Can I talk about this modern trend in "diversity casting in TV shows?"
- Thread starter Samtemdo8
- Start date
Recommended Videos
- Status
Okay, let me look up what on Earth you guys are talking about.
.........
........ Man that sounds cringe as hell. Like the rapping dog cringe.
Modern art offends me morally, in the sense that millions of taxpayer dollars are often spent of that garbage. I read an interesting article comparing modern art and NFTs a little while ago.Inoffensive in the sense that it’s not obviously or at face value about or representative of an offensive or confronting subject, sure.
Offensive in that lay people - like me - look at it and when compared with the great art we have managed to preserve from periods long past, find it wanting.
This for example is the Vault. A piece of public abstract art first erected in Melbourne in 1978. It’s sculptor and a fair amount of other artists love it. However when it was put up, it was largely hated by the public at large. And when I look at it all I see is someone utterly fucking up erecting a garage.
Modern art offends people aesthetically, not morally. And I largely agree; that thing was a waste of perfectly good sheet metal.
Art has long ago been intentionally divorced from any sort of objective metric of worth as a sort of money laundering scheme, and NFTs are the natural endpoint of the path that modern art has been paving for decades.
Last edited:
Still a million times better than the rapping dog. I saw Hamilton once, and it's surprisingly good and entertaining. I never felt any cringed. Everyone actually cared about the end product. Hamilton became a success and a big hit for audiences.Okay, let me look up what on Earth you guys are talking about.
.........
View attachment 6668
........ Man that sounds cringe as hell. Like the rapping dog cringe.
How Lin-Manuel Miranda's non-stop work ethic from a young age made 'Hamilton' one of the most successful musicals of all time
Miranda's blend of theater and hip-hop has transformed musical theater. Here's how he got his start, and what he's got lined up for the future.
www.businessinsider.com
Please do not insult other forum users
If you're gonna argue that comic book/ fantasy/ Sci fi etc haven't generally gone through a consciously "darker", grittier tone during recent years, because a clear outlier exists, that's a bit of a non-starter.
OK, but whether or not you or I actually like the product in question isn't really relevant to my question. I don't like it either, but the question stands.
Ah yes, the solid argument of "weaponisation is v bad
guys come on" followed immediately by "lolololol fucking leftists are the worst, dw it's fine when I do it".
Last edited:
Pigeons looking like they're about to drop the hottest hip hop banger of the year
Not sure how many you're going to find outside the Iberian peninsula in that period.
It's silly, and I moved on with my life, as Henry VIII's been done to death.
It's hypocrisy that irritates me more than the act itself. Everyone knows what the real Anne Boelyn looked like, if you differ from that? Fine. Go for it. Just stay consistent.
One can easily find other examples.
Also, I'd hardly call Ross "token," given that he has a fairly significant role in the story.
You've lumped at least four different IPs, one of which isn't high fantasy together, so it's silly to compare them.
I can't comment in Witcher (bar the first book) or Delicous Dungeon (an IP I've never heard of until now), but it's silly to compare Lord of the Rings to Castlevania, since one's set in the real world (however nominally), one isn't. Nothing in Castlevania feels out of place from an ethnic/demographic standpoint, so there's that. Your Lord of the Rings analogy doesn't work however, because this is a setting where it's rare to find anyone, anywhere, out of their group/nation/tribe/whatever. The Shire's filled with hobbits and little else. Mirkwood? Elves, and nothing else. The Iron Hills? Dwarves, and nothing else. This even applies to human groups - you wouldn't find a Haradrim in Bree anymore than you'd find a Gondorian in Rhun - not without good reason. This being a setting where travel is hard, dangerous, and where among even one's own species, people are pretty insular.
As for why elves wouldn't come in a variety of skin tones, there's no hard rule against it, sure. Are there Watsonian and Doylist reasons for why elves tend to be fair skinned? Yes. Does it break the setting to have a dark-skinned elf? Not really. Is it weird, given the context? A bit, but not deal breaking. It would actually be more weird to have humans be more intermingled, actually.
Da fuq?
Isn't that only true on the surface level? BA's backstory is different from Supes, and it's a backstory that affects his outlook on the world. It's hardly a "black superman" scenario.
Go home. You're drunk.
Well, guess I'm a racist then?
All of those things vary in setting and context. So to answer your questions:
-Kung Fu: No, that's a martial art, there's nothing preventing anyone of any culture
learning Kung Fu.
-Boondocks: Far as I'm aware, race is relevant to Boondocks, so if you did a live-action adaptation, you'd want to cast actors that look the part.
-Lord of the Rings: No, it's not "all nordic" people, you're forgetting the peoples of the East. But yes, in general, you'd want to cast people who look like the cultures in question, since most of the human cultures in Middle-earth have real-world inspirations.
-Arabian Nights: Probably? I mean, if you adapted an Arabian Nights story, you'd probably want people who looked like something out of Arabia/Persia.
-Anime: Anime's a medium, so, no, it depends entirely on the story of the anime in question. Anime set in historical Japan? Yes, you'd want the characters to look Japanese. Something like Gundam? Chances are you'd want all the peoples of Earth represented.
When the Force Awakens teaser trailer was released, there was an outcry on the Internet (not too major, but reported on) about Finn being a stormtrooper. Looking at your post, there's a lot to correct.
First, stormtroopers were originally clones, but were gradually replaced by recruits. In the old canon, by Empire, the only significant clone stormtrooper unit was the 501st IIRC, which "never got used to the other guys" (the non-clones).
Second, even being the most generous I could be (let's say all stormtroopers were clones, so should all look like Jango), it's an assinine argument. Finn in the trailer could be undercover? Or maybe things have changed? Or maybe...oh, sorry, it's pandering, silly me...
Idiots.
Clone stormtrooper
Clone stormtroopers were stormtroopers cloned from various templates, including the Mandalorian Jango Fett, whose genetic material was used in the creation of clone troopers during the last years of the Galactic Republic. In the aftermath of the Clone Wars, Emperor Palpatine redesignated the...
starwars.fandom.com
Better? No. Worse? Arguably. Would it have been worse if the main four retained everything but were all pale? Not really. You wouldn't have to change a word of dialogue.
I disagree. It's an asinine way of looking at things, to say "X is here, therefore, it's "forced diversity."
And to be clear, I don't think comapring the MCU to the comics is a good idea. THe MCU isn't made for comic fans, the MCU is made for the plebs such as myself. I'd never heard of Falcon until Winter Soldier, I don't know, nor particuarly care what happened in the comics, and hate to burst your bubble, but Disney doesn't either. So whatever may or may not have happened in the comics is irrelevant in the MCU - Steve gives Sam the Shield, and then he gets a season to 'earn' it, so to speak. Not seeing the problem here.
Um...kinda?
I'll be clear, Lightyear was beset by a range of idiots who decried it as "woke" because of its lesbian romance (a romance that wouldn't need a word of dialogue changed if it was straight), and I've got no time for those idiots. On the other hand, if your obsession is measuring diversity and nothing else, then I'm not interested in that either.
I mean, I can play this game - Lightyear has more ethnic and sexual diversity, whereas the cartoon has more species, class (Mira's a princess, geddit?) and planetary diversity, so pick your yardsticks, come to the conclusion, and be bemused as to why most people find you a weirdo.
You can, but if you're adapting a work, and make major changes to the work, don't be surprised when eyebrows start to be raised.
Can LotR function if all the hobbits are gay and produce asexually or something? Um, I guess. Is it a weird change? Hell yes.
You mean the Galactic Alliance that the planet is only suddenly part of after having been out of contact and stranded for over 60 years?
Yeah, the ending felt like it had left a lot of stuff on the cutting room floor.
I've set money aside to get it on DVD, so hopefully.
If it doesn't come out on DVD, then things get more difficult.
First, the books aren't "100% white." I have no idea what the percentage is, and since identity politics suck I have no desire to, but you have two entire continents' worth of non-white people, plus Dorne in Westeros, so if you're obsessed with skin colour, good news for you.
Second, it's a strawman to say "fantasy nonsense." If you don't like fantasy, sure, that's your prerogative, but good fantasy (and sci-fi) have solid worldbuilding, so if you're breaking the 'rules' of the setting, then it ultimately weakens it.
