You're viewing part of a thread.
It's interesting that you picked Spider-Man as the example of creating a different character being a better alternative, because there are plenty of racists out there that really hate that Miles Morales is even a thing. They would say "Why do we need a black Spider-Man? The original was fine!"
It's almost like racists are only ever going to whine about inclusivity, and "characters remaining their own race" vs "creating new characters" is a moot point because the people out there who are upset by the former are going to be upset by the latter anyway.
Imagine if the new scooby show had a cast of all white kids and a single black, well written character was added and made a pivotal role in the gang. The exact same people complaining now about race swapping would be complaining then about the new character being shoe horned in because of "woke" inclusion. Just like they do with Miles Morales.
The answer is just that we need to keep creating media with both of those scenarios and accept that shows created with a single color cast are products of their time and we can do better now. Racists aren't going to be happy either way.
Edit: Bring on the downvotes. If you consider "they're not supposed to be that race" as a valid, lone criticism of a character, you might have to ask yourself some difficult questions.
Idk why I feel this way, but I feel like "but I like Miles Morales" is becoming the new "I voted for Obama so I can't be racist", which had replaced "I'm not racist, but..." for a while.
I'm not racist, but I voted for Miles Morales
I would have just as much of a problem if they made blade white or asain or Latino and the same if they made black panther white. Changing some characters race is kind of a big deal as race is kind of an important issue. If all races were treated 100% the exact same and all had the same culture then it wouldn't be a big deal.
I said if your lone criticism is that they changed the race of a character, you might be racist.
Obviously, if race plays into the story, there's a valid reason to be bothered. But also obviously, if you're upset that shaggy is black despite still being the stereotypical stoner type he always has been, you might need to think about why you're upset.
The former logic should not be a sweeping ban on the latter from ever happening.
But also obviously, if you're upset that shaggy is black despite still being the stereotypical stoner type he always has been, you might need to think about why you're upset.
You mean Norville? Because there's no "Shaggy" in Velma. And, err, he's not exactly the same character, melanin aside.
I am someone still somewhat bothered by ethnicity-swapping (though not really for any of the reasons you described), but here's an annecdote:
When I first started engaging with the Hannibal franchise, I started with the Mads Mikelson TV series.
The character of Jack was played by Lawrence Fishburne.
Then, I watched the old movies, and shocker - Jack is a white guy.
Yet, I didn't care that Jack was black in the reboot. The only conclusion I could draw was that it didn't annoy me because I had always known Jack as black.
Now, I could be totally wrong about this, but I think a lot of people get bent out of shape because it's distracting above all else.
I couldn't care less about Jack being black or white, he's a side character in a movie I'll watch once in my life. Yet, I was thinking about race-swapping in the middle of the movie.
That sounds like the same kind of shock as a character in something you're used to being played by any different actor in a remake. And besides that, it's not racist to acknowledge a race swap. It can be distracting. It's racist when you make the point that it shouldn't be done because the character is supposed to be a certain color for no other reason than your preference.
I would say it's similar to the shock of a character played by another actor, but slightly different.
Unfortunately we were raised in a society where skin colour says more about a person, than the differences of a person's face within that group.
Yet, there is more variation within groups than between them. This is no doubt a failure of the way my brain works, and regrettably I'm not the only one.
So when ethnicity-swapping happens, my brain defaults to "but what is the significance?", and even when I remind myself that it doesn't matter, it's too late, my indoctrination has already kicked in and I'm taken out of the movie.
You know, I get what you're saying. It definitely is ingrained in our society that skin color says more about a person. I also think it's not wise to say we should just ignore it altogether.
The way my mind deals with it, honestly, is to create a new character with a slightly different personality. Instead of asking why they did it in the first place, I just try to acknowledge that it's not the same character I'm expecting. If it's a remake of something, it probably won't be the same story I'm expecting either.
It's like a multiverse thing. The problem only comes if you're comparing the old to the new. So I try to avoid that.
But it isn't wrong to say that your perception of a character changes with their skin color, because society conditioned us like that. It's up to you to create a new perception though. It really only becomes wrong when you say that a character's skin color breaks your perception of them because it's unacceptable. Does that make sense?
Absolutely makes sense. Going back to the Hannibal example, Mickelson and Hopkins, both very different styles of character. One is creepy, the other is captivating, both are great.
Interesting thought experiment is the James Bond scenario with Idris Elba. There's no good reason why Bond can't be black. Yet, I feel like it should be explained with "James Bond is the codename we assign to 007".
Though, I also feel this should have been explained at one point earlier in the franchise, so even mentioning it in the first "black Bond movie" to address it and move on is taking me out of it.
