Editorial: Enough with the Spider-Racism Crap

113 Comments

1. @#95-Guardians of the Galaxy were a hot property for Marvel in recent years and the ideal choice for them to expand into the cosmic sphere of their universe, at least considering they didn’t have the Fantastic Four/Silver Surfer rights. It’s not like you are going to see Marvel do an Adam X the Xtreme movie.

   @#96-I would go further to say that Peter Parker’s struggles are themselves universal, regardless of his costume.

   I doubt that your theory is what is happening. Honestly as dense as he can be, Slott to his credit has shown himself to be mindful of minority representation. Anna Maria, Sajani, Max Modell, in a sense even Silk. These are all characters of one minority or another who are characters first and foremost, with their status as minorities being at best secondary to who they are…even if for some of them who they are sucks…

   @#97-I agree with all of that.

   This discussion has reminded me of a…well a despicably terrible and idiotic article I read a while back actually:

   http://www.dailydot.com/geek/andrew-garfield-plugs-bisexual-peter-parker/

2. @#98 Jack — Oh, I agree he’s purposefully trying to be as provocative as possible in those tweets. Especially when he brings up stuff like “For those that don’t know, the OTHER eleven months of the year are white history months.” Or when one person stated “Cultural saturation. Peter Parker is an icon. My grandma knows him,” Slott responded with “MY grandma knew Jim Crow laws. Didn’t make ’em right.” But I’m also wondering if, in light of Secret Wars, whether there’s also a method behind the “madness.”

3. You are assuming Slott is reasoning.

4. Continued from #96 — One other thing to add. While I do agree with the notion that Peter Parker doesn’t have be Caucasian, there’s nothing wrong with him being so. Furthermore, Peter Parker being depicted as white hasn’t diminished his popularity among non-whites one iota. Finally, with Slott putting all this attention of Peter’s race and ethnicity, he’s dangerously close to doing exactly what he’s accusing his critics of doing–by focusing so much attention on Spider-Man’s race and ethnicity, he ironically runs the risk of missing the very point he says he’s trying to make–that it shouldn’t matter what Spider-Man looks like under the costume.

5. I might be reading too much into this, but what if there’s another reason for why Dan Slott is bringing up the admittedly valid point that, given what Spider-Man represents, Peter Parker doesn’t necessarily have to be white? (And yes, I agree with Stan Lee’s assertion in that, given how the Spider-Man’s costume covers him head-to-toe, any reader from any race, ethnicity, religion, background, etc. can imagine themselves in that costume, so it doesn’t, or shouldn’t matter, what he looks like under that costume so long as it’s Peter Parker.)

   Consider we have Secret Wars happening within a few months, which, among other things, is bringing together the 616 and Ultimate Marvel characters into the same universe, which includes Miles Morales. Consider also that one of the teasers for Secret Wars is Amazing Spider-Man: Renew Your Vows, which not appears to undo One More Day by having Peter and Mary Jane as a married couple, but also show them with a daughter (specifically the red-headed girl from OMD who was the child they were supposed to have had had they not made the deal with Mephisto). Marvel has stated in the past going as far back as the Clone Saga that if Peter Parker ever became a dad, then his responsibility towards his family would circumvent his being Spider-Man. Marvel has also stated time and time again, especially Tom Brevoort, that “Spider-Man is about youth,” and his being married went against this. However, they now have another youthful Spider-Man in Miles. So, what if, towards the end of Renew Your Vows, Slott makes it so something happens to Peter which makes him realize that his new family comes first? Thus he decides to pass the mantle and costume over to Miles. Thus, post-Secret Wars, Miles becomes the “All-New, All-Different Amazing Spider-Man” with Peter acting as his mentor. Perhaps Slott is reiterating the point that Spider-Man doesn’t have to be of a particular race or ethnicity is because he’s planning on having Miles take Peter’s place?

6. @ #93 Al

   “For the movies it’s different because we aren’t ever going to get like a Fantastic Force Movie or a War Machine movie. only the iconic characters who’ve stood the test of time will make the jump to the films so there is a more valid argument for playing with the skin colours there”.

   Not necessarily true. Marvel Studios took a risk with GOTG, all non-iconic characters that the general movie going public knew nothing about and it proved to be a huge success.

