Obviously, but nobody is saying all art should. The majority of art doesn't.Art explicitly made to showcase or highlight those experiences should obviously contain them, at the same time not all art need pursue this goal.
Obviously, but nobody is saying all art should. The majority of art doesn't.Art explicitly made to showcase or highlight those experiences should obviously contain them, at the same time not all art need pursue this goal.
Yeah there's a handful of things that do this. Where did I say none of them did it? I said it's not a trope. In south park in particular it's more of a recurring theme that they jumped off of into different joke with changing Token's name to Tolkien in a recent episode, implying that they actually weren't really doing this and that everyone just assumed it cause they have stereotypes in their brain.Um South Park has been doing it for years already. Modern shows like The Boys bring it up regularly too. Decades of media has poked fun at the concept. Various films too, including blaxploitation films like Undercover Brother that swaps the dynamic by having Neil Patrick Harris be the token white guy as an in-joke. But no, carry on talking out your arse about things you have no idea about, it's an amusing distraction for now at least.
The people quoted in the OP were saying that, but yeah I do think it's a crazy thing to say and most people don't agree.Obviously, but nobody is saying all art should. The majority of art doesn't.
They didn't say that, though. The showrunners talked about including it in one piece of media.The people quoted in the OP were saying that, but yeah I do think it's a crazy thing to say and most people don't agree.
The thing is, Sam shouldn't have to earn it after he's already been given the shield. Sam shouldn't need justifying becoming Captain America after the fact. Sam should have spent his screen time before Endgame showing that he both deserved it and that his character would want it. Of the two, and let's be frank there were only 2 options, Bucky had a far FAR greater setup for becoming Captain American than Sam did.Disagree there.
There's a case to be made for Bucky, sure, but also a case against, since Bucky (and this is exclusively MCU, I can't comment on the comics) is so 'damaged,' it's hard to see him as a shining beacon of truth, justice, and the American Way in any scenario. If not for Falcon and the Winter Soldier, I'd kind of agree with you about Sam, but I'd say he 'earns' it there, that he's a better role model for people than Walker.
"Diversity Points," "Diversity Checkboxes," whatever you want to call it are when a media decides to throw in diversity for the sheer sake of having it and nothing else. It was really blatant that's what they were doing when Falcon took up the mantle of Captain America in the comics and giving it to Sam in the MCU was a bad idea just based on the stigma left behind from that train wreck, but the story really didn't service the idea to begin with. Maybe Sam becoming Captain America wasn't motivated by diversity, but it gives every possible indication of it. They may have salvaged it since but they really had better options.As for "diversity points"...well, okay, sure, that's technically possible, but it's a silly way of looking at the world. If you want to claim that's the case, then the burden of proof is on you.
It generally comes down to Freedom, Human Rights, and the American Dream, whatever these things mean. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" if you want to quote something. There's a lot to be said about American ideals but it really depends on who you ask. Ideals and reality rarely ever match up. That's why they're called ideals. Even back when the country was first established the USA wasn't living up to the ideals that the country was supposedly founded on and I don't think we've ever really been anywhere close.I'm kind of left to ask what the "ideals" of America even are, since where I'm sitting, the country's going to hell in a handbasket.
Like I said, after the fact. Sam doesn't show anything like this until AFTER they've already made him Captain America. Sam fought against the bad guys, he was a hero as the Falcon, that's far far different from being Captain America. What's worse is it's a disservice to Sam's character. The Falcon finally had room to spread his literal and metaphorical wings and develop him into a superhero unique to him and entirely on his own merits they just saddle Sam with another superhero's mantle.But if you want to look at positive ideals, and factor in race, Sam being Captain America and accepted for it, despite the struggles of those who came before him, is probably a better example of America at its best than Bucky, if we're going by that route (and let's be clear, the show DOES go that route - remember the old supersoldier Sam and Bucky find? Forget his name, but he gets his statue at the end.)
