I’ll always have a special place in my heart for the 2002 film, but that’s mostly because Sarah Michelle Geller is a smokeshow and I’ll watch just about anything she’s in.
Scoobynatural is one of my favorite episodes of Supernatural, right up there with Changing Channels. I wish they had gotten the rights, the time, and the cameo money to do an X-Files crossover.
I really tried to watch Velma, and the only way I felt I could watch it was to totally disassociate it from Scooby Doo.
The problem in doing so, which is obvious in hindsight, is that on its own merits, there isn’t really a show there that can stand on its own two feet and be compelling. That realisation alone should have been enough for the networks to pass, but with star power assigned to the writing and a known IP, I guess this was enough to get the green light.
I’m all for creative retelling of stories, but the fundamentals don’t change. The absolute WORST thing you can do, once the reviews come in, is to criticise the critical response. Sure, many probably didn’t get the artistic vision, but ultimately you are in the entertainment industry, and the creator and producers arguably gave themselves a heavy job in creating a show that caters across several cultural subjects, while also limiting themselves to the Scooby Doo/Mystery Inc gang. It’s why I don’t consider it “lazy” - if anything, they shot for the stars and hit the ceiling.
IMO, it’s a bad show, but could have been good if they had written original characters. It would have highlighted that some characters were either unlikeable/lazy, or that the premise needed more work.
I always thought race swap gender swapping roles was a cash grab and a way to just make people fight. And it seems to work every time. I personally think it’s a slap in the face to the genders and races that were swapped in. If new movies can’t make new characters and stories with different races and sexes without seemingly purposefully causing controversy by replacing one race or sex with the other I’d take that as a low blow.
Ridley Scott in the original Alien movie literally did that. The names of the characters sound gender neutral, and the production hired actors who would just seem good fit for the role. Now that I think about it, the race and gender of the crew did not matter in the plot, because the main character and attraction is the Alien!
If there’s no actual reason for them being a particular race, skin tone, gender, orientation, etc then go for it. I can’t really see a reason to be upset at this hypothetical.
Fiona and Cake worked, but only because the show is not really about Fiona and Cake. Also, it meta-acknowledges the whole thing right away, that they’ve been shoehorned into a universe where they don’t belong.
Not really. They were intentionally framed as a gender swap fanfic written by Ice King, and only existed as throwaway episodes. They were a meta-joke on the whole thing.
When I heard of the new show I rolled my eyes and thought “of all the Adventure Time stories to tell they picked a dumb gender swap gag?”
But as mentioned it wasn’t that at all and was actually well written.
I always thought race swap gender swapping roles was a cash grab
There are a lot of instances in which is can put a new spin on an old trope. Spiderman is a great example. The various swapped Spider-folks all have a unique setting and character arcs. The idea of “Spiderman” as a set of powers they all happen to share give a loose cover for a bunch of really compelling super-hero stories that could only come from a particular perspective.
If new movies can’t make new characters and stories with different races and sexes without seemingly purposefully causing controversy by replacing one race or sex with the other I’d take that as a low blow.
Its not uncommon for a writer/director to have an idea for a piece of media that’s original and compelling, but get told “We have a zillion dollars for Generic IP and pocket change for Original Cinema”. So the original gets adapted to IP. The lead in your spy thrill gets hot-swapped for James Bond. A gothic horror gets turned into a Dracula or Frankenstein film. The sci-fi epic becomes another entry in Star Wars cannon. The coming-of-age film gets Barbie as the lead character.
The IP is what guarantees a minimum viable audience, because its immediately recognizable. Then the screenplay itself is wrapped around the central cast. IP is just an efficient form of marketing.
Part of this is that idiots will predictably react and cause a distraction. Rey and Rose Tito are not what made new Star Wars bad, but the discourse was ruled by WOM BAD for months. Or Ghostbusters or whatever. Going out of your way to attract bad faith criticism so that you can conflate the legitimate with the ridiculous.
It’s hard to do well, but I disagree that it’s a slap in the face or a low blow. The gender swap of Starbuck from Battlestar Galactic was seen as sacrilege by fans, but she became one of the highlights of the show. Miles Morales was a creative way to do a race swap for Spider Man, and the narrative is richer for it. Jason Mamoa turned Aquaman from white to Polynesian, and the depiction was better than ever. Would Nick Fury be better as a white guy, as he was originally for decades, instead of Samuel L Jackson?
And then there are all the “swaps” that happen before the first day of filming, like Ellen Ripley, Sigourney Weaver’s character in Alien, who was originally (edit) going to be cast as a man. This was “controversial” at the time, with people decrying “political correctness”. I would not take “causing controversy” as a reliable indicator for whether something sucks.
Edit: point taken about gender neutral script. See discussion below.
Kind of. Excerpt from this article by Ridley Scott:
“I think the idea actually came from Alan Ladd, Jr. I think it was Alan Ladd who said, ‘Why can’t Ripley be a woman?’ And there was a long pause that, at that moment, I never thought about it. I thought, why not? It’s a fresh direction, the ways I thought about that. And away we went.”
This was the late 70s. “Man” was still so powerfully default that Ridley Scott had not even thought of the possibility of casting a leading woman action hero before a meeting with an exec. That, to me, is clearly a gender swap moment, because until that moment, it was a given that Ripley would be a man. The gender-neutral script just allowed for the possibility.
Miles Morales isn’t a race swap. That’s why it works and everyone likes it (well, except actual racists).
It’s an entirely new character that exists in the spiderman multiverse and has a different personality and backstory from Peter Parker. That’s what inclusivity actually should look like.
Imo, it’s why it works. It’s different and original, and even fits in the same story as the old ones.
Obviously I have no objective proof of that, but you can’t even hypothetically think about what would’ve happened if it was just a race swap, because the whole premise of the movie is that Miles isn’t Peter Parker.
It worked so well that the thought of it as a race swap never crossed my mind, it’s just an alternate universe Spiderman story. Spiderverse is genuinely one of my top Spiderman films, because it felt like a comic book rather than a superhero movie. It’s just got such a unique feel.
You can if you squint your eyes. I don’t think about how Peter Parker has shaken hands with his successor nearly as much as I think about Spiderman’s new name being Miles Morales.
And also because I am perfectly comfortable with a black Spiderman. This resistance to thinking of them as the same person is just not felt in my brain.
This is a learned skill, by the way. Or unlearned, maybe. I.e., you should think about it.
I used to think I had a problem with Nintendo just deciding for some game that Link would be a girl now. Not a different canon, not a different timeline, not Zelda in disguise: just “Linkle.” In the years I’ve had to think about this, I’ve realized I do not give two shits about it. I might even welcome the sensational 5-gum freshness of it.
Everyone likes him because the storytelling is good, which proves my point: Race/gender swaps are fine when done right. But when Miles Morales was first introduced, it was considered a race swap, and the usual crowd definitely moaned about it.
The multiverse explanation reminds me of people saying “But the elves liked being slaves!” in Harry Potter. Yeah, they were written that way, and they could have been written another way. The multiverse is being used to narratively justify a black Puerto Rican Spider-Man.
But when Miles Morales was first introduced, it was considered a race swap, and the usual crowd definitely moaned about it.
“The usual crowd” probably has different meanings between us. You’re linking to a site that (besides misusing the term raceswap) is absolutely positive about it, cites an editor that’s positive about it, and even the article it links to when talking about “reactions” is pretty accepting of it.
Who, exactly, is this “usual crowd”? Some racist on /b/? People who listen to Fox 24/7? That’s not nearly the full extent of the current complaints about raceswaps. Plenty of “normal” people complain about whatever Disney decides to put in their remakes, it’s not just that “usual crowd” that moaned about Miles in 2011 (and honestly, complaining about diversity inclusion when it wasn’t “trendy” yet is kind of a joke).
The multiverse explanation reminds me of people saying “But the elves liked being slaves!” in Harry Potter. Yeah, they were written that way, and they could have been written another way.
…how are those things even related? Elves in HP are a concept since very early on. And they were probably introduced with the very intention of sending that… pretty disturbing message. The Multiverse in Spiderman is effectively a late addition, but one that fits the narrative and is a way to add diversity to the franchise without messing too much with the original lore.
Where’s the issue with the multiverse? How is it nearly as malicious as HP’s portrayal of elves?
You’ve misunderstood so many of my points, this is exhausting.
You insist on gatekeeping the term “raceswap”. Fine. Call it “reimagining an existing character as another race”, if you want. You would have to be delusional to deny that Miles Morales is a Black-Latino version of Spider-Man.
The article I linked to mentions the backlash and controversy about political correctness and Morales. I’m a little surprised you missed the point there.
I’m not sure what specifically you’re on about with the “usual crowd” paragraph. I know that lots of non-racists are also against “reimagining an existing character as another race”. I agree that race swaps can go wrong a lot.
Please read this carefully: The specific claim I am contesting is OP’s strong thesis that raceswapping is always bad. I gave examples of it sometimes being good. Miles Morales is certainly an example, down to the criticisms of too much political correctness, racists complaining, fan “controversy”, claims that it’s a cash grab, etc.
My point was not that the multiverse is bad like elf slavery is bad. I am saying that your explanation gets things backwards: the multiverse doesn’t show how it’s not a race swap. On the contrary, the race swap is the reason why they needed to use the multiverse as a narrative tool. Forget the analogy to elf slavery if you don’t get it. The point is that some writer wrote a multiverse storyline in order to justify the existence of a Spider-Man of a different race.
You insist on gatekeeping the term “raceswap”. Fine. Call it “reimagining an existing character as another race”, if you want. You would have to be delusional to deny that Miles Morales is a Black-Latino version of Spider-Man.
Except it’s not even “reimagining an existing character as another race”. It’s a completely different character, with a different personality and a different backstory. The “existing character” is even in the same movie. The only thing they have in common is that they have spider powers, and they aren’t even the same powers. Goku and Superman have more similarities than those two. And that’s why
The specific claim I am contesting is OP’s strong thesis that raceswapping is always bad. I gave examples of it sometimes being good. Miles Morales is certainly an example
This isn’t a good way to contest it. What OP said is “If new movies can’t make new characters and stories with different races and sexes without seemingly purposefully causing controversy by replacing one race or sex with the other I’d take that as a low blow”, and Miles Morales is exactly that: a new character with a new story.
The article I linked to mentions the backlash and controversy about political correctness and Morales. I’m a little surprised you missed the point there.
My point is: where is that backlash and controversy? The article talks about it but only shows people painting it as a good thing. This feels like the one time where “People want to cancel Snow White because of the non-consensual kiss!” made the headlines, and then the headlines were more than the actual people complaining.
I am saying that your explanation gets things backwards: the multiverse doesn’t show how it’s not a race swap. On the contrary, the race swap is the reason why they needed to use the multiverse as a narrative tool. Forget the analogy to elf slavery if you don’t get it. The point is that some writer wrote a multiverse storyline in order to justify the existence of a Spider-Man of a different race.
First, not really. The multiverse exists to have Miles interact with Peter. It’s not needed for him to exist, since a Peter Parker already existed in his own universe. That’s also why I’m saying they’re different characters. If anything, the narrative tool is the original spiderman of that universe dying.
And even then, if it was a narrative tool for that purpose, so what? Every author uses narrative tools to tell the story they want to tell. This isn’t anything new, and no one is bothered by their existence. They’re annoying when they’re blatantly shoehorned (i.e. Star Wars 9), but everything people want is a reasonable explanation for stuff and it’s usually good. Obviously, unless the message they’re trying to convey is disturbing to them (like “slavery can be good” to normal people, or “black people can be superheroes” to racists).
Really, I don’t get the point of that last argument. What did I say that you’re trying to confute? I agree I probably misunderstood that.
Maybe because scooby doo was my least favorite cartoon as a kid, on Saturday mornings it came on once the good shows were done and it was time to play video games, but I didn’t mind Velma. It wasn’t great, I’m not going to go out of my way defending it, but it was a solid okay. I don’t get the hate, it seems overblown for a mid show. It had some jokes, solid sleep time show rewatch (to ruin any credibility my opinion has, brickleberry is in the same category for me).
The 90s Scooby Doo cartoons were pretty awful cash grabs and a far cry from even the first, what 3-4 Scooby shows. Everything from Scrappy Doo until the 2000s reboot (Mystery Inc, which my kids LOVED) was junk.
Scooby Doo started truly scraping the bottom of the barrel when they decided the ghosts were real. The one thing I respected the original show for was that it was about being a skeptic and overcoming your fear of the supernatural, because the supernatural wasn’t real.
It’s a shame that the first episode is the worst of the season. I also think it was ok, but my wife (who’s not terminally online like us, and didn’t knew the discourse around the show) loved it and couldn’t get why internet hated it.
“Scooby-Doo doesn’t have Scooby-Doo” is like saying that my PB & J sandy has neither PB, nor J, nor is it a sandy. Like, what are we saying, at this point? It’s obviously not even the same thing, it’s like, a bean bag chair, or whatever else. At the same time, I don’t find myself crying for how the symbol has been dissolved, because that shit is happening all the time and only iron law of reality is that everything changes eventually.
I dunno I get it but at the same time the shit strikes me as dumb and every time I hear somebody complain about this shit I get flashbacks to 4chan and also real life where I’m gonna be like “yeah sure that’s kinda stupid, scooby doo should have scooby doo or whatever” and then somebody’s gonna take that as an opportunity to start extrapolating a bunch of shit about how postmodernism is ruining the culture and yadda yadda white genocide, and I’m like. Damn, I thought we were gonna talk about scooby doo.
I don’t even think it just feels like that, is what I’m saying, I think that’s literally what it is, exactly, to a T. “Mystery gang paint” is right on the money.
The irony here is that it could very well be much better than whatever Disney did, especially if you consider some of the stuff from the 90s and 2000s games, like Dark Forces or Knights of the Old Republic.
Hey, that last one could work as a movie if not a TV series. Chuck Cunningham comes back.
They could reshoot a few scenes from the TV show with lookalike actors, have Chuck play out his final bit, and then a few more scenes from the show that make it clear that no-one remembers him. At all.
Now, think about it: Extra-terrestrial aliens are canon in Happy Days (Mork and Mindy was a spin-off), so it's possibly some other alien race abducted Chuck and caused everyone to forget he ever existed.
Depending on what time period he comes back to, this could be played for laughs or for existential horror.
Assuming this is about Velma, it doesn’t have Scooby Doo. They just reused the character names and basic-ish traits and changed pretty much everything else.
Eh, the finale movie was satisfying enough and I watched it for the 15 and a half years it was on air. Great show, but I’m OK with things coming to an end.
Scooby-Doo was cut, there’s a lot of race swapping, and basically it follows Velma who is an amazing girl-boss (/s) who solves all the mysteries, and everybody else is just kind of “around”. There seems to be a lot of resentment of anyone who is wealthier, more successful, or popular. Fred is a punching bag for a lot of jokes, he’s just a rich white boy who doesn’t really know how to do anything.
I think race swapping is a non-issue, unless doing so messes with the character’s backstory or story arc in a meaningful way. So I could care less about that.
And any backstory in Scooby-Doo is made-up for that reboot. The original series lore could fit in the margins of a stamp.
What bugs me is when they treat ethnicity as a purely visual change… but then put no thought into how it looks.
Skin color is still a color. You know color is important, in cartoons.
“Velma,” shockingly, gets this right. Velma’s sweater is more lemon yellow than pumpkin orange, maintaining contrast. They even recolored her hair by implication. The primary tone is really close to the original design (and its derivatives) but the vibrant sheen makes the reddish-brown look like a deep red dye-job. Natural color should have less-saturated reflections. Meanwhile, Shaggy’s outfit works fine… even if his name doesn’t. I assume it’s a Shawshank Redemption situation and they fudged an excuse. (Phrasing.)
Similar decisions for other characters would have different concerns. Daphne in violet and lavender obviously still fits. Maybe not that green sash. Keeping the hair would be a choice. Inverting her outfit to green pastels with a purple accent would be very mid-century, but I mean, have you seen her? That outfit’s somewhere between flower-child schoolgirl and by-name stewardess. Carbon isotopes couldn’t date it any harder.
Fred, you’d lose the bouffant but do something equally vertical and sculpted. I am not sure how you’d keep the shirt recognizable without looking a little silly. Honestly it’s one of the worst-aged outfits in the franchise. That high collar / ascot situation survived so many redesigns because it is associated with absolutely no-one else. Like if Superman’s S was a 1930s fashion trend we all just forgot about. But if it’s not breaking up Fred’s neckline… does it work? We can say, maybe not blue and orange, but then it’s not really his design. I think the live-action movies just stuck him in a polo shirt. If we wanted to convey some of that unselfconscious outdated energy, I’d suggest making it salmon pink.
For me, it’s an uncanny valley thing. If the only thing they change is skin colour or gender, and it’s also relevant to the plot, it’s too close to the original for me to enjoy it as a new thing, but too far to be enjoyed as a new thing. It fucks with my suspense of disbelief, since I’m supposed to know stuff from other movies, but not all the things, so I’m fucked if I pretend that it’s just another episode of the same thing, or it’s a completely different and new thing equally.
That said, Velma is different enough that it’s “past the valley” for me, it’s so far from the original that it could be enjoyed as its own thing, if it didn’t fall flat for other reasons.
My thing is if it’s so far removed, why use the IP to begin with? Why not just make a new show, or adapt something that hasn’t been made or made well or as ubiquitous as Scooby Doo? Like, ok, if you don’t have an original idea, fine, just adapt something inclusive like Raisin in the Sun and do a damn good job of it. Or just make a show like Arthur, not a live action Arthur ffs, but a show inspired by that with drawn human characters that is inclusive.
Things can be done, the lazy writing just sucks and I talk shit about ALL remakes (started with the Total Recall abortion) and most reboots. It isn’t “anti-woke” that gets me, it’s that Tim Burton is seemingly the only one tapping into the wellspring of original thought since around aught-nine.
Because of the principle of it. If your goal is inclusivity how is completely changing the race of an established character inclusive? It’s not. It’s just pandering.
If you’re actually trying to be inclusive then make a new character. Anything else is a pathetic attempt that just shows how disingenuous the attempt is.
This take always seems a bit myopic as it ignores the fact that it cements in the exclusivity that already existed. Not allowed to change an established character’s race? Only option is to tack on a new character to the already existing cast and that certainly doesn’t seem like pandering. Of course maybe the new inclusive characters should only be in new content that isn’t established and has no following.
Its fascinating that you can change age, gender, class, job, good vs evil, city, power origin, family, parents, backstory, goals, romantic relationship, friends, enemies, powers, on and on and thats all fun new twists on the character to revitalize the story.
But race? Woooaaah buddy, slow down! Thats too far!
So, yeah, theres a lot of people that dont like it for racist reasons, but what makes it stick out for the non racist reasons when the other changes might not immediately is that its the most likely category for when the intention is pandering. It CAN be done well, but it often is done at the behest of sales/pr board
So are all the other changes I listed. All changes are done to shake up the story to bolster new sales. Thats the whole point of changing the story at all.
Pandering is a limp dick excuse for the real reason this change is “too far” of a change when literally any and every other possible change is no big deal.
Its just racist shit hiding behind a mask of dripping wet newspaper.
Dude, one of the most egregious things a piece of media can do is bore you. Bad can be funny, angry can make you think, fun and happy dont need to be explained why we’d want to watch that, but boring just wastes our time. Media that’s been overly focus grouped has the highest likelihood of being bland as shit. Like I said, YES, a LOT of the race swap hatred comes from racism, but it also acts as a signal for people who dislike boring media that it might be a focus group tested waste of our time.
edit Tldr: If its race swapping thats the problem itself? Yeah, likely racist. But race swapping is also a red flag for people that their actual problem with media, bland and focus group wastes of time, is present in said piece of media
I havent watched a spiderman I didnt like? Well, maybe the 3rd movie of the Toby Maguire run. Red flags are just flags at the end of the day and can end up being wrong. I didnt say a race swap guaranteed a bland piece of entertainment, just that it can signal one. Also, Miles Morales isnt a race swap, he’s an entirely new character, and I actually prefer him to Peter Parker
It can signal one just like all the other little changes they make when rehashing a character right? Those changes are just as big of red flags right? They get the same out cry right? Cause if they didn’t, well that would seem like a red flag of it’s own.
Bud, just because some people using it as a red flag are racist, doesnt mean ALL people who are… are. Theres no denying that racist people care more about this red flag than the others, which all arent the same degree of red flag I might add. I’m merely pointing out that theres non racist reasons to be wary of a race swap
Which doesn’t seem like a very helpful point. We all have figured out it’s a mixed bag. The more interesting question might be what’s the mix? Just because a handful of them are using race swap as a lazy filter for what they presume to be bland media we gotta handle the rest with kid gloves just in case?
Thats what I mean, though. I cant really think of a race swap, that wasnt a fully new character, that added to a story. For me, its a good sign, so far, because if theres ever an era that could change that its right now, that its likely a soulless corporate move, that the piece of entertainment is probably going to waste my time. The mix currently isnt in favour of race swaps. That being said, if the ONLY problem I hear about the piece of media is a race swap, I’m likely still going to watch it. It usually just signals me to wait a bit, and then other more important info, like none of the characters being likable and Scooby Doo not even being IN the newest Scooby Doo, will quickly come out and let me know that it isnt worth watching
So you are one of the handful. The fine point that you are trying to make is lost when it follows up people saying that changing an established character’s race is purely pandering. The idea that most readers distinguish the superhero mantle from the alter ego doesn’t hold up. When they say established character they mean Spider-Man. You might not but again you are the tiny handful.
So if changing race is a lazy inconsequential element why is it an issue? Why not all the other lazy inconsequential changes?
Why is inclusivity the inevitable obvious outcome of focus groups?
I’d argue that there are more like me than you think, we’re just hidden by how loud the racists are (And others who arent as stupid as me as to get painted like one to argue about a relatively minor point). I guess I should reiterate that race changing in itself isnt a problem, its moreso that in its current most often usecase its signals that bad writing will follow. I’m making great care to point out entirely new characters because THERE where its a moniker that a new character adopts, there is plenty of precedent that it results in a new and interesting spin. But race swaps without character changes havent done so and have usually been done to hide bland writing
I’m still not sold that race swapping is any real indicator of bad writing. I think there are fewer like you than there are those who are coming from a racist motivation, whether they realize it or not. You taking care to make the distinction of new characters as you define them, and it’s a good take on what constitutes a new character, doesn’t change what most people mean. If you’re going to use such similar language to convey your take it’s kind of on you to make the distinction clear whenever you bring it up.
I think we’ve both explained our points and theres not much further to say, but I do want to point out that Miles Morales is very clearly NOT Peter Parker, Its not a thin line I’m arguing on on that point. They are both Spider Man, but they are different characters. That being said, I think we’ve reached the point where we understand each other but disagree, so I dont have much further to say if you dont as well.
I dunno, I didn’t get much that was tangible about how race swap was a sign of bad writing. While I agree that Miles and Peter are different a great many don’t agree and insist that race swapping spider-man was lazy and pandering.
Its less so the concept, and moreso the consistent execution. Kind of like theoretically a live action version of anime wasnt impossible to do in a good way, but until recently, all attempts to do so in the past were hilariously bad. And the fact that you cant seperate the racist talking points from the non racist ones is why I see a race swap without just creating a new character as a red flag. Studios have noticed if the shoehorn a social issue in that they can hide their bad writing behind the racist and sexists who’ll get angry just because a person of colour or a woman took the main role.
That kinda strikes me as backfilling a motive for the studios to fit a preferred view rather than being an actual insight. But supposing that’s true it seems like it supports the point that all the others changes don’t get that kind of response. The other changes aren’t considered pointless or lazy or pandering but the ones that do trigger the bigots, those do fall into that category it seems.
1: Just because I bring up one thing thats a red flag for lazy writing does not mean that there exist no other red flags for lazy writing
And 2: I’m pretty sure I’ve already brought it up, but the difference between this example and the other ones you brought up is the track record. If we are talking about just changing the characters race, I cant think of a single piece of media that did so in a way that added anything to the story. Its a red flag because all the previous times it happened it was bad.
I really feel like I’m at the point where I’m repeating myself though so I appreciate that this conversation has mostly felt in good faith, and I wish you a good rest of your day. Thank you for your time.
I think examples of the times that a race swap was the only thing that changed would probably have helped. I agree that without that you are kind of repeating yourself.
I mean I think the problem here is the like, “changing the race of an established character”, right. What established character? Black superman, or whatever else, isn’t superman, he’s black superman. That’s it, basically, that’s my justification. It’s not the same character text to text, even. Is it the same bilbo in every lord of the rings book? Is it the same bilbo sentence to sentence? It’s not like girlboss velma and dumb rich white guy fred are the same velma and fred, they just share the same symbols. If you actually dissect the characters and compared them, then you’d find very little in common. The show doesn’t even have scooby fucking doo, it’s not even called “scooby doo”, it’s, in my mind, and I think it should be in everyone else’s mind, it is tangentially related to scooby doo, at best, you know? I see it as a standalone work, and in that sense it’s just kind of a mediocre show that I don’t think anyone should really care about, rather than this kind of abomination on the face of scooby-doodom and this thing that we need to all be frothing about because scooby-doo has been done so dirty.
SO, all of that can be true, right, they just share symbols. But this is also true of race as a whole, the symbol of race, here, being like, whether or not somebody is black or white or asian or whatever. If you’re race-swapping superman, you know, I think it’s kind of more in line with the message of superman, if he’s the same guy, regardless of whatever race you decide to cast him as, you know? If you don’t change the backstory, if you do change the backstory, whatever, he sort of exists beyond it, as a kind of human ideal for everyone to live up to. For that to be true, superman has to be possible if you put him in basically any circumstance. So, even though superman himself is the same, have we “made a new character”, even though we’ve changed his race, maybe changed his background, and then, in line with that, we’ve maybe flavored him different in terms of like, say, what music or food he likes? I dunno if we really have or we haven’t. Made a new character, I mean. The character has changed, but the core remains the same, the label is the same, the symbols are the same. That’s kind of the question I’m asking, where do you draw the line as to what’s a “new” character, and what’s not? You could just as easily draw it to be where any change in surface level characteristics, from eye color, to hair color, to skin color, results in a “new” character, even if the character, of that character, remains the same. Red shirt shaggy vs green shirt shaggy.
So I dunno, really, like, I’ve never got this critique of like oh no we’re not being inclusive in the right way because we decided to make velma indian, instead of deciding to call the series Shmelma or whatever. What if they did that, what if her name was Shmelma? That’s an extremely surface level difference between the two, but now they have a separate set of labels, so are they separate characters now, or what? I think if I’m going to critique the show, it’s not really going to be on the basis of indian people not having their own shmelma, or even just their own separate scooby-doo, you know. I’m not going to condemn all indian people to forever only engaging with goobert and the ghost chasers, or whatever. If I’m going to critique the show, I’m gonna critique the show because the show itself is mediocre to bad, and has mediocre to bad writing, and cost too much money, and maybe I will critique it for, for some reason, the most popular multiracial iteration of scooby-doo has to also be the one that has the worst writing, where everyone can easily punch at it for that, and producers can also maybe try to use that as a smokescreen for putting out a mediocre show.
I dunno why I’m even talking about this shit, scooby-doo is bogus gen X bullshit. I’d rather watch like, the muppets. Nobody’s ever gonna really complain about kermit being race-swapped, I’ll tell you that.
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.
It’s interesting that you picked Spider-Man as the example of creating a different character being a better alternative, because there are plenty of racists out there that really hate that Miles Morales is even a thing. They would say “Why do we need a black Spider-Man? The original was fine!”
It’s almost like racists are only ever going to whine about inclusivity, and “characters remaining their own race” vs “creating new characters” is a moot point because the people out there who are upset by the former are going to be upset by the latter anyway.
Imagine if the new scooby show had a cast of all white kids and a single black, well written character was added and made a pivotal role in the gang. The exact same people complaining now about race swapping would be complaining then about the new character being shoe horned in because of “woke” inclusion. Just like they do with Miles Morales.
The answer is just that we need to keep creating media with both of those scenarios and accept that shows created with a single color cast are products of their time and we can do better now. Racists aren’t going to be happy either way.
Edit: Bring on the downvotes. If you consider “they’re not supposed to be that race” as a valid, lone criticism of a character, you might have to ask yourself some difficult questions.
Idk why I feel this way, but I feel like “but I like Miles Morales” is becoming the new “I voted for Obama so I can’t be racist”, which had replaced “I’m not racist, but…” for a while.
I would have just as much of a problem if they made blade white or asain or Latino and the same if they made black panther white. Changing some characters race is kind of a big deal as race is kind of an important issue. If all races were treated 100% the exact same and all had the same culture then it wouldn’t be a big deal.
I said if your lone criticism is that they changed the race of a character, you might be racist.
Obviously, if race plays into the story, there’s a valid reason to be bothered. But also obviously, if you’re upset that shaggy is black despite still being the stereotypical stoner type he always has been, you might need to think about why you’re upset.
The former logic should not be a sweeping ban on the latter from ever happening.
But also obviously, if you’re upset that shaggy is black despite still being the stereotypical stoner type he always has been, you might need to think about why you’re upset.
You mean Norville? Because there’s no “Shaggy” in Velma. And, err, he’s not exactly the same character, melanin aside.
I am someone still somewhat bothered by ethnicity-swapping (though not really for any of the reasons you described), but here’s an annecdote:
When I first started engaging with the Hannibal franchise, I started with the Mads Mikelson TV series.
The character of Jack was played by Lawrence Fishburne.
Then, I watched the old movies, and shocker - Jack is a white guy.
Yet, I didn’t care that Jack was black in the reboot. The only conclusion I could draw was that it didn’t annoy me because I had always known Jack as black.
Now, I could be totally wrong about this, but I think a lot of people get bent out of shape because it’s distracting above all else.
I couldn’t care less about Jack being black or white, he’s a side character in a movie I’ll watch once in my life. Yet, I was thinking about race-swapping in the middle of the movie.
That sounds like the same kind of shock as a character in something you’re used to being played by any different actor in a remake. And besides that, it’s not racist to acknowledge a race swap. It can be distracting. It’s racist when you make the point that it shouldn’t be done because the character is supposed to be a certain color for no other reason than your preference.
I would say it’s similar to the shock of a character played by another actor, but slightly different.
Unfortunately we were raised in a society where skin colour says more about a person, than the differences of a person’s face within that group.
Yet, there is more variation within groups than between them. This is no doubt a failure of the way my brain works, and regrettably I’m not the only one.
So when ethnicity-swapping happens, my brain defaults to “but what is the significance?”, and even when I remind myself that it doesn’t matter, it’s too late, my indoctrination has already kicked in and I’m taken out of the movie.
You know, I get what you’re saying. It definitely is ingrained in our society that skin color says more about a person. I also think it’s not wise to say we should just ignore it altogether.
The way my mind deals with it, honestly, is to create a new character with a slightly different personality. Instead of asking why they did it in the first place, I just try to acknowledge that it’s not the same character I’m expecting. If it’s a remake of something, it probably won’t be the same story I’m expecting either.
It’s like a multiverse thing. The problem only comes if you’re comparing the old to the new. So I try to avoid that.
But it isn’t wrong to say that your perception of a character changes with their skin color, because society conditioned us like that. It’s up to you to create a new perception though. It really only becomes wrong when you say that a character’s skin color breaks your perception of them because it’s unacceptable. Does that make sense?
Absolutely makes sense. Going back to the Hannibal example, Mickelson and Hopkins, both very different styles of character. One is creepy, the other is captivating, both are great.
Interesting thought experiment is the James Bond scenario with Idris Elba. There’s no good reason why Bond can’t be black. Yet, I feel like it should be explained with “James Bond is the codename we assign to 007”.
Though, I also feel this should have been explained at one point earlier in the franchise, so even mentioning it in the first “black Bond movie” to address it and move on is taking me out of it.
There really is no winning scenario.
You can’t make “008 - Bames Jond starring Idris Elba”
It’s almost like racists are only ever going to whine about inclusivity, and “characters remaining their own race” vs “creating new characters” is a moot point because the people out there who are upset by the former are going to be upset by the latter anyway.
Uhm, no?
Have you seen the reception to both Spiderverse movies? It was overwhelmingly positive. I’d say they were probably the most universally liked Marvel movies of the decade. You would really compare that to the reception the new Little Mermaid or Ghostbusters got and say “yeah, the same amount of people got upset by both things”?
It’s nowhere nearly close. Obviously, it’s also because the spiderverse movies are written much better, but that’s also a symptom of better writers being hired for better projects. The fact that raceswapping a character and writing an entirely different one are received the same way is just plain false. Not to mention, even better, just making new movies with black characters altogether. But those two things require considerably more effort than taking an old, already liked movie’s script and copy-pasting it with a random character of a different race. And Hollywood doesn’t like effort, they just like money and free advertising.
You obviously didn’t hear all the people complaining about Miles in the Spider-Man game, which is what I was referring to.
Have you considered that the racists in question just didn’t go see the Miles Morales movies? Also, the fact that they are independently good movies has to do with the turnout. The little mermaid remake and the Ghostbusters new movie weren’t exactly masterpieces. Saying that the spiderverse movies succeeded where they didn’t is wholly attributed to the metric of creating new characters vs race swapping others is just wrong. The fact is that those movies were lazy, and that was the reason they failed.
The fact is that those movies were lazy, and that was the reason they failed.
I addressed that before, in a sense. Imo, the raceswap is part of the laziness. And yes, the reason they failed is because they were lazy, but if they weren’t lazy they wouldn’t have been just bland raceswaps. That’s what I think about it, at least.
And honestly no, I didn’t hear complaining about the game, but I admittedly read very little about it online. My friends liked it a lot and that’s all I know. Complaining about that seems even dumber to me though: the franchise just got a very popular movie with a new main character, why wouldn’t you put him in the game too? I don’t think the complaints could’ve been that many, at least not at the level of those two above (or pretty much any disney remake).
And yes, the reason they failed is because they were lazy, but if they weren’t lazy they wouldn’t have been just bland raceswaps.
You’re confounding two variables, though, so this example is incapable of proving anything. Is this the result of half A and B? Just A? Just B? It’s not possible to know.
Further, even if it was true, that audiences just can’t handle black Ariel, I don’t think that means there isn’t a problem. If we’re not allowed to race swap characters, then that means we can’t really hire black actors. “We can just write new characters”? Yeah, we can do that. But you’re basically saying that the last 80 years of shared, televised cultural history, even past all of the racial segregation of the 50s, the 60s, and on, is just inaccessible to the “other kinds.” Like, is a black woman not allowed to write a Cinderella?
I don’t think the complaints could’ve been that many,
Last thing: You should go looking for these people more often. Not so you can be like them, just to see them. I used to think that we lived in a post-racism world years and years ago. You don’t really get a sense of how the public behaves until you survey them. It’s good for you, though; know thy enemy.
But you’re basically saying that the last 80 years of shared, televised cultural history, even past all of the racial segregation of the 50s, the 60s, and on, is just inaccessible to the “other kinds.” Like, is a black woman not allowed to write a Cinderella?
Not that much of a problem, imo, even if it was inaccessible to everyone. Do we really need to keep rehashing the same stuff over and over? I can understand stuff like War of the Worlds where the first movie wasn’t really appreciated, but if we already have a Cinderella movie people appreciate, can’t we just… leave it alone? A lot of unnecessary remakes got hate even without raceswaps, that’s not the only issue. Remakes of bad stuff, on the other hand, are easier to “change up” because fewer people are attached to the original, and if it’s based on literature usually race isn’t specified at all.
Last thing: You should go looking for these people more often. Not so you can be like them, just to see them.
Oh I know that they exist. But quantifying them is pretty much impossible. We know there’s a lot of racists around, but it’s hard to say how many of those are actual Spiderman fans who got upset by the sequel game. The complainers might be bad actors, or a loud but really small minority… the internet is full of echo chambers, it’s hard to get an actual grasp on people’s opinions.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It misses the most important line: and finally I wanna scream, and I was like, “WHY ARE THEY REPLACING EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER WITH SOMEONE WHO IS DIVERSE??”
It’s weird, it’s hokey, these remakes look & feel very forced, agenda driven. I ask for more than original characters; I want actually new fucking ideas. New stories! We’re not seeing very many of those lately; we’re getting re-skinned versions of established characters, they just cut off their face & wear it around, and we’re supposed to act like we don’t notice. If we do notice, we’re racist, or sexist, some -ist or -phobe. No, your work is just a lazy, contrived retell of a story that was already told pretty well. Wrapped up nice & neat with a bow on top.
Personally I’m not super invested in the whole debacle, and I simply choose to not see the new stuff & remakes. I’m an adult man, I have no kids, anyway. No dog in this fight. It’s alright. If it’s truly better and/or a fantastic story, it will probably bear out at the box office & I’ll hear about how what an incredible movie it is.
So maybe actually integrate that character into a new concept entirely. Make a new story where you can choose whatever race everyone is supposed to be from the start. Don’t take an existing story and change the races just so you can go “See guys! I’m being inclusive! I made this character black! I’m so progressive!”
I’m honestly speaking generally not just about Scooby Doo. It just so happens that this portrayal of Scooby Doo is just pure blatant pandering.
Why did they even call it Scooby Doo? Why even attach the show to that franchise when it’s so separated in it’s basic concepts?
The answer is because they were trying to use the franchises name to push some stupid race pandering bullshit.
They put in all the effort to change each character to the point that they only resemble their original designs by physical appearance. They literally could have just come up with a completely different show that had nothing to do with Scooby Doo at all.
I call it pandering specifically because it’s disingenuous. It’s not a real attempt at racial inclusivity it’s going “Ah fuck we’re getting bitched at for not being inclusive. Fuck it this characters black now. They act exactly the same because we can’t be bothered to actually put in the work to make the cultural changes, but, good enough. Fuck you”
And that’s why it’s pandering. They literally just change the color of their skin without giving a single fuck about cultural identities.
Edit: Removed my first paragraph because I phrased it wrong.
