• CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Scooby-Doo was cut, there’s a lot of race swapping, and basically it follows Velma who is an amazing girl-boss (/s) who solves all the mysteries, and everybody else is just kind of “around”. There seems to be a lot of resentment of anyone who is wealthier, more successful, or popular. Fred is a punching bag for a lot of jokes, he’s just a rich white boy who doesn’t really know how to do anything.

    Papa Meat (Hunter Hancock of MeatCanyon) has a review. It’s pretty balanced, but even that’s still negative, mainly rated high as it was because he liked the art. 😅

    Apparently, despite a seemingly horrendous reception by the public, it has been renewed for a second season. ¯\(°_o)/¯

    • Ashyr@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I think race swapping is a non-issue, unless doing so messes with the character’s backstory or story arc in a meaningful way. So I could care less about that.

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        It kills any nostalgia I have for the character, because race swapping very rarely means just a change in skin color

        I’m fine with black characters. I prefer female characters. Ultimately, I don’t care that much. Give me good writing

        Make me care about them for who they are. Oh, you want to make my beloved character Pakistani? Go fuck yourself. I don’t care about the actor, don’t change my character.

        You want to make a Haitian main character? I’m listening.

        Write well, pay respect to the characters and the work. That’s the only rule…I don’t know why it’s seemingly impossible to follow

      • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I’m all for racial inclusivity but just create a new fuckin character.

        If you can’t be racially inclusive by making a whole new character then all you’re doing is pandering/race baiting.

        • Ashyr@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          I don’t agree. If they’d just written a new character there would be grounds to complain that the new character was pointless tokenism.

          • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            So maybe actually integrate that character into a new concept entirely. Make a new story where you can choose whatever race everyone is supposed to be from the start. Don’t take an existing story and change the races just so you can go “See guys! I’m being inclusive! I made this character black! I’m so progressive!”

              • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                I’m honestly speaking generally not just about Scooby Doo. It just so happens that this portrayal of Scooby Doo is just pure blatant pandering.

                Why did they even call it Scooby Doo? Why even attach the show to that franchise when it’s so separated in it’s basic concepts?

                The answer is because they were trying to use the franchises name to push some stupid race pandering bullshit.

                They put in all the effort to change each character to the point that they only resemble their original designs by physical appearance. They literally could have just come up with a completely different show that had nothing to do with Scooby Doo at all.

                  • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    It is when you’re just taking an existing character and basically giving them black face.

                    It would be infinitely easier to integrate a new character entirely than to just race swap a character without changing their cultural identity.

          • Rineloi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            Imagine if you just made Peter Parker black. Cool, I guess. But is it enough just to swap the skin color? IMO, it is not. You have to represent the culture as well. So you change the family dynamics, the character background, relationship dynamics etc… after all of that is it still essentially Peter Parker? If so you have succesfully race swapped a character but most of the time I think it fundementally changes the character. At that point I believe it is better to create new character like Miles Morales and call him Spider-Man. But that is just my opinion.

            • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              It’s interesting that you picked Spider-Man as the example of creating a different character being a better alternative, because there are plenty of racists out there that really hate that Miles Morales is even a thing. They would say “Why do we need a black Spider-Man? The original was fine!”

              It’s almost like racists are only ever going to whine about inclusivity, and “characters remaining their own race” vs “creating new characters” is a moot point because the people out there who are upset by the former are going to be upset by the latter anyway.

              Imagine if the new scooby show had a cast of all white kids and a single black, well written character was added and made a pivotal role in the gang. The exact same people complaining now about race swapping would be complaining then about the new character being shoe horned in because of “woke” inclusion. Just like they do with Miles Morales.

              The answer is just that we need to keep creating media with both of those scenarios and accept that shows created with a single color cast are products of their time and we can do better now. Racists aren’t going to be happy either way.

              Edit: Bring on the downvotes. If you consider “they’re not supposed to be that race” as a valid, lone criticism of a character, you might have to ask yourself some difficult questions.

            • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              How is that any different than any of the multiple other times they changed the “fundamentals” of peter parker?

              Like when he is the sidekick of iron man who gets free robo spidey suit upgrades? Which completely changes everything important to his character?

              Or when they make him a completely different age? Fundamentally changing the relationship he has with his romantic leads, with aunt may, with his villians, with his job, with his school (college? High school? Neither?), etc etc?

              Short answer? Its fuckin not. Its the exact same as every other time theyve altered a key aspect of parker to shake up the story and tell a new angle with new spins and twists and turns.

              It literally doesnt matter. Its just a big deal because its race this time.

              • Alteon@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                Look, I kinda get both sides here.

