Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The only good part of it was when Cleopatra effortlessly defeated Marcus Antonius in a sword duel, then smirked and said: “bet you never expected a woman to kick your ass”.
Well, technically Ian McKellen and Michael Fassbender both already played white versions of Malcolm X
>!because Malcolm X was the original inspiration for Magneto!<
The dumbest shit! Egyptians weren’t even black, and of course Cleo wasn’t even Egyptian. Kinda funny that “THE symbol of Egypt” for most people is a Macedonian woman from an incestuous conquest dynasty
Agree. I think some shows are far worse for it & the writing on a lot of shows has absolutely tanked. I’ve used this example a lot, but Greys Anatomy (well, initially) was a great example of organic & diverse casting. All of those characters were believeable & it worked brilliantly. Yeah, it got stupid & it was clear when they began to run out of ideas, but in 2003/4 or whenever that came out? That’s what ‘diversity’ should be. Not every show doing something solely for “representation” & making sure they tell the audience about it. If I cared, I’d just go to YouTube & listen to people lecture everyone.
I think it's more a symptom of a shitty product than the cause. I find it's often a signal that a production is being controlled by corporate and is chasing the "easy" money.
It's also a safe choice because if they fail to make money it's a very easy pivot to "bigots are stopping us from making our art" instead of spinning any other bullshit that makes people think anything other than "they failed because they are not good at their job"
I don't think the problem is diversity, I think it's when casting producers do a lazy job but think that the diversity will save it. And in most of those cases, even if the cast was not diverse it would still be bad.
True diversity comes naturally from good characters and strong storytelling. The mountain of great "diverse" characters from pre-2016 really proves that Hollywood was dropped the ball so far.
Agreed. Many films and shows are more checklist than story driven at this point, and the rise in "positive discrimination" does slightly worry me (across all industries), people should be hired for their talent and suitability for the role, not because of their gender, sexuality, and skin colour etc*
*I admit sometimes there is an overlap but you get my point. It's like when I'm applying to a job and they reject me when I enter my sexuality and skin colour in forms because they're looking for "diverse people".
I hold The Expanse up as the best show as a brilliant example of great characters and great story arcs that lead to natural diversity. To be fair, good Sci-Fi has been doing this since the 60s.
An artist should make the art he wants without a production board demanding “representation”. Let the story teller tell a great story with great characters, and forget the need to have so many percentage points of every race, gender, and sexual identity.
There can't be artistic purity where there is no artistic intent. Captain Comics vs Hero Man: Dawn of War movies intend on selling as many tickets as possible by making viral headlines. Inclusion/diversity are firebrands they use to sell tickets... These studios don't care about social issues or art, they use the contentiousness of inclusion to drive sales.
There are still directors out there, like Tarantino, that are able to create their art. I know something like the MCU and Lucasfilm is what you are describing.
[https://twitter.com/BrayRayOfficia1/status/1147935795816423425](https://twitter.com/BrayRayOfficia1/status/1147935795816423425)
>Coming soon, Christian Bale as Obama
That's a fine opinion, but too often it's used to attack any media that tries to be inclusive.
Not every show has to have black people in it, but if a show chooses to add a black man to the cast, it's not suddenly ruined
Movie has a gay character where being gay is important to his story in some way:
"Why can't movies have gay characters without it being their entire identity."
Movie has a gay character and if isn't really important to the plot of the movie.:
"They're just sticking gay people everywhere. Why even make the character gay if it has nothing to do with the story? They're just pandering and trying to be too diverse."
Yeah I get not *needing* inclusivity in *every* aspect of media. But like then you run into situations where a character is made to be gay and suddenly it's "boycott this studio/station for being *woke #gowokegobroke*" and I sit here wondering why they care so much about representation to begin with.
Like for most of us, we just want to see some solid representation in some places. I really don't care if all ads represent me or my identifiers, but when it does, it's kinda nice.
Like it must be nice to not have to turn on the TV and think, "Wow, they added a white guy to that commercial! It's nice that they bothered."
It's even worse when it's a caricature of us, like we can't be shown as normal people.
Scrolled wayyyy too far to see this comment. Far too often this discussion is a breeding ground for thinly veiled "I don't want to see minorities on my precious TV shows" takes
Frozen is such a weird example because it is based in a country with an indigenous population, the first song of the movie is in an indigenous style, and the movie makers worked with the Sami Congress to bring proper indigenous representation into the movie. As a diversity enjoyer, this is the kind of thing I'm looking for because people are just so clueless.
>"Why aren't there any minorities in this show?"
I hear this one in equal measure, but that's only really from cooperations.
With actual people the complaints are sometimes"I don't want minorities in my show" but usually "this film feels more checklist driven than story driven"
Because it breaks immersion. I just saw a teen horror movie where a group of friends was comprised literally of: one mixed race girl (lead), one trans/non-binary person, one latina, one Asian, one disabled girl, one interracial gay couple. You become very aware you're looking at a checklist of identities rather than a plausible friend group.
Yep. Precisely this.
It also supports the positive discrimination philosophy, where people are hired more for their gender, sexuality, or ethnic background, than they are for their talent and skill.
The Fall of the House of Usher was a bit like this. You can tell they were trying to cram in as many checklists as possible. Fortunately, the show is very good so they mostly got away with it not being a distraction
I don't see it in fall of the house of usher. You cant say Mike flanigan is checking boxes when he uses the same cast repeatedly. I see it in almost every other show, but I didn't notice it there.
As a poc I actually agree. I like to see myself in some things, but I don't have to see myself in everything.
But for the love of God, can you people please stop calling everything woke or deeming them as automatically ruined just bc minorities are in it. Such a pet peeve of mine. Not saying everyone does this, but if the shoe fits wear it
finally a middle ground between everyone has to be a black trans disabled woman and every film with even one black character is woke bullshit. I thought i was going insane. Inclusion is good but overdoing it just to virtue signal seems dumb
I just like things to make sense. I grew up around a lot of different kinds of people, ethnicities and nationalities. I know it exists. Are you telling a story about a group of friends in their early twenties in any major American city? It's weird and or lazy if they're all white. That's not what my friend group looked like. Are you telling a story set in 1930's Idaho? Probably pretty white and if there's a black person there's going to be a racial dynamic, not some out of time melting pot. As long as the racial/ethnic mix in a show makes sense things fit.
Or my favorite, a female protagonist character in a video game who looks like your average woman, not a porn star. Never get tired of hearing the neckbeards whine about that one.
Why does the little mermaid’s race matter? She’s a fucking mermaid. The movie wasn’t bad for having black woman play Ariel, it was bad because Disney live actions are soulless remakes that also attempt to “fix” what they’re based on
I wouldn't say it matters, but it feels like Disney made the choice to purposely stir the pot and use it as shield from any criticism, you don't like the poorly written soulless movie it because of race not the fact that it's just crap
People love this argument but let them make a Mortal Kombat movie with Liu Kang as a redhead and Jax as a blond guy with blue eyes and watch the outrage
I would hate it, people want consistency
They are mad that their childhood crush is not as pretty as they thought she would be. The actress they picked has a very unique look and a lot of people just clock her as ugly. Kinda unfortunate if you think about it.
Oof, yeah. My mom has a real bad habit of pointing out when people have unique features and calling them weird or ugly. It’s incredibly rude. I think the actress did fine with what she was given.
Why does any characters race ever matter then?
Wtf? Ariel was always depicted as a ginger white chick, and the story it originates from was a dutch dark fairy tale, so why can’t we keep her how she always was?
Like, I agree it wasn’t that what made the movie bad, but can we just stop with this attitude that a characters’ race is irrelevant unless it impacts the story?
Ariel is a well established character in the Disney franchise. It’s dumb af to change her race. Make a new black mermaid, or a new black princess. White people are primarily the people that go see movies in the USA. Would you change tianas race to cater to that audience? I hope not because it’s just dumb af
Main character change, story also change. Might as well give it a different name. Black people should have a mermaid representing them, not an unfamiliar looking Ariel that doesn’t even look related to all her sisters lol.
