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

[happyninja42]

....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.

Ah, ok yes that's much clearer, thank you. And yes I agree.

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.

You mean well developed, 3 dimensional characters with problems and worries and strengths? Yes! I agree we do! xD

 

[Schadrach]

It's not as simple as saying "if you want diverse characters go make them yourself".

Yes, yes it is. New IPs get created all the time, and the successful ones stick around. This is especially true of video games where the barrier to entry for an indie team wanting to make a thing is very low.

People are doing this and some of those IPs are really catching on.

Yeah, IPs that are good have a tendency to do that. The problem with a lot of "social justice" in media is that they have a bad habit of acting like "diversity" should be the primary or only thing they need, so instead they come off as preachy and shallow. Or else they center the "diversity" to such a degree that it gets obnoxious. Nobody really cares if you create a gay/black/latino/whatever character, but if your plotlines are too much built on "look at how gay/black/latino/whatever I am" then you are doing it wrong. IOW, try to be more subtle than a ton of bricks. I actually found it rather amusing that Mile Morales gets annoyed by a blogger in that universe trying to center his race above his deeds as Spider-Man.

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.

It could just be that the PPG and Teen Titans Go! are just terrible, while Steven Universe is actually very well done. Or to put it another way, there's a reason SU is very popular (despite even being a new IP - OMG that never happens!) and it's largely unrelated to the agendered space rock aliens being lesbian.

But maybe it won't and we have to prepare to alter existing IP to suit current social trends if that's the case.

We need to change the race and sex of existing characters just because you feel like there aren't enough such characters, and you want to co-opt the history of those characters rather than create new ones or pull out some of the somewhat lesser known ones who already meet your preferences? Maybe Dr. Stephen Vincent Strange should be a quadriplegic latina lesbian with a few headmates, because that would make for a better character because she would be more "diverse"?

 

[Silvanus]

We need to change the race and sex of existing characters just because you feel like there aren't enough such characters, and you want to co-opt the history of those characters rather than create new ones or pull out some of the somewhat lesser known ones who already meet your preferences? Maybe Dr. Stephen Vincent Strange should be a quadriplegic latina lesbian with a few headmates, because that would make for a better character because she would be more "diverse"?

Or, y'know, we could work with much less silly examples, such as 'legacy' characters' mantles going to people who differ substantially from the previous owner. That'd be an instance of adapting existing IPs and keeping it lore-consistent.

We don't always need to assume that requests for diversity will automatically jump to the extreme, you know.

 

[happyninja42]

We need to change the race and sex of existing characters just because you feel like there aren't enough such characters, and you want to co-opt the history of those characters rather than create new ones or pull out some of the somewhat lesser known ones who already meet your preferences? Maybe Dr. Stephen Vincent Strange should be a quadriplegic latina lesbian with a few headmates, because that would make for a better character because she would be more "diverse"?

Or, y'know, we could work with much less silly examples, such as 'legacy' characters' mantles going to people who differ substantially from the previous owner. That'd be an instance of adapting existing IPs and keeping it lore-consistent.

We don't always need to assume that requests for diversity will automatically jump to the extreme, you know.

The problem I see with legacy characters, (which I am 100% in favor of, love me some legacy stories), is that they too fall into the "you're just changing my hero to fit your agenda" debate. I mean that exact thing happened with Miles Morales, FemThor, Falcon becoming Captain America, etc. Those are all examples of a "legacy" story, and every one of them got lots of flak from fans for "changing my hero!" "Spiderman is Peter Parker! And ONLY Peter Parker!" kind of comments and such. Bottom line, you just can't ever win with comic book fans. Some of them are always going to lose their shit if you don't keep feeding them the exact same story they've grown up on for decades.

The part that always seems to confuse me, is how some people get upset about these changes "invalidating" previous challenges/triumphs of the hero in question....yet they seem totally ok with continuity fusion things like The New 52, and all those others, where they clean house and dump hero iterations that they didn't like. Somehow that's ok? To totally rewrite the entire cosmology of the universe, and erase entire versions of heroes for other versions....but having one hero have a single change, that's where we draw the line in the sand! This far!!! NO FURTHER! ? I just...I don't get it.

 

[Schadrach]

Or, y'know, we could work with much less silly examples, such as 'legacy' characters' mantles going to people who differ substantially from the previous owner.

You mean like actually happened with Earth's Green Lantern, in part because it was expressly a mantle that could be passed like that? You know in 1971 when it passed to Jon Stewart, becoming the first black DC comics hero?

Of course, the Green Lantern Corps is a pretty diverse lot in the first place, including one who is an alien from a species that doesn't have a sense of sight, so his oath is radically different since he has no concept of light, dark, color or lanterns. His oath is entirely in terms of sound, and refers to his mantle as the "F-sharp Bell."

That'd be an instance of adapting existing IPs and keeping it lore-consistent.

We'd be better off to introduce existing characters who already are those things into a wider consciousness than trying to (for example) make Captain America gay at random. For example, have them show up as a side character in one of the movies to introduce them to the movie audience and integrate them as someone worth watching, then give them their own movie once the general audience has an idea who they are -- or just go full Guardians of the Galaxy on them, though that seems riskier.