                I strongly agree with you that the skin color doesn’t really affect the acting or the story in general. I believe that the last Lord of the Rings show on Amazon actually did a spectacular job at it. It was probably the best fantasy show that I’ve seen in awhile. However, I can also understand it from a Lore perspective that I feel the other guy is trying to to point out. If there are other ethnicities of Hobbits (which there are actually three), then at least explain why they are there. Did something bring them together? Your not wrong that by just changing the skin color of a character doesn’t really affect the story at all, but when you want to understand what’s behind the story, you really need to look at and consider everything.

                [As an interesting aside. It turns out that the Harfoots are actually a dark skin type of Hobbit, and the Fallohides are taller and fairly light skinned. I just wish the show explained that more and perhaps provided a reason as to why those two groups merged. If they did, I must have missed it. I would love an excuse to go back and watch that show…]

                Like, if we were writing a script about a tribe in Malaysia, or about a K-Pop group in Korea, it would be really jarring to see a white or black guy play any of those rolls in effort to avoid a “diversity problem”. Like…will it affect the overall story if the script and acting was the same? Honestly, probably not. But I’m still going sit there the entire time and ask why is famous actor Whitey McWhiterson playing the lead role as a singer in a K-Pop boy band.

                The point I’m trying to make is that yes, I agree that race does not affect a story at all, but to be frank, including every race for diversity’s sake (take many of the new Disney Star Wars shows, for example) is colorblind, and I feel antithetical to racial justice in general. It’s denying that these people are different. I don’t care what the skin color of someone is, but I would at least expect there to be some sort of explanation as to why things are the way they are. It just feels lazy, political, and shoe-horned in.

                • daltotron@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  That kinda strikes me as weird, though. There’s not really a justification that I need for why peter parker might be black, and not white. I don’t really need to justify why he’s white by default, anyways. I understand where you’re coming from in terms of like, yeah, if they’re black, or indian american, or whatever, make them actually be that race, you know, make them have that culture. It’s a common sentiment. At the same time, there are many people, mostly your second or third generation immigrants, that are going to basically have a relatively “normal”, or whitewashed, upbringing. There’s usually still an amount of discrimination happening, you might still have a mild amount of cultural traditions passed down, and a feeling of being pulled between two different worlds is pretty common, much like what happens with multiracial people. But for most external observers, these groups will tend to externally show many of the same traits as a white person. That’s all also kind of moot, for a lot of stories, where the point is less, like, character exploration of a personal identity, and the point is more about like. Something else. So, there’s not really much of a reason, in my mind, why a writer might need to explain why someone’s black, or whatever.

                  I brought up previously in the thread, “what if we made superman black”, and I still don’t think much would have to change there, for that story, cause that’s just kind of what superman is. Well, beyond the normal superman critiques of like, why doesn’t he just solve all the world’s problems and kill the ruling class or whatever, but comics has a kind of suspension of disbelief eternal stasis that it has to enforce in order to keep a perpetual narrative going forever. I’m also not sure that in terms of a meta-critique, what the people “need” is a like, pure kind of power fantasy, that portrays their own politics as entirely correct, but maybe people do, I dunno. This is all getting a little off topic though.

                  So, back on it, you can kind of understand why it’s a weird question to ask, right, “why are you (insert ethnicity/race here)”? Especially when I put it like that, right? Certainly, it’s not something I would ask a white character, which is kind of the core problem there. If we had a total opposite, where everybody’s a kind of racial stereotype, and is forced to be the kind of platonic ideal ultimate representation of their culture, and justify their own existence and role in the story, mostly except for white people, that also seems bad, and also, kind of seems like what we’ve been doing for forever. Minstrelization. I dunno. I get the sense that a lot of people are seeing it as something that’s shoehorned in because they’re not used to non-white people taking more central roles in their media. If you even just had proportional representation, that would be a pretty huge step out of what the norm has been, for a lot of years.

                  I also don’t think anyone’s really been asking for like, more diverse casting in terms of historical works. Maybe in some flanderized and inaccurate historical dramas, I might be able to see where they’re coming from, but I still haven’t really seen that critique. If anything, the critiques I’ve seen have mostly been about portrayals of historical periods focusing more on white characters, or casting lighter skinned actors, or white actors (see: colorism), in roles where, historically, that doesn’t really make any sense. This applies more broadly to all works of fiction, and I’m basically just talking about whitewashing, actually. Less of a problem more recently, but it still comes up sometimes, like with that ghost in the shell movie which is probably super old hat by now.

                  I also won’t say that it’s not the case, that disney and other fucking companies have been trying to wear identity politics as a way to be on the “right side” of the culture war and appeal to squishy liberals. But I can still hate the corporate bloodsucking, power centralizing, IP buying, underpaying disney machine, while recognizing that, if companies feel the need to do this, in order to stay appealing, that’s probably not a bad thing at all, and this being done, in general, isn’t a bad thing.

          • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            It doesn’t necessarily matter. Did you watch South Park: Into The Panderverse or whatever it’s called? I can only find this super short cut down clip of Eric Cartman’s nightmare he’s explaining to his psychiatrist

            It misses the most important line: and finally I wanna scream, and I was like, “WHY ARE THEY REPLACING EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER WITH SOMEONE WHO IS DIVERSE??”

            It’s weird, it’s hokey, these remakes look & feel very forced, agenda driven. I ask for more than original characters; I want actually new fucking ideas. New stories! We’re not seeing very many of those lately; we’re getting re-skinned versions of established characters, they just cut off their face & wear it around, and we’re supposed to act like we don’t notice. If we do notice, we’re racist, or sexist, some -ist or -phobe. No, your work is just a lazy, contrived retell of a story that was already told pretty well. Wrapped up nice & neat with a bow on top.

            Personally I’m not super invested in the whole debacle, and I simply choose to not see the new stuff & remakes. I’m an adult man, I have no kids, anyway. No dog in this fight. It’s alright. If it’s truly better and/or a fantastic story, it will probably bear out at the box office & I’ll hear about how what an incredible movie it is.

          • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            Because of the principle of it. If your goal is inclusivity how is completely changing the race of an established character inclusive? It’s not. It’s just pandering.

            If you’re actually trying to be inclusive then make a new character. Anything else is a pathetic attempt that just shows how disingenuous the attempt is.

            • magnusrufus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              This take always seems a bit myopic as it ignores the fact that it cements in the exclusivity that already existed. Not allowed to change an established character’s race? Only option is to tack on a new character to the already existing cast and that certainly doesn’t seem like pandering. Of course maybe the new inclusive characters should only be in new content that isn’t established and has no following.

              • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                Its fascinating that you can change age, gender, class, job, good vs evil, city, power origin, family, parents, backstory, goals, romantic relationship, friends, enemies, powers, on and on and thats all fun new twists on the character to revitalize the story.

                But race? Woooaaah buddy, slow down! Thats too far!

                Its fuckin transparent, is what it is

                • Kedly@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  So, yeah, theres a lot of people that dont like it for racist reasons, but what makes it stick out for the non racist reasons when the other changes might not immediately is that its the most likely category for when the intention is pandering. It CAN be done well, but it often is done at the behest of sales/pr board

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      its like community, you need the character diversity to drive the character interactions. If you do shit like that it no longer follows the original story line at all, which is the only reason for it to be in that same IP.

      • EnderMB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        That’s a great analogy, and points towards parts of the downfall of Community, as those diverse roles shifted with Chevy Chase leaving, Britta’s character changes, bringing together Troy, Abed, and Annie, etc. It’s a show I dearly love, but it’s also a great demonstration of how a show can struggle to keep the magic going from a working formula.

    • Buglefingers@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      I believe it’s because it’s so universally seen as terrible that it got renewed. People couldn’t believe it could be that bad, but was, in fact, that bad. So many people watched it either to rip on it or to see if it was as bad as it was made out to be and that got the show a lot of ratings on paper I bet.

      Execs see numbers and conflate that with a “good show”. It’s our own fault really. I still haven’t seen it yet though so I can’t weigh in on it’s quality at all

      • blazeknave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        I mostly started watching to see what they were up in arms about. By the penultimate episode I realized it was the runrate level of “woke” and how pathetic the snowflakes are. Enjoyed the series and excited for more.

          • blazeknave@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            I wasn’t interested in the show until I heard the buzz as a result of people whining about how “woke” the show was. I enjoy representation in media and wondered what the problem was. I watched. I kept waiting with baited breath for the big woke reveal But it never came. Bc it’s not that controversial.

            • Krauerking@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              Yeah it’s not as big of a deal, and I sometimes think they use over negative hype as a form of marketing when they have nothing else and don’t know how else to market it.

              Which is lazy. Just like the show. I dunno, the writing just felt so bland and trying to be edgy because “look at how many people will be pissed at what I wrote” instead of actually thinking of something clever. Sorry the meh shows piss me off more than the garbage cause it feels like they know better.

              • blazeknave@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                So that’s your perspective and it’s valid and matters. If you consider the perspective of others, you may find it’s not lazy, but actually one of the only forms of representation in mainstream media of these ideas. People are particularly butthurt when you include their nostalgia and find it an afront (sp?) to them.

                So whereas one familiar but not invested may see an on the nose literal call out of how “we already know these groups feel,” the aforementioned, underrepresented groups’ members may see themselves finally represented on screen.