Forums
Story and Roleplay Chat Thread
Quick find code: 49-50-864-65646316
Azi Demonica
said
:
P3343
And then there’s lack of creative freedom common in corporate projects XD the problem is that there’s too much focus on ‘do dis too maek moar monnee!’ and what corporate entities don’t realize is that, in the long term, the goal is to create a loyal fanbase who support you and your products.
That might be better for art, but it's not better for investors. The reality of it is that capitalism as an economic system just isn't really designed to let creators make the works of art they want to. As Michael Eisner put it, "We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective." That's why Disney has made bank putting out live-action remakes every year—safe, non-risky investments are what capitalism rewards most consistently. You can't blame a corporation for following the rules it's been given.
This is also why all the representation seems to be appearing in existing works (though Amnesty has already explained why this isn't "insertion"
. There just aren't a lot of original works being released, since it's a riskier bet for investors.
Original message details are unavailable.
But yes, non-binary characters are still rare in media, there’s no problem having them, so long as they are written well or sourced from an actual non-binary individual to maximise relatability. Yeah, that's... gonna backfire as a standard really, really quickly, for about a half-dozen reasons off the top of my head. It's a good way to basically eliminate most minority representation in media, especially in Hollywood. I'm not saying I want a bunch of cis people trying to tell stories about what it means to be nonbinary, but that's very different from just writing diverse casts. Well-intended as it might be, this standard is self-defeating.
(In this case, since a nonbinary actor was hired for the part, it's moot.)
P3343
And then there’s lack of creative freedom common in corporate projects XD the problem is that there’s too much focus on ‘do dis too maek moar monnee!’ and what corporate entities don’t realize is that, in the long term, the goal is to create a loyal fanbase who support you and your products.
That might be better for art, but it's not better for investors. The reality of it is that capitalism as an economic system just isn't really designed to let creators make the works of art they want to. As Michael Eisner put it, "We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective." That's why Disney has made bank putting out live-action remakes every year—safe, non-risky investments are what capitalism rewards most consistently. You can't blame a corporation for following the rules it's been given.
This is also why all the representation seems to be appearing in existing works (though Amnesty has already explained why this isn't "insertion"
. There just aren't a lot of original works being released, since it's a riskier bet for investors.
Original message details are unavailable.
But yes, non-binary characters are still rare in media, there’s no problem having them, so long as they are written well or sourced from an actual non-binary individual to maximise relatability. Yeah, that's... gonna backfire as a standard really, really quickly, for about a half-dozen reasons off the top of my head. It's a good way to basically eliminate most minority representation in media, especially in Hollywood. I'm not saying I want a bunch of cis people trying to tell stories about what it means to be nonbinary, but that's very different from just writing diverse casts. Well-intended as it might be, this standard is self-defeating.
(In this case, since a nonbinary actor was hired for the part, it's moot.)
23-Nov-2020 01:15:11
Quick find code: 49-50-864-65646316 Back to Top