When a character design is changed to be less sexual it is almost always a mining canary for intrusive identity politics and a lack of respect towards the source material.
Explanation
The statement implies a causal relationship between the sexualization of character designs and themes it associates with, specifically 'identity politics' and a perceived disrespect towards original content. However, this interpretation lacks nuance. Not all changes in character design stem from identity politics; adjustments may arise from evolving societal norms that prioritize inclusiveness or reflect broader audience perspectives. Furthermore, the term 'mining canary' suggests that such changes are indicative of wider issues, but character design changes can be multifaceted, driven by artistic intent, market demands, or audience feedback. The assertion that these changes show 'lack of respect' is subjective and implies a binary view of creative adaptation, disregarding arguments about modernization and relevance that creators often pursue. Additionally, the claim's recurrence in social media, as noted in the search results, indicates a trend rather than a substantiated fact, implying that while some individuals believe this perspective, it does not reflect a universal truth or consensus in media discourse.
Key Points
- The statement generalizes character design changes as motivated by identity politics.
- Not all character redesigns reflect a lack of respect towards source material; they can also be driven by evolving norms.
- The idea of design changes being a 'mining canary' oversimplifies the creative adaptation process.
