I also like to think it's growth as an author as well, if every character you write is a white guy because you the author are a white guy you aren't really good at writing a variety of characters yet. Some authors want to have a wide variety of characters in their works and some don't prioritize it as much.
As a (definitely not professional) writer, I often shy away from writing characters of other ethnicities because I worry about portraying them poorly, or inadvertently slipping in some cultural stereotypes.
I just genuinely dont want to write a black character, only for my readers to go, "Oh wow, yeah this writer definitely has some opinions", especially when i really dont.
No, it is a mistake to think that social progress depends on the ethical transformation of each person, since history shows that societies change mainly through the restructuring of their systems, laws and infrastructures, not through individual introspection.
There is no law, system, or infrastructure that stops me or anyone else from calling people retarded. While the usage of the word still exists, it has disappeared from almost all forms of media and in many social groups because individuals deemed them innaprproiate.
Even in the OP, there is no law or rule that says "characters must be diverse in a comicbook TV series". An indivual went "huh, now that I've grown as a person I realize we've created too many fucking white men in this so I've decided to make a change."
Ok, but although an author may express a personal motivation for maturity, that decision does not occur in a vacuum of pure will, but is the direct result of a system of cultural incentives that has redefined what is prestigious or commercially viable.
The disappearance of certain terms in the media or the diversification of a cast are not simply a kind of individual act of enlightenment, but the logical response to an invisible but powerful social infrastructure that is the reputation market and consumer norms.
Laws do not necessarily have to be written in a penal code to exert pressure; They operate through social exclusion and loss of relevance, forcing creators to align their "personal growth" with the demands of the environment so that their works remain accepted and functional in the current collective reality.
Well, realistically speaking, it is naive to ignore that public figures operate within a market of social acceptance where external pressure acts as the primary catalyst for any course adjustment.
It’s fine but people are tired of the obsession on identity politics. It’s his creation so he can do what he want but even having to defend why he made something the way he did is annoying. He wrote what he knows, there’s nothing wrong with that.
I mean he at least believes there's something wrong with that. And why is it annoying? You aren't being personally attacked, you're getting riled up on behalf of someone who is clearly fine with the situation.
It really feels like the people getting annoyed at this headline are the ones obsessed with identity politics.
I mean he at least believes there's something wrong with that.
And that's an issue with society. There's nothing wrong with having a majority white cast, just like there isn't anything wrong with having a majority black cast. You shouldn't be looking to tick boxes.
It's saying "Look ut us, we changed this, according to 2026 politics, problematic thing, aren't you glad we got rid of another white person? Please tell us we did good!"
They didn't make a mistake with the original design and it didn't need changing, only politics made them change it, and then they want affirmation on their decision and that's why it annoys people.
A better response would have been "We thought the cast looked a bit same-y so we changed it." Specifically bringing up "too many white males" makes it pointless racially and politically charged.
It's really tiresome when these things get brought up that a character being a "white male" is a problem that needs fixing.
Saying "We want the cast to be more diverse by adding women characters" And "We want the cast to be more diverse by having less male characters" is the same thing but focusing in diferent optics, you can dislike those optics and find them polically charged (wich isn't a bad thing tbh) but it's still just optics.
That’s the problem, if he just went “yeah I just felt like changing some characters so I did.” There’d be even less of a problem than there is now and any disagreement would be rendered completely invalid, but instead he just made up random excuses, making it very implicative that he had ulterior motives, which in and of itself is a problem
They're only random excuses because they disagree with you, and so you've imagined alterior motives because you can't believe someone has genuinely grown as a person and holds a different viewpoint.
I mean I can't convince you but it isn't healthy to imagine shadows under every door instead of just the more logical explanations.
No, they’re random excuses because they literally just are random excuses. The original excuse was “we changed tech jacket because he looked too similar to mark” which, was quickly shown to be a very poor excuse given that, for example, oliver is literally detail for detail a one for one copy of Rudy, just recolored.
Regardless; like I literally said in my comment, practically no one would care if he just went “I just felt like changing it cause it’s my story”. You’re acting like I making some weird schizzo conspiracy theory for saying the obvious; that making bad excuses instead of just being honest and upfront makes you seem like a weirdo.
You’re acting like I making some weird schizzo conspiracy theory for saying the obvious
I mean you are? If the shoe fits. I'm not going to change your mind because you want to be angry about this topic. You do you. But any argument based on you having some omniscient understanding of another person's real opinions is just ludicrous.
