Category: Aesthetics

While there is an established history of superhero characters having their ethnicity or gender changed, each change often creates a small uproar (and not just among the fans). For example, while the original Nick Fury is white, the character is black in some worlds. And Samuel Jackson played the character in the MCU movies and shows). As another example, a woman took on the role of Thor. I will be using “ethnicity” here rather than “race” because in most comic book worlds humans are one race, just as Kryptonians and Kree are races.

Some complaints about these changes are based in racism and sexism. While interesting from the standpoint of psychological analysis and ethical evaluation, these complaints are not worthy of serious aesthetics consideration. Instead, I will focus on legitimate concerns about such change.

A good place to begin is to address reasonable concerns about continuity and adherence to the original source material. Just as, for example, having Batman with Superman’s powers would break continuity, making him an Hispanic woman would also seem to break it. Just as Batman normally has no superpowers, he is also a white guy.

One obvious reply is that characters change over time. To use an obvious example, when Superman first appeared he was faster than a speeding bullet and able to leap tall buildings. However, he did not fly and did not have heat vision. Over the years writers added abilities and increased his powers until he became the Superman of today. Character background and origin stories are also frequently modified. If these sorts of changes are acceptable, then this opens the door to changes to the character’s ethnicity or gender.

One easy way to justify any change is to use alternative realities. When D.C. was faced with the problem of “explaining” the first versions of Flash (who wore a Mercury style helmet), Batman, Green Lantern (whose power was magic and whose vulnerability was wood) and Superman they came up with the idea of having Earth 1 and Earth 2. This soon became a standard device for creating more comics to sell, although it did have the effect of creating a bit of a mess for fans trying to keep track of things. An infinite number of earths is a lot to keep track of, which led to a crisis.  Marvel also has its famous “What If” series which allow for changes with an in-world (or across world) justification.

While the use of parallel and possible worlds provides an easy out, there is still the matter of changing the gender or ethnicity of the “real” character (as opposed to just having an alternative version). One option is to not have any “real” character as every version (whether on TV, in the movies or in comics) is just as “real” and “official” as any other. While this solves the problem by fiat, there still seems to be a legitimate question about whether all these variations should be considered the same character. That is, whether a Hispanic female Flash would really be the Flash.

In some cases, the matter is easy to handle. Some superheroes occupy roles, hold “super jobs” or have gear or an item that makes them super. For example, anyone can be a Green Lantern (provided the person qualifies for the ring). While the original Green Lantern was a white guy, a Hispanic woman could join the corps and thus be a Green Lantern. Just as almost, anyone can be a police officer or soldier.

As another example, being Iron Man could be seen as just a matter of wearing the armor. So, an Asian woman could wear Iron Man armor and be Iron Woman. As a final example, being Robin seems to be a role. As different white boys have occupied that role, there seems to be no real issue with having a female Robin (which has been done) or a Robin who is not white.

In many cases a gender change would be pointless because female versions of the character already exist. For example, a female Superman would just be another Supergirl or Power Girl. As another example, a female Batman would just be Batwoman or Batgirl, superheroes who already exist. So, what remains are cases that are not so easy to handle.

While every character has an “original” gender and ethnicity (for example, Captain America started as a white male), it is not always the case that the original’s gender and ethnicity are essential to the character. That is, the character would still make sense, and it would still be reasonable to regard the character as the same (only with a different ethnicity or gender).  This, of course, raises metaphysical concerns about essential qualities and identity. Put very simply, an essential quality is one that if an entity loses that quality, it ceases to be what it is. For example, having three sides is an essential quality for a triangle: if it ceases to be three sided, it ceases to be a triangle. Color and size are not the essential qualities of triangles. A red triangle that is painted blue does not cease to be a triangle.

In the case of superheroes, the key question here is one about which qualities are essential to being that hero and which ones can be changed while maintaining the identity of the character. One way to approach this is in terms of personal identity and to use models that philosophers use for real people. Another approach is to go with an approach that is more about aesthetics than metaphysics. That is, to base the essential qualities on aesthetic essentials, qualities relevant to being the right sort of fictional character.

One plausible approach here is to consider whether a character’s ethnicity and gender are essential to the character. That is, for example, whether Captain America would still be Captain America if he were black or a woman. Or a Colonel.

