Shatts said:
Jaicee said:
First of all, thanks for taking the time to share your opinion at-length. There's a lot to respond to there and a lot that seems incoherent to me, and honestly I just don't have the have the energy to go through this in an itemized way, but I do get and want to respond to the crux of your argument, which is that "games and entertainment in general needs to be free from politics". It's an old argument you won't be surprised to learn that I've seen many times before. It just strikes me as naive. You cite "games like GTA" as examples of what a games "free from politics" look like. Frankly, I don't understand how anyone can play through a game like Grand Theft Auto V, for instance, and conclude that no political statements were made therein; that no social commentary has been offered. And the reality of the matter is that this includes some pretty definite gender politics too, not just rather blatant statements about public policy. There is a worldview being advanced here, both wittingly and perhaps sometimes otherwise.
Not seeing the demographic politics in games (or other media) is a luxury that I haven't enjoyed. It's a luxury that stems from a sense of entitlement begotten by a long history of self-reinforcing special treatment. For example, you go on to complain about the fact that Ariel is black in Disney's new live-action version of The Little Mermaid and don't see how you've just contradicted your case by insisting that she should be white instead because it's just natural or traditional or something for a fictional mermaid to have white skin or because the Little Mermaid fan base supposedly skews overwhelmingly white and objects to the change (which is an assessment perhaps contradicted by the opening-weekend surveys of its audience). Yes, the decision to cast Ariel as non-white this time around was likely a deliberate one. The reasons why one would object are no less political though; they are just differently political. And I think I've got more respect for the motivations behind that casting here than I do for the sorts of ugly reasons why you'd object.
What your case ultimately boils down to is the same circular argument that I've been seeing since back in the days when these gender-role debates between mostly male and mostly female gamers would play out in the letters pages of gaming magazines instead of online because nobody had the internet. Namely, the "winning" contention that games have to broadly be sexist because most creators and consumers of video games alike are male and no questions can be asked about why that is or whether that lopsidedness a good thing. To ask these questions is to be objectionably political, apparently in contrast to the status quo from which one group of people benefits a whole lot more than others, has seen themselves more favorably reflected, etc. Supposedly, gaming culture exists in a vacuum. Supposedly it is naturally free of politics and only feminist killjoys introduce them. That all is a rather convenient way of looking at these debates. Reality is more complicated than that.
|
2. I never said mermaids needed to be white did I? I just stated my distaste how Ariel did not look like the character that represented her in the original without any particular reasons other than "inclusion" and "representation" in modern society, from what I've gathered. I would've disliked it if Ariel was blonde for example and I assume most people would be too. Furthermore, it's not just the looks, but the characteristics. I wouldn't like it if the personality changed in a character either. Chris Pratt voicing Mario had a huge negative reaction for the same reasons. Communication is key however. Change is accepted in the community IF there's a logical/reasonable explanation that makes sense to the audience. Like a character turning into an adult, it may still leave fans in distraught but at least it makes sense.
|
Are you even vaguely familiar with how Disney works?
The whole concept that Disney was built on was taking fairy tales and other similar types of stories and changing them for no particular reason aside from the fact that they thought it would be more appealing to their audience.
In the original story, Prince Eric winds up with some other girl, and Ariel's tongue is cut out. King Triton is a Greek God with horse legs and a fish tail and has nothing to do with the original story. There were no talking crabs or animals. In the Hunchback of Notre Dame, Esmeralda was kind of a stuck up bitch who barely tolerated quasi modo, Pheobus was a moron, and Esmeralda is killed. They literally reversed the whole message of the story from being "yup the world is shallow" to "be yourself and people will recognize your inner beauty. Disney even rewrites reality itself sometimes. In reality Pocahontas was 12 when John Smith came to America, and she did not talk to Willow Trees.
We could go on with tons and tons of examples of Disney changing and adapting stories to what they believe their audience wants. And we can give plenty of examples of other companies doing the same, and I have already presented several way more drastic changes. Yet, generally nobody really cares. So, why is Ariel being black especially problematic? Why do these kinds of arguments only come up when race, gender, or sexuality is at issue?
Last edited by JWeinCom - on 10 June 2023
