Any fan of Spawn knows that the main character—Al Simmons—is a person of color, or at least he was before he died and came back as a superpowered demon. More importantly, his widowed wife, her new husband, and even the man who murdered Simmons were all black.
Being a white teenager in the 90s, I was too young to appreciate this as some sort revolutionary moment for a top-selling comic book to have a virtually all-black cast.
Then the Spawn movie came out in 1997.
Fans were delighted that this character and his creator—Todd McFarlane—were getting a shot at the big screen, but as details about the casting trickled in, we learned that Terry was going to be portrayed by D. B. Sweeney, a white actor. In addition, Chapel was nowhere in the film. We’d later learn that Al Simmons’s murderer was Priest, a white female. That left only Spawn and his widowed wife, Wanda, as the remaining black characters, portrayed by Michael Jai White and Theresa Randle.
Like most fans, I learned the details from the back pages of Spawn comic books where McFarlane published letters from fans and haters, responding to all of them. In one issue, Conor Martin from Suffield, CT wrote in and expressed bitterness and anger over the casting. He felt there was a departure from the original character and storyline just to fit a movie format, which would generalize Spawn and “have no respect for the comics on which they were based.” ((Spawn 59 (March 1997).))
McFarlane responded that the casting of D.B. Sweeney as Terry
was somewhat based on the cold reality that if people perceive this as a black movie there would be no way would receive the 45 million we were after. Terry’s skin color has not been a major issue but what Terry stands for is more important. Priest was put in because I don’t legally own the rights to Chapel. Every decision that I was directly involved in was based upon what would appeal to the greatest number of people while at the same time not offending the core audience. ((Spawn 59 (March 1997).))
It was true that Rob Liefeld owned the rights to Chapel, that still left the matters of Terry becoming white and a white character replacing Chapel.
Jason Williams, a self-identified African American fan wrote, saying he was “disturbed” by McFarlane’s explanation and asked “don’t you see how you are selling out?” He then proceeded to pick apart McFarlane’s points, challenging him “to give a valid, concrete reason that doesn’t center around you selling out to please these executives who funded the project.” ((Jason Williams, Age 25, from Wilmington, Delaware. Spawn 62 (June 1997).))
The letter certainly struck a chord with McFarlane, as he published a lengthy, transparent response, quoted here in full.
Okay, let’s see if I can’t give you an answer that will be somewhat palatable. After much soul searching on the question, ultimately whoever pays the money, makes the final decision. Nobody in Hollywood, unless you’re Steven Spielberg, gets final cut even on their own movie and so all I have is input on the movie. Here’s the dilemma you’re faced with given that there is some weird rationale as to who should be in the movie and why.
If I stuck by my guns and put in Chapel, Spawn, Terry, and Wanda and it were perceived as a black movie, the movie still gets made but they would probably only give us $20 million to make this movie. It can be argued from your point, is it better to have four black actors and a $20 million movie or a $47 million movie with only the lead actor being black? The last time I checked, the only one in the world who can say that is Denzel Washington. So, given that we had to make some concessions, the up side is that we’ve got a $47 million movie that promoting the lead as a man of color instead of throwing in a guy who’s white. To me, I feel that it’s far more advantageous to have a better movie, a bigger budget, something that’s going to get more attention because of the success of the movie and its budget that stars a black man as the hero instead of being one of twenty movies with $20 million budgets that will come and go and disappear. To me it was more important to do a big budget movie with one big lead than do a smaller one with five average people.
In terms of selling out, somewhere along the line you have to play to the strengths and attitudes of the people you are dealing with and give them a product and at the same time still get what you want. Other than getting Denzel Washington or Wesley Snipes in the role, I have now created a character that could potentially appeal to the Denzel Washington’s of the world coming up instead of going down to a level where it’s just going to be one of fifty movies. You can agree with the decision or not, but it’s been made and in the long run, I think we’ll get far more media attention because of what it is than if we’d done it the way you wanted. Not that any way is better than the other, but unfortunately in terms of getting the press and people’s attention, I think this was the best way to do it and I don’t consider that to be a sell out. Quit the opposite. ((Spawn 62 (June 1997).))
It is possible that McFarlane achieved his goal to an extent. Adilifu Nama points out that although some of the characters were whitewashed in the film, the Spawn character is not the racially-ambiguous zombie he typically appears as in the comic books, but instead he is “identifiably a black man” and “quite an impressive black superhero figure,” referring to the complexity of Spawn’s quest for identity and purpose. ((Adilifu Nama, Super Black: American Pop Culture and Black Superheroes (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2011), 134, 137.))
Of course, there were defenders of McFarlane back in 1997, which also made it to the pages of Spawn. Mike Watson from Winston, OR wanted to tell Jason Williams “to mind his own damn business,” because McFarlane “created Spawn/Al, Terry, etc. and you can change them any way you want.” ((Spawn 64 (August 1997).))
McFarlane responded benevolently, but also revealed more of his motivations
Well, Mike, it’s not that simple. I have to think about these details on a much larger scale than that. I have to think about making Spawn interesting on an international level and try to make things appeal to the larger number. If that means making one of my characters a different color, that doesn’t bug me and I hope it doesn’t bother too many people. I would rather change something that I consider a minor detail than to change something more major like their persona. ((Spawn 64 (August 1997).))
Casey Juderjahn from Dallas, TX also rushed to McFarlane’s defense,
By the way, in response to the letter you got in June issue calling you a “sell out” because of choosing a white actor to play the character of Terry in the movie, I’d personally like to say thank you. As far as Hollywood standards are concerned just as you stated, not doing this would have labeled Spawn as a “black picture” and would have limited you to a much smaller budget. This is reality, not a racist statement. As you said, if this is to be turned into a race issue, the most important thing is that the main character is black. Now, if Spawn was white in the movie then there would be something to be upset about. ((Spawn 65 (September 1997).))
Casey also pointed out that his movie theater had an audience “full of kids, adults, white people, black people, Hispanic people—everyone. It is very rare that you see that in a movie audience and I think that’s a major accomplishment in itself.”
McFarlane responded with a non-answer about how he enjoys the wide variety of opinions on Spawn.
Throughout that year, other fans complained that they felt the movie sought too broad of an appeal, abandoning its horror roots. In that same issue, Christopher S. Perron from Worcester, MA was disappointed with the movie due to its toned-down nature, arguing that they should have gone for an R-rating instead of PG-13, echoing other fans. ((Just like Chris Genovese in his letter in Spawn 66 (October 1997).)) But McFarlane guaranteed everyone that an R-rated version would be coming to home release. In response to Anthony Olmo’s complaint that the movie was too “cartoonish,” McFarlane reiterated that he was trying “to expose Spawn to as many people in as many forms as possible” and that sequel “will be rated R the next time around.” ((Spawn 68 (January 1998).))
The sequel never came.
McFarlane doesn’t shy away from controversary and in the letters section of his Spawn comics, you can find people challenging him on his atheism and trashing him as a writer. It is because he publishes these critiques and responds to them that we even know the full story of what happened with the Spawn casting. Remarkably, I couldn’t tell you what the plot of Spawn was during 1997, but I vividly remember reading these letters and responses. I knew exactly where to turn to in my collection to write this story.
And while I consumed all this as a fan back in the 90s, my main reaction was to discuss it with others and lament how it sucked that such decisions even had to be considered.
Fast forward 21 years later and Black Panther is set to make more than $200M domestically on its first weekend release. Not only is the director a person of color along with most of the cast, but it’s set in Africa. More importantly, it is an incredible movie. With the the success of Black Panther, the compromises to make Spawn movie feel like a trite event from a bygone era. And for that, I am grateful.