One Solution to the #OscarsSoWhite Problem

[Purple]

None of these have much to do with race except with changes to the storyline of which then I should point out to you that the old fairy tales aren't exactly retold the same way by Disney either.

You should have noticed that my argument is in fact not just about race but changes in general. Changes in race are not a magical special category. They are just a change like any other and thus are acceptable or not under the same criteria that applies to any other type of change. Thus any criteria we establish for one is valid for the other for as long as it is not oddly specific.

See edit which when I cut that out still holds valid. Disney movies as a whole have been held in high regards despite moving away from the original telling.

That bit I already addressed.

In essence it's the point where your first reaction as a fan of the original work is not to judge the adaptation as "good" or "bad" in its own right but as "this isn't what I paid for".

You can have an "adaptation" that is objectively very good work on its own but that is also a very bad as an adaptation. Just as you can have an objectively bad work that is a good adaptation due to being faithful. In these polar cases your enjoyment will be heavily influenced by how much you like the original work.

[Crazedwraith]

.

Like for example a homosexual Peter Parker would not make sense as his B plot is always about girlfriends. Where as a black or female doctor would work just fine because it changes nothing about the person behind the face.

So rephrase that... Spider-Man's B-Plots are about romantic entanglements, what's so essential that they be with women?

The reason for those B Plots is not 'Peter Parker loves the womenz' it's 'Peter Parker can't balance his personal life and being spider-man'. You can do that with boyfriends, girlfriends, work colleagues and his aunt. There's nothing special about it that mean it has to involve romance with a lady.

[Soontir C'boath]

Then frankly you're just talking about market share and inertia which all can be changed. and as we have seen are changing to fit today's world where it's not mostly white, heterosexual, etc.

Heck, the amount of people who read fairy tales before the Disney movies are certainly in diminishing if not infinitesimally insignificant numbers.

[Purple]

So rephrase that... Spider-Man's B-Plots are about romantic entanglements, what's so essential that they be with women?

The whole part where it's always a rivalry between Peter and some other character like Harry. You would have to also make that other character homosexual or something. At which point you are moving ever further away from the original work. At the end you have to change 3-4 characters at least. And that is already going to far. It's not like Batman where you could easily make him homosexual and only have to axe the occasional catwoman plot. Or make him bi and just not care.

[Soontir C'boath]

So rephrase that... Spider-Man's B-Plots are about romantic entanglements, what's so essential that they be with women?

The whole part where it's always a rivalry between Peter and some other character like Harry. You would have to also make that other character homosexual or something. At which point you are moving ever further away from the original work.

And again, I will mention Disney movies which have made pretty drastic changes from the "original work". You're only complaint is that the change is in regards to racial and gender forms and trying to disguise your argument as against change in general.

[Broomstick]

As for comic books changing over time I am not a fan at all, so someone who is might be able to correct me if I am wrong but it is my understanding that for the most part they change rather slowly.

I've been a comic fan for over 40 years, and even briefly worked in the industry so perhaps I can cast a bit of light on this.

Yes, comic characters do retain a certain stability for years at a time. But remember - many are over 70 years old now. Even if a major change only occurred once a decade that would still be 6 or 7 major changes for characters like Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, and so forth. There are significant differences between "golden age" heroes and "silver age", and yet more changes in the 90's/00's.

For example, in the early Golden Age Batman carried a gun. Superman would get into fist-fights. Silver Age Batman didn't carry a gun. Superman was so overpowered that getting into punching match with mortal humans would have been ludicrous.

So, major characters easily have a half dozen significantly different versions of themselves even without race/gender changes.

From where I sit, nerdy basement-dwelling geeks who have hysterics arguing over which version is "correct", and have coronaries over the prospect of race/gender/sexual orientation/hair color changes, are never, ever going to be happy. So just ignore them. Meanwhile, I'll stomach almost any variations as long as it is done well, and that's the key. Marvel had a sideline in alternate universe stories, devoting entire series to them, because there is a market for variations on a character as long as the stories are done well.

