I’m guessing that’s similar to fox making Johnny storm black in the newest fantastic four movie, electro was also black in the amazing Spider-Man 2, and now the new ninja turtles show has a black April? 

Im not really understanding why entertainment companies lately are taking known characters and changing their original gender or race. Why not just come up with brand new characters who are male, female, black, gay, whatever, instead of altering famous established characters. That would be like making black panther white or Asian. It wouldn’t look right. 

As for the death note movie, that was a colossal train wreck. 

Days of Future past starred Wolverine because the timeline doesn't work the way it does in the comics and Kitty Pryde would not have been born yet.

We have absolutely zero context on why Carol is showing up so far in advance, so bringing this up is really just grasping for straws.

Ant-Man and Wasp were also viewed as B-tier characters at the time the first Avengers came out, and weren't given a chance until after the second Avengers.

Age of Ultron was already way too long, and partitioned movies usually catch a lot of negative response. Including all of his shenanigans would have taken up too much screen time.

Nick Fury (MCU) is based on Ultimate Nick Fury from the Ultimate Marvel comics; he has basis in comics, and has been a thing for 17 years.

And to sum things up: people don't like core aspects of what makes their character them being changed for what is literally no reason. You can change the age Peter Parker joined in the Civil War, but you can't decide Peter Parker is black. No, you make a black character to take that identity as well, like Miles Morales. No one's saying there can't be a black Wolverine. But James Howlett is a white canadian.

I think some people are missing the point of this thread. I don't think the vast majority of people here actually have a problem with diversity in entertainment/media/culture. Why would they? Do you honestly think most reasonable white men are outraged by the fact that we're only featured in 70% of entertainment now rather than the 80% or so of the past?

Rather, the issue most have is what this obsession with diversity often implies - which is a laziness and a sort of easy solution to generate interest to or sell a product, while on another level undermining traits that REALLY matter with is actual content of the product, or the character or actions of the individuals.

Going back to the Ghostbusters example again - Sony completely sold the movie on the fact that "it's Ghostbusters with chicks!" to draw attention to it. Then when the vast majority slagged it for the dumpster fire it was (which had nothing to do with the fact that the protagonists were female), they were labeled sexists. And the movie got a ton of undeserved for attention for being essentially a shitty SNL style derpy comedy that's probably Adam Sander level of quality at best.

At the end of the day this phony importance placed on diversity often is just corporate marketing to be looked upon favorably by the keepers of the morals and cultural authorities in society, and provides an excuse for them to be lazy with their end product. It's a gimmick. At least this is the way I see it.

You give them too much credit; Adam Sandler at least used to be hilarious (and Grown-Ups is actually a fun movie to watch, it just doesn't have a real climax).

They are mutually exclusive but in current gaming industry, they're pretty tied together. When the entire depth of a character is "they gay and stuff", then their effort to have a diverse character has now become the single defining trait of that character.

Of course there's not a provable metric, but ultimately we're talking about subjective taste in the quality of a game's story and/or cast. That said, there are numerous observable cases of developers being directed to have more diverse characters for the sake of it and thus said characters being entirely one-dimensional and poorly developed (if at all).

Hopefully we get to a point where developers are able to have diverse casts and stories that aren't done in response to media.

You probably don't go to their forums to see that they will discuss all minute changes and heated discussions right?

Because for Manga vs Anime, which are made by same team and have very minimal changes all is heavily discussed with some liking or hating them.

Dragon Ball had Mr. Popo changed to blue in USA so SJW wouldn't keep complaining about the black guy with exaggerated facial features. Same with Jinx in Pokemon. Yet no japanese fucking cares that they call one another monkey and have Goku with a tail or animal humanoids ruling the world.

Two points on that. First do anyone have to be identifiable in any of those categories or "cis gender"? If any character isn't said to be cis gender or show to be, you can also assume he isn't for all anyone care. Do you think they got their time tracking how many of the chars were identified/confirmed to be cis versus the rest and see how that fit to demographics?

And you clearly missed the OP, where he isn't complaining about having LGBTQ+ in media. If the story makes their gender important than it should explore it, but if it is either just tossed there or changed a character for it is the points of complain.

Is that one of the it only matters in one direction?

As I said perhaps you should go to those guys den and see their discussions... and also consider that probably the complains about gender and race are fished on the net and made heat to push an agenda.

And as said in the thread, that several of those forced diversity also make chars less depth because some flaws have to be removed to not be considered bigotry.

But I have to say I like wasting 90 min at my couch seeing Adam Sandler on netflix.

When I don't have to pay extra, 90min of Adam Sandler can be entertaining.

I agree with this, though like I said, Sony specifically pushed the debate for marketing and so engaging in it at all is getting involved in thier manufactured outrage.

I see your point, I just think that a lot of the time in those cases, the characters would have sucked either way and the push to make them diverse wasnt really the reason for it.

Problem is diversity was used as means to forbidden disagreeing.

That's true, but that was more a syptom of the manufactured outrage, most people just thought it looked shit, so they played up all the real sexist comments to make it look like that was the only critisism. I mean all the sexists didnt help, but basically all of it was just a massive marketing tool.

I can agree with that.

But that is one of the points of the OP. Make GB all women to use as marketing and them forget to make the movie good.