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

[Thaluikhain]

I don't think you only care about gays assuming your not a robot, not speaking about you in particular here but both me and you know that it would be an outright lie to even think that the people who on about inclusiveness care about those with mental issues despite there great numbers anywhere near as much as they care about gays.

"The people"? Who is that?

There are a number of people who want more inclusiveness, and they want different groups to be included and some more than others. Yes, there are those who are arguing for LGBT characters and not so much for the neuroatypical...so?

 

[Phasmal]

Irrelevant to the fan, that's the thinking of a person who mainly cares about making characters something. If a character I didn't care about was changed, I wouldn't care, if I liked them I would. This isn't a numbers game for fans. You don't tell someone "where changing your favorite character go find a new one" and expect them to not be critical and you know the people who don't understand this would call them homophobic.

It is a trump card, it's not about fairness, it's about bias.

I don't think you only care about gays assuming your not a robot, not speaking about you in particular here but both me and you know that it would be an outright lie to even think that the people who on about inclusiveness care about those with mental issues despite there great numbers anywhere near as much as they care about gays.

I'm tolerant as gays as individuals, but there's someone important in my life with a mental disability so I'm bias in favor of that over that of the handful of gays I know who can look after themselves.

I'm bias, I admit my bias, I don't expect anyone else to care and strangers shouldn't expect me to care. If I knew people I cared about who really wanted Elsa to be gay then I would almost certainly want the same but I would never pretend that my new view on the matter was out of some sense of morality and idea of making society better, but I know little girls who really like Elsa so I don't want her to be gay. I would prefer they don't have to deal with this stuff until they are older.

UUuugh. Right, I'm gonna write this again.
I was talking about gay representation because that was a conversation in this thread, not because I care more about gay representation than other kinds of representation. I am all for representation for people with mental disabilities and mental illnesses.

You may think that most people who care about representation only care about gay representation, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't jump to conclusions based on my short post about something that was already under discussion in the thread.

 

[Cicada 5]

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.

Because these things mean something to people. These things are a part of identity. They may not define a person but they do inform them.

 

[happyninja42]

I personally don't care if they revamp an old character, or make new ones. Considering how often heroic figures are just modern reskinnings of classic archetypes and the like, it's not that big of a deal to me.

Given the Peter Parker example, I don't really have any vested interest in him being a white, heterosexual male. It doesn't matter to me, and it doesn't actually impact the story at all. Aside from the occasional "we're going to talk about racism" issue that they like to do in comics, for the most part, his race/gender has zero impact on the story. And given how generically Everyman (or at least as Everyman for a white guy) he is, his personal identity is kind of unremarkable. There's nothing intrinsically "white" about who Peter Parker is. I've discussed this before in similar threads, but his defining personality traits (things I find more important than his gender/race/orientation) are:

Nerdy
Awkward
Courageous
New Yorker
Hero of the People.

All of those can easily be attributed to any other New Yorker, of any gender/race/orientation.

So personally, I don't care if they shake things up, after 60+ years of the same Peter Parker (or any other character). I didn't mind the concept of Female Thor, though I personally didn't like the way they went with the writing of it.

I loved what they did with Miles Morales, and genuinely enjoyed his heroic arc. And I know you (and I) don't care if it's a "Legacy story" kind of thing, like with Miles, but a lot of people do, as evidenced by the uproar a lot of these changes have made.

I dunno, I guess I just don't have that much personally invested in the hero looking and fucking the same as they did when first created. If someone wants to make a gay Peter Parker, who also happens to be transgender, and of mixed ethnicity, go ahead. I sure don't care about the concept. If they just use the platform to write terrible cliches of those ideas, then yeah I'll have an issue with it, on the "this writing sucks" platform, not the "They've done a character assassination of my hero!" platform.

The heroes change with the culture they are written in. This is true of the heroes we love now, compared to how they were when they were first created. This isn't new ground.