One key aspect of it would be how these qualities would fit the origin story in terms of plausibility. Going with the Captain America example, Steve Rogers could have been black. Black Americans served in WWII and it would be plausible that the super soldier experiment would be done on African-Americans (because they did experiments in the real world). Making Captain America into a woman would be implausible in a WWII world like our own. The sexism of the time would have ensured that a woman would not have been used in such an experiment and American women were not allowed to enlist in the combat infantry. But, of course, the creation could be an accident. As another example, the Flash could easily be cast as a woman or as having any ethnicity. Tere is nothing about the Flash’s origin that requires that the Flash be a white guy.

Some characters, however, have origin stories that would make it implausible for the character to have a different ethnicity or gender. For example, Wonder Woman would not work as a man, given the nature of the Amazons. She could, however, be cast as any ethnicity (since she is, in the original story, created from a statue).

Another key aspect would be the role of the character in terms of what he or she represents or stands for. For example, Black Panther’s origin story would seem to preclude him from being any ethnicity other than black. His role would also seem to preclude that, as well as a white Black Panther would, it would seem, simply not fit the role. Black Panther could, perhaps, be a woman especially since being the Black Panther is a role. So, to answer the title question, Black Panther could not be white. Or, more accurately, should not be white. 

As a closing point, it could be argued that all that really matters is whether the story is a good one or not. So, if a good story can be told casting Spider-Man as a black woman then that is all the justification needed for the change.

As a fan of fantasy, science fiction, and superheroes I have no difficulty in suspending disbelief for seemingly impossible things like wizards, warp drives and Wonder Woman. But, when watching movies and TV shows, I find myself being critical of the very unlikely. As a philosopher, I find interesting and in need of an explanation. I will use examples from the Hobbit movies and the Flash TV show. Because they vex me even years later.

The Hobbit movies include the standard fare in fantasy: wizards, magic swords, immortal elves, dragons, enchanted rings, and other such things that are (most likely) impossible in the actual world.  The Flash features a superhero who, in the opening sequence, explicitly claims to be the impossible. I, as noted above, have no problem accepting these aspects of fantasy and superhero “realities.”

Given my ready acceptance of the impossible, it seems odd that I am critical of other aspects of these movies and the TV show. In the case of the first Hobbit movie, my main complaint is about the encounter with goblins and their king. I have no issue with goblins, but with physics. I am not a physicist; but I am familiar with falling and gravity and those scenes were so implausible that they prevented me from suspending my disbelief.

In the case of the second Hobbit movie, I have issues with the barrel ride and the battle between the dwarfs and Smaug. In the case of the barrel ride, the events were so wildly implausible that I could not accept them. Ironically, the moves were too awesome and the fight too easy. It was like watching a video game being played in “god mode”: there was no feeling of risk, and the outcome was assured.

In the case of the battle with Smaug, every implausible step had to work perfectly to result in Smaug being in exactly the right place to have the gold “statue” spill on him. Paradoxically, the incredible difficulty of this made it seem too easy. Since everything so incredibly unlikely worked so perfectly it looked completely scripted. I had no feeling that any step could have failed. Obviously, every part of a movie is, by definition, scripted. But if the audience feels this, then the movie is doing a poor job.

In the case of The Flash, I have two main issues. The first is with how Flash fights his super opponents. It is established in the show that Flash can move so fast that anyone without super speed is effectively motionless relative to him. For example, in one episode he simply pulls all the keys from the Royal Flush gang’s motorcycles, and they can do nothing. However, when he fights a powerful villain, he is suddenly unable to use that ability. For example, when fighting the non-speedsters Captain Cold and Heatwave he runs around, barely able to keep ahead of their attacks. But these two villains are just normal guys with special guns. They have no super speed or ability to slow the Flash. Given the speed shown in other scenes, the Flash would be able to zip in and take their guns, just as he did with the keys. Since no reason was given as to why this would not work, the battles seem contrived, as if the writers could not think of a good reason why Flash would be unable to use an established ability, but just made it happen to fill up time with a fight.

The second issue is with the police response to the villains. In the same episode where Flash fights Captain Cold and Heatwave, the police are confronting the two villains yet are utterly helpless. Until one detective manages a lucky shot that puts the heat gun out of operation. The villains, however, easily get away. However, the fancy weapons are very short range, do not really provide any defensive powers and the users are just normal guys. As such, the police could have simply shot them, something real police are obviously willing to do. Yet, for no apparent reason, they do not. The only reason would seem to be that the writers could not come up with a plausible reason why they would not, yet needed them to not do that. This, of course, is not unique to the flash or these villains. The most obvious example is the Joker. He is just a guy, and it makes no sense, beyond his value as an IP, why he has not been shot. Now that I have set the stage, it is time to turn to philosophy.

In the Poetics Aristotle discusses the possible, the probable and the impossible. As he notes, a plot is supposed to go from the beginning, through the middle and to the end with plausible events. He does consider the role of the impossible and contends that “the impossible must be justified by artistic requirements, higher reality, or received opinion” and that that “a probable impossibility is preferable to an improbable possibility.”

In the case of the impossibilities of the Hobbit movies and the Flash TV show, these are justified by the artistic requirements of the fantasy and superhero genres: they, by their very nature, require the impossible. In the case of the fantasy genre, the impossibilities of magic and the supernatural must be accepted. Of course, it is easy to accept these things since it is not actually certain that the supernatural is impossible.

In the case of the superhero genre, the powers of heroes are usually impossible. However, they make the genre what it is. So to accept stories of superheroes is to willingly accept the impossible as plausible in that context. Divergence from reality is acceptable because of this.

Some of the events in the show I was critical of are not actually impossible, just incredibly implausible. For example, it is not impossible for the police to simply decide to just not use rifles against a criminal armed with a flamethrower. However, accepting this requires accepting that while the police in the show are otherwise like police in our world, they differ in one critical way: they are incapable of deploying snipers against people armed with exotic weapons. It is also not impossible that a person would make a life or death fight easier for the person trying to kill them by not using their abilities. However, accepting these things requires accepting things that do not improve the aesthetic experience, but rather detract by requiring the audience to accept the implausible without artistic justification.

To be fair, there is one plausible avenue of justification for these things. Aristotle writes that “to justify the irrational, we appeal to what is commonly said to be.” In the comics from which the Flash TV show is drawn, the battles between heroes and villains almost always go that way. So, the show mostly matches the comic reality. Likewise for the police. In the typical comic police are ineffective and rarely kill villains with sniper rifles, even when they easily could do so. As such, the show could be defended on the grounds that it is just following the rules of comics aimed at kids. That said, I think the show would be better if the writers were able to come up with reasonable justifications for why the Flash cannot use his full speed against the villain of the week and why the police are so inept against normal people with fancy guns.

In the case of the Hobbit movies, accepting the battle in the goblin caves would require accepting that physics is different in those scenes than it is everywhere else in the fantasy world. However, Middle Earth is not depicted elsewhere as having such wonky physics and the difference is not justified. In regard to the barrel ride battle and the battle with Smaug, the problem is the probability. The events are not individually impossible, but accepting them requires accepting the incredibly unlikely without justification or need. Those who have read the book will know that those events are not in the book and are not needed for the story. Also, there is the problem of consistency: the spectacular dwarfs of the barrels and Smaug fight are also the seemingly mundane dwarfs in so many other situations. Since these things detract from the movie, they should not have been included. Also, the Hobbit should have just been one movie.

While I have been playing video games since the digital dawn of gaming, it was not until I completed Halo 5 that I gave some philosophical consideration to video game cut scenes. For those who are not familiar with cut scenes, they are non-interactive movies within a game. They are used for a variety of purposes, such as providing backstory, showing the consequences of the player’s action or providing information (such as how adversaries or challenges work).

The reason  Halo 5 motivated me to write this is an unfortunate one: Halo 5 made poor use of cuts scenes and will argue for this  claim as part of my sketch of a philosophical cut scene theory. Some gamers, including director Guillermo Del Toro and game designer Ken Levine, have spoken against the use of cut scenes. In support of their position, a reasonable argument can be presented.

One fundamental difference between a game and a movie is the distinction between active and passive involvement. In a typical movie, the audience merely experiences the movie as observers and do not influence the outcome. In contrast, gamers experience the game as participants in that they some control over the events. A cut scene, or in game movie, changes the person from being a player to being an audience member. This is analogous to taking a person playing baseball and then moving them into the bleachers to watch the game. They are, literally, taken out of the game. While many enjoy watching sports, the athlete is there to play and not to be part of the audience. Likewise, while watching a movie can be enjoyable, a gamer is there to game and not be an audience member. To borrow from Aristotle, games and movies each have their own proper pleasures and mixing them together can harm the achievement of this pleasure.