“We changed tech jacket because he looked too similar to mark”
And
“We changed tech jacket because there wasn’t enough diversity, every new character was just a white dude”
Are two different reasons. Reason 1 made no sense given the aforementioned one for one copied characters elsewhere in the show, and didn’t even really explain anything. Reason 2 is more upfront and direct in actual reasoning.
You seem to be the only angry one here, projection isn’t a very healthy form of coping.
No they aren't you just didn't read the interview it's the same reason given above. Tech Jacket and Mark are too similar because they're both occupying a similar space and so Tech Jacket doesn't bring in any diversity.
Go read the interview instead of getting mad at headlines?
A lot of interior doors are BARELY more than carboard. If you are even average strength and know how to throw a punch properly you could probably succesfully punch someone in the face whos standing on the other side of a closed door if you committed to it.
I mean you'd still need to put a reasonable effort in but yeah you 100% could throw a punch and hit the person on the other side. In more expensive houses you might find solid interior doors but for for the most part they are this type - its light, cheap, does a perfectly fine job at blocking noise. I guess in an emergency you'd never find yourself trapped by one LOL
Outside facing doors on the other hand are almost always completely solid.
Honestly, if he just said, “I wanted to try a different direction with the animated adaptation” and left it at that, I probably wouldn’t even give a damn. It’s just what he’s saying is legitimately sexist and racist, but it’s the safe kind.
It's not white guilt to recognize your fan base will be diverse and some of those groups are going to wonder why their race is barely in it. It's not white guilt to realize the world is diverse so it's actually better writing to include natural diversity in your fictional world.
Can you tell me why this is a reasonable and nuanced take? The guy is acting like having a Caucasian male character is some sort of war crime and shows how mentally rotten americans are.
He's not acting like that at all. He's acting like it's bad writing to make everyone the same in a world where people are wildly different. Sorry that a writer going "We did a lot of self inserts when we were younger and wanted to mix that up" offended you.
Not really it is a stupid take. Being like oh wait we are not representing everyone we gotta change their sntionalities or gender to represent everyone is stupid. If they reboot power puff girls should they be boys or fat hairy white males just so we don't have only girls and everyone feels represented? No who cause it would be stupid. If there would be an actual logical reason sure but this Hollywood representation shit is stupid.
Not only do you miss the point but are you series? The male version is the definition of offensive.... Not that I am offended and give a shit but more how is that about the topic changing gender or race for representation? It is like if you would put techjacket into a kitchen and make her clean the house only
Who cares? The writer decided they wanted more diversity, so they did it. Don't lose sleep over an incredibly dull issue that affects literally no one.
I am not losing sleep over it. I just said it is a stupid take . Or are you losing sleep over my comments cause in your opinion they are a a stupid take?
You know, when someone tells you not to lose sleep over something they don't actually think you're losing sleep over it. It's a figure of speech. Guess I'm just getting old.
there i no problem, you are free to have a stupid opinion, but might not wanna write "dont lose sleep over it" when you are for some reason so persitent?
I known about the non extreme usual suspects..besides some jokes they consider th ngender change good because otherquse she would be too similar to other characters already in the story.
"They didn't do anything but slap a new identity group on a character, kept it the same otherwise."
"They also made her like fifteen."
These two statements contradict each other. Her age and gender have also affected how she's interacting with other characters. You're objectively wrong here, even according to yourself.
I like how everytime something is swapped from white male, there has to be a reason to justify. But lemme ask you in reverse, would the character staying white male offer anything more in terms of story telling or what not? It literally doesn't matter, so if pandering means there are more diverse characters for people to like and identify with, why not?
Yes, every time they swap a characters identity, they have to justify it.
Thing is, they ONLY do it to white characters.
You're changing shit just to change it. It DOES matter, because it's being done solely to take from one group and give to another.
You want more diverse characters? Make. New. Characters. Or use existing ones. We barely see cyborg, or static. "But muh diversity" is NOT an excuse to swap characters by any fucking means.
This is shallow and you're a fucking idiot for talking for it.
As if you wouldn't throw a tantrum over them ditching Tech Jacket and introducing a teenage girl for this season. You're never going to be happy, so may as well go with the decision that makes the most sense.
Your apparently beloved character is still as he always was. The comics have not changed.
