• Rineloi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    95
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    9 months ago

    Imagine if you just made Peter Parker black. Cool, I guess. But is it enough just to swap the skin color? IMO, it is not. You have to represent the culture as well. So you change the family dynamics, the character background, relationship dynamics etc… after all of that is it still essentially Peter Parker? If so you have succesfully race swapped a character but most of the time I think it fundementally changes the character. At that point I believe it is better to create new character like Miles Morales and call him Spider-Man. But that is just my opinion.

    • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      How is that any different than any of the multiple other times they changed the “fundamentals” of peter parker?

      Like when he is the sidekick of iron man who gets free robo spidey suit upgrades? Which completely changes everything important to his character?

      Or when they make him a completely different age? Fundamentally changing the relationship he has with his romantic leads, with aunt may, with his villians, with his job, with his school (college? High school? Neither?), etc etc?

      Short answer? Its fuckin not. Its the exact same as every other time theyve altered a key aspect of parker to shake up the story and tell a new angle with new spins and twists and turns.

      It literally doesnt matter. Its just a big deal because its race this time.

      • Alteon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Look, I kinda get both sides here.

        I strongly agree with you that the skin color doesn’t really affect the acting or the story in general. I believe that the last Lord of the Rings show on Amazon actually did a spectacular job at it. It was probably the best fantasy show that I’ve seen in awhile. However, I can also understand it from a Lore perspective that I feel the other guy is trying to to point out. If there are other ethnicities of Hobbits (which there are actually three), then at least explain why they are there. Did something bring them together? Your not wrong that by just changing the skin color of a character doesn’t really affect the story at all, but when you want to understand what’s behind the story, you really need to look at and consider everything.

        [As an interesting aside. It turns out that the Harfoots are actually a dark skin type of Hobbit, and the Fallohides are taller and fairly light skinned. I just wish the show explained that more and perhaps provided a reason as to why those two groups merged. If they did, I must have missed it. I would love an excuse to go back and watch that show…]

        Like, if we were writing a script about a tribe in Malaysia, or about a K-Pop group in Korea, it would be really jarring to see a white or black guy play any of those rolls in effort to avoid a “diversity problem”. Like…will it affect the overall story if the script and acting was the same? Honestly, probably not. But I’m still going sit there the entire time and ask why is famous actor Whitey McWhiterson playing the lead role as a singer in a K-Pop boy band.

        The point I’m trying to make is that yes, I agree that race does not affect a story at all, but to be frank, including every race for diversity’s sake (take many of the new Disney Star Wars shows, for example) is colorblind, and I feel antithetical to racial justice in general. It’s denying that these people are different. I don’t care what the skin color of someone is, but I would at least expect there to be some sort of explanation as to why things are the way they are. It just feels lazy, political, and shoe-horned in.

        • daltotron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          That kinda strikes me as weird, though. There’s not really a justification that I need for why peter parker might be black, and not white. I don’t really need to justify why he’s white by default, anyways. I understand where you’re coming from in terms of like, yeah, if they’re black, or indian american, or whatever, make them actually be that race, you know, make them have that culture. It’s a common sentiment. At the same time, there are many people, mostly your second or third generation immigrants, that are going to basically have a relatively “normal”, or whitewashed, upbringing. There’s usually still an amount of discrimination happening, you might still have a mild amount of cultural traditions passed down, and a feeling of being pulled between two different worlds is pretty common, much like what happens with multiracial people. But for most external observers, these groups will tend to externally show many of the same traits as a white person. That’s all also kind of moot, for a lot of stories, where the point is less, like, character exploration of a personal identity, and the point is more about like. Something else. So, there’s not really much of a reason, in my mind, why a writer might need to explain why someone’s black, or whatever.

          I brought up previously in the thread, “what if we made superman black”, and I still don’t think much would have to change there, for that story, cause that’s just kind of what superman is. Well, beyond the normal superman critiques of like, why doesn’t he just solve all the world’s problems and kill the ruling class or whatever, but comics has a kind of suspension of disbelief eternal stasis that it has to enforce in order to keep a perpetual narrative going forever. I’m also not sure that in terms of a meta-critique, what the people “need” is a like, pure kind of power fantasy, that portrays their own politics as entirely correct, but maybe people do, I dunno. This is all getting a little off topic though.

