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.
It’s hard to do well, but I disagree that it’s a slap in the face or a low blow. The gender swap of Starbuck from Battlestar Galactic was seen as sacrilege by fans, but she became one of the highlights of the show. Miles Morales was a creative way to do a race swap for Spider Man, and the narrative is richer for it. Jason Mamoa turned Aquaman from white to Polynesian, and the depiction was better than ever. Would Nick Fury be better as a white guy, as he was originally for decades, instead of Samuel L Jackson?
And then there are all the “swaps” that happen before the first day of filming, like Ellen Ripley, Sigourney Weaver’s character in Alien, who was originally (edit) going to be cast as a man. This was “controversial” at the time, with people decrying “political correctness”. I would not take “causing controversy” as a reliable indicator for whether something sucks.
Edit: point taken about gender neutral script. See discussion below.
Miles Morales isn’t a race swap. That’s why it works and everyone likes it (well, except actual racists).
It’s an entirely new character that exists in the spiderman multiverse and has a different personality and backstory from Peter Parker. That’s what inclusivity actually should look like.
Imo, it’s why it works. It’s different and original, and even fits in the same story as the old ones.
Obviously I have no objective proof of that, but you can’t even hypothetically think about what would’ve happened if it was just a race swap, because the whole premise of the movie is that Miles isn’t Peter Parker.
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.
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.
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!
![[Alzwards Corner] EXCUSE ME?!](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/f683868d-d0bb-4c7e-83a5-4cccb60ff9ec.png){kind=link}
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.
It’s hard to do well, but I disagree that it’s a slap in the face or a low blow. The gender swap of Starbuck from Battlestar Galactic was seen as sacrilege by fans, but she became one of the highlights of the show. Miles Morales was a creative way to do a race swap for Spider Man, and the narrative is richer for it. Jason Mamoa turned Aquaman from white to Polynesian, and the depiction was better than ever. Would Nick Fury be better as a white guy, as he was originally for decades, instead of Samuel L Jackson?
And then there are all the “swaps” that happen before the first day of filming, like Ellen Ripley, Sigourney Weaver’s character in Alien, who was originally (edit) going to be cast as a man. This was “controversial” at the time, with people decrying “political correctness”. I would not take “causing controversy” as a reliable indicator for whether something sucks.
Edit: point taken about gender neutral script. See discussion below.
Miles Morales isn’t a race swap. That’s why it works and everyone likes it (well, except actual racists).
It’s an entirely new character that exists in the spiderman multiverse and has a different personality and backstory from Peter Parker. That’s what inclusivity actually should look like.
Is that why it works, or is that just how they did it?
Imo, it’s why it works. It’s different and original, and even fits in the same story as the old ones.
Obviously I have no objective proof of that, but you can’t even hypothetically think about what would’ve happened if it was just a race swap, because the whole premise of the movie is that Miles isn’t Peter Parker.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!