So... some people had meltdowns when 6 foot tall Australian Hugh Jackman was cast as 5 foot tall Canadian Wolverine - but it worked. And I didn't have a problem with it, despite being a Wolverine fan since something like 1972 (X-men #96, to be precise, whenever that actually came out). Rinse and repeat for a lot of other changes. Does it always work? Nope - but when it does it's refreshing and enjoyable.

[Elheru Aran]

Honestly speaking, now that I think of it I agree with him. If your adaptation diverges significantly enough from the source material than it really should not have the right to call it self an adaptation. If Japan licensed a version of Spiderman that happens in Tokyo and with an all Japanese cast I honestly would not call that Spiderman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Ma ... _series%29



You were saying?

For whatever it's worth, Marvel considers that a part of their canon. They included him (mecha and all) in their Spider-Verse event.

So, get fucked.

[Lord Revan]

As for comic books changing over time I am not a fan at all, so someone who is might be able to correct me if I am wrong but it is my understanding that for the most part they change rather slowly.

I've been a comic fan for over 40 years, and even briefly worked in the industry so perhaps I can cast a bit of light on this.

Yes, comic characters do retain a certain stability for years at a time. But remember - many are over 70 years old now. Even if a major change only occurred once a decade that would still be 6 or 7 major changes for characters like Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, and so forth. There are significant differences between "golden age" heroes and "silver age", and yet more changes in the 90's/00's.

For example, in the early Golden Age Batman carried a gun. Superman would get into fist-fights. Silver Age Batman didn't carry a gun. Superman was so overpowered that getting into punching match with mortal humans would have been ludicrous.

So, major characters easily have a half dozen significantly different versions of themselves even without race/gender changes.

From where I sit, nerdy basement-dwelling geeks who have hysterics arguing over which version is "correct", and have coronaries over the prospect of race/gender/sexual orientation/hair color changes, are never, ever going to be happy. So just ignore them. Meanwhile, I'll stomach almost any variations as long as it is done well, and that's the key. Marvel had a sideline in alternate universe stories, devoting entire series to them, because there is a market for variations on a character as long as the stories are done well.

So... some people had meltdowns when 6 foot tall Australian Hugh Jackman was cast as 5 foot tall Canadian Wolverine - but it worked. And I didn't have a problem with it, despite being a Wolverine fan since something like 1972 (X-men #96, to be precise, whenever that actually came out). Rinse and repeat for a lot of other changes. Does it always work? Nope - but when it does it's refreshing and enjoyable.

this is kind of my opinion as well. that said I dislike change for the sake of change. I have no problems with "Spider-man who happens to be (insert minority here)" hell I probably wouldn't even object to "Peter Parker who happens to be (insert minority here)", but I would have problems with (insert minority here) Spider-man as there the minority status would be a defining aspect of the character and those are more often then not rather token and not all that good characters.

[Soontir C'boath]

Heck, one can argue that even changing the tone of the way Batman has been told is wrong to the original story. Should people believe that only Adam West's version of Batman is the true moving picture form of the character? Or that Keaton is the one and Bale's dark tone should be ignored?

Maybe BTAS, which was what introduced me to Batman, should be the true form where Mr. Freeze had a tragic retelling of his origins along with the introduction of Harley Quinn who pairs really well with the Joker.

That's the problem with saying "it's not what I paid for". We have different reference points all of which can be true.

this is kind of my opinion as well. that said I dislike change for the sake of change. I have no problems with "Spider-man who happens to be (insert minority here)" hell I probably wouldn't even object to "Peter Parker who happens to be (insert minority here)", but I would have problems with (insert minority here) Spider-man as there the minority status would be a defining aspect of the character and those are more often then not rather token and not all that good characters.

Well then, maybe it calls for a set of writers who can write from such a point of view.

