I think we need more original IPs with diverse characters instead of adding diversity to old ones.
- Thread starter Burnouts3s3
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It disrespects the source material to have minorities? Ok.
Anyhoo, characters change over time. Look at all the changes Batman has undergone in 70 years.
In any case, established characters matter. Nobody cares about New Unknown Hero, they pump oodles of them out and forget about them soon afterwards.
(One could also argue that maybe they could make the X-Men movies not be about white guys all the time, given the comic originally being inspired by LGBT and gay rights issues.)
Anyhoo, characters change over time. Look at all the changes Batman has undergone in 70 years.
In any case, established characters matter. Nobody cares about New Unknown Hero, they pump oodles of them out and forget about them soon afterwards.
(One could also argue that maybe they could make the X-Men movies not be about white guys all the time, given the comic originally being inspired by LGBT and gay rights issues.)
IIRC I thought it was more about racial things than LBGT rights... being as how it was created in the 60s when the whole civil rights movement was happening... But what do I know?Thaluikhain said:
There's elements of both, I believe race issues is the larger one, though.Imperioratorex Caprae said:
Looking at it from a hindsight lens, it was a way of translating racial issues to white folks who didn't get it by way of making a bunch of white, privileged kids get stigmatized for being different.Thaluikhain said:
Maybe, but "minor" is the key word. Without Dumbledore's sexuality, it's established regardless that they were once close friends. With Dumbledore's sexuality specified, it can be inferred that Dumbledore had feelings for Grindlewald. One's milage may vary, but I'm fine with either scenario. Close friends, potential lovers, the sequence of events remains the same regardless, as do their core motivations (Grindlewald's anti-muggle crusade, Dumbledore's guilt over Arianna, etc.)Silvanus said:
There's that, but I suspect it was a way of dealing with the issues and being allowed to have your comic published at all. And maybe even to avoid being murdered. Not an issue nowdays, we don't have to go for the analogy because we are scared of dealing with it directly, but it's still easier.Imperioratorex Caprae said:
There's some serious issues with "supernatural creatures represent minorities" stories.
It's a Catch-22 situation and I don't think complaining about "SJWs" and social media is the right way to go about it.
Here's the thing, big studios are shit scared of making any new IP. The best way to guarantee a return on an investment is to associate your work with a big franchise. With some IPs (Mad Max for instance) the universe is large enough and the character detail is sparse enough to allow for some very exciting stuff. With other IPs you have possibly centuries of lore to keep up with and this can turn into multiple branching continuities that get very confusing very fast.
At the same time most of these IPs came about in a time when there was virtually zero LGBT representation, black characters were few and far between (unless it was blaxploitation) and female characters like Ellen Ripley were either new on the scene or were yet to be written. The entertainment of 2016 is attempting to reflect the culture of 2016, where there is greater acceptance of these groups, however studios are relying on franchises that are decades old and people keep consuming them.
It's not as simple as saying "if you want diverse characters go make them yourself". People are doing this and some of those IPs are really catching on. Steven Universe is an excellent example, and actually people overwhelmingly prefer SU to things such as the Powerpuff Girls or Teen Titans reboots, so who knows? Maybe this trend will eventually die. But maybe it won't and we have to prepare to alter existing IP to suit current social trends if that's the case.
It sucks but that's capitalism.
Here's the thing, big studios are shit scared of making any new IP. The best way to guarantee a return on an investment is to associate your work with a big franchise. With some IPs (Mad Max for instance) the universe is large enough and the character detail is sparse enough to allow for some very exciting stuff. With other IPs you have possibly centuries of lore to keep up with and this can turn into multiple branching continuities that get very confusing very fast.
At the same time most of these IPs came about in a time when there was virtually zero LGBT representation, black characters were few and far between (unless it was blaxploitation) and female characters like Ellen Ripley were either new on the scene or were yet to be written. The entertainment of 2016 is attempting to reflect the culture of 2016, where there is greater acceptance of these groups, however studios are relying on franchises that are decades old and people keep consuming them.
It's not as simple as saying "if you want diverse characters go make them yourself". People are doing this and some of those IPs are really catching on. Steven Universe is an excellent example, and actually people overwhelmingly prefer SU to things such as the Powerpuff Girls or Teen Titans reboots, so who knows? Maybe this trend will eventually die. But maybe it won't and we have to prepare to alter existing IP to suit current social trends if that's the case.
It sucks but that's capitalism.
Well, it seems to depend on the medium. With Hollywood we don't necessarily need new ips. Books and comics that are diverse come out all the time. And Hollywood has a huge backlog of books to make into movies they would just rather do remakes. And when they choose a new book they take the safe pick or whitewash. Katniss from the Hunger games didn't need to be white for instance. The way she is described in the books is racially ambiguous. Or take a look at that Edge of Tomorrow movie staring Tom Cruise. In the light novel that the movie is based on Cruise's character is Asian. Scarjo is going to be playing Makoto in the upcoming GITS movie. Makoto could look like anything but they choose a White actress.
