She’s literally playing a fantasy witch who has already been played by dozens of other actresses. She’s the only one out of all of the previous ones to get upset about this.
If she wants to be noticed for her face, then playing an iconic villain who has been played so many times before isn’t her place to be. Fans care about elphaba, her character. She is new to the franchise and making demands of fans who have loved the character much longer than she’s been in it.
Her feelings are unjustified and come off as narcissistic. I would be more open to the idea that she was being erased if she wasn’t on literally every other poster for the movie. Fans made a poster that they felt more closely resembles the original poster from the franchise that was made over 20 years ago. To assume anything else is a very large stretch.
For her to react this negatively over a fan making their own version of a poster says a great deal more about her, and to me does more damage to her reputation than a poster ever could.
There are literally entire sites and databases dedicated to fan generated poster art. The entire Harry Potter series has thousands of posters that don’t include the actors faces and are based off the books. Are those “erasing” the actors? Have we seen Ian mckellan go on a tirade because fans made a two towers poster that doesn’t include his face? No, because it’s not about them and they don’t care.
If her feelings are hurt over one tiny person making a poster that doesn’t include her face then that’s her problem to deal with.
When you are an actor portraying a character, especially a character that is a cultural touchstone, you are lending your voice and appearance to that character.
I understand the emotional reaction but I think many actors would say, ‘that isn’t your face they are retouching, it is your character’s. Learn the difference for best results.’
The reason the audience have that character and picture to play with is because that actor is putting themselves out there.
they are erasing her identity, the identity of the real person behind the character, and after she has told people that erasing her identity is offensive and hurtful, you are all making fun of her.
respect her perspective and reaction.
what is happening here and what you all are saying is offensive and shameful.
If this is true, you are hurt from your own actions of hurting another person.
And thus, by putting her face all over a piece of art than fans liked for not having a face, Cynthia’s hurt arises from her own actions of hurting the fans of the original.
If this is true …
Congratulations! You detected my sarcasm. But if you’d like me to engage seriously, I’ll bite.
Cynthia is allowed to be upset. She made some art and people didn’t like it. It hurts to put yourself into something - in her case literally - and have people not like it. But that’s the risk you run when you make art for other people. People are allowed to engage with art how they want.
What she is not entitled to do is pretend that this is degrading, or in someway offensive. If people were going round scratching out her face from random images, she might have a point. But that isn’t what is happening here. She engaged with the original piece of art by making her own version and putting her face in it. Others engaged with her art by making their own versions and taking some of her face right back out of it in order to make it closer to the original. That’s no more or less wrong than what she did. They’re both perfectly fine. If her feelings are hurt, that’s unfortunate, but it is incidental. And she is entitled to express that her feelings are hurt, but she is not entitled to pretend that that is anything more than incidental.
I daresay Peter Jackson might be upset when people make fan-edits of The Hobbit trilogy by removing a lot of his artistic vision to edit it down to a single watchable film. But if he came out and said it was personally degrading to him, people would call that ridiculous. If Evangeline Lilly said fans were “erasing women” by cutting out Tauriel, people would call that ridiculous. Everyone has their own visions when it comes to making adaptations of other works, and if people disagree with yours, it’s not a personal attack, even if it feels like one.
That being said, I have no beef with Cynthia. She is no doubt getting a lot of grief from racist and sexist weirdos mixed in with the more legitimate negative feedback, so while I think that her statement above is ridiculous, I understand her feelings are hurt, and she is “lashing out” in what is ultimately a very small potatoes kind of way. I hope the movie does well.
As an aside; I’m a fan of musical theatre but an un-fan of the cost of musical theatre tickets, so I was very concerned that no one would attempt to adapt a Broadway/West End musical again after what Tom Hooper did to Cats. I saw Wicked in London and enjoyed it, so I’ll probably watch this film if the reviews are at least halfway good.
Varyk@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
let people enjoy erasing someone’s face and hurting their feelings?
that’s not okay and you’re an offensive embarrassment for defending them.
5in1k@lemm.ee 17 hours ago
Face erasing is an odd way to say shaded their eyes to match an earlier poster.
Varyk@sh.itjust.works 17 hours ago
I didn’t see that one.
in this fan poster, they literally just completely coloured over half of her face and her hair, then colored her lips bright red.
It’s a pretty weird edit.
5in1k@lemm.ee 14 hours ago
Horse water drink. Meh.
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 1 day ago
She’s literally playing a fantasy witch who has already been played by dozens of other actresses. She’s the only one out of all of the previous ones to get upset about this.
If she wants to be noticed for her face, then playing an iconic villain who has been played so many times before isn’t her place to be. Fans care about elphaba, her character. She is new to the franchise and making demands of fans who have loved the character much longer than she’s been in it.
Varyk@sh.itjust.works 23 hours ago
fanart is valid.
she is not “making demands”.
The actor is telling people that it hurts her for them to erase her face from the poster.
“She’s literally playing a fantasy witch who has already been played by dozens of other actresses.”
that does not make this actor less of a person who deserves basic courtesy and respect.
