general media Forced Diversity

[Black Sabbath 2,484]

17 minutes ago, KillerKingBakudan said:

You can't tell me you'd be open to having a korean Blade or a transgendered Black Panther.

Who says I'm not?  

And speaking of accusing people of having double standards;

17 minutes ago, KillerKingBakudan said:

Don't lump everybody into one viewpoint and accuse them of making double standards. 

I'm not, I'm just saying that as a whole the "forced diversity" complainers seem a bit hypocritical. I'm sure that there's plenty of people who complain about it regardless of what race/gender/sexuality etc is being forced but that doesn't change that a large part doesn't. Heck, I have the same complaint against people who are against whitewashing. 

Edit: "But there were a lot of complaints about Tina Swinton. Doesn't that prove you wrong?" I hear you say. Well, no. Mainly because said complaints came not from those normally complaining about "forced diversity" but rather from, well, tumblr that complained about whitewashing. Which was stupid and hypocritical since a lot of those who complained are otherwise for changing the race, gender etc of characters. 

17 minutes ago, KillerKingBakudan said:

It's not directly responsible for bad writing, but it IS enough to alienate people who only want more of what they're familiar with.

And maybe those people aren't the target audience for a reboot? 

This is also ignoring the fact that people comain about "forced diversity" even in media that aren't based on anything else.

Edited March 4, 2019 by Black Sabbath

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 2,711]

I suppose there is nothing wrong with making a traditionally female character male and a traditionally non-European character European (though I would wonder why change an already established character when a new character could be invented unless said character does not have a fixed identity). I think much of this supposed diversity would be far more tolerable if no one attempted to portray themselves as morally superior for supporting it (or accusing others of moral inferiority for questioning it).

I have not seen it myself, but, from what I am aware, Ghostbusters 2016 itself was okay but the media attention around it gave it a very terrible image to the extent where I believe even the director (or someone with a significant role in the making of the film?) himself accused anyone not watching it was sexist.

I will suspect forced diversity if said media is portraying a historical event in a clearly inaccurate manner while claiming that it is accurate; it would be absurd to have a European community in the Han dynasty, Indian elites in the Mali Empire, or a significant population of Iranian Muslims in 1200 Novgorod (examples of possible exceptions being a relatively few merchants and diplomats) simply for the sake of diversity.

Edited March 4, 2019 by Luna the Great of all the Russias

[AlbaTross 1,581]

Oh, this debate where the alt-left gets offended if there aren't enough women and minorities in a given piece of fictional media and push for more diversity, and the alt-right gets offended if a piece of fictional media has the audacity to put anyone who isn't straight, white and male in a leading role, and/or in a role that portrays him/her as remotely capable and useful to the narrative?  Yeah, I wish both sides would just get dragged off by people in white suits.  Remember when we could talk about any kind of media we wanted without annoying identity politics entering into the equation?  I miss those days.  

[chirox the pony 1,334]

The problem with term "forced diversity" is that it's what we call "loaded". In that the framing of the question automatically has negative connotations. If I was to go up to you and say "I want forced diversity in films" I'd sound like some crazy control freak who wants to control all art forms. Thus making the term inherently difficult to debate. It also doesn't help that it was largely coined by internet pundits where it's difficult to get a consensus on what the term even means. Thus I would use the more mainstream and academic term which has a much clearer definition which would be "tokenism". That is having minorities there for the sake of having minorities and then using that as a means to make yourself morally superior when it is dishonest. In that sense I think you'll find that not that many people (with the exception of a very small online social media users) really fall for it. Nobody likes these completely bland characters with nothing going for them other than "oh look a black man". Not many people really fall for that and it shows in the box office performance of a lot of these films.

In fact I'd question what the point even is. There have been plenty of films with minority characters over the past few decades. I guess gender was kind of neglected until recently and LGBTQ characters are only now coming on screen and that's fantastic that that's happening. But why can't they make it more like say.... Lando. He's black, and it's never talked about. It's just there. Why can't we get the same with say two women casually kissing on screen. Just slip that in there and don't draw attention to it. Doing it like that makes it seem normal, Because it is normal. 

I actually have quite a few black friends who I've talked to about this and they don't like it either. When they talk about racial issues they talk about police brutality and job opportunities and educational problems. They never complain about the fact that there weren't enough black people in some big hollywood blockbuster because they have actual worries in life. And I think that's what people hate the most. Of course there are actual far-right people who hate minorities and they are a problem. But a lot of people hate this attitude from the industry because of just how privileged you have to be to sit there and worry about characters in movies all day. That's what I feel is the main crux of the issue is. It's not the fact that some people out there have it so good that there main "political" concerns is that "oh this doesn't have a gay character in it, I'm gonna protest on twitter all day". It's that attitude I cannot stand. In a world where there are serious problems going on that so many people could do something about that are just being ignored in favour of how "woke" you can make a film.

I dream of de-politicising entertainment again. Just have women and minorities in there and have it be treated as a normal thing.

 

[Cruising 9]

21 minutes ago, Luna the Great of all the Russias said:

I think much of this supposed diversity would be far more tolerable if no one attempted to portray themselves as morally superior for supporting it (or accusing others of moral inferiority for questioning it).

[KillerKingBakudan 702]

26 minutes ago, AlbaTross said:

Oh, this debate where the alt-left gets offended if there aren't enough women and minorities in a given piece of fictional media and push for more diversity, and the alt-right gets offended if a piece of fictional media has the audacity to put anyone who isn't straight, white and male in a leading role, and/or in a role that portrays him/her as remotely capable and useful to the narrative?  Yeah, I wish both sides would just get dragged off by people in white suits.  Remember when we could talk about any kind of media we wanted without annoying identity politics entering into the equation?  I miss those days.  

Identity politics in film will never go away until the Hollywood left stops propagandizing it. That's just how commies roll.

But I think everybody can/should agree that tokenism is all forced diversity amounts to in most cases. It's disrespectful to everybody who wants quality writing or respect to a series' history, as well as the groups that are represented, always being mishandled like they're undeserving of the individual care and development that human characters need. Diverse groups are like pets to the industry. If people aren't objecting to that, that speaks volumes about what their real priorities are.

[Passion 3,478]

As a person who has a very vivid imagination when it comes to weaving sceneries and playing out stories written in books in his mind, I must say I absolutely despise forced diversity in any kinds of reworks or continuations. Sure, it is absolutely fine if diversity is there from the very start. Sure, it is still fine when, f.e., there's no other actor available for a movie to be able to give it credit properly. But doing it just for the sake of having it? That's already pushing the patience of people who've grown attached to the image they have been given originally.

In short, it's just annoyingly uncomfortable to drop habits of imagining a character the other way you are already used to.

 

But there are also different issues forced diversity can pose. I'll give you a very recent example and I'll ask you to justify to me how is it even remotly fine to change that one character for the very sake of having diversity in the world/story/book/movie/your choice. Two words:
 

Ciri, Witcher.

You all probably know Netflix wanted to change her ethnicity to represent the darkest skin tones of our world, just to diversify the cast. However, this decision makes absolutely no sense. There's no justifying it really other than applying the "forced" diversity label on its head.

[Steve Piranha 28,876]

50 minutes ago, Passion said:

 

Ciri, Witcher.

 

HOHOOOOOOO, woke Ciri, now that can’t be denied of forced diversity, can it ?

I mean: “we are looking for a young actress, but more importantly, NOT WHITE” to portray a white character in the books”. That makes sense 

I miss the days of Ability over Appearance trope where actors could play the role of a character of another race because they kicked ass in the audition like these guys 

[TheAnimationFanatic 3,543]

That it's largely not a thing. Or rather, not as much of a thing as some have made it out to be. Having a character or multiple characters of various ethnicities or sexual orientations is not inherently a bad thing.

That being said, there is an issue with having an obligatory character or ethnicity for the hell of it AND having their ethnicity being their sole defining trait.

[Goat-kun 2,500]

18 hours ago, Black Sabbath said:

Ra is the god of the sun. 

Geb is the god of the earth. 

Nut is the godess of the sky. 

Then we Set who is the god of the deserts, chaos, foreigners and some other stuff. 

Isis was married to Osiris (god of the underwold) and was the godess of magic. 

Anubis was the god of mummification and was the son to either Set or Osiris (that depends on what myth you're looking at). 

Just wanna be clear, your argument is that it's only forced diversity if people care about it. It's not about the quality of the writing or anything like that?

 

Great to see someone interested in mythology. Anyhow, I'm trying to portray the whole pathology of forced diversity. It is not forced diversity if it works within the IP and agrees with the established fandom. That's why I hinted on a character's fame being an issue when it comes to change. Any change. Even a change of a character's profession or family background can be an issue, and that's quite a small change compared to the traits of the oppression pyramid. That is why it's better to just create another character if you want something different from a righteous flying white dude in a cape and inverted underpants. Here's where the problem starts. It takes time and effort to create a character that the public will like and even then it can still fail. That's why the regressive lefties figured out they can just change an already established famous character and insert the desired traits. They force "diversity" onto a character. That is the most notorious example. You can argue the quality of writing all you want, but the question remains: Why would you change that character? Would the story be better if Batman was black or gay? Nope, cause you wouldn't be writing about those traits if you actually were a good writer that is not motivated by politics.

 

Is making Egyptian characters white stupid? In most cases. However, it is unlikely that the mentality behind that decision was political. Can it come from racism or racial preferences of creators? Yes. Does it strive to achieve a specific political goal like forced diversity does? No. And if it does it's really bad at communicating that. Then we also need to ask ourselves: Would then making a character black due to your racial preference be forced diversity? I'd say no. Asians do that all the time and nobody blinks an eye. Whatever floats your boat, I say. Just don't whine if it fails to earn money.

[Goat-kun 2,500]

18 hours ago, Twilight Luna said:

I didn’t remember there being an outrage over Fury being black in the movies. He was black in the Ultimate universe and looked just likeSamuel L Jackson. 

Samuel Jackson can pull it off cause he's Samuel Jackson. Though, Fury was never among the most established character in the Marvel Universe. Then again, Iron Man was also quite unknown to the general public before Downey Jr. took the mantle. Now he's Tony Stark forever. Well, I guess that's one way to establish a character in the eyes of your would-be fans. It may also be the case that Fury will now always be a grumpy ol' black dude due to Samuel Jackson.

[Black Sabbath 2,484]

3 hours ago, Goat-kun said:

It is not forced diversity if it works within the IP and agrees with the established fandom. That's why I hinted on a character's fame being an issue when it comes to change.

I don't think it's fair to place wether or not the fandom agrees with the change over the quality of the writing. If it works within the IP is a decent requirement, I can buy that. But the quality of the writing should definitely matter more than what the establishment fandom thinks. 

.

3 hours ago, Goat-kun said:

Why would you change that character? Would the story be better if Batman was black or gay?

Would the story be worse if he was? The answer to both of these questions are not necessarily. 

As for reasons for why such a chance would be made, 1) Maybe a non-white actor gave the best audition 2) Maybe the writers just wanted to include some representation of gay people.

Adaptations have made bigger changes to characters than their sexual orientation or race. Acting as if the character is gonna turn to shit just because they're gay instead of straight is just idiotic. 

"Oh but why don't they just write new characters that are gay?" 

You mean like they did with Tracer and soilder 76, because that generated no  outcry at all? "Oh but those were never confirmed to be gay from the start so they doesn't count". Alright, what about that one gay guy and that non-binary person from Apex Legends then,

In short, if you're gonna get shit from making a character gay, wether they're completely new or already established, then why not pick the one that's already a garentueed success? 

3 hours ago, Goat-kun said:

Can it come from racism or racial preferences of creators? Yes. Does it strive to achieve a specific political goal like forced diversity does? No.

How does it not? If you do something due to racism then surely it strives to achieve a political goal. I mean, removing representation purely for representation sake is equally politically motivated as adding representation purely for representation sake.

Also, so it's forced representation if I make a batman that's gay because I want there to be more gay superheroes but if I do so out of a hatred for straight people, it's not. That makes no sense. 

Edited March 4, 2019 by Black Sabbath

[Jedishy 3,542]

Ya know I had paragraphs typed out. Sources linked. Then I deleted them. Do you know why? Because of the tones set by opening salvo of this thread by the OP and the post that followed. 

Disagree and you are whatever ist or phobe they deem you. Are you of the gender, ethnicity, or sexual preference in question but disagree? They will likely claim you are brainwashed by oppression or failing that some sort of privileged. So what is the point of trying to share your view? Yet some part of me is going to power forward with this.....

All I will say is this. If you change a character from straight to gay the only thing you are doing is pandering to a crowd that will never be happy and it will never be enough. Further its insulting as if that is the only thing that matters. Let's ram this trait into a former playboys life to sooth cries for representation. Sorry but no that just smacks of condescension and laziness.

When I can find better gay characters and interactions with them in Married with Children then I can in modern media we have an issue. Spiderman and Mary Jane are iconic. So are Batman and Catwomen or Batgirl. Changing those to represent me rather than writing a powerful and in-depth character of their own is just freaking sad and panders to something I never wanted.(Edit in bold for clarity )If you want to put in gay characters at all then I want to see NEW characters who are gay but written to where it's not forced into an old mold to score points. And the idea that who the actor was gay so they changed it? Nah sorry buddy if Niel Patrick Harris can be Barney Stenson we can have a gay guy be straight Spiderman or Batman.  

You want a gay character in the Bat Family? Write a gay teen that went looking for justice after their boyfriend/girlfriend was killed by homophobes one night. Oh gee two seconds and I came up with a better idea than forcing Batman to be who he is not. But people will complain well guess what comics and movies did that to themselves by messing with existing characters. So deal with it.

Stop trying to morph existing characters into something they are not because you are too lazy to write something new with depth. Stop this crap of listening to people that want diversity for the sake of it so let's kill beloved franchises and characters to score points by making them ( insert trait here ). It does not work and people hate it. 

Stop listening to complaints of both sides when they are clearly not fans of the series and are speaking out of their rears. ( Looking at you Last Jedi and Solo haters ) But how about listening to fans when they say the movie special effects look like crap and the comedy is lame and the whole thing smacks of pandering ya know instead of calling them sexist for wanting to protect their beloved franchise. ( Sorry all-female Ghostbusters. You jacked up now own it ) 

[Black Sabbath 2,484]

 

15 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

And the idea that who the actor was gay so they changed it? 

Why yes, that is a dumb idea. Which is why nobody proposed it. I did say that you could justify making, say, Batman black if a black actor gave the best audition. WhatI did say  was that wanting representation was a valid reason to turn a straight character gay.

Also, Batman is an especially poor target for your little rant. Comics are notorious for massively changing characters on a whim, so why should things like race and sexuality be off the table? 

Take All Star Batman and Robin for example, anybody who has so much as glanced in the general direction of a Batman poster before reading that can tell you that Batman differs quite a bit in that version from the normal continuity. 

Or how about Superman, that guy has changed everything from his superpowers to his personality multiple times. I mean, compare silverage superman to the one in man of steel and tell me they aren't completely different.

In short, why are those changes okay but not changes to characters sexuality? 

46 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

But how about listening to fans when they say the movie special effects look like crap and the comedy is lame and the whole thing smacks of pandering ya know instead of calling them sexist for wanting to protect their beloved franchise

Maybe if less of the criticism were about the gender of the cast, you wouldn't have been called sexist. 

Like, I don't like the 2016 Ghostbusters but let's at least aknowledge that it did receive a lot of sexist criticism, even before they commentated that.  

[KillerKingBakudan 702]

6 hours ago, Black Sabbath said:

How does it not? If you do something due to racism then surely it strives to achieve a political goal. I mean, removing representation purely for representation sake is equally politically motivated as adding representation purely for representation sake.

Also, so it's forced representation if I make a batman that's gay because I want there to be more gay superheroes but if I do so out of a hatred for straight people, it's not. That makes no sense. 

You are conflating the MOTIVES with the practice of making the change itself. Maybe you do want more gay heroes in movies. Maybe it's not done out of hatred for straight people. So what? That does mot make it any less forced.

The fact is that many people have an attachment to the Batman they've remembered for generations. You know making such a radical change to his character would not be accepted, and would more than likely be interpreted as hateful and/or lazy. So why can't you make a totally new and ORIGINAL gay character? One that's defined by their own merits and not just who they're interested in fucking? Are stereotypes all you care about?

Edited March 5, 2019 by KillerKingBakudan

[Black Sabbath 2,484]

Just now, KillerKingBakudan said:

That does mot make it any less forced.

I agree. Hence why I found that argument a bit odd.

2 minutes ago, KillerKingBakudan said:

So why you can't make a totally new and ORIGINAL gay character

For the same reason Frank Miller didn't make a totally new and original character when he wrote All Star Batman and Robin. For the same reason DC didn't write totally new and original characters when they wrote new-52. For the same reason Marvel didn't write a totally new and original character instead of using Thanos in the avengers. 

The point that I'm getting at is that these characters have changed a lot in different continuities and such. So why is sexuality the straw that breaks the camels back? 

Like, do you honestly think that the writers behind infinity war sat down and said "Oh let's get rid of Thanos relationship with death which is a pretty huge fucking part of his character in the comics. But don't make him gay, we don't want him to differ from how he is in the comics."

Just now, KillerKingBakudan said:

The fact is that many people have an attachment to the Batman they've remembered for generations.

And him being gay would change that because...?  

10 minutes ago, KillerKingBakudan said:

Are stereotypes all you care about?

You could make Batman gay without stereotyping him. You could just include a scene of him flirting with a guy the same way he flirts with catwoman. 

[Jedishy 3,542]

3 minutes ago, Black Sabbath said:

Batman black if a black actor gave the best audition.

Nope sorry but when you have no whites allowed Ciri or cries of whitewashing of Ahsoka Tano this does not fly. Bruce Wayne is a white guy and straight. Changing characters race or sexuality is always going to be BS. Because the reality is that as adults those rarely change and if someone made a gay character straight people would lose their freaking minds. 

5 minutes ago, Black Sabbath said:

In short, why are those changes okay but not changes to characters sexuality? 

55 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

People can discover powers and change their personality as they grow. Do you know what generally does not change for adults? Their sexuality and you know what never changes? Your race. And when we have the cries of whitewashing or queer erasure it makes it double BS. 

8 minutes ago, Black Sabbath said:

Maybe if less of the criticism were about the gender of the cast, you wouldn't have been called sexist. 

Me? I was called sexist? Way to do exactly what I said you would in my first post. 

Never been called sexist and could have cared less about the gender of the cast until the trailer came out and they showed it was a trash remake with a woman find/replace of the actual Ghostbusters. People pointing out the obvious is not sexism its spotting the reality of it. Had they made an all new GB movie with those women as the heirs to the old crew I doubt anyone would have given a crap about their gender. But since they decided to replace the old crew with a cheap remake people heard quacking saw the waddle and called a duck a duck. 

[Gestum 2,493]

17 minutes ago, KillerKingBakudan said:

So why you can't make a totally new and ORIGINAL gay character?

First of, because people complain about that too. See Overwatch or Apex for that lesson.

Secondly, is the same reason for why someone couldn't make a totally new and original character for the "Dark night" trilogy. I mean if you compare that trilogy with the original comics from the 40s, you would see that there's been a radical change in his character. One that I would argue is even more radical than if he was gay. So why isn't that viewed as forced and bad?

[Jeric 46,835]

On 3/3/2019 at 2:51 PM, Goat-kun said:

Ravioli, ravioli, there's nothing wrong with Spider Loli.

 

 

 

 

Now that that's settled, let's clean up all this straw laying around the thread. There is a clear difference between diversity and forced diversity. Forced diversity is pretty much a part of the left's concealed intolerance as it reduces each and every character down to their gender, sexual orientation, and color of their skin. You can observe how the lefties in this thread immediately locked onto those superficial traits. They can't see any character as something more than the sum of their color and genitalia ... and who they wanna pork. The same goes for the Hollywood elite. That's why their characters tend to be unrelatable pieces of trash.

 

 

 

Now let's be clear about something: Black Panther is not forced diversity. He's an established character with an established backstory same as Thor and Iron Man. The media did portray this movie as something that it's not, but that's their problem. Can't tell rabid socialists not to politicize literally everything under the sun.

 

 

 

Then there are characters like Cpt Marvel and Rey. That's not forced diversity either. It's just more of lefties putting politics before everything else, thus creating boring pieces of animated cardboard that can do everything and then some. Take that you incels!

