Saga Anderson was RACE-SWAPPED for Alan Wake II

[talloyer]

Even though Quantum Break and Alan Wake are supposed to be IPs with their own universe, did you know Quantum Break had an easter egg teasing Alan Wake 2? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iePFK5BB_m4 I missed or I forgot about it, cannot remember which, definitely didn't pay attention when I played Quantum Break years ago.
Edit: there is a picture from Sam Lake himself showing very clearly the name "Saga Anderson" on her badge when she committed the "awful crime" of daring to be White: https://twitter.com/SamLakeRMD/status/677615946241060864/photo/1
Considering Alan Wake II is now a real thing, this teaser falls very much in line with the premise of the game shown so far to the pointing of making Saga Anderson not so random after all, which mitigates my frustration with the forced co-protagonist in Alan Wake II.
My issue is, Remedy Entertainment completely changed Saga Anderson's appearance for Alan Wake II to the point of Race-Swapping - https://boundingintocomics.com/2023/06/14/alan-wake-ii-race-swaps-saga-anderson-replaces-original-actress-malla-malmivaara-with-the-idol-actress-melanie-liburd/ - and I despise this change, Race-Swapping is Woke and spreads Racism among Society with the pretense of "inclusion" or "diversity". Imagine if there was Quantum Break 2 and Remedy Entertainment decided to race-swap Martin Hatch (RIP, Lance Reddick) to be portrayed by the likes of Chris Evans or Chris Hemsworth, white guys; just as bad.
To be fair, from the trailer, Saga was never properly named there, and only from her FBI badge her name can be barely seen (Alex Casey's name was written with big letters on the board as missing person), which is certainly why most of us had missed this detail. Some "brilliant mind" in Remedy Entertainment must have dismissed the issue of race-swapping Saga Anderson ("bah, nodody will notice, who cares") but this Woke decision backfired on them, especially when Melanie Liburd committed Wokeness in promotional material of Alan Wake II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgL99_0cihQ&t=158s
I do not know nor really care why Malla Malmivaara didn't return to Alan Wake 2, but would it hurt so badly to just recast her with another blonde white actress? Why not cast Melanie Liburd as another supporting character important to the plot of Alan Wake II, as a resident of Bright Falls, for example? Everybody happy, but nooo, this was clearly not good enough for Remedy Entertainment.
I wonder if Remedy Entertainment will bother to write a "narrative excuse" for the race-swapping in Alan Wake II (which would make sense if Saga Anderson is just a construct created by Alan Wake) or just pretend this easter egg never existed.
Wokeness shall cost Remedy Entertainment more than they are willing to admit. It did not have to be this way.

[Catastrophucked]

startrekmike님이 먼저 게시:

Catastrophucked님이 먼저 게시:

I called you a racist because you're displaying the same behavior leftist racists display. You implicitly accused the OP of being a racist for calling race-swapping what it is, when the only people who defend these changes operate on the notion that people of color need someone to represent them, act as though the decision to race-swap was fueled by "careful narrative deliberation and casting" without a shred of explanation to show it. If an explanation is given, it is something vague like "we chose the appearance we thought was best, picked best actor/actress for the job" and stops there. This something you will never admit to, always deflect, reduce to the product of someone being so anti-woke its crazy, or say something like the reaction is way out of proportion. All of this you will deny because it's your only option to avoid people proving with hard evidence that the reasons for changes in racial appearance are not what the industry says they are, nor are they noble.

Frankly, you flat-out not even attempting to address your insinuation of racism against the OP is a dead giveaway of your intent: misrepresentation of the anti-woke stance to make it appear driven by racism, with all possible rational arguments being reduced to a byproduct of brain-rot induced paranoia spawning "wild, politically motivated statements".

As for the character being present for only two minutes? That doesn't matter. What matters was that she existed for those two minutes, enough for players to get a small taste of who she was, what she looked like, but in the eyes of a leftist looking to pull a successful race-swap, this what see from a strategic perspective: "a character who was barely present, no one remembers her, so if I change her skin color no one will notice, and if those seeking to be represented do notice, then I'll score easy virtue points." We've seen this done with big, memorable characters as well, think The Little Mermaid, Domino, Mary Jane. There are loads of valid cases to be made about race-swapping of characters, minor and major being rampant throughout the films and games. We already know there is a ton of people out there begging to change James Bond to a black man, or black female, which you actually managed to screw the argument up on: it's not the cultural identity that matters, its the character's physical and visual identity does, as that is what's being changed.

