i didnt say anything worth saying in this thread in 2015 lmao holla at me
Last edited:
REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS |
I did read carefully, you just didn't make your point all that clear until this second post going into your examples >_>EDIT: My issue isn't that things are 'too inclusive'. It's that the entire motive is inclusiveness instead of writing something decent. Please read carefully before shit-slinging, we're in intelligent discussion.
Word, and they've said as much. A good set of creators can be mindfully inclusive and create a fictional world where that's organic. Like the real world. where it's happening.I'm not sure how you discern when someone's intent is to pander, or get attention for being progressive, and when it is to write a decent story though. I mean being mindful of being inclusive and writing a decent story aren't mutually exclusive either after all. I am almost positive, for example, that the people behind Steven Universe are very mindful of being inclusive and being progressive.
Exactly, and there are way too many white people dominating roles/characters in fiction. Representation is definitely important, and if you don't feel that way it's probably because you're widely represented? The action, it reasons to say, is to be more mindful of it and create more diversity - or, change pre-existing spaces and alter the canon with new interpretations that can add more depth. And your example? Are you kidding me? Miles Morales was created, mindfully, to add a black spiderman to the canon as a direct result of Donald Glover campaigning for the role in the reboot and because of the fact that we'd gotten a black president.If Peter Parker's skin has no bearing on the story, then why does he have to be white?
I don't think Dumbledore was done as a way to seem progressive. I think J.K. Rowling answered honestly about that. That isn't the same to say that the way she handled it was good mind you. And you'll find a lot of people critical of it.
Honestly, I think this is less of a case of pandering or trying to be inclusive being bad or whatever, and more of a case of what makes representation good and strong and what makes it weak.
Dumbledore was bad because it was shit representation. Steven Universe is good because it's strong representation.
Nyangoro hit the nail on the head. The problem is with the bad writing, not the inclusion of minority characters. Real life is full of diversity. Why should this not be reflected in art and entertainment? It's not pandering. American movies and TV-shows in particular have traditionally been pretty whitewashed until recently. The only ones who seem to be upset by the sudden inclusion of minorities are white people who wonder where their all-white America has gone. Usually the same kind of people who get upset when someone says happy holidays instead of merry xmas too.
That being said, a show should not be criticised for not representing every single minority group within the main cast either.
Look at Girls for example;
1) The show takes place in New York, yet had no people of colour in it at first. This was fair criticism and later seasons featured a more diverse cast of extras and minor characters.
2) On the other hand, some people wanted the main cast to be more diverse. That's not fair criticism. In the real world, people don't always hang out with people of every colour and cultural background. Birds of a feather and all that.
It's no different from Empire exclusively having a black main cast, but of course they have to include all kinds of people as extras and minor characters because otherwise it just wouldn't represent the real world.
Have to disagree on the Iceman one because it's been teased for a long time now. Before Marvel started going super PC.
I agree with your other points (Fresh Prince was another good example too) but lmao, you're just diddlying wrong there man. It's fine if you want to say it during the whole month of December fine, you sound like another boring bland cog in the machine the government is programming you for but that's your choice to do that (remember that grey blob OddParents episode on Nickelodeon?) No what's just most wrong with that is when people say it on the actual day of Christmas. It's a national diddlying holiday. It'd be the same as saying happy thanksgiving. It's just sad the amount of people or companies saying 'happy holidays' on social media yesterday. Just plain sad. I applauded the people and companies that actually said merry christmas yesterday. How about you learn things about other people and say happy Hanukkah during their 8 days of celebration, etc? God the PC in this country is just sickening.
But I think another example on topic was this piss poor handling of randomly turning Iceman in X-Men gay just for their stupid agenda's sake. Marvel comics have just been so asinine lately that all they are doing is just making stupid story decision after stupid story decision after another just to have them in the news. Oh look, Thor's a girl now! Oh wait, they already did that decades ago. Whoa now, they just made Peter Parker black? Pretty sure he's white, plus they even have Miles Morales who is a pretty damn good character, but whatever, gotta keep pandering to that agenda. Everywhere I look that's all I see when people talk about how bad Marvel comics have been lately is exactly that. It's a shame from how good they used to be.
A good example that comes to mind is Naveen Andrews' character on LOST, who I read wasn't originally in the plans for the show, but was created because ABC wanted "international" appeal. And yet his character is easily in my top 2 from that series.Including them is hollow? Only include them if they automatically pop in your head? What utter nonsense, and a complete misrepresentation of how the creative process works. There is absolutely nothing wrong with including characters from other groups for the sake of including them. The only thing that matters is whether the characters themselves are good.
A good example that comes to mind is Naveen Andrews' character on LOST, who I read wasn't originally in the plans for the show, but was created because ABC wanted "international" appeal. And yet his character is easily in my top 2 from that series.
The problem with writers not purposely going out of their comfort zone is that people naturally write characters like themselves. A white person thinks of their characters as white, a man automatically makes their male characters more interesting/plot-relevant, etc. I've often heard some writers say that the best way to write strong female characters, for instance, is to write a male character and then change their gender. Because it makes it easier for someone who isn't female to not unconsciously reach for stereotypes and cliches.
The Dumbledore thing annoyed me. Not because I didn't believe it (there's plenty of hints in the text supporting it), but because Rowling didn't have the courage to be explicit in the text. She thought people would be fine to have WW2 echoes, mass murder, racism/blood superiority, child abuse, Voldemort being a product of female-on-male rape, Umbridge, and Molly Weasley saying "bitch" in a children's story, but not to say a character was gay or have him said to be in love with another male character. Now you have people who say, no, he's not gay, they don't have to accept it because it's not in the books!!, etc. I hate those people.