7. @93 – “To me casting say a black Spider-Man and treating him the same way you would a white Spider-Man (whilst NOT addressing issues or experiences this African American Spider-Man would realistically face) is ultimately going to do more good than harm.”

   And then where does it stop? Race-swap Spidey… then who’s next? Which character doesn’t get to be a white guy or gal anymore because reasons?

   Or maybe we just go all the way and take all those bad white people out altogether. Except for the villains, of course, and people like Jonah.

   Or! We could just leave him as is. A white dude from Queens. That, too.

8. @#90-My feelings towards the connotations of making Spider-Man a racial minority is that, with things like that…that’s baggage someone themselves brings to something. And it should be ignored or clearly conveyed that that wasn’t their intent.

   Much like my comment about Silk as mentioned above, I think someone claiming that it’s racist to call her ‘Silk’ because she is Asian (or that it’s sexist to have her be a woman who’s powers include making clothes) are projecting something ONTO the creative work which simply wasn’t there and obviously not intended. If someone had Jameson or Flash treat a non-white peter Parker the same way they’ve treated a white Peter Parker, then it is justified by the comics’ histories. And it becomes a matter of educating those who’re unaware of that fact.

   I think partially Stan and Steve were projecting themselves into Peter and they were white men so invariably their author avatar was as well. Whilst there are no overt trappings, one could make the argument that Spider-Man’s anxiety/neurotic nature at times plays into stereotypes about Jewish people that Stan was drawing upon from his own background, much the same way My Big Fat Greek Wedding was made by a Greek person and many Greek stereotypes are front and centre in that.

   I think that in REAL life, yes Peter not being white, or straight or male, or even ablebodied is going to mean he will realistically deal with things that he otherwise wouldn’t. Is it disingenuous to ignore those? Or is it more important to be faithful to the source material and make the statement that race shouldn’t matter, by having a black or Asian Spider-Man go through nothing more or less than the EXACT same situations a white Spider-Man has traditionally dealt with?

   To me casting say a black Spider-Man and treating him the same way you would a white Spider-Man (whilst NOT addressing issues or experiences this African American Spider-Man would realistically face) is ultimately going to do more good than harm. It will send out a more positive message about diversity and about the universal nature of Spider-Man than a negative message about how ‘racism doesn’t exist’ or whatever. After all, NONE of the things Spider-Man struggled with were at all things exclusive to one race or another. They were universal. Ailing aunts, hard ass bosses, a lack of appreciation, bullying, loneliness, money problems, dating complications. These are things white AND black people deal with, things which someone of any skin colour deals with. In fact they are things that women, gay people, bisexual people, even people who aren’t American deal with. That’s part of the appeal and beauty of Spider-Man. Almost anyone can see themselves in him and if you can’t almost anyone can look up to him.

   I think a Spider-Man who deal with racism personally is at that point a different character, because it hints at other things he’s dealt with that the original and other incarnations wouldn’t have.

   The argument about how he’s changed from a kid who grew up in one generation to another hold little if any water given that his personality has, barring his changing with age, remained the same. Outside of technological and writing anachronisms 1960s teenage Peter Parker WOULD at his core be identical to 2010s teenage Peter Parker. the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon eloquently proved that point. That WAS the 1960s Peter Parker but with the superficial trappings updated.

   I don’t know about the argument about creating new characters. I think for the films it’s different than the comics. I think the ship has sailed to say make Peter Parker in the mainstream comics black or Asian or what have you. And I think we can more than justify creating new supporting, villain and hero characters there. For the movies it’s different because we aren’t ever going to get like a Fantastic Force Movie or a War Machine movie. only the iconic characters who’ve stood the test of time will make the jump to the films so there is a more valid argument for playing with the skin colours there.

9. By Dan Slott Ironic enough.

10. Slott should stick to trying to write better Spider-man comics, than this click-baity, race-baiting BS.

11. As for my opinions on who should play Peter Parker (cobbled together from comments on CBR), I’m conflicted but I’m ultimately in favor of expanding the casting options from young white guys to a slightly wider pool …

    It is worth noting that there are two ways to get an African-American Peter Parker, each with its own arguments. One is to limit the role to young black men. The other is to allow young black men to audition, along with young white men. And young Hispanic men. And young Asian men.

    These would serve numerous purposes. It could allow for a good performance. It adds diversity to the MCU. It reflects demographic changes in New York City.