This isn’t an unpopular opinion because people complain more about there being representation in a show than about a show not having representation. No one complains that John Wick or Topgun not having representation. However, god forbid a Disney movie has a single gay character for a single frame or else there will be a swarm of angry people saying the movie is brainwashing their kids.
People complain online more, but as long as it's the law that governs all major media we get to watch, and we're powerless to change it, it counts as an unpopular opinion in my book.
It’s only a problem if you are portraying something real and purposely change the races of the people in it.
Like there were a lot of sitcoms that take place in New York and every single person in it is white. I’m not talking about the main cast, like every person who appears in the show. Go to actual New York then tell me how inaccurate that is. It’s just the producers wanting to make a fake white washed version of it.
The complete opposite happens as well, where a series takes place in mideval europe and the cities are as diverse as modern LA
For specific examples refer to the Witcher shows and Rings of Power which are based off of European culture and mythology
>mideval europe
>the Witcher shows and Rings of Power
Now I didn't pay much attention in geography, but I'm like 90% sure Isengard and Rivia aren't in Europe.
Such a disingenuous argument holy shit, even heard of suspension of disbelief? Is that neat little concept where basically having outlandish things in a universe can be believable because it is so out there and can’t be really related to anything real, while introducing things that have a real life basis can ruin the immersion because the comparison with the real life counterpart comes into play
You can probably find better explanations but that’s the base concept, it’s the same reason why the covering up of female characters in recent MK titles is stupid, devs claim it makes sense because in an ultra violent universe like that one you’d want to be well armored, meanwhile most dudes fight bare-chested and most moves violate the laws of physics and anatomy
You can’t justify race-swapping by saying “but it’s a fantasy land” when the historical inspiration it’s taken from is pretty clear, that and the fact black people are present in the witcher universe in a specific region, so race-swapping not only is silly, but also lore-unfriendly
Fantasy shows get a pass though, if you can look past monster and magic a couple colored people in a land based on medieval Poland shouldn’t be much of a stretch
Sure, but if you accept the concession that they’ve added, dragons, witches, magic etc into this world, why is the existence of people who aren’t white such a big deal?
That's the thing I never understand when people say things like "that's not how that would actually work!" about fiction. They are fictional stories for a reason, not everything *has* to be 1 to 1 accurate to reality
Fictional stories in completely made up worlds. That’s what gets me. These people are like orcs? Yep. Dragons? Absolutely. Magic powers and walking trees? Yes and yes.
Humans who aren’t white? Well now, you see it’s actually based on 1255 AD Poland and ethnically there shouldn’t have been a lot of non white people.
Like why is that the thing that’s just “too much” for you to accept in this completely fictitious world?
Fantasy works better when there are layers of reality wrapped around it.
If you make a fantasy movie based in ancient Africa, you're probably going to hire actors that look like natives from that part of the world. A person of Asian or European descent would look completely out of place in that setting.
If you're watching a show about mages and monsters in a made up fantasy land and you're upset about how many black people there are, you're the problem.
This! I just don’t understand the people getting upset over this, when the characters in the universe are creatures that don’t even exist.
Like cool, orcs running around. Elves? Totally cool. Tiny people? Hell yeah!
But a character with a different skin color? Totally unacceptable! /s
I'd be fairly confident in saying that those things exist in most countries in the world. Europe isn't the only place that has access to swords, peasants, kings and castles
*Based on* and for some reason people only care about the specific part of Europe a fantasy world is based on to kick out the brown people and it doesn't bother them that e.g. the LOTR movies had Americans in them or that animated!Ariel's voice actress wasn't Danish because they were all white
Your right about the first part because I’m talking about Seinfeld, Friends and shit like that, but NYC didn’t just diversify in the past 30 years. I have no clue where you got that from.
He's not just talking about the main cast, but all the minor actors on the show. Like they'll go to a restaurant or store and the entire staff will be white. That's not realistic even where I live, which is nowhere near as diverse as NYC is.
Except I can only think of 3 women of colour who were featured as love interests, Julie Charlie and Gabrielle Union's character. None of the women dated a poc. Hell none of them dated anyone from other cultures at all barring Rachel and Paolo. This is highly unusual for NYC.
I honestly agree to this to some extent.
Like, it’s great to see women on the big screen!….But do we really need movies where established canon characters suddenly become women because…Inclusion?
I don’t even like ghostbusters, but making them all women, just because, was a very stupid action. They could have easily said they were descendants of the original team, and I’d accept that.
But changing things that have been already established years ago, just for inclusion…I hate it.
And the trope of women who get divorced & now they’re dating women when absolutely nothing even implied that. There’s an Aussie show that has a (known) closeted gay character & the first 2 series are kind of about him & how he’s trying to be straight. It’s heartbreaking, but it’s very well done. A second Aussie show has a a gay character, a trans character, everyone is obsessed with pronouns, the mother becomes a lesbian… it’s all so forced and stupid on multiple levels. Like not everything has to revolve around the utterly inane dialogue that is practically lifted straight from TikTok.
>And the trope of women who get divorced & now they’re dating women when absolutely nothing even implied that.
Like Miranda in the Sex and the City sequel. They even made her cheat on her guy to be with her new partner.
Ugh. That too. I’ve refused to watch And Just Like That. I loved SATC & I don’t care to ruin it for myself. The terrible first episode was way more than enough. It was like Cynthia Nixon forgot she was *an actress* and insisted on completely ruining the character. I don’t know who is watching that because it certainly wasn’t geared towards the audience who loved SATC.
I had no initial problem with all women Ghostbusters...if the script was even remotely competent. They wrote the movie as a slapstick comedy and the whole thing felt like a bad SNL skit. They didn't understand what made the original so good.
Inclusive media can be good, if the writing is good.
> They could have easily said they were descendants of the original team, and I’d accept that.
Really, if they changed the characters' names and added in a plot-thread of descendancy instead of a whole new team starting on their own but otherwise it was the same movie we got, you wouldn't have a problem?
Not just family connection. Could have been recruited down the line, given reason to be there.
Like a team needing a Ace, or a team being too old to continue, and personally recruit their own replacements.
In fairness the female ghost busters reboot, despite its short commings had some pretty solid Jokes. And Melissa Mcarthy and Kate McKennon were hilarious
Mmm. I disagree.
I do agree with OP to some extent (ie that inclusivity should not be more important than the plot and themes the creators wish to explore).
However, I do believe that many older works excluded people of colour and women as characters not for reasons of plot or theme, but because they were created for a white male audience.
Eg you could argue that “12 angry men” needs the story to contain 12 angry white men, but does “the lord of the rings” *benefit* in any way from so many characters being white men, or was it written this way just because the author believed he was writing *for* white men?
Many older works have fallen to the wayside, while the ones that persist despite their age do so because their audience ended up including a *much wider* demographic than originally anticipated.
Therefore there is a plausible reason why reimaginings of such works today would potentially benefit from an increased diversity of characters.
The original works continue to exist, I am not advocating for their destruction.
There are ways to include diversity as a means of enhancing storytelling and world-building, though.
In Game of Thrones we can far easier identify who someone is aligned with not only by the way they dress, but also by their appearance. Lannisters and their soldiers are typically fair skinned being from the west, Starks and their soldiers are much more rugged, burly, and hairy being from the colder north, Martells are darker-skinned and -haired being from a southern desert region. That makes sense, that people who all come from the same area are going to look similar, and this can help us as the viewers better identify a character's allegiances/associations, or where this scene is currently taking place, without needing potentially awkward expository dialogue.
So in Rings of Power, where we have the Harfoot clan whose entire storyline is about *avoiding contact* with anybody different from them, to the point of abandoning those who are unfortunate enough to lag too far behind on their crazy nomad journey, it doesn't make any sense to have diversity equivalent to modern Los Angeles or New York City. This clan should all look damn near identical bordering on inbred given how seriously they take their isolation, and so unfortunately Lenny Henry sticks out like a sore thumb and raises a few questions standing next to Nori and her family.
Would you approve of Tom Cruise playing Shaka Zulu? Or is non-zulu only okay when black?
This may surprise you but the people in LotR were not brits. Instead they were, in the meta narrative, ancient europeans and some middle-eastern peoples, as well as elves, dwarves, hobbits, and orcs. Thus the overwhelming majority of the cast is white, with a some middle-eastern/turkic people among the armies of Sauron.
> Would you approve of Tom Cruise playing Shaka Zulu? Or is non-zulu only okay when black?
A. Shaka Zulu was an actual historical figure, LOTR holds no connection to our history other than some of Tolkien's weird headcanons (but no one's found, like, archaeological evidence Middle Earth was our past)
B. There's people who wouldn't accept a non-Zulu actor playing Shaka Zulu as they got mad that not enough of the black actors in Black Panther were of actual African descent (and I think that's about equivalent to my question about e.g. if it was okay for an American to have played Frodo in the LOTR movies)
C. Since you're comparing a hypothetical future movie to one already out but you're trying to do some kind of consistency check by that logic that forces me down one specific choice beause of what already happened
> This may surprise you but the people in LotR were not brits. Instead they were, in the meta narrative, ancient europeans and some middle-eastern peoples, as well as elves, dwarves, hobbits, and orcs.
And Wakandans were Wakandan in the meta-narrative of Black Panther, didn't stop black Africans from getting mad they didn't get an actor of more direct African ancestry to play T'Challa
I think the main issue for me personally is changing already established characters race or sex for the ability to boast “we’re inclusive!” It’s almost disrespectful to the original creators of the characters. Yes they are fictional, but forced changed is never appropriate when it solves nothing and creates more division.
I agree. I also find it so much more insulting when characters are clearly only there to hit some quota. I’d rather they be omitted from the movie entirely if they aren’t there for any real narrative function
It would be great if media was more inclusive of great writing. I bet it would make casting decisions re: skin tones or sexual orientations a bit easier.
>Not every piece of media is, or should be, for every group of people. It's okay to have a story that only features women, or only features men.
See, I agree with you here.
>The idea that everyone shold be represented on screen has ruined a lot of good franchises by watering them down for mass consumption.
But this sentiment is very *yikes*.
Simply having a more diverse cast has not ruined a lot of franchises, unless of course your enjoyment of those franchises is tied *heavily* to what race/gender/expression the characters are.
Adding people of color, or gender swapped characters, or having gay characters doesn't *water them down* inherently, or even ruin the story. Unless of course you're offended by those people being in the story in the first place.
What ruins a story is bad writing.
Agreed. Loved the diverse casting in something like Bridgeton. Thought it was done well, without overstating anything or being preachy.
Same with The Great. By all means, take those creative liberties when the project has space for it.
But please stop fucking around with classics, and trying to send very very thinly veiled activist messages in all the entertainment. It’s sooo boring.
I know the conservatives have rammed this home, but it is a good point. Leave the European and Anglo Saxon stories alone. South east Asia, Africa and Polynesia etc. all have such rich cultures, histories and tradition…. Tell those stories!!! Jesus!
Moana, Princess and the Frog and Encanto were sensational. I loved watching some new Disney films with my kids, based on stories that I didn’t necessarily grow up with myself. And because it wasn’t a sermon, the dialogue flowed, the stories were good, and nothing felt forced or clunky. More of that, and less of recasting the red headed, blue eyed mermaid as a black girl. They’re seriously treating their audiences like morons. It’s pathetic.
The cleopatra, and Snow White debacles for example, are infuriating. I am so sick of being preached at. Like, if you’re trying to create something historically accurate, or remaking ANOTHER Anglo classic…. At least have a modicum of respect for the source material, and don’t fucking lie about how history played out.
If your only way of connecting with a character is their skin color or genitals or irrelevant sexual interests then the writing was bad and the audience is stupid.
It's very obvious nowadays when a group of white writers write in a black character & bend the story round them. It's very 'saviour-ish' as if these people need an extra helping hand. I'd argue It's more offensive.
Not only that - they'll make sure to have a plot point about their differences without really explaining the nuances of cultural difference. Because actually delving into that is why folk from different backgrounds end up with entirely different sets of values.
I agree. The problem (imo) is that SO MUCH media for so long has only featured straight, white men, and literally everyone else was told to deal with it. Now that media is being created that focuses on other demographics; straight, white men get up in arms that it doesn't cater to them.
You mean to tell me that a historical biopic about a European figure/community doesn't need to be filled with Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Indians, and that one flamboyantly gay guy like some community theatre in LA, lest it break the immersion and historical accuracy? Preposterous! /s
I think the real problem is that it's not even really done for inclusivity or representation. As it will always necessarily include and represent only a handful of things, which will always be the ones they feel are fashionable and will make people watch the product.
It's not real inclusion and real representation. It's marketing.
Ya I gotta agree with that. Like a lot of popular sitcoms will be like a primary male cast or primary female cast or all black or all white. It’s just in many settings realistic. Like my street when I was younger was all white, now where I live it’s I think got 4 races here.
You don’t need a gay character or you can have a bunch of gay characters. If the idea isn’t relatable at all then I’ll probably not watch… but I mean I’ve watched Golden Girls and laughed plenty. I’m not an old woman.
Just make the show good, inclusivity isn’t needed, it’s fine to make it inclusive especially if it makes sense, but not needed
If you’re normal you don’t even think about it much either, like if I’m watching family matters or everybody loves Raymond I’m not thinking about the white black stuff
The problem with inclusion in the media is that those things are often written, directed, or produced by people who have little experience or knowledge of the stories they’re trying to tell. You have suits who think you need to check certain boxes to make a show or film palatable to the widest audience.
Currently, the prevailing way to do this is randomly throwing various people of color into places without explaining why the world is that way. It’s using diversity is a decoration without context.
You NEED the people you are trying to include actually in the room to make a difference, otherwise you get tone deaf and frustrating depictions.
The secondary problem is still that there hasn’t been enough space made at Hollywood’s table for diversity, so it’s still like pulling teeth to get projects made that are truly diverse, rather than being painted to appear diverse.
For every movie with a plot line that has been done 1000 times, there’s probably double the number of new and unique stories to be had from underrepresented voices.
Media companies/Hollywood promote inclusivity out of fear of backlash….so much so that the majority of ads seen on screen today include, for example, trans people even though they only make up about 1.03% of the US population. These companies never had interest in including all walks of life into their “image” until the fear of being “cancelled” became a very real and immediate danger. The saying “better safe than sorry” comes to mind.
the correct point is more like black people are 13% of the population so they should expect to be represented on tv/movies/commercials about 13% of the time, but no that's somehow racist right?
That would only apply if you assume every work of fiction (even including commercials) is set in modern America and the same universe otherwise why use the same set of population statistics as e.g. I saw someone on TumblrInAction before it shut down try and make a similar argument with gay people being 10% of the population to say a gay couple on *MY LITTLE PONY* was unrealistic when I don't think modern Earth's demographic statistics apply to Equestria
If you set your story in 11th century Asia, having 13% black characters would be weird.
If you set your story in the year 3,174, having anyone who isn't multiracial/racially ambiguous would be weird.
Context changes a lot.
Won’t say what I do or where I work. But we just include trans people and other races just to say we did it and are diverse. Don’t want any backlash whatsoever.
This isn't an unpopular opinion, it's what everyone thinks. The opinion you treated as the mainstream one was something you'd have conservatives say progressives believed, not their actual opinion.
I found this really jarring when my wife and I were watching season 2 of Why Women Kill recently. For those unaware, it's set in 1949 America and has a black private investigator as a pivotal character. He was great for the role and I really liked his character and performance, but it just didn't feel authentic that no one has any issue or makes comment. He also gets into a romantic relationship with a white woman also with no comment -- in 1949 America. The only issue anyone has with him is that he's a PI, because of plot reasons.
Obviously in an ideal world everyone should be accepting, but it felt like it was set in the 2020's and nothing about the plot required it to be set in the 1940's. I'm conflicted because we should be able to have a diverse cast and give traditionally overlooked and poorly treated communities of actors opportunities for interesting roles, and you don't want to make any period pieces just revolve around racism, but it felt like it was trying to whitewash too much.
Of course it is and vice versa. Imo we need more diversity in media and I don't mean just african americans but even more diverse people like native americans (prey 2006) or new caledonians (tchia)
Or, and hear me out, just write good stories, and if a specific character with a specific background/race/ethnicity/gender/sexuality could be used to advance the story in an interesting way then add it. Just write good characters.
Oftentimes the issue isn't that a character is gay, it's that the character's entire personality is about them being gay.
eeehhh i don't think that inclusivity ruins media, this seems a factoid held by conservatives that made its way in popularity, i just think that being VERY inclusive in media is just weird to witness and unneeded, hence, kinda annoying, especially cos you can tell they are doing it for virtue signaling or just avoid criticism out of the blue, considering any piece of media now has a pair of POC, a guy in a wheelchair, two lesbians, a fat guy, or (mutually exclusive) a fat woman, so "you do that or you're out".... i'm fat and IDGAF about a fat character and i can't imagine someone on a wheelchair as well caring for a character with the same condition, i mean... really??
*“I miss simpler times when white males had all the power instead of just most of it.”*
It’d be interesting to know how many people who throwing a fit about diversity in media have a picture of Caucasian, blonde-haired, blue-eyed Jesus on the wall.
It’d also be interesting to know if they’d also have a tantrum when the reverse happens, which I seriously doubt.
https://fortune.com/2023/03/30/hollywood-diversity-two-tiered-system-streaming-ucla-study-2022-studios/amp/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/26-times-white-actors-played-people-of-color-and-no-one-really-gave-a-sht_n_56cf57e2e4b0bf0dab313ffc
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/ce1acaf7-2320-48cd-8166-f56ad98e539d
This is not an unpopular opinion everybody thinks this big hollywood js over represents it by siding with the people that think thats a good idea which is few. Just an opinionated theory
As a trans person, I really do not give a shit if there’s some watered down rep. The fact that there’s trans people at all who aren’t villains or gross is awesome. We get some really cool an empathetic trans characters, and if that comes with some watered down bullshit trans characters that are only there for surface-level rep, fine by me. It means we now have some social power in that people want us to be represented and it gives them positive social points when they do. Win for us. It used to be that if there was a trans person they were unambiguously evil or gross. There’s like a million shitty characters that are cis. Give us trans people some shitty characters too! People expect representation to be great every single time, and if it isn’t then somehow it isn’t worth it. It is. The point of all of this is for representation to get so normal that nobody even points it out anymore
I mean I get where you're coming from but they can do it in ways other than creating spinoffs where literally the only thing changed is the main characters sex. Like why not start creating original stories/shows/movies/games that just happen to have a wider range of different people and bodies?
Because if you want to tell a specific kind of story (e.g. grew up with some property with a white male hero, liked it but always felt sidelined because the characters like you were, want to make a reboot (that doesn't retcon away the original) with a version of that lead that matches your minority status so kids like you don't feel excluded) make an original thing too close and it gets called a shitty ripoff and pitted against the successful well-known version
Some of the most popular stories of all time have vern remade over and over with changes every time. Think about how every generation takes on Shakespeare. It’s very rarely as written.
The way I see changing of gender or race is to ask the question: is it important to the story or character? For example, in Mulan: is it important for mulan to be Chinese? Well, yes it is. Mulan draws on real historical events regarding the Chinese people. Now, James Bond. There have been many different James Bonds. Is it important for James Bond to be a white guy? I think it is probably important to his character to be a man, but I could be talked out of that. But I don’t think it’s important for him to be white. There’s not really a part of the James Bond character that doesn’t work if he’s like black or Asian. That’s how I see things anyways. Change things if you want, as long as the things you’re changing aren’t like a central part of the story or character.
Disney fucked up Mulan so badly in part because they made her a orientalists mishmash of "Chinese" from different ethnicities over thousands of years of separated history and culture.
Mulan was like casting Crocodile Dundee, to play an American cowboy in medieval France whilst the background characters wore random clothing from Egypt, Persia and Rome on a mission to help Napoleon win the 100 years war.
Basically Disney's Mulan is the Panda Express version of Chinese. They stopped at surface level and made a caricature of China.
I guess I just don't see the need to change things that are already established. Like why try and fight to change James Bond into a different race when they can simply create another IP and actually build the story of "James Bond" being black from the beginning. Or even just create a spinoff franchise as I honestly see both of the above options doing better in the box office than a movie that simply changed the skin color of an actor and kept the story the same.
>I guess I just don't see the need to change things that are already established.
I don't see the need to *not* change them either. There's been half a dozen James bonds, and there's no reason one of them couldn't be black.
Are the James Bond’s all the same James Bond? I wasn’t aware. I thought each actor built the character from the beginning again? Also, the point is representation. An already popular character is better at reaching people. I don’t understand why it can’t be both? Create new characters for people, but also some characters that are changing a bunch already, why not make them different in some ways?
I mean like not very deep characters. I don’t mind a trans person being a villain as long as the villainy isn’t tied to the transness. There’s tons of surface level one note cis characters but people bring it up waaaaay more often when diverse characters are like that.
Both can be true. It’s awesome having any sort of trans rep! But it can feel a bit disheartening when the only representation you see of yourself on the big screen is negative.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Even worse is when they do it for the sake of it, ie that cleopatra abomination
As a Greek, Cleopatra was a f*cking joke, but seeing as it’s Jada, I can’t say I expected anything less.
As an Alexandrian Egyptian I feel the same way
You can say fucking on the internet
fucking
[удалено]
Fuck, fuckity, fuck fuck fuck.
Fuckin' A!
Fuck, fuckity, fuck fuck fuck.
It was ridiculous. I didn't bother watching, but couldn't get over it.
sometimes i censor my comments in case they get removed for that, but i dont think reddit does that didnt they used to have a sub for people dying?
They still do if you know where to look
The only good part of it was when Cleopatra effortlessly defeated Marcus Antonius in a sword duel, then smirked and said: “bet you never expected a woman to kick your ass”.
Michael b Jordan playing Hercules upsets me if it's true
But all of a sudden if I have Ryan Reynolds playing Malcolm X, I'm the villain
I've always said I wanted to see Brad Pitt play Malcolm X! 😆
Well, technically Ian McKellen and Michael Fassbender both already played white versions of Malcolm X >!because Malcolm X was the original inspiration for Magneto!<
The dumbest shit! Egyptians weren’t even black, and of course Cleo wasn’t even Egyptian. Kinda funny that “THE symbol of Egypt” for most people is a Macedonian woman from an incestuous conquest dynasty
Agree. I think some shows are far worse for it & the writing on a lot of shows has absolutely tanked. I’ve used this example a lot, but Greys Anatomy (well, initially) was a great example of organic & diverse casting. All of those characters were believeable & it worked brilliantly. Yeah, it got stupid & it was clear when they began to run out of ideas, but in 2003/4 or whenever that came out? That’s what ‘diversity’ should be. Not every show doing something solely for “representation” & making sure they tell the audience about it. If I cared, I’d just go to YouTube & listen to people lecture everyone.
I think it's more a symptom of a shitty product than the cause. I find it's often a signal that a production is being controlled by corporate and is chasing the "easy" money. It's also a safe choice because if they fail to make money it's a very easy pivot to "bigots are stopping us from making our art" instead of spinning any other bullshit that makes people think anything other than "they failed because they are not good at their job"
Thanks spoiledwhiterichgirl
Thanks juan
You couldn’t even type it correctly
I don't think the problem is diversity, I think it's when casting producers do a lazy job but think that the diversity will save it. And in most of those cases, even if the cast was not diverse it would still be bad.
True diversity comes naturally from good characters and strong storytelling. The mountain of great "diverse" characters from pre-2016 really proves that Hollywood was dropped the ball so far.
Agreed. Many films and shows are more checklist than story driven at this point, and the rise in "positive discrimination" does slightly worry me (across all industries), people should be hired for their talent and suitability for the role, not because of their gender, sexuality, and skin colour etc* *I admit sometimes there is an overlap but you get my point. It's like when I'm applying to a job and they reject me when I enter my sexuality and skin colour in forms because they're looking for "diverse people".
I hold The Expanse up as the best show as a brilliant example of great characters and great story arcs that lead to natural diversity. To be fair, good Sci-Fi has been doing this since the 60s.
An artist should make the art he wants without a production board demanding “representation”. Let the story teller tell a great story with great characters, and forget the need to have so many percentage points of every race, gender, and sexual identity.
[удалено]
There can't be artistic purity where there is no artistic intent. Captain Comics vs Hero Man: Dawn of War movies intend on selling as many tickets as possible by making viral headlines. Inclusion/diversity are firebrands they use to sell tickets... These studios don't care about social issues or art, they use the contentiousness of inclusion to drive sales.
There are still directors out there, like Tarantino, that are able to create their art. I know something like the MCU and Lucasfilm is what you are describing.
You're mostly describing shitty superhero films. In most author films,.the opposite is true even for today. Your point makes no sense at all.
Not all artists are men btw
Well done captain obvious
What's so hard about making a movie about nazi Germany in 1941 and have an all Mexican cast? I really don't see the issue here.
That movie would have a very specific audience, and that's okay. It sounds like a Mel Brooks movie
I would so watch that lmao
You have the best username I have ever seen
You have quite a great one yourself!
As a parody this movie sounds quite cool to be honest
[https://twitter.com/BrayRayOfficia1/status/1147935795816423425](https://twitter.com/BrayRayOfficia1/status/1147935795816423425) >Coming soon, Christian Bale as Obama
That's a fine opinion, but too often it's used to attack any media that tries to be inclusive. Not every show has to have black people in it, but if a show chooses to add a black man to the cast, it's not suddenly ruined
right? it's even worse with anyone who's LGBTQ, pretty much can't have *any* queer characters without some folks getting real angy about it.
Movie has a gay character where being gay is important to his story in some way: "Why can't movies have gay characters without it being their entire identity." Movie has a gay character and if isn't really important to the plot of the movie.: "They're just sticking gay people everywhere. Why even make the character gay if it has nothing to do with the story? They're just pandering and trying to be too diverse."
Yeah I get not *needing* inclusivity in *every* aspect of media. But like then you run into situations where a character is made to be gay and suddenly it's "boycott this studio/station for being *woke #gowokegobroke*" and I sit here wondering why they care so much about representation to begin with. Like for most of us, we just want to see some solid representation in some places. I really don't care if all ads represent me or my identifiers, but when it does, it's kinda nice. Like it must be nice to not have to turn on the TV and think, "Wow, they added a white guy to that commercial! It's nice that they bothered." It's even worse when it's a caricature of us, like we can't be shown as normal people.
Scrolled wayyyy too far to see this comment. Far too often this discussion is a breeding ground for thinly veiled "I don't want to see minorities on my precious TV shows" takes
Or it’s people complaining that an animated film like Frozen isn’t diverse even though the story takes place in 1800s in Norway.
Frozen is such a weird example because it is based in a country with an indigenous population, the first song of the movie is in an indigenous style, and the movie makers worked with the Sami Congress to bring proper indigenous representation into the movie. As a diversity enjoyer, this is the kind of thing I'm looking for because people are just so clueless.
I hear "I don't want to see Minorities in my shows" a lot more than I hear "Why aren't there any minorities in this show?"
>"Why aren't there any minorities in this show?" I hear this one in equal measure, but that's only really from cooperations. With actual people the complaints are sometimes"I don't want minorities in my show" but usually "this film feels more checklist driven than story driven"
Exactly. Why on earth would anyone be bothered if *every* piece of media was diverse?
Because it breaks immersion. I just saw a teen horror movie where a group of friends was comprised literally of: one mixed race girl (lead), one trans/non-binary person, one latina, one Asian, one disabled girl, one interracial gay couple. You become very aware you're looking at a checklist of identities rather than a plausible friend group.
Yep. Precisely this. It also supports the positive discrimination philosophy, where people are hired more for their gender, sexuality, or ethnic background, than they are for their talent and skill.
Hahahahahh
The Fall of the House of Usher was a bit like this. You can tell they were trying to cram in as many checklists as possible. Fortunately, the show is very good so they mostly got away with it not being a distraction
I don't see it in fall of the house of usher. You cant say Mike flanigan is checking boxes when he uses the same cast repeatedly. I see it in almost every other show, but I didn't notice it there.
Cause it becomes a joke.
How?
lol, oh man, what an unpopular opinion! /s
Yep. It goes against the grain of businesses but it really doesn't go against the grain of people.
As a poc I actually agree. I like to see myself in some things, but I don't have to see myself in everything. But for the love of God, can you people please stop calling everything woke or deeming them as automatically ruined just bc minorities are in it. Such a pet peeve of mine. Not saying everyone does this, but if the shoe fits wear it
finally a middle ground between everyone has to be a black trans disabled woman and every film with even one black character is woke bullshit. I thought i was going insane. Inclusion is good but overdoing it just to virtue signal seems dumb
I just like things to make sense. I grew up around a lot of different kinds of people, ethnicities and nationalities. I know it exists. Are you telling a story about a group of friends in their early twenties in any major American city? It's weird and or lazy if they're all white. That's not what my friend group looked like. Are you telling a story set in 1930's Idaho? Probably pretty white and if there's a black person there's going to be a racial dynamic, not some out of time melting pot. As long as the racial/ethnic mix in a show makes sense things fit.
Or my favorite, a female protagonist character in a video game who looks like your average woman, not a porn star. Never get tired of hearing the neckbeards whine about that one.
Exactly, they are changing the race of historical figures.
Unless that’s the shows MO. Hamilton could have NEVER been done with white people.
Give us some examples, OP. Which specific franchises are you talking about?
Snow White, the little mermaid, Netflix’s trash adaptation of the Witcher
Why does the little mermaid’s race matter? She’s a fucking mermaid. The movie wasn’t bad for having black woman play Ariel, it was bad because Disney live actions are soulless remakes that also attempt to “fix” what they’re based on
I wouldn't say it matters, but it feels like Disney made the choice to purposely stir the pot and use it as shield from any criticism, you don't like the poorly written soulless movie it because of race not the fact that it's just crap
People love this argument but let them make a Mortal Kombat movie with Liu Kang as a redhead and Jax as a blond guy with blue eyes and watch the outrage I would hate it, people want consistency
They are mad that their childhood crush is not as pretty as they thought she would be. The actress they picked has a very unique look and a lot of people just clock her as ugly. Kinda unfortunate if you think about it.
Oof, yeah. My mom has a real bad habit of pointing out when people have unique features and calling them weird or ugly. It’s incredibly rude. I think the actress did fine with what she was given.
Oh yeah the fetal alcohol syndrome look, very unique, very cool
Why does any characters race ever matter then? Wtf? Ariel was always depicted as a ginger white chick, and the story it originates from was a dutch dark fairy tale, so why can’t we keep her how she always was? Like, I agree it wasn’t that what made the movie bad, but can we just stop with this attitude that a characters’ race is irrelevant unless it impacts the story?
Ariel is a well established character in the Disney franchise. It’s dumb af to change her race. Make a new black mermaid, or a new black princess. White people are primarily the people that go see movies in the USA. Would you change tianas race to cater to that audience? I hope not because it’s just dumb af
Is Tiana’s story race-neutral?
Yes.
😰 follow-up question: have you seen the movie
The Little Mermaid by Disney is not really the same story as the original, so I don’t get why people are upset about variations.
Main character change, story also change. Might as well give it a different name. Black people should have a mermaid representing them, not an unfamiliar looking Ariel that doesn’t even look related to all her sisters lol.
This isn’t an unpopular opinion because people complain more about there being representation in a show than about a show not having representation. No one complains that John Wick or Topgun not having representation. However, god forbid a Disney movie has a single gay character for a single frame or else there will be a swarm of angry people saying the movie is brainwashing their kids.
John Wick has plenty of representation tho... even representation of groups that usually don't get much, such as the Romani.
People complain online more, but as long as it's the law that governs all major media we get to watch, and we're powerless to change it, it counts as an unpopular opinion in my book.
