Importance of white representation in fiction

[Gorbles]

In some cases the changes are so severe why bother using the source material?

Most things are inspired by something. But I think this is key, here:

If the source material fails a modern purity test then don't adapt it.

I'd rather something be adapted, to at least try and be made relevant, than for it not to. That's what art is. If we didn't try with these things, sure, we'd have less failures. But we'd also have less successes.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Its not a purity test if a director in attempting to make something relevant to a wider audience changes the sex and/or ethnicity of a character.
This isn't new, its been happening for ever.
When The Seven Samurai was remade as The Magnificent Seven it used US actors rather than Japanese.
Its only when women and ethnic minorities get a more prominent role than in the past that people seem to get upset.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Gender swapping Starbuck also worked because the original BSG is basically terrible outside the pilot.

Tell that to all the teenage girls in 1978 who had Tiger Beat posters of Dirk Benedict (hint: I was one of them). When I saw the nuBSG version of "Starbuck" my first reaction was "WTH?" and then off went the TV and it never went back on - at least not to that show.

I'm not saying the original BSG was any deep, nuanced show. It was televised junk food for the teenagers, and I recall it being popular among my classmates in high school (boys and girls).

Thrace had a lot of flaws as well so she has character development etc vs a cardboard cutout.

Fine, so why not just create a new character? It's not like BSG didn't create Sheba partway through the show, as a replacement for Serena. Why piggyback on an original-series male character? Didn't they have any confidence that the actress could pull off such a character without the "name recognition"?

Fun fact: I have all the tie-in novels for the original BSG, including the later ones written by Richard Hatch. I still re-read them occasionally.

Superheroes in general I find a bit meh anyway infantile American crap generally with a few exceptions eg Blade or Batman.

I saw the first three Christopher Reeve Superman movies. The only one I liked was the second one.

What you're saying here is "I found gender-swapping fine because of other personal views I hold about the original".

Which is what a lot of this thread is boiling down to. Preference. Everyone has bias at the end of the day, and interrogating that or not is ultimately not going to happen because of this thread. People will see a poster's name and decide whether or not they're going to pay attention. It is what it is on that score.

The question is, and I aim this at the more purist types here (you Zard, Valka, whoever): why is it wrong for people to have different preferences? For adaptations to be made for audiences with different preferences? Or is it, in fact, not wrong at all?

Where did I say that it's wrong for people to have different preferences?

Take Harry Potter, for instance. Most of the fanfiction I read is Marauders-centric, emphasis on Sirius Black. He has to be part of the story, or at least significantly referenced for me to be interested in it. That said, most Sirius-centric fanfic uses the description and characterization in the novels. I prefer the version of Sirius Black that was presented in the movies, played by Gary Oldman. When I'm reading these stories, it's Gary Oldman I'm visualizing and whose voice I'm hearing. These are the fan authors' preferences vs my own preferences, and if the story is not dependent on physical descriptions or novel-specific characterizations (the novel version of Sirius is more abrasive than the movie version), it doesn't matter that much.

But the fanfic authors aren't genderswapping the character. Sirius remains male. That is a critical part of the character that can't be changed.


As for the "not enough women" excuse in Dune, and it IS just an excuse... Villeneuve could have cast this actress as Lady Margot Fenring. Barely. Even though Margot is described in the novel as a tall, willowy blonde Bene Gesserit whose specialty is seduction and conceiving children when and with whom she's ordered, while maintaining a harmonious relationship with her husband (Count Fenring, who is Shaddam's principal advisor), I suppose Villeneuve could have gotten away with it on the grounds that he made no effort to hire an actress who bears any resemblance to how Jessica is described, and made the Harkonnens basically look like hairless clones. So I suppose he could have had a version of Margot who looks nothing like she's described in the book and mumbles her way through her lines (actually, the mumbling wouldn't be out of character since the Fenrings have their own private language they use with each other).

Or if he really liked the actress, why not cast her as Harah? Harah is present throughout the first three novels.

 

[Gorbles]

Where did I say that it's wrong for people to have different preferences?

I'm trying to explore the differences, is all. There's a lot of "can't be changed" going around, and I obviously lean towards "can be changed". I'm trying to work out if there's room to agree to disagree, or if some folks here (yourself included, but I appreciate we've talked on the subject before) insist that "can't be changed" means shouldn't. In that these adaptations shouldn't exist.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Most of us traditionalists don't mind if producers and directors do adaptions on reworking films etc.