Also, on the flip side of this, form the "original IP" angle, which I agree, more of those would be good too.

I think it's kind of strange, how I suspect a lot of people, if they did make some new IP, and made them trans, or non-white, or non-hetero, or whatever, I suspect a lot of people would be "oh, that's just that Gay Hero they made" or "that trans hero", and write them off because of that. And that won't help get the character into the spotlight, which is where they need to be to sell enough comics to be profitable. If the character is always a niche character, it would likely die off, simply due to not enough people buying the comic to make it profitable. So it's sort of a catch 22 I think...or maybe that's not the write comparison. I dunno, it's weird, I don't see an easy way of having it work. Because those established names have selling power, they have momentum in the comic world. Trying to muscle in on that block is hard, and maybe too hard for a new title to actually make enough headway to sustain itself. So then, if that's the case, you then have to try new variations on the established heroes, if you want to try different stories.

Most people have a limited entertainment budget, and if they are faced with the choice of buying a title they know has a history of telling a decent story, and taking a chance on some unknown title that may/may not suck, a lot of people will choose the safe option there. Which would negatively impact sales of the new IP, which at the end of the day, is the bottom line. We can talk about the art of it, and the expression of stories and all that, but it's still a business, a very niche business in itself. So to step away from the proven titles that move issues, and try and make a niche market, within a niche market, and hope it's profitable? I think that given the current business model, that might be too big of a feat for any new IP to accomplish. I'd like to think they could, but I have my doubts.

 

[Gengisgame]

Irrelevant to the fan, that's the thinking of a person who mainly cares about making characters something. If a character I didn't care about was changed, I wouldn't care, if I liked them I would. This isn't a numbers game for fans. You don't tell someone "where changing your favorite character go find a new one" and expect them to not be critical and you know the people who don't understand this would call them homophobic.

It is a trump card, it's not about fairness, it's about bias.

I don't think you only care about gays assuming your not a robot, not speaking about you in particular here but both me and you know that it would be an outright lie to even think that the people who on about inclusiveness care about those with mental issues despite there great numbers anywhere near as much as they care about gays.

I'm tolerant as gays as individuals, but there's someone important in my life with a mental disability so I'm bias in favor of that over that of the handful of gays I know who can look after themselves.

I'm bias, I admit my bias, I don't expect anyone else to care and strangers shouldn't expect me to care. If I knew people I cared about who really wanted Elsa to be gay then I would almost certainly want the same but I would never pretend that my new view on the matter was out of some sense of morality and idea of making society better, but I know little girls who really like Elsa so I don't want her to be gay. I would prefer they don't have to deal with this stuff until they are older.

UUuugh. Right, I'm gonna write this again.
I was talking about gay representation because that was a conversation in this thread, not because I care more about gay representation than other kinds of representation. I am all for representation for people with mental disabilities and mental illnesses.

You may think that most people who care about representation only care about gay representation, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't jump to conclusions based on my short post about something that was already under discussion in the thread.

Well those are your individual choices, if they align with mine good, if they don't I don't hold it against you.

That had little to do with your individual post, this is just from what I've witnessed in general. I just want you to accept that I don't care about gay representation and that if someone says that it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Gengisgame]

I don't think you only care about gays assuming your not a robot, not speaking about you in particular here but both me and you know that it would be an outright lie to even think that the people who on about inclusiveness care about those with mental issues despite there great numbers anywhere near as much as they care about gays.

"The people"? Who is that?

There are a number of people who want more inclusiveness, and they want different groups to be included and some more than others. Yes, there are those who are arguing for LGBT characters and not so much for the neuroatypical...so?

See when you say "who is that" then 99% of the time be people such as yourself. Normally that's why they post defensive comments

The person I was replying to asked why don't gay kids (I'm assuming he means teens) get representation.

My entire point boiled down to I don't care about them, I care about other groups, I said I didn't expect them to care about these other groups any more then he should expect me to care about LGBT

So if you had actually been following rather than just jump in you would have already realized I expected nothing just in the same way you shouldn't expect people to prefer whatever representation your pushing over there own.

 

[Zacharious-khan]

We don't even need new IP for ez Diversity. Concidering actual demographics Gaming is quite diverse (or representative).

Excluding the more esoteric calls for diversity Gaming at present has a ton of potential diverity hires within current IP. Even ignoring things like WatchDogs 2 ( Same Universe, Unrelated Character), It would be easy to just take a character in universe and just give them a story.
This is why i think a game staring Linkle (still a stupid name) would be unnessasary. Although I cannot name one off the top of my head I'm sure Nintendo could find a well enough female character in The Legend of Zelda Universe ( A certain REM Album comes to mind for some reason).

Doing this sort of thing, I think, would carry a much lesser risk than new IP.

 

[Phasmal]

Well those are your individual choices, if they align with mine good, if they don't I don't hold it against you.

That had little to do with your individual post, this is just from what I've witnessed in general. I just want you to accept that I don't care about gay representation and that if someone says that it shouldn't be a problem.

Well that's just grand. I didn't quote you heckling about what representation you care about, if you remember.
You can care or not care about whatever you like, but when you quote me saying I likely don't care about other types of representation because I am at that exact moment talking about one, then I get a little peeved.

 

[elvor0]

I'm confused, Elsa is a new character, right? Her sexuality was not established in her film, so there's no problem giving her a girlfriend, right?

But yeah, no. It's fine to change characters and it's going to keep happening so it's probably best to not get upset about it. If you start limiting what you are and aren't "allowed" to change about an established character, what makes you better than the apparently pro-censorship SJWz? Nothing.

Well I wouldn't have an issue with her having a girlfriend, and there certainly isn't any precedent against it, I just don't think there's anything concrete or that would support or point to her being gay within the films and the notion that just because she doesn't have a love interest so she must be gay is a massive fallacy. Not that there's anything saying she's straight either, as her sexuality had no relevance to the plot or themes. I personally just disagree with the notion that Frozen is distinctly about homosexuality and has more universal themes than can be applied to homosexuality but also to many other things.

It's also less about censorship and more about respecting a characters established history. Changes should happen organically not just shoehorned in with a retcon because it's lazy and fails to serve either the established character or the change, the change has to ride on the coattails of the original, diminishing him/her, and the original suddenly has a change that most of the time, is a publicity stunt or just for the sake of it and is disrespectful to the creator.

 

[happyninja42]

Well I wouldn't have an issue with her having a girlfriend, and there certainly isn't any precedent against it, I just don't think there's anything concrete or that would support or point to her being gay within the films and the notion that just because she doesn't have a love interest so she must be gay is a massive fallacy.

The majority of people who think this are just theorizing. Because there isn't any actual evidence in the film. However, there is an obvious, and major similarity between her personal struggle, and the LGBTQ community. I think this video explains it fairly well, but also in a very funny way.


That, and the very pro-LGBTQ nature of Disney, does make the theory at least have more weight (in my mind), than most fan theories. The fact that pretty much every other Disney Princess (that I can think of), always ends up paired off with a hunky Prince by the end, and Elsa pointedly does not does mean that on a lot of levels, she's stepping outside the standard Disney Princess mold. And this stepping out could include her being gay. We don't know, and won't know for certain until they actually hook her up with someone. Or maybe she's just asexual...*shrugs* I really didn't care either way, she had bigger problems in that movie to deal with other than a sex partner.

Not that there's anything saying she's straight either, as her sexuality had no relevance to the plot or themes. I personally just disagree with the notion that Frozen is distinctly about homosexuality and has more universal themes than can be applied to homosexuality but also to many other things.

