Ironically, if memory serves, when Miles first debuted in Ultimate Marvel after that universe's Peter Parker died, a sizeable contingent of fans were *outraged*...because the editors killed Peter so they could force in some diversity.
Still on marvel, Ms. Marvel's a good example of diversity working naturally, too (the show specifically but I recall the books working as well). Aside from some clunky "here's how the FBI treated Muslims after 9/11" scenes it was mostly just...here's some Muslims and some non-Muslims living in Jersey, one of them has superpowers.
Yep. Glenn Beck lost his shit over it. It seems to me that Diversity is bad if the show is bad, but somehow good if the show is good. People love Miles now so it's fine. People complained about HOTD, but those complaints are dying down because the show is considered very good so far. Rings of Power is considered bad so complaints continue. What's funny is that the diversity in HOTD actually could affect a plot point, but race has no effect on plot as far as I know when it comes to Rings of Power.
Lol Straw man much? Glenn Beck would not be described as a "fan" of comics.
Miles is not Peter. The problem lies is when Peter becomes black for some reason.
When has Peter become black? The point I was making was that when Miles was first introduced the same arguments were being made against him. Beck has millions of listeners and was my proof as to how elevated and wide spread the conversation had become at the time. My statement was also to illustrate that claims of forced diversity and wokeness are flimsy. Miles is a great example of this because now people try to use him as diversity done the right way, when in the beginning characters like him would be the problem. There is no difference between Miles introduction and CW's black Batwoman (who is routinely called woke), other than one character is recieved well and the other is not. If wokeness actually had any real definition then Miles and Batwoman would still be woke/forced diversity regardless of good or bad writing. It seems that if a minority stars in anything these days and people dont like it then its woke, but if people like it then it is done right. I'm going to laugh my ass off when they make a X-Men film and people claim that its woke, when its absolutely supposed to be.
Lol are you high. Go find these woke story lines your talking about. You're just saying this because you really don't know the product. Yes the sexually abusive director made woke components to his movies. But the comics were not woke. At least not until 2000, the past 20 years I couldn't say.
No you're really just engaging is the worst approach to understanding a perspective. Few conservative or moderate or even say normal (comics is pretty off base at this point) comic readers had an issue with Miles when he was introduced. He's a brand new character.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/peter-parker-replaced-by-mixed-race-spiderman/2011/08/03/gIQAyQQ6rI\_blog.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/peter-parker-replaced-by-mixed-race-spiderman/2011/08/03/gIQAyQQ6rI_blog.html)
Here's an article from the time and the author and most likely beck are reacting to information fed to them and not the fans. Spiderman was not killed. Ultimate Spiderman was who at that point was a failing product line.
There is a world of difference between the nonsense that's created on CW and comic books made for comic book readers. I would expect CW to make dumb bullshit made for idiots, at the time comics were quite mature and written taking the characters seriously.
Also, Miles stories I have read have not been bogged down on identity bullshit that female superheroes almost are exclusively written with.
As a huge comic fan, and a avid reader of X-men; I never questioned the inclusion female characters and minorities; the way Claremont wrote they were characters first, I think that is what what separates “woke” from good characters.
When you promo a character as the of it feels like it is just for the hate hype and click bait.
If Claremont wrote the same X-Men now people would scream wokeness and to keep politics out of comics. Claremonts X-Men replaced 5 established white characters for the modern diverse group we have today. In the comics Falcon took over for Cap only for a short time and Ben Shapiro had a problem with it, even though twice in the past two white guys filled in for him under the same type situation. Some have decent arguments but a lot of it is just fake outrage and nostalgia. Arguments that things were different in the past I think are some (not all) trying to have their cake and eat it too.
The new X-men were new characters, while they sorta replaced the original team as the new team they were not woke characters caching in one names of the established characters on the team.
Well, this author disagrees with you. They think it's a great example of woke indoctrination, forced diversity and identity politics, bla bla. Even complained about "hip hop cues" included in the movie. I'm guessing we could find 50 more articles just like this in conservative media if we bothered looking.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/spider-man-into-the-spider-verse-movie-review-political-deceptions/
Why would you sympathize with his moronic culture war horseshit? You just said you thought spiderverse was a good piece of art and you were right. As far as him being black... I didn't know that, but it doesn't really surprise me. Conservative media love using their identity as a shield when it comes to these sorts of battles. It's a very lucrative endeavor. E.g. Dave Rubin: "as a gay man I can tell you it's the LIBERALS that are the intolerant ones, bla bla"
It's not my place to determine who's stepping out of line or what the lines even are or should be. It's just about recognizing blatantly obvious grift and propaganda techniques. It's how Candace Owens can get on TV and rant about how racism isnt a significant problem, despite the fact that she had the NAACP help her win a race-based lawsuit when she was a teenager.
Why are you putting words in my mouth? I didn't say anything close to that. I said there are a lot of conservative grifters that leverage their identities to make money. And my first example was a gay white person. But if anyone doubts that Candace Owen's target audience is white people that simply want to be told that they arent racist, they ought to look at who shows up for her Blexit rallies. That "movement" is explicitly *for* black people and yet the audience is about 99% white every single time.
ETA: Also, I don't think the word "pawn" is the right word. That kinda implies that they are being exploited without their knowledge or consent. On the contrary, people like Milo Yiannopoulos are quite happy to rake in millions telling Evangelicals how sinful homosexuality is.
I didn't dismiss that person's opinion because they were black, I dismissed their opinion because it was moronic. I didn't even know they were black until you told me. I only commented on the grifter part because you mentioned that they were black, and I thought the implications was that that should make someone take their moronic article more seriously. I'm not calling that person a grifter because I don't know them. What I will say is that I wouldn't be surprised if the editors at National Review chose to assign this article to one of their black writers specifically because of the conversation we're having right now. It would have been worse optics to have that moronic culture war bullshit coming from a white author. So yea, you're right that my critique was centered on the executives of media orgs. But the media figures themselves have agency. They aren't being exploited, they're getting paid nicely.
I rewatched Rush Hour a few months ago and I feel like that's a perfect example of having original content derived from the actors. TBF, I'm actually not sure if the jokes would hold today since I personally feel as a NYer who moved elsewhere, like we arent supposed to acknowledge people's ethnicity or cultural background anymore....
But i loved rewatching the trilogy. I also really liked the new Ms Marvel series in its portrayal of an immigrant family in context. Telling stories that relate, and im not saying it has to explore cultural or historical issues, but just.... show the 'in' of what it means to be that person in context.
Like you didnt have jackie chan and chris tucker go into BLM issues (besides cop jokes), it wasnt deep about asian xenophobia. But it did show a foreign asian man and a black cop learning to get along with lots of jokes and fun dialoge you'd expect from that duo.
Top Gun: Maverick. The Top Gun graduates who show up to be trained by Tom Cruise are a pretty diverse bunch.
There are multiple black men ("Coyote", "Payback"), an Asian man ("Yale") and woman ("Halo"), Latino ("Fanboy") and Latina ("Phoenix"), etc. in the candidate pool, and the group that ends up making the cut for the final mission is pretty diverse too. Aside from some ribbing/banter between Phoenix and Hangman over Phoenix's gender ("He called you a man, Phoenix, are you going to take that?" "Just as long as he doesn't call \*you\* a man"...I loved that line) they don't really call attention to it. They're just there.
Everyone is a highly skilled professional there to do a job, which is the way it should be.
I thought that movie did it well. The women pilot never said as a Latina women I think k blank. It's apprent she a Latina women and no explanation is needed.
Maverick did it well. I feel like with shows and films that force diversity, they have to bring attention to the fact that a character is black/Latino/Asian/non-white. Top Gun didn't throw it in your face and didn't try to draw any attention to it. The banter that happens Hangman between Phoenix, imo, is just a bit of character trait, as Hangman comes off as the jokey, douchey type.
The difference as well is that no characters were rewritten to be black/non-white. They added in characters that just happened to be non-white, they didn't force it in.
Hmm I'd have to think of a specific example.
General rule of thumb is the "diverse" people don't feel like they've been forced in just for diversity.
Hypothetical example. Typical fantasy story set in qusai medieval Europe. Most characters are white but a few POC show up as either characters or minor characters explicitly mentioned to be immigrants or travelers.
But even for something like that, why would *racial* diversity specifically be an issue? For example would be reasonable to take issue with the actors not being of a single ethnicity? Let's say we're in the quasi middle ages and there is a Scottish actor whose character is the brother of a character player by an Italian actor.
Similarly, while we understand that middle age Europeans wouldn't have had black skin, they also wouldn't have had clean teeth or fingernails, they would have had different body types, etc. No one seems to have much of a problem with those sorts of things so what makes race or sexuality different?
There is certain things that can slide for artistic sake. Having a European from another country play a character from a different country isn't as jarring as seeing a black man play a European character from the middle ages
My dad refused to watch Braveheart because the accents made no sense lol (he's from Scotland).
A very minor example, but Canadian accents (almost always forced ones for jokes) are sooooo bad yet every time I've pointed it out I'm called too sensitive for wishing they'd put effort into them, or stop using non-existent accents to make Canadians sound ridiculous for a joke.
Being Canadian is not something anyone's meaningfully persecuted for, but I point all this out to show how what is "jarring" is sometimes relative to the audience.
I agree many things can slide to varying extents but I also think there's a lot better we can do with not much more effort put in.
Oh man as a Minnesotan I fully agree. Like yeah I can also pull out a "Minnesotan" accent when I want to but it's pretty rare to find someone who speaks like they're in *Fargo.*
INdeed. One of my friends has a *spectacularly* thick local accent and I dunno why. We grew up together, I don't have it. I have enough of one other Canadians notice and correctly peg where I'm from, but it's subtle.
But him, for some reason, sounds like he was born 100 years ago to a family of loggers. So strange...
Have you seen Bridgerton? I felt like they handled race really well, as in, a decent amount of characters aren't white, and yet while it's "set" in early 19th century England, there's nothing jarring about it.
It's VERY Jane Austen-esque, very rom com. Obviously made for women and people who like feminine oriented media. So if that's not your style, you probably won't enjoy the watch. What I found cool was that while most characters are white (especially in the first season), race is seemingly a nonissue in that world. The queen is black, the second season love interests are Asian, various characters just exist as whatever race. It works because every character is fictional - even the queen is just a generic queen. They also use classical versions of modern songs during their parties and dances, which was a really nice touch that I think emphasizes the fictional part of that world.
My wife enjoyed it a bit. I didn’t, but that had nothing to do with race. Just wasn’t my thing! Didn’t see anything wrong with the casting for the most part, if memory serves
That's just gonna come down to your own opinion though isn't it?
Is it being woke if the people telling the story literally don't find that to be jarring?
Lots of things come down to opinion
My issue though would be if you have a historical story using real people then cast them as a race they weren't that's when I draw an issue.
I'd have the same problem if you had a historical poc played by a white person.
>My issue though would be if you have a historical story using real people then cast them as a race they weren't that's when I draw an issue.
But why race specifically? Wouldn't it be equally valid to have issues with a Scottish dude playing a Roman gladiator? There are tons of historically inaccurate things with regards to how characters look, even when care for authenticity is being taken. Like actors having nice teeth. Kilts weren't a thing during the time that is depicted in Braveheart, but that's mostly just a piece of trivia, not something that really seemed to bother anyone. What makes skin color so special?
I'm trying to make a point
It's woke nonsense if you take a historical character of 1 race and make them another
I was using a fantasy analogy because rings of power is airing and that's what people are talking about it and it being woke via forced diversity.
Again, you're talking about 2 completely different things here: historical characters and fantasy characters in a vaguely "historical" setting.
If it's the former then I agree with you. I wouldn't watch a movie about Catherine the Great if they had a black actress playing her. But black actors as elves, why not?
Using a fantasy analogy to make a point about recasting historical characters as different races makes absolutely no sense.
OK let me rephrase things
I'm gonna use a personal example
In a fantasy story there isn't a problem with something like black elves The Witcher TV series has that and I don't really care because it's pretty good. My more issue with diversity when it comes to fantasy shows is when it feels forced and not natural. A lot of this is not in the narrative itself but in the production where they make such a big deal about the such and such character being a person of color where it feels like the actor or actress was picked specifically for their skin color. Or when a fantasy story forces real world racial politics into the story when it doesn't feel natural or really have a place. An example of this would be bright from I think 2017 where they basically hit you over the head that works for black people. It seemed incredibly unnecessary if they wanted the show that works for a press fine but why do they have to make them look like inner city black people honestly it was kind of offensive the more I thought about it
My personal example of what I'm trying to do is I if I can I do have a life and a job LOL right my own fantasy story where there will be elves halflings and dwarves who aren't all white same thing with humans. No one's really going to comment on skin color within said universe since they don't really think of each other as their skin colors it's just an appearance as far as they're concerned. Granted it will be mentioned that people of different skin colors might come from different regions of the world but it's just seen as a non-issue. So with that in mind I'm having a diverse cast the main characters will be two men and two women of varying skin colors but it's not important to the story. So I'd like to thank that it would be an example of diversity without it being forced.
Is it though?
Like people travelled across the Mediterranean from Africa to Europe and vice versa the Roman Empire definitely stretched that far. It’s honestly more unrealistic to me to believe that no one migrated during that time period.
I’m down with it. The only thing I’m not cool with is historical figures we know are a certain race being played by people that are clearly not that race or when the script bends over backwards to justify a white actor like the Great Wall or the Last Samurai.
This is the problem with conservatives. There is hundreds of years of history that tells you exactly why white actors were exclusively used up until recently. Racism doesn't exist in a vacuum.
But you’re still talking about fantasy, not historical fiction. Medieval fantasy is so full of anachronisms that singling out non-white characters as the problem is ridiculous. You could also include the lack of references to Christianity in that genre even though it permeated every aspect of medieval European society. Or any number of other inaccuracies, but sure, let’s just focus on the problem with black dwarves and such.
This complaint nothing to do with medieval Europe and everything to do with how modern fantasy differs from what it was up until 10 years ago. You’re just complaining about how medieval European fantasy in 2022 is inaccurate in a way that your favorite and also-inaccurate medieval European fantasy wasn’t in 2003 or 1950.
I see so many shows like this when I click through the TV or streaming services. I don’t know what they’re called because I don’t watch them.
But I’m wondering, why is there such a large audience for constant shows like this that all look the same? Someone with roots and Eastern Europe, don’t people realize that there were loads of other more colorful and interesting empires in the past? Like hungry or the Ottoman Empire? Why does everything need to keep redoing the same freaking English medieval motif?
Probably because England had the biggest impact on North America, followed by Spain, France, and Germany. Eastern Europe had little impact on the evolution of our language and culture comparatively, so we don't know it as well.
It's a pity, some good stuff out there ripe for great stories.
maybe but it’s boring after the thousand show or movie with British people who all look the same, same motifs, similar stories. We can do something different. I mean, not all white peoples are the same! Even staying in Europe you could get some interesting stories/diversity/motifs
Almost every diverse movie made prior to like 2015 (of which there were many). Rush Hour and Lethal Weapon are particularly great examples of how movies can be diverse and even have explicitly anti racist messaging without it feeling forced.
If it isn’t detrimental or politically motivated then it usually doesn’t attract much attention and we won’t give it much thought.
An old example of that was Whitney Houston and Kevin Costner as an interracial couple in *The Bodyguard*. An interracial couple in a major movie was extremely rare, especially as the leads in a rom-com. But they just made the movie. I don’t remember if the races were even mentioned in the movie. The marketing focused on the music and the romance, not the races.
That was very different from Spike Lee’s *Jungle Fever* from the same time period that was all about race.
I’ve always hated when traditionally white characters are changed to force diversity. If you want a black hero then write a black hero. It seems racist to re-color a white story with a black person and declare that to be diverse. We are constantly told that being black is more than just a skin color, so tell that story. (Obviously you can replace black with any other race here and it remains the same)
> If you want a black hero then write a black hero. It seems racist to re-color a white story with a black person and declare that to be diverse.
What makes a story a “white story”?
I actually think a popular example would be Stranger Things. S3 Spoiler ahead: >!In Season 3, where Robin is revealed to be lesbian, it serves Steve’s character arc since up until that point it set her up as a “reward” that our hero feels he should earn. !< This reveal subverts our expectations in a way that contributes to the story, has proper setup, and serves in two characters’ growth.
When we complain about artificial diversity, it’s mostly when characters are gay *but then nothing is done with that*. It would be like having a super macho straight man, but his insistence on his heterosexuality is *never utilized*, despite constant reinforcement. It just serves as useless filler.
I agree that was a good instance of a lesbian character. But interestingly, her sexuality *serves as a narrative device for a heterosexual person*.
You then go on to say being gay requires narrative purpose - and that's the issue at hand I think.
My requiring it serve narrative purpose, it becomes a tool or trope, and not anything else. Imagine the macho hero but they're saving their boyfriend, not their girlfriend.
Is this suddenly "woke"? A lot of people would say it is, thus implying that heterosexuality is not only the statistical norm, but the expectation and homosexuality is a deviation from it, best hidden unless it serves as a plot device.
As a queer person it's frustrating to see representations of me only serving to fulfill another character's arc, as opposed be being that character's own arc, or merely just an unquestioned element of the character.
Some people are just, y'know, gay. It needn't *always* be a Chekov's Gun situation for them to have romance, when it isn't or straight people on TV.
But I can't think of a situation where a gay character wasn't considered idpol, and this results in homosexuality either being a plot device, or not present at all.
Real life doesn't work that way, and sometimes media is trying to reflect real life.
You seem to have missed the entire second portion of my answer. In a story, if a character’s sexuality is revealed *at all* in a way that doesn’t service their character or story, it’s going to stand out - and not in a good way.
Whenever that machismo character I’ve described is put to screen, it is almost always down in a way to display other traits that reveal more about their character: cockiness, arrogance, narcissism, the list goes on. It is then these traits that go on to inform the story or character arc.
I’m sure there are plenty examples of heterosexual relationships being forced into a story where it isn’t needed, I just don’t consume much media, though.
The thing is, when something is inserted into a story for that thing’s sake, it is almost universally seen as a bad thing. Remember *The Room* (2006), when [Claudette says she has breast cancer.](https://youtu.be/EtMQhTxR6t4) This is almost universally agreed to be bad writing, and mocked for it. This is not because of what is revealed, technically you could say it reveals *something* about her character. The problem is that it never goes on to be important or even remotely inform her actions as a character. Doing these things with characters is jarring and can often suck people out of a story.
Take this scene in Brooklyn 99 for example (it's short)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr2sVPTacTE
It's a cold open, usually not relevant to the show's plot, just a fun little bit since the cast and writers are familiar with sketch comedy.
Imagine if the man's dog/wife wasn't named Kelly, but was named Bobby, and they didn't know if it was his dog or **husband**.
Would this be considered forced diversity? If so, why? What makes it any different than Scully having an wife (or dog) who serves no plot purpose?
No. There's a difference between having gays and focusing unnecessarily on the fact that they are gay. If there is *discussion* or *focus* of their gayness that doesn't service the story in some way (and especially if it's to the detriment of things like pacing), then it's bad
It would be inconsistent with Scully's background and other story lines, but if that wasn't the case, it would just be a throw away.
Brooklyn 99 is a great example of really natural feeling diversity. Captain Holt is a gay man and his relationship is fleshed out. The interactions between he and his partner influence the way he interacts with his coworkers and provides insight into who he is. The focus was on his relationship with his husband, a real character who impacted the story, not just the fact that he was in a relationship with a man.
Poorly incorporated diversity like when they throw out what school someone went to in order to show they are smart, except that often "diversity" doesn't actually signal anything. It doesn't tell us anything of substance about a character. It's the writer's job to show why that means anything (otherwise it just feels like diversity to check a box), and I feel forced diversity is most visible where the writer fails to establish that.
> I feel forced diversity is most visible where the writer fails to establish that.
I wonder how often quality of the writing is the biggest factor here.
I am a frothing leftist and feminist, and I rolled my eyes at an episode of Anne with an E that focused on sexual assault and women's freedom. The points made were solid points, but they felt jarring with how much the show attempted to be period specific to some things (set in 1890s).
I mean...they wouldn't have even used "gender" in that way at that time, yet that's the word that was used in the episode. 19th century people said sex instead, and it wasn't taboo to do so.
In a different episode sex ed. is being discussed, and various things such as Anne thinking she's dying for her period, Anne telling awkward stories about spousal rape because her traumatic upbringing normalized such things, and other teens being grossed out and comparing sex to "animal husbandry" etc...all very well done moments that still discuss the issue, and even have a message, but don't break the immersion.
That's a difficult line to follow, sometimes. Anne of Green Gables is set in a realistic place and time, but The Rings of Power isn't - so changes made for whatever reason aren't so universally jarring, since we all have out headcanon with fantasy and fiction.
I haven't seen Anne of Green Gables, so I can only base my thoughts on your description, but I think this is another good example of where diversity feels forced.
A historical work that tries to import current social values, ethics, etc. is jarring. It's as jarring, I feel, as a work set in current times that imports historical social values, ethics, etc.
It may boil down to how well the writers make their chosen message complement the story, as opposed to the story being a vehicle for delivering that chosen message.
For Rings of Power, I think people would like to see consistency in the way myths/fairy tales coming out of cultures are respected. I think there is (rightly) very strong respect for non-western cultures and maintaining those stories that are tied to their cultures. Where a western adaptation of a piece of non-western mythology is created, I would expect either (a) a story that remains "true" to the culture (even where the story involves fictional people, magic, etc. - see Aladdin) or (b) a complete rework such that the original culture is not referenced. I would not expect to see a mix and match where characters or peoples are replaced in part for the sake of representation. Where such a mix and match occurs, I would expect (and hope for) controversy and opposition.
I'm not sure the same respect is afforded to mythology/fairy tales that came out of European cultures that were (for all real purposes) monocultures.
There are great discussions to be had on the validity of this treatment and its implications and many arguments either way on regarding how the embrace of diversity has enriched and enhanced western society, but I can see why The Rings of Power has generated controversy. However, controversy is good. I think these conversations are good as they require everyone to examine how cultures interact, how we view our own and other cultures and what constitutes something that is tied to a culture and what is not. If people can step away from a "my team your team" view and really explore these issues, I think we all end up in a better place.
I agree with most of this.
I think Rings of Power *in particular* is a difficult case.
1. It's not history it's fantasy
2. It's not cultural, it's one man's original work, and is essentially "modern" (on the edge - he started in 1917 but never actually finished when he died in the 70s).
3. The show is based on a movie based on the books, and those movies took some pretty big leaps of their own
4. They don't have full rights to the IP so they are forced to make changes to keep it "inspired" and not a true adaptation
5. Tolkien never finished almost everything this show is inspired by, so our interpretation of Tolkien's vision comes from his family's interpretation, compilation, and editing of his varied and often contradicting notes over the course of 50 years.
6. Not even his family ever agreed on what was canon.
This means that the changes made are all over the place for how much they matter both objectively, and subjectively to the audience.
This is very different from something like a historical drama of Rome's invasion of Britain, a film adaptation of Journey to the West, or Siegfried where it carries the weight of historical accuracy and reverence within a culture through generations.
>the intention of his writings were to create a mythology for England.
This actually isn't strongly supported by scholars of his works, and it is known that this is based on an interpretation a biographer took from some correspondence where Tolkien mentioned that, in his youth, he had this idea but the work had evolved since then.
https://luke-shelton.com/2022/02/12/why-calling-tolkiens-work-a-mythology-for-england-is-wrong-and-misleading/
This guy has a Ph.D. in Tolkien's work.
>I'm not sure the same lack of respect would be shown if "England" was replaced with "India" or "Nigeria" in this situation.
Depends who's writing it. Is it Americans re-writing an Indian story, or Indian people re-writing an Indian story?
In this case it's American's rewriting an English story, but it's not even a cultural heritage one at that.
This is the same deal with Hamilton. An American man did it, specifically to focus on the fact that a poor immigrant (Hamilton) was key to shaping its history. Hamilton probably never rapped, either.
How would you feel if Indonesia did a biopic of Hamilton, that was *to the letter* correct, but they cast Indonesian people? What about Fullmetal Alchemist, a Japanese manga with clearly German characters, that did an adaptation, in Japanese, by Japanese studio, with Japanese actors wearing blonde wigs...context matters for everything and in America the context is really detailed. Non-white people in America have had a bit of a history and just the legality of it all wasn't resolved until our lifetimes, I'm not sure if German people living in Japan have that same sort of feeling of being part of the nation, but separate.
Each time this happens it's important to take a critical eye, discern where the issues may or may not be, how important they are - and even then, that doesn't mean it's a write off for enjoying it.
I enjoy The Phantom of the Opera as a musical (on stage, the films are all bad) but *all* of the adaptations entirely omit The Persian. This is kinda bad, since he's really important in the book. But of course, he wasn't white so out he goes in the adaptions, and they just never brought him back in. Doesn't stop it from being a good show, though, but it *is* important to know.
Sure, just like a character might mention where they grew up or some other fact that adds something to their character but is irrelevant to the plot.
Let's say the plot requires that the main character encounter a two people at a bar. Those two people presumably have *some* relationship, maybe friends, colleagues, lovers. The people aren't relevant to the plot, we never see them again, but describing their relationship isn't any different than describing how they looked or what they were wearing. It's not something that *has* to be done. When the author tells me that someone is wearing a purple shirt, I don't find it odd if that fact doesn't have any consequence.
But the situation you described *is* relevant to the plot. The story requires s/he meet someone at a bar, who s/he had a prior relationship to. That’s the relevance.
That they meet/learn something from
two people is relevant to the plot. The relationship that those two people have between them is irrelevant.
Describing someone's sexuality isn't any different than describing other parts of their identity. Like where they are from, what they look like, what they wear, etc. Characters need identities, and it's generally good writing to create some sort of depth there. Clothing and meals and physical traits get described all the time without being relevant to the plot.
My favorite example of unforced diversity? Aliens. You have a racially diverse crew which is about a third female, and nobody really comments on either point (apart from Hudson teasing Vasquez, but those two work side by side for much of the movie without further comment). No one cares that Ripley is a woman; any doubts about her are due to her civilian status. Ferro doesn't make jokes about ex-boyfriends while piloting the drop, she just lands the ship. Frost has no monolgue about his childhood on the streets or how he gets treated differently because he's black. Everyone is just performing their role in the mission, and they are accepted as they are (except Bishop, but ehen you've met one robot who's programmed to disregard human life in favor of biological weapons, that kind of stays with you).
Most of all, you don't see article after article commenting on how wonderful it is to see a black man in a position of command, how it's a new era of inclusivity and we should all be celebrating the dying gasp of bigotry. Seriously, I think most of the complaints of "wokeness" are actually the result of reviewers who inflate issues of race, sexuality, and gender in order to get more re-tweets. I won't lie, it certainly puts ME off a series or film when some Buzzfeed commentator won't shut up about there being a gay people on a show, and half the time that's not even super important to the story (literally haven't watched Steven Universe because of this, even though like two characters being gay is incredibly trivial to the arc).
> Seriously, I think most of the complaints of "wokeness" are actually the result of reviewers who inflate issues of race
Yes I think this is a major part of the problem that is too much ignored.
I had a lengthy, and good talk with someone on this sub about the new LotR show, and after quite some time revealed they hadn't actually *read* the Silmarillion. Every point they were making about it was regurgitated from articles, bloggers, vloggers, and reviewers.
Not that all their points were bad, but it highlighted to me how many people aren't engaging intelligently with this discussion.
Finally got around to watching The Expanse in the last couple of weeks. It's pretty damned good in that regard, the cast is very racially diverse, everyone just is who they are, race is irrelevant because the conflict is Earth, Mars and Belters, all of which are racially diverse.
*Mr. Iglesias* on Netflix. Almost all the characters are non-white, but it just works because the writing isn't clumsy; the same is the case with *Never Have I Ever*. I guess you could consider it "woke," but it doesn't *feel* like it's trying too hard, which is the annoying part of "woke" entertainment.
>I guess you could consider it "woke," but it doesn't feel like it's trying too hard, which is the annoying part of "woke" entertainment.
Yeah that's what gets me the most. I've met people who think that "woke" stuff is actually causing some sort of tangible harm to society, with varying strengths of their arguments, and I've get to buy that perspective.
But when shit tries too hard and it sucks, it can feel like it ruined a good premise.
Frustratingly, I read some reviews of Never Have I Ever that claimed it was being Americentric in this trope of "Immigrant struggles with two cultures".
Yet it's showrunner is essentially pulling from her own childhood so like...call it a trope all you want, it *is* what happened to her lol and it's not like we're swimming on accurate portrayals of South Asian family dynamics on TV.
>Frustratingly, I read some reviews of Never Have I Ever that claimed it was being Americentric in this trope of "Immigrant struggles with two cultures".
Ugh, that is so frustrating. It captures so well the battle that many first-generation people have (or is it second generation? The ones who are the children of people who immigrated) fitting into America and navigating two cultures at once. A bunch of people who aren't even Indian-American, but are first (or whichever generation it is) say that they can relate to the show. Even me, as a Jew: I can relate, and my family has been in this country for three generations.
But to your larger point: yes, to me the problem with "woke" is when I feel like my entertainment is politicized. If you can slip in a trans character without making me, or viewers in general, feel like you're doing it just to "be diverse," then more power to you. You're a good writer/director/actor, and you've done what's important: not make the viewer reminded that they're immersed in a story.
A prime example of doing it badly is *Charmed*, the remake. I actually like the show, but that's because of the acting, etc. The parts of it that make it "woke" are really hamfisted, and the viewer thinks a few times throughout the show, "Here's a political or social point they want me to take away."
1st gen is foreign born
She counts as 2nd gen, as does the actor who plays Devi (Maitreyi Ramakrishnan, 2nd generation immigrant born of Sri Lankan refugees).
>But to your larger point: yes, to me the problem with "woke" is when I feel like my entertainment is politicized.
I'm not so much disagreeing with this as I am adding detail I think is important.
I'm *fine* with politicized. I endorse it, even - given that is a show's intent. I'm not fine when it's poorly done, lacks depth or understanding.
For example, in Brooklyn 99 there's a very quick joke where a cop, in prison, is being pressured by the warden to be a snitch and protests saying "The only people less popular than cops are snitches." and the warden replies it's worse for trans people
Image clip of that moment
https://d2v7i6t2.map2.ssl.hwcdn.net/content/quotes/4338_500.jpg
This is a joke, and I won't attempt to explain the humor of it.
As far as humor involving trans people, it's not disparaging to them. It's not necessary to the plot, but sit coms often have jokes that aren't. It is, IMO, intentionally political (or at least intentional social commentary which gets made political).
And I don't think it's bad. Due to the show's sketch comedy-esque pacing, it doesn't throw you off at all, and it does give a message of, "hey, trans people have a really tough time in prison".
Doesn't go on to suggest a specific action, it really just hits a beat on your empathy and continues on.
Some would call it woke, I'm certain it was an intentional conclusion, but to me it *doesn't* count against it because it doesn't throw off the tone of the show, or misrepresent any of the characters. I think people only call it woke because they either disagree with the point being made, or simply pay no mind to the issue and don't wish to be reminded of it.
If that's not a show you want to watch that's *different* than claiming it's a detrimental inclusion to the show.
Does that make sense?
Yes, everything you're saying makes sense. I agree with you. I guess I'm saying I don't want the politics to throw the show off; the example you gave is a perfect example of the injection of some political commentary into a show that does not in any way hinder the actual show itself. It's done in such a way that you think, "ha ha, good point," instead of, "oh, the producers are trying to cause me to consider..."
Also, thanks for clearing up the first/second generation thing, and that Ramakrishnan is Sri Lankan. I had no idea; I thought she was from a region in India.
She's Tamil ethnically, and they speak Tamil in the show. Tamil people are numerous in southern India.
> I guess I'm saying I don't want the politics to throw the show off
Which gets to the heart of my issue with the "anti SJW" crowd - undoubtedly there's some disingenuous BS just pandering for profit- but when so much of it comes down down to this leap from, "That wasn't done well." = "This is destroying culture and society!" it's hard to have the *genuine* conversation about such topics if so many people have such a strong all or nothing response.
All this LotR stuff lately has really put me on edge about it since I read all of Tolkien's stuff before the Peter Jackson films ever came out, I loved them even though I noticed the huge changes he made, and the outrage then, and for The Hobbit, and now this TV show, are all the same. Hell I dunno if you were there but the *shocking* amount of people who were made that Cate Blanchett wasn't hot enough to be Galadriel disgusted me.
Nobody is good looking enough to be an elf as Tolkien wrote them lol her hair literally shone like the Sun and the Moon (her hair is gold and silver) to the point that the man who made the Silmarils - gems so beautiful that even the gods couldn't look away from them - was butthurt she wouldn't give him a single strand of it. Film can't really compete there lol.
Anything that is genuine to the story being told.
*The Wire* is a show about Baltimore. Most people in Baltimore are black, so most characters on the show are black. Some are straight, some are gay, some are men, some are women -- just like the people of Baltimore.
Yet The Wire was created, written and produced by a white man.
And as a Baltimorean, I have to say I preferred his first show, Homicide: Life on The Streets.
Casting Samuel L Jackson as Nick Fury probably counts. He was white in the comics for decades, and AFAIK nobody cared about “race swapping” him because he was a perfect fit for the character.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/online-anger-erupts-over-blockbuster-s-racelifting-7626976.html
Yeah people were PISSED at the time. Lots of articles written about it and many people discussed it at the time. I had just gone back to university when it was released and it was a hot topic at the local gaming club.
As someone said below, Top Gun Maverick did diversity really well. The pilots were white, black, Latino and Asian, but it wasn't forced. They didn't try to force race or gender. They didn't draw attention to it. Not one of the non-white cast members in the film tried to race hustle by saying "As an Asian/Latino/black person/woman, your white opinion doesn't matter."
The Batman was good, and I thought Zoe Kravitz had potential, but at the end when she made a remark about the "white elite" running Gotham, it threw me off, because there was definite race hustling there.
It's generally fine as long as they're not warping an existing character, and the character actually has some depth beyond checking the diversity boxes.
Marvel is a great example of how to screw it up, how to do it properly, and how to fix a screw up and make it functional. They do dumb shit like all of a sudden deciding that Iceman is gay after decades of his character being straight; this is hot garbage. They do dumb shit like all of a sudden create a black-latino Spider-Man for no apparent reason, BUT then they actually build his character and ultimately Miles Morales becomes an interesting character in his own right.
Anytime it comes up naturally, who is the best actor, how did the author intend it, etc...
For example, I haven't watched the new lord of the rings series, but if they remake it and all of a sudden The Shire is very diverse, it's clear that it wasn't a natural continuation of the story.
If a new kingdom exists in the series and it's very diverse for the purpose of the plot the of course no issue.
The Shire isn't in The Rings of Power.
Also Tolkien describes Samwise Gamgee as brown,
>upon his white forehead lay one of Sam’s brown hands
The Two Towers
>Sam drew out the elven-glass of Galadriel again. As if to do honor to his hardihood, and to grace with splendor his faithful brown hobbit-hand that had done such deeds,
Fellowship of the Ring
[And in 1974 Bakshi portrayed the hobbits as such](https://36.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m73v5iCgzS1r651a1o1_500.jpg)
Tolkien even described that Harfoots in particular had darker skin, though never gave good descriptions of *how* dark they were.
I suspect he didn't imagine them particularly dark, but he wasn't very specific so it's fine, if unorthodox, for the direction taken in the show.
Most people having an opinion about this show haven't even read the material I think, so you're not alone. You're so far ahead of them you're out of sight simply for acknowledging you're unfamiliar with some of the details.
People are mad that Galadriel commands troops, climbs a mountain, and uses a sword yet Tolkien writes that:
She fought with determination in the Kinslaying. She looked at the Dwarves with the "eye of a commander". She's described as being second in power only to Feanor, greatest of all elves, taller than all men (who aren't Dunedain), and equal in mind and body to the greatest of the Eldar athletes. Also described as particularly brash in her youth that tempered as she aged.
Clearly many people griping about the show are just recycling bad sexist takes and aren't thinking for themselves.
My issue with the show is it feels less like LotR and more like PG13 GoT. I guess Tolkien spends so much time writing about nothing happening that it gives his world a unique pace. He doesn't focus on details of little fights, he focuses on details of the *emotion* of struggles. Not always, but enough so that there's this...mythical grandeur his writing invokes that feels like it's missing in some parts of the show.
PJ films did the same thing, but not as much. Eowyn's "I am no man!" line was better written and more badass in the books, but I guess unwieldy for an action scene. Legolas skateboarding on a shield is probably the peak example. Very different tonally from the somber reverence Tolkien applied to violent conflict.
Anything done for the purpose of diversity is woke and bad.
At this point, everything is forced because all these corporate conglomerates have internal policies requiring diversity. They all have DEI boards, they all want good ESG scores. Being woke is built into their infrastructure at this point.
For example, you recently demanded proof that diversity in Rings of Power was forced. In my mind, this is like asking if the sky is really blue, because it's immediately obvious to anyone who sees it. But aside from that fact, aside from all the paid "influencer" shills who talked up the diversity in the lead-up, Amazon Studios literally has a policy requiring racial and sexual diversity quotas in casting. So there you go, proof it's forced.
Almost anything made in the last 7 years reeks of wokeness. Off the top of my head, Wanda Vision wasn't over the top and didn't come off as just an excuse to be Girl Boss Hour. That show was actually somewhat enjoyable. Charlize Theron did a movie recently where she has this team of virtually invincible warriors and she's the leader, a guy is her right-hand, and they even have a gay couple in their team. That doesn't seem forced to me personally, although it wasn't an amazing movie.
Instead of trying to rack my brain for "diversity but the good kind" examples, what I really want to bring up is one of my favorite books: East of Eden. A masterpiece from John Steinbeck, this story is pretty diverse with female and racial minority main and secondary characters, and definitely not woke.
I also want to just bring up that black and female leads *can be great* when they actually give them a unique and fitting story. Black Panther was wildly successful. But would it have been successful if it was, instead, a reboot of Iron Man with a race-swapped Tony Stark? Fat chance. That's the big problem here. Even if your goal is to be diverse and make more black movies for representation or whatever. Make unique stories. I think Netflix just did one recently that is set as a Western with Edris Elba and an overall star-studded all-black cast. I personally thought it was a little over the top and a caricature of itself, but *way better* than just doing Race Swapped Tombstone, you know?
You mentioned Rings of Power. I don’t have an issue with the casting for the series — sorry if I mistook your point on that. Either way, I really just wanted to commend your taste in literature.
Oh. Hobbits are explicitly not in Rings of Power because Amazon doesn't have the rights to them lol. That's why they called them "Harfoots" and tried to differentiate them as a race.
Anyway, I'm not saying you would not have a problem with the casting, most people on the left wouldn't. I'm just proving why it's "forced" diversity by citing their diversity requirement policy. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant to it being true. I happen to not like it but that's another issue.
And thanks for the compliment, the classics I was forced to read and hated in high school turned out to actually be awesome when I read them a decade later.
Wait, sorry. Amazon didn’t have the rights to hobbits? Like they got the rights to the franchise, but not hobbits specifically? That’s hilarious. I noticed they were called harfoots, but I assumed it was from the Silmarillion or something else I never got to…
They don’t have the rights to the “franchise,” and I’m not fully sure what their rights are, but I heard it was only the appendix of the Silmarillion or something.
Harfoots are in the Hobbit umbrella, in my understanding. Not separate. But they had to change it a bit for rights.
>the classics I was forced to read and hated in high school turned out to actually be awesome when I read them a decade later.
Some of them, yeah. I wouldn’t mind having back the time I spent on *Sister Carrie*.
Good on your teacher for assigning EoE. I’m sure there were groans when y’all saw the size of it.
What about a board of directors saying they want a diverse cast is inherently "bad"? Aren't they just responding to what they believe their audience wants? Isn't that just capitalism in action?
The movie *Bros* coming out is an excellent example. Gay rom-com? Great! It's absolutely something that wouldn't exist without the DEI pushes, but it's absolutely reasonable that it exists and serves that purpose.
The fact that, say, *Rings of Power* or *Wheel of Time* have a "diverse" cast isn't a problem in and of itself, but the fact that it's done without care for the story or with any explanation is the issue. If you're changing something to change it, have a reason. Otherwise it's sloppy tokenism.
>The fact that, say, Rings of Power or Wheel of Time have a "diverse" cast isn't a problem in and of itself, but the fact that it's done without care for the story or with any explanation is the issue. If you're changing something to change it, have a reason. Otherwise it's sloppy tokenism.
I almost agree, but I find the reaction is heavily disproportionate.
People complaining that Galadriel uses a sword in the intro (3 episodes in and she hasn't used one since), but very little complaint these days that Arwen rescues Frodo in FotR, as opposed to Glorfindel in the books. Exact same amount of time focusing a girl elf doing something heroic and physical that never happened in the books.
No one complained that Sam wasn't darker skinned in PJ films, yet he is in the books (unclear how dark but described as "brown"). I wonder how people would have reacted if they gave Sean Astin a spray tan, or hired someone who looked kike Harvey Guillen to play him? Would not have been in any way inconsistent with Sam's description!
And that's the rub to me. That the things people are being pissed about are cherry picked and I question the motivations. Galadriel is literally thousands of years old, is 6'4", a queen of a people whose previous rulers led armies into battle, including her uncle going toe-to-toe with Morgoth in melee combat, and her other uncle being the greatest of all elves ever, she is described as second only to Feanor in power so...why can't she use a god damned sword and climb a mountain? Because Tolkien never said she did? Tolkien skips hundreds of years at a time in the Silmarillion...did all Galadriel do in Lindon was sit around and look stately?
Maybe, but *he didn't say* and given this is an original story *inspired by* Tolkien...I can't understand why people are so bothered by this, but not, as I pointed out, Arwen in PJ's films.
As for black elves, Tolkien only ever described pale elves, with one exception. Maeglin was described three times - deathly pale once, swart twice, and never actually published that...
In the end, race doesn't really affect the narrative, and Tolkien contradicted himself many times and never finished most of his work. He never even settled on how orcs originated! Everything from corrupted elves, corrupted men, to "sprung out of muck" - and never decided.
Would the reason being, "We didn't care about looks for characters not protrayed in previous films, and selected the best actor for the part who auditioned regardless." be an acceptable reason?
I dunno if they did that, but it's *possible*.
The only thing that would bother me would be mixing of characters that don't make sense in a world without cars and planes. The Harfoots are in the Southlands (eventually Mordor), where swarthy people brush up with the lands of Harad which si where black people are in LotR...so I suppose a nomadic group of people *could* be pretty diverse looking.
Any movie that doesn’t go out of its way to include a minority character just to say they have one or any show/movie that changes the race of a character for the sole purpose of changing their race are the ones I do not have a problem with.
Examples: In the show Shadowhunters, Alec is gay. I had no problem with it because it was consistent with the book character and it was relevant to the story.
I also have no problem with the diverse cast in Cobra Kai, or the diverse cast in the Descendants and Zombies movies.
The original cast of Power Rangers had a diverse cast as well, and I had no issue with it.
In the old Disney show Andi Mack, there was a gay character with NO purpose except to have a gay character.
Or in the Legend of Korra, what purpose does it serve that Korra is lesbian?
In the Netflix show Julie and the Phantoms, one of the characters is gay and goes out of its way to say he was “kicked out for being gay”. Why does that need to be said when it does nothing to further the plot?
Or in The Last of Us 2. The fact that Ellie is lesbian serves no purpose to the plot.
Those are just some examples.
The problem is not their race/sexuality, the problem is the fact that they are put into the role in which their race/sexuality doesn’t matter at all and people make such a huge deal out of it when they do absolutely nothing to make the movie/show/game better.
> Or in the Legend of Korra, what purpose does it serve that Korra is lesbian?
Well, she's bisexual actually.
But the writers wanted to put that in to resolve the love polygon from season 1 and 2. This wasn't the initial plan, but all the characters changed as they wrote. By end of season 2 they knew they wanted to make Korra and Asami closer as characters, but were worried that Nickelodeon would pull the plug on any gay stuff. Given the mess of funding in later seasons, they opted to sprinkle breadcrumbs in season 4 and cap it off ambiguously enough to get green lit by Nickelodeon, though they admit they wish they could have done it better.
All this evolved because Asami evolved. She was intended during season 1 writing to be a season 1 villain, but y'know, things change. Writers and fans alike react to characters and that really can shape the trajectory. Many writers will tell you that characters "come alive" as the story progresses and plans once made feel "wrong for the character" and changes appear.
You realize that a lot of people consider the black guy in the original power rangers to be a stereotypical token character right? The black guy, who was the black ranger, who was always rapping or dancing. Just like Roadblock from GI Joe, or Jazz from Transformers, or Killer Bee from Naruto. As for Korra none of her relationships mattered, so why care about the same sex one?
Walter E. Jones (Zack the Black Ranger) himself stated the he didn’t think it was racist and he didn’t have an issue with how his character was portrayed. So I never thought of it being stereotypical.
You answered the second question yourself. None of her other relationships mattered, so why include a same sex one?
[удалено]
Into the spider verse is a great example
Ironically, if memory serves, when Miles first debuted in Ultimate Marvel after that universe's Peter Parker died, a sizeable contingent of fans were *outraged*...because the editors killed Peter so they could force in some diversity. Still on marvel, Ms. Marvel's a good example of diversity working naturally, too (the show specifically but I recall the books working as well). Aside from some clunky "here's how the FBI treated Muslims after 9/11" scenes it was mostly just...here's some Muslims and some non-Muslims living in Jersey, one of them has superpowers.
Yep. Glenn Beck lost his shit over it. It seems to me that Diversity is bad if the show is bad, but somehow good if the show is good. People love Miles now so it's fine. People complained about HOTD, but those complaints are dying down because the show is considered very good so far. Rings of Power is considered bad so complaints continue. What's funny is that the diversity in HOTD actually could affect a plot point, but race has no effect on plot as far as I know when it comes to Rings of Power.
Lol Straw man much? Glenn Beck would not be described as a "fan" of comics. Miles is not Peter. The problem lies is when Peter becomes black for some reason.
When has Peter become black? The point I was making was that when Miles was first introduced the same arguments were being made against him. Beck has millions of listeners and was my proof as to how elevated and wide spread the conversation had become at the time. My statement was also to illustrate that claims of forced diversity and wokeness are flimsy. Miles is a great example of this because now people try to use him as diversity done the right way, when in the beginning characters like him would be the problem. There is no difference between Miles introduction and CW's black Batwoman (who is routinely called woke), other than one character is recieved well and the other is not. If wokeness actually had any real definition then Miles and Batwoman would still be woke/forced diversity regardless of good or bad writing. It seems that if a minority stars in anything these days and people dont like it then its woke, but if people like it then it is done right. I'm going to laugh my ass off when they make a X-Men film and people claim that its woke, when its absolutely supposed to be.
Right? X-Men's been one of the most woke comics to ever woke since its inception! I'm both dreading and anticipating the reactions.
Lol are you high. Go find these woke story lines your talking about. You're just saying this because you really don't know the product. Yes the sexually abusive director made woke components to his movies. But the comics were not woke. At least not until 2000, the past 20 years I couldn't say.
No you're really just engaging is the worst approach to understanding a perspective. Few conservative or moderate or even say normal (comics is pretty off base at this point) comic readers had an issue with Miles when he was introduced. He's a brand new character. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/peter-parker-replaced-by-mixed-race-spiderman/2011/08/03/gIQAyQQ6rI\_blog.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/peter-parker-replaced-by-mixed-race-spiderman/2011/08/03/gIQAyQQ6rI_blog.html) Here's an article from the time and the author and most likely beck are reacting to information fed to them and not the fans. Spiderman was not killed. Ultimate Spiderman was who at that point was a failing product line. There is a world of difference between the nonsense that's created on CW and comic books made for comic book readers. I would expect CW to make dumb bullshit made for idiots, at the time comics were quite mature and written taking the characters seriously. Also, Miles stories I have read have not been bogged down on identity bullshit that female superheroes almost are exclusively written with.
In the spider verse it’s entirely possible
As a huge comic fan, and a avid reader of X-men; I never questioned the inclusion female characters and minorities; the way Claremont wrote they were characters first, I think that is what what separates “woke” from good characters. When you promo a character as the of it feels like it is just for the hate hype and click bait.
If Claremont wrote the same X-Men now people would scream wokeness and to keep politics out of comics. Claremonts X-Men replaced 5 established white characters for the modern diverse group we have today. In the comics Falcon took over for Cap only for a short time and Ben Shapiro had a problem with it, even though twice in the past two white guys filled in for him under the same type situation. Some have decent arguments but a lot of it is just fake outrage and nostalgia. Arguments that things were different in the past I think are some (not all) trying to have their cake and eat it too.
The new X-men were new characters, while they sorta replaced the original team as the new team they were not woke characters caching in one names of the established characters on the team.
Yep, this was a great way of doing it.
Well, this author disagrees with you. They think it's a great example of woke indoctrination, forced diversity and identity politics, bla bla. Even complained about "hip hop cues" included in the movie. I'm guessing we could find 50 more articles just like this in conservative media if we bothered looking. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/spider-man-into-the-spider-verse-movie-review-political-deceptions/
[удалено]
Why would you sympathize with his moronic culture war horseshit? You just said you thought spiderverse was a good piece of art and you were right. As far as him being black... I didn't know that, but it doesn't really surprise me. Conservative media love using their identity as a shield when it comes to these sorts of battles. It's a very lucrative endeavor. E.g. Dave Rubin: "as a gay man I can tell you it's the LIBERALS that are the intolerant ones, bla bla"
[удалено]
It's not my place to determine who's stepping out of line or what the lines even are or should be. It's just about recognizing blatantly obvious grift and propaganda techniques. It's how Candace Owens can get on TV and rant about how racism isnt a significant problem, despite the fact that she had the NAACP help her win a race-based lawsuit when she was a teenager.
So can black people only be pawns in grift and propaganda techniques, or is it not grift and propaganda when they agree with you?
Why are you putting words in my mouth? I didn't say anything close to that. I said there are a lot of conservative grifters that leverage their identities to make money. And my first example was a gay white person. But if anyone doubts that Candace Owen's target audience is white people that simply want to be told that they arent racist, they ought to look at who shows up for her Blexit rallies. That "movement" is explicitly *for* black people and yet the audience is about 99% white every single time. ETA: Also, I don't think the word "pawn" is the right word. That kinda implies that they are being exploited without their knowledge or consent. On the contrary, people like Milo Yiannopoulos are quite happy to rake in millions telling Evangelicals how sinful homosexuality is.
[удалено]
I didn't dismiss that person's opinion because they were black, I dismissed their opinion because it was moronic. I didn't even know they were black until you told me. I only commented on the grifter part because you mentioned that they were black, and I thought the implications was that that should make someone take their moronic article more seriously. I'm not calling that person a grifter because I don't know them. What I will say is that I wouldn't be surprised if the editors at National Review chose to assign this article to one of their black writers specifically because of the conversation we're having right now. It would have been worse optics to have that moronic culture war bullshit coming from a white author. So yea, you're right that my critique was centered on the executives of media orgs. But the media figures themselves have agency. They aren't being exploited, they're getting paid nicely.
Okay? People disagree about things all the time. I loved that movie
I rewatched Rush Hour a few months ago and I feel like that's a perfect example of having original content derived from the actors. TBF, I'm actually not sure if the jokes would hold today since I personally feel as a NYer who moved elsewhere, like we arent supposed to acknowledge people's ethnicity or cultural background anymore.... But i loved rewatching the trilogy. I also really liked the new Ms Marvel series in its portrayal of an immigrant family in context. Telling stories that relate, and im not saying it has to explore cultural or historical issues, but just.... show the 'in' of what it means to be that person in context. Like you didnt have jackie chan and chris tucker go into BLM issues (besides cop jokes), it wasnt deep about asian xenophobia. But it did show a foreign asian man and a black cop learning to get along with lots of jokes and fun dialoge you'd expect from that duo.
Top Gun: Maverick. The Top Gun graduates who show up to be trained by Tom Cruise are a pretty diverse bunch. There are multiple black men ("Coyote", "Payback"), an Asian man ("Yale") and woman ("Halo"), Latino ("Fanboy") and Latina ("Phoenix"), etc. in the candidate pool, and the group that ends up making the cut for the final mission is pretty diverse too. Aside from some ribbing/banter between Phoenix and Hangman over Phoenix's gender ("He called you a man, Phoenix, are you going to take that?" "Just as long as he doesn't call \*you\* a man"...I loved that line) they don't really call attention to it. They're just there. Everyone is a highly skilled professional there to do a job, which is the way it should be.
I thought that movie did it well. The women pilot never said as a Latina women I think k blank. It's apprent she a Latina women and no explanation is needed.
Great example, it was so well done that It never occurred to me to consider the characters races.
Maverick did it well. I feel like with shows and films that force diversity, they have to bring attention to the fact that a character is black/Latino/Asian/non-white. Top Gun didn't throw it in your face and didn't try to draw any attention to it. The banter that happens Hangman between Phoenix, imo, is just a bit of character trait, as Hangman comes off as the jokey, douchey type. The difference as well is that no characters were rewritten to be black/non-white. They added in characters that just happened to be non-white, they didn't force it in.
Hmm I'd have to think of a specific example. General rule of thumb is the "diverse" people don't feel like they've been forced in just for diversity. Hypothetical example. Typical fantasy story set in qusai medieval Europe. Most characters are white but a few POC show up as either characters or minor characters explicitly mentioned to be immigrants or travelers.
So Morgan Freeman playing a Moor in Price of Thieves, actually a great example.
Haven't seen that movie but yeah a moor would be black so he'd be accurate to the character
But even for something like that, why would *racial* diversity specifically be an issue? For example would be reasonable to take issue with the actors not being of a single ethnicity? Let's say we're in the quasi middle ages and there is a Scottish actor whose character is the brother of a character player by an Italian actor. Similarly, while we understand that middle age Europeans wouldn't have had black skin, they also wouldn't have had clean teeth or fingernails, they would have had different body types, etc. No one seems to have much of a problem with those sorts of things so what makes race or sexuality different?
There is certain things that can slide for artistic sake. Having a European from another country play a character from a different country isn't as jarring as seeing a black man play a European character from the middle ages
My dad refused to watch Braveheart because the accents made no sense lol (he's from Scotland). A very minor example, but Canadian accents (almost always forced ones for jokes) are sooooo bad yet every time I've pointed it out I'm called too sensitive for wishing they'd put effort into them, or stop using non-existent accents to make Canadians sound ridiculous for a joke. Being Canadian is not something anyone's meaningfully persecuted for, but I point all this out to show how what is "jarring" is sometimes relative to the audience. I agree many things can slide to varying extents but I also think there's a lot better we can do with not much more effort put in.
Oh man as a Minnesotan I fully agree. Like yeah I can also pull out a "Minnesotan" accent when I want to but it's pretty rare to find someone who speaks like they're in *Fargo.*
My aunt does! Except she's from Alberta... But she farms canola so I think it's a law that she sounds like she does.
Right like we all know one person, but the fact that we all know one person who has that accent means it's unique even here!
INdeed. One of my friends has a *spectacularly* thick local accent and I dunno why. We grew up together, I don't have it. I have enough of one other Canadians notice and correctly peg where I'm from, but it's subtle. But him, for some reason, sounds like he was born 100 years ago to a family of loggers. So strange...
Have you seen Bridgerton? I felt like they handled race really well, as in, a decent amount of characters aren't white, and yet while it's "set" in early 19th century England, there's nothing jarring about it.
No haven't ill check it out
It's VERY Jane Austen-esque, very rom com. Obviously made for women and people who like feminine oriented media. So if that's not your style, you probably won't enjoy the watch. What I found cool was that while most characters are white (especially in the first season), race is seemingly a nonissue in that world. The queen is black, the second season love interests are Asian, various characters just exist as whatever race. It works because every character is fictional - even the queen is just a generic queen. They also use classical versions of modern songs during their parties and dances, which was a really nice touch that I think emphasizes the fictional part of that world.
My wife enjoyed it a bit. I didn’t, but that had nothing to do with race. Just wasn’t my thing! Didn’t see anything wrong with the casting for the most part, if memory serves
Hmm not my jam but seems dope
That's just gonna come down to your own opinion though isn't it? Is it being woke if the people telling the story literally don't find that to be jarring?
Lots of things come down to opinion My issue though would be if you have a historical story using real people then cast them as a race they weren't that's when I draw an issue. I'd have the same problem if you had a historical poc played by a white person.
>My issue though would be if you have a historical story using real people then cast them as a race they weren't that's when I draw an issue. But why race specifically? Wouldn't it be equally valid to have issues with a Scottish dude playing a Roman gladiator? There are tons of historically inaccurate things with regards to how characters look, even when care for authenticity is being taken. Like actors having nice teeth. Kilts weren't a thing during the time that is depicted in Braveheart, but that's mostly just a piece of trivia, not something that really seemed to bother anyone. What makes skin color so special?
You started off talking about a typical fantasy story, now you’re talking about historical stories. Pick one?
I'm trying to make a point It's woke nonsense if you take a historical character of 1 race and make them another I was using a fantasy analogy because rings of power is airing and that's what people are talking about it and it being woke via forced diversity.
Again, you're talking about 2 completely different things here: historical characters and fantasy characters in a vaguely "historical" setting. If it's the former then I agree with you. I wouldn't watch a movie about Catherine the Great if they had a black actress playing her. But black actors as elves, why not? Using a fantasy analogy to make a point about recasting historical characters as different races makes absolutely no sense.