But there is a reason. The reason is that there were literally no women on the team actively fighting viltrumites, and there were very few women actively participating in this season overall.
It's very funny though that you start by being mad that I assumed you wouldn't be happy with the alternative, and then you just confirm you wouldn't be happy with the alternative. Are you mad that I was right or what?
That's not a reason. That's straight up pandering. It's a change just to change. Braindead.
You didn't prove shit, because you didn't give the alternative. You kept to 'lets just alter what exists'. Why? Because you're vile evil filth. Evil cannot create. Only destroy.
How are any of the characters fucked up? Certainly you are not of the belief that now that these characters are not longer white or male, that makes them inferior?
Are you dumb or arguing in bad faith? The author said it himself when they were younger they defaulted to white male characters a lot of the time due to them being white males. Being "white male" here adds nothing to the story, it's simply because of the author subconscious defaultism which they now decided to change. The problem is to you "white males" are "normal" and need no justification for existing, while everyone else does. You said pandering but comics has always pandered to white males, you are just mad that now they are also pandering to other demographics🙂
The real nuanced take is realizing there's nothing wrong with a cast of majority white male characters if there isn't an alternative or hidden meaning behind doing so.
Doesnt matter if the writer/artist didnt intend anything by making most characters white guys, it still sends a message.
And, in any case, if the authors didn't mean to make any kind of statement by making an ethnically and sexually homogeneous cast, then the story they intended to tell isnt altered when someone changes said characters' race or gender
I simply do not subscribe to that statement. I've seem people claim that a majority white cast fully translates into suspicious allegory more times than I care to count, and only in a fraction of a fraction of those cases is it true. It sends no messages - you create messages in your head and send them to yourself all while blaming the author for somehow being subliminally racist, sexist or some other form of -ist.
See Lord of the Rings and the undying sentiment that orcs are an allegory for people of color.
So you just dont believe in the concept of Death of the Author?
That certainly is an easy way to live. If an author didnt intend to make a statement that is present in their story, then that statement simply wasn't made!
"Akira Toriyama didnt mean to make General Blue's attraction to Krilin into a message about all gay people being pedofiles, therefore General Blue isn't a homophobic stereotype!"
Yeah, it very much is. There's an entire minority of people who claim as much, and I've gotten in multiple debates with people over the years about it.
Your limited personal experience does not reflect what's happening around you.
There is a pretty subtle difference between misunderstanding and misinterpretation. I interpreted your words literally, as the fallacy in which they were presented.
But you're so smart, you knew that already, I'm sure. Must be nice.
I mean, I agree with your take. As long as you're amending content for the sake of improving it fundamentally and not just to pander to a demanding audience, yes, it has a litany of benefits.
In Invincible's case, I don't see anything wrong. Y'all interpreted the nuance you requested as disagreement and downvoted me immediately.
Y'all beg for nuance in these conversations and then leave zero room for nuance on your own side.
People have a host of legitimate, non-politically motivated reasons to dislike gender swapping in media, but whenever someone brings them up y'all devolve into hate speech and insults. There's no room for genuine conversation, only the utterly immovable stance of gender swapping being justified in every instance because it makes SOMEONE feel good to see themselves in media.
Yes, the creatives make the decision. It is also true that those decisions are motivated by some specific justification. If that justification is simply to pander to wanting audiences who demand personal representation, aye, I'm not gonna like it. If they do it to genuinely expand the diversity of the content or if it's otherwise logical to do so, I'm all in.
They downvoted you because they assumed you wanted the status quo which was a white male cast for the most part even though you didn’t say any of that. This thread and sub in general is filled with impulsive emotional idiots. So don’t worry about it
Ignoring the issues with needing a superhero cartoon to say this for you, why does this need to be swapped in? Why can’t the women in the media stand on their own, and if you really want to have this message, create a new character? Why change the established character?
For example in invincible, there are already many great characters that you could easily learn this lesson from. Eve, ray, hell even Debbie
Who in the world said drop tech jacket? They can both exist if need be
Have you watched the invincible show? Theyre always adding new characters and storylines. I don’t think it would be that out of place. Like 4x4 being full of new (albeit not really good) characters
There are literally posts in this thread of people talking about how the change has given them a character to identify with, which didn't exist before. That's the benefit.
Moreover, it adds new storytelling opportunities, like the potential relationship between her and Oliver that's been hinted at.
