black actors had been successfully headlining big Hollywood movies for decades.

The word 'racist' has a very specific definition, a high percentage of instances that are followed by accusations of being racist are actually not. The words 'racist' and 'sexist' are now thrown about with such ease that they've begun to lose their (what should be their shocking) impact, also I truly believe that when everything everyone says and does on a daily basis garners accusations or racism and sexism it does a tremendous disservice to those who have suffered genuine racist and sexist discrimination and abuse and their ability to be taken seriously when they're brave enough to come forward.

As for the issue of gender identity, I've nothing really to add other than to say that the whole 'only trans actors can play trans characters' is one of the dumbest most unhelpful things I've heard in a long time.

It’s only a very big leap because it appears you’re conflating racism with something much more simplistic. Again, I’m not talking about some guy in a hood form of racism, but cultural and social actions that denigrate, belittle or marginalize groups of people based on race and ethnicity. An aside, i never once talked about the directors or writers behind the Avengers films or franchises (although it’s worth noting most, if not all, grew up within a larger cultural context that normalizes some behaviors and attitudes). I said the execs, who have stated before “prejudiced” (I’ll ride with token’s suggestions) ideas about what will and won’t sell, as Anna Raven pointed out. And like I said, it’s something that they keep getting surprised when they’re wrong. Because they have preconceived notions that white folks don’t want to see certain people in certain kinds of roles or that Black people wont see certain kinds of films. Which, hey that’s “prejudiced”. And that doesn’t make them necessarily “bad” (none of this has been about moral judgments on them as individuals) but it shows how they have lived in and digested ideologies that are “prejudiced”. This isn’t even talking about the impact of historical “prejudice” that still affects things today.


Furthermore, it feels like again this will go nowhere because on one hand you refuse to see my point unless of evidence. Yet, you make a HUGE claim about the use of the words racist/sexist and do not provide evidence yourself. And really, who would you be to tell someone else how they interpreted an interaction to either racist or sexist? But my entire post (and general rule) is not to talk about personal experiences of racism or sexism but the larger institutions and structures built on racist and sexist ideologies. Which I can seemingly assume, given your continued responses, you probably do not think exist.

And please don’t bring up Hollywood and it’s history of how it’s dealt with race without a true understanding of it. Your statement about “black actors headlining big Hollywood films for decades” as though that means Hollywood doesn’t have a problem with race shows a misunderstanding about the history of Hollywood...which as I said above, is pointed out by Hollywood itself when they get “surprised” when Black actor led films do successful. And I don’t think i have the energy to argue that point because its too much information online to see that.

[P-90]

I liked the first trailer more.

I’d be fine with Carol being stronger than Hulk and Thor in brute strength. There’s no reason the strongest character in a fantasy needs to be male. Or large.

I would expect Dr. Strange and Wanda to be able to do things to Carol she can’t solve. Wrap her up in a time warp bubble, or flip her perceptions inside-out, or stuff like that. But if it came down to power blasts mano-a-mano, Carol would win.

Of course a female character could be the most powerful, there's nothing wrong with that, I just feel based on the history of the characters Thor and Hulk are on another level, sadly though we've yet to see either really show their comic book power levels in the movies. The way I see it is Thor, Hulk and Strange in the comics are, on a good day, a match for Superman, Carol isn't.

[P-90]

I’m just going to be honest, I don’t think you’re a bad person or racist or sexist...but I think it’s painfully naive to believe that there cannot be racist ideologies behind the decisions of a Hollywood exec (or that somehow Hollywood is clear of bias). This doesn’t mean a foaming at the mouth hatred of all non-whites, that’s probably (although hard to say, given what leaks out so very often) not it. But an underlying cultural idea that perceives as people of color in a particular light that diminishes their diversity and complexity? Oh hell yes!

This argument about “the majority of the country being white so it makes sense to have majority white characters” doesn’t hold water because A)if that was the case, then depictions on screen should accurately match the US population and USC (among others) yearly report shows that’s not true and B)presence alone doesn’t mean anything, when negatively or simplistically portrayals of non-white characters is the real issue (and thus my point about a Black hero led film). And that is still an issue Hollywood has...and that’s not even talking about how women are portrayed and non-binary people or the trans community.


The movies are not comics, so any character could have been made a founding Avenger. But they chose the team they chose and it was seen as normal and okay and the idea of putting someone non-white in there seems too crazy. That’s why I question those decisions and the fact you can’t see them just maybe means this argument will go nowhere because you aren’t American and can’t see the issues there. You bring up these other characters but it doesn’t refute my point but sidestep it. And I guess that’s just where we’ll have to leave it.

And I’m sorry if it felt like an attack but when you say “geniune” racist it feels like a distraction and diminishes the greater power of racist ideologies like white supremacy and how they impact thinking in a society.

I never meant to imply that there were no racist Hollywood execs, as I said there's racists in any group of people with a significantly number, I don't however believe that there not being a black character in the original Avengers movie lineup is due to racism, to conflate one with the other feels like a very big leap to me.

In a predominantly white country there should obviously be more white people and characters featured in their media, in the same way as in predominantly black or Asian nations there should be (and usually is) mostly black and Asian characters. I do agree however that it's not the inherent number of minority characters featured that needs to be addressed but historically their characterisation.

Again, with respect I think you're unfairly jumping to conclusions with about those involved with the creation of the original Avengers movie with absolutely nothing tangible to base those conclusions on. I don't believe there was in any way a specific decision not to feature a black character because of their race, I think they just chose the characters they did because they're the ones they chose. Also we're not talking about a movie franchise that began in the 60's were talking about a movie that was released in 2012, black actors had been successfully headlining big Hollywood movies for decades.

The word 'racist' has a very specific definition, a high percentage of instances that are followed by accusations of being racist are actually not. The words 'racist' and 'sexist' are now thrown about with such ease that they've begun to lose their (what should be their shocking) impact, also I truly believe that when everything everyone says and does on a daily basis garners accusations or racism and sexism it does a tremendous disservice to those who have suffered genuine racist and sexist discrimination and abuse and their ability to be taken seriously when they're brave enough to come forward.

As for the issue of gender identity, I've nothing really to add other than to say that the whole 'only trans actors can play trans characters' is one of the dumbest most unhelpful things I've heard in a long time.

It’s only a very big leap because it appears you’re conflating racism with something much more simplistic. Again, I’m not talking about some guy in a hood form of racism, but cultural and social actions that denigrate, belittle or marginalize groups of people based on race and ethnicity. An aside, i never once talked about the directors or writers behind the Avengers films or franchises (although it’s worth noting most, if not all, grew up within a larger cultural context that normalizes some behaviors and attitudes). I said the execs, who have stated before “prejudiced” (I’ll ride with token’s suggestions) ideas about what will and won’t sell, as Anna Raven pointed out. And like I said, it’s something that they keep getting surprised when they’re wrong. Because they have preconceived notions that white folks don’t want to see certain people in certain kinds of roles or that Black people wont see certain kinds of films. Which, hey that’s “prejudiced”. And that doesn’t make them necessarily “bad” (none of this has been about moral judgments on them as individuals) but it shows how they have lived in and digested ideologies that are “prejudiced”. This isn’t even talking about the impact of historical “prejudice” that still affects things today.


Furthermore, it feels like again this will go nowhere because on one hand you refuse to see my point unless of evidence. Yet, you make a HUGE claim about the use of the words racist/sexist and do not provide evidence yourself. And really, who would you be to tell someone else how they interpreted an interaction to either racist or sexist? But my entire post (and general rule) is not to talk about personal experiences of racism or sexism but the larger institutions and structures built on racist and sexist ideologies. Which I can seemingly assume, given your continued responses, you probably do not think exist.

And please don’t bring up Hollywood and it’s history of how it’s dealt with race without a true understanding of it. Your statement about “black actors headlining big Hollywood films for decades” as though that means Hollywood doesn’t have a problem with race shows a misunderstanding about the history of Hollywood...which as I said above, is pointed out by Hollywood itself when they get “surprised” when Black actor led films do successful. And I don’t think i have the energy to argue that point because its too much information online to see that.

Your right we won't agree, I cannot in any way agree that 'There not being a black character in the original six Avengers team equals racism', whether it be personal or cultural. To even come to such a conclusion screams 'issues' to me, and believe me I know mental issues.

Racist: A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other race, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

Whether you believe it or not I feel no genuine animosity towards you I just believe when it comes to the specific issue of racism and the Avengers movie I don't believe you are correct, as has been said before at least there are places such as this board where we can disagree but hopefully remain civil.

I hope you have a good Christmas (If you celebrate it that is)

[Spectral Knight]

I think "racist" is one of those words used in these conversations that needs to have a different connotation behind it. Believing a certain demographic won't sell is racist, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. "Prejudiced" is probably a more accurate term in this case. "Racist" has generally always had a negative meaning behind it. I don't think Marvel or Disney execs were sitting in a boardroom rubbing their hands evilly and talking about how they're not going to make a minority starring movie. I don't care what anyone thinks, Black Panther would not have done as well in 2008. It probably wouldn't have had the money behind it it did either so it would've most likely been a lower quality movie anyways.

I'm not racist if I won't go into white suburbs and try to sell people NWA CDs. I'm prejudiced for believing I couldn't sell them in white suburbs.

This is a very good rationale. The other thing is the less well known characters have definitely benefited from growing goodwill for the Marvel brand. Would Strange or GOTG or Ant-Man or BP have done the numbers if they were the first films out the gate? Possibly, but as a marketing man by trade Marvel have driven their brand consistency so on the whole there's a brand tone and template to their movie stories, and I think each consecutive movie benefits from this brand consistency.

I'll be honest, I'm surprised BP did as well as it did. Partly because I (potentially very ignorantly) assumed that hey the MCU movies to date were not culturally prohibitive to a non white audience. Now in the main, I don't think they are really, but from some of the articles I've read, it appears BP revealed some perceived barriers that I hadn't recognised. There was a Black audience out there that hadn't really warmed to what had been produced so far, and hadn't invested the time or cash but were a potential audience who would spend big if the movie was right and the cultural background of BP helped it sell bucketloads of tickets.

Before any incorrect jumping to conclusions, I would say this isn't by any means a generalisation of the black consumer base as a whole. I know there were many who enjoyed the earlier MCU flicks as much as there were many white consumers who also enjoyed BP. I hope this helps reduce the perception that because a character is a different colour or from a different background it doesn't mean that story wouldn't be relevant.

[LimboMaster]

I never meant to imply that there were no racist Hollywood execs, as I said there's racists in any group of people with a significantly number, I don't however believe that there not being a black character in the original Avengers movie lineup is due to racism, to conflate one with the other feels like a very big leap to me.

In a predominantly white country there should obviously be more white people and characters featured in their media, in the same way as in predominantly black or Asian nations there should be (and usually is) mostly black and Asian characters. I do agree however that it's not the inherent number of minority characters featured that needs to be addressed but historically their characterisation.

Again, with respect I think you're unfairly jumping to conclusions with about those involved with the creation of the original Avengers movie with absolutely nothing tangible to base those conclusions on. I don't believe there was in any way a specific decision not to feature a black character because of their race, I think they just chose the characters they did because they're the ones they chose. Also we're not talking about a movie franchise that began in the 60's were talking about a movie that was released in 2012, black actors had been successfully headlining big Hollywood movies for decades.