Yes, the theme of Elsa's struggle is to some degree universal, but given a lot of the specific tropes they used, and the overall nature of her story:
Literally lives in the closet, to hide her sparkly secret from the people who would shun and fear her.
Is revealed by accident, and is shunned.
Moves away to a place where nobody knows her so she can reinvent herself (which includes a sparkly dress makeover)
Finally finds some level of self satisfaction at not having to hide her "true self" anymore.

It's almost a textbook example of someone coming out of the closet about their sexuality. And sure, you could apply it to a lot of things, a common similarity pops up in the atheist community. But, as rantasmo mentions in that video above, there's really only one kind of "coming out" story that involves sparkly dresses and diva-esque musical numbers.

It's also less about censorship and more about respecting a characters established history. Changes should happen organically not just shoehorned in with a retcon because it's lazy and fails to serve either the established character or the change, the change has to ride on the coattails of the original, diminishing him/her, and the original suddenly has a change that most of the time, is a publicity stunt or just for the sake of it and is disrespectful to the creator.

Yeah well that's just not going to happen. The *gasp* "*insert hero* is secretly *insert shocker theme of the month*" is kind of a staple of the comic industry. Just look at Captain America for a non sexual example of it. They do this shit all the time. It drums up sales, which is all they really care about. It gets people talking about it, generates free publicity, and likely boosts sales as people who likely didn't give a shit about the character before, tune in to see what all the noise is about. I'm a prime example of that kind of comic fan. I don't really buy comics anymore, haven't for decades, ever since I worked in a comic shop. But when I heard they were making a female Thor, I started buying it. The uproar about it brought it to my attention, and the new concept was novel enough to make me decide to spend some money on some of the issues. That is 100% the reason why they do these cliffhanger changes to a character.

And it doesn't have to be a retcon, especially if you're talking about sexuality. It's pretty damn easy to justify it as someone living in the closet, and finally deciding to explore their desires. Or maybe never actually realizing it, because they never came across someone of that sex that interested them in that way. There are thousands of examples of this type in real life. Hell Rantasmo above has himself said that for a long time, he honestly thought he was straight, and just didn't admit it to himself. So yeah, I can totally buy some classically heterosexual character suddenly realizing they are bi, or actually gay, or whatever. There is a ton of precedent for it IRL.

And besides, it's not like that is going to permanently shape the character, nothing does. A new writer will come along, and make their own story, and they will make a spinoff title of it or whatever.

 

[Phasmal]

Well I wouldn't have an issue with her having a girlfriend, and there certainly isn't any precedent against it, I just don't think there's anything concrete or that would support or point to her being gay within the films and the notion that just because she doesn't have a love interest so she must be gay is a massive fallacy. Not that there's anything saying she's straight either, as her sexuality had no relevance to the plot or themes. I personally just disagree with the notion that Frozen is distinctly about homosexuality and has more universal themes than can be applied to homosexuality but also to many other things.

It's also less about censorship and more about respecting a characters established history. Changes should happen organically not just shoehorned in with a retcon because it's lazy and fails to serve either the established character or the change, the change has to ride on the coattails of the original, diminishing him/her, and the original suddenly has a change that most of the time, is a publicity stunt or just for the sake of it and is disrespectful to the creator.

While I certainly think there can be subtext to imply that her story is a "coming out" story, I do agree that there's nothing concrete either way for Elsa, which means it's totally open for her to have a love interest of any gender.
As a side note, there were a lot of people who also saw "Let it Go" and Elsa's struggle with controlling her powers to be representative of someone with an invisible/mental illness. And I think that reading is totally legitimate as well. As much as I like explicit representation, it's nice when multiple people can identify with one character.

And as for organic character change, yes that's always nice. But if someone who owns the rights to a character wants to change them, they should be allowed to. Also it should probably said that if a character is changed to be more diverse, for some people, no matter how it's done, it'll never be "organic" enough. Personally, I think people should be open to more character changes. I might not be the best person to talk about this though, because these things don't upset me like they seem to do other people.

 

[Phasmal]

Actually mental illness fits better to the plot then bein a lesbian, at least with the part of Elsa accidently harming her sister and living in fear and guilt as a result.

I... guess? People with mental illnesses aren't generally likely to hurt anyone but themselves, so there's that.
It's very open to interpretation, which like I said can be kind of nice too.
Still, if they decided to be open about it and made a sequel where Elsa got a girlfriend, I as a person who has mental health issues would not feel like I had lost out on anything and would still very much be able to identify with her.

 

[happyninja42]

Actually mental illness fits better to the plot then bein a lesbian, at least with the part of Elsa accidently harming her sister and living in fear and guilt as a result.

I... guess? People with mental illnesses aren't generally likely to hurt anyone but themselves, so there's that.

Depends. Nobody lives in a bubble. And people with mental illness interact with other people all the time. It's quite easy (just as easy for a regular person) for them to cause harm to other people. My brother is schizophrenic, has been for the last...30ish years, and he's done plenty of harm to other people. Mostly our family.

As to the "hurting her sister", it's pretty easy to compare it to the shame they feel, about "hurting" their family with their "sinful ways". I've heard tons of stories from LGBTQ and athiests, about the level of guilt dumped on them by their family, for being how they are. The classic "How could you do this to us?! Have you even considered how this has effected your mother?!" kind of thing. Which makes them live in a state of guilt/fear of exposing themselves, for fear of hurting their loved ones. So personally, I think the LGBTQ comparison has more cultural validity than mental illness. Because I can't recall anyone proudly declaring their mental illness, and being proud of it, the way people do about their sexuality, when they stop hiding who they are. I mean I guess it's possible? But it's way more likely to me anyway, that her declaration of purpose, and the strength she draws from it, is more the LGBTQ thing.

It's very open to interpretation, which like I said can be kind of nice too.
Still, if they decided to be open about it and made a sequel where Elsa got a girlfriend, I as a person who has mental health issues would not feel like I had lost out on anything and would still very much be able to identify with her.

That's kind of the neat thing about it to me. Given the fact that if it really is an LGBTQ analogy, they don't really even need to have her hook up with anyone. I mean, if her sexuality is her powers, they've already demonstrated that. They don't have to have her actually be non-hetero (or sexual at all really), and it still works just fine. Personally I think it would be neat if she was openly non-hetero, but like you say, nobody really loses any benefit from the character, if she doesn't line up to their personal sexual preference.

 

[Phasmal]

Depends. Nobody lives in a bubble. And people with mental illness interact with other people all the time. It's quite easy (just as easy for a regular person) for them to cause harm to other people. My brother is schizophrenic, has been for the last...30ish years, and he's done plenty of harm to other people. Mostly our family.

As to the "hurting her sister", it's pretty easy to compare it to the shame they feel, about "hurting" their family with their "sinful ways". I've heard tons of stories from LGBTQ and athiests, about the level of guilt dumped on them by their family, for being how they are. The classic "How could you do this to us?! Have you even considered how this has effected your mother?!" kind of thing. Which makes them live in a state of guilt/fear of exposing themselves, for fear of hurting their loved ones. So personally, I think the LGBTQ comparison has more cultural validity than mental illness. Because I can't recall anyone proudly declaring their mental illness, and being proud of it, the way people do about their sexuality, when they stop hiding who they are. I mean I guess it's possible? But it's way more likely to me anyway, that her declaration of purpose, and the strength she draws from it, is more the LGBTQ thing.

Well, yeah, I totally see where you're coming from. But it's not like people with mental illnesses don't worry about "hurting" their family with the stigma of their illness, and it's not like families can't or don't treat their loved ones with mental illnesses shitty sometimes.
Also while you don't get people openly celebrating having depression for example, a lot of people related to Elsa in the sense of accepting themselves for who they are and no longer hiding it.

Still, like I said, I think any interpretation is totally valid.

 

[happyninja42]

Well, yeah, I totally see where you're coming from. But it's not like people with mental illnesses don't worry about "hurting" their family with the stigma of their illness,

Some don't. Again, my brother just didn't give a shit. He was so narcissiticly wrapped up in his manic schizophrenia, and he never did anything wrong, at least not in his mind. We were always at fault. I know, anecdotal example, and I do get what you mean, many other people have compared it to mental illness. I just personally think with the celebratory aspect of it, it's less mental illness and more LGBTQ. I buy the "Hooray! I'm gay!" more than "Hooray! I'm Depressed!" xD But yeah, I know what you mean.

and it's not like families can't or don't treat their loved ones with mental illnesses shitty sometimes.

True, but I don't recall the last time I heard a news story about someone being kicked out of their house because they had a mental illness that had been documented. Or being shot because they were hanging out at a "Manic Depression Bar". Or similar. Again, I wouldn't be surprised if it does happen, but I don't see it very much, in comparison to the other kind of story.

Also while you don't get people openly celebrating having depression for example, a lot of people related to Elsa in the sense of accepting themselves for who they are and no longer hiding it.

....I'm...I'm not 100% sure what you are trying to say with this sentence? It feels like some words are left out to give it full context. Can you clarify please?

Still, like I said, I think any interpretation is totally valid.

I agree. I'm fully in favor of the "take what lesson/story you want from it." If someone with mental illness takes some strength from Elsa's story, and is able to deal with their issues more easily because of it, I am totally in favor of that. However, that is a separate issue from "what the creators intended to say with her story". But in the end, I don't really care what they were trying to say subtly about Elsa's mental state, or sexual orientation. It's a good story, that resonated with a lot of people. I mean hell, I'm a 40 year old white cis male and I was able to identify with Elsa's feelings of isolation and feeling ostracized by those around her. And I remember having a moment much like hers where I just said "Fuck it, I'm not going to let other people upset me about who I am."

 

[Phasmal]

(I snipped out the bit about being kicked out of your house because anything I could say back to that just sounded to me like I was directly comparing the two and I really don't want to do that, especially considering LGBT people and people with mental illnesses are not exclusive to each other).

Some don't. Again, my brother just didn't give a shit. He was so narcissiticly wrapped up in his manic schizophrenia, and he never did anything wrong, at least not in his mind. We were always at fault. I know, anecdotal example, and I do get what you mean, many other people have compared it to mental illness. I just personally think with the celebratory aspect of it, it's less mental illness and more LGBTQ. I buy the "Hooray! I'm gay!" more than "Hooray! I'm Depressed!" xD But yeah, I know what you mean.

Yes, some don't. I wasn't trying to argue that 100% of people do. Still, like I said, it's totally valid to view it the way you do. Personally I think if the creators were going for some subtext, it probably was LGBT issues, so it's not like we disagree.

....I'm...I'm not 100% sure what you are trying to say with this sentence? It feels like some words are left out to give it full context. Can you clarify please?

Sure can. Like I said, you don't get people celebrating having depression, but many people do feel a sense of validation and make a certain peace with it once they stop desperately trying to hide it. Which is kinda Elsa's whole thing, so mentally ill people can relate.

I agree. I'm fully in favor of the "take what lesson/story you want from it." If someone with mental illness takes some strength from Elsa's story, and is able to deal with their issues more easily because of it, I am totally in favor of that. However, that is a separate issue from "what the creators intended to say with her story". But in the end, I don't really care what they were trying to say subtly about Elsa's mental state, or sexual orientation. It's a good story, that resonated with a lot of people. I mean hell, I'm a 40 year old white cis male and I was able to identify with Elsa's feelings of isolation and feeling ostracized by those around her. And I remember having a moment much like hers where I just said "Fuck it, I'm not going to let other people upset me about who I am."

It is nice when people with multiple perspectives can relate to the same character.
I even saw some posts back when Frozen came out about how people with other invisible illnesses (for example chronic pain) could also relate a lot.

I think we need more characters like that.