Third, on the subject of the 'rules.' That House Velaryon has dark-skinned nobility isn't an issue per se, but it's eyebrow raising in a sense in that it's a Valyrian house, and we know what Valyrians look like (pale skinned, purple-eyed), so while it's not impossible in the context, it's very much the exception to the rule. This isn't some conspiracy, it would be just as weird to have pale skinned Naathians for instance, or Dornish being found among the Dothraki. It isn't malignant to notice that.
Fourth, not sure how FatF is "woke," but it's a false equivalence. FatF takes place in the 20th/21st century all over the globe (I think), where travel is pretty easy, so you can get anyone from anywhere in the world to do...whatever it is the characters do. In contrast, ASoIaF is a setting where travel is pretty difficult, and where numerous nations/ethnic groups exist, living and dying in the same place (which was the norm for human history until the last few centuries). You could hypothetically assemble a FaF-esque cast of characters, but the in-universe mechanics make it much harder to do so.
I can't compare Berserk to anything, but if you're talking about stuff like Streets of Rage and Street Fighter, it's another false equivalence. Those two games take place in the 20th/21st centuries, with the former taking place entirely in the US (which is ethnically diverse), and the latter taking place all over the world and having easy travel. In contrast, a fantasy story can operate under whatever rules it wants to, but if your starting inspiration is Medieval Europe, then your real-world starting point is a setting where travel is difficult, and where "diversity" is a lot more limited (this would likewise apply to any setting inspired by any point in history from any location - Mother Lands is entirely West African derived, Cyote and Crow entirely Amerindian derived, Poppy War entirely Chinese derived, etc.)
This isn't even something that's 1:1 with genre. Dynasty Warriors is a brawler, but is mostly, if not entirely Chinese, while Golden Sun is fantasy, but is a setting where every real-world continent has an in-universe equivalent and the culture (roughly) to match, for instance.
I guess the TL, DR version is that I think any approach is valid.
You know one of the joys I find in life is hearing someone call Black Panther woke, and then another person calling it conservative. It truly is such an interesting view of things.
I dunno Brawlman. Like, I have no moral objection to that idea, it's just that when I read the description all it does is make me think of all the rapping in 90's cartoons that people look back on and literally cringe at. But I haven't seen it, and you know I'm not much of a rap aficionado anyway so whatever. If you like it and it's good then good on you and the musical but I don't think it's my thing.Still a million times better than the rapping dog. I saw Hamilton once, and it's surprisingly good and entertaining. I never felt any cringed. Everyone actually cared about the end product. Hamilton became a success and a big hit for audiences.
How Lin-Manuel Miranda's non-stop work ethic from a young age made 'Hamilton' one of the most successful musicals of all time
Miranda's blend of theater and hip-hop has transformed musical theater. Here's how he got his start, and what he's got lined up for the future.
Don't knock it, till you try it. Remember that there are so many different genres and levels of rap and hip-hop in the world. Hamilton is nothing like the typical (crappy) mainstream rap of the late 2010s or early 2020s. I ain't saying it will change your life or anything, but at least give it a shot. It is not even close to that "rap" (in a shitty animated movie capitalizing on a tragedy) you'll get from 90s soulless corporate greed, that doesn't understand one thing about the people, culture or genre, and only uses the most shallow parts. Another misuse of cultural appropriation, and greedy, rich white guys using Black culture to get ahead somewhere.
It's not really a false equivalency when they had some dark skin characters in Game of Thrones. I may not watch a lot of episodes, but I remember there being some dark skinned characters in the TV show. GoT is a fantasy setting any way? Am I wrong? Plus, it's not going to matter much when they're adding more people of color in the spinoff. So I can consider it fair game.
Edit: Plus, DnD has been adding women and people of color in roles since the 80s, late '90s and early 2000s with various spit-off media, and continue to do so today. Not to mention, all the revised and updated editions that are meant to be more inclusive.
Never said it was, nor had to constantly be. Whatever the case, I'm not going through this constant back and forth on it. I said my piece and I am moving the hell on. I was going through my little rant anyway.
Last edited:
I feel that's unfair to the pigeons. At least they know when to scram.
BrawlMan is right; you should give it a shot. I don't like [modern] musicals, I'm not a huge theater fan, and I don't particularly care for a lot of rap, so on the surface, Hamilton checked all the boxes for something I would hate. My girlfriend forced me to watch it and... I enjoyed the HELL out of Hamilton. It really surprised me. I had to admit, I understood the hype surrounding it after I watched it. Like BrawlMan said, it won't change your life, but I'm willing to bet it's nothing like you're imagining it to be. Recommended.