The word 'racist' has a very specific definition, a high percentage of instances that are followed by accusations of being racist are actually not. The words 'racist' and 'sexist' are now thrown about with such ease that they've begun to lose their (what should be their shocking) impact, also I truly believe that when everything everyone says and does on a daily basis garners accusations or racism and sexism it does a tremendous disservice to those who have suffered genuine racist and sexist discrimination and abuse and their ability to be taken seriously when they're brave enough to come forward.

As for the issue of gender identity, I've nothing really to add other than to say that the whole 'only trans actors can play trans characters' is one of the dumbest most unhelpful things I've heard in a long time.

It’s only a very big leap because it appears you’re conflating racism with something much more simplistic. Again, I’m not talking about some guy in a hood form of racism, but cultural and social actions that denigrate, belittle or marginalize groups of people based on race and ethnicity. An aside, i never once talked about the directors or writers behind the Avengers films or franchises (although it’s worth noting most, if not all, grew up within a larger cultural context that normalizes some behaviors and attitudes). I said the execs, who have stated before “prejudiced” (I’ll ride with token’s suggestions) ideas about what will and won’t sell, as Anna Raven pointed out. And like I said, it’s something that they keep getting surprised when they’re wrong. Because they have preconceived notions that white folks don’t want to see certain people in certain kinds of roles or that Black people wont see certain kinds of films. Which, hey that’s “prejudiced”. And that doesn’t make them necessarily “bad” (none of this has been about moral judgments on them as individuals) but it shows how they have lived in and digested ideologies that are “prejudiced”. This isn’t even talking about the impact of historical “prejudice” that still affects things today.


Furthermore, it feels like again this will go nowhere because on one hand you refuse to see my point unless of evidence. Yet, you make a HUGE claim about the use of the words racist/sexist and do not provide evidence yourself. And really, who would you be to tell someone else how they interpreted an interaction to either racist or sexist? But my entire post (and general rule) is not to talk about personal experiences of racism or sexism but the larger institutions and structures built on racist and sexist ideologies. Which I can seemingly assume, given your continued responses, you probably do not think exist.

And please don’t bring up Hollywood and it’s history of how it’s dealt with race without a true understanding of it. Your statement about “black actors headlining big Hollywood films for decades” as though that means Hollywood doesn’t have a problem with race shows a misunderstanding about the history of Hollywood...which as I said above, is pointed out by Hollywood itself when they get “surprised” when Black actor led films do successful. And I don’t think i have the energy to argue that point because its too much information online to see that.

Your right we won't agree, I cannot in any way agree that 'There not being a black character in the original six Avengers team equals racism', whether it be personal or cultural. To even come to such a conclusion screams 'issues' to me, and believe me I know mental issues.

Racist: A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other race, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

This seems to be drawing on a very old-school notion of racism. It ignores the passive forms of racism many have already commented on here such as micro-aggressions and implicit bias, that have been extensively documented in scientific research that all serve to keep under-represented groups suppressed. It's worth reading the literature on these topics. It's quite compelling and in no way limited to white people. I am American and I remember thinking when Obama was elected: Finally, we can move past racism. We, as a country, have demonstrated that we are capable of looking beyond race at long last. I'm now horrified that we seem to have stepped back 50 years with our leadership in the States routinely normalizing the many forms of racism that I've just mentioned. These are the dangerous kinds of racism because they seem harmless on the surface and hard to identify in the moment. It's their cumulative effect that is so powerful and challenging to overcome. This is the sort of racism that is so pervasive, not the overt, in-your-face forms. I should also point out that these subtle forms do not entail the belief "that a particular race is superior to another." Most are quite unaware that they exhibit these behaviors.

[Spectral Knight]

I liked the first trailer more.

I’d be fine with Carol being stronger than Hulk and Thor in brute strength. There’s no reason the strongest character in a fantasy needs to be male. Or large.

I would expect Dr. Strange and Wanda to be able to do things to Carol she can’t solve. Wrap her up in a time warp bubble, or flip her perceptions inside-out, or stuff like that. But if it came down to power blasts mano-a-mano, Carol would win.