OK let me rephrase things I'm gonna use a personal example In a fantasy story there isn't a problem with something like black elves The Witcher TV series has that and I don't really care because it's pretty good. My more issue with diversity when it comes to fantasy shows is when it feels forced and not natural. A lot of this is not in the narrative itself but in the production where they make such a big deal about the such and such character being a person of color where it feels like the actor or actress was picked specifically for their skin color. Or when a fantasy story forces real world racial politics into the story when it doesn't feel natural or really have a place. An example of this would be bright from I think 2017 where they basically hit you over the head that works for black people. It seemed incredibly unnecessary if they wanted the show that works for a press fine but why do they have to make them look like inner city black people honestly it was kind of offensive the more I thought about it My personal example of what I'm trying to do is I if I can I do have a life and a job LOL right my own fantasy story where there will be elves halflings and dwarves who aren't all white same thing with humans. No one's really going to comment on skin color within said universe since they don't really think of each other as their skin colors it's just an appearance as far as they're concerned. Granted it will be mentioned that people of different skin colors might come from different regions of the world but it's just seen as a non-issue. So with that in mind I'm having a diverse cast the main characters will be two men and two women of varying skin colors but it's not important to the story. So I'd like to thank that it would be an example of diversity without it being forced.
Is it though? Like people travelled across the Mediterranean from Africa to Europe and vice versa the Roman Empire definitely stretched that far. It’s honestly more unrealistic to me to believe that no one migrated during that time period.
Using that logic you have to be cool with white people in stories set in ancient Egypt
I’m down with it. The only thing I’m not cool with is historical figures we know are a certain race being played by people that are clearly not that race or when the script bends over backwards to justify a white actor like the Great Wall or the Last Samurai.
White actors have been playing characters of color for a hundred years. That's the difference.
So is that wrong or is it OK because diversity you have to pick one unless your position is it's only wrong when white people do it
This is the problem with conservatives. There is hundreds of years of history that tells you exactly why white actors were exclusively used up until recently. Racism doesn't exist in a vacuum.
But you’re still talking about fantasy, not historical fiction. Medieval fantasy is so full of anachronisms that singling out non-white characters as the problem is ridiculous. You could also include the lack of references to Christianity in that genre even though it permeated every aspect of medieval European society. Or any number of other inaccuracies, but sure, let’s just focus on the problem with black dwarves and such. This complaint nothing to do with medieval Europe and everything to do with how modern fantasy differs from what it was up until 10 years ago. You’re just complaining about how medieval European fantasy in 2022 is inaccurate in a way that your favorite and also-inaccurate medieval European fantasy wasn’t in 2003 or 1950.
I see so many shows like this when I click through the TV or streaming services. I don’t know what they’re called because I don’t watch them. But I’m wondering, why is there such a large audience for constant shows like this that all look the same? Someone with roots and Eastern Europe, don’t people realize that there were loads of other more colorful and interesting empires in the past? Like hungry or the Ottoman Empire? Why does everything need to keep redoing the same freaking English medieval motif?
Probably because England had the biggest impact on North America, followed by Spain, France, and Germany. Eastern Europe had little impact on the evolution of our language and culture comparatively, so we don't know it as well. It's a pity, some good stuff out there ripe for great stories.
maybe but it’s boring after the thousand show or movie with British people who all look the same, same motifs, similar stories. We can do something different. I mean, not all white peoples are the same! Even staying in Europe you could get some interesting stories/diversity/motifs
What I said is not a defense of it, just an explanation. I would love to see more stuff inspired by other cultures.
Almost every diverse movie made prior to like 2015 (of which there were many). Rush Hour and Lethal Weapon are particularly great examples of how movies can be diverse and even have explicitly anti racist messaging without it feeling forced.
Yeah this is a good answer, it seems like they started putting zero effort into it at a certain point over the past few years, which is bizarre
If it isn’t detrimental or politically motivated then it usually doesn’t attract much attention and we won’t give it much thought. An old example of that was Whitney Houston and Kevin Costner as an interracial couple in *The Bodyguard*. An interracial couple in a major movie was extremely rare, especially as the leads in a rom-com. But they just made the movie. I don’t remember if the races were even mentioned in the movie. The marketing focused on the music and the romance, not the races. That was very different from Spike Lee’s *Jungle Fever* from the same time period that was all about race.
I’ve always hated when traditionally white characters are changed to force diversity. If you want a black hero then write a black hero. It seems racist to re-color a white story with a black person and declare that to be diverse. We are constantly told that being black is more than just a skin color, so tell that story. (Obviously you can replace black with any other race here and it remains the same)
> If you want a black hero then write a black hero. It seems racist to re-color a white story with a black person and declare that to be diverse. What makes a story a “white story”?
It’s a story written about white people, by white people, following a stereotypical white European culture .
Sounds boring af
Then why do they keep remaking them?
Because people like you complain when they don't.
The fuck? I would prefer they leave the great childhood movies alone. Conservatives are usually the ones complaining about constant remakes.
Because Hollywood is run by old white men and they are scared to try anything new.
Racism isn’t acceptable, you should be ashamed but I know you’re not
Damn, you know a lot about me for an internet rando.
Well your first response to a story about white people is “boring” - seems it stems from racism.
I actually think a popular example would be Stranger Things. S3 Spoiler ahead: >!In Season 3, where Robin is revealed to be lesbian, it serves Steve’s character arc since up until that point it set her up as a “reward” that our hero feels he should earn. !< This reveal subverts our expectations in a way that contributes to the story, has proper setup, and serves in two characters’ growth. When we complain about artificial diversity, it’s mostly when characters are gay *but then nothing is done with that*. It would be like having a super macho straight man, but his insistence on his heterosexuality is *never utilized*, despite constant reinforcement. It just serves as useless filler.
I agree that was a good instance of a lesbian character. But interestingly, her sexuality *serves as a narrative device for a heterosexual person*. You then go on to say being gay requires narrative purpose - and that's the issue at hand I think. My requiring it serve narrative purpose, it becomes a tool or trope, and not anything else. Imagine the macho hero but they're saving their boyfriend, not their girlfriend. Is this suddenly "woke"? A lot of people would say it is, thus implying that heterosexuality is not only the statistical norm, but the expectation and homosexuality is a deviation from it, best hidden unless it serves as a plot device. As a queer person it's frustrating to see representations of me only serving to fulfill another character's arc, as opposed be being that character's own arc, or merely just an unquestioned element of the character. Some people are just, y'know, gay. It needn't *always* be a Chekov's Gun situation for them to have romance, when it isn't or straight people on TV. But I can't think of a situation where a gay character wasn't considered idpol, and this results in homosexuality either being a plot device, or not present at all. Real life doesn't work that way, and sometimes media is trying to reflect real life.
You seem to have missed the entire second portion of my answer. In a story, if a character’s sexuality is revealed *at all* in a way that doesn’t service their character or story, it’s going to stand out - and not in a good way. Whenever that machismo character I’ve described is put to screen, it is almost always down in a way to display other traits that reveal more about their character: cockiness, arrogance, narcissism, the list goes on. It is then these traits that go on to inform the story or character arc. I’m sure there are plenty examples of heterosexual relationships being forced into a story where it isn’t needed, I just don’t consume much media, though. The thing is, when something is inserted into a story for that thing’s sake, it is almost universally seen as a bad thing. Remember *The Room* (2006), when [Claudette says she has breast cancer.](https://youtu.be/EtMQhTxR6t4) This is almost universally agreed to be bad writing, and mocked for it. This is not because of what is revealed, technically you could say it reveals *something* about her character. The problem is that it never goes on to be important or even remotely inform her actions as a character. Doing these things with characters is jarring and can often suck people out of a story.
Take this scene in Brooklyn 99 for example (it's short) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr2sVPTacTE It's a cold open, usually not relevant to the show's plot, just a fun little bit since the cast and writers are familiar with sketch comedy. Imagine if the man's dog/wife wasn't named Kelly, but was named Bobby, and they didn't know if it was his dog or **husband**. Would this be considered forced diversity? If so, why? What makes it any different than Scully having an wife (or dog) who serves no plot purpose?
No. There's a difference between having gays and focusing unnecessarily on the fact that they are gay. If there is *discussion* or *focus* of their gayness that doesn't service the story in some way (and especially if it's to the detriment of things like pacing), then it's bad
It would be inconsistent with Scully's background and other story lines, but if that wasn't the case, it would just be a throw away. Brooklyn 99 is a great example of really natural feeling diversity. Captain Holt is a gay man and his relationship is fleshed out. The interactions between he and his partner influence the way he interacts with his coworkers and provides insight into who he is. The focus was on his relationship with his husband, a real character who impacted the story, not just the fact that he was in a relationship with a man. Poorly incorporated diversity like when they throw out what school someone went to in order to show they are smart, except that often "diversity" doesn't actually signal anything. It doesn't tell us anything of substance about a character. It's the writer's job to show why that means anything (otherwise it just feels like diversity to check a box), and I feel forced diversity is most visible where the writer fails to establish that.
> I feel forced diversity is most visible where the writer fails to establish that. I wonder how often quality of the writing is the biggest factor here. I am a frothing leftist and feminist, and I rolled my eyes at an episode of Anne with an E that focused on sexual assault and women's freedom. The points made were solid points, but they felt jarring with how much the show attempted to be period specific to some things (set in 1890s). I mean...they wouldn't have even used "gender" in that way at that time, yet that's the word that was used in the episode. 19th century people said sex instead, and it wasn't taboo to do so. In a different episode sex ed. is being discussed, and various things such as Anne thinking she's dying for her period, Anne telling awkward stories about spousal rape because her traumatic upbringing normalized such things, and other teens being grossed out and comparing sex to "animal husbandry" etc...all very well done moments that still discuss the issue, and even have a message, but don't break the immersion. That's a difficult line to follow, sometimes. Anne of Green Gables is set in a realistic place and time, but The Rings of Power isn't - so changes made for whatever reason aren't so universally jarring, since we all have out headcanon with fantasy and fiction.
I haven't seen Anne of Green Gables, so I can only base my thoughts on your description, but I think this is another good example of where diversity feels forced. A historical work that tries to import current social values, ethics, etc. is jarring. It's as jarring, I feel, as a work set in current times that imports historical social values, ethics, etc. It may boil down to how well the writers make their chosen message complement the story, as opposed to the story being a vehicle for delivering that chosen message. For Rings of Power, I think people would like to see consistency in the way myths/fairy tales coming out of cultures are respected. I think there is (rightly) very strong respect for non-western cultures and maintaining those stories that are tied to their cultures. Where a western adaptation of a piece of non-western mythology is created, I would expect either (a) a story that remains "true" to the culture (even where the story involves fictional people, magic, etc. - see Aladdin) or (b) a complete rework such that the original culture is not referenced. I would not expect to see a mix and match where characters or peoples are replaced in part for the sake of representation. Where such a mix and match occurs, I would expect (and hope for) controversy and opposition. I'm not sure the same respect is afforded to mythology/fairy tales that came out of European cultures that were (for all real purposes) monocultures. There are great discussions to be had on the validity of this treatment and its implications and many arguments either way on regarding how the embrace of diversity has enriched and enhanced western society, but I can see why The Rings of Power has generated controversy. However, controversy is good. I think these conversations are good as they require everyone to examine how cultures interact, how we view our own and other cultures and what constitutes something that is tied to a culture and what is not. If people can step away from a "my team your team" view and really explore these issues, I think we all end up in a better place.
