So tired of this

I’ll agree on both points- that if you change the outfit or the car or whatever else of a favorite character- you’re in for at least one vocally unhappy fan. I’ll also agree that the media likes to turn anything into an “epidemic” etc even if it’s one person. The media however is generally not the ones making memes or posting to message boards- and some in the media are not reporting on fan outrage- but writing their own outraged editorials. There is a big difference though at the individual fan level in being upset at a change to a franchise, and being upset about a specific choice in change.

If I order a pizza slice and get a tuna sandwich for the same cost and same wait- I’ll probably be upset right? But WHY am I upset? Am I upset because I expected pizza and got tuna- or am I upset because I don’t like tuna? It’s a nuanced but important distinction.

When I say: “this isn’t what I ordered...” that is not the same as saying: “this is tuna.” The later implies that I MIGHT be more accepting of the substitution of it was for something I liked vs something I don’t like. If we aren’t talking tuna vs pizza- then being upset a character is a certain race vs. another as opposed to the differences in the character is like saying: “why THIS race? I might be ok with something else....”

You won’t seem to see as many complaints when an English character is played by an actor of German or Scottish or even Russian descent. Now- if the character matches an overall description we seem to be more accepting of course. That can be more about cannon. But... sometimes that is relative right? What might “fair” or “pale” skin look like from a book description for instance? Wesley Snipes is not either to most people- but... Steph Curry is “fair” or “pale” compared to Wesley Snipes is he not?

If the medium was adapted from a previous property what we saw in an original was one artists interpretation of the character. Choices made perhaps for style or aesthetic if we eliminate racial bias etc. plenty of people were upset Jackman’s Wolverine never wore his iconic costume- but there was a decision by production that wasn’t the aesthetic they wanted.

I’ll stop here on the “Sonic example,” They tried a different interpretation of Sonic for their film and fans lost their noodles. I don’t think anyone but the most hardened ethnic studies major could make a solid case there was racism involved there. BUT- there was a solid division between people who were upset because movie Sonic diverged from the appearance they know as “classic sonic” and those who simply felt the film Sonic was in an unholy corner of the uncanny valley- just an off putting design and would accept a different look for Sonic provided that it wasn’t so deeply unsettling.

Of course most of the Internet rejoiced when a major studio went back and changed it post production. It is largely seen as a victory that the studio listened to a large majority of fans.

Now- two part question:
Part one: if the media largely blows racism out of proportion. If “hardcore purist fans” are a vocal minority but “people of color” make up about 50% of society and are set to become the majority in America (and world wide non whites are already the majority), and the majority of people on earth want to see people like them when they watch the next superhero film or book adaptation regardless of what was written or previously done on screen... why wouldn’t studios listening to a large group of dissatisfied fans to redo the appearance of characters be a victory like Sonic was?

Part 2: using the Sonic example... it has to at least seem uncomfortable if a large group of people wanted to create petitions to change characters from “diverse” actors to white ones- wether that is racist or not- the implications there... many of the people who would join that list... is that something most people would want to be associated with? The “token” hire is a sensitive subject. Most people don’t want to get hired to meet a racial quota. “Oh. We already have 5 Chinese people. Hire an Arab person. We are short on Arabs...” it’s dehumanizing. But.... short of eradicating racism or casting roles by lottery there aren’t a lot of good ideas to get more representation in film. The whole “tell their stories” is great- except it ignores the reality of how connections and past performance work in the movie industry as well as the larger dynamic or audiences and race vs. financial risks and returns.

I had a long ass spiel about Death Note then it got deleted. Here’s the cliff notes: Netflix changed a character’s race and sure it doesn’t change a huge aspect of the story, but it doesn’t make sense with what’s happening. Japan has a non Japanese population of about 3%. It is commonly cited as the most homogenous open country in the world. So turning a weirdly pale Asian boy into a Black man is pretty out of place and doesn’t add anything to the story as a whole

Ok. Counter point. The United States has a non white culture of almost 50%, yet in the 1990’s 90% of roles on TV and close to that in movies were white actors even when set in contemporary America. Presently we are closer to 70 odd percent “non white” roles which to your population demographic- still don’t make sense. Shows and movies set places like SF CA are even worse- where in some areas Asians are over 70% of the population but Asian Actors make up less than 1% of leading roles.

So if we are going with: “the population demographic doesn’t make sense...” we can easily flip that around to say it usually doesn’t- but you don’t seem to see the same people nearly as upset if at all when the numbers screw unrealistic towards white actors.

Speaking of.... what of fantasy worlds not based on ours but where the predominant race is generally by default white? Which is... most of them oddly. And while we are on the subject- what percent of cops are loose cannons who have major shootouts and car chases while chasing international criminals? What percentage of teens discover they are witches? What percentage of a population: gets caught up in international conspiracy? Works at the White House? Has years of steamy love triangles with crazy plot twists? Develops super powers? Can kill people by writing in a notebook?

Movies and shows generally deal with the improbable or the exceptional for the most part. That’s what makes a story interesting isn’t it? If you remove the improbable and unrealistic, the narratively convenient from fiction you are left with... reality. Non fiction. At some point in your life you may have had something almost unbelievable and interesting happen to you. Do you tell that story at parties or do you walk people through an average day of getting up, brushing your teeth, going to work, blah blah and end it all with getting to bed on time- with perhaps the most exciting part being that you thought you left your umbrella in the Lyft but it was in your backpack? Hollywood isn’t lining up to buy that script.

All I’m saying is if you’re using source material for the backbone of a project just let everything make sense. If in the next avengers movie Stark walks back on stage Asian and gay the audience would be really confused. But if they just add a new Asian and gay character? No one would care or probably even notice.

I think I get you. Kinda like how in the next Incredible Hulk movie, the hulk showed up and was suddenly Edward Norton, and then in the NEXT Incredible Hulk Movie, he showed up as Mark Ruffalo- and so everyone left the theaters upset and confused after watching Avengers because they were like: “Who is this guy? Where is Edward Norton?”

I believe what you are talking about is called Continuity. And yes- it would certainly be jarring to have Geralt be played by Forest Whitaker for two episodes mid season, and by Andy Lau in the finale and Cavill the rest of it. But oddly... films like “Gladiator” or “Troy” or “Passion of the Christ” seem to do ok when they diverge from the source material in casting selection- and I’d argue that the Bible has been read more times by more people than an Avengers book.