 Aristotle, in the Poetics, is critical of the use of the spectacle (such as what we would now call special effects) to produce the tragic feeling of tragedy. He contends that this should be done by the plot. Though this is harder to do, the effect is better. In the case of a video game, the use of cinematics can be regarded as an inferior way of bringing about the intended experience of a game. The proper means of bringing about the effect should lie within the game itself so that the player is playing and not merely observing. As such, cut scenes should be absent from games. Or, at the very least, kept to a minimum.

One way to counter this argument is to draw an analogy to table top role-playing games such D&D, Pathfinder and Call of Cthulhu. Such games typically begin with something like a video game’s opening cinematic: the game master sets the stage for the adventure to follow. During play, there are often important events that take considerable game world time but would be boring to play out in real time. For example, a stock phrase used by most game masters is “you journey for many days”, perhaps with some narrative about events that are relevant to the adventure, such as the party members becoming friends along the way. There are also other situations in which information needs to be conveyed, or stories told that do not need to be played out because doing so would not be enjoyable or would be needlessly time consuming. A part of these games is shifting from active participant to briefly taking on the role of the audience. However, this is rather like being on the bench listening to the coach rather than being removed from the field and put into the bleachers. While one is not actively playing at that moment, it is still an important part of the game and the player knows they will be playing soon.

In the case of video games, the same sort of approach would also seem to fit, at least in games that have story elements that are important to the game (such as plot continuity, background setting, maintaining some realism, and so on) yet would be tedious, time consuming or beyond the mechanics of the game to play through. For example, if the game involves the player driving through a wasteland to the ruins of a city she wishes to explore, then a short cut scene that illustrates the desolation of the world would be appropriate. After all, driving for hours through a desolate wasteland would be very boring.

Because of the above argument, I do think that cut scenes can be a proper part of a video game, if they are used well. This requires, but is not limited to, ensuring that the cut scenes are necessary and that the game would not be better served by either deleting the events or address them with game play. It is also critical that the player does not feel they have been put into the bleachers, although a benched feeling can be appropriate. As a rule, I look at cut scenes as analogous to narrative in a tabletop role-playing game: a cut scene in a video game is fine if narrative would be fine in an analogous situation in a tabletop game.

Since I was motivated by Halo 5’s failings, I will use it as an example of the bad use of cut scenes. Going with my narrative rule, a cut scene should not contain things that would be more fun to play than watch, unless there is some greater compelling reason why it must be a cut scene. Halo 5 routinely breaks this rule. A rather important sub-rule of this rule is that major enemies should be dealt with in game play and not simply defeated in a cut scene. Halo 5 broke this rule right away. In Halo 4 Jul ‘Mdama was built up as a major enemy. As such, it was rather surprising that he was knifed to death in a cut scene near the start. This would be like setting out to kill a dragon in Dungeons & Dragons and having the dungeon master allow you to fight their orc and goblin minions, but then just say “Fred the fighter hacks down the dragon. It dies” in lieu of playing out the fight with the dragon. Throughout Halo 5 there were cut scenes to which I and my gaming buddy said,  “huh, that would have been fun to play rather watch.” That, in my view, is a mark of bad choices about cut scenes.

The designers also made the opposite sort of error: making players engage in tedious “play” that would have been far better served by short cut scenes. For example, there are parts where the player must engage in tedious travel (such as ascending a damaged structure). While it would have been best to make it interesting, it would have been less bad to have a quick cut scene of the Spartans scrambling to safety. The worst examples, though, involved “game play” in which the player remains in first person shooter view, but cannot use any combat abilities. For example, in one section of play the goal is to walk around trying to find various people to “talk” to. The conversations are scripted: when you reach the person, the non-player character t says a few things and your character says something back. There are no dialogue choices. These should have been handled by short cut scenes. After all, when playing a first person shooter, I do not want to walk around unable to shoot  while I trigger uninteresting recorded conversations.  These games are supposed to be “shoot and loot” not “walk and talk.”

To conclude, I take the view of cut scenes that Aristotle takes of acting: while some condemn all cut scenes and all acting (it was argued by some that tragedy was inferior to the epic because it was acted out on stage), it is only poor use of cut scenes (and poor acting) that should be condemned. I do condemn Halo 5’s cutscenes.