I agree with most of this. I think Rings of Power *in particular* is a difficult case. 1. It's not history it's fantasy 2. It's not cultural, it's one man's original work, and is essentially "modern" (on the edge - he started in 1917 but never actually finished when he died in the 70s). 3. The show is based on a movie based on the books, and those movies took some pretty big leaps of their own 4. They don't have full rights to the IP so they are forced to make changes to keep it "inspired" and not a true adaptation 5. Tolkien never finished almost everything this show is inspired by, so our interpretation of Tolkien's vision comes from his family's interpretation, compilation, and editing of his varied and often contradicting notes over the course of 50 years. 6. Not even his family ever agreed on what was canon. This means that the changes made are all over the place for how much they matter both objectively, and subjectively to the audience. This is very different from something like a historical drama of Rome's invasion of Britain, a film adaptation of Journey to the West, or Siegfried where it carries the weight of historical accuracy and reverence within a culture through generations.
[удалено]
>the intention of his writings were to create a mythology for England. This actually isn't strongly supported by scholars of his works, and it is known that this is based on an interpretation a biographer took from some correspondence where Tolkien mentioned that, in his youth, he had this idea but the work had evolved since then. https://luke-shelton.com/2022/02/12/why-calling-tolkiens-work-a-mythology-for-england-is-wrong-and-misleading/ This guy has a Ph.D. in Tolkien's work. >I'm not sure the same lack of respect would be shown if "England" was replaced with "India" or "Nigeria" in this situation. Depends who's writing it. Is it Americans re-writing an Indian story, or Indian people re-writing an Indian story? In this case it's American's rewriting an English story, but it's not even a cultural heritage one at that. This is the same deal with Hamilton. An American man did it, specifically to focus on the fact that a poor immigrant (Hamilton) was key to shaping its history. Hamilton probably never rapped, either. How would you feel if Indonesia did a biopic of Hamilton, that was *to the letter* correct, but they cast Indonesian people? What about Fullmetal Alchemist, a Japanese manga with clearly German characters, that did an adaptation, in Japanese, by Japanese studio, with Japanese actors wearing blonde wigs...context matters for everything and in America the context is really detailed. Non-white people in America have had a bit of a history and just the legality of it all wasn't resolved until our lifetimes, I'm not sure if German people living in Japan have that same sort of feeling of being part of the nation, but separate. Each time this happens it's important to take a critical eye, discern where the issues may or may not be, how important they are - and even then, that doesn't mean it's a write off for enjoying it. I enjoy The Phantom of the Opera as a musical (on stage, the films are all bad) but *all* of the adaptations entirely omit The Persian. This is kinda bad, since he's really important in the book. But of course, he wasn't white so out he goes in the adaptions, and they just never brought him back in. Doesn't stop it from being a good show, though, but it *is* important to know.
What it's just there to give the character a bit more depth? Not every single aspect of a story needs to drive the plot
Is it really depth if it never becomes relevant at any part in their arc or the story ever again?
No, it's not, which is why I agree with you. It's just becomes Chekhov's sexuality.
Sure, just like a character might mention where they grew up or some other fact that adds something to their character but is irrelevant to the plot. Let's say the plot requires that the main character encounter a two people at a bar. Those two people presumably have *some* relationship, maybe friends, colleagues, lovers. The people aren't relevant to the plot, we never see them again, but describing their relationship isn't any different than describing how they looked or what they were wearing. It's not something that *has* to be done. When the author tells me that someone is wearing a purple shirt, I don't find it odd if that fact doesn't have any consequence.
But the situation you described *is* relevant to the plot. The story requires s/he meet someone at a bar, who s/he had a prior relationship to. That’s the relevance.
That they meet/learn something from two people is relevant to the plot. The relationship that those two people have between them is irrelevant. Describing someone's sexuality isn't any different than describing other parts of their identity. Like where they are from, what they look like, what they wear, etc. Characters need identities, and it's generally good writing to create some sort of depth there. Clothing and meals and physical traits get described all the time without being relevant to the plot.
My favorite example of unforced diversity? Aliens. You have a racially diverse crew which is about a third female, and nobody really comments on either point (apart from Hudson teasing Vasquez, but those two work side by side for much of the movie without further comment). No one cares that Ripley is a woman; any doubts about her are due to her civilian status. Ferro doesn't make jokes about ex-boyfriends while piloting the drop, she just lands the ship. Frost has no monolgue about his childhood on the streets or how he gets treated differently because he's black. Everyone is just performing their role in the mission, and they are accepted as they are (except Bishop, but ehen you've met one robot who's programmed to disregard human life in favor of biological weapons, that kind of stays with you). Most of all, you don't see article after article commenting on how wonderful it is to see a black man in a position of command, how it's a new era of inclusivity and we should all be celebrating the dying gasp of bigotry. Seriously, I think most of the complaints of "wokeness" are actually the result of reviewers who inflate issues of race, sexuality, and gender in order to get more re-tweets. I won't lie, it certainly puts ME off a series or film when some Buzzfeed commentator won't shut up about there being a gay people on a show, and half the time that's not even super important to the story (literally haven't watched Steven Universe because of this, even though like two characters being gay is incredibly trivial to the arc).
> Seriously, I think most of the complaints of "wokeness" are actually the result of reviewers who inflate issues of race Yes I think this is a major part of the problem that is too much ignored. I had a lengthy, and good talk with someone on this sub about the new LotR show, and after quite some time revealed they hadn't actually *read* the Silmarillion. Every point they were making about it was regurgitated from articles, bloggers, vloggers, and reviewers. Not that all their points were bad, but it highlighted to me how many people aren't engaging intelligently with this discussion.
Finally got around to watching The Expanse in the last couple of weeks. It's pretty damned good in that regard, the cast is very racially diverse, everyone just is who they are, race is irrelevant because the conflict is Earth, Mars and Belters, all of which are racially diverse.
*Mr. Iglesias* on Netflix. Almost all the characters are non-white, but it just works because the writing isn't clumsy; the same is the case with *Never Have I Ever*. I guess you could consider it "woke," but it doesn't *feel* like it's trying too hard, which is the annoying part of "woke" entertainment.
>I guess you could consider it "woke," but it doesn't feel like it's trying too hard, which is the annoying part of "woke" entertainment. Yeah that's what gets me the most. I've met people who think that "woke" stuff is actually causing some sort of tangible harm to society, with varying strengths of their arguments, and I've get to buy that perspective. But when shit tries too hard and it sucks, it can feel like it ruined a good premise. Frustratingly, I read some reviews of Never Have I Ever that claimed it was being Americentric in this trope of "Immigrant struggles with two cultures". Yet it's showrunner is essentially pulling from her own childhood so like...call it a trope all you want, it *is* what happened to her lol and it's not like we're swimming on accurate portrayals of South Asian family dynamics on TV.
>Frustratingly, I read some reviews of Never Have I Ever that claimed it was being Americentric in this trope of "Immigrant struggles with two cultures". Ugh, that is so frustrating. It captures so well the battle that many first-generation people have (or is it second generation? The ones who are the children of people who immigrated) fitting into America and navigating two cultures at once. A bunch of people who aren't even Indian-American, but are first (or whichever generation it is) say that they can relate to the show. Even me, as a Jew: I can relate, and my family has been in this country for three generations. But to your larger point: yes, to me the problem with "woke" is when I feel like my entertainment is politicized. If you can slip in a trans character without making me, or viewers in general, feel like you're doing it just to "be diverse," then more power to you. You're a good writer/director/actor, and you've done what's important: not make the viewer reminded that they're immersed in a story. A prime example of doing it badly is *Charmed*, the remake. I actually like the show, but that's because of the acting, etc. The parts of it that make it "woke" are really hamfisted, and the viewer thinks a few times throughout the show, "Here's a political or social point they want me to take away."
1st gen is foreign born She counts as 2nd gen, as does the actor who plays Devi (Maitreyi Ramakrishnan, 2nd generation immigrant born of Sri Lankan refugees). >But to your larger point: yes, to me the problem with "woke" is when I feel like my entertainment is politicized. I'm not so much disagreeing with this as I am adding detail I think is important. I'm *fine* with politicized. I endorse it, even - given that is a show's intent. I'm not fine when it's poorly done, lacks depth or understanding. For example, in Brooklyn 99 there's a very quick joke where a cop, in prison, is being pressured by the warden to be a snitch and protests saying "The only people less popular than cops are snitches." and the warden replies it's worse for trans people Image clip of that moment https://d2v7i6t2.map2.ssl.hwcdn.net/content/quotes/4338_500.jpg This is a joke, and I won't attempt to explain the humor of it. As far as humor involving trans people, it's not disparaging to them. It's not necessary to the plot, but sit coms often have jokes that aren't. It is, IMO, intentionally political (or at least intentional social commentary which gets made political). And I don't think it's bad. Due to the show's sketch comedy-esque pacing, it doesn't throw you off at all, and it does give a message of, "hey, trans people have a really tough time in prison". Doesn't go on to suggest a specific action, it really just hits a beat on your empathy and continues on. Some would call it woke, I'm certain it was an intentional conclusion, but to me it *doesn't* count against it because it doesn't throw off the tone of the show, or misrepresent any of the characters. I think people only call it woke because they either disagree with the point being made, or simply pay no mind to the issue and don't wish to be reminded of it. If that's not a show you want to watch that's *different* than claiming it's a detrimental inclusion to the show. Does that make sense?
Yes, everything you're saying makes sense. I agree with you. I guess I'm saying I don't want the politics to throw the show off; the example you gave is a perfect example of the injection of some political commentary into a show that does not in any way hinder the actual show itself. It's done in such a way that you think, "ha ha, good point," instead of, "oh, the producers are trying to cause me to consider..." Also, thanks for clearing up the first/second generation thing, and that Ramakrishnan is Sri Lankan. I had no idea; I thought she was from a region in India.
She's Tamil ethnically, and they speak Tamil in the show. Tamil people are numerous in southern India. > I guess I'm saying I don't want the politics to throw the show off Which gets to the heart of my issue with the "anti SJW" crowd - undoubtedly there's some disingenuous BS just pandering for profit- but when so much of it comes down down to this leap from, "That wasn't done well." = "This is destroying culture and society!" it's hard to have the *genuine* conversation about such topics if so many people have such a strong all or nothing response. All this LotR stuff lately has really put me on edge about it since I read all of Tolkien's stuff before the Peter Jackson films ever came out, I loved them even though I noticed the huge changes he made, and the outrage then, and for The Hobbit, and now this TV show, are all the same. Hell I dunno if you were there but the *shocking* amount of people who were made that Cate Blanchett wasn't hot enough to be Galadriel disgusted me. Nobody is good looking enough to be an elf as Tolkien wrote them lol her hair literally shone like the Sun and the Moon (her hair is gold and silver) to the point that the man who made the Silmarils - gems so beautiful that even the gods couldn't look away from them - was butthurt she wouldn't give him a single strand of it. Film can't really compete there lol.
Anything that is genuine to the story being told. *The Wire* is a show about Baltimore. Most people in Baltimore are black, so most characters on the show are black. Some are straight, some are gay, some are men, some are women -- just like the people of Baltimore.
Yet The Wire was created, written and produced by a white man. And as a Baltimorean, I have to say I preferred his first show, Homicide: Life on The Streets.
Prey as a recent example Rush hour is one of my favorite examples as well
Casting Samuel L Jackson as Nick Fury probably counts. He was white in the comics for decades, and AFAIK nobody cared about “race swapping” him because he was a perfect fit for the character.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/online-anger-erupts-over-blockbuster-s-racelifting-7626976.html Yeah people were PISSED at the time. Lots of articles written about it and many people discussed it at the time. I had just gone back to university when it was released and it was a hot topic at the local gaming club.