 

 

 

Then there's making preexisting characters black, LGTBINARF, fat, unattractive, Muslim and all that good oppression pyramid jazz just to make a political point. Now that's forced diversity. It can also be argued that using those oppression pyramid traits for new characters can be considered forced diversity if those traits go against the established worldbuilding and/or visual design, or if those traits play an overwhelmingly large role when it comes to a character's identity. For instance: having a fat Samoan woman in G.I. Joe is forced diversity, but having an athletic Samoan woman with American citizenship would not. Having a Muslim superhero leans heavily to the forced diversity, but having a Muslim that is a superhero does not. Context matters.

 

You make a point. Shadowcat/Kitty Pryde is Jewish but to say it is a defining part of her identity is a huge stretch. These small elements can add realistic pieces to a character in small doses. I do understand the allure of representation, but that representation does not have to come at the expense of characterization. 

There are times in a story that a characters religious identity can make for great storytelling. Daredevil and Nightcrawler stories both leaner heavily on Catholic elements of their character when the story needed those themes. It’s usually when these elements are not needed and are mentioned too often that it feels tacked on. Race and orientation can be handled like the religions themes I mentioned above (ignoring that X-Men stands as a allegory for most of those already). 

[Black Sabbath 2,484]

36 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

Nope sorry but when you have no whites allowed Ciri or cries of whitewashing of Ahsoka Tano this does not fly. 

It's almost like I've said that I find complaining whitewashing to be equally dumb. 

36 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

People can discover powers and change their personality as they grow

You know, this isn't actually a half bad point. Too bad it has nothing to do with my point. 

If your argument for the changes in Supermans character from the silver age to man of steel is because people change as they grow older, why don't MoS Superman show any similarities to how Superman was in those old Superboy comics during the parts of the movie he's a kid? 

The obvious anwser is because it's two different versions of Superman and so there's gonna be differences between them. But that begs the question why can't one of those differences be his sexuality?

And here's another thing that don't change as you age, your backstory. So by your logic ever piece of media that features Lex Luther should have his main motivation to kill Superman be that Superman is the one who made Lex Luthor bald? I mean, we don't want any changes to the character, am I right? 

36 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

Me? I was called sexist?

You as in you Ghostbusters fans, not you as in you personally. If you're not a fan of Ghostbusters, I apologize for assuming that you were. 

 

Edited March 4, 2019 by Black Sabbath

[Jedishy 3,542]

53 minutes ago, Black Sabbath said:

It's almost like I've said that I find complaining whitewashing to be equally dumb. 

1 hour ago, Jedishy said:

You have asked why it does not fly. I responded with this as a bolstering reason. If people want diversity via character appropriation then they can silence themselves if it happens the other way once in a while. But since it does work that way this reason stands. Just because YOU dont think that way does not mean the bulk of the people clamoring to kill existing characters are not guilty of it. 

53 minutes ago, Black Sabbath said:

And here's another thing that don't change as you age, your backstory. So by your logic ever media that features Lex Luther should have his main motivation to kill Superman be that Superman is the one who made Lex Luthor bald? I mean, we don't want any changes to the character, am I right? 

Ok so let's make Batman a black guy from DC that makes a power suit to fight crime.... oh wait crap that would be John Henry Irons backstory wouldn't it? There is a difference between changing a character a bit to play with new arcs and making Batman into Steel. There are core things that make a character who they are. 

Examples 

Batman:                                                                                             Spiderman

Insane brainpower                                                                              Science prodigy

Dead Parents turned him into crimefighter                                        Death of Uncle Ben formative

Relationships with Catwoman and Batgirl                                         Relationship with Mary Jane and Black Cat

Further, there is a far cry from changing a silly reason for hating someone to changing a very formative part of who they are. Fixing bad writing is one thing pandering to cries for diversity at the expense of the story? That is another. 

Do I need to go on? SPOILER FOR BOOK FROM A CERTAIN POINT OF VIEW 

Spoiler

Should I point to the erasure of people like the Tarkin family in the new SW book from a different point of view to cram him into a relationship with a clone trooper or at least hint at it and how forced that feels? 

 Why is this change so bad? I will explain why using Nick Furt as the perfect example. Nick Fury was changed with little notice why? Three reasons 1. He was not as well known. 2. Nick Fury Jr was indeed black and looked like Sam Jackson. 3. There was no demands from SJWs to take over the character. It was well written, based on existing lore, and without any wiff of pandering. 