Well then you haven't been paying attention to anything I've been saying. I've never said "X is here, therefore, it's 'forced diversity.'"
From the beginning, the point I've been making is that having diversity is fine. Diversity existing is not the problem. The problem begins when the people who are running this stuff put in diversity not because:
1. The story is served by doing so.
2. The actor who auditioned earned the part competing against other actors including other diversities.
3. The diversity is just "there" rather than consuming and being the entirety of the character.
...but because they're putting in the diversity for no other reason than to have it. It's when the fact that the character is diverse decides the writing, characterization, casting, etc. that there is an issue, a BIG issue.
If you take a role that all things supposedly being equal, 5 white actors, all good actors and of roughly the same ability, and 5 black actors who all suck as actors all apply to be the core cast of a TV show and they hire the white actors because they're better, it's good. If one of the black actors is good at acting and they decide to hire him along with 4 of the white actors, that's good. If they hire the 5 black actors just because they are black despite the fact that they suck at acting, that's bad.
When a black actor is hired (not to pick on black people, but it's a fairly simple analogy to use) and the character occasionally says or does something you'd expect from a black person, that's good. When a black actor is hired and the character has the good majority of his dialog and actions some variation of "I'M BLACK YA'LL!!!" that's bad.
When a story had a black character, and the writing of the plot focuses minimally if at all on the fact that this character is black, that's good. When the story has a black character, and the plot ties itself into knots to treat his very presence as important, writes the other characters as treating him like being black is significant, characters being blatantly racist just so this guy can smack them down, and so forth, that's bad.
I don't see what's so difficult to understand about the concept that diversity for diversity's sake is a very VERY bad thing. There's a big big difference between "diversity is there" and "diversity for diversity's sake."
The problem is:
A. There was literally zero setup in the character of Sam or any storylines he was in whatsoever.
B. The character that DID have setup didn't get the shield.
C. They shoved aside Sam's own superhero identity and replaced it with that of another much more popular and well known superhero instead of taking the opportunity to let Sam and the name of The Falcon raise up to the level of a superhero like Captain America on his own merits. Made all the worst by the racist implications made that a black superhero can't stand on his own two feet without having a white guy prop him up.
C. And yes, the comics are relevant. The fact that Bucky had a long and well received run as Captain America to the point that a lot of fans didn't even want Steve Rodgers (THE Captain America) back as Captain America while Sam Wilson's run was VERY badly received and very quickly reversed is very relevant. This means that there was always going to be backlash against the idea of giving Sam Wilson the shield from the outset, no matter how they handled it.
It's like if you took some D-list supehero vaguely associated with Superman like... I don't know, Guardian, and just out of the blue made him Superman. It makes no sense and everybody everywhere would be screaming bloody murder. They had an option, Bucky, that both would've avoided the backlash and had the whole MCU and the comics to back it up. The very fact that there could be a show called "Captain America and the Winter Soldier" is proof positive there wasn't any schedule conflicts or any of that stopping them from giving the shield to Bucky.
Giving Sam the shield is the kind of thing incompetent writers would do for cheap shock value, and if the writers of the MCU have proven anything over the years it's that they're anything but incompetent. The only remotely rational reason to give Sam the shield was for the diversity. To promote "A black guy is now Captain America!" The story had absolutely nothing leading to this moment, at all. If for some reason they didn't want to or couldn't give the shield to Bucky, there's no reason there couldn't just... not have a Captain America anymore.
Hell, they could've set the shield aside for a while and did a series just like "Captain America and the Winter Soldier" where Sam stayed Falcon then gradually came to want and deserve to be Captain America before concluding with taking up the shield rather than having the mantle just thrust upon him at Endgame. There could've been setup both before and after Endgame to justify this passing of the torch before it actually happened.
In short, the problem was that giving Sam the shield had nothing whatsoever to support it nor was it in any way necessary, so for diversity's sake the only possible motivation behind it.
Perhaps I'll give it a shot when an opportunity comes up then.
I think it's still on Disney+; I'll be interested to hear your feedback once you see it. Never in my life have three things I don't actively like combined to make something I thoroughly enjoyed.
- Status