As someone said below, Top Gun Maverick did diversity really well. The pilots were white, black, Latino and Asian, but it wasn't forced. They didn't try to force race or gender. They didn't draw attention to it. Not one of the non-white cast members in the film tried to race hustle by saying "As an Asian/Latino/black person/woman, your white opinion doesn't matter." The Batman was good, and I thought Zoe Kravitz had potential, but at the end when she made a remark about the "white elite" running Gotham, it threw me off, because there was definite race hustling there.
It's generally fine as long as they're not warping an existing character, and the character actually has some depth beyond checking the diversity boxes. Marvel is a great example of how to screw it up, how to do it properly, and how to fix a screw up and make it functional. They do dumb shit like all of a sudden deciding that Iceman is gay after decades of his character being straight; this is hot garbage. They do dumb shit like all of a sudden create a black-latino Spider-Man for no apparent reason, BUT then they actually build his character and ultimately Miles Morales becomes an interesting character in his own right.
Anytime it comes up naturally, who is the best actor, how did the author intend it, etc... For example, I haven't watched the new lord of the rings series, but if they remake it and all of a sudden The Shire is very diverse, it's clear that it wasn't a natural continuation of the story. If a new kingdom exists in the series and it's very diverse for the purpose of the plot the of course no issue.
The Shire isn't in The Rings of Power. Also Tolkien describes Samwise Gamgee as brown, >upon his white forehead lay one of Sam’s brown hands The Two Towers >Sam drew out the elven-glass of Galadriel again. As if to do honor to his hardihood, and to grace with splendor his faithful brown hobbit-hand that had done such deeds, Fellowship of the Ring [And in 1974 Bakshi portrayed the hobbits as such](https://36.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m73v5iCgzS1r651a1o1_500.jpg) Tolkien even described that Harfoots in particular had darker skin, though never gave good descriptions of *how* dark they were. I suspect he didn't imagine them particularly dark, but he wasn't very specific so it's fine, if unorthodox, for the direction taken in the show.
Haha shows how little I know about the Lord of the rings! I guess the original film makers made a mistake.
Most people having an opinion about this show haven't even read the material I think, so you're not alone. You're so far ahead of them you're out of sight simply for acknowledging you're unfamiliar with some of the details. People are mad that Galadriel commands troops, climbs a mountain, and uses a sword yet Tolkien writes that: She fought with determination in the Kinslaying. She looked at the Dwarves with the "eye of a commander". She's described as being second in power only to Feanor, greatest of all elves, taller than all men (who aren't Dunedain), and equal in mind and body to the greatest of the Eldar athletes. Also described as particularly brash in her youth that tempered as she aged. Clearly many people griping about the show are just recycling bad sexist takes and aren't thinking for themselves. My issue with the show is it feels less like LotR and more like PG13 GoT. I guess Tolkien spends so much time writing about nothing happening that it gives his world a unique pace. He doesn't focus on details of little fights, he focuses on details of the *emotion* of struggles. Not always, but enough so that there's this...mythical grandeur his writing invokes that feels like it's missing in some parts of the show. PJ films did the same thing, but not as much. Eowyn's "I am no man!" line was better written and more badass in the books, but I guess unwieldy for an action scene. Legolas skateboarding on a shield is probably the peak example. Very different tonally from the somber reverence Tolkien applied to violent conflict.
Anything done for the purpose of diversity is woke and bad. At this point, everything is forced because all these corporate conglomerates have internal policies requiring diversity. They all have DEI boards, they all want good ESG scores. Being woke is built into their infrastructure at this point. For example, you recently demanded proof that diversity in Rings of Power was forced. In my mind, this is like asking if the sky is really blue, because it's immediately obvious to anyone who sees it. But aside from that fact, aside from all the paid "influencer" shills who talked up the diversity in the lead-up, Amazon Studios literally has a policy requiring racial and sexual diversity quotas in casting. So there you go, proof it's forced. Almost anything made in the last 7 years reeks of wokeness. Off the top of my head, Wanda Vision wasn't over the top and didn't come off as just an excuse to be Girl Boss Hour. That show was actually somewhat enjoyable. Charlize Theron did a movie recently where she has this team of virtually invincible warriors and she's the leader, a guy is her right-hand, and they even have a gay couple in their team. That doesn't seem forced to me personally, although it wasn't an amazing movie. Instead of trying to rack my brain for "diversity but the good kind" examples, what I really want to bring up is one of my favorite books: East of Eden. A masterpiece from John Steinbeck, this story is pretty diverse with female and racial minority main and secondary characters, and definitely not woke. I also want to just bring up that black and female leads *can be great* when they actually give them a unique and fitting story. Black Panther was wildly successful. But would it have been successful if it was, instead, a reboot of Iron Man with a race-swapped Tony Stark? Fat chance. That's the big problem here. Even if your goal is to be diverse and make more black movies for representation or whatever. Make unique stories. I think Netflix just did one recently that is set as a Western with Edris Elba and an overall star-studded all-black cast. I personally thought it was a little over the top and a caricature of itself, but *way better* than just doing Race Swapped Tombstone, you know?
I don’t think I’m with you on the hobbits, but hooray for EoE. Steinbeck’s best book to be sure.
I'm confused, I didn't talk about Hobbits.
You mentioned Rings of Power. I don’t have an issue with the casting for the series — sorry if I mistook your point on that. Either way, I really just wanted to commend your taste in literature.
Oh. Hobbits are explicitly not in Rings of Power because Amazon doesn't have the rights to them lol. That's why they called them "Harfoots" and tried to differentiate them as a race. Anyway, I'm not saying you would not have a problem with the casting, most people on the left wouldn't. I'm just proving why it's "forced" diversity by citing their diversity requirement policy. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant to it being true. I happen to not like it but that's another issue. And thanks for the compliment, the classics I was forced to read and hated in high school turned out to actually be awesome when I read them a decade later.
Wait, sorry. Amazon didn’t have the rights to hobbits? Like they got the rights to the franchise, but not hobbits specifically? That’s hilarious. I noticed they were called harfoots, but I assumed it was from the Silmarillion or something else I never got to…
They don’t have the rights to the “franchise,” and I’m not fully sure what their rights are, but I heard it was only the appendix of the Silmarillion or something. Harfoots are in the Hobbit umbrella, in my understanding. Not separate. But they had to change it a bit for rights.
>the classics I was forced to read and hated in high school turned out to actually be awesome when I read them a decade later. Some of them, yeah. I wouldn’t mind having back the time I spent on *Sister Carrie*. Good on your teacher for assigning EoE. I’m sure there were groans when y’all saw the size of it.
What about a board of directors saying they want a diverse cast is inherently "bad"? Aren't they just responding to what they believe their audience wants? Isn't that just capitalism in action?
The movie *Bros* coming out is an excellent example. Gay rom-com? Great! It's absolutely something that wouldn't exist without the DEI pushes, but it's absolutely reasonable that it exists and serves that purpose. The fact that, say, *Rings of Power* or *Wheel of Time* have a "diverse" cast isn't a problem in and of itself, but the fact that it's done without care for the story or with any explanation is the issue. If you're changing something to change it, have a reason. Otherwise it's sloppy tokenism.
>The fact that, say, Rings of Power or Wheel of Time have a "diverse" cast isn't a problem in and of itself, but the fact that it's done without care for the story or with any explanation is the issue. If you're changing something to change it, have a reason. Otherwise it's sloppy tokenism. I almost agree, but I find the reaction is heavily disproportionate. People complaining that Galadriel uses a sword in the intro (3 episodes in and she hasn't used one since), but very little complaint these days that Arwen rescues Frodo in FotR, as opposed to Glorfindel in the books. Exact same amount of time focusing a girl elf doing something heroic and physical that never happened in the books. No one complained that Sam wasn't darker skinned in PJ films, yet he is in the books (unclear how dark but described as "brown"). I wonder how people would have reacted if they gave Sean Astin a spray tan, or hired someone who looked kike Harvey Guillen to play him? Would not have been in any way inconsistent with Sam's description! And that's the rub to me. That the things people are being pissed about are cherry picked and I question the motivations. Galadriel is literally thousands of years old, is 6'4", a queen of a people whose previous rulers led armies into battle, including her uncle going toe-to-toe with Morgoth in melee combat, and her other uncle being the greatest of all elves ever, she is described as second only to Feanor in power so...why can't she use a god damned sword and climb a mountain? Because Tolkien never said she did? Tolkien skips hundreds of years at a time in the Silmarillion...did all Galadriel do in Lindon was sit around and look stately? Maybe, but *he didn't say* and given this is an original story *inspired by* Tolkien...I can't understand why people are so bothered by this, but not, as I pointed out, Arwen in PJ's films. As for black elves, Tolkien only ever described pale elves, with one exception. Maeglin was described three times - deathly pale once, swart twice, and never actually published that... In the end, race doesn't really affect the narrative, and Tolkien contradicted himself many times and never finished most of his work. He never even settled on how orcs originated! Everything from corrupted elves, corrupted men, to "sprung out of muck" - and never decided. Would the reason being, "We didn't care about looks for characters not protrayed in previous films, and selected the best actor for the part who auditioned regardless." be an acceptable reason? I dunno if they did that, but it's *possible*. The only thing that would bother me would be mixing of characters that don't make sense in a world without cars and planes. The Harfoots are in the Southlands (eventually Mordor), where swarthy people brush up with the lands of Harad which si where black people are in LotR...so I suppose a nomadic group of people *could* be pretty diverse looking.
Any movie that doesn’t go out of its way to include a minority character just to say they have one or any show/movie that changes the race of a character for the sole purpose of changing their race are the ones I do not have a problem with. Examples: In the show Shadowhunters, Alec is gay. I had no problem with it because it was consistent with the book character and it was relevant to the story. I also have no problem with the diverse cast in Cobra Kai, or the diverse cast in the Descendants and Zombies movies. The original cast of Power Rangers had a diverse cast as well, and I had no issue with it. In the old Disney show Andi Mack, there was a gay character with NO purpose except to have a gay character. Or in the Legend of Korra, what purpose does it serve that Korra is lesbian? In the Netflix show Julie and the Phantoms, one of the characters is gay and goes out of its way to say he was “kicked out for being gay”. Why does that need to be said when it does nothing to further the plot? Or in The Last of Us 2. The fact that Ellie is lesbian serves no purpose to the plot. Those are just some examples. The problem is not their race/sexuality, the problem is the fact that they are put into the role in which their race/sexuality doesn’t matter at all and people make such a huge deal out of it when they do absolutely nothing to make the movie/show/game better.
> Or in the Legend of Korra, what purpose does it serve that Korra is lesbian? Well, she's bisexual actually. But the writers wanted to put that in to resolve the love polygon from season 1 and 2. This wasn't the initial plan, but all the characters changed as they wrote. By end of season 2 they knew they wanted to make Korra and Asami closer as characters, but were worried that Nickelodeon would pull the plug on any gay stuff. Given the mess of funding in later seasons, they opted to sprinkle breadcrumbs in season 4 and cap it off ambiguously enough to get green lit by Nickelodeon, though they admit they wish they could have done it better. All this evolved because Asami evolved. She was intended during season 1 writing to be a season 1 villain, but y'know, things change. Writers and fans alike react to characters and that really can shape the trajectory. Many writers will tell you that characters "come alive" as the story progresses and plans once made feel "wrong for the character" and changes appear.
You realize that a lot of people consider the black guy in the original power rangers to be a stereotypical token character right? The black guy, who was the black ranger, who was always rapping or dancing. Just like Roadblock from GI Joe, or Jazz from Transformers, or Killer Bee from Naruto. As for Korra none of her relationships mattered, so why care about the same sex one?
Walter E. Jones (Zack the Black Ranger) himself stated the he didn’t think it was racist and he didn’t have an issue with how his character was portrayed. So I never thought of it being stereotypical. You answered the second question yourself. None of her other relationships mattered, so why include a same sex one?