          So, back on it, you can kind of understand why it’s a weird question to ask, right, “why are you (insert ethnicity/race here)”? Especially when I put it like that, right? Certainly, it’s not something I would ask a white character, which is kind of the core problem there. If we had a total opposite, where everybody’s a kind of racial stereotype, and is forced to be the kind of platonic ideal ultimate representation of their culture, and justify their own existence and role in the story, mostly except for white people, that also seems bad, and also, kind of seems like what we’ve been doing for forever. Minstrelization. I dunno. I get the sense that a lot of people are seeing it as something that’s shoehorned in because they’re not used to non-white people taking more central roles in their media. If you even just had proportional representation, that would be a pretty huge step out of what the norm has been, for a lot of years.

          I also don’t think anyone’s really been asking for like, more diverse casting in terms of historical works. Maybe in some flanderized and inaccurate historical dramas, I might be able to see where they’re coming from, but I still haven’t really seen that critique. If anything, the critiques I’ve seen have mostly been about portrayals of historical periods focusing more on white characters, or casting lighter skinned actors, or white actors (see: colorism), in roles where, historically, that doesn’t really make any sense. This applies more broadly to all works of fiction, and I’m basically just talking about whitewashing, actually. Less of a problem more recently, but it still comes up sometimes, like with that ghost in the shell movie which is probably super old hat by now.

          I also won’t say that it’s not the case, that disney and other fucking companies have been trying to wear identity politics as a way to be on the “right side” of the culture war and appeal to squishy liberals. But I can still hate the corporate bloodsucking, power centralizing, IP buying, underpaying disney machine, while recognizing that, if companies feel the need to do this, in order to stay appealing, that’s probably not a bad thing at all, and this being done, in general, isn’t a bad thing.

          • Alteon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            Yeah. I get what your saying. There is sort of a grey area in my argument when it comes to, “What if we made X character Y race?”. Because I totally agree that it doesn’t provide any sort of bearing to the story (unless race actually pertains to the story, somewhat). For example, the recent Little Mermaid movie, was totally fine. No issues with any of it. I’d write more, but work calls.

        • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          There arent two sides here. Theres normal people, and theres racists making up tissue paper excuses for why they dont want to see non white people in stories.

          There is nothing political about being black.

          If you think there is, sorry! Youre just being racist. Youre assuming white is default, so black is a statement. Thats racist, honey.

          I get it, you dont like addressing that you are kinda racist because your whole life youve been taught racism = bad and you dont want to think of yourself as bad.

          So get a therapist and root it out. But its got fuckall to do with politics.

    • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      It’s interesting that you picked Spider-Man as the example of creating a different character being a better alternative, because there are plenty of racists out there that really hate that Miles Morales is even a thing. They would say “Why do we need a black Spider-Man? The original was fine!”

      It’s almost like racists are only ever going to whine about inclusivity, and “characters remaining their own race” vs “creating new characters” is a moot point because the people out there who are upset by the former are going to be upset by the latter anyway.

      Imagine if the new scooby show had a cast of all white kids and a single black, well written character was added and made a pivotal role in the gang. The exact same people complaining now about race swapping would be complaining then about the new character being shoe horned in because of “woke” inclusion. Just like they do with Miles Morales.

      The answer is just that we need to keep creating media with both of those scenarios and accept that shows created with a single color cast are products of their time and we can do better now. Racists aren’t going to be happy either way.

      Edit: Bring on the downvotes. If you consider “they’re not supposed to be that race” as a valid, lone criticism of a character, you might have to ask yourself some difficult questions.

      • Zozano@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        I am someone still somewhat bothered by ethnicity-swapping (though not really for any of the reasons you described), but here’s an annecdote:

        When I first started engaging with the Hannibal franchise, I started with the Mads Mikelson TV series.

        The character of Jack was played by Lawrence Fishburne.

        Then, I watched the old movies, and shocker - Jack is a white guy.

        Yet, I didn’t care that Jack was black in the reboot. The only conclusion I could draw was that it didn’t annoy me because I had always known Jack as black.

        Now, I could be totally wrong about this, but I think a lot of people get bent out of shape because it’s distracting above all else.

        I couldn’t care less about Jack being black or white, he’s a side character in a movie I’ll watch once in my life. Yet, I was thinking about race-swapping in the middle of the movie.

        • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          That sounds like the same kind of shock as a character in something you’re used to being played by any different actor in a remake. And besides that, it’s not racist to acknowledge a race swap. It can be distracting. It’s racist when you make the point that it shouldn’t be done because the character is supposed to be a certain color for no other reason than your preference.

          • Zozano@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            I would say it’s similar to the shock of a character played by another actor, but slightly different.

            Unfortunately we were raised in a society where skin colour says more about a person, than the differences of a person’s face within that group.

            Yet, there is more variation within groups than between them. This is no doubt a failure of the way my brain works, and regrettably I’m not the only one.

            So when ethnicity-swapping happens, my brain defaults to “but what is the significance?”, and even when I remind myself that it doesn’t matter, it’s too late, my indoctrination has already kicked in and I’m taken out of the movie.

            • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              You know, I get what you’re saying. It definitely is ingrained in our society that skin color says more about a person. I also think it’s not wise to say we should just ignore it altogether.

              The way my mind deals with it, honestly, is to create a new character with a slightly different personality. Instead of asking why they did it in the first place, I just try to acknowledge that it’s not the same character I’m expecting. If it’s a remake of something, it probably won’t be the same story I’m expecting either.

              It’s like a multiverse thing. The problem only comes if you’re comparing the old to the new. So I try to avoid that.

              But it isn’t wrong to say that your perception of a character changes with their skin color, because society conditioned us like that. It’s up to you to create a new perception though. It really only becomes wrong when you say that a character’s skin color breaks your perception of them because it’s unacceptable. Does that make sense?

              • Zozano@lemy.lol
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                Absolutely makes sense. Going back to the Hannibal example, Mickelson and Hopkins, both very different styles of character. One is creepy, the other is captivating, both are great.

                Interesting thought experiment is the James Bond scenario with Idris Elba. There’s no good reason why Bond can’t be black. Yet, I feel like it should be explained with “James Bond is the codename we assign to 007”.

                Though, I also feel this should have been explained at one point earlier in the franchise, so even mentioning it in the first “black Bond movie” to address it and move on is taking me out of it.

                There really is no winning scenario.

                You can’t make “008 - Bames Jond starring Idris Elba”

                You can’t ignore it.

                You can’t address it.

      • Syrc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        It’s almost like racists are only ever going to whine about inclusivity, and “characters remaining their own race” vs “creating new characters” is a moot point because the people out there who are upset by the former are going to be upset by the latter anyway.

        Uhm, no?

        Have you seen the reception to both Spiderverse movies? It was overwhelmingly positive. I’d say they were probably the most universally liked Marvel movies of the decade. You would really compare that to the reception the new Little Mermaid or Ghostbusters got and say “yeah, the same amount of people got upset by both things”?

        It’s nowhere nearly close. Obviously, it’s also because the spiderverse movies are written much better, but that’s also a symptom of better writers being hired for better projects. The fact that raceswapping a character and writing an entirely different one are received the same way is just plain false. Not to mention, even better, just making new movies with black characters altogether. But those two things require considerably more effort than taking an old, already liked movie’s script and copy-pasting it with a random character of a different race. And Hollywood doesn’t like effort, they just like money and free advertising.

        • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          You obviously didn’t hear all the people complaining about Miles in the Spider-Man game, which is what I was referring to.

          Have you considered that the racists in question just didn’t go see the Miles Morales movies? Also, the fact that they are independently good movies has to do with the turnout. The little mermaid remake and the Ghostbusters new movie weren’t exactly masterpieces. Saying that the spiderverse movies succeeded where they didn’t is wholly attributed to the metric of creating new characters vs race swapping others is just wrong. The fact is that those movies were lazy, and that was the reason they failed.

          • Syrc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            The fact is that those movies were lazy, and that was the reason they failed.

            I addressed that before, in a sense. Imo, the raceswap is part of the laziness. And yes, the reason they failed is because they were lazy, but if they weren’t lazy they wouldn’t have been just bland raceswaps. That’s what I think about it, at least.

            And honestly no, I didn’t hear complaining about the game, but I admittedly read very little about it online. My friends liked it a lot and that’s all I know. Complaining about that seems even dumber to me though: the franchise just got a very popular movie with a new main character, why wouldn’t you put him in the game too? I don’t think the complaints could’ve been that many, at least not at the level of those two above (or pretty much any disney remake).

            • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              And yes, the reason they failed is because they were lazy, but if they weren’t lazy they wouldn’t have been just bland raceswaps.

              You’re confounding two variables, though, so this example is incapable of proving anything. Is this the result of half A and B? Just A? Just B? It’s not possible to know.

              Further, even if it was true, that audiences just can’t handle black Ariel, I don’t think that means there isn’t a problem. If we’re not allowed to race swap characters, then that means we can’t really hire black actors. “We can just write new characters”? Yeah, we can do that. But you’re basically saying that the last 80 years of shared, televised cultural history, even past all of the racial segregation of the 50s, the 60s, and on, is just inaccessible to the “other kinds.” Like, is a black woman not allowed to write a Cinderella?

