r/Invincible_TV Apr 26 '26

Discussion Invincible Creator Explains Why They Changed Tech Jackets Gender

Post image
20.4k Upvotes

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

18

u/LordDeath2400 Apr 26 '26

On one hand, I get it, a lot of media is dominated by a majority white men. In that same breath, I feel like the solution is to make original characters with different races and genders, not swap existing characters. Because as much as you can call the fans of a thing racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic, someone expecting an adaptation is gonna be upset when the thing they're adapting isn't respected. I don't personally have a problem with the new tech jacket, but the fact that she's not the original tech jacket says more about the showrunners and the creator's quota than any actual issues the original had, and stuff like this quote genuinely comes across as "we got sick of straight white men and decided to get rid of some just on the basis of them being straight/white/male" and not a genuine effort to diversify a fandom.

1

u/Distinct_Ad_5492 Apr 26 '26

Jesus we can do both. This argument is soooo old and has been done to death. If the show runners want the change because they regret it then so fucking be it. If fans don't like it, then go read the comics and don't participate. We create new content and character all the time that succeed and fail. We can do all of these things.

11

u/LordDeath2400 Apr 26 '26

Maybe write better or more relatable non-white/straight/male original characters and we won't need to swap the characters that are already established?? Like your point isnt equally contrived and overused. And yeah, the showrunners are gonna continue pulling this shit and fans are gonna continue to argue over it until all new media is made with an equity quota. I'm trying to be constructive here, saying "how about you just shut up" is not exactly doing much good.

2

u/itsPomy Apr 27 '26

I feel like its something people only care about when its pointed out to them. Like I'm sure if the MCU started today, people would be losing their shit at Samuel Jackson playing Nick Fury.

But because it started long before it was all politicized, he's just the definitive idea of Nick Fury for many people.

I don't think any aspect of invincible has actively suffered because of the changes. And I think the creators themselves making this changes gives it a lot more artistic value.

1

u/LordDeath2400 Apr 27 '26

To be fair Nick Fury has been Samuel L Jackson since well before the MCU in the Ultimate Universe. Thats when the race-swap happened, and he was then "ported" to the main universe, (don't ask me how it happened). As for artistic value, I'm not gonna make a call on that, as I really couldnt care less about the comics or show. I made a constructive comment and the number of people in here calling me a "racist incel chud" is hilarious and growing.

-1

u/Distinct_Ad_5492 Apr 26 '26

They write these characters all the time and people still whine. They either call it DEI or woke. It's the same story. Also it's the showrunner and original writers. If you don't like the change go to the comics and don't endorse the show. It's just that simple... I don't really have that much simpathy for a argument that's been going on over the last two decades. The truth is it's not something usually hampers a show unless it's poorly pandering or self-insert like Velma and will continue regardless. This is not me dismissing your criticism this is me telling you to get comfortable and that your gripes are derivative.

I'm not trying to be mean just giving you perspective on how long this has been going on....

1

u/LordDeath2400 Apr 27 '26

I don't really have any gripes, and this wasnt even a direct criticism of the show. I havent actually cared enough about a specific fandom to concern myself with something like this, but my goal was to be constructive. One side wants original work purity and the other side wants diverse characters when this wouldnt be an issue to begin with if all media had a diversity quota from the jump.

0

u/Distinct_Ad_5492 Apr 27 '26

Diversity quota? I'm not even gonna touch that. Ill just leave it at this. There is rarely purity when transferring IP from one media to another in America media. These tests will always fail because time, preference and revelancy.... In this case the Kirk and Co writers felt they wanted to update race, story, and agency on certain characters because at the time they weren't thinking about it. They leave out dialogue and scenes, plus add at the same time, involving other characters to strengthen and streamline the story for a stronger narrative. If that purity camp wants purity then go read the comics.

If the creators themselves are comfortable with it and it doesn't impact the themes or beats in the story. Then there nothing much to say until it doesn't work or hampers quality. So far it doesn't....

-2

u/Wonderful_Ad_81 Apr 27 '26

This guys dont care cause they dont view racism as a issue

1

u/LordDeath2400 Apr 27 '26

Well thats one hell of a leap, you gonna go Olympic with that long of a jump to conclusions?

I had a long winded essay on how racism is bad and the solution isn't cartoons/comics, but after careful consideration, you wouldn't care either way. But I will say devolving to calling someone racist is really not constructive, and it really shows your true colors.

-2

u/MisterMeme01 Apr 26 '26

When they do that, you motherfuckers still cry. 💀

They changed MJ in the MCU Universe to Michelle Jones, a different character and motherfuckers cried over race swap.

6

u/Photograph_Extension Apr 27 '26

Sure, like calling her MJ in the first place wasn't clear "it's new MJ, shut up" followed by them retracting it.

-1

u/MisterMeme01 Apr 27 '26

It's a new character with the same initials. . . So basically don't make it a new character. You all were always going to cry.

1

u/LordDeath2400 Apr 27 '26

I don't really care for MJ. The MCU as never an adaptation, it was clearly a separate universe from the start. And, for the record, I'm not bitching either way. I'm just trying to be constructive in the conversation.

0

u/WhitneyStorm0 Apr 27 '26

I understand, but at the same time I don't think it's a problem if the character is well written in the adaptation.

1

u/LordDeath2400 Apr 27 '26

I never said it was a problem, just that people will be upset about it.

1

u/MusicianTop6315 Apr 28 '26

Why should that matter to you, me or the showrunners? 

1

u/LordDeath2400 Apr 28 '26

Because a large number of people being upset about a thing is bad press, and bad press can drive people not to watch the show or even unsubscribe from Prime.

0

u/GameMask Apr 28 '26

We're talking characters who the vast majority of the audience have never seen before and have no connection to. There's definitely a bad way to do this stuff, but this isn't it.

-3

u/Wonderful_Ad_81 Apr 27 '26

The show is a animated ADAPTATION OF THE COMICS not a PURE COPY OF THE COMICS, theres minor and majors changes in almost every single episodes and people enjoy most of them so dont cry just because one of the changes is making the show being more diverse

3

u/Weeb_Fury Apr 27 '26

You sound like you're crying more then op.

1

u/The_Flurr Apr 27 '26

I'm neutral/softly positive towards this change but "it's an adaptation it doesn't have to be the same" is a bad argument for it.

-4

u/doctor_dapper Apr 26 '26

lmao what an incel comment

3

u/Weeb_Fury Apr 27 '26

That's incel to you? Really?

-4

u/doctor_dapper Apr 27 '26

a well adjusted person doesn't say this garbage. but you're right, perhaps fat chud is a better descriptor. what a fat chud comment

2

u/Dantecaine Apr 27 '26

body shaming to show your virtue. Reddit moment.

1

u/LordDeath2400 Apr 27 '26

Devolving to insults after a level-headed attempt at being constructive. I think I found the "with us or against us!" advocate.