I think Carol vs Thor punch for punch would be a great scrap. Could see it going either way. Hulk though would out punch either. He's the strongest there is - might well start put on a similar footing but as we know the angrier he gets the stronger he'll be.

Yes, Carol would decimate Strange on power levels. But magic is freaky as hell, and can do crazy stuff and I don't know if she can absorb magic energy, but I think it's s bit of a moot point as they're very different power sets. Wanda is also different to judge, I mean reality warpers are on a different level entirely.

[P-90]

It’s only a very big leap because it appears you’re conflating racism with something much more simplistic. Again, I’m not talking about some guy in a hood form of racism, but cultural and social actions that denigrate, belittle or marginalize groups of people based on race and ethnicity. An aside, i never once talked about the directors or writers behind the Avengers films or franchises (although it’s worth noting most, if not all, grew up within a larger cultural context that normalizes some behaviors and attitudes). I said the execs, who have stated before “prejudiced” (I’ll ride with token’s suggestions) ideas about what will and won’t sell, as Anna Raven pointed out. And like I said, it’s something that they keep getting surprised when they’re wrong. Because they have preconceived notions that white folks don’t want to see certain people in certain kinds of roles or that Black people wont see certain kinds of films. Which, hey that’s “prejudiced”. And that doesn’t make them necessarily “bad” (none of this has been about moral judgments on them as individuals) but it shows how they have lived in and digested ideologies that are “prejudiced”. This isn’t even talking about the impact of historical “prejudice” that still affects things today.


Furthermore, it feels like again this will go nowhere because on one hand you refuse to see my point unless of evidence. Yet, you make a HUGE claim about the use of the words racist/sexist and do not provide evidence yourself. And really, who would you be to tell someone else how they interpreted an interaction to either racist or sexist? But my entire post (and general rule) is not to talk about personal experiences of racism or sexism but the larger institutions and structures built on racist and sexist ideologies. Which I can seemingly assume, given your continued responses, you probably do not think exist.

And please don’t bring up Hollywood and it’s history of how it’s dealt with race without a true understanding of it. Your statement about “black actors headlining big Hollywood films for decades” as though that means Hollywood doesn’t have a problem with race shows a misunderstanding about the history of Hollywood...which as I said above, is pointed out by Hollywood itself when they get “surprised” when Black actor led films do successful. And I don’t think i have the energy to argue that point because its too much information online to see that.

Your right we won't agree, I cannot in any way agree that 'There not being a black character in the original six Avengers team equals racism', whether it be personal or cultural. To even come to such a conclusion screams 'issues' to me, and believe me I know mental issues.

Racist: A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other race, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

This seems to be drawing on a very old-school notion of racism. It ignores the passive forms of racism many have already commented on here such as micro-aggressions and implicit bias, that have been extensively documented in scientific research that all serve to keep under-represented groups suppressed. It's worth reading the literature on these topics. It's quite compelling and in no way limited to white people. I am American and I remember thinking when Obama was elected: Finally, we can move past racism. We, as a country, have demonstrated that we are capable of looking beyond race at long last. I'm now horrified that we seem to have stepped back 50 years with our leadership in the States routinely normalizing the many forms of racism that I've just mentioned. These are the dangerous kinds of racism because they seem harmless on the surface and hard to identify in the moment. It's their cumulative effect that is so powerful and challenging to overcome. This is the sort of racism that is so pervasive, not the overt, in-your-face forms. I should also point out that these subtle forms do not entail the belief "that a particular race is superior to another." Most are quite unaware that they exhibit these behaviors.

As I've stated many times racism is a very real problem within every group, I've personally seen evidence of it in the white, black and Asian communities. I've also seen prejudice and discrimination take many forms other than race, family members and family friends have suffered discrimination due to things such as their accent, their hair colour, their weight etc.

[Nu-D]

What many people fail to understand is that a decision can be racist, even while the decision-maker is not racist. The intention of the decision-maker is only one factor. There are structural and institutional factors that underlie decisions which are racially biased because of historical reasons. The decision maker may be unaware of them, or even opposed to them, but nonetheless constrained by them.

A classic example is the hiring manager who only advertises in a newspaper that reaches an audience primarily of one race. The manager may be perfectly indifferent to the race of the candidate, but the decision to advertise only in the paper read principally by one racial group is “racist” because it excludes the pool of candidates from other races. This is true even if the decision was made to select that paper because it had the widest circulation, and there was only a budget for one ad. The market constraints, and the history of racial segregation in media choices, constrained the choice of the manager such that the outcome negatively impacted the people who read other papers.

If you don’t like the word “racist” applied to this inadvertent kind of perpetuation of racial inequity, that’s fine. We can quibble semantics and select a different term. I’m actually quite sympathetic to the argument that this kind of thing ought to be referred to as “structural discrimination” rather than “racism.”* But whatever label you want to put on to it, it is harmful to innocent people and we need to be cognizant that many of our daily decisions are inflected with this kind of structural discrimination. This kind of thing is happening all the time. Cumulatively, it has a massive negative impact on racial minorities.

This is exactly what infects so much of the Hollywood decision making. The omission of black characters from the original Avengers lineup was racist, not because someone didn’t want black people in the movie, but because there were a 1001 historical reasons black people were not “right” for the part. No basis in the comics, no history of black headliners for superhero films, no (known, established) market for black superheroes, the absence of massive wealth in the black community to create black financiers, etc. The structures in place to create the opportunity for the movie all omitted black people. Unless someone made a deliberate, concerted and conscious effort to fix that, it would be perpetuated by mere indifference, market forces and conservative inertia.

*Conversely, when I discuss overt racial animosity I prefer the word “bigotry” to the word “racism” because to many people “racism” includes unintentional discrimination. I want to precisely identify the phenomenon I’m discussing. Frankly, “racism” has such varied understandings amongst people, it’s a term I think has little use and creates more confusion than clarity.

[Anna Raven]

I liked the first trailer more.

I’d be fine with Carol being stronger than Hulk and Thor in brute strength. There’s no reason the strongest character in a fantasy needs to be male. Or large.

I would expect Dr. Strange and Wanda to be able to do things to Carol she can’t solve. Wrap her up in a time warp bubble, or flip her perceptions inside-out, or stuff like that. But if it came down to power blasts mano-a-mano, Carol would win.

I think Carol vs Thor punch for punch would be a great scrap. Could see it going either way. Hulk though would out punch either. He's the strongest there is - might well start put on a similar footing but as we know the angrier he gets the stronger he'll be.

Yes, Carol would decimate Strange on power levels. But magic is freaky as hell, and can do crazy stuff and I don't know if she can absorb magic energy, but I think it's s bit of a moot point as they're very different power sets. Wanda is also different to judge, I mean reality warpers are on a different level entirely.

I always kind of equated Carol's power level to Silver Surfer's, since they are both kind of imbued with "cosmic energies". I would say Carol used to be a step lower than Surfer, but they've given her a power upgrade recently to the point she is probably on par, at least as far as energy blasting goes. She may not be as tough or as strong, but I bet she isn't far off.

And since I considered Surfer to be above Thor in the power rankings, I guess I would put Carol above him now too.

The thing about Hulk is, at least as I've been told by Hulk fans, he has no upper limit, so depending on what day you get him, he could be stronger than anyone in the Marvel U. it just depends on how angry he gets.

And yeh, I agree about Strange, it's not so much raw power as it is vulnerability to whatever spells he concocts.

[P-90]

I liked the first trailer more.

I’d be fine with Carol being stronger than Hulk and Thor in brute strength. There’s no reason the strongest character in a fantasy needs to be male. Or large.

I would expect Dr. Strange and Wanda to be able to do things to Carol she can’t solve. Wrap her up in a time warp bubble, or flip her perceptions inside-out, or stuff like that. But if it came down to power blasts mano-a-mano, Carol would win.

I think Carol vs Thor punch for punch would be a great scrap. Could see it going either way. Hulk though would out punch either. He's the strongest there is - might well start put on a similar footing but as we know the angrier he gets the stronger he'll be.

Yes, Carol would decimate Strange on power levels. But magic is freaky as hell, and can do crazy stuff and I don't know if she can absorb magic energy, but I think it's s bit of a moot point as they're very different power sets. Wanda is also different to judge, I mean reality warpers are on a different level entirely.

I always kind of equated Carol's power level to Silver Surfer's, since they are both kind of imbued with "cosmic energies". I would say Carol used to be a step lower than Surfer, but they've given her a power upgrade recently to the point she is probably on par, at least as far as energy blasting goes. She may not be as tough or as strong, but I bet she isn't far off.

And since I considered Surfer to be above Thor in the power rankings, I guess I would put Carol above him now too.

The thing about Hulk is, at least as I've been told by Hulk fans, he has no upper limit, so depending on what day you get him, he could be stronger than anyone in the Marvel U. it just depends on how angry he gets.

And yeh, I agree about Strange, it's not so much raw power as it is vulnerability to whatever spells he concocts.

Magic users are difficult to pin down power wise, they tend to have 'whatever powers the writer can think of'

I'm pretty sure Thor is more powerful than Carol (his strength/durability are magnitudes higher, his fighting skills and experience dwarf hers), I'd say in her Binary form she's closer to his equal. If I'm not sure, or want to confirm what a character's levels are I tend to visit sites such as MarvelDatabase.com, most of the more well known characters have detailed bios including what their power levels are.

[Nu-D]

When (mostly white) people complain that inadvertent racial discrimination should not be called “racism,” they’re looking at the question through the lens of the moral culpability of the actor. It is correct, in my opinion, that the moral culpability of a bigot is different from that of the aforementioned hiring manager.

However, when POC use the word “racist” to describe both kinds of actions, they’re focused less on the moral culpability and more on the nature of the harm. The discriminatory impact of the bigot’s decision only to interview white candidates, and the un-bigoted by oblivious decision only to advertise the job to white people, results in the same harm: fewer job opportunities for POC. Because the harms are the same regardless of their actor’s intent, the action can fairly be called “racist.”

In the law, we have long recognized that moral culpability is a function of both the nature of the harm, and the intent of the actor. This is why we have First and Second degree murder, as well as voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. In all four crimes, the harm caused is a death. But the culpability is mitigated or aggravated depending on the intention of the actor. It is also why an intentional gunshot that results in death is charged as murder, whereas one that does not kill the victim is charged as a form of assault. There, the same act with the same intent resulted in different harms, and so culpability is varied. Further, it is why insanity and accident are complete defenses to criminal liability; because if you did not intend even the action, then the consequences are not your fault. (I won’t get into general and specific intent and all that, but there’s a lot more to say here).

Anyhow, this is why I do support a shift in language, to terms that capture both dimensions of harm and intent when discussion race in America. I think we need a morally neutral terminology to discuss the discriminatory harms that are occurring, regardless of the intention of the actor. In many of our discussions, what the actors intend is irrelevant; we want to fix the problem not focus on pointing fingers. Alternately, we need a language that discusses moral culpability for racial inequality with appropriate precision and subtlety, so that it recognizes that Storm Thurmond is not the same as Bill Clinton, even though both had a hand in the tough-on-crime policies that have torn through the black communities in America.

For these reasons, I prefer discussing “bigotry” when speaking of the moral culpability of a person intentionally hostile or indifferent to the suffering of racial minorities (I also like it because it encompasses other forms of hostility—religious, sexual, gender—which are morally equivalent, IMO). I prefer the term “discriminatory” when talking about impacts. I eschew “racist” because so many people understand it so differently.

Nonetheless, as a listener rather than as a speaker, it is important to try to understand what is being said. If I hear POC speaking of “racism,” and I insist on arguing definitions and hearing the term by my own preferred definition, I am being disrespectful and obstreperous. I need to listen in good faith to what my interlocutor is trying to tell me. If they’re using the term “racism” in a way I would not use it, but the distinction is irrelevant to the discussion, I can roll with it. (I’ll still use my preferred language for precision, but I’m not going to argue with how they use “racism.”)

The same is true when someone insists structural discrimination is not “racist.” It is important for me to listen and hear what is being said. Sadly, all too often, the speaker is denying that structural discrimination exists, or arguing that it doesn’t matter, or arguing that it’s just a fact of life we have no obligation to resolve. This latter is a common refrain in these discussions of the effects of structural discrimination in media. If you tell me the aforementioned hiring manager’s choice of newspaper was not “racist,” I want to know, are you at least willing to acknowledge that this is a problem and worth trying to address?

However, if the relevant topic is the moral culpability of the decision maker, and the speaker is legitimately seeking to make an essential moral distinction based on the intent behind the decision, then I think we should hear that sympathetically. Generally, this is not a particularly important topic when we’re discussing the casting of multi-billion dollar entertainment products. Who cares what Fiege is thinking? What’s important is what he does and how it impacts people. We can criticize his choices as discriminatory, without worrying about whether he intended them to be or was just oblivious.

[Blackcyclops]

I liked the first trailer more.

I’d be fine with Carol being stronger than Hulk and Thor in brute strength. There’s no reason the strongest character in a fantasy needs to be male. Or large.

I would expect Dr. Strange and Wanda to be able to do things to Carol she can’t solve. Wrap her up in a time warp bubble, or flip her perceptions inside-out, or stuff like that. But if it came down to power blasts mano-a-mano, Carol would win.

I think Carol vs Thor punch for punch would be a great scrap. Could see it going either way. Hulk though would out punch either. He's the strongest there is - might well start put on a similar footing but as we know the angrier he gets the stronger he'll be.

Yes, Carol would decimate Strange on power levels. But magic is freaky as hell, and can do crazy stuff and I don't know if she can absorb magic energy, but I think it's s bit of a moot point as they're very different power sets. Wanda is also different to judge, I mean reality warpers are on a different level entirely.

I always kind of equated Carol's power level to Silver Surfer's, since they are both kind of imbued with "cosmic energies". I would say Carol used to be a step lower than Surfer, but they've given her a power upgrade recently to the point she is probably on par, at least as far as energy blasting goes. She may not be as tough or as strong, but I bet she isn't far off.

And since I considered Surfer to be above Thor in the power rankings, I guess I would put Carol above him now too.

The thing about Hulk is, at least as I've been told by Hulk fans, he has no upper limit, so depending on what day you get him, he could be stronger than anyone in the Marvel U. it just depends on how angry he gets.

And yeh, I agree about Strange, it's not so much raw power as it is vulnerability to whatever spells he concocts.

Again, I’m no Monolith but in terms of raw power Thor at his mightiest without enhancements (so with Mjolnir but not extra stuff) and the Silver Surfer are about on par...whereas Carol, unless supercharged, is somewhat below that (basically as human-esque heroes go she’s near the top like a Storm or Magneto). In terms of strength, Thor is again on par with Silver Surfer but below a Hulk who has no upper limit.

Dr. Strange meanwhile is really dependent on the amount of energy available and his own health (physical, spiritual and so on). At peak with the most powerful spell Dr. Strange was able to go toe-to-toe with a world shattering Hulk and was capable of taking on what was effectively the Justice League of America. The thing is Strange has way more limitations (and deus ex machinas) than an Odinson or Carol though.

[Jazzkantine]

I think Carol was most powerful in her Binary form, strenghwise. Now I would say she is equal to Thor or Sentry, but not near the Hulk in his Worldbreaker or Marstro form. Except the writers gave her a super duper power boost when they turned her into Captain Perfect.