 

[Silvanus]

The problem I see with legacy characters, (which I am 100% in favor of, love me some legacy stories), is that they too fall into the "you're just changing my hero to fit your agenda" debate. I mean that exact thing happened with Miles Morales, FemThor, Falcon becoming Captain America, etc. Those are all examples of a "legacy" story, and every one of them got lots of flak from fans for "changing my hero!" "Spiderman is Peter Parker! And ONLY Peter Parker!" kind of comments and such. Bottom line, you just can't ever win with comic book fans. Some of them are always going to lose their shit if you don't keep feeding them the exact same story they've grown up on for decades.

The part that always seems to confuse me, is how some people get upset about these changes "invalidating" previous challenges/triumphs of the hero in question....yet they seem totally ok with continuity fusion things like The New 52, and all those others, where they clean house and dump hero iterations that they didn't like. Somehow that's ok? To totally rewrite the entire cosmology of the universe, and erase entire versions of heroes for other versions....but having one hero have a single change, that's where we draw the line in the sand! This far!!! NO FURTHER! ? I just...I don't get it.

Aye, they do get flak, but when it's for transparently poor reasons, we can safely dismiss it and encourage the writers to go ahead, I think.

You mean like actually happened with Earth's Green Lantern, in part because it was expressly a mantle that could be passed like that? You know in 1971 when it passed to Jon Stewart, becoming the first black DC comics hero?

Of course, the Green Lantern Corps is a pretty diverse lot in the first place, including one who is an alien from a species that doesn't have a sense of sight, so his oath is radically different since he has no concept of light, dark, color or lanterns. His oath is entirely in terms of sound, and refers to his mantle as the "F-sharp Bell."

Yep, it happened with the Lanterns, but long enough ago for people to have accepted that it happened. Hundreds of other mantles change, too, but usually tend to stay within the same demographics as the previous holder, so they fly under peoples' radars and go largely uncomplained.

There's nothing wrong with such mantles passing to people of different demographics, is what I'm saying, and on which we seem to be in agreement.

We'd be better off to introduce existing characters who already are those things into a wider consciousness than trying to (for example) make Captain America gay at random. For example, have them show up as a side character in one of the movies to introduce them to the movie audience and integrate them as someone worth watching, then give them their own movie once the general audience has an idea who they are -- or just go full Guardians of the Galaxy on them, though that seems riskier.

Well, then they wouldn't have nearly the exposure.

 

[Dizchu]

Yes, yes it is. New IPs get created all the time, and the successful ones stick around. This is especially true of video games where the barrier to entry for an indie team wanting to make a thing is very low.

Yes, new IPs are being made... but have you looked at the showings in your local cinema? Have you seen the lineup of games at E3? It's not a secret that a greater proportion of new releases than every before is based on existing material.

It could just be that the PPG and Teen Titans Go! are just terrible, while Steven Universe is actually very well done. Or to put it another way, there's a reason SU is very popular (despite even being a new IP - OMG that never happens!) and it's largely unrelated to the agendered space rock aliens being lesbian.

Well it's proof that existing properties don't guarantee success and that new IPs still have a chance to catch on. But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of studios are heavily reliant on existing IPs and that audiences will still go to see them/play them/read them despite the "reboot" fatigue.

We need to change the race and sex of existing characters just because you feel like there aren't enough such characters, and you want to co-opt the history of those characters rather than create new ones or pull out some of the somewhat lesser known ones who already meet your preferences? Maybe Dr. Stephen Vincent Strange should be a quadriplegic latina lesbian with a few headmates, because that would make for a better character because she would be more "diverse"?

When the hell did I say we should be doing any of that? I'm just stating the facts. Studios want to stick to existing properties but they also want to cater to a larger variety of people than they did before. It's inevitable, they're gonna add stuff that may not have existed in the originals.

This is not what I think should happen, this is (like I said before) simple capitalism. Whether or not these things will be well-implemented is another matter altogether, but it's not hard to see the motivation behind stuff like this. Ideally I'd like new IPs to catch on and sometimes they do, but it's harder than it was before because of how saturated the market is and how risk-averse a lot of studios are.

 

[Ronald Nand]

or casting Hermione Granger with an African American.

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.

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.

Isn't it kind of dumb that they made everyone else in the cast look like their movie counterparts, but they make specifically Hermione radically different. I saw a post on Buzzfeed where they compared the cast, and everyone looked like a grown up version of the person in the movies. If they wanted to make people in cast different, why single out one character specifically, why not give other characters the same treatment? It sounds like pandering to me be honest, they make everyone else accurate but change one character to add a bit of 'diversity' to the cast.

I'm not really offended by it, I never cared much for Harry Potter and will never see this play, but I think its a very odd and out of place decision.

 

[Burnouts3s3]

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?

Sorry it took so late to respond, but in my opinion, "Remember Me" was not a perfect game; it had significant flaws in both the combat and story (Some characters get zero to no development at all) and I couldn't fault consumers who didn't buy it in mass quantities.