TV is pretty diverse but even it needs to be shaken up a bit.
Books and comics probably have the most diversity, the issue is more with marketing. Certain titles rise to the top because they get a big push.
Theater has the same issues as Hollywood, lots of diverse options but they go the safe route. And then something like Hamilton comes out and it makes you wonder why folks are so afraid to branch out more.
TV is pretty diverse but even it needs to be shaken up a bit.
Books and comics probably have the most diversity, the issue is more with marketing. Certain titles rise to the top because they get a big push.
Theater has the same issues as Hollywood, lots of diverse options but they go the safe route. And then something like Hamilton comes out and it makes you wonder why folks are so afraid to branch out more.
Noma Dumezweni's not African-American - she's British. It's important to note this due to the rather large cultural differences between black people in Britain and black people in America.Burnouts3s3 said:
That being said... unlike most of these 'diversity-oriented' character changes, Hermione being cast as black is (upon a little introspection) something I'm fine with. After all, she never was actually written as white - people just kinda assumed she was, including me.
This makes that last twitter post quite interesting to think about, since it is - for the most part - true. We do tend to imagine characters to be white unless they are explicitly written otherwise. Note that I say "for the most part", however: the setting can often override this bias. When I read The Alchemist, for example, I imagined most of the characters being Arabs, since the location of the book's story would make it so.
Yeah, if new IPs got created more than once a blue moon, I'd be on board. Buuuuuuuuuuuut we live in the era of franchises. So asking for diversity in new IPs is like trying to get water out of a rock, despite what snarky comments people make about SJWs.
I found out about the black Hermione thing by someone I knew came running up to me and basically said they changed a Harry Potter character we should all be outraged, I responded by just saying 'I'm fine with that, Hermione's race is never brought up in the books so she could be anything'.
I think they were shocked as I have previously complained about black Human Torch and black Heimdal, but my thinking is Heimdal is a Norse god so should look traditionally Norse and I would have been fine with a black Human Torch if we had a black Invisible Woman as well. I just don't think its right to change a characters colour or gender if its relevant to the character, but if its not then its fair game to cast whoever you want.
For example:
Black Bond: fine, female Bond: not fine. I see Bond as a male power fantasy and really you can't do that with a woman, it changes the whole point of the character, but a black male Bond can still be the cool guy with the cool car and the cool gadgets that gets all the women that men who like Bond would like.
Female ghost-busters: fine, ALL female ghost-busters: Pandering, ALL male ghost-busters (these days): possibly (not always) sexist. Honestly I would have been fine with 3 female and 1 male if the casting went that way, but all female just strikes me as they are trying to appeal to the feminists, and not the good kind of feminists either.
Dumbledore being suddenly gay: fine, it was never established that he had interest in women or his sexuality at all, Captain America being suddenly gay: not fine, he has clearly only shown interest in women in the past. I demand consistency in my fictional super humans.
Peter Parker as Spiderman: fine, Miles Morales: not fine, I don't like legacy characters like this, but that's just personal preference, nothing actually wrong with it but I'd prefer Miles to be some other hero instead.
Black Hermione: Fine, Male Hermione: not fine, you may as well create a new character because your already going to have to change the characters name and relationship with some of the characters. And I think that is the OP's point, if you want to change a character so much that the character becomes someone else then make them someone else from the start.
I don't mind an increase in diverse characters, in fact I look forward to it, but I don't think the way to go about it is changing existing characters, instead give us new heroes and new villeins for a new, more openly diverse, generation.
I think they were shocked as I have previously complained about black Human Torch and black Heimdal, but my thinking is Heimdal is a Norse god so should look traditionally Norse and I would have been fine with a black Human Torch if we had a black Invisible Woman as well. I just don't think its right to change a characters colour or gender if its relevant to the character, but if its not then its fair game to cast whoever you want.
For example:
Black Bond: fine, female Bond: not fine. I see Bond as a male power fantasy and really you can't do that with a woman, it changes the whole point of the character, but a black male Bond can still be the cool guy with the cool car and the cool gadgets that gets all the women that men who like Bond would like.
Female ghost-busters: fine, ALL female ghost-busters: Pandering, ALL male ghost-busters (these days): possibly (not always) sexist. Honestly I would have been fine with 3 female and 1 male if the casting went that way, but all female just strikes me as they are trying to appeal to the feminists, and not the good kind of feminists either.
Dumbledore being suddenly gay: fine, it was never established that he had interest in women or his sexuality at all, Captain America being suddenly gay: not fine, he has clearly only shown interest in women in the past. I demand consistency in my fictional super humans.
Peter Parker as Spiderman: fine, Miles Morales: not fine, I don't like legacy characters like this, but that's just personal preference, nothing actually wrong with it but I'd prefer Miles to be some other hero instead.
Black Hermione: Fine, Male Hermione: not fine, you may as well create a new character because your already going to have to change the characters name and relationship with some of the characters. And I think that is the OP's point, if you want to change a character so much that the character becomes someone else then make them someone else from the start.
I don't mind an increase in diverse characters, in fact I look forward to it, but I don't think the way to go about it is changing existing characters, instead give us new heroes and new villeins for a new, more openly diverse, generation.
I agree. This is one of my problems with the new Ghostbusters movie. I mean other than the fact that it doesn't look good or funny, and like a general half-ass money grab.
The fact that the whole movie seems like someone read Rule 63 and decided to apply that to a classic film. Changing the genders of the ghostbusters add nothing to the film. It comes across as a blatant attempt to apply diversity for it's own sake. Hell, if it looked good, this wouldn't even bother me, but since it doesn't look good, it does bother me.
Obviously, not. I don't think Mario games would be any better if they starred the Mario Sisters. I don't think Dragon Ball would be better or any different if Goku were a girl. And it seems really insulting to the people you want to represent if all you can do is change an established character's sex or race.
This guy was seriously one of my favorite characters in Mass Effect.
I'd much rather see original characters than established characters being changed for the sake of diversity. I'm a straight white guy, but damn if I didn't feel for a gay Hispanic man in Mass Effect. I'd be lying if I didn't include Toph and Katara among my favorite characters in fiction. Hell, I love that Rey is the main character of Episode VII as I have a little cousin who is getting into Star Wars and it gives her someone to look up to and connect with.
Diversity is fine. But it doesn't have to be so pandering.
And for the record, while I was a bit annoyed at the whole Miles Morales thing at first, from what I've seen he has come into his own as a character and I think he is a fine addition to the Spiderverse. Though, I think they could have found a better way to have him take up the role than killing Ultimate Universe Peter.
The fact that the whole movie seems like someone read Rule 63 and decided to apply that to a classic film. Changing the genders of the ghostbusters add nothing to the film. It comes across as a blatant attempt to apply diversity for it's own sake. Hell, if it looked good, this wouldn't even bother me, but since it doesn't look good, it does bother me.
Obviously, not. I don't think Mario games would be any better if they starred the Mario Sisters. I don't think Dragon Ball would be better or any different if Goku were a girl. And it seems really insulting to the people you want to represent if all you can do is change an established character's sex or race.
This guy was seriously one of my favorite characters in Mass Effect.
I'd much rather see original characters than established characters being changed for the sake of diversity. I'm a straight white guy, but damn if I didn't feel for a gay Hispanic man in Mass Effect. I'd be lying if I didn't include Toph and Katara among my favorite characters in fiction. Hell, I love that Rey is the main character of Episode VII as I have a little cousin who is getting into Star Wars and it gives her someone to look up to and connect with.
Diversity is fine. But it doesn't have to be so pandering.
And for the record, while I was a bit annoyed at the whole Miles Morales thing at first, from what I've seen he has come into his own as a character and I think he is a fine addition to the Spiderverse. Though, I think they could have found a better way to have him take up the role than killing Ultimate Universe Peter.
I understand the reasons why people feel this way (though I don't really agree) when it comes to race and gender but not LGBT characters.
The process of "coming out" and having people you know reassess you and think about you differently to how they used to is a really significant part of the lives of LGBT people. Having a character who's sexuality is either not been relevant so far (and assumed to be heterosexual by default) has absolutely no problem at all.
Where the character has had heterosexual relationships or sexual tension before it's still fine but probably needs to done more carefully. With sexuality labels aren't gospel, they're a generalisation based on perceived sexual urges up until that point. Basically nobody is homosexual until they start having feelings for a member of the same sex (and nobody is heterosexual until they have feelings for a member of the opposite sex either) and maybe the right person hasn't come along yet.
The process of "coming out" and having people you know reassess you and think about you differently to how they used to is a really significant part of the lives of LGBT people. Having a character who's sexuality is either not been relevant so far (and assumed to be heterosexual by default) has absolutely no problem at all.
Where the character has had heterosexual relationships or sexual tension before it's still fine but probably needs to done more carefully. With sexuality labels aren't gospel, they're a generalisation based on perceived sexual urges up until that point. Basically nobody is homosexual until they start having feelings for a member of the same sex (and nobody is heterosexual until they have feelings for a member of the opposite sex either) and maybe the right person hasn't come along yet.
Well I do notice that there is a certain subset of "diversity campaigner" whose idea of diversity is "someone like me". Which is quite an understandable thing, after all we would like to put ourselves in the shoes of the fictional characters on screen. Escapism is a very human thing and I do not think that anyone should be blamed for wanting such. People might enjoy Miles Morales as Spiderman but you hardly hear of people who clamour for Spiderman, the quintessential everyday man hero, to be Inuit or Comanche.
I do agree with the basic idea behind the OP, we should at least respect the work of the creators who make our media. Chun Li from Street Fighter is a Chinese woman from Hong Kong, Storm of the X-Men is an African from Kenya and Lara Croft is a British Caucasian woman. These are basic characteristics of these characters and fans may not react well to altering them, especially for the sake of some sort of "diversity quota".
If you want more diverse casts, I would recommend you vote with your wallet. No number of internet petitions or twitter barrages will likely achieve much more than tokenism. The bottom line is the bottom line, money talks and if such ventures are apparently profitable then you will see diverse casts. If they prove to be unprofitable then they will not get made very often. How many people remember "Captain Planet and the Planeteers". It had a "diverse" cast and an environmental message. Unfortunately naming the Asian character after pig lard, using an Indian word as the name of the African character and having the South American character be a milquetoast was not exactly the best of ideas but it was successful for a time.
Diverse works do exist but very little attention is paid to them. Black Lagoon, a Japanese anime, stars an African American, a Chinese American, an American Jew and a Japanese male. Their adventures are set in Thailand and over the course of the series they encounter people from Columbia, Romania, Russia, Germany, the Middle East (not outright stated but likely Lebanon), Thailand (of course), India, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Mainland China and Japan. People know it as an action series but I hardly hear about people talking about it as a diverse series. I would reckon not that many twenty-four episode series can tick off that many check boxes either. Perhaps it is because the show itself puts characterization and action first and does not make a big deal about the origins of the characters.
I do agree with the basic idea behind the OP, we should at least respect the work of the creators who make our media. Chun Li from Street Fighter is a Chinese woman from Hong Kong, Storm of the X-Men is an African from Kenya and Lara Croft is a British Caucasian woman. These are basic characteristics of these characters and fans may not react well to altering them, especially for the sake of some sort of "diversity quota".
If you want more diverse casts, I would recommend you vote with your wallet. No number of internet petitions or twitter barrages will likely achieve much more than tokenism. The bottom line is the bottom line, money talks and if such ventures are apparently profitable then you will see diverse casts. If they prove to be unprofitable then they will not get made very often. How many people remember "Captain Planet and the Planeteers". It had a "diverse" cast and an environmental message. Unfortunately naming the Asian character after pig lard, using an Indian word as the name of the African character and having the South American character be a milquetoast was not exactly the best of ideas but it was successful for a time.
Diverse works do exist but very little attention is paid to them. Black Lagoon, a Japanese anime, stars an African American, a Chinese American, an American Jew and a Japanese male. Their adventures are set in Thailand and over the course of the series they encounter people from Columbia, Romania, Russia, Germany, the Middle East (not outright stated but likely Lebanon), Thailand (of course), India, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Mainland China and Japan. People know it as an action series but I hardly hear about people talking about it as a diverse series. I would reckon not that many twenty-four episode series can tick off that many check boxes either. Perhaps it is because the show itself puts characterization and action first and does not make a big deal about the origins of the characters.
You mean new IP's with diverse characters like "Remember Me" was trying to be? You know, the game that flopped horribly because despite having a decent story and fun combat, the seething hordes of people who were clamoring for diversity at the time never put their money where their mouths were.
like that?
I don't even give a toss for all this "diversity" nonsense, primarily because it is so very superficial. I would have enjoyed that game regardless of what color the main character's skin was, her gender, sex, hairstyle, class, kin... whatever. Every game released from now on until games get replaced by a better form of media could be as "diverse" as they want, but it won't stop people from finding something to cry about and it won't increase sales no matter how much people keep telling us it will.
like that?
I don't even give a toss for all this "diversity" nonsense, primarily because it is so very superficial. I would have enjoyed that game regardless of what color the main character's skin was, her gender, sex, hairstyle, class, kin... whatever. Every game released from now on until games get replaced by a better form of media could be as "diverse" as they want, but it won't stop people from finding something to cry about and it won't increase sales no matter how much people keep telling us it will.
The game that sells itself by not showing a diverse character's face on the cover in favor of showing us her ass? Goodness. Can't imagine how willfully self-deluded all those ess-jews must be to look at a cover that thinks the character's ass is all we need to see of her and not get the idea that the game contained therein would be a diverse and respectful depiction of women.-LiQUiDPoWEr- said: