Update: Latest rumor shows casting for a white Ciri | Original: Netflix looking for non-white actress to play Ciri in the Witcher tv series

[DonFerrari]

danasider said:

I'll say again go read all his judgemental posts.

And please explain to me how a story with core on royalty and heritage makes heritage not important?

I feel this conversation is becoming circular, but I will give this one final shot.

I believe heritage in a story CAN be important, but it's contextual. Does the story rely on the heritage the way it would in history so that if the character were anything but white, the story would be broken?

For example, if we made a story set in a fantasy world that mimicked American history and showed a country that was built on the back of slaves taken from other lands, does that mean the slave owner has to be white? Not really. It can be completely reversed because in a fictional setting, history can be retconned. The ideas could still be the same and the inspiration could be evident, but when it comes to fantasy, we can write anything our imagination sets forth.

Now, if the fictional story were in a historical setting, in this case pre-Civil War United States, the story would be messed up (for people like you who care about believability) if the slaveowner was black, because that didn't exist at the time in this country. Even if both stories were fictional, the CONTEXT is different and the impact of the change is different to.

And even as I write this, I personally wouldn't be outraged by either example I gave. Exploring subverted ideas and norms is interesting to me, not really controversial.

WIth the Witcher being set in a fantasy world inspired by the traditions and people of Poland, we expect the settings and people to mirror the generally homogenous population of the real world it was inspired from. BUT it is a fantasy world, and history can be retconned.

The problem I see is that the fans think a story will be broken for the mere reason that a character's color is changed when it really has no bearing on the story aside from "the book said she was white" or "the myths that inspired it was from a setting where mostly white people lived." People are basically pissed that the migration patters in our real world don't dictate the migration patterns shown in the show.

The Witcher is a work of fiction and the show is presenting it as an independent work of art since it's doing so in a new medium. Like many other movies, shows or games based off of literary properties, story elements and entire characters may be added/taken away. The details of a fantasy world's history CAN be retconned if it doesn't do much harm to the story. Aside from mimicking the history and lands that the Witcher's world was inspired by (inspired doesn't mean cloned), what bearing does Ciri's white skin have on the story that would completely wreck it if it were to be changed?

And I am looking for a substantial reason like "Ciri's white skin gives her powers" or "Ciri's white skin was a curse." Something story related, because real world traditions shouldn't limit a work of fantasy...ONLY INSPIRE.

You see the problem is when you try to put people not liking it as outraged to put as if it is irrational thinking of others.

In case you don't know in Brazil we had a lot of black people with black slaves (I think it is also possible that it happened in USA as well), one of then is today celebrated by all as a black people freedom fighter (Zumbi dos Palmares). He was the head of what we call Quilombo (a place where the fled black slaves gone) and while at that he had slaves of himself.

Sure a story based on USA could have the slave owners as black and the slaves as white (even if we would see a lot of backlash from people saying that was made to show black people as bad or minimizing the suffering from black people), that would work if you had as general all white as slaves and all black as free people and/or slave owners. But if you make a single white guy a slave for a black person while all the rest is black slaves for white people then you better explain why that is the case because people would see it as odd if not. Same way as someone black being children from all white family in an all white country and being royalty no less.

No, people are complaining that making her non-white break the lore based on her heritage ( I already gave a solution, make all the family and country of that ethnicity). But you and the other people are trying to put as racism because for you guys that would be the only reason for someone to not applaud it.

DNA and heritage aren't tradition, and breaking it without giving a very good explanation can impair the story (and even giving the explanation may also change the lore as well). Because if it was "the white skin give her power" it would make no difference "the green skin gives her power" or any other skin color. But when the reason for white skin is genetics and the parents then changing it is unnecessary and the cover up may make it even worse.