So no, these arguments you made are completely irrelevant, nor is anyone's brain rotted. People want the character's produced in fiction to remain racially the same, their gender unchanged, and any aesthetic changes beyond that like wardrobe, hairstyle, etc are non-issues.

Changing a character's race doesn't change who they are, but it does change WHAT they are, and because those two things are intrinsically related, it is absolutely retarded to change the latter.

Let me ask you something directly. Why does it bother YOU that they took a character that only appeared in a Easter egg for two minutes and changed her race? Why (specifically) is that a problem for you in particular? You say I am "racist" for what essentially amounts to pointing out the absurdity of even caring so much about this particular situation to get angry at all but you are the one saying that there is some rule that a barely present character cannot have their race changed by their own creator just because...reasons that are totally not racial in nature?

From my angle. This looks like the standard issue "Some anti-woke obsessive on Youtube said there was some kind of "woke" thing happening in a big game so let's pile on and make it seem like some kind of egregious affront to the creative/racial integrity of the work". It is nonsense. You are trying to complain about changing the race of a barely existent character while pretending that doing so doesn't make you look irrational/unhinged at best and perhaps a tiny bit racist (or at least wrapped up in a largely racist "anti-woke" cause without acknowledging the pretty obvious racist implications) at worst.

Again. We really, really gotta put this in perspective here. The creators of a character that only appeared in a Easter egg for about two minutes (that many likely didn't even see) decided to change the race of said character for a entirely different game that takes place in an entirely different, separate "shared universe". You can cry about race swapping all you want about this but that doesn't make it a worthwhile hill to figuratively die on. You are just making yourself look bad.

It might be time to unplug from all the "anti-woke" rhetoric. This isn't the issue you seem to want to make it into.

It's a matter of principle that I call out race-swapping wherever I see it, regardless of how significant the character appears to be for the simple reason that I know why it was done. A character existing for two minutes or two centuries doesn't make a drop of difference to me. Race-swapping is dumb, politically motivated garbage. It bothers me personally because I am a person of color, and I want to experience original, authentic stories featuring character's of the same quality, nor am I the only person of color who feels this way. I used to be able experience authentic character's of color like Static Shock, Blade, or Spawn, none of whom have gotten any cinematic spotlight in a very long time. Personally, I don't even need to see characters of color in order to relate to them or feel some sort of connection, but in the event that I did, those are the ones I want to see: original character's of color, not race-swapped breadcrumbs.

Unless a company can provide me a good, solid, and most importantly BELIEVABLE narrative reason for changing a character's race from one to another, I am going to default to assuming it was done for political/social reasons because that's all there's left go on. We know these reasons exist due there being articles promoting it, tweets celebrating by fans and actors alike, and still many more articles demanding an increase in character's of color.

Lastly, the duration of the character's existence doesn't matter to me, because if enough thought and consideration wasn't put into her character, she wouldn't have been present for any amount of minutes, period. In other words there was a character foundation present to progress forward from. What this means in a practicalsense is the writers had to invest actual narrative thought and effort into changing her appearance and skin color, yet there is no visible narrative justification to make the change significant or relevant to the plot. There is NEVER a hint or shred of narrative-based evidence to support these character changes, and that is bad writing. I do not like bad writing. This in essence means my problem with the character is primarily narrative-driven, because the race-change visually interferes with artistic cohesion and my perception as a consumer of the product being put out. I know this will be another point you won't even attempt to address because you can't risk compromising your agenda, but I find it important enough to say anyway.

It will be time for me to stop calling out woke crap when the woke crap stops appearing in, and messing with the films I watch, the comics I read, and the game's I play. Until it stops, neither will I. And no, this isn't a hill to die on, it's just something to address, and to tell it like it is. That not dying on a hill, that is speaking the truth.

[Doombadger Doomus]

Go outside and touch some f**king grass.

[Catastrophucked]

Doombadger Doomus님이 먼저 게시:

Go outside and touch some f**king grass.

I am happy to inform you that I typed this post on my phone with one hand while smoking grass in the other.

[Crunchy[Daz]]

There is a complete non-issue. There is no issue here, you are creating some non-existant issues for whatever reason. This isn't a big deal, there is no harm being done here, people change their art form all the time. Seriously. Look up literally any games concept art and look at how different it is from the final result.

You are frying your brain cells over something that is nothing at all.

[Catastrophucked]

CrunchyDaz님이 먼저 게시:

There is a complete non-issue. There is no issue here, you are creating some non-existant issues for whatever reason. This isn't a big deal, there is no harm being done here, people change their art form all the time. Seriously. Look up literally any games concept art and look at how different it is from the final result.

You are frying your brain cells over something that is nothing at all.

Your statement would hold weight if this discussion were held back in the early to mid-2000s when race-swapping characters weren't rampant alongside a constant storm of articles, videos, and debates about this issue. If you can't see that, you're either willfully blind, enjoy this garbage, or are part of the agenda.

The left started this war, and now destroying all their weapons, piece by piece, no matter how big, no matter how small.

[profileftg]

lol

this thread reminds me of my two favorite Nine Inch Nails albums.

one is the quake soundtrack, which I highly recommend listening to while playing Remedy games. Very atmospheric. Great sense of dread.

the other one was released in 1999...

[Sholomar]

Honestly I don't care about this race issue. Hollywood and progressives have been engaging in social engineering for 50 years. Every leadership in every nation or group of people will seek to control the narrative and sway the opinions of their followers, citizens, members, or whatever. They may even also try to oppress the opposing viewpoints to prevent dissent! Doesn't matter if they are left, right, or what they "identify" as. It's human nature.

What I did notice was the lore.. this black character saying she was from Switzerland in some random dialog early in the game on a youtube video. That's when it becomes a bit annoying to me, where they have to force feed it to us despite the fact the lore or backstory gets affected in the process.

That said, I'm all for anyone of any skin color accomplishing anything if they have the necessary skills and qualifications. What I'm not for is this concept of equal outcome despite unequal ability, also known as "equity" ... I'm fine with people pointing out the left's hypocrisy and double standards though. Every group of people who thinks they have the moral or intellectual superiority and thinks their cause is just needs to be kept in check in order for them to not abuse their power, and I definitely see signs of progressives abusing their power the last few years with the rise of "fact checking" and "cancel culture" even if I believe them in theory that there's lots of "misinformation" out there.. freedom of speech should remain paramount.

Bottom line... free your mind and don't get caught in any echo chamber belief system by any sort of "herd" of people who tell you they have all the answers. You will always come across people trying to win you over to their belief system. Question everything. Enjoy the game and don't worry about it too much... or not. It's your choice how much you care.

[Elrodeus]

So I have yet to beat Alan Wake 2 and I'm typically on-board with complaints about gender/race swapped characters but I feel like if you're upset about Saga being race swapped you're really not paying attention to the current lore of the Remedy-verse.

Remedy has found interesting ways to link their games and there tends to always be differences between the characters. In Alan Wake 2, Mr. Hatch is called Mr. Door and is played by a different actor (RIP Lance Reddick bro, I would have loved to see you in Alan Wake 2), Jack Joyce is named Tim(e) Breaker and is in the game for maybe 5 minutes before he gets caught in a time stutter and literally time travels out the room. Saga Anderson was indeed played by a different actress in Quantum Break but seeing how Mr. Hatch's note in Quantum Break literally mentions that your appearance can change as you travel between worlds in time it makes perfect sense that Mr. Hatch and Saga Anderson both look different.

Plus if you're looking at this from the perspective of Jack Joyce he would literally have had to travel to this alternate world where it would make sense that the characters he interacts with (Saga Anderson and Mr. Hatch) now no longer appear as he remembered them in his original timeline/realm.

I'm just saying, within the meta universe that Remedy has created, and following the rules of travelling between realms Mr. Hatch left in Quantum Break it makes perfect sense that people don't look exactly as expected. This is very different than say, making Bruce Wayne black or Black Panther Ryan Gosling. I just don't see the problem with it here as the writers have literally wrote these rules within their universe back when Quantum Break released and is simply still adhering to them even now in Alan Wake 2.

[CupCupBaconBox]

Generally speaking, I think race-swapping is offensive. The proponents of it often strike me as disingenuous, and their true, unspoken beliefs on the matter seem to be something like "Eff White people, it's okay to replace them because they're all closeted, entitled racists, and they've had their day and we need to get back at them and troll them as much as possible". Super offensive and bigoted. A person's race isn't some trivial factor that should be idly altered unless a non-race-matched actor comes in and really knocks an audition out of the park. In those cases, I think audiences are more likely to be fine with the swap (e.g. Sam Jackson as Nick Fury). In all other cases, it comes across as racially hostile, low-effort virtue pandering by bigoted weirdos who somehow think of themselves as enlightened "antiracists".

[startrekmike]

CupCupBaconBox님이 먼저 게시:

Generally speaking, I think race-swapping is offensive. The proponents of it often strike me as disingenuous, and their true, unspoken beliefs on the matter seem to be something like "Eff White people, it's okay to replace them because they're all closeted, entitled racists, and they've had their day and we need to get back at them and troll them as much as possible". Super offensive and bigoted. A person's race isn't some trivial factor that should be idly altered unless a non-race-matched actor comes in and really knocks an audition out of the park. In those cases, I think audiences are more likely to be fine with the swap (e.g. Sam Jackson as Nick Fury). In all other cases, it comes across as racially hostile, low-effort virtue pandering by bigoted weirdos who somehow think of themselves as enlightened "antiracists".

As the audience, we are very, very rarely given a view into the auditioning process for major media productions. We are also very seldom given any kind of inside glimpse into the casting and pre-production planning process. With that having long since been the case, how are we (as the audience) supposed to objectively, factually determine if they should be "fine with the swap" or if it is "racially hostile, low-effort virtue pandering by bigoted weirdos"? In the case of Sam Jackson's casting as Nick Fury, there was a specific reason they went that direction (they used Jackson's likeness for Nick Fury in a run of comics years before his introduction to the films).

It is actually really interesting that you brought up Jackson's casting as Nick Fury because that really, really highlights what is happening in this debate. Jackson's first appearance was in 2008's 'Iron Man' as part of the after-credits sequence. It made quite a splash since it was hinting at a larger plan on the part of the studio and inevitably a Avengers storyline. This was all over entertainment media. As we have already established. Jackson's casting was due to a specific run of comics from years earlier so it is safe to say that your average audience member or even very casual comic book fan wouldn't really know about it. To them, Jackson's casting would look like it came out of nowhere especially since the last person to play Fury before him was David Hasselhoff.

So why didn't it cause an uproar? By your logic, some folks would agree with the casting but inevitably there would have been a very loud, very vocal subset of people that would have flooded Youtube, Facebook, and any other available platform at the time with complaints and rants about "race swapping" and "virtue pandering". Why didn't that happen? Why was there largely no real discussion at all about the racial aspect of the casting choice? Think about that for a moment. Now think about how the same scenario would have played out had the first Iron Man film came out in 2023. Do you honestly think it would have played out the same way?

Here is a variable to consider. In the past handful of years, there has been a pronounced, well documented rise in heated race and gender related rhetoric. It is no secret that certain political parties and even opportunistic politicians and media pundits have been very intentionally stoking the fires of the race/gender debate since it is such a easy way to manipulate those who are emotionally/intellectually the most vulnerable. We have seen gender and race issues become the scary monster hiding in every shadow and hiding under every bed. I am sure that Jackson is relieved that his casting as the (long established to be white) Nick Fury predated all of this. Had that decision been made just a handful of years later, anyone involved in that choice would likely have received death threats and there would be countless long-form Youtube essays about how horrible it is and how it was all "racially hostile, low-effort virtue pandering by bigoted weirdos".

So. Again. I hope you take a moment before going further in this post and ask yourself how you would feel if Jackson's casting as Nick Fury were to happen in 2023 as opposed to 2008? If you were to see normal media news coverage about Jackson getting casted in that traditionally white role today (the Nick Fury character has been white in the mainline Marvel comics universe since the early 60's), would you be all for it? There would inevitably be Youtube pundits screaming at the top of their lungs about "race swapping" and you would no doubt hear quite a bit from that corner. Do you think that this one specific case of very obvious "race swapping" would somehow be different for you or would you jump in on the outrage because this is a hot-button issue in certain socio-political circles and thus certain people are going to see "race swapping" issues in every shadow and under every bed?

You might reply with something like "Well, we know that Jackson did a good job in the role so it would be fine!" We know that now. We know that in the years since 2008. How would you feel about his casting as a traditionally (very) white character before seeing him in the role? How would you respond had you read a headline or a click-bait Youtube video title that says something to the effect of "Woke Hollywood strikes again, Marvel casts African American to play traditionally white character!"? You wouldn't know about his auditions. You wouldn't have the test footage of those auditions and you wouldn't have any way to know what happened during the initial test readings. You would just have headlines and Youtube videos. You would have as much information as people had when this whole "Saga Anderson was race swapped!" thing started.