There really is no winning scenario.
You can't make "008 - Bames Jond starring Idris Elba"
You can't ignore it.
You can't address it.
It’s almost like racists are only ever going to whine about inclusivity, and “characters remaining their own race” vs “creating new characters” is a moot point because the people out there who are upset by the former are going to be upset by the latter anyway.
Uhm, no?
Have you seen the reception to both Spiderverse movies? It was overwhelmingly positive. I’d say they were probably the most universally liked Marvel movies of the decade. You would really compare that to the reception the new Little Mermaid or Ghostbusters got and say “yeah, the same amount of people got upset by both things”?
It’s nowhere nearly close. Obviously, it’s also because the spiderverse movies are written much better, but that’s also a symptom of better writers being hired for better projects. The fact that raceswapping a character and writing an entirely different one are received the same way is just plain false. Not to mention, even better, just making new movies with black characters altogether. But those two things require considerably more effort than taking an old, already liked movie’s script and copy-pasting it with a random character of a different race. And Hollywood doesn’t like effort, they just like money and free advertising.
You obviously didn't hear all the people complaining about Miles in the Spider-Man game, which is what I was referring to.
Have you considered that the racists in question just didn't go see the Miles Morales movies? Also, the fact that they are independently good movies has to do with the turnout. The little mermaid remake and the Ghostbusters new movie weren't exactly masterpieces. Saying that the spiderverse movies succeeded where they didn't is wholly attributed to the metric of creating new characters vs race swapping others is just wrong. The fact is that those movies were lazy, and that was the reason they failed.
The fact is that those movies were lazy, and that was the reason they failed.
I addressed that before, in a sense. Imo, the raceswap is part of the laziness. And yes, the reason they failed is because they were lazy, but if they weren't lazy they wouldn't have been just bland raceswaps. That's what I think about it, at least.
And honestly no, I didn't hear complaining about the game, but I admittedly read very little about it online. My friends liked it a lot and that's all I know. Complaining about that seems even dumber to me though: the franchise just got a very popular movie with a new main character, why wouldn't you put him in the game too? I don't think the complaints could've been that many, at least not at the level of those two above (or pretty much any disney remake).
And yes, the reason they failed is because they were lazy, but if they weren't lazy they wouldn't have been just bland raceswaps.
You're confounding two variables, though, so this example is incapable of proving anything. Is this the result of half A and B? Just A? Just B? It's not possible to know.
Further, even if it was true, that audiences just can't handle black Ariel, I don't think that means there isn't a problem. If we're not allowed to race swap characters, then that means we can't really hire black actors. "We can just write new characters"? Yeah, we can do that. But you're basically saying that the last 80 years of shared, televised cultural history, even past all of the racial segregation of the 50s, the 60s, and on, is just inaccessible to the "other kinds." Like, is a black woman not allowed to write a Cinderella?
I don't think the complaints could've been that many,
Last thing: You should go looking for these people more often. Not so you can be like them, just to see them. I used to think that we lived in a post-racism world years and years ago. You don't really get a sense of how the public behaves until you survey them. It's good for you, though; know thy enemy.
But you’re basically saying that the last 80 years of shared, televised cultural history, even past all of the racial segregation of the 50s, the 60s, and on, is just inaccessible to the “other kinds.” Like, is a black woman not allowed to write a Cinderella?
Not that much of a problem, imo, even if it was inaccessible to everyone. Do we really need to keep rehashing the same stuff over and over? I can understand stuff like War of the Worlds where the first movie wasn’t really appreciated, but if we already have a Cinderella movie people appreciate, can’t we just… leave it alone? A lot of unnecessary remakes got hate even without raceswaps, that’s not the only issue. Remakes of bad stuff, on the other hand, are easier to “change up” because fewer people are attached to the original, and if it’s based on literature usually race isn’t specified at all.
Last thing: You should go looking for these people more often. Not so you can be like them, just to see them.
Oh I know that they exist. But quantifying them is pretty much impossible. We know there’s a lot of racists around, but it’s hard to say how many of those are actual Spiderman fans who got upset by the sequel game. The complainers might be bad actors, or a loud but really small minority… the internet is full of echo chambers, it’s hard to get an actual grasp on people’s opinions.
Do we really need to keep rehashing the same stuff over and over?
Okay, but you realize this is a different argument. Remakes are being made, so it's weird to cut certain people out of it.
I have a laundry list of problems with the Disney live-action remakes, but the fact that Halle Bailey is in some doesn't count for one.
The fact that these remakes often completely misunderstand the story they're supposed to be telling counts for like 5.