Or they could've just given it to Bucky in the first place like would have made massively more sense based on everything that has happened in the MCU or just retired Captain America outright. Obviously Chris Evans couldn't do the job forever. Obviously once they passed off the identity to Sam they had to stick with it, but they didn't have to give it to Sam in the least. Just like Rise of Skywalker didn't have to spend most of it's running time bashing and reversing The Last Jedi, Endgame didn't have to hand off the shield to Sam or to anyone. Sam getting the shield was definitely not a foregone conclusion in any sense.True, but the MCU are films, not comics. It's pretty much impossible in-universe for Steve to come back given how old he is, and Chris Evans couldn't take the role forever. Besides, even if Falcon becoming Cap was the worst thing ever for you (not you, personally), reversing it would be even worse. Remember Rise of Skywalker, how it spent a good portion of its running time reversing Last Jedi? Yeah. Even if I disliked Falcon becoming Cap, I'd still prefer they go for it, because it's schizophrenic storytelling to reverse stuff like that.
Bucky of the comics may have had all that, Bucky in the MCU did not. His work as the Winter Soldier is likely public knowledge, and the people of America likely do not want a former brainwashed assassin to represent their ideals. I feel that Steve recognised in Sam a more modern version of the sort of man who could become Captain America for the modern America. And frankly, Bucky's fire is out; he is not a man who wants to be galivating off righting his country's wrongs - and I imagine a large part of that is that like Steve he's going to have trouble understanding them since his last cultural touch point was still the 1940s and unlike Steve he's had no relaxing time with friends and respected colleagues to help ease him into the new America.The thing is, Sam shouldn't have to earn it after he's already been given the shield. Sam shouldn't need justifying becoming Captain America after the fact. Sam should have spent his screen time before Endgame showing that he both deserved it and that his character would want it. Of the two, and let's be frank there were only 2 options, Bucky had a far FAR greater setup for becoming Captain American than Sam did.
The Bucky and Steve had a closer relationship by miles than Sam and Steve had, Bucky showed envy for Steve's status as early as First Avenger, Bucky's skill was far more comparable to Steve's, Bucky had trauma he could've used becoming Captain America to work through and make up for the things he did, Bucky would've been driven to live up to Steve's memory for Steve himself as well as for what Captain America represented while Sam only really has the latter, and before he was taken and brainwashed Bucky fought for the country itself.
Sam? Sam was just a guy Steve was chummy with and fought alongside. If they had wanted Sam to become Captain America all along they did an absolutely abysmal job laying the foundations for it. Maybe there's some behind the scenes stuff that resulted in Sam but it definitely was not foreshadowed or pushed for in any what whatsoever before Old Steve handed over the shield to Sam. They could've had the shield handed off to Thor or Hulk or Clint and it would've made just as much sense.
If they were going to have someone take over, Bucky was the only person which had anything whatsoever supporting them.
"Diversity Points," "Diversity Checkboxes," whatever you want to call it are when a media decides to throw in diversity for the sheer sake of having it and nothing else. It was really blatant that's what they were doing when Falcon took up the mantle of Captain America in the comics and giving it to Sam in the MCU was a bad idea just based on the stigma left behind from that train wreck, but the story really didn't service the idea to begin with. Maybe Sam becoming Captain America wasn't motivated by diversity, but it gives every possible indication of it. They may have salvaged it since but they really had better options.
It generally comes down to Freedom, Human Rights, and the American Dream, whatever these things mean. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" if you want to quote something. There's a lot to be said about American ideals but it really depends on who you ask. Ideals and reality rarely ever match up. That's why they're called ideals. Even back when the country was first established the USA wasn't living up to the ideals that the country was supposedly founded on and I don't think we've ever really been anywhere close.
That's why Steve Rodgers works as Captain America. He's essentially all of America's ideals concentrated into a single character. Steve Rodgers fights for America's ideals, not it's government including against that government if need be. Steve Rodgers isn't America at it's best, Steve Rodgers is what America wishes it could be, when written well anyway. That's the comics but it's not really any different in the MCU.
Like I said, after the fact. Sam doesn't show anything like this until AFTER they've already made him Captain America. Sam fought against the bad guys, he was a hero as the Falcon, that's far far different from being Captain America. What's worse is it's a disservice to Sam's character. The Falcon finally had room to spread his literal and metaphorical wings and develop him into a superhero unique to him and entirely on his own merits they just saddle Sam with another superhero's mantle.
Or they could've just given it to Bucky in the first place like would have made massively more sense based on everything that has happened in the MCU or just retired Captain America outright. Obviously Chris Evans couldn't do the job forever. Obviously once they passed off the identity to Sam they had to stick with it, but they didn't have to give it to Sam in the least. Just like Rise of Skywalker didn't have to spend most of it's running time bashing and reversing The Last Jedi, Endgame didn't have to hand off the shield to Sam or to anyone. Sam getting the shield was definitely not a foregone conclusion in any sense.
