First off, I wanna say thank you for being curious and civil and actually making productive conversation the way you did because that’s the kind of conversation I really appreciate.Disney's Divinity wrote:I'm not trying to be offensive here or to target / attack you--I don't want this to feel like an attack which is how I know it can come across--but I'm honestly curious how people even differentiate between these two things? I hear people dismiss diversity or powerful female characters or LGBT inclusion as "forced" or "catering to SJWs" or tokens so often that it only ever feels to me like a deflection for people who are, more truthfully, point blank not interested in movies with majority-black casts or LGBT or women who aren't regressive. I'm not saying this describes you, I doubt that it does, it's just a point I see all the time that I don't comprehend and I find frustrating.nomad2010 wrote:I’m fine with Tiger Lily having an expanded role. She always felt unimportant to me in most adaptations and this one has to find new ground or else it’ll just feel like every other adaptation. Native American representation in films is so low, so I think keeping the diversity is a welcome choice as long as it’s done authentically and doesn’t attempt to just cater to social justice warriors. I love the idea of a big, diverse Neverland. And especially a retelling of the story that isn’t just limited to another fight on a pirate ship. I’m hoping this does something new, but captures the spirit and pure magic of the original.
And if a company ever decided that, yes, they want to make a film with an all-black cast or a film that is focused on women's issues or something along those lines--what is "wrong" with that exactly? How is that more artificial than a director who decides that, say, they want to create another coming-of-age story featuring a white character? Who is that harming and isn't that how all films are made (by somebody making a choice about what they want to make and what story they want to tell)? For example, if Disney had decided they wanted to make a film to feature a black character explicitly in those words (which is what many criticized Disney and TP&TF for)--what is "wrong" with that? Does anybody believe the decision to make a character one skin color or another is just going to happen "organically" half-way through the making of the film/story? If anything, history's shown that these things will not happen organically because a writing industry that is predominantly white men will envision every story in terms similar to themselves first and foremost. It often takes prodding for them to attempt to write female characters properly or to see one of their characters on the page as something other than white (I wouldn't be surprised if the reverse were true for female or non-white writers as well, but because they don't represent the majority it's hard to say). I mean, Disney itself is proof--a black protagonist never transpired "organically" in eighty years, it didn't happen until they explicitly decided they wanted a film featuring a black princess.
I guess I feel like there's no "right" way for a film to show powerful female characters or diversity of any kind anymore. There's always going to be something "wrong" about it; it was forced, the character's a Mary Sue, tokenism, etc. etc. So what's the solution here--to feature no diversity or powerful female characters at all? Because if I'm being honest, I'd love to have a Disney character that was gay or for Disney executives / directors to say explicitly they "want to make a film with a gay prince." And yet the immediate response will be that it's not "organic," it's "forced" and "artificial," it's "catering to SJWs," and all the rest. I wouldn't care, I'd just like to see a character like myself onscreen. To me, it comes across more that some people are tired of seeing diversity. Well, that goes both ways. There are some of us who are tired of seeing nothing but straight, white characters and female characters that are nothing but hollow shells or exist only to drive the male characters' arcs with no personality or arc of their own.
When I say that I mean Native Americans are majorly under represented in terms of film and television. So to have a property that has that diversity built in is amazing. My grandfather’s grandma was Cherokee and so growing up I was always told stories about the culture and how proud I should be to have that in my heritage as well. So my references to SJW comes into play because so many people who don’t even have rights to be offended by things are. And it creates a toxic environment and tends to either lead to overly careful depictions of whatever minority that can sometimes hinder stories or else be too vague and almost stereotypical in ways. Therefore I want to see this character if expanded be an actual human being with emotions and motivations. Not just a strong leader type with nothing to make us care about her. So often these roles get expanded but we get nothing to truly humanize them. And I think that’s where forced diversity so often fails us. Movie companies make it about inclusion but not exactly representation. And although it’s changing, it still is frustrating. So to conclude, this story has the luxury of already having the character built into it. Expanding her just needs to be sure to give her humanity and a voice and not make her more than another voiceless warrior. And if they do that, I’ll be happy.
I hope that helps a little but at least explain my feelings!
which was great 