Do you want to do an alt-universe version of Batman? Had this happened 30 years ago with the right writing and such it would likely be fine. But now the time for that has passed because the creators have proven they cant be trusted and will most likely churn out dreck without a care in the world to good characters or lore or even the actual fans of the comics. Not to mention people being tired of sorry half-hearted reboots. Golden age and New 52 were awesome and well-written while often playing with new world versions of a character not changing an existing character firmly cemented in a particular universe. Justice Lords Superman from Earth 50 thumbs up. Taking Superman and chucking Lois Lane off the top of the Daily Planet to make him from the ghetto and gay? Yea sorry its just not going to be trusted anymore. Like I said there was a time that if this was done in a well written way with good characters it would fly. But after the rise of the extreme ( force forgive me for using this stupid term ) SJW types and the nasty comments towards rightfully upset fans? Nah no one is going to trust it. Nor in my opinion should they. 

Maybe someone like you could do a great job with an honest heart at making these changes. Because you seem to have the smarts and a decent set of motivations. But that is not what we are getting. We are getting political pandering, crappy writing, the fans being maligned when the concerns are valid. So people have rightly lost faith. Im done with people pandering to my sexuality then calling me a phobe or ist or token or insert crap here ism. People killed the good will and faith that was there with this stuff. So either make new charactes that are halfway decent or ride the tiger and get the claws without my pity. Creators cant cry that they fed the PC beast and that its turned on them and people hate them for creating it. 

[Black Sabbath 2,484]

21 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

Just because YOU dont think that way does not mean the bulk of the people clamoring to kill existing characters are not guilty of it. 

True,I'll give you that. 

21 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

Batman:                                                                                             Spiderman

Insane brainpower                                                                              Science prodigy

Dead Parents turned him into crimefighter                                        Death of Uncle Ben formative

Relationships with Catwoman and Batgirl                                         Relationship with Mary Jane and Black Cat

And to think, you could turn them into black people and nothing of this would have to change. 

As for the Batman's relationship with catwoman and batgirl being a central part of his character, I disagree. After all, he's gone on to have many other relationships after that. At least bring up Thal al Ghul's daughter who he had a child with. And hey, if you so desperate want to include that relationships, you could always turn Catwoman into a guy. 

23 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

Fixing bad writing is one thing pandering to cries for diversity at the expense of the story? That is another. 

I don't think it have to be at the expense of the story. Harley Quinn's relationship with Posion Ivy for example is pretty well written. 

21 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

Further, there is a far cry from changing a silly reason for hating someone to changing a very formative part of who they are.

You mean a very formative part like how Batman V Superman removed Batman's stance on killing? That seems like a bit more of a drastic change to me than if they were to change his sexuality or race. 

21 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

But now the time for that has passed because the creators have proven they cant be trusted and will most likely churn out dreck without a care in the world to good characters or lore or even the actual fans of the comics.

I disagree. If we follow that logic, then no writer should ever bring in new things into any comic because writers have churned out dreck without a thought about good characters or lore or the comic's fans for as long as comics have existed. For example, remember that awful X-men run where they revealed that Nightcrawler belonged to a race of teleporting demons and that Angel belonged to a race of winged people with healing blood?

I get what you're trying to say, but those kind of issues goes back as far as well, comics themselves. Diversity didn't create those problem, nor is automatically a part of it. 

[Jedishy 3,542]

Just now, Black Sabbath said:

Thal al Ghul's daughter who he had a child with. And hey, if you so desperate want to include that relationships, you could always turn Catwoman into a guy. 

Ok look I dont like her so  you cant make my headcanon change. Sure you could to a massive gender swap and it might even be ok. But 9 out of 10 times its not what we are getting. So people stopped trusting it. 

3 minutes ago, Black Sabbath said:

I don't think it have to be at the expense of the story. Harley Quinn's relationship with Posion Ivy for example is pretty well written. 

32 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

Yea but it did not change her situation with Joker and was well done and not a central part of anything nor was it hyped up as some sort of hailing to bisexual individuals. Which is why it worked. 

4 minutes ago, Black Sabbath said:

You mean a very formative part like how Batman V Superman removed Batman's stance on killing? That seems like a bit more of a drastic change to me than if they were to change his sexuality or race. 