The entire point of Rogers' film trilogy is that Steve went from an incredibly naive and foolish youth who signed up for something he had no hope of understanding, to learning idealism such as his wasn't just lacking in American society, its only place in American society was to be exploited. Rogers, as a character, spent more screen time fighting against his own country, than for it: disobeying direct orders to liberate POW's, going AWOL in the face of post-9/11 black ops and mass surveillance bullshit, and committing outright treason in defense of the right to privacy, in each of his "solo" movies consecutively.Cap'n Murica n' Winner Soldier stuff.
This is a compelling and valid interpretation of the events of the movies as they're presented, but... I very much doubt that a lot of that was actually intended by the writers and directors.The entire point of Rogers' film trilogy is that Steve went from an incredibly naive and foolish youth who signed up for something he had no hope of understanding, to learning idealism such as his wasn't just lacking in American society, its only place in American society was to be exploited. Rogers, as a character, spent more screen time fighting against his own country, than for it: disobeying direct orders to liberate POW's, going AWOL in the face of post-9/11 black ops and mass surveillance bullshit, and committing outright treason in defense of the right to privacy, in each of his "solo" movies consecutively.
You said yourself, Captain America as a mantle represents what the country ought to be. Sam had what Bucky didn't: hope, and a drive to stand up to his own country and say, "do better". And frankly? that Sam happens to be black is absolutely, positively, central to that. Steve grew up in an America where half of it still lived under Jim Crow, and by the time he came out of the ice, things were only nominally better.
Steve giving Sam the shield wasn't just Steve stepping down, or Sam being the better ideological fit. It was Steve's last act of defiance against his own country, which failed to live up to the ideals for which he stood wearing its colors.
They didn't say that, though. The showrunners talked about including it in one piece of media.
So those objecting aren't merely saying that not all media needs it. They're saying this specific media shouldn't have it.
But they didn't use it for every piece of media. They just explained something they'd like to do with their piece of media.The basis for its inclusion, if treated as a truth, could be used to justify it in every piece of media, at least every one "with a bunch of white people", or in less inflammatory wording, any piece of media consisting of the majority demographic of a place. Nowhere did they explain why in just this one piece of media a bunch of white people would somehow worsen it uniquely such that action need be taken to remedy that. It was just a general statement on the badness of there being a bunch of white people on screen.
yeh and most of said American's are the ones pushing for race swapping because "people need to see black people represented, I just don't want them in this little neighbourhood because think of the impact on house prices, oh no hope I didn't say that last part out loud"I tend to waffle between centrist and violently liberal depending on the issue, beauty of free speech and all that. When it comes to hollywood I tend to side on the extremists in that I think, right now, at this moment, diversity in casting needs to be normalized, and its still not. If they wanted to be like "ok enough white people, only black people for the next 10 years" I'd be totally ok with it. If only to force the 30-35% of Americans that just don't watch anything with black people in it, that live in white haven communities, to absorb it and become desensitized to it clockwork orange style.
View attachment 6638
Is it racist? Sure idk, so are 71 million Americans. Let them eat cake.
I mean the original Buzz Lightyear show had a blue alien girl, a big red alien guy and a yellow headed robot...... So does that mean new Lightyear is actually less diverse??So I watched Lightyear last week (7/10, good kids movie, roommate loved it for sci-fi story aesthetic reasons). Now, if you know anything about Lightyear short of actually seeing it, there's a good chance that you know that Buzz's best friend/teammate gets lesbian married. There's even a little smooch. She's also black, for extra Diversity.
Now, the movie doesn't call any extra attention to it past what it would do for a straight marriage. It goes by montage style as Buzz comes back from each mission, flung into the future via time dilation from testing hyperspace fuel at near c speeds, until his best friend is on her deathbed of old age, introducing her granddaughter, the main secondary character for the 2nd and 3rd acts. Tertiary characters include a brown guy and a sprightly old lady who likes making explosions.
Would this movie have been better if they were all white and straight, with more men? Like, it's an animated movie, they couldn't just go with whoever was cast. The diversity had to be planned from the get-go.
That writer used thinking sieges are epic and up the stakes to justify it, hence it's not that siege scenes are to be included, rather, it is things the writer thinks are epic and up the stakes, whichever those things are, which yes, we can universalize thus and say all fantasy writers do want to include what they deem to be epic and upping stakes in some way.But they didn't use it for every piece of media. They just explained something they'd like to do with their piece of media.
If a fantasy writer says they want a cool siege in their story, because he thinks it's epic and ups the stakes, you can't reasonably respond that since his reasoning "could be used" to justify it in any other piece of media, therefore the writer is saying all media needs seiges.
Ok but George RR Martin wrote the Targaryens a certain way for a reason.But they didn't use it for every piece of media. They just explained something they'd like to do with their piece of media.
If a fantasy writer says they want a cool siege in their story, because he thinks it's epic and ups the stakes, you can't reasonably respond that since his reasoning "could be used" to justify it in any other piece of media, therefore the writer is saying all media needs seiges.
But even that would be a ridiculous extrapolation from what was said. Statements about what would improve one piece of media simply cannot be taken to mean the speaker wants all media to be like that. You'd be completely off-target and plain wrong to say the writer thought all media must portray epicness or high stakes, just because he said he wanted those things in the story he was writing.That writer used thinking sieges are epic and up the stakes to justify it, hence it's not that siege scenes are to be included, rather, it is things the writer thinks are epic and up the stakes, whichever those things are, which yes, we can universalize thus and say all fantasy writers do want to include what they deem to be epic and upping stakes in some way.
But they didn't say its always uncool or undesirable. They literally just said they wanted to avoid it in this piece of media.On the other hand, they did not use any reasoning as to why their inclusion of a diverse cast would be beneficial. The only thing was the implication that having everyone be white is somehow undesirable in an unspecified way that is left open to interpretation, hence here we are, pointing out what was really being said. To them, merely stating everyone in the show is white is equal and opposite to your writer stating something is epic and ups the stakes. What they were really saying there was that being all-white is uncool or undesirable in some manner, inherently so. Presumably due to some sort of anti-white stereotype they're picturing in their heads, or some sort of bias they project into their prospective audiences.
And GRRM said he thinks this is fine. So that reason clearly doesn't preclude what the showrunners want to do here.Ok but George RR Martin wrote the Targaryens a certain way for a reason.
Also it's not the show runners media they're creating version of the original creators work.
You can carry on this conversation with the imaginary version of me in your head.Also before you bring it up Hermione being Black in the original performances of The Cursed Child [...] blah blah blah
I mean, its fiction. You can do whatever you wantYou don't just get to go "All the Hobbits are gay and reproduce as a single sex group now because it's my LOTR production and I can do what I want with it".
Considering at least two of those characters were obnoxious shit heads I personally did not mind their exclusion.I mean the original Buzz Lightyear show had a blue alien girl, a big red alien guy and a yellow headed robot...... So does that mean new Lightyear is actually less diverse??
*looks at all the permutations and variations of the works of Shakespeare*You don't just get to go "All the Hobbits are gay and reproduce as a single sex group now because it's my LOTR production and I can do what I want with it".
I didn't say all media, I said all fantasy in particular. I thought we were on the same page and didn't need to nail down the specific sort of media I was talking about when you brought up bridge sieges.But even that would be a ridiculous extrapolation from what was said. Statements about what would improve one piece of media simply cannot be taken to mean the speaker wants all media to be like that. You'd be completely off-target and plain wrong to say the writer thought all media must portray epicness or high stakes, just because he said he wanted those things in the story he was writing.
The fact a justification "could" be universally applied is utterly irrelevant if it wasn't universally applied. You're the one attributing that thought to the speaker; the speaker did not express it.
But they didn't say its always uncool or undesirable. They literally just said they wanted to avoid it in this piece of media.
Everything else is you imagining thought processes they never expressed. You're looking for something to be mad about, but this is all just jumping at shadows.
They only need "plausible deniability because you're reading way too much into it to begin withAnd you're kinda gaslighting me at this point. They just didn't explicitly mention why that work having all white actors would be somehow detrimental hence they desire it to not be thus, because they felt they didn't have to, due to the bubble they exist within, since everyone they would care to speak to would implicitly grasp the reasoning behind it so to gratuitously explain it would be a waste of time. It also gives them plausible deniability, which you're latching onto like an octopus with an extra tentacle XD.