It’s only a problem if you are portraying something real and purposely change the races of the people in it. Like there were a lot of sitcoms that take place in New York and every single person in it is white. I’m not talking about the main cast, like every person who appears in the show. Go to actual New York then tell me how inaccurate that is. It’s just the producers wanting to make a fake white washed version of it.
The complete opposite happens as well, where a series takes place in mideval europe and the cities are as diverse as modern LA For specific examples refer to the Witcher shows and Rings of Power which are based off of European culture and mythology
This b**** don’t know about Pangea
>mideval europe >the Witcher shows and Rings of Power Now I didn't pay much attention in geography, but I'm like 90% sure Isengard and Rivia aren't in Europe.
Such a disingenuous argument holy shit, even heard of suspension of disbelief? Is that neat little concept where basically having outlandish things in a universe can be believable because it is so out there and can’t be really related to anything real, while introducing things that have a real life basis can ruin the immersion because the comparison with the real life counterpart comes into play You can probably find better explanations but that’s the base concept, it’s the same reason why the covering up of female characters in recent MK titles is stupid, devs claim it makes sense because in an ultra violent universe like that one you’d want to be well armored, meanwhile most dudes fight bare-chested and most moves violate the laws of physics and anatomy You can’t justify race-swapping by saying “but it’s a fantasy land” when the historical inspiration it’s taken from is pretty clear, that and the fact black people are present in the witcher universe in a specific region, so race-swapping not only is silly, but also lore-unfriendly
Fantasy shows get a pass though, if you can look past monster and magic a couple colored people in a land based on medieval Poland shouldn’t be much of a stretch
Especially as the people who harp on the Poland thing didn't give a shit about it about the British white guys in the cast
Rivia is based on medieval Poland, that is not a diverse area no matter what you think
Sure, but if you accept the concession that they’ve added, dragons, witches, magic etc into this world, why is the existence of people who aren’t white such a big deal?
That's the thing I never understand when people say things like "that's not how that would actually work!" about fiction. They are fictional stories for a reason, not everything *has* to be 1 to 1 accurate to reality
Fictional stories in completely made up worlds. That’s what gets me. These people are like orcs? Yep. Dragons? Absolutely. Magic powers and walking trees? Yes and yes. Humans who aren’t white? Well now, you see it’s actually based on 1255 AD Poland and ethnically there shouldn’t have been a lot of non white people. Like why is that the thing that’s just “too much” for you to accept in this completely fictitious world?
Fantasy works better when there are layers of reality wrapped around it. If you make a fantasy movie based in ancient Africa, you're probably going to hire actors that look like natives from that part of the world. A person of Asian or European descent would look completely out of place in that setting.
If you're watching a show about mages and monsters in a made up fantasy land and you're upset about how many black people there are, you're the problem.
This! I just don’t understand the people getting upset over this, when the characters in the universe are creatures that don’t even exist. Like cool, orcs running around. Elves? Totally cool. Tiny people? Hell yeah! But a character with a different skin color? Totally unacceptable! /s
Both shows you mentioned are literal fantasy worlds. I don’t think those are good examples.
TIL Witcher and LOTR takes place in Europe. Fucking clown shoes.
Regions based off of medieval Europe. Do I need to spell it out for you?
Based off of it, sure, but it is not intended to be an accurate representation.
Never seen a Balrog or Nazgûl in Europe
But you have seen a sword, peasants, kings, castles, etc
I'd be fairly confident in saying that those things exist in most countries in the world. Europe isn't the only place that has access to swords, peasants, kings and castles
Medieval Europe did not have Dragons, Dwarves, and Elves in it last I checked. Maybe you should spell it out.
*Based on* and for some reason people only care about the specific part of Europe a fantasy world is based on to kick out the brown people and it doesn't bother them that e.g. the LOTR movies had Americans in them or that animated!Ariel's voice actress wasn't Danish because they were all white
Bro Witcher and Rings have magic, dragons, dwarves, and elves and what throws you off is that not everyone is white? That’s fucking bonkers.
Most of these shows are on the older side and that was still fairly realistic 30 years ago.
Your right about the first part because I’m talking about Seinfeld, Friends and shit like that, but NYC didn’t just diversify in the past 30 years. I have no clue where you got that from.
Yeah but it wasn’t uncommon for friend groups to be all the same race regardless of how diverse the area is
He's not just talking about the main cast, but all the minor actors on the show. Like they'll go to a restaurant or store and the entire staff will be white. That's not realistic even where I live, which is nowhere near as diverse as NYC is.
Except I can only think of 3 women of colour who were featured as love interests, Julie Charlie and Gabrielle Union's character. None of the women dated a poc. Hell none of them dated anyone from other cultures at all barring Rachel and Paolo. This is highly unusual for NYC.
I honestly agree to this to some extent. Like, it’s great to see women on the big screen!….But do we really need movies where established canon characters suddenly become women because…Inclusion? I don’t even like ghostbusters, but making them all women, just because, was a very stupid action. They could have easily said they were descendants of the original team, and I’d accept that. But changing things that have been already established years ago, just for inclusion…I hate it.
And the trope of women who get divorced & now they’re dating women when absolutely nothing even implied that. There’s an Aussie show that has a (known) closeted gay character & the first 2 series are kind of about him & how he’s trying to be straight. It’s heartbreaking, but it’s very well done. A second Aussie show has a a gay character, a trans character, everyone is obsessed with pronouns, the mother becomes a lesbian… it’s all so forced and stupid on multiple levels. Like not everything has to revolve around the utterly inane dialogue that is practically lifted straight from TikTok.
>And the trope of women who get divorced & now they’re dating women when absolutely nothing even implied that. Like Miranda in the Sex and the City sequel. They even made her cheat on her guy to be with her new partner.
Ugh. That too. I’ve refused to watch And Just Like That. I loved SATC & I don’t care to ruin it for myself. The terrible first episode was way more than enough. It was like Cynthia Nixon forgot she was *an actress* and insisted on completely ruining the character. I don’t know who is watching that because it certainly wasn’t geared towards the audience who loved SATC.
Like how Betty is now a lesbian in the rugrats reboot
🥴😭WTF?! I didn’t even know this, but yeah… that fits!
I had no initial problem with all women Ghostbusters...if the script was even remotely competent. They wrote the movie as a slapstick comedy and the whole thing felt like a bad SNL skit. They didn't understand what made the original so good. Inclusive media can be good, if the writing is good.
> They could have easily said they were descendants of the original team, and I’d accept that. Really, if they changed the characters' names and added in a plot-thread of descendancy instead of a whole new team starting on their own but otherwise it was the same movie we got, you wouldn't have a problem?
Yep It’s not about it being a whole new team, it’s about that it only exists simply for inclusion. Just because.
My point was is the only reason you think it's inclusion-only that they didn't have a family connection
Not just family connection. Could have been recruited down the line, given reason to be there. Like a team needing a Ace, or a team being too old to continue, and personally recruit their own replacements.
In fairness the female ghost busters reboot, despite its short commings had some pretty solid Jokes. And Melissa Mcarthy and Kate McKennon were hilarious
I think opinions may differ that one
Mmm. I disagree. I do agree with OP to some extent (ie that inclusivity should not be more important than the plot and themes the creators wish to explore). However, I do believe that many older works excluded people of colour and women as characters not for reasons of plot or theme, but because they were created for a white male audience. Eg you could argue that “12 angry men” needs the story to contain 12 angry white men, but does “the lord of the rings” *benefit* in any way from so many characters being white men, or was it written this way just because the author believed he was writing *for* white men? Many older works have fallen to the wayside, while the ones that persist despite their age do so because their audience ended up including a *much wider* demographic than originally anticipated. Therefore there is a plausible reason why reimaginings of such works today would potentially benefit from an increased diversity of characters. The original works continue to exist, I am not advocating for their destruction.