Do you think you would view Jackson's casting differently? Would you make an exception simply because he is an established actor? Would you make an exception because you might like his prior work? Would that mean that "race swapping" a character is okay as long as you personally like the actor but isn't okay and clearly part of a larger agenda if you either don't like the actor or don't know much about them?

When one actually takes a step back and looks at the wider angle of this whole "race swapping" debate, it is pretty clear that a lot of the current controversies happen because certain parties have been emotionally and politically manipulated to a point where even the "race swapping" of a barely established character that only appeared for two minutes in a Easter egg can trigger such a dramatic response not just in this forum topic but across several steam forums and (doubtless) a great many click-bait, hyperbole laden Youtube videos.

Am I denying that some casting choices are made due to social/political motivations? No. That would be absurd. Am I denying that these choices do sometimes compromise the quality of a work? No. It happens. It usually isn't hard to see when it happens. Do I think that "race swapping" the barely established Saga Anderson character warrants any teeth gnashing and hand wringing about "woke conspiracies"? No. It is absurd. All this talk about creative integrity getting compromised because they re-cast a character that only appeared in a two minute easter egg in an entirely different game is straight-up insane. It is the usual "anti-woke" types building this up to be something far, far bigger than it ever will be just because they see "woke" conspiracies under every bed and in every shadow. They are so sensitive to it that they need to find it everywhere. There are recent cases where "race swapping" was done for cynical reasons that do deserve some degree of discussion but all this outrage over Saga Anderson "race swapping" just looks like performative nonsense when one actually stops and puts any thought into it.

[Catastrophucked]

If you let the little things slide on the race-swapping front, just because it's "little", then there's no logical argument to be made for why you shouldn't let it happen with the big characters. This is how propaganda and woke, race-swapped content gets spread.

startrekmike님이 먼저 게시:

CupCupBaconBox님이 먼저 게시:

Generally speaking, I think race-swapping is offensive. The proponents of it often strike me as disingenuous, and their true, unspoken beliefs on the matter seem to be something like "Eff White people, it's okay to replace them because they're all closeted, entitled racists, and they've had their day and we need to get back at them and troll them as much as possible". Super offensive and bigoted. A person's race isn't some trivial factor that should be idly altered unless a non-race-matched actor comes in and really knocks an audition out of the park. In those cases, I think audiences are more likely to be fine with the swap (e.g. Sam Jackson as Nick Fury). In all other cases, it comes across as racially hostile, low-effort virtue pandering by bigoted weirdos who somehow think of themselves as enlightened "antiracists".

As the audience, we are very, very rarely given a view into the auditioning process for major media productions. We are also very seldom given any kind of inside glimpse into the casting and pre-production planning process. With that having long since been the case, how are we (as the audience) supposed to objectively, factually determine if they should be "fine with the swap" or if it is "racially hostile, low-effort virtue pandering by bigoted weirdos"? In the case of Sam Jackson's casting as Nick Fury, there was a specific reason they went that direction (they used Jackson's likeness for Nick Fury in a run of comics years before his introduction to the films).

It is actually really interesting that you brought up Jackson's casting as Nick Fury because that really, really highlights what is happening in this debate. Jackson's first appearance was in 2008's 'Iron Man' as part of the after-credits sequence. It made quite a splash since it was hinting at a larger plan on the part of the studio and inevitably a Avengers storyline. This was all over entertainment media. As we have already established. Jackson's casting was due to a specific run of comics from years earlier so it is safe to say that your average audience member or even very casual comic book fan wouldn't really know about it. To them, Jackson's casting would look like it came out of nowhere especially since the last person to play Fury before him was David Hasselhoff.

So why didn't it cause an uproar? By your logic, some folks would agree with the casting but inevitably there would have been a very loud, very vocal subset of people that would have flooded Youtube, Facebook, and any other available platform at the time with complaints and rants about "race swapping" and "virtue pandering". Why didn't that happen? Why was there largely no real discussion at all about the racial aspect of the casting choice? Think about that for a moment. Now think about how the same scenario would have played out had the first Iron Man film came out in 2023. Do you honestly think it would have played out the same way?

Here is a variable to consider. In the past handful of years, there has been a pronounced, well documented rise in heated race and gender related rhetoric. It is no secret that certain political parties and even opportunistic politicians and media pundits have been very intentionally stoking the fires of the race/gender debate since it is such a easy way to manipulate those who are emotionally/intellectually the most vulnerable. We have seen gender and race issues become the scary monster hiding in every shadow and hiding under every bed. I am sure that Jackson is relieved that his casting as the (long established to be white) Nick Fury predated all of this. Had that decision been made just a handful of years later, anyone involved in that choice would likely have received death threats and there would be countless long-form Youtube essays about how horrible it is and how it was all "racially hostile, low-effort virtue pandering by bigoted weirdos".

So. Again. I hope you take a moment before going further in this post and ask yourself how you would feel if Jackson's casting as Nick Fury were to happen in 2023 as opposed to 2008? If you were to see normal media news coverage about Jackson getting casted in that traditionally white role today (the Nick Fury character has been white in the mainline Marvel comics universe since the early 60's), would you be all for it? There would inevitably be Youtube pundits screaming at the top of their lungs about "race swapping" and you would no doubt hear quite a bit from that corner. Do you think that this one specific case of very obvious "race swapping" would somehow be different for you or would you jump in on the outrage because this is a hot-button issue in certain socio-political circles and thus certain people are going to see "race swapping" issues in every shadow and under every bed?

You might reply with something like "Well, we know that Jackson did a good job in the role so it would be fine!" We know that now. We know that in the years since 2008. How would you feel about his casting as a traditionally (very) white character before seeing him in the role? How would you respond had you read a headline or a click-bait Youtube video title that says something to the effect of "Woke Hollywood strikes again, Marvel casts African American to play traditionally white character!"? You wouldn't know about his auditions. You wouldn't have the test footage of those auditions and you wouldn't have any way to know what happened during the initial test readings. You would just have headlines and Youtube videos. You would have as much information as people had when this whole "Saga Anderson was race swapped!" thing started.

Do you think you would view Jackson's casting differently? Would you make an exception simply because he is an established actor? Would you make an exception because you might like his prior work? Would that mean that "race swapping" a character is okay as long as you personally like the actor but isn't okay and clearly part of a larger agenda if you either don't like the actor or don't know much about them?

When one actually takes a step back and looks at the wider angle of this whole "race swapping" debate, it is pretty clear that a lot of the current controversies happen because certain parties have been emotionally and politically manipulated to a point where even the "race swapping" of a barely established character that only appeared for two minutes in a Easter egg can trigger such a dramatic response not just in this forum topic but across several steam forums and (doubtless) a great many click-bait, hyperbole laden Youtube videos.

Am I denying that some casting choices are made due to social/political motivations? No. That would be absurd. Am I denying that these choices do sometimes compromise the quality of a work? No. It happens. It usually isn't hard to see when it happens. Do I think that "race swapping" the barely established Saga Anderson character warrants any teeth gnashing and hand wringing about "woke conspiracies"? No. It is absurd. All this talk about creative integrity getting compromised because they re-cast a character that only appeared in a two minute easter egg in an entirely different game is straight-up insane. It is the usual "anti-woke" types building this up to be something far, far bigger than it ever will be just because they see "woke" conspiracies under every bed and in every shadow. They are so sensitive to it that they need to find it everywhere. There are recent cases where "race swapping" was done for cynical reasons that do deserve some degree of discussion but all this outrage over Saga Anderson "race swapping" just looks like performative nonsense when one actually stops and puts any thought into it.

If you let the little things slide on the race-swapping front, just because it's "little", then there's no logical argument to be made for why you shouldn't let it happen with the big characters. What you should be asking these writers and directors, as it relates to gaming content is why specifically they felt the need to change the skin color. The reason such a question is important and relevant to the topic being discussed is that all visual, and aesthetic changes made to characters should be done for good, solid reasons that contribute to the plot and narrative being told.

Using the fact that the character was around for only two minutes as a way of dismissing the change's significance is nothing more than a thinly veiled method of dodging the truth.

As for Nick Fury? He was race-swapped to spread his appeal to a broader audience, namely black folks. The reason fans didn't get mad was likely due to simple ignorance, and the fact that race wasn't as hot of a topic as it is now. Fortunately, we have the benefit of hindsight which allows us to understand that this was, as far as recent decades are concerned, a nascent manifestation of identity politics in action. The idea is that a character will become more relatable, and easier for the audience to share a connection with if he first shares the same skin color as them. The lack of narrative justification is what brings about the void of narrative integrity I mentioned earlier, and is why such changes are flat-out wrong, regardless of when and where they appear.

Ignorance and social irrelevance is the crutch you choose to lean on, but knowledge of the past, and how those actions connect to the present is the splint holding the bones together and is allowing us to steadily heal against this cancer.

[startrekmike]

Catastrophucked님이 먼저 게시:

If you let the little things slide on the race-swapping front, just because it's "little", then there's no logical argument to be made for why you shouldn't let it happen with the big characters. This is how propaganda and woke, race-swapped content gets spread.

startrekmike님이 먼저 게시:

As the audience, we are very, very rarely given a view into the auditioning process for major media productions. We are also very seldom given any kind of inside glimpse into the casting and pre-production planning process. With that having long since been the case, how are we (as the audience) supposed to objectively, factually determine if they should be "fine with the swap" or if it is "racially hostile, low-effort virtue pandering by bigoted weirdos"? In the case of Sam Jackson's casting as Nick Fury, there was a specific reason they went that direction (they used Jackson's likeness for Nick Fury in a run of comics years before his introduction to the films).

It is actually really interesting that you brought up Jackson's casting as Nick Fury because that really, really highlights what is happening in this debate. Jackson's first appearance was in 2008's 'Iron Man' as part of the after-credits sequence. It made quite a splash since it was hinting at a larger plan on the part of the studio and inevitably a Avengers storyline. This was all over entertainment media. As we have already established. Jackson's casting was due to a specific run of comics from years earlier so it is safe to say that your average audience member or even very casual comic book fan wouldn't really know about it. To them, Jackson's casting would look like it came out of nowhere especially since the last person to play Fury before him was David Hasselhoff.

So why didn't it cause an uproar? By your logic, some folks would agree with the casting but inevitably there would have been a very loud, very vocal subset of people that would have flooded Youtube, Facebook, and any other available platform at the time with complaints and rants about "race swapping" and "virtue pandering". Why didn't that happen? Why was there largely no real discussion at all about the racial aspect of the casting choice? Think about that for a moment. Now think about how the same scenario would have played out had the first Iron Man film came out in 2023. Do you honestly think it would have played out the same way?

Here is a variable to consider. In the past handful of years, there has been a pronounced, well documented rise in heated race and gender related rhetoric. It is no secret that certain political parties and even opportunistic politicians and media pundits have been very intentionally stoking the fires of the race/gender debate since it is such a easy way to manipulate those who are emotionally/intellectually the most vulnerable. We have seen gender and race issues become the scary monster hiding in every shadow and hiding under every bed. I am sure that Jackson is relieved that his casting as the (long established to be white) Nick Fury predated all of this. Had that decision been made just a handful of years later, anyone involved in that choice would likely have received death threats and there would be countless long-form Youtube essays about how horrible it is and how it was all "racially hostile, low-effort virtue pandering by bigoted weirdos".

So. Again. I hope you take a moment before going further in this post and ask yourself how you would feel if Jackson's casting as Nick Fury were to happen in 2023 as opposed to 2008? If you were to see normal media news coverage about Jackson getting casted in that traditionally white role today (the Nick Fury character has been white in the mainline Marvel comics universe since the early 60's), would you be all for it? There would inevitably be Youtube pundits screaming at the top of their lungs about "race swapping" and you would no doubt hear quite a bit from that corner. Do you think that this one specific case of very obvious "race swapping" would somehow be different for you or would you jump in on the outrage because this is a hot-button issue in certain socio-political circles and thus certain people are going to see "race swapping" issues in every shadow and under every bed?

You might reply with something like "Well, we know that Jackson did a good job in the role so it would be fine!" We know that now. We know that in the years since 2008. How would you feel about his casting as a traditionally (very) white character before seeing him in the role? How would you respond had you read a headline or a click-bait Youtube video title that says something to the effect of "Woke Hollywood strikes again, Marvel casts African American to play traditionally white character!"? You wouldn't know about his auditions. You wouldn't have the test footage of those auditions and you wouldn't have any way to know what happened during the initial test readings. You would just have headlines and Youtube videos. You would have as much information as people had when this whole "Saga Anderson was race swapped!" thing started.

Do you think you would view Jackson's casting differently? Would you make an exception simply because he is an established actor? Would you make an exception because you might like his prior work? Would that mean that "race swapping" a character is okay as long as you personally like the actor but isn't okay and clearly part of a larger agenda if you either don't like the actor or don't know much about them?

When one actually takes a step back and looks at the wider angle of this whole "race swapping" debate, it is pretty clear that a lot of the current controversies happen because certain parties have been emotionally and politically manipulated to a point where even the "race swapping" of a barely established character that only appeared for two minutes in a Easter egg can trigger such a dramatic response not just in this forum topic but across several steam forums and (doubtless) a great many click-bait, hyperbole laden Youtube videos.

Am I denying that some casting choices are made due to social/political motivations? No. That would be absurd. Am I denying that these choices do sometimes compromise the quality of a work? No. It happens. It usually isn't hard to see when it happens. Do I think that "race swapping" the barely established Saga Anderson character warrants any teeth gnashing and hand wringing about "woke conspiracies"? No. It is absurd. All this talk about creative integrity getting compromised because they re-cast a character that only appeared in a two minute easter egg in an entirely different game is straight-up insane. It is the usual "anti-woke" types building this up to be something far, far bigger than it ever will be just because they see "woke" conspiracies under every bed and in every shadow. They are so sensitive to it that they need to find it everywhere. There are recent cases where "race swapping" was done for cynical reasons that do deserve some degree of discussion but all this outrage over Saga Anderson "race swapping" just looks like performative nonsense when one actually stops and puts any thought into it.

If you let the little things slide on the race-swapping front, just because it's "little", then there's no logical argument to be made for why you shouldn't let it happen with the big characters. What you should be asking these writers and directors, as it relates to gaming content is why specifically they felt the need to change the skin color. The reason such a question is important and relevant to the topic being discussed is that all visual, and aesthetic changes made to characters should be done for good, solid reasons that contribute to the plot and narrative being told.

Using the fact that the character was around for only two minutes as a way of dismissing the change's significance is nothing more than a thinly veiled method of dodging the truth.

As for Nick Fury? He was race-swapped to spread his appeal to a broader audience, namely black folks. The reason fans didn't get mad was likely due to simple ignorance, and the fact that race wasn't as hot of a topic as it is now. Fortunately, we have the benefit of hindsight which allows us to understand that this was, as far as recent decades are concerned, a nascent manifestation of identity politics in action. The idea is that a character will become more relatable, and easier for the audience to share a connection with if he first shares the same skin color as them. The lack of narrative justification is what brings about the void of narrative integrity I mentioned earlier, and is why such changes are flat-out wrong, regardless of when and where they appear.

Ignorance and social irrelevance is the crutch you choose to lean on, but knowledge of the past, and how those actions connect to the present is the splint holding the bones together and is allowing us to steadily heal against this cancer.

You are eager to assert that the casting of Jackson as Fury was a "nascent manifestation of identity politics in action" without really bothering to learn the real reason it was done. Back in 2002, Marvel ran a sort of "alternate universe" series (alongside the mainline comics) called 'The Ultimates'. This comic reviewed pretty well and savvy Marvel fans tended to dig it. One important detail of this 2002 comic. Nick Fury is drawn to look exactly like Samuel L. Jackson. They even make a self-aware joke about it in the comic where all the Avengers are sitting around a table talking about who would play them in a movie. Naturally Fury says that Jackson should play him.

This was long before Iron Man entered production and it was obviously a factor in his casting. People who read the comic liked the idea of Jackson as Fury.

But no. It must be "identity politics" because that more conveniently fits a current outrage bandwagon.

Before, you said that there are situations where "audiences would be fine with the swap". Now that Alan Wake II is out and we have had time to see both critic and audience reviews (most of which are extremely positive and none that seem to give much of a crap about the race of a character), does this mean that the Saga Anderson "race swap" was one of those "audiences would be fine with the swap" situations or are we still in "racially hostile, low-effort virtue pandering by bigoted weirdos" territory? Seriously. You seem to be the final word on this so I suppose I am waiting for you to tell us all how we should take this one.

[CupCupBaconBox]

Why are you quoting me but directing it at him?

[CupCupBaconBox]

Also, I didn't read your big long response to what I said. It's absurd that you even wrote all that, and is probably a sign of some kind of badly adjusted personality.

[RPR]

talloyer님이 먼저 게시:

I changed the video from my OP to another with a thumbnail that highlights how Saga was WHITE before they race-swapped Her.

You know this happens all the time right? Movies and TV do it all the time. It's called a STAND IN. They didn't pick Saga yet but they needed someone to play her for this clip. You are just low IQ racist.