    There are also arguments for limiting the role to young white male actors. One issue is that certain scenes might have negative connotations that wouldn’t exist with a white Peter Parker (IE- Is J Jonah Jameson being a racist by ripping him off? Why is Flash Thompson pissed that he’s talking to Liz Allen? Is his academic scholarship affirmative action?)

    I do think Peter’s race is more of a bug than a feature. Stan Lee would probably not have been able to depict a young black lead in the 1960s. But this doesn’t make Peter’s race a defining part of his character, any more than politics and religion.
    Peter’s religion and political views have rarely been relevant to the comics, so it doesn’t seem like an important part of the character. I think his race is the same way, so I think casting directors should consider all of their options, regardless of race.

    I don’t think there would be an expectation that all subsequent versions of Peter Parker be black. We’ve had two white guys playing Peter Parker across five films, so a new casting wouldn’t define the character for audiences the way John Stewart might have defined Green Lantenr for Justice League fans.

    As for the Miles Morales question (IE- What does a black Peter Parker mean for Miles?), it’s possible that he films won’t get to the point where the character is introduced, so I don’t know how much they should worry about that. And a young half-hispanic/ half-African American kid can be influenced by a black superhero just as much as a white superhero.

    There os a counterpoint that we do generally make the assumption that whiteness is neutral even though it isn’t. So a white Peter Parker would have different experiences than a black one.

    There was a reference to race allowing for more meat to the story, athough there may come a point where the meat results in a character that is fundamantally different.

    That said, the Peter Parker of the comics has changed from a guy who grew up in the 1950s to a millennial, so that’s probably a bigger difference than whether Peter Parker is a white guy born in the 1990s or a black guy born in the 1990s.

    I don’t agree with the argument that we should just create new iconic characters with greater diversity. Writers and artists don’t choose in advance which characters take off, and many of the older characters benefitted from filling needs generations ago when the old lead characters were always white and generally male. That’s not particularly fair.

12. @87 – “But that’s not really the end of a conversation about whether Sony should only seek out young white actors to play Peter Parker.”

    Which is fine, except that this entire post deals with the endless, foaming-mouthed declarations of racism being hurled about regarding the issue.

    @88 – “Just had to say tumblr has thrown out another example of it’s moral superiority.”

    It’s tumblr, man. It’s where rational thought goes to die.

13. Just had to say tumblr has thrown out another example of it’s moral superiority. Apparently Cindy Moon/Silk being Korean is racist because there is a apparently an assumption that silk comes from Korea, but it actually comes from China originally so Silk being Korean is doubly racist of course…Look, I don’t like Silk but for the love of God that is such a desperate argument to make. She’s called Silk because spiders webs are often compared with silk. It has nothing to do with her ethnicity.

14. I am suspicious of any response to an insane argument that does not actually include direct quotes of an individual making the argument. Otherwise, it’s kind of a strawman.

    Obviously some of the people who prefer Peter Parker to be white are not doing so because they’re racist. But that’s not really the end of a conversation about whether Sony should only seek out young white actors to play Peter Parker.

15. @79 – “White” should not be the first thing that comes to mind in a description of Peter. Spider-man is red and blue.” – This statement depends entirely on what version of Spider-Man Slott is talking about. The MCU Peter Parker, who at the moment is a totally blank slate, could very easily be portrayed as a black male, and I would have no problem with it (if it was done tastefully).
    But the comic book version of Peter Parker is white, and I feel that due to the decade that Peter was created in it is part of his character.
    As unfortunate as it would have been, if Peter parker was created as a black teenager back in 1962 there would have been a pretty strong chance that he would not have been a middle-class kid from queen, and much like Black Panther and Luke Cage, his race would have played a much larger role in his character history than it has.

16. @#83-I think the “Describe in 10 words” thing is dependent upon whether you mean list off a physical description or if you mean describe his personality or describe him generally. I would agree with Slott if he meant the latter but disagree if he meant the former. I think for this I shall give him the benefit of the doubt and say he meant the latter because even he cannot be so dense as to say to people that in describing Spider-Man physically that the word ‘white’ should not be included.

17. @83 – “That being said, personally, I’m at a point where I think keeping the skin colours the same as the adaptations might be the best thing just to avoid the headaches and potential controversies.”

    It wouldn’t have avoided this headache/controversy. This headache was 100% manufactured, and with purpose.

