I think we need more original IPs with diverse characters instead of adding diversity to old ones.

[Burnouts3s3]

Lately, I've been noticing a trend within not only fandom but marketers as well. As social media continues to grow bigger and gains consideration, so do demands for increased diversity in films, television, books, comics and yes, even video games. With situations such as recasting the Ghostbusters remake with a majority of female characters or making an established character such as Thor female or casting Hermione Granger with an African American, there's been increasing tension between the fans of the original and those who wish for more diversity. Add to that, there have been increasing hashtag campaigns such as demands for the character of Elsa, from Frozen, to have a girlfriend or Steve Rogers a boyfriend as seen as such hastags as #GiveElsaaGirlfriend #Givesteveaboyfriend.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/04/entertainment/elsa-girlfriend-frozen/

I want to admit a bit of bias here; I do believe representation of minorities is important in media. I do think there is a social good that can come from seeing gay, trans and persons of color being represented in mass media and I would like to see more of it.

THAT BEING SAID,

I have concerns on taking established characters and simply slapping a label such as gay or black or trans on them. (CAVEAT: When I refer to character, I am referring to simply the civilian character, not an alter ego. For example, I have no qualms about passing a mantle/title of a superhero down to a person who happens to be black, gay, whatever, such as Miles Morales being the new Spider-man or Kamala Khan becoming the new Ms. Marvel. I am referring to taking the character of Peter Parker who for the majority of his publication has been a straight, while, heterosexual male and making changes to that).

The reason why I feel that there's an inherent problem to this is two-fold: one it disrespects the source material and demands that the author changes their work to suit the readership. There's been plenty discussion when it comes to the Death of Author syndrome and what it means for artists and authors. Even Devin Faraci from Birthmoviesdeath says this is a bad idea. (I'm aware that Devin Faraci is a very controversial and divisive figure in recent months, but I believe he makes an adequate point here.)

http://archive.is/QOIXs#selection-775.193-793.89

But the line is crossed when you go from "Disney, I would really like to have a queer princess in one of your cartoons" to "I demand that the writers and directors of Frozen 2 make Elsa canonically queer." You can - and should! - let the higher ups know the kinds of stories you want told. You should not demand that storytellers tell their stories in the ways that you want.

I worry because I feel as though it creates a Pandora's Box for however well-intentioned the idea is. If race or gender or sexual orientation become so interchangable, what's to stop someone from taking an established gay/homosexual character and simply labeling them straight?

But the second reason feels rather insidious and ironic as it comes from a well-intentioned place. It makes the developers/creators/writers of established gay/trans/person of color characters/protagonists invisible as more attention is turned towards the mainstream hits.

https://twitter.com/Jeevesmeister/status/626127828673785856

To me, what ends up happening is that a mainstream hit will usually cause a stir by having a white, male protagonist and cry about how there's a lack of diversity. This will in turn cause those developers to appeal to the criticisms by adding diversity which will upset the old fans. All the meanwhile, the developers/writers/artists who do attempt to have original characters that are black, that are gay, that are trans, etc. are thusly ignored because they attempted to appeal to those criticisms in the first place and thus remain invisible.

That strikes me as ironic as those creators took the financial and creative risk to appeal to those people as many others would label them as 'pandering to minorities', while those who would like that material don't buy it or don't buy enough of it to warrant selling. I believe those artists deserve to get paid.

It worries me because I feel as though it conflates the idea that all artists are inheriently all racists and sexists and transphobes, while there are artists who do support diversity but simply aren't called attention towards. I remember Tauriq Moosa's concerning the Witcher 3 and its lack of diversity, but I saw little to no coverage of Dragon Age: Inquisition's black or gay characters. I just find it odd for an outlet that claims to support diversity to fall suddenly silent that there's an alternative with the diverse characters in it and little discussion surrounding it.

I would also suggest that either the distributors or the consumers start embracing Original IPs instead of going back to the same old established franchises, only with a new set of paint (only this time the 'paint' in question is diversity). But since money is money and no one likes to take a risk, everyone just goes back to the original and changes it up a bit instead of embracing the new.

tl;dr: I believe diversity in mass media is a good thing, but also need to embrace the new rather than change up the old.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

I think part of the problem is that many studios and execs are allergic to "change" and "new IPs" and don't want to take risks. :s

Apparently WW1 battlefield almost didn't happen because the execs thought it was too much of a risk, FFS.

So, since new IPs are so rare (and often, execs will try to tempter the new with the old so it's not "too different from the other moneymaking franchises we have"), we have more people clamoring for established characters to become more diverse.

In some cases it works (if Elsa turned out to be bi or les, I think it would work), but for others, not to much (I find it hard to see the Cap as gay for some reason. Then again, that might just be my male-cic-hetero bias talking *shrug*)

In which case, I'm just glad to see new IPs like Overwatch give us a nice wide variety of character types.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Either/or. Frankly there's plenty of people who'll complain regardless. People will scream 'tokenism'. Which is ironic because when trans people call bullshit on bad representation we just get painted as 'censoring art'.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I dislike how apparently the only existing fans can't want to see any change. It doesn't seem honest to always try to portray anyone who'd like to see changes as an outsider. I never like those who try to flaunt some kind of 'old fan' status. Seems like falsely inflated self-worth when they do it.

 

[Hawki]

I agree that adding diveristy for the sake of diversity is an iffy move, but those examples you've cited? Well...

-Ghostbusters: I have nothing against an all female cast. If I had to list gripes, it would be that it's yet another reboot of a franchise that hardly necessitated one (e.g. passing the torch), and the jokes seem hit or miss. After seeing the "Meet the Character" shorts, I'm a bit more optimistic.

-Harry Potter: I can't help be a bit turned off by a black Hermione, but that's only because of Emma Watson and her fellow actors more or less solidifying the characters in my mind. But as Rowling pointed out, Hermione's ethnicity is never specified, so yes, the stage play's interpretation is just as valid as the movies'. It's the same issue as Dumbledore. Rowling specified he was gay, and that upset people because...reasons. Me? Doesn't change my view on him at all.

-Frozen: Elsa is technically fair game. Her sexuality is never specified. Also:

Also I mean you didn't think Elsa was gay? Like did you watch Frozen? Have you listened to the lyrics of Let It Go? Her entire character arc is basically about being gay. It's subtle, sure, but Disney is smart enough to not do that unintentionally.

I think that's a valid interpretation - you could see the "Let It Go" sequence as her 'coming out of the closet' moment, in that she's revealed her powers, and is now ready to roll with them. However, I don't think it's necessarily a case of that. The sequence is excellent for a number of reasons, but you can still look at it as just a case of plot and character development. I've seen the argument that it's meant to represent puberty/maturity - that she's accepted herself as who she is, and as an adult, can deal with the responsibility.

-Marvel: I'm with you on Steve Rogers He's clearly attracted to the opposite sex. Okay, maybe you can make him bi-sexual, but as far as the MCU goes, you had three films to do that. This isn't like Rowling specifying Dumbledore as gay, when his sexuality was never expressed in any method. Cap's sexuality was there from the first film, and present in the third (haven't seen the second).

What irks me more than anything is when one brings up diversity as a selling point. If you really want diversity in media, here's a tip - just do it, and have faith in your audience that they're mature enough to accept it. Highlighting "look, we included x, see how much we respect x" isn't an endorsement of diversity, it's highlighting differences for the sake of it. The nurse Golem episode in South Park is, IMO, the perfect encapsulation of this. Golem is a perfectly happy individual until the town goes out of its way to 'honour' her.

 

[LawAndChaos]

Part of it comes from the almost draconian emphasis (and requirement) on diversity.

When we fixate on "diversity" we fixate on what I would almost say is "affirmative design."
The notion that any person who does a white male in any modern AAA game nowadays deserves a thumb of the nose and a sneer.

I feel that this diversity stuff is not developing in a healthy way, with people fixating on gender, orientation, race and so on, in such a manner that it is being demanded as a necessity rather than merely requested, and that anything that fails to comply deserves scorn.

Rather than making a stance based on originality and creativity, it's a stance made based on gender, orientation, race, etc. (The notion that rather than creativity and originality coming first, it's the creator's politics coming first instead.)

I mention Indivisible, because it's the most prominent example to my memory.

It is a game that exemplifies beautifully the natural progression.
Creativity --> Variety --> Diversity

Yet rather than praising things that took effort (animation and character design) they will likely instead be praised that they put minorities in their game.

The new Spiderman put it best: "I don't want to be 'the black Spiderman.' I just want to be Spiderman."

Why does race need such emphasis? Why does gender? Why does orientation?
How does it change what the writers intend for who a character is?

Also I mean you didn't think Elsa was gay? Like did you watch Frozen? Have you listened to the lyrics of Let It Go? Her entire character arc is basically about being gay. It's subtle, sure, but Disney is smart enough to not do that unintentionally.

Fun fact, Let It Go's lyrics are largely coincidental and have nothing to do with Elsa being gay unless you wanna interpret it that way. Within the context of the story it seems she's decided to just stop caring about the sort of issues her powers are causing and to simply toss aside the responsibility her powers require, and to continue her isolation by telling the people who come to her door to F* off and let her be.

If I recall correctly some folks heard the song as a metaphor for coming out and re-purposed it as such, but within the context of the story it's about ducking responsibility and continuing business as usual.

 

[LawAndChaos]

Citation needed.

Well...

For a song that's about her powers she spends an awful lot of it not mentioning or singing about her powers.

Aide from the chorus, and multiple lines of the song.
The innate problem as well with this claim to homosexuality is that there's nothing in there that would imply it's homosexuality, so I could easily say that since she's not singing about liking women that it's not about coming out either.

Oh, but that turn and slam the door is clearly a closet metaphor, in which case it's so blunt force trauma if you're correct it hurts because it's literally "turning and slamming the door she came out of."

Or then would you imply within the context of the story then that coming out "makes things worse" as you put it? (that being said I'm not implying YOU'RE saying this, but that the story within its context is, since this "coming out" sets a great deal of pain for the protagonists in motion through the film that almost ends tragically)

the entire rest of the song is about no longer hiding who she is and being free to be who she wants to.

Which has nothing to do with being gay specifically unless you interpret it that way.

With that being said, let's not derail the thread, yeah?

 

[Hawki]

But she's not dealing with responsibility, she's running from it. She sings about how "the fears that once controlled" her can't get to her now she's away from people. That she's "never going back".

I disagree. Up until now, Elsa has been "the good girl" her parents wanted her to be. Oh sure, she's ruling a kingdom, which is certainly a responsibility, but here she's facing up to who she is and what she can do, rather than hiding it. That, to me, is a sign of maturity. A bit of a step on the overall path to final maturity, in that she's back to ruling the kingdom by the film's end, but the Elsa post-Let It Go is far more outgoing and confident than the person she was up to this point.

What also makes me doubt the gay angle is that Frozen's character dynamic is far more focused on the relationship between Elsa and Anna, that a love between two sisters is the "true love" of the film, rather than "prince kisses princess, everything's fine" (i.e. hetrosexual love). So if that's the case, and Frozen is primarily a story of the bond between two sisters, then where does the gay element come into that? Unless you ship Elsa and Anna that is (and God knows ff.net has its share of that. 0_0).

 

[Hawki]

Yes "the good girl" that her parents wanted her to be was to be someone who hides who they really are. To be someone who conceals her feelings and tell no one who she really is. That's what her parents wanted from her.

She only faces up to who she is after she's accidentally outed and then runs away. She makes it clear that she's never going back to her responsibilities because she can only be free when she's alone. Running away from her problems and loved ones and responsibilities isn't maturing, it's just running away. The only thing that's different is she comes out and is more outgoing now that she's accepted she's never going back.

Again, disagree. While she's running away from her responsibilities, that isn't the motivation for the act in of itself. It's more based on her accepting her identity, and taking a course as she sees fit. A course that's destructive in the short term, but is part of the stepping stone that leads up to the film's end. If Elsa running away was based on something like "I don't want to rule, I want to be free!" then yes, I'd call that immature, but her motivations are based partly on the question of her identity, and on the desire to not harm those around her. That signifies far more maturity than "I'm going to do what my parents told me to do, because I can't or won't think for myself."

The relationship between the sisters isn't there, remember. Elsa avoided having a relationship with Anna, she closed herself off from her and avoided her. She hid her feelings from Anna and tried to shut her out of her life. She loved her, but she feared that Anna would find out who she truly was and then when Anna did she ran away and told her she would be better off if Elsa wasn't in her life.

Then at the end she realises that Anna doesn't care. Anna loves her no matter who she is and would even die for her. She realises that her fears were unfounded and that trying to shut Anna out of her life was a mistake. Elsa does everything she can to reject the bond due to fear, and it's not until after she's been revealed and after she realises that Anna still loves her that she realises the strength of the bond Anna has for her.

Their dynamic is one sibling hiding their feelings and trying to shut out the other, and the other sibling saying that it doesn't matter who she is, she still loves her. I mean Anna even tells her that "It [trying to shut Anna out of her life] all makes sense now" after she realises who Elsa is.

I don't disagree with any of this information in of itself, I just disagree that it's meant as a metaphor for coming out. It could be, sure. It could also be about depression, as BuildLegos's link pointed out. But again, the familial angle is the solution to the film's problems. Also, if Elsa releasing her powers is the equivalent of "coming out," then it's a very destructive "coming out." I'm not talking about relationships, this is a case of quantifiable, physical effects to that action. Hence, my own interpretation is based on more about the concept of maturity/growing up/self-responsibility, and the strengths of familial connection rather than gender identity at the end of the day.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Are there any real 'original' IPs anymore? Everything is either a rewrite, a redo, a character change or a slight change of scenery. EVERY story ever has been done before.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Well, it'd be nice if they'd, you know, just make the diverse IPs with the quality of everything else if they're going to do it. If not, an underrepresented group is going left with little to do but to interpret things to try and feel accepted, and belong, and try to get involved somehow.

Yeah, yeah, it's not that easy to just make a new IP. I know. There are hurdles. There's risks. I've considered at least some of them.

A character has to be visually appealing while being easy to create media of (likely why comicbook characters spend so much time in mostly skin tight clothes that never wrinkle, or bunch up).
Any abilities they have have to equally be easy to work with, and interesting.
They have to be written well.
They have to overcome the risks involved in being a new IP along with society's biases, bigotries, hatreds, etc.

If the first 2 aren't met then, say, comicbook artists are less inclined to deal with them.

If the third isn't met then it's really hard for the character to get off the ground.

The 4th? I pay attention enough to understand that these people exist. Damn unfortunate that I don't have to go very far out of my way to realize this.

 

[Redd the Sock]

I've said the same thing for years. These are two of the most common problem given by people about media: lack of diveristy and nothing new. One would think these two problems would cancel each other out, but as I see it there's 2 problems, and neither are the one people give most often. Inu-kun hinted at them: there are games that offer diversity out there, but they get ignored, or at least their efforts go unpraised.

I've read some commentary that claims people can get into things more for the social aspect of them. It's something to talk to others about and be part of a group. Hence, something like the Atelier series with fixed female leads, or hunter / musou games with a character customizer (including any skin tone you want) don't get played or acknowledged. They aren't popular so they don't count. Move into comics, why make Cap gay when some of us would prefer Wiccan and Hulkling around? Hell, where were the people wanting diversity when lesbians Phylia Vehl and Mooddragon didn't make the cut for Guardians of the Galaxy? Why "out/convert" Iceman when the X-Men not only have ample opportunity for new characters, Karma was already on the team and a lesbian (actually an asian lesbian amputee, she's an actual PC exaggeration). At least when Marvel outed Lightspeed (the eldest girl in Power Pack) she was at an age when discovering her sexual identity made sense. But again, they aren't popular, so who gives a shit? Prowler or Night Thrasher, nah, give someone new the Spider-Man suit so people will read it. Lady Thor, of course, since no one wants Valkyrie and Sif can't hold a book after several tries. People tend to complain about publisher and reader's fear of change, but I see the other side: people's fear of not doing the popular thing, and avoiding things they want in the process.

Of course, that's where I get the excuses about lack of promotion for these books and characters. Gee if only there was a group of people that wrote about things on websites that offer news reviews and opinions. Oh right, there are. They're just spending time not doing word of mouth promotion work in lieu of clickbait complaining articles about diversity problems. Yeah, they'll shill a friend's work or something really political, but day to day stuff, there isn't enough money in that, especially when spreading anger is more lucrative. Then again, that probably has a lot to do with the first problem as I do believe a lot of these crusaders find more enjoyment in fighting for the cause and being angry than in the medium being critiqued because it's a more social activity. You spend a lot more time talking about political issues than if Ms Marvel beat the villain of the month.

Sad really. If more niche characters and properties got the attention they'd get if people would go to them instead of waiting for the mainstream to bring it to them, the popularity would be a strong signal to take more risks and do new things and create that diversity. Too bad we'd rather fanfiction up the most popular characters and them fight over the changes.