A. Dont get me started on that.... if they wanted to do that it should have been Damien taking the cowl.... dont get me going   B. more drastic? Nah dont think so. His being gay or black in the late 1960s to mid-1980s would very likely have serious social connotations for his character. Especially in the upper elite of a corrupt Gotham. ( I am going by his age of 30 to 50 and using todays date to go backwards ) So yea it would have made a big difference. So do you see why these things can matter? 

10 minutes ago, Black Sabbath said:

I get what you're trying to say, but those kind of issues goes back as far as well, comics themselves. Diversity didn't create those problem, nor is automatically a part of it. 

You forgot a word. FORCED. Forced is the issue and always has been. When its crammed in for the sake of itself it will always be at the expense of the story. Then when you go and upset your fan base they stop trusting you and limit what you can do without backlash. Want this to stop? Stop forcing it, let things die down, stop pandering to nonfans cries for stuff the fans dont want, and stop bashing fans when they point out the issues. THEN you can have the trust back and start experimenting again. But if you dont want a flare up do it for creative reasons not for the sake of it and not at the expense of the story. 

[Black Sabbath 2,484]

5 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

Nah dont think so. His being gay or black in the late 1960s to mid-1980s would very likely have serious social connotations for his character. Especially in the upper elite of a corrupt Gotham.

Then you could have him be in the closet during his youfh and have him come out when he's 50. There, took about 2 seconds for that problem to get solved. 

 

7 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

When its crammed in for the sake of itself it will always be at the expense of the story.

I disagree. You could include such changes to a character without sacrificing the story, even if you're only doing it to sell comics. You could simply not make a big deal of it while still making it clear that the character in question is gay. 

"Oh, but they won't do that" 

I think we should give the writers the benefit of the doubt. Again, writers have been churning out dreck without a thought about good characters or lore or the comic's fans for as long as comics have existed. Let's not act like that when do so with a gay/black/female etc character they've gone too far.

[Jedishy 3,542]

26 minutes ago, Black Sabbath said:

Then you could have him be in the closet during his youfh and have him come out when he's 50. There, took about 2 seconds for that problem to get solved. 

 

Nope sorry does not work. Being in the closet impacts mindset. Still going to change things about the character. Further without the discipline of adult batman a youth is GOING to slip and have rumors negating the ability to truly hide it. Again changes to be made. It can work if done right I guess but I for one am no fan of changing the sexuality of character. I am barely a fan of changing backstory unless its to fix stupid era specific writing. 

26 minutes ago, Black Sabbath said:

I think we should give the writers the benefit of the doubt. Again, writers have been churning out dreck without a thought about good characters or lore or the comic's fans for as long as comics have existed. Let's not act like that when do so with a gay/black/female etc character they've gone too far.

Nope not gonna happen. They crapped on fans and called them bigots too many times for that. Further lets not pretend that pandering for politics is the same as pandering to make $$ one has always been a goal in the industry the other is just condescending and adds insults to the injury of bad writing. 

 

The fact is that I am done being told like it or you are a bigot. I am done with people that dare assume that my issues with something mean I am against the people it portrays. When the crowds that cry for this crap are not even fans of the series but are getting their way and why the actual fans and creators are being maligned for wanting to keep their believed characters they went to far. Want proof see the sjws trashing of the great Stan Lee got wanting HIS creation to be maintained and new characters created. Then again the same people crying about lack of ( insert demographic here ) characters or creators are so out of touch with the fandoms they dare speak about that they do not even know of long running characters or creators that match that demographic. 

 

MASSIVE EDIT INCOMING: 

So I realized the perfect example of why this bugs people. These characters are not just great stories. They touch peoples lives. They change people. Willow is one of the most important characters in my life. His being short and portrayal by Warwick Davis helped me cope with my height as a youth. If they suddenly changed this character to a super tall guy I would be enraged to the point of stupidity. When you mess with what people love you better handle it with kid gloves and have dang good reasons for it. 

Further, the idea that they have messed up with this stuff in the past would be valid IF they had always called the fans bigots and dug in heels while doing it. Instead, generally they would apologize or make the problem go away. So when you not only repeatedly mess up but insult those you hurt while doing so it does take it to a different level. I might trust my brother with my car if he put a dent in it a few times. But if he put a dent in it, told me to sod off for complaining and made more dents do you think Im gonna give him the benefit of the doubt and trust him with the car again?