“She’s the only one out of all of the previous ones to get upset about this.”
being erased is upsetting. she is allowed to be upset.
“If she wants to be noticed for her face, then playing an iconic villain who has been played so many times before isn’t her place to be”
victim blaming.
Just play the character, we don’t care who you are.
shameful.
“She is new to the franchise”
you should still respect her feelings.
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 22 hours ago
Her feelings are unjustified and come off as narcissistic. I would be more open to the idea that she was being erased if she wasn’t on literally every other poster for the movie. Fans made a poster that they felt more closely resembles the original poster from the franchise that was made over 20 years ago. To assume anything else is a very large stretch.
For her to react this negatively over a fan making their own version of a poster says a great deal more about her, and to me does more damage to her reputation than a poster ever could.
There are literally entire sites and databases dedicated to fan generated poster art. The entire Harry Potter series has thousands of posters that don’t include the actors faces and are based off the books. Are those “erasing” the actors? Have we seen Ian mckellan go on a tirade because fans made a two towers poster that doesn’t include his face? No, because it’s not about them and they don’t care.
If her feelings are hurt over one tiny person making a poster that doesn’t include her face then that’s her problem to deal with.
OldChicoAle@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
Being a public figure or an actor in a piece of art invites criticism. If they can’t handle that basic fact, get a new career or a therapist
Varyk@sh.itjust.works 21 hours ago
“Being a public figure or an actor in a piece of art invites criticism”
being an actor does not invalidate a person’s feelings.
“If they can’t handle that basic fact”
she is handling it by expressing herself, letting people know what erasing her image makes her feel like.
your disrespect and dismissal of her personal feelings is disgusting.
modifier@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
When you are an actor portraying a character, especially a character that is a cultural touchstone, you are lending your voice and appearance to that character.
I understand the emotional reaction but I think many actors would say, ‘that isn’t your face they are retouching, it is your character’s. Learn the difference for best results.’
Varyk@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
they might say that, and they would be incorrect.
The reason the audience have that character and picture to play with is because that actor is putting themselves out there.
they are erasing her identity, the identity of the real person behind the character, and after she has told people that erasing her identity is offensive and hurtful, you are all making fun of her.
respect her perspective and reaction.
what is happening here and what you all are saying is offensive and shameful.
modifier@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Thank you for demonstrating this concept so ably with the entirety of your comment.
itsAsin@lemmy.world 1 day ago
leave Britney alone!
svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
Well I think it was offensive of Cynthia to erase the original artist’s vision and it’s shameful of you to defend her.
Both of you have hurt my feelings, and therefore you are in the wrong.
Varyk@sh.itjust.works 23 hours ago
“I think it was offensive of Cynthia to erase the original artist’s vision”
this didn’t happen.
she’s literally bringing the character to lie.
“it’s shameful of you to defend her.”
no, you’re using that word wrong.
you attacking someone for being hurt is shameful.
“Both of you have hurt my feelings, and therefore you are in the wrong.”
If this is true, you are hurt from your own actions of hurting another person.
you are in the wrong.
svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 hours ago
And thus, by putting her face all over a piece of art than fans liked for not having a face, Cynthia’s hurt arises from her own actions of hurting the fans of the original.
Congratulations! You detected my sarcasm. But if you’d like me to engage seriously, I’ll bite.
Cynthia is allowed to be upset. She made some art and people didn’t like it. It hurts to put yourself into something - in her case literally - and have people not like it. But that’s the risk you run when you make art for other people. People are allowed to engage with art how they want.
What she is not entitled to do is pretend that this is degrading, or in someway offensive. If people were going round scratching out her face from random images, she might have a point. But that isn’t what is happening here. She engaged with the original piece of art by making her own version and putting her face in it. Others engaged with her art by making their own versions and taking some of her face right back out of it in order to make it closer to the original. That’s no more or less wrong than what she did. They’re both perfectly fine. If her feelings are hurt, that’s unfortunate, but it is incidental. And she is entitled to express that her feelings are hurt, but she is not entitled to pretend that that is anything more than incidental.
I daresay Peter Jackson might be upset when people make fan-edits of The Hobbit trilogy by removing a lot of his artistic vision to edit it down to a single watchable film. But if he came out and said it was personally degrading to him, people would call that ridiculous. If Evangeline Lilly said fans were “erasing women” by cutting out Tauriel, people would call that ridiculous. Everyone has their own visions when it comes to making adaptations of other works, and if people disagree with yours, it’s not a personal attack, even if it feels like one.
That being said, I have no beef with Cynthia. She is no doubt getting a lot of grief from racist and sexist weirdos mixed in with the more legitimate negative feedback, so while I think that her statement above is ridiculous, I understand her feelings are hurt, and she is “lashing out” in what is ultimately a very small potatoes kind of way. I hope the movie does well.
As an aside; I’m a fan of musical theatre but an un-fan of the cost of musical theatre tickets, so I was very concerned that no one would attempt to adapt a Broadway/West End musical again after what Tom Hooper did to Cats. I saw Wicked in London and enjoyed it, so I’ll probably watch this film if the reviews are at least halfway good.
TheBat@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
Fantastic typo