[Lord Revan]

this is kind of my opinion as well. that said I dislike change for the sake of change. I have no problems with "Spider-man who happens to be (insert minority here)" hell I probably wouldn't even object to "Peter Parker who happens to be (insert minority here)", but I would have problems with (insert minority here) Spider-man as there the minority status would be a defining aspect of the character and those are more often then not rather token and not all that good characters.

Well then, maybe it calls for a set of writers who can write from such a point of view.

obviously but then again I have no power what so ever over american companies, so there's no point complaining to me about it.

[Purple]

So rephrase that... Spider-Man's B-Plots are about romantic entanglements, what's so essential that they be with women?

The whole part where it's always a rivalry between Peter and some other character like Harry. You would have to also make that other character homosexual or something. At which point you are moving ever further away from the original work.

And again, I will mention Disney movies which have made pretty drastic changes from the "original work". You're only complaint is that the change is in regards to racial and gender forms and trying to disguise your argument as against change in general.

No I am not. You just refuse to actually understand what I am saying. So here it is again in idiot proof terms:

1. Every work irregardless of its nature has an inherent quality. That is to say it is either good or bad on its own completely ignoring anything outside of its own inherent qualities.
2. Every adaptation has a separate axis of quality that is entirely based on how faithful it is to the original.

This means that the quality of an interpretation can be described as such:
- Good work and faithful to the original
- Bad work and faithful to the original
- Good work and not faithful to the original
- Bad work and not faithful to the original

Examples of these would be in order:
- LOTR Movies
- Not quite sure what to list for this one.
- Disney fairy tales cartoons
- The hobbit movies

And each of these positions has a corresponding target audience:
- Everyone.
- Fans of the original with no taste or who like the original so much that they are willing to overlook any flaws.
- People who don't care about the original.
- People who don't care about the original and have no taste.

Got that so far? If not, read it a couple times more and feel free to ask questions. If yes, we can move on to a most difficult concept. That being the fact that your enjoyment and thus opinion of the work is going to be subjective and depend on which of these 4 groups you fit in.

Got that too? Great. That's almost my entire argument there. The rest is merely my attempt to establish a benchmark by which axis two can be evaluated.

[Soontir C'boath]

If you will note my example with Batman, yes I do clearly understand the concept. And you are right it is subjective, however, you intend on making it concrete by making the opinion of originalists more powerful than those with other opinions on the matter. The only reason why it would be wrong to depict Captain America as gay and/or black is because he wasn't in the original even though if he was at the time, there would have been a huge uproar among the readership. So again, it's not 1941 anymore. Disclaimer: I do think Captain America should stay white.

The other issue with your stance is that, stories do change over time. The fairy tales included in Grimm's version aren't necessarily the original or the last take of them either. So this stance of originality is, if anything, against the tide so to speak.

[Soontir C'boath]

So rephrase that... Spider-Man's B-Plots are about romantic entanglements, what's so essential that they be with women?

The whole part where it's always a rivalry between Peter and some other character like Harry. You would have to also make that other character homosexual or something. At which point you are moving ever further away from the original work. At the end you have to change 3-4 characters at least. And that is already going to far. It's not like Batman where you could easily make him homosexual and only have to axe the occasional catwoman plot. Or make him bi and just not care.

Make Harry bisexual. Problem solved.

[Broomstick]

- Bad work and faithful to the original

>snip<

- Not quite sure what to list for this one.

There are several movie iterations of The Fantastic Four that would qualify for that, alas.

[Darmalus]

I can only speak for myself, but here's how I feel about changing (well known aspect of character) in (adaptation of choice).

I'm fine with it, as long as the change is logical and integral to the story. If you changed Peter Parker and made him black/female/gay/whatever and nothing else changes, then it has the rank scent of "checking off boxes" and I'm not going to waste time with your pandering waste of film/paper.

My favorite adaptations where something with the backstory is changed have always been ones where they really run with it and change the character and world as a result. A black spider man? Play with the Uncle Ben story, change how and why PP learns the consequences of misusing your power, don't just give everyone a coat of blackface (which is all I expect when I see (ethnicity change) for (superhero).)

[TheFeniX]

If you will note my example with Batman, yes I do clearly understand the concept. And you are right it is subjective, however, you intend on making it concrete by making the opinion of originalists more powerful than those with other opinions on the matter. The only reason why it would be wrong to depict Captain America as gay and/or black is because he wasn't in the original even though if he was at the time, there would have been a huge uproar among the readership. So again, it's not 1941 anymore. Disclaimer: I do think Captain America should stay white.

The problem with Captain America is his origins though. He is tied pretty heavily to WW2. While a Captain America that ignores the backstory and is set in the modern day could just play it off: focusing on his backstory requires a pretty good explanation why a WW2 secret military project would use him as a test subject, unlike the experiments they did run on African-Americans historically.

It's like race changing Magneto: the horrors he faced in a Nazi concentration camp are a huge part of who he is. Changing this fact requires essentially rewriting the character. However, the Nazis weren't just rounding up Jews, so there is that. But Spiderman relies on non-race specific experiences in his life. Same really with Superman, Batman, Cyclops, Wolverine, and a whole list of characters. Race is an issue because race is an issue for the audience. But you don't get to "race, gender, etc don't matter" until you start making some changes. And since Hollywood hasn't had an original idea since.... Nightmare Before Christmas?* Shit isn't going to happen on it's own.

Cap coming to the realization he's gay after defrosting and seeing that it isn't the big deal it once was? Eh? Could work. Magneto and Prof-X being gay for each other? I wouldn't be surprised, but it would detract from the bond/mutual respect they share. Adding physical love into that would water down the message IMO.

I'm not saying every character should be minority, gay, gender swapped, whatever. But really, would anyone be flipping tables if Vin Diesel was cast as Wolverine? Guy definitely isn't white. But is he "white enough" for the role? I will note however, that his origins story of his father and brother, combined with them fighting through multiple wars (which would have been a fucking awesome movie in it's own right) would put a dent in this theory. But the Wolverine presented in X-Men? Easy change.

People flip out? Fuck them. No one shed a tear when they totally rewrote Rogue's concept and left Gambit out completely (my two favs from the Cartoon). Oh wait, I did and some comic fans did as well. Still a great couple of movies. Couple. As in 2. Not 3. Wow, I'm still mad about X3. Like, "I get a little flushed thinking about it" mad. Good to know. Cmon, focus: anyways, quit acting like race is a big deal when it isn't and it will stop being a big deal.

It's like 2 guys making out. Never seen it, was grossed out the first few times I saw it. Now? Who gives a shit? Doesn't do anything for me, but dems the breaks. I care so little about romance sub-plots in movies, I tend to zone out anyways what with PG-13 being the gold standard these days.

* I might have to update this mini-rant at some point.

[General Zod]

But really, would anyone be flipping tables if Vin Diesel was cast as Wolverine? Guy definitely isn't white. But is he "white enough" for the role?

Not gonna lie, I thought Vin Diesel was white for years until I read an article saying otherwise.

[biostem]

There are many characters where race is ancillary to who they are or how their story is told. Then, there are also characters where, while race is not a big part of who they are, it can affect the story if the time, place, occupation, or other factors simply make them being of a certain race more or less feasible. Lastly, there are characters where race is a crucial component of who they are or what situations led to them being where they are today. Unless you are willing to rewrite or flat out ignore aspects of their backstory, then such considerations need to be taken into account...

[Esquire]

Then frankly you're just talking about market share and inertia which all can be changed. and as we have seen are changing to fit today's world where it's not mostly white, heterosexual, etc.

Just to be perfectly clear, I've got nothing against any kind of minority you care to name. But it's simply not true that the US, anyway, isn't mostly white and heterosexual. The total LGBT community is less than 4% of the population (UCLA meta-analysis), and the 2010 Census reported 67% of the country as non-Hispanic whites.

[The Romulan Republic]

Mind you, the way demographics are changing, it won't be long, relatively speaking, before the US is minority white. And films which have a global audience are presumably trying to reach and appeal to a global population that is majority Asian and vast majority non-white.

[Esquire]

The overseas market, as far as I'm aware, really doesn't care about US demographic issues. Clearly the relative dearth of Asian characters isn't hurting Hollywood's profits. That said, yes, the scales will turn over in the next few decades, but what possible relevance could that have to movies being released today?

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, for one thing, a minority of 33% is still a minority large enough that you really have to take it into account, both as a matter of moral responsibility and to ensure you don't take a significant loss to your profits.

[Esquire]

I absolutely agree with the first, but it's manifestly not true that Hollywood needs to insert minority characters in order to turn massive profits. Plus, of course, including characters of one minority might very well alienate members of other minorities. Since casting decisions are up in the air until... I don't know, days before filming starts, hypothetically, it's not like there's a massive adaptation time in case of sudden demographic shifts.

[Soontir C'boath]

I absolutely agree with the first, but it's manifestly not true that Hollywood needs to insert minority characters in order to turn massive profits.

Yes, Hollywood is a business like any other. It will release movies that will turn a profit or be money losers. And those money losers can include a bunch of white actors, and directors, etc too. A good example out now actually is Gods of Egypt which is full of white people instead of perhaps Northern African people or people who at least fit the ethnicity better. So frankly at the end of the day, minorities should be cast regardless of the profitability of the film as long as the person actually fits the role.

On the other hand, there was that segment of people that made a big deal out of Finn being black, but that didn't stop that crummy SW movie from taking my money and everyone else's for that matter. To willfully exclude minorities just means movie execs either need to grow some balls or pull their racist heads out of their ass or both!

Plus, of course, including characters of one minority might very well alienate members of other minorities. Since casting decisions are up in the air until... I don't know, days before filming starts, hypothetically, it's not like there's a massive adaptation time in case of sudden demographic shifts.

Just. No. No one will care if a Bangladeshi was cast instead someone from northern Africa or Sri Lanka. They'd probably be happy to see that roles are increasingly finally being opened up to minorities. I would.

[TheFeniX]

Not gonna lie, I thought Vin Diesel was white for years until I read an article saying otherwise.

Yea, I can see that. I figured him for a Somoan or Hawaiian mix myself. I did some digging after Pitch Black.

Just. No. No one will care if a Bangladeshi was cast instead someone from northern Africa or Sri Lanka. They'd probably be happy to see that roles are increasingly finally being opened up to minorities. I would.

To be fair, there was a snafu I recall a few years ago with a Puerto Rican cast in a Latin role... or vice versa. While Latinos are pretty prevalent in Texas, lumping them into one group (among other Hispanic nationalities) is like calling a Korean Japanese: don't do it unless you're looking for an ass kicking. Another note was a few articles in the late-90s/early 2000s from black activism groups lambasting Hollywood for only casting Will Smith because he's a "safe" black to cast, seeing that he's lighter skinned.

Not saying exposure for minorities isn't exposure as just among Hispanic roles the white-washing is atrocious, even in "based on a true story" roles. For one huge example: Scarface. I mean, I like Pacino and didn't see that movie well into my late-teens, but.... damn.

Anyways, for a non-Hollywood example. Ubisoft took some shit for not including female player characters in AssCreed. So, the next game, they included a female player character and were accused of pandering by the same groups and websites that burned their ass previously. I look for almost any excuse to bash on Ubishit for being shit, but come the fuck on.

Just like in Hollywood: the "controversy" of exclusion can be a lot easier to take than trying and failing at being diverse. You don't risk an established consumer base by casting "short-haired 30-something-white-dude" and you don't risk pissing off whatever group you're trying to include by leaning on stereotypes. One way I've seen it put on why White-dudes are so popular, aside from the obvious, is that you can do anything to them in your fiction. There's no unfortunate implications.