I'm lost with how people get outraged about this...

I'm lost with how people get outraged about this. Why do people scream racism or any other claim of bigotry when people complain about adaptations not following established character designs? Yeah, racism is likely there if you look when it's a race change but I don't see how the complaint isn't valid. Personally I get just as spergy about Lois Lane being a redhead in the DCEU and only see this as something that will eventually open the floodgates for companies just not to give a fuck and cast anyone to play a character who might even barely resemble what they are in the source material outside of name. Where's the prejudice in that?

Other urls found in this thread:

badwebcomicsarchive.blogspot.fi/2008/04/dresden-codak-part-ii.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Bump

>not a hawkeye thread
>124423th thread about libs racebending
Im out.

>libs
What the hell do corporations have to do with liberals?

I thought we all got the shit out about Hawkeye having fuck-all to do with comic book hawkeye like 5 years ago.

You're implying MCU Hawkeye had a character in Avengers 1.

it was obvious the moment they cast this ugly guy to play him

It's like making Dick Grayson ugly, they clearly have no idea what they're doing

No, it's just autism.

You're clearly a straight dude and thus not the best judge of who is and isn't hot.

Bisexual master race here and I can confirm that Renner is a fugly potato face.

Because there's no such thing as "established character design" essentially.

See characters are plot devices, just like everything else in a story, in any single form of media. They are very convenient plot devices because they create a lot of immersion around themselves. A realistic character feels alive. We are geared to c re about people- people can be danger but they can also be great help.

But in any story, characters aren't there as real people, they are for a purpose- to move the plot forward, to create conflict, to resolve the story, to provide exposition. The story does not serve the character, the character always serves the story.

That is why, for example, Game of Thrones is so popular. It spends a lot of time with it's colorful menagerie of characters and makes you care about them. But make no mistake- they are there as convenient exposition dispensers about the world, that's it. When their usefulness ends they get killed off. Often in ways contradictory to their "established characters" because that's what they're there for.

When an author sits down to tell a story through any medium, they will create characters that best fit the story they wish to tell. If that means Clint Eastwood is a straight white, older badass gunslinger, so be it. If it means he's now a black, transgender, pan-sexual, unicorn-kin who doesn't believe in violence, that's what he's gonna be because there's nothing "established" about his character. He's not a real person. He's a plot device.

When an author toys around by rebooting a story that has already been told, they don't get less creative freedom just because the basis they work with has already been told. Now you can dislike the story for it, but crying tears of rage because your favorite character is now black or a woman is nothing short of infantile.

In fact it's almost as bad as people who botch about scantly clad women in video games being "dehumanized" or other somesuch nonsense. These aren't real people.

I mean... He's not THAT bad. Would still probably cuddle gently if he was being sweet for me.

But yeah, not the kind of man you see and go "fuck I don't care about his personality, just fug me already".

>There's no such thing as established character design
What yeah there is, it's the established design n the source material.
Also casting Clint as black tranny unicorn kin is a bad call sine he's an old white guy.

He's got a decent ass and slutgate endeared him to me a bit so it's not like I hate him. Just his face.

Clint is the Team Dad.

>hat yeah there is, it's the established design n the source material.

"Source material" is a unicorn. It just boils down to "one chucklefuck told used those essential parts in their story first" there's no more to it than that.

Personally I think doing reboots and trying to tell stories using the source material you're not actually responsible for isn't ever a good idea. If done well it can be a neaty omage, but chances are it's gonna be a glorified fan-fiction.

Either way, characters are what they are because the story needs them that way. If a character isn't what the story needs there's gonna be a disconnect. If the story needs a transgender black unicorn-kin then it's better that it's a transgender black unicorn-kin even if the original character was a straight white man, because then the story will just fall apart.

Fuck Whedon for that bullshit.
Family man Hawkeye is and will always be the worst.

Renner is really ugly, user.