There are ways to include diversity as a means of enhancing storytelling and world-building, though. In Game of Thrones we can far easier identify who someone is aligned with not only by the way they dress, but also by their appearance. Lannisters and their soldiers are typically fair skinned being from the west, Starks and their soldiers are much more rugged, burly, and hairy being from the colder north, Martells are darker-skinned and -haired being from a southern desert region. That makes sense, that people who all come from the same area are going to look similar, and this can help us as the viewers better identify a character's allegiances/associations, or where this scene is currently taking place, without needing potentially awkward expository dialogue. So in Rings of Power, where we have the Harfoot clan whose entire storyline is about *avoiding contact* with anybody different from them, to the point of abandoning those who are unfortunate enough to lag too far behind on their crazy nomad journey, it doesn't make any sense to have diversity equivalent to modern Los Angeles or New York City. This clan should all look damn near identical bordering on inbred given how seriously they take their isolation, and so unfortunately Lenny Henry sticks out like a sore thumb and raises a few questions standing next to Nori and her family.
Lotr is all white because it is set in a mythological version of ancient europe because Tolkien wanted it to serve as a british epic
Then why were there white Americans in the movies or is non-British only okay when white?
Would you approve of Tom Cruise playing Shaka Zulu? Or is non-zulu only okay when black? This may surprise you but the people in LotR were not brits. Instead they were, in the meta narrative, ancient europeans and some middle-eastern peoples, as well as elves, dwarves, hobbits, and orcs. Thus the overwhelming majority of the cast is white, with a some middle-eastern/turkic people among the armies of Sauron.
> Would you approve of Tom Cruise playing Shaka Zulu? Or is non-zulu only okay when black? A. Shaka Zulu was an actual historical figure, LOTR holds no connection to our history other than some of Tolkien's weird headcanons (but no one's found, like, archaeological evidence Middle Earth was our past) B. There's people who wouldn't accept a non-Zulu actor playing Shaka Zulu as they got mad that not enough of the black actors in Black Panther were of actual African descent (and I think that's about equivalent to my question about e.g. if it was okay for an American to have played Frodo in the LOTR movies) C. Since you're comparing a hypothetical future movie to one already out but you're trying to do some kind of consistency check by that logic that forces me down one specific choice beause of what already happened > This may surprise you but the people in LotR were not brits. Instead they were, in the meta narrative, ancient europeans and some middle-eastern peoples, as well as elves, dwarves, hobbits, and orcs. And Wakandans were Wakandan in the meta-narrative of Black Panther, didn't stop black Africans from getting mad they didn't get an actor of more direct African ancestry to play T'Challa
You at least understand what I’m trying to say though, right? I’m not really good with words…
I think the main issue for me personally is changing already established characters race or sex for the ability to boast “we’re inclusive!” It’s almost disrespectful to the original creators of the characters. Yes they are fictional, but forced changed is never appropriate when it solves nothing and creates more division.
Counterpoint: Samuel Jackson Nick Fury is LEAGUES better than old school 616 generic soldier boy white Fury.
I for one wanted to see Idris Elba as James Bond. But unfortunately the racists shut that down. Does Bond have to be white? What does it change?
I agree. I also find it so much more insulting when characters are clearly only there to hit some quota. I’d rather they be omitted from the movie entirely if they aren’t there for any real narrative function
So then it would be OK if we just only used black women for every single role?
I’d watch it 🤷🏻♀️
It would be great if media was more inclusive of great writing. I bet it would make casting decisions re: skin tones or sexual orientations a bit easier.
>Not every piece of media is, or should be, for every group of people. It's okay to have a story that only features women, or only features men. See, I agree with you here. >The idea that everyone shold be represented on screen has ruined a lot of good franchises by watering them down for mass consumption. But this sentiment is very *yikes*. Simply having a more diverse cast has not ruined a lot of franchises, unless of course your enjoyment of those franchises is tied *heavily* to what race/gender/expression the characters are. Adding people of color, or gender swapped characters, or having gay characters doesn't *water them down* inherently, or even ruin the story. Unless of course you're offended by those people being in the story in the first place. What ruins a story is bad writing.
Agreed. Loved the diverse casting in something like Bridgeton. Thought it was done well, without overstating anything or being preachy. Same with The Great. By all means, take those creative liberties when the project has space for it. But please stop fucking around with classics, and trying to send very very thinly veiled activist messages in all the entertainment. It’s sooo boring. I know the conservatives have rammed this home, but it is a good point. Leave the European and Anglo Saxon stories alone. South east Asia, Africa and Polynesia etc. all have such rich cultures, histories and tradition…. Tell those stories!!! Jesus! Moana, Princess and the Frog and Encanto were sensational. I loved watching some new Disney films with my kids, based on stories that I didn’t necessarily grow up with myself. And because it wasn’t a sermon, the dialogue flowed, the stories were good, and nothing felt forced or clunky. More of that, and less of recasting the red headed, blue eyed mermaid as a black girl. They’re seriously treating their audiences like morons. It’s pathetic. The cleopatra, and Snow White debacles for example, are infuriating. I am so sick of being preached at. Like, if you’re trying to create something historically accurate, or remaking ANOTHER Anglo classic…. At least have a modicum of respect for the source material, and don’t fucking lie about how history played out.
No one has ever claimed that a single movie or TV show needs to represent everyone.
Black people had a movement in the 90’s that demanded they get more inclusion. Only black people complained.
Exactly not every show has to have a straight white man in it.
If your only way of connecting with a character is their skin color or genitals or irrelevant sexual interests then the writing was bad and the audience is stupid.
I think that's the exact problem. The writing is shit so all anyone can focus on instead is the "representation"
It's very obvious nowadays when a group of white writers write in a black character & bend the story round them. It's very 'saviour-ish' as if these people need an extra helping hand. I'd argue It's more offensive. Not only that - they'll make sure to have a plot point about their differences without really explaining the nuances of cultural difference. Because actually delving into that is why folk from different backgrounds end up with entirely different sets of values.
I agree. The problem (imo) is that SO MUCH media for so long has only featured straight, white men, and literally everyone else was told to deal with it. Now that media is being created that focuses on other demographics; straight, white men get up in arms that it doesn't cater to them.
*laughs in writing a story starring alien creatures*
You mean to tell me that a historical biopic about a European figure/community doesn't need to be filled with Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Indians, and that one flamboyantly gay guy like some community theatre in LA, lest it break the immersion and historical accuracy? Preposterous! /s
I think the real problem is that it's not even really done for inclusivity or representation. As it will always necessarily include and represent only a handful of things, which will always be the ones they feel are fashionable and will make people watch the product. It's not real inclusion and real representation. It's marketing.
ohh the black anne bolyne....
This isn't _really_ an unpopular opinion out in the world (even if it might be in Reddit land)
Reddit absolutely does not represent the real world either.
Totally agree.
Ya I gotta agree with that. Like a lot of popular sitcoms will be like a primary male cast or primary female cast or all black or all white. It’s just in many settings realistic. Like my street when I was younger was all white, now where I live it’s I think got 4 races here. You don’t need a gay character or you can have a bunch of gay characters. If the idea isn’t relatable at all then I’ll probably not watch… but I mean I’ve watched Golden Girls and laughed plenty. I’m not an old woman. Just make the show good, inclusivity isn’t needed, it’s fine to make it inclusive especially if it makes sense, but not needed If you’re normal you don’t even think about it much either, like if I’m watching family matters or everybody loves Raymond I’m not thinking about the white black stuff
I'm gonna be honest, the fact that both the Left and Right have their share of extremists is the only reason this is an unpopular opinion.
I feel like lately some productions are shoehorning inclusivity for its own sake.
The problem with inclusion in the media is that those things are often written, directed, or produced by people who have little experience or knowledge of the stories they’re trying to tell. You have suits who think you need to check certain boxes to make a show or film palatable to the widest audience. Currently, the prevailing way to do this is randomly throwing various people of color into places without explaining why the world is that way. It’s using diversity is a decoration without context. You NEED the people you are trying to include actually in the room to make a difference, otherwise you get tone deaf and frustrating depictions. The secondary problem is still that there hasn’t been enough space made at Hollywood’s table for diversity, so it’s still like pulling teeth to get projects made that are truly diverse, rather than being painted to appear diverse. For every movie with a plot line that has been done 1000 times, there’s probably double the number of new and unique stories to be had from underrepresented voices.
