• Surp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I always thought race swap gender swapping roles was a cash grab and a way to just make people fight. And it seems to work every time. I personally think it’s a slap in the face to the genders and races that were swapped in. If new movies can’t make new characters and stories with different races and sexes without seemingly purposefully causing controversy by replacing one race or sex with the other I’d take that as a low blow.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I always thought race swap gender swapping roles was a cash grab

      There are a lot of instances in which is can put a new spin on an old trope. Spiderman is a great example. The various swapped Spider-folks all have a unique setting and character arcs. The idea of “Spiderman” as a set of powers they all happen to share give a loose cover for a bunch of really compelling super-hero stories that could only come from a particular perspective.

      If new movies can’t make new characters and stories with different races and sexes without seemingly purposefully causing controversy by replacing one race or sex with the other I’d take that as a low blow.

      Its not uncommon for a writer/director to have an idea for a piece of media that’s original and compelling, but get told “We have a zillion dollars for Generic IP and pocket change for Original Cinema”. So the original gets adapted to IP. The lead in your spy thrill gets hot-swapped for James Bond. A gothic horror gets turned into a Dracula or Frankenstein film. The sci-fi epic becomes another entry in Star Wars cannon. The coming-of-age film gets Barbie as the lead character.

      The IP is what guarantees a minimum viable audience, because its immediately recognizable. Then the screenplay itself is wrapped around the central cast. IP is just an efficient form of marketing.

    • andros_rex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Part of this is that idiots will predictably react and cause a distraction. Rey and Rose Tito are not what made new Star Wars bad, but the discourse was ruled by WOM BAD for months. Or Ghostbusters or whatever. Going out of your way to attract bad faith criticism so that you can conflate the legitimate with the ridiculous.

    • Scipitie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just curious: how’d you feel if they literally and publicly role the dice for any character where race or gender isn’t required for the plot?

      • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ridley Scott in the original Alien movie literally did that. The names of the characters sound gender neutral, and the production hired actors who would just seem good fit for the role. Now that I think about it, the race and gender of the crew did not matter in the plot, because the main character and attraction is the Alien!

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t know if that’s true for The Thing, but the names certainly seem race-neutral (although an all-male cast).

      • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        If there’s no actual reason for them being a particular race, skin tone, gender, orientation, etc then go for it. I can’t really see a reason to be upset at this hypothetical.