              I don’t think the complaints could’ve been that many,

              Last thing: You should go looking for these people more often. Not so you can be like them, just to see them. I used to think that we lived in a post-racism world years and years ago. You don’t really get a sense of how the public behaves until you survey them. It’s good for you, though; know thy enemy.

              • Syrc@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                But you’re basically saying that the last 80 years of shared, televised cultural history, even past all of the racial segregation of the 50s, the 60s, and on, is just inaccessible to the “other kinds.” Like, is a black woman not allowed to write a Cinderella?

                Not that much of a problem, imo, even if it was inaccessible to everyone. Do we really need to keep rehashing the same stuff over and over? I can understand stuff like War of the Worlds where the first movie wasn’t really appreciated, but if we already have a Cinderella movie people appreciate, can’t we just… leave it alone? A lot of unnecessary remakes got hate even without raceswaps, that’s not the only issue. Remakes of bad stuff, on the other hand, are easier to “change up” because fewer people are attached to the original, and if it’s based on literature usually race isn’t specified at all.

                Last thing: You should go looking for these people more often. Not so you can be like them, just to see them.

                Oh I know that they exist. But quantifying them is pretty much impossible. We know there’s a lot of racists around, but it’s hard to say how many of those are actual Spiderman fans who got upset by the sequel game. The complainers might be bad actors, or a loud but really small minority… the internet is full of echo chambers, it’s hard to get an actual grasp on people’s opinions.

                • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Do we really need to keep rehashing the same stuff over and over?

                  Okay, but you realize this is a different argument. Remakes are being made, so it’s weird to cut certain people out of it.

                  I have a laundry list of problems with the Disney live-action remakes, but the fact that Halle Bailey is in some doesn’t count for one.

                  The fact that these remakes often completely misunderstand the story they’re supposed to be telling counts for like 5.

      • VelvetStorm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        I would have just as much of a problem if they made blade white or asain or Latino and the same if they made black panther white. Changing some characters race is kind of a big deal as race is kind of an important issue. If all races were treated 100% the exact same and all had the same culture then it wouldn’t be a big deal.

        • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I said if your lone criticism is that they changed the race of a character, you might be racist.

          Obviously, if race plays into the story, there’s a valid reason to be bothered. But also obviously, if you’re upset that shaggy is black despite still being the stereotypical stoner type he always has been, you might need to think about why you’re upset.

          The former logic should not be a sweeping ban on the latter from ever happening.

          • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            But also obviously, if you’re upset that shaggy is black despite still being the stereotypical stoner type he always has been, you might need to think about why you’re upset.

            You mean Norville? Because there’s no “Shaggy” in Velma. And, err, he’s not exactly the same character, melanin aside.

      • kelvie@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        Idk why I feel this way, but I feel like “but I like Miles Morales” is becoming the new “I voted for Obama so I can’t be racist”, which had replaced “I’m not racist, but…” for a while.

    • ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      But is it enough just to swap the skin color? IMO, it is not. You have to represent the culture as well. So you change the family dynamics, the character background, relationship dynamics etc…

      How is this not racist?

      “Racism: noun - a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement…”

      Can Peter Parker not be black and have experienced everything that white Peter did? Shit, can Peter Parker not be black and adopted by a white Aunt May and Uncle Ben?

      • VelvetStorm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Because black people are treated pretty differently in the usa than white people are and to deny that is pretty racist.

      • Rineloi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        Because sadly the world doesnt work that way. Imagibe if you had a black peter parker in segregation era. Could Peter be black and still go through the exact same things? And i am not saying that because being black inherently different. Its just that black people go through different hardships due to inherent racism in america. It is not racist to say people with different backgrounds have different cultures and values.

        And there are cases where this is not important, for example in the new batman film we had a black Jim Gordon and it was great. But again that is just my opinion.

      • daltotron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        I really don’t understand why this is getting downvotes. Like, sure, you maybe open up the character to a racism storyline now, or racial character explorations, which is good, and you couldn’t do some of that subject matter with a white peter (or with a white author, probably, as, double-sided, taking on those storylines is playing with fire sometimes), but it’s not a necessary thing, that every black character has to experience some racist trauma.

        Lots of media is aspirational. Part of that is being able to imagine a world where not every racial minority has to experience weird racist comments to the degree that it works its way into being a primary aspect of their personhood. I would say, if you were to advocate for every minority character to broach this subject matter, that would also be problematic, and you would also be tokenizing every minority character in a weird and fucked up way. It’s not “denying racism exists” to portray a black peter parker that doesn’t struggle with, like, extreme character defining racism, or even like, any racism at all. You can also just choose to have that aspect of the story be ignored, or assumed, like how 99% of characters in media don’t ever stop to take a shit.