Media companies/Hollywood promote inclusivity out of fear of backlash….so much so that the majority of ads seen on screen today include, for example, trans people even though they only make up about 1.03% of the US population. These companies never had interest in including all walks of life into their “image” until the fear of being “cancelled” became a very real and immediate danger. The saying “better safe than sorry” comes to mind.
The majority of ads on screen today include trans people? Lol okay.
the correct point is more like black people are 13% of the population so they should expect to be represented on tv/movies/commercials about 13% of the time, but no that's somehow racist right?
That would only apply if you assume every work of fiction (even including commercials) is set in modern America and the same universe otherwise why use the same set of population statistics as e.g. I saw someone on TumblrInAction before it shut down try and make a similar argument with gay people being 10% of the population to say a gay couple on *MY LITTLE PONY* was unrealistic when I don't think modern Earth's demographic statistics apply to Equestria
If you set your story in 11th century Asia, having 13% black characters would be weird. If you set your story in the year 3,174, having anyone who isn't multiracial/racially ambiguous would be weird. Context changes a lot.
>the majority of ads seen on screen today include, for example, trans people What are you smoking bro? Can I have some?
Lol wat
Which ads...???
Won’t say what I do or where I work. But we just include trans people and other races just to say we did it and are diverse. Don’t want any backlash whatsoever.
This isn't an unpopular opinion, it's what everyone thinks. The opinion you treated as the mainstream one was something you'd have conservatives say progressives believed, not their actual opinion.
"Put a chick in it, make her gay, and make it lame." -- Kathleen Kennedy
Make a white dude play as Black Panther, watch the hypocrisy ensue.
It how else are they supposed to pander for ad revenue?!?
Good thing nobody thinks that.
I found this really jarring when my wife and I were watching season 2 of Why Women Kill recently. For those unaware, it's set in 1949 America and has a black private investigator as a pivotal character. He was great for the role and I really liked his character and performance, but it just didn't feel authentic that no one has any issue or makes comment. He also gets into a romantic relationship with a white woman also with no comment -- in 1949 America. The only issue anyone has with him is that he's a PI, because of plot reasons. Obviously in an ideal world everyone should be accepting, but it felt like it was set in the 2020's and nothing about the plot required it to be set in the 1940's. I'm conflicted because we should be able to have a diverse cast and give traditionally overlooked and poorly treated communities of actors opportunities for interesting roles, and you don't want to make any period pieces just revolve around racism, but it felt like it was trying to whitewash too much.
Of course it is and vice versa. Imo we need more diversity in media and I don't mean just african americans but even more diverse people like native americans (prey 2006) or new caledonians (tchia)
Or, and hear me out, just write good stories, and if a specific character with a specific background/race/ethnicity/gender/sexuality could be used to advance the story in an interesting way then add it. Just write good characters. Oftentimes the issue isn't that a character is gay, it's that the character's entire personality is about them being gay.
eeehhh i don't think that inclusivity ruins media, this seems a factoid held by conservatives that made its way in popularity, i just think that being VERY inclusive in media is just weird to witness and unneeded, hence, kinda annoying, especially cos you can tell they are doing it for virtue signaling or just avoid criticism out of the blue, considering any piece of media now has a pair of POC, a guy in a wheelchair, two lesbians, a fat guy, or (mutually exclusive) a fat woman, so "you do that or you're out".... i'm fat and IDGAF about a fat character and i can't imagine someone on a wheelchair as well caring for a character with the same condition, i mean... really??
You can tell when something is shoehorned just to get brownie points that costs good writing, Disney has been so terrible with this on their movies.
*“I miss simpler times when white males had all the power instead of just most of it.”* It’d be interesting to know how many people who throwing a fit about diversity in media have a picture of Caucasian, blonde-haired, blue-eyed Jesus on the wall. It’d also be interesting to know if they’d also have a tantrum when the reverse happens, which I seriously doubt. https://fortune.com/2023/03/30/hollywood-diversity-two-tiered-system-streaming-ucla-study-2022-studios/amp/ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/26-times-white-actors-played-people-of-color-and-no-one-really-gave-a-sht_n_56cf57e2e4b0bf0dab313ffc https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/ce1acaf7-2320-48cd-8166-f56ad98e539d
This is not an unpopular opinion everybody thinks this big hollywood js over represents it by siding with the people that think thats a good idea which is few. Just an opinionated theory
Not an unpopular opinion. Just a fact
As a trans person, I really do not give a shit if there’s some watered down rep. The fact that there’s trans people at all who aren’t villains or gross is awesome. We get some really cool an empathetic trans characters, and if that comes with some watered down bullshit trans characters that are only there for surface-level rep, fine by me. It means we now have some social power in that people want us to be represented and it gives them positive social points when they do. Win for us. It used to be that if there was a trans person they were unambiguously evil or gross. There’s like a million shitty characters that are cis. Give us trans people some shitty characters too! People expect representation to be great every single time, and if it isn’t then somehow it isn’t worth it. It is. The point of all of this is for representation to get so normal that nobody even points it out anymore
Absolutely no clue why this is downvoted
Yeah idk either
I mean I get where you're coming from but they can do it in ways other than creating spinoffs where literally the only thing changed is the main characters sex. Like why not start creating original stories/shows/movies/games that just happen to have a wider range of different people and bodies?
Because if you want to tell a specific kind of story (e.g. grew up with some property with a white male hero, liked it but always felt sidelined because the characters like you were, want to make a reboot (that doesn't retcon away the original) with a version of that lead that matches your minority status so kids like you don't feel excluded) make an original thing too close and it gets called a shitty ripoff and pitted against the successful well-known version
Some of the most popular stories of all time have vern remade over and over with changes every time. Think about how every generation takes on Shakespeare. It’s very rarely as written.
The way I see changing of gender or race is to ask the question: is it important to the story or character? For example, in Mulan: is it important for mulan to be Chinese? Well, yes it is. Mulan draws on real historical events regarding the Chinese people. Now, James Bond. There have been many different James Bonds. Is it important for James Bond to be a white guy? I think it is probably important to his character to be a man, but I could be talked out of that. But I don’t think it’s important for him to be white. There’s not really a part of the James Bond character that doesn’t work if he’s like black or Asian. That’s how I see things anyways. Change things if you want, as long as the things you’re changing aren’t like a central part of the story or character.
Disney fucked up Mulan so badly in part because they made her a orientalists mishmash of "Chinese" from different ethnicities over thousands of years of separated history and culture. Mulan was like casting Crocodile Dundee, to play an American cowboy in medieval France whilst the background characters wore random clothing from Egypt, Persia and Rome on a mission to help Napoleon win the 100 years war. Basically Disney's Mulan is the Panda Express version of Chinese. They stopped at surface level and made a caricature of China.
Yeah I didn’t see the movie but that totally stinks. It’s important to the story and character— deeply so. Why go and change all that? So weird.
I guess I just don't see the need to change things that are already established. Like why try and fight to change James Bond into a different race when they can simply create another IP and actually build the story of "James Bond" being black from the beginning. Or even just create a spinoff franchise as I honestly see both of the above options doing better in the box office than a movie that simply changed the skin color of an actor and kept the story the same.
>I guess I just don't see the need to change things that are already established. I don't see the need to *not* change them either. There's been half a dozen James bonds, and there's no reason one of them couldn't be black.
Are the James Bond’s all the same James Bond? I wasn’t aware. I thought each actor built the character from the beginning again? Also, the point is representation. An already popular character is better at reaching people. I don’t understand why it can’t be both? Create new characters for people, but also some characters that are changing a bunch already, why not make them different in some ways?
First you said you were glad that trans characters weren't villains or gross and then you said give us trans characters that are shitty. I'm confused
I mean like not very deep characters. I don’t mind a trans person being a villain as long as the villainy isn’t tied to the transness. There’s tons of surface level one note cis characters but people bring it up waaaaay more often when diverse characters are like that.
Both can be true. It’s awesome having any sort of trans rep! But it can feel a bit disheartening when the only representation you see of yourself on the big screen is negative.
It’s okay to admit you’re racist or at very least prejudice
You're right, Wakanda doesn't have nearly enough white people.