So I could have a preteen Korean girl with one leg and wears a red wig and just call her "Kara Zor-L" and that's totally Power Girl?

But what if it doesn't need one and the creator just doesn't bother taking anything from the source material? I'd think that would be a bad adaptation.

If the story doesn't need one then there shouldn't be one in it. However I have trust in creative minds so when I see a transgender black pan-sexual unicorn-kin I assume that it's needed, at least at face value.

I think we're working off of two very definitions of "need". An adaptation's entire end goal is to adapt the source material so if it's not there in the first place then there's really no point. I don't trust companies, the "creative minds" can do whatever if there's reasoning behind it, I just see it as an excuse to just not care and slap a popular name on it for big bucks.

That's rather cynical way to look at it. I'm not gonna say it's not warranted, but still. And I did say I don't like adaptations and reboots in the first place but if I don't give a story I'm presented with a benefit of doubt, it will suck no matter what.

Again, adaptations and reboots only make sense when they are an omage, which is to say: only when they AREN'T just trying to duplicate the source material, but when they are trying to do something new and different with it. In which case it's expected that original characters and things about the source material will change, even dramatically.

Companies like Marvel and Sony made me cynical over this after people in charge basically just came out and said they really don't care and just do things like that for the sake of "outrage" publicity. Thankfully the MCU got away from the rest of the company but at this point I have a very hard time believing changes like this aren't the most cynical things themselves.

Sounded like a long-winded excuse for hack writing, really.

>When an author sits down to tell a story through any medium, they will create characters that best fit the story they wish to tell.
There you go. If you pick an existing character, the story has to be tailored for him, not the other way around.
If you wanna tell a story that requires another character, guess what? Pick, or make, another character.

Otherwise, you get crap like Man of Murder, BvS etc.

>There you go. If you pick an existing character, the story has to be tailored for him, not the other way around.

No, see, you got it backwards. You pick characters and other plot devices for a story, not the other way around.

But it's an adaptation, so the characters are picked beforehand.

Adaptation isn't defined by asset-reusal. Trying to tell a story by beginning with a laundry list of elements you need to use and trying to make it work is never good. It's just sloppy-storytelling.

I thought the point of adaptations was to translate the source material into something else. Where do you cross the line before it's just not caring and a cynical cashgrab just borrowing names?

>It spends a lot of time with it's colorful menagerie of characters and makes you care about them. But make no mistake- they are there as convenient exposition dispensers about the world, that's it.

If you think thats what characters are for in a story, you're not going to write many good stories in your life. Characters are story elements who serve various purposes for the story. In the best case they become "alive" to a point they write themselves, or how John Solomon used to put it in his bad webcomics blog:

"Here's the thing about characters in a work of fiction: they're people. They might be people people, robot people or even... occasionally... anthropomorphic animal people. The point is, they're well-rounded individuals with depth. Why do writers (well, good writers) make their characters this way? Because firstly, it's easier to write them.

"Woah there!" I hear a vast section of the Internet cry out, looking up from their Zutara fanfics. "You're wrong! Writing well-rounded characters with depth is hard!"

Oh, but of course it is for you, because you're lazy and you don't know a fucking thing. If you're competent, then you don't have to sit and think "What will my stupid character do next?" What they'll do next is obvious, because you know their personality like it's your own, or at least a close sibling whose mind you can read. So rather than sweat out the decisions, the prose flows from your fingertips like it has a life of its own. Every quirk and mannerism becomes second nature - they might click their fingers while thinking, or play with their hair when flirting. Whatever. You, as an author, know this person."

badwebcomicsarchive.blogspot.fi/2008/04/dresden-codak-part-ii.html

You cross that line at the conceptual level really. You have to deliberately design a cashgrab. If you're genuinely trying to tell a story using material and ideas someone else brought to the table before you it's not a cashgrab yet.

But you understand that those two things aren't contradictory right? Characters are plot devices. Well-rounded plot devices with depth, but plot devices nonetheless.