18. I do not agree. An adaptations merit categorically does not rise or fall upon how different it is to it’s source. it’s value may be judged in comparison but an adaptation can veer very close to the source and be praised or criticised for it, or an adaptation may take liberities and equally be praised or criticised for it. Batman the Animated Series veers very close to it’s source material spiritually and sometimes directly in its plots and is acclaimed. The Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon bears so little resemblance to its source material that it is often the subject of well deserved derision. The Watchmen film was a mixed affair despite for the most part replicating the source material almost word for word.

    In my book EVERY adaptation should be as faithful to it’s source material as possible whilst working within the restraints of a new medium. I do not WANT to see any original innovations made in an adaptation that was not there in the source material, unless the change is a practical one. For example, having Loki invade New York city was an original innovation of the Avengers film which was necessary as the actual Avengers #1 was not cinematic or dramatic enough to warrant a film.

    When I said physicality I was referring to body build. That is to say the actor cannot be obese or infirm. To an extent I understand what you are saying in terms of recognisability. But at the same time it’s an iffy issue given other adapted race changes (Nick Fury, Electro, etc). It then gets into murky waters regarding why it’s okay for some characters and not for other. Potentially it can even be belittling to the characters or minorities. It’s not okay to change Spider-Man’s skin colour because he’s more famous and well known than Electro, who is less famous and not well known so sure, make him minority, people won’t care about that one. I think the precedent has been set now, and given how representation is important, we should forgo the recognisability of characters physically (outside of their costumes) and focus upon their personalities, as that is a good message to send to people. The exceptions being characters for whom their skin colour IS important, of whom Spidey isn’t one of.

    That being said, personally, I’m at a point where I think keeping the skin colours the same as the adaptations might be the best thing just to avoid the headaches and potential controversies, since you could just argue you are sticking close to the source material. I am reminded how the Dragon Ball Evolution film courted controversy by taking a Japanese media franchise and casting white actors in the role. Japanese/Asian actors would’ve avoided a lot of that.

    I’m not saying this must mean someone who isn’t white MUST get the part, whomever is best qualified for the job should. So if there is a black actor who nails Spider-Man’s personality but there is a plethora of white actors who don’t, but physically resemble Spider-Man, should the black actor not get the part?

19. @79 – “White” should not be the first thing that comes to mind in a description of Peter.”
    “Peter has no defining characteristics as a white kid or a spanish kid or a black kid etc. ”
    “Pointing out that Peter does is in fact have different characteristics based on his skin color is in very racist.”

    Pretend I am a police sketch artist.

    Describe Peter Parker to me so I can draw him, Keenan.

20. @32 You make a valid point and on a second reading, my argument that a change in ethnicity required acknowledgement to maintain artistic integrity had little justification. Provided that an original piece of work has no intention of directly addressing issues regarding a specific racial group, the racial background of any single character has no bearing on its artistic merit. That said, adaptations operate under a set of rules that differ tremendously from the creation of an original work of art. The latter is free to fashion any identity it desires for its players while the former is bound by conditions pre-set in the original source.

    Now, the key to an adaptation’s artistic worth is founded on the ways it is able to distinguish itself from the original source and its ability to… well… adapt to the new medium. That said, stray too far from the source material and it might as well be completely unrelated to the original work. Therefore, one must seriously consider what elements of the original source to retain to justify its identity as an adaptation. When this is applied to characters, the adapted character must unquestionably be recognised as identical to the original character, give or take a few minor tweaks. We can all agree that part of that recognisability is founded on the character’s personality, and I for one support the belief that a misunderstanding of a character’s core personality traits is a greater sin than a misrepresentation of the character’s physicality.

    That said, I do not think that an appreciation for the importance of personality should come at the expense of appearance. Like it or not, physicality IS a defining trait of an individual’s identity and to diminish its importance is to advocate misrepresentation of adapted material. You stated earlier that Spider-Man should be portrayed by an actor who is most capable of representing his personality and physicality while denying that skin colour did not fall under the jurisdiction of the latter. I completely disagree with this belief on the grounds that it implies skin colour is an aspect unrelated to the physical body. Skin colour is not a quality so exceptional that it deserves to be treated any differently from say, height, weight, build, or indeed, qualities founded on personality.