But if the adaptions are very substantial, we think it might be polite for the new release to reflect that
by having it flagged up in someway e.g. by being marketed with terms such as "based upon", "inspired by"
"a radical adaption of", "new twist in the story", a "new interpretation", or a "diverse production" etc rather
than selling it by falsely trading upon the original name and reputation of the very different original production.

And some adaptions may just suck, whether because changes made for political purposes have broken
the harmony of the classic original or because of poor screen play, or just because of bad acting etc etc.

 

[r16]

back in time , really long ago , Galactica and Star Wars were competing "movies" . It got big , mostly Hollywood against Lucas . Should have been gone straightforward but Wars were making far too much money . So , when the new version was planned , the TOS Apollo and Starbuck did not just face the prospects of being under excrement by some random newcomers in the usual cycle of re-filming , but a supposed re-kindling of old troubles . There were places for both of them . TOS Apollo saw the show had prospects , TOS Starbuck still felt his role was too little and if enlarged it might put him in competition with Apollo , but he did well in being an endless spat with the new Starbuck , PR is always good ...

am like Brown , will still be a minority when the White males no longer rule .

kara Thrace is like the finest female role in the nuBSG . Not a Mary Sue , like because she is really plain , nobody likes her , like as the default option , she is not always right , and she fails utterly bad . And the rest are either perfect (since they are non-human in the first place) , seemingly perfect (due long experience of being a politician) or a candidate to be revealed as a Cylon hence perfect (but race concerns and schedule conflicts and stuff and stuff worked against Dualla) . Yeah , there is a Black guy but ı can't remember him at all , as the Cylon evil was ably presented by white males .

 

[Zardnaar]

Kara was the best part of nuBSG indeed. Ceylons were fairly diverse ethnically. 2/7 were white males iirc?

 

[Zardnaar]

Tell that to all the teenage girls in 1978 who had Tiger Beat posters of Dirk Benedict (hint: I was one of them). When I saw the nuBSG version of "Starbuck" my first reaction was "WTH?" and then off went the TV and it never went back on - at least not to that show.

I'm not saying the original BSG was any deep, nuanced show. It was televised junk food for the teenagers, and I recall it being popular among my classmates in high school (boys and girls).


Fine, so why not just create a new character? It's not like BSG didn't create Sheba partway through the show, as a replacement for Serena. Why piggyback on an original-series male character? Didn't they have any confidence that the actress could pull off such a character without the "name recognition"?

Fun fact: I have all the tie-in novels for the original BSG, including the later ones written by Richard Hatch. I still re-read them occasionally.


I saw the first three Christopher Reeve Superman movies. The only one I liked was the second one.


Where did I say that it's wrong for people to have different preferences?

Take Harry Potter, for instance. Most of the fanfiction I read is Marauders-centric, emphasis on Sirius Black. He has to be part of the story, or at least significantly referenced for me to be interested in it. That said, most Sirius-centric fanfic uses the description and characterization in the novels. I prefer the version of Sirius Black that was presented in the movies, played by Gary Oldman. When I'm reading these stories, it's Gary Oldman I'm visualizing and whose voice I'm hearing. These are the fan authors' preferences vs my own preferences, and if the story is not dependent on physical descriptions or novel-specific characterizations (the novel version of Sirius is more abrasive than the movie version), it doesn't matter that much.

But the fanfic authors aren't genderswapping the character. Sirius remains male. That is a critical part of the character that can't be changed.


As for the "not enough women" excuse in Dune, and it IS just an excuse... Villeneuve could have cast this actress as Lady Margot Fenring. Barely. Even though Margot is described in the novel as a tall, willowy blonde Bene Gesserit whose specialty is seduction and conceiving children when and with whom she's ordered, while maintaining a harmonious relationship with her husband (Count Fenring, who is Shaddam's principal advisor), I suppose Villeneuve could have gotten away with it on the grounds that he made no effort to hire an actress who bears any resemblance to how Jessica is described, and made the Harkonnens basically look like hairless clones. So I suppose he could have had a version of Margot who looks nothing like she's described in the book and mumbles her way through her lines (actually, the mumbling wouldn't be out of character since the Fenrings have their own private language they use with each other).

Or if he really liked the actress, why not cast her as Harah? Harah is present throughout the first three novels.

Other 70's Sci Fi has aged better. Seen old bag anytime recently?

 

[Moriarte]

Tell that to all the teenage girls in 1978 who had Tiger Beat posters of Dirk Benedict (hint: I was one of them). When I saw the nuBSG version of "Starbuck" my first reaction was "WTH?" and then off went the TV and it never went back on - at least not to that show.

Oh my! It was a pretty good show though. The nuBSG. Solid acting by all the central roles and character development arcs were palpable. Starbuck’s performance - off the charts great. I don’t quite know what it is, but it was amazing acting, plus, razor sharp, witty and explosive front line space fighter pilot, who is a pretty young woman was very refreshing stereotype I seldom saw in the movie played to that degree of dedication. But yeah, I’ve never seen much of the old BSG, so I dig why you could be switched off by the very idea...

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I'm trying to explore the differences, is all. There's a lot of "can't be changed" going around, and I obviously lean towards "can be changed". I'm trying to work out if there's room to agree to disagree, or if some folks here (yourself included, but I appreciate we've talked on the subject before) insist that "can't be changed" means shouldn't. In that these adaptations shouldn't exist.

I'm at a loss to understand why I have to keep explaining things I've explained a couple of dozen times before here, let alone on the other sites I mentioned.

I don't have anything against Dune movies. But they need to be respectful of the source material, rather than making pointless changes for the sake of making pointless changes.

And it's absolutely ludicrous how Villeneuve keeps insisting that his movie is based on the book, rather than on the Lynch movie. His stillsuits are basically copying those of the Lynch movie, and are nothing like the description in the novel. If you want stillsuits that look and function like the ones described in the novel, you need to watch the two TV miniseries.

Other 70's Sci Fi has aged better. Seen old bag anytime recently?

Huh?

Oh my! It was a pretty good show though. The nuBSG. Solid acting by all the central roles and character development arcs were palpable. Starbuck’s performance - off the charts great. I don’t quite know what it is, but it was amazing acting, plus, razor sharp, witty and explosive front line space fighter pilot, who is a pretty young woman was very refreshing stereotype I seldom saw in the movie played to that degree of dedication. But yeah, I’ve never seen much of the old BSG, so I dig why you could be switched off by the very idea...

A female space fighter pilot - no problem. The original BSG had one (the aforementioned Sheba).

But why not give her an original identity, instead of trading on an old, well-known character's name?

 

[tjs282]

Or are you advocating that some new version of Star Wars feature the adventures of Lucy Skywalker, Hannah Solo, and Prince Leo Organa?

These puns are gold

But yeah, this was also already done: they called them "Episodes VII–IX"

*ducks*

Seen old bag anytime recently?

I'm with Valka on this one. I can usually read around your fat-finger typos, but this one is just... I have no idea what you intended to type here.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I'm at a loss to understand why I have to keep explaining things I've explained a couple of dozen times before here, let alone on the other sites I mentioned.

I don't have anything against Dune movies. But they need to be respectful of the source material, rather than making pointless changes for the sake of making pointless changes.

And it's absolutely ludicrous how Villeneuve keeps insisting that his movie is based on the book, rather than on the Lynch movie. His stillsuits are basically copying those of the Lynch movie, and are nothing like the description in the novel. If you want stillsuits that look and function like the ones described in the novel, you need to watch the two TV miniseries.


Huh?


A female space fighter pilot - no problem. The original BSG had one (the aforementioned Sheba).

But why not give her an original identity, instead of trading on an old, well-known character's name?

Except they aren't pointless changes. Reaching a new audience is neccesary if they are to be successful. Diehard fans of the original are never going to be enough, just noisy and given a lot of attention by a news media that thrives on controversy.
Neither LotR or GoT suffered commercially because of changes from the source material. They were appreciated by a large new audience, many of whom went on to read the original works.

 

[r16]

dirk Benedict must have aged .

and really avoid giving ideas to Disney for further ruin . Like barely stopped Disney actually doing Hanna with her female wookie sidekick , Chewchucca . Can't tell whether they are truly out darkening sites for me to follow SW .

 

[Gorbles]

I'm at a loss to understand why I have to keep explaining things I've explained a couple of dozen times before here, let alone on the other sites I mentioned.

I don't have anything against Dune movies. But they need to be respectful of the source material, rather than making pointless changes for the sake of making pointless changes.

I mean, I'm not on those other sites you've mentioned, so barring what you've pasted into this thread, I have no context there. That said, you don't have to explain anything. I don't want to force you, or make you feel like you are.

I want to try and understand the seeming contradiction between "I don't have anything against Dune movies" and the immediate qualifier that they "need to be respectful of the source material". Why do they? Can't you simply accept that they're made for an audience that might not include you?

This doesn't invalidate the depth of your knowledge of, nor interest in, Dune. That exists separately of any adaptation's existence. So I'm at a loss of why adaptations need to do something.

 

[MaryKB]

Or are you advocating that some new version of Star Wars feature the adventures of Lucy Skywalker, Hannah Solo, and Prince Leo Organa?

Have you seen the original Star Wars movies? There's literally only one female character with more than 5 minutes of screentime.

Why would it have to be Luke or Han who are switched? That's not necessary. But there's no reason Wedge Antilles needs to be male. You could bring in Mon Mothma to be leading the Rebels on Yavin (which was fixed in Rogue One) Red Leader or Gold Leader could be a woman. Remember those two Imperial commanders arguing and Vader chokes one? One of them could be a woman. Heck, even Governor Tarkin or Obi-Wan could be turned into female roles. I think Obi-Wan would actually work a lot better as a woman. Point is, if they remade the original Star Wars there's absolutely no way that Leia and Aunt Beru would be the only female characters, they'd absolutely make some changes.

And they fixed this problem with the sequel trilogy. You have Rey, Leia, Maz, Rose, Admiral Holdo, etc. Women in important roles that have major impacts on the story.

But anyway, I'm with @Gorbles that I also just don't understand why this stuff is treated so religiously. It's just a book, written a long time ago in a less-woke era, and a modern adaptation made some minor changes. It's not like Arakis was changed to a jungle planet, or Baron Harkonnen is the hero or something. A minor character's gender was updated to improve diversity because Herbert's original work was flawed.

 

[Samson]

When The Seven Samurai was remade as The Magnificent Seven it used US actors rather than Japanese.
Its only when women and ethnic minorities get a more prominent role than in the past that people seem to get upset.

Yeah, and they xeno swapped them all as aliens in Battle Beyond the Stars. Those alien rights woke activists are ruining films.

 

[aelf]

IMO these posts are making the same point. Gender/race-swapping pre-existing works tend to, um... piss off fans of the original work. And fans of the original work are the ones who are like "OMG! All my friends & significant others NEED to come watch this right now & I guarantee YOU WILL ALL LOVE IT!" (even if they don't, some might, but they got dragged out to see it by purists)

So when you piss off the original fans, & they hate the portrayal & so don't recommend it to others, the opposite happens. "It's terrible. They messed it up by doing... X. I don't recommend it.".

BUT, with new properties in the same universe, everyone is open to it. New & old alike. Old fans may or may not like it; New fans may or may not like it. It's judged on its own merits. It's only when changing the original, whether to serve diversity or for any other reason, that the downside is inevitable: you annoy existing fans, who are the primary source of word of mouth: "You gotta go see this!"

The number of shows that are beloved by fans but are cancelled seems to be evidence against your hypothesis. Reality is more complicated than "please the old fans, and you will succeed because they'll rave about it."

I also take issue with the notion that gender or race-swapping tends to piss off old fans. You mean it pisses off some vocal fans and fans who scream "woke" at every little thing? It's not a given that old fans will be pissed off by a gender or race swap, as the general reaction to Villeneuve's Dune shows.

Also, I find it really strange that people are still talking as if big studios can still produce things like it's the 1990s. Having an all-white cast is simply impractical in much of the West, in more ways than one. So if you're against 'woke' changes, then what you're really saying is that you'd rather see no new adaptations of older works unless it's done by people in an all-white country.

 

[AmazonQueen]

In all these cases the author or their estates gave permission for the adaptions or the remakes to be made and they have far more moral right to the works than "fans".
In the case of Pippi Longstocking when changes were made to remove language now considered racially offensive fans objected even though Astrid Lindgren's heirs approved.

 

[MaryKB]

In all these cases the author or their estates gave permission for the adaptions or the remakes to be made and they have far more moral right to the works than "fans".
In the case of Pippi Longstocking when changes were made to remove language now considered racially offensive fans objected even though Astrid Lindgren's heirs approved.

Heck, fans were pissed at George Lucas for "ruining" his own creation when he made the prequel trilogy for Star Wars.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Heck, fans were pissed at George Lucas for "ruining" his own creation when he made the prequel trilogy for Star Wars.

Well he did. Not for the reasons they complain about though.