Monday, July 16, 2012

"Captain America: The Winter Soldier" Will (Possibly) Introduce The Falcon

The Hollywood Reporter says that actor Anthony Mackie - most recently seen in a major supporting role in "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" - has been cast in "Captain America: The Winter Soldier"  (previously known as "Captain America 2.") It's believed he will play Sam Wilson, aka The Falcon.

A Harlem-based superhero, Falcon has a strength-enhancing suit that includes a pair of wings he can fly with, plus a telepathic connection to his pet bird "Redwing." He was Captain America's buddy/sidekick throughout the 1970s, and also a sometime member of The Avengers. In one of the more infamous head-scratching "topical" moments in comics, he once quit the team on discovering that his hiring had been "forced" upon the team via federal Affirmative Action policies. Yes, really.

I'm not seeing anyone officially confirming that he's playing THE FALCON specifically, as opposed to "Sam Wilson: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. who happens to share a name with a guy who has wings from the comics," but there's got to be at least a 50/50 chance of it.

46 comments:

J.C. Hedges said...

If Marvel really is up for introducing a talking raccoon and tree monster to their cinematic universe, I think it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to introduce a guy with a wingsuit that can talk to birds.

Maybe they'll introduce him so they can give him and Hawkeye a film together called "Birds of Prey." It's so cheesy, I love it!

Joshua the Anarchist said...

@J.C. Hedges

That'd certainly be one way for Marvel to rub in DC's face how much better they are at getting shit done. I'd feel sorry for Gail Simone though.

Sssonic said...

@ Joshua: ...why? Gail's worked with Marvel before, and she generally seems on friendly terms with them. I think she'd be more than happy to see them introduce a prominent PoC character to the mostly-white face of the Marvel Movieverse.

Phil said...

I don't know how "prominent" this character is considering he is not in his own movie. It's just like War Machine in Iron Man. He's nothing but a sidekick.

So this is Marvel's way of including a nonwhite superhero into the Avengers movie but not actually putting forth the effort to put them in their own movie? Just remember: The very first successful movie based on a Marvel comic book character at the box office was Blade... a black hero. It is now almost 15 years later and now Marvel gets their own movie studio going they don't see it as any sort of priority to make a superhero movie where a nonwhite character is the lead of his/her own movie.

Incredible.

McIntosh said...

I really really hope so; the Falcon is my favourite supporting character in the Marvel-verse whose name is not James Buchanan Barnes. So if Winter Soldier does include Sam Wilson I will be doubly ecstatic.

McIntosh said...

@Phil: Have you missed all of the rumours circulating about a possible Black Panther film sometime after the second Avengers?

Phil said...

@McIntosh

Did you miss the confirmed news that "Phase 2" of Marvel Studio's movies does not include Black Panther or any nonwhite superhero movie whatsoever?

Sssonic said...

@ Phil: Yeah, the SDCC scuttling of "Black Panter" rumors was intensely disappointing, especially since the only rationale on offer I can find-Wakanda as a world is too difficult to create-is so wholly unconvincing.

And that's a good point regarding War Machine in "Iron Man 2", but I guess when I say "prominent" I mean that they are more visible and important to the overall film than, say, Nick Fury in "The Avengers"; to use your own example, War Machine's presence was made loud and clear in just about every ad and poster for "Iron Man 2". I wouldn't be surprised if Falcon gets similar treatment.

Phil said...

@Sssonic

Intensely disappointing... tell me about it. Wakanda, a fictional nation in Africa, is according to Marvel Studios a challenge to realize on screen but Thor's completely fantastical homeland of Asgard was no problem for them.

Falcon will no doubt get some marketing coverage but the Captain America sequel isn't about him. The subtitle of the sequel, Winter Soldier, refers to Bucky. That's who will be the focus of the marketing. So Falcon isn't even going to get sidekick-like treatment like War Machine got in Iron Man 2. Then again, the last thing I want to see is Falcon treated as any sort of sidekick considering that they didn't even treat Bucky as such in the first Captain America movie.

alan_ferrett said...

The challenge is making a high tech but primative looking society that doesn't vibrate similarly to Asgard in people's minds, and that is PC friendly. Just imagine all the anger you'll have if they try it and come off as unintentionally racist. They're currently in the "I'm scared." mood.

Phil said...

@alan_ferrett

They're already coming across as "unintentionally racist" by only considering to make a nonwhite superhero movie after they are done making at least a dozen movies or so.

Besides, what the is the challenge anyway? Just take Wakanda as seen in the best Black Panther comic books and put it on screen.

Razmere said...

Hmmm. Interesting, but I'm not as pumped as I was when learning the subtitle.

This sorta seems like small news announced after BIG news. If that makes any sense.

Anonymous said...

@Phil

"Just take Wakanda as seen in the best Black Panther comic books and put it on screen."

Yeah, because that's how filmmaking works. You can just copy/paste like in Microsoft Word and call it a day.

Phil said...

Yeah, that's how Marvel Studios works.

Did you see Asgard in the Thor movie? Pretty close to how it is in the comics. Did you see The Avengers? All of those costumes were directly lifted from the comics. They even had Loki wear the same helmet with the long horns just as he does in the comics.

No reason why Wakanda can't be realized just as easily. It really is a BS excuse to not make a Black Panther movie now. They'll make one much later on and considering how "difficult" it is for them to make a nonwhite superhero movie at all it's likely that the end result is going to be a half-assed movie.

Anonymous said...

Does Black Panther even have a strong supporting cast, or any interesting villains?

Ha-Ra said...

Speaking of the Marvel movie universe, what did you think of the odd little gem presented by Thomas Jane? In all honesty, I have a soft spot for Thomas Jane's Punisher flick back in 2004. I think this should give him the right to do it again... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWpK0wsnitc&feature=player_embedded

Sam Robards, Comic Fan said...

I don't know much about this actor, but I'd love to see the Falcon in Cap 2. He's such a good character: it'd be a shame not to have him on-screen.

For people talking about Black Panther and so on, I thought Marvel was initially was going to put it in "Phase 2" but pushed it back when they got the screenplay for Guardians of the Galaxy, which they thought was frikkin' dynamite.

As much as I hate to say it, they would have to be very smart about how they translate Wakanda to film because you know SOMEONE would come out and call Marvel racists, though that implication seems to have already been made here. Pity.

As for the character himself, Black Panther's awesome, but he doesn't really have any stand-out villains or "must-read" stories. He definitely has a lot of "must-NOT-read" stories, most of which were done by Reggie Hudlin.

Taylor said...

I really like the idea of Falcon appearing. The Marvel movieverse needs a Black hero, and I don't think it should be War Machine (since he could come off as a "Black Version" of Iron Man) and it shouldn't be Black Panther (The only Black avenger shouldn't have "Black" in his name, imo)

Phil said...

@ Sam Robards, Comic Fan

The whole "it's hard to do Wakanda because if you don't do it right people will call them racists" as the reason why a Black Panther movie hasn't been made yet is an atrocious argument. Black Panther has existed in comics since the 60s and it's been just fine. Suddenly now it's a complete mystery on how to do it? Think before you write such nonsense.

And your suggested reason as to why Black Panther got "pushed" back also isn't convincing either. Although I'll grant it that it isn't as stupid as "it's hard to get Wakanda right".

Anonymous said...

@Phil

I think he means that a film is more likely to be called out as racist than an obscure comic book. A movie is more accessible to the public. But it doesn't matter because someone will somewhere think something about it was racist. Even if it's like "Black people in Africa? Typical."

McIntosh said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
McIntosh said...

@Phil: No, because the second Avengers film will be at the end of phase two. Hence why I said "after the second Avengers".

They're going to do Black Panther, but want to do Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy First because Ant-Man was in the first Avengers group and the Guardians film will allow Marvel to bring Thanos in easier. They're not going to push Avengers 2 back another year or so just because you want a black central character and they're certainly not going to post-pone Iron Man, Captain america and Thor sequels. Are Nick Fury, Warmachine, Heimdal and the Falcon (four really awesome characters) really not enough to stave off ridiculous calls of "racism" until phase three?

Also I find it stupid that you are all up in arms not because you tihnk BP would add anything to the overall narrative of the franchise at this point (and he really wouldn't), but because you think Marvel should have a token black central character just for the sake of having a token black central character.

McIntosh said...

Do you remember that time when Marvel decided to cast Idris Elba as Heimdal, so a shit-tonne of comic book fans complained because he's a Norse god so they thought he should be white?

Or that time when Marvel decided to go with the Ultimates universe Nick Fury so people complained because they wanted a white Nick Fury instead?

Anonymous said...

@McIntosh...the thing is that the characters you mentioned were all sidekicks. Nick Fury was about the closest to a lead out of those four and even then he was mainly a plot device for bringing the Avengers together. War Machine and Heimdall were basically supportive roles and notice neither one of them were in the Avengers movie.

The fact is that all the heroes that have been introduced, starred in their own movies, and made up the team have been predominantly white men. There was one woman in the group and she wasn't even a big gun. In fact all they gave her was a gun, they didn't even give her the stinger bracelets.

I don't think Phil is harping on having "a token central black character" just that we need a bit more variety. Because right now Marvel's movies are looking a bit white-washed and very T dominant. Introducing Falcon is great but will he be in Avengers 2? Or will he be forgotten after Winter Soldier just like War Machine and Heimdall were after the films they appeared in? And what about female characters? Yeah we might be getting Wasp with the Ant-Man movie but what about the other well-known female characters on the Avengers?

Marvel has made some bold moves so far, in casting Elba as Heimdall and making Nick Fury into the Ultimate Marvel version instead of the 616 version. It just seems like they're doing the bare minimum though just to say "look we have some black people here!" instead of actually giving a black character (or a woman) a central role. They've done some good things, just some people don't think that's enough. They just seem to be playing it kind of safe at the moment.

And saying Black Panther doesn't have interesting villains and such...well some people (including myself) can say the same thing for Ant-Man, depending on which version they are using (most likely Hank Pym though I had heard they might be basing the movie's story on "To Steal An Ant-Man" so maybe Scott Lang?), and that the only reason Marvel is doing him is to appease all the fanboys who were outraged that he wasn't in the first Avengers film.

Anubis C. Soundwave said...

"As for the character himself, Black Panther's awesome, but he doesn't really have any stand-out villains or "must-read" stories. He definitely has a lot of "must-NOT-read" stories, most of which were done by Reggie Hudlin." - Sam Robards, Comic Fan

QFT. I had the "pleasure" of watching Reginald Hudlin's vision of the character on Netflix. Punked Captain America, Storm--Mistress of the Elements--reduced to being a lovesick BP fangirl. Dated political references that make the first season of The Boondocks look like timeless classics. BET sucks.

The only noteworthy villain in Black Panther's mythos is Klaw (the assassin that killed T'Challa's father). There's a movie there, but not a superhero movie. Black Panther is basically Black King Batman.

I understand the awesomeness of having a black headlining character, but let's make sure he or she serves the story first.

Joe said...

@Anonymous:

Does Black Panther even have a strong supporting cast, or any interesting villains?

Didn't seem to hurt Iron Man.

Joe said...

@Anubis C. Soundwave:

The only noteworthy villain in Black Panther's mythos is Klaw (the assassin that killed T'Challa's father). There's a movie there, but not a superhero movie. Black Panther is basically Black King Batman.

The only noteworthy Iron Man villain is the Mandarin, and they didn't even mention him in the first two movies. ("Ten Rings" namedrop notwithstanding.) None of the Marvel Cinematic Universe villains have really been noteworthy with the exception of Loki. I don't think it's the barrier you seem to think it is.

Phil said...

@McIntosh

You're accusing me of wanting "token" black characters and yet go on head and mention Nick Fury, Warmachine, Heimdal and the Falcon as "awesome" characters?

All of those are token characters. Nick Fury doesn't do anything in these movies except stand in the back. The most he ever had to do was in the Avengers but that was about 4 years after his introduction. Heimdal had about 5 minutes of screen time in Thor which mostly consisted of him standing still with his sword in hand. War Machine is a sidekick and it looks like Falcon might be one too. Also the fact that you describe them as characters to "stave off ridiculous calls of "racism" until phase three?" seems to me like you don't think they are valuable characters at all. Sounds pretty token to me.

If you actually understand what I am talking about it is for a character that isn't a token nonwhite character. That's what a nonwhite character getting their own movie is about. Marvel clearly isn't that interested in one. That's why I think they went ahead with the black Nick Fury and the really stupid decision of making Heimdal black. It was to make it seem they are diverse when it's really nothing progressive. If they wanted to be progressive why didn't they give Japanese actor Asano Tadanobu more lines and more to do in the movie?

Black Panther could've been put in Phase 1. Out of all of the pre-Avenger movies, Incredible Hulk was the least needed. It added nothing to the whole build up to Avengers. Yes, it had references to other aspects of the Marvel world but the movie itself didn't add something that was needed to be established before the Avengers movie unlike all the other movies. His introduction in Avengers worked out far better than the Incredible Hulk movie itself did. So it's interesting that you are arguing that Black Panther wouldn't add anything to the Avengers.

Sam Robards, Comic Fan said...

Anonymous said, "I think he means that a film is more likely to be called out as racist than an obscure comic book. A movie is more accessible to the public."

You took the words straight out of my mouth.

When Marvel does get around to making Black Panther, it's gonna be a big deal, and that's when the race-baiting idiots will come out.

Like when those religious morons* came out and bashed Harry Potter for its use of witchcraft at the height of its popularity despite the fact that there had been over 50 years' worth of other fantasy novels using that exact same concept?

Race-baiting (and, let's face it, that's what it would be) works the same way. Take something that's big in the popular culture, find something to exploit and go to town.

Again, I'm not saying it's difficult to make Black Panther and I'm certainly not saying it isn't worthwhile, I'm just saying you have to be smart about it.

I mean, do we really expect to see a character like Man-Ape brought to the big screen?

Especially when DC Comics caught flak last year for saying that the continent of Africa was "Ape-Controlled" (literally, it was controlled by Gorilla Grodd) during their Flashpoint event.

*I'm not saying all religious people are morons because I am a religious man. I was just using the phrase to describe what kind of morons they were.

Anonymous said...

@Phil
" It is now almost 15 years later and now Marvel gets their own movie studio going they don't see it as any sort of priority to make a superhero movie where a nonwhite character is the lead of his/her own movie."

Well, their priority should be to put out their A-listers, and they all happen to be white. It is what it is, and characters shouldn't be shoe-horned or thrust on to the public for the sake of diversity. Make sure the character has a good story to be told first.

Blade worked, yes. But is was relatively low budget, vampires have been a cinematic staple for decades, and I don't know about others, but I didn't even know he was a comic character at the time. I would expect Panther and Falcon to also have a low budget. Plus, the name "Black Panther" doesn't really have all that positive a connotation in the public eye.

Phil said...

@Sam Robards, Comic Fan

Again, your "Wakanda is hard to do" argument is flat out terrible. Like I said Black Panther has existed since the 60s. Has there been major flack with how Wakanda has been portrayed in the comics like that DC storyline you mentioned? Black Panther would not have lasted this long in the comics if it was so.

That Ape-Controlled idea thrown into the DC Universe wasn't a case of not "being careful." It was a flat out case of being racist. If you have to be careful to not be racist then it means you are a racist. After all, what do you have to be careful about? It isn't comparable to Black Panther whatsoever.


@Anonymous above

You need to do some fact checking. It is commonly understood that Iron Man was not a supposed A-lister Marvel comic book character and didn't become one until after the first Iron Man live action film. So no, it was not a case of Marvel putting out their A-listers first.

Blade wasn't "low budget". Its success was far more impressive than you are giving credit for. It came out the year after Batman & Robin, had a black lead, was based on a comic book character pretty much unknown at the time save for real hardcore comic fans and was rated R. Before the Twilight movies came along, Blade was one of the highest grossing vampire based films at the box office.

telugu hot said...

Awesome content! This is really helpful and a great review.

Anubis C. Soundwave said...

@ Phil: The lead in Blade was Wesley Snipes, who was a bankable actor back then. I suppose the key for a solid Black Panther movie would be to find a bankable actor to fill the role, as well as a plot that can carry a feature-length film.

The real issue is that the bulk of Marvel Comics' hero roster is filled to bursting with white men in funny costumes--and there's no getting around that.

Anonymous said...

@Phil

1. Ape-Controlled is not racist.
2. Iron Man is very well known. I don't know how you measure what an A lister is, but to me, that's it. He's certainly higher than Blade, Black Panther, or Falcon.
3. I said "relatively low budget". IM and CA both $140M, Thor $150M, Blade only $45M. Marvel isn't going to sink that $100M into a Black Panther movie. I didn't discredit Blade's success at all.

Sam Robards, Comic Fan said...

Phil said, "Again, your 'Wakanda is hard to do' argument is flat out terrible."

I never said it was hard to do: I just said you have to be smart about it. There is a difference. The fact that you can't seem to discern that is terrible.

Besides, comic books and major motion pictures are playing to completely different audiences. What works for comic fans won't necessarily work for movie fans. Marvel's been really good about translating their properties to the screen while minimizing the loss of "comic book feel," but people go nuts about race.

But I can see that there's clearly no point in continuing this conversation. We both want Black Panther to come out. You want it done fast, while I want it done right. 'Nuff said.

McIntosh said...

@Phil: "You need to do some fact checking. It is commonly understood that Iron Man was not a supposed A-lister Marvel comic book character and didn't become one until after the first Iron Man live action film. So no, it was not a case of Marvel putting out their A-listers first."

Other than being one of the most frequent members of the Avengers and being one of its two most important members (since he is the one who provided their base, paid their salary and was its public face). This is why it didn't matter that Iron Man has only one iconic villain. Marvel simply could not do an Avengers film or franchise without Tony Stark.

You said it yourself, you want Black Panther just to add variety to the Marvel films. You want him shoe-horned into the franchise at a point when it would make no sense to do so. Is it really that bad to have to wait a small number of years until phase three?

I'm all in favour of a black central character but only if he can actually ADD something to the overall narrative. The truth of the matter is that a Black Panther film has no real place in the franchise AT THIS TIME. He is not such an iconic member of the Avengers as Iron Man, Captain America, Thor or Ant-Man, and he can't serve to bring in Thanos as Guardians of the Galaxy can.

As for the black supporting characters I mentioned: Nick Fury is important to the overall narrative of the franchise because he's the string linking them together (and just because he's not out there actually fighting the bad guys doesn't mean he's not doing anything of importance), while Warmachine and Heimdal each have really important roles in the films that they are in.

Neither Heimdal nor Warmachine have been forgotten, they'll have both have big roles in Thor 2 and Iron Man 3, respectively. I was a bit bummed that Warmachine wasn't in Avengers Assemble, I'll give you that one, but Heimdal? Why on Earth would he be in an Avengers film?


"If you have to be careful to not be racist then it means you are a racist. After all, what do you have to be careful about? It isn't comparable to Black Panther whatsoever."

You're proof of why you have to be careful not to be racist. If people like you are going to accuse Marvel of being racist purely because they correctly decided that a Black Panther film would offer nothing to the narrative of the franchise AT THE MOMENT, then damn right they have to be careful not to be racist.

McIntosh said...

"We both want Black Panther to come out. You want it done fast, while I want it done right. 'Nuff said."

This is essentially what this whole argument boils down to. Phil and the others just want Black Panther shoehorned in with absolutely no thought towards the overall narrative of the franchise.

Phil said...

@Anonymous

1) If you can't understand why having a story where Africa is controlled by apes is not in good taste then I don't know about you.

2) It was well known that Iron Man was not considered an A-List character prior to Iron Man live action movie. Ant-Man nor Guardians Of the Galaxy are nowhere near A-list characters yet are already getting feature films.

3) Even on a relative level Blade wasn't low budget for the time. You did discredit Blade's success by acting as if it doesn't really mean anything.


@Sam Robards, Comic Fan

"I never said it was hard to do: I just said you have to be smart about it. There is a difference. The fact that you can't seem to discern that is terrible."

Why don't you tell me what the difference is then?


"Besides, comic books and major motion pictures are playing to completely different audiences. What works for comic fans won't necessarily work for movie fans."

This is essentially an empty pile of words. Tell me exactly what needs to be changed in Wakanda from the comics in order for it to "work on film"?


"But I can see that there's clearly no point in continuing this conversation. We both want Black Panther to come out. You want it done fast, while I want it done right. 'Nuff said. "

Uh, no. All you did there was dumbed down my entire argument. You've been ignoring almost everything I've been saying and going off on tangents. How about engaging in an actual discussion and not put words into people's mouths then run off like you made some kind of point?

Phil said...

@McIntosh

"This is essentially what this whole argument boils down to."

No, what that comment of yours and Sam's boils down to is flat out distorting my argument.

"This is why it didn't matter that Iron Man has only one iconic villain. Marvel simply could not do an Avengers film or franchise without Tony Stark."

Nowhere did I say Iron Man shouldn't have been made. What I am saying is that he wasn't A-List and therefore using that argument is a weak one. Thor was also an "important" member yet wasn't considered A-list before his movie.

It's telling that you didn't reply at all to my reply to you. That includes the part about how Marvel's Incredible Hulk film was essentially a useless film that added nothing going into the Avengers aside from shallow references.

"You said it yourself, you want Black Panther just to add variety to the Marvel films. You want him shoe-horned into the franchise at a point when it would make no sense to do so."

You do realize that the situations created in these movies are done by people right? Writers invent the situations. They don't wake up one day to find a script that was sent to them by the gods where they have to work within the boundaries set by the gods. So to use the argument that giving a nonwhite character their own movie will be "shoe-horning" them in is a terrible one. It's also unconvincing seeing as how little Incredible Hulk added to the Avengers build up at all. Hundreds of different scenarios could've been created to have had Black Panther or any other nonwhite superhero get their own movie and fit into the first Avengers movie. They just didn't want to.

"He is not such an iconic member of the Avengers as Iron Man, Captain America, Thor or Ant-Man"

I beg to differ.

You've also ignored everything I wrote before about Nick Fury, Hemdial and War Machine. I repeat that part again:

All of those are token characters. Nick Fury doesn't do anything in these movies except stand in the back. The most he ever had to do was in the Avengers but that was about 4 years after his introduction. Heimdal had about 5 minutes of screen time in Thor which mostly consisted of him standing still with his sword in hand. War Machine is a sidekick and it looks like Falcon might be one too. Also the fact that you describe them as characters to "stave off ridiculous calls of "racism" until phase three?" seems to me like you don't think they are valuable characters at all. Sounds pretty token to me.

If you actually understand what I am talking about it is for a character that isn't a token nonwhite character. That's what a nonwhite character getting their own movie is about. Marvel clearly isn't that interested in one. That's why I think they went ahead with the black Nick Fury and the really stupid decision of making Heimdal black. It was to make it seem they are diverse when it's really nothing progressive. If they wanted to be progressive why didn't they give Japanese actor Asano Tadanobu more lines and more to do in Thor?

KevinCV said...

@Phil

I just wanna give my 2 cents regarding the casting of Heimdall and Nick Fury using black actors:

Kenneth Branagh has gone on record saying he didn't cast Idris Elba as Heimdall because he wanted a token black actor in a majorly white cast. He cast him simply because he felt Elba was a great actor, period. I personally applaud Branagh for doing that, because not many people are that ballsy in Hollywood nowadays.

As for Nick Fury, they contacted Samuel L. Jackson to ask him if they could use his likeness for the Ultimate Marvel continuity. He told them they could on the condition that he'd be the one playing Fury if he ends up in any movies. They agreed, and that's that.

We now return to your regularly scheduled "perceived racism in Marvel Studios movies" debate.

Anonymous said...

@Phil

The fact of the matter, Phil, is you are an ass. Plain and simple. You don't want to have a conversation or a debate. You are right, everyone else is wrong, and you will browbeat anyone that disagrees with you.

KevinCV said...

I should amend myself: I meant to say "use his likeness for Nick Fury in the Ultimate Marvel continuity". When I have something I want to say and I'm typing it, it sometimes gets all jumbled and stream-of-consciousness. Hence why my blog is called "Kevin's Geeky Ramblings"... XD

Phil said...

@KevinCV

I don't know what was so ballsy about hiring a great black actor to play a role in a movie that essentially amounts to no more than 5 minutes of screen time most of which consists of standing around or being frozen by Loki.

Again, why didn't Asano Tadanobu get more to do in Thor? He is a great actor, among Japan's best, and he has about 3 lines in the whole movie. Another token character.

I've long known of the situation with Sam Jackson and his likeness in the Ultimate universe. I read the Ultimates when they were being published. The point still stands that he is a token character for he is not really given that much to do in these movies. Sam Jackson's Nick Fury just stands around in other people's movies. They give him the title of "boss" so that they can claim they are being progressive.

It's telling that in the Ultimate Marvel universe a big character in the Avengers line up got an ethnicity change but Marvel didn't go forth to include that in their live action movies. If Marvel's all about being progressive then why didn't they include that one character's ethnicity change in the live action movies if they did so with Nick Fury and later on with Heimdall? See because that would result with a nonwhite actor being the lead in a major movie franchise instead of just token characters like black Nick Fury and black Heimdall.

Anonymous said...

@Phil

Actually He gets a lot more lines and scenes in the deleted scenes. There's probably a good 30 minutes of deleted footage but its almost all The Warrior's Three so. He wasn't meant to be token, its just most of the Warrior's Three got cut so most of Hogan's lines were cut.

Anonymous said...

@Phil

Well, if you don't like it, make your own movie studio and create your own black superhero movie blockbuster.

Stop looking to others to do what you want to see done. If you're so gung-ho about 'non-token' representations of minorities in films, do it your goddamn self.

Anonymous said...

Telugu Movie News - Excellent content and review.