    While ofttimes for pragmatic reasons, an exact representation of an adapted character is unlikely (on both physical and psychological grounds), an approximation should be achieved where possible. Therefore, an actor best able to portray Spider-Man should by definition be able to in addition to his humour, courage, and lean build, approximately represent his skin colour as well.

21. That is not the point. The issue has to do with people just automatically screaming “RACIIIIIST!” at anyone who disagrees with them.

22. I think this topic should have really been left alone. Why bring it up? What good does it do for anybody? There’s nothing wrong with opinions coming from both sides…

    However I do believe that I should point out the (I hope) unintentional ignorance of this article:
    For the record I (can’t believe I am going to say this) but I agree with Dan Slott. “White” should not be the first thing that comes to mind in a description of Peter. Spider-man is red and blue. Heck I’m sure parents that buy a Miles Morales/Miguel O’hara action figure think it’s peter. Something tells me that the “Brunette, 5’10, hazel eyed white dude” action figure would not sell as much. 😛

    The Black Panther argument was beyond ignorant. Changing the race of a broke suburban American kid is not the same as changing the race of an African King. lol
    Shang Chi I would also be weird. I mean I’ve known ethnic kids with the names Peter or Parker but I’ve never met any one not asian named Shang chi.

    I think Miles is the perfect example of a modern suburban ethnic kid. If you updated Spider-man’s creation to today he would probably be Miles Morales.

    Peter has no defining characteristics as a white kid or a spanish kid or a black kid etc. That’s how all comic characters should be written if they want to survive beyond the era of their creation. Miles is written in the same vein that Peter was at the time. These characters do not have any likes/dislikes that are defined by a certain race and any cultural differences they may have are kept to a VERY bare minimum so that everyone can relate to them. I don’t think we’ve had to see Miles deal with any racism outside of our reality where the same people crying about fictional casting now were crying back than when he was announced. Lovely people like Glenn Beck. Who also said he was gay and that Michelle Obama had created an obama Spider-man to brainwash people.

    Pointing out that Peter does is in fact have different characteristics based on his skin color is in very racist. At least more racist than anyone here would care to admit. That’s saying that your skin color defines you as a human being. I thought we were better than that?

    Do I think Peter Parker should be played by a person of color? (Don’t care that much. He is my FAVORITE HERO REGARDLESS BECAUSE OF WHO HE IS AS A PERSON). But I would not cry myself to sleep over it. There are many talented actors of color that could get right the things that I thought Tobey Maguire got wrong about the character. One of the best actors of our time to play Peter has spanish blood and thus would not be considered able to play him in a movie. (JOSH KEATON) Very few actors love/get him as that dude.

    I think the bigger picture here is that so far Black heroes have been reduced to being sidekicks on screen and people are desperate for something different.

23. “tumblr people honestly called the casting of Cumberbach as Dr. Strange racist on the grounds that they could have cast someone who wasn’t white but did not” – 😮 This is why I don’t go on tumblr. White guilt taken to ridiculous extremes.

24. I think Dan Slott has demonstrated by now several times over that he’s not in any position to judge whether or not someone “gets” Peter Parker.

25. @#73-I agree with what you say, so long as a person is not arguing that no one who is not white is either incapable of playing the character or should not play him/should not be considered for the role. Talent and skill should ultimately win out.

    But at the same time, I do agree that there are those who take these discussions to extremes. I all to vividly remember how on tumblr people honestly called the casting of Cumberbach as Dr. Strange racist on the grounds that they could have cast someone who wasn’t white but did not. Forget how Cumberbach is a major and popular actor right now and is one of the most skilled and talented of his generation. He is a white actor thus casting him in…pretty much anything is (to these people I hope are not the majority) racist.

26. Just found this post now and I completely agree. Watching the Oscars this morning, I was astonished how much racism has become an everyday subject again. Which is a good thing in some ways: Just watch David Oyelowo’s reaction to the song Glory. There’s no denying that in particular in the US, racism is a disease that is far from eradicated. Still, and that’s why I think posts like this one here are important, racism goes every which way and we are darn near to losing sight of what counts while pointing fingers at black, white, yellow, purple and green people. And that goes for humans of all color. Let’s acknowledge that we’re all a little bit racist and see that we can have discussions like this one – about what skin color we want Peter Parker to have – without resorting to ignorant insults.

    In terms of Dan Slott: Without wanting to defend him, there are good reasons why skin color is far from being among the top 10 characteristics of Peter Parker, as evidenced by the great “Peter Parker: Spider-Man #35”.

27. seriously… SERIOUSLY?!?!?

28. @72 – “The problem is when words like “tradition,” “preference,” and “opinion” are used in talking about race, it raises eyebrows because those words have been used to justify/deny racism for a very, very long time.”

    Which is how race baiters basically boil it down to “anything you say to defend your point is racist because I said, so just STFU.” I utterly reject that. It is weak and it is complete & total bullshit.

    If a Spider-Fan prefers Peter Parker to be portrayed as a white dude, the way the character has been portrayed since his first appearance through to this very day… it’s not racist. Not in any way, shape or form.

29. The problem is when words like “tradition,” “preference,” and “opinion” are used in talking about race, it raises eyebrows because those words have been used to justify/deny racism for a very, very long time. To believe that no black actor, no matter his skill or knowledge/understanding of the character, should be allowed to play Peter Parker because of his skin color is a racist belief. I don’t care if you call it a preference, an opinion, a tradition, or a tuna sandwich, that’s what it is.

30. Yu Komori / Tokyo Spider-man 2016 baby! You hear me Marvel!

    But in all seriousness what the hell is up with Slott these days? I’m beginning to worry about that guy.

    Also, last time I bothered to visit Tumblr (that place has been long forsaken) there was hate on Glover for being something along the lines of a “rape apologist”. Strikes me that these kind of people will never be satisfied.

    ~Lament~

31. @67 – “I think you really missed an opportunity to be a voice of reason by being overly dismissive of the other side.”

    Then blame “the other side” for shouting racism 24/7 at anything that moves in front of them or ever dares to say anything contrary. We’ve heard people “cry wolf” too many times now.

32. “Peter is a nerd, not a thug.” – Did someone seriously say this? That’s awful.

33. @64 – I can’t believe he’s still at it. The more I hear of Slott’s online behaviour, the more I get the impression that he’s a very sad man that puts more effort into trolling than he does writing stories.

34. Wanting Peter to be white isn’t inherently racist, but it can be based on the reasons given. I’ve seen comments varying from mild ones like “Peter is a kid from the suburbs” to “Peter is a nerd, not a thug.” Pretending that racism claims are all unfounded leads to more disharmony.

    I think you really missed an opportunity to be a voice of reason by being overly dismissive of the other side.

35. If Marvel/Sony gave Spider-Man a new costume for the next movie and that costume was orange and pink, people would bitch. Why? Because the Spider-Man costume that we all know and love is blue and red (or black).

    If Marvel/Sony hired a black actor to play Peter Parker in the next movie, people would bitch. Why? Because the Peter Parker that we all know and love is a white man.

    Not wanting Peter Parker to be portrayed by a person of color has nothing to do with racism. It has everything to do with fans wanting to see their favorite comics/characters faithfully adapted in another medium.

36. @#64- It’s almost as if his claims as to only be comfortable writing two books a month was an exaggerated claim in order to cover for his laziness as a writer.

    But, really, as others pointed out, this is perhaps the safest thing Slott can argue. Marvel’s going to likely cast a white actor in the role, just as they cast a white actor as Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Hulk, Scarlet Witch, Starlord, and others. His claim of being “colour blind” really seems more like him trying to come off as morally superior to others, particularly if he doesn’t give a damn about HOW they respond and just whether or not they are simply agreeing with him and telling him he’s right about everything and a genius.

37. He’s still going at it. Two straight days of floor-pounding tantrums, declaring Peter Parker’s not white until he’s red in the face. It’s a wonder he ever gets any writing done.

38. @61 haha god that just makes too much sense I’m about 80% sure he wears a child’s spider-man outfit when he goes on Twitter to be a social warrior to feel like some sort of hero. He’s probably already talked to Kevin fiege about how ready he is to don the webs for the movie.

39. #44 Precisely. This was a very safe argument for Slott to have, because he can make himself look like a socially aware “good guy” (when ironically, his work demonstrates the opposite. He claims to be a feminist and then fridges female characters while making MJ, the original “I run from commitment” girl, into a serial rebounder, defined by her need for a man in her life. Slott plays the colorblind card, but writes a scene in which confident white savior Spider UK counsels unsure, lacking in self respect Spider India – and anyone even the least bit familiar with UK-India history knows how tone deaf that scene was. Slott lived in the UK, he doesn’t get an ignorant American pass).

    But Slott knows they won’t race bend Peter Parker. Thie conventional thinking in Hollywood is international audiences reject films with black leads (see the Sony email leaks about the poor box office results of The Equalizer). And international box office accounts for 70% of a film’s total revenue these days. These films cost a LOT; Disney isn’t going to take a chance. It would be great if the world were different, but this is the business reality Disney faces.

    I agree that the incredibly cool and empathetic thing about Spider-Man is that anyone can be under his mask (as long as he has a certain build). But I disagree that anyone can be Peter Parker. Like it or not, we don’t live in a color blind world. We don’t live in a class-free society. We don’t live in a mono culture. Who we are – our race, our culture, our upbringing, our education – informs us as people. Writers, except for Slott apparently, know it informs their characters as well.

    I’m all for the best actor possible portraying Spider-Man, regardless of ethnicity. But Slott and others are lying – and it’s a rather insidious lie – if they insist Peter Parker can change his race and still be the Peter Parker of the comics. One only has to look at the way certain factions of the press treat President Obama, the #blacklivesmatter meme, to see that we still aren’t in a post racial world, no matter how much well-meaning people want it to be so. A race bent Peter Parker would need to take into consideration all the ways Peter Parker’s life would have been altered, the different barriers and challenges he would have come up against – which would mean a very different Peter than the one established by Stan Lee. But then, I don’t think Slott understands what the word “characterization” means, much less how to apply it in his work.

    That’s why Miles is so interesting to me – here’s someone who possibly is treated better by society while wearing the costume than out of it, while Peter is hated in costume (at least by the Bugle) but does pretty well outside of it but for his neuroses and guilt.

    As for Slott’s example of successful race bent characters in the MCU: I love Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury in the MCU, but he’s based on Ultimate Nick Fury who is and always has been a black male.

    TL;dr: just stop following Slott on Twitter and the world would be a much more logical and rational place.

40. @59 – After this debacle he’d probably say Donald Glover or someone just to look ‘hip’. But his actual choice would most likely be a white actor. Hell, Slott’s ego is so huge I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t cast himself as Peter :D.

41. Slott is probably confusing “Peter Parker” for “Spider-man.” Not surprising

42. @#57- I’d love to see who Slott would cast as Peter if given the chance. I wonder if he really would be as “colour blind” as he insists he is.

43. And obsessively trying to draw attention to himself yet again.

44. @51 – I’d love to know what 10 words Slott would use describe Peter Parker. I could imagine that unlucky, broke, moron, cassanova and SpOck would be among them.

45. @#54- George- I doubt that Slott is really all that concerned with being “racially blind” when it comes to who should be cast as Peter Parker. I’m sure if you asked him who he thinks should play Peter Parker, his first ten choices would likely all be white actors. Nothing wrong in that, but it hardly puts him in the “White shouldn’t be in the first thousand terms to describe him” rationalization.

    This is Slott just using an opportunity to play the moral high ground, to be the “Social Justice Warrior” against- let’s face it- an easy target. He’s not exactly breaking convention or stating anything controversial by saying “Racism is BAD!”

    This isn’t him trying to be progressive or understanding. This is him trying to look good by striking out against something that we all already know is a bad thing.

46. @#51- I don’t think the man who wrote a story where Peter Parker invades people’s privacy the year after his life was ruined by exposing his secret identity has a leg to stand on when telling people they do or don’t get the character one way or another. Slott has NEVER understood Spider-Man.

47. How funny that the writer known for making Peter Parker a supporting character in his own book gets on a soapbox and preaches to others about “not getting” the character. Enh. Guess stirring up this kind of drama is what his ego needs to keep that sanctimonious boat afloat.

48. But what will happen if they cast a black actor for Spider-man? It will attract new fans and when they find he is white in the comics then what? They will change him too? They will erase 50 years of stories for that? What about old fans? Please, no.

49. Personally I would love if mcu Peter Parker was Asian but I’m not going to call anybody a to be “worst than Hitler” if they don’t share my opinion.

50. Here’s another example of Slott’s rants on Twitter.
    I think male, hazel eyes, brown hair, white, about 5’10 should be in the first few descriptions of the character.