It kills any nostalgia I have for the character, because race swapping very rarely means just a change in skin color
I’m fine with black characters. I prefer female characters. Ultimately, I don’t care that much. Give me good writing
Make me care about them for who they are. Oh, you want to make my beloved character Pakistani? Go fuck yourself. I don’t care about the actor, don’t change my character.
You want to make a Haitian main character? I’m listening.
Write well, pay respect to the characters and the work. That’s the only rule…I don’t know why it’s seemingly impossible to follow
Write well, pay respect to the characters and the work. That’s the only rule…I don’t know why it’s seemingly impossible to follow
To do that, you need these special people called writers and you need to give them time and money, and that seems like a hassle, doesn’t it? Can’t we just make unpaid interns brainstorm stuff and figure out what will drive engagement on social media instead?
follows Velma who is an amazing girl-boss who solves all the mysteries
Velma as a character was a lot of things, but she was mostly an insufferable, pathologically egotistical narcissist with hallucinatory delusions and severe mommy issues. Like, the show was horribly written, don’t get me wrong, but let’s not act like she was a Mary Sue.
I agree with your assessment, I maybe should have included an ‘/s’ after amazing girl boss. That’s the image she has of herself, that’s how she carries herself. Like an insufferable, pathologically egotistical narcissist with hallucinatory delusions and severe mommy issues would do. 🙂
I didn’t pick up on the sarcasm in your description. And I’m usually pretty good at that. Not sure if that’s a flaw in my reading comprehension or if your intent just didn’t carry in that sentence. Maybe a bit of both.
I believe it’s because it’s so universally seen as terrible that it got renewed. People couldn’t believe it could be that bad, but was, in fact, that bad. So many people watched it either to rip on it or to see if it was as bad as it was made out to be and that got the show a lot of ratings on paper I bet.
Execs see numbers and conflate that with a “good show”. It’s our own fault really. I still haven’t seen it yet though so I can’t weigh in on it’s quality at all
I mostly started watching to see what they were up in arms about. By the penultimate episode I realized it was the runrate level of “woke” and how pathetic the snowflakes are. Enjoyed the series and excited for more.
I did! I’m a cheap date. I like the one with the women, and the one with the kids. Life’s too short to be critical. I know what’s junk and what’s not. I just don’t care enough to be discerning when deciding the method to turn my brain off sometimes
Sometimes I wish I could drop my standards like that. As soon as the cash-grab shines through most things come off as too disingenuous and condescending for me to enjoy.
I wasn’t interested in the show until I heard the buzz as a result of people whining about how “woke” the show was. I enjoy representation in media and wondered what the problem was. I watched. I kept waiting with baited breath for the big woke reveal But it never came. Bc it’s not that controversial.
I think the “woke” was just the race swapping mainly.
Tbh, I also hate race/gender swap movies/shows, but the reason is because I also hate reboots like Total Recall where the only similarity between the OG and the remake was “mars.” I just hate remakes at all and “oh look we made the ghostbusters women now” just feels so lazy like “tell me you’re out of ideas without telling me you’re out of ideas.”
Furthermore it’s pandering at best but honestly it may be kinda sexist/racist that they can’t think of strong female/black characters they can create to have their own legacy like, Ellen Ripley in Alien or even goddamn Thelma and Louise.
Frankly idgaf what color/gender the lead is, I just want an actual original concept. No, not another “new” marvel movie either lol.
Endlessly rehashed? Alternative underrepresented ideology is overdone? Sounds a lot like “I don’t care what they do, as long as they keep it in the bedroom” … you’re only okay with it, if it’s amount you’re comfortable with, not a threshold determined by the underrepresented.
I meant “scooby doo” itself. And yes, there have been . We don’t need more we need new. I will not forgive the world for “Teen Titans Go!”
Your attempt to paint me as “phobic” or “ist” has nothing to do with the fact I don’t like remakes. I did like The Proud Family, I liked The Boondocks, because they were new and good, and they were still representation. You can take that strawman down anytime you like.
Edit: The PJs, Black Dynamite, Mike Tyson Mysteries too.
Yeah it’s not as big of a deal, and I sometimes think they use over negative hype as a form of marketing when they have nothing else and don’t know how else to market it.
Which is lazy. Just like the show. I dunno, the writing just felt so bland and trying to be edgy because “look at how many people will be pissed at what I wrote” instead of actually thinking of something clever. Sorry the meh shows piss me off more than the garbage cause it feels like they know better.
So that’s your perspective and it’s valid and matters. If you consider the perspective of others, you may find it’s not lazy, but actually one of the only forms of representation in mainstream media of these ideas. People are particularly butthurt when you include their nostalgia and find it an afront (sp?) to them.
So whereas one familiar but not invested may see an on the nose literal call out of how “we already know these groups feel,” the aforementioned, underrepresented groups’ members may see themselves finally represented on screen.
its like community, you need the character diversity to drive the character interactions. If you do shit like that it no longer follows the original story line at all, which is the only reason for it to be in that same IP.
That’s a great analogy, and points towards parts of the downfall of Community, as those diverse roles shifted with Chevy Chase leaving, Britta’s character changes, bringing together Troy, Abed, and Annie, etc. It’s a show I dearly love, but it’s also a great demonstration of how a show can struggle to keep the magic going from a working formula.
Honestly, i think the down turn of the ending of the show as the characters disappear is part of it. You would have to be pretty brash to think you can keep a show good while having killed two prominent characters in the show.
Nothing great lasts forever, especially friendships. Things come and go, you just have to learn how to appreciate what you have sometimes.
![[Alzwards Corner] EXCUSE ME?!](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/f683868d-d0bb-4c7e-83a5-4cccb60ff9ec.png){kind=link}
Add comment