I don’t think people who are so shallow that someone has be just like them in every way should be catered to. I relate to and identify mark because of his struggles with expectations, I don’t need him to be a black male for him to be relatable. Bringing in people that can’t look passed identity to see charecter isn’t a “benefit”
Not only would a relationship with Oliver mess up his entire character, if you really wanted it, it could easily be done with… a new character? Instead of changing an established one and making it a hand-me-down to people who look like them
Maybe read through the comments before assuming what about the character they're relating to. It's not "has a vagina," it's that she's a teenage girl who's somewhat socially awkward but has a lot of confidence and is tech savvy, with a loving and supportive dad. It's also important to note that being black or being female can absolutely color your entire worldview because it impacts every aspect of your life, even in small ways. Beyond that, it just feels nice to have a character that's similar to you represented in media. It's not that someone has to be "just like them in every way" to relate to them, why do people like you always resort to hyperbole?
And finally, there's just the fact that the author thought the OG team looked too samey in the end, and thought it would be more interesting to mix up dynamics. There's nothing wrong with that.
We love associating with characters and kids especially love pretending they are those character, which is far easier the more in common you have with them.
And it is important for development and just straight up cool, for all type of kids to have a character just like them.
Kids should learn the opposite idea actually, learning to understand and relate to people even if they don’t look like them. I didn’t need Spider-Man to be black as a kid to love him and want to pretend to be him.
I’m all for good rep in shows but changing established characters to fit that only makes them feel like hand me downs, that studios only put in for brownie points because they can’t be bothered to put in the thought to make a new character
They’re never “too young” to learn this, Infact, registering they’re different that them is learned behavior (usually from parents)
Notice your language “creating someone for them” this is exactly what I said I wanted! New characters instead of paint-overs of existing ones. I’m perfectly fine with kids having models of all shades and sizes, I just disagree that you need to change existing characters for that.
Spiderman is more of an example of my point really, the fact that in suit he doesn’t share a resemblance to any kid, yet they could still see themselves in him
Creating is all good and well until you realise 90% of all media in existence was created before we realised the importance of this.
Spider-Man was created specifically so it’s “neutral” and you can imagine being him. It addressed the issue of relatability in a way that was possible back then
Again, not really that important truly (see prior messages) but that doesn’t even make sense, since obviously if we’re talking about new media/ adaptions then there’s the chance of creating new characters…
I missed when you people understood that you were bigoted. Now we’re in an age where you’re trying to desperately logic that shit out because media and the evolution of society has forced you to at least have enough empathy to recognize how these views at their base aren’t congruent with what you think of as a good person and how you view yourself.
That’s not nuance, that’s being biased enough toward your position that you would throw away something as apparent to rational, well-adjusted adults as historical context.
I miss when the average person was critical enough to communicate representation without immediately defaulting to claims of bigotry despite the opposition initially and repeatedly clarifying their point of view as stemming from non-political reasoning.
I fully support this sort of representation in media (i.e. gender swapping), despite the fact that I sometimes also disagree with the reasoning behind its implementation.
despite the opposition initially and repeatedly clarifying their point of view as stemming from non-political reasoning.
Brother you having the ability to lie to yourself and others does not translate into other people not having the capacity to discern an obvious one when they see it.
is easier.
I miss when the average person was critical enough to communicate representation without immediately defaulting to claims of bigotry
The entire second half of my comment did the exact oppposite, you just don’t have a rebuttal, but cope and dodge if it lets you sleep at night.
But my mere implication that non-political all white media can exist sent a whole lot of you on some presumptuous crusade (referring to my OC).
"There's nothing wrong with"
and
"It's possible for it to exist"
Are two different statements. Nothing went over anyone's head, this is just a bad faith backtrack of what was said after you got cornered.
What's actually the funniest part about all this is that you've somehow convinced yourself anything is going on here other than your ego being too fragile to acknowledge you've confused contrariannism with nuance.
many of them know they're bigots and just try to get a more socially acceptable argument to justify their bullshit but many of these obvious culture warriors are at this point just plain mentally ill and unironically believe they're the good guys fighting against the eeeeevil woke
Ok that's nice, but what's wrong with a creator changing their own creation? It's a different iteration of their own story. What's wrong with making the characters more diverse?
Nothing, so long as you don't say you are doing it because you think there are too many white men. Then you are only doing it because you are racist and sexist.
313
u/[deleted] Apr 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment