Forums - General Discussion - I'm tired of this overemphasis on diversity spilling into our entertainment.

Azuren said:
collint0101 said:

Johnny storm was like 13 when he first went into space but I haven't heard anyone complain about that. I don't take comic book fans seriously because they only seem to care whenever a change involves race. Changing literally everything about civil war except for captain america punching iron Man is fine and dandy but Valkyrie is played by a brown chick and all hell breaks loose. If that doesn't scream double standard then I don't know what does.

And there wouldn't be a double standard in your case if they made Falcon white, right?

Changing age isn't a big deal, since most instance of FF take place during Johnny being an adult, meaning making the movie with a kid would have thrown off the general population who know adult Johnny from the cartoon and comics. Civil War changed in its entirety because Fox owned the mutants, who were a HUGE point of contention and practically the point of Civil War.

But do you have any instances of this double standard that aren't super easily debunked?

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.

Signalstar said:

Well it looks like things are going your way...

Major Studios Released a Historically Low Amount of LGBTQ-Inclusive Films in 2017 — Report

Just 14 titles included identifiably lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer characters, tied for the lowest total since GLAAD began tracking the stats in 2012.

http://www.indiewire.com/2018/05/studios-lgbtq-films-2017-report-glaad-1201967430/

Happy now?

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.

PortisheadBiscuit said:
DonFerrari said:

Seems like you didn't read the topic... and also if no one cares then why is it being made? And personal attacks for what reason? Are you going to accuse me of being advocate?

Personal attack? Definitely a stretch

"Who cares" can be used as an idiom, I OBVIOUSLY wasn't using it in a literal sense. 

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

collint0101 said:
Azuren said:

And there wouldn't be a double standard in your case if they made Falcon white, right?

Changing age isn't a big deal, since most instance of FF take place during Johnny being an adult, meaning making the movie with a kid would have thrown off the general population who know adult Johnny from the cartoon and comics. Civil War changed in its entirety because Fox owned the mutants, who were a HUGE point of contention and practically the point of Civil War.

But do you have any instances of this double standard that aren't super easily debunked?

Spiderman wasn't 15 during civil war, planet hulk didn't feature Thor, captain America was supposed to die at the end of civil war ect but I'm sure you're going to twist yourselve in knots trying to justify why all of those changes are fine but making a minor characters like Ben Urich black is the end of the world. 

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.

DarthMetalliCube said:
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.

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.

Azuren said:
DarthMetalliCube said:
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).

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



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
DarthMetalliCube said:
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.

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.

outlawauron said:
VGPolyglot said:

Is that and meaningful character development mutually exclusive?

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.

Smear-Gel said:

There is no provable metric that shows doing something for the sake of it worsen's the product, especially since you yourself also say its shallow and thus, doesnt really matter.

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.

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.



 

Smear-Gel said:
DarthMetalliCube said:
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.

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.

outlawauron said:

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.

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.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
Smear-Gel said:

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.

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.



 

My thoughts on so-called "forced diversity"?

So long as the end product is good, who cares what race, gender, or sexual orientation the characters are? I honestly don't get people who obsess over these things. Whether it's people complaining about Spider-Man: Homecoming's majority non-white cast (Whites not a majority in Queens? Stop the presses!) or other people complaining about the Major in the live-action Ghost in the Shell movie being played by the very white Scarlett Johannsen instead of a Japanese actress, it gets old, quick. Judge the film, show, or game on its own merits, not because it has too few or too many minorities for your tastes.

For example, the Ghostbusters reboot wasn't bad because it made the main characters all women. It was bad despite that. The movie had a bad script, bad direction, lackluster effects, and humor that lacked the humor and charm of the original. But there's no reason an all-female Ghostbusters crew couldn't have worked.

Last edited by Shadow1980 - on 23 May 2018

Around the Network
Smear-Gel said:
DonFerrari said:

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.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

So it finally happened, battlefield 5 has a female with one arm as part of its cast.

In world war 2.

Wow.

Ultra realism? Just wow. Disgusting, more like. Absolutely forced diversity for the sake of it. Few to no women served the front lines in world war 2, much less ones with one arm! This is ludicrous. Absolutely shameful show of forced diversity.



bugrimmar said:
So it finally happened, battlefield 5 has a female with one arm as part of its cast.

In world war 2.

Wow.

Ultra realism? Just wow. Disgusting, more like. Absolutely forced diversity for the sake of it. Few to no women served the front lines in world war 2, much less ones with one arm! This is ludicrous. Absolutely shameful show of forced diversity.

I'm quessing they gave her the prosthetic arm so no one would dare to critize the female character too harshly.

You wouldn't make fun of disabled people, would you... ?



In the wilderness we go alone with our new knowledge and strength.

bugrimmar said:
So it finally happened, battlefield 5 has a female with one arm as part of its cast.

In world war 2.

Wow.

Ultra realism? Just wow. Disgusting, more like. Absolutely forced diversity for the sake of it. Few to no women served the front lines in world war 2, much less ones with one arm! This is ludicrous. Absolutely shameful show of forced diversity.

You're playing a video game, not a simulator.  



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

bugrimmar said:
So it finally happened, battlefield 5 has a female with one arm as part of its cast.

In world war 2.

Wow.

Ultra realism? Just wow. Disgusting, more like. Absolutely forced diversity for the sake of it. Few to no women served the front lines in world war 2, much less ones with one arm! This is ludicrous. Absolutely shameful show of forced diversity.

Not to mention adding in a Katana!  Forced diversity garbage right there for you.  

 

The Soviet Union actually did have women on the front lines.  

Last edited by the-pi-guy - on 24 May 2018