Cynthia Erivo calls out fans who made their own Wicked poster
Fans customized the Wicked movie poster to more closely match the original Broadway poster.
Original Broadway Poster:
Movie poster:
Some fans, disappointed by the poster, altered it to be closer to the original, moving Grande’s hand and lowering the brim of Erivo’s hat to cover her eyes. The edits prompted Erivo to respond. “This is the wildest, most offensive thing I have seen
“None of this is funny. None of it is cute. It degrades me. It degrades us,” Erivo continued. “The original poster is an ILLUSTRATION. I am a real life human being, who chose to look right down the barrel of the camera to you, the viewer… because, without words we communicate with our eyes.”
So, this seems like a completely reasonable reaction to fans making fan content.
168
Comments150
If it was her decision that her full face should be on display, the backlash should be evidence enough that someone else gets paid to make those decisions, not her.
The original looks boring. She has absolutely no emotions on her face. There's no mystique, no 'wickedness'. Even the composition looks like something a high schooler in Photoshop class would make.
The edit isn't perfect either. But at least it pays homage to the original in more than just image. It adds that mystique back, and makes her look more menacing.
What it truly boils down to is ego. Although the edit is better, and so many people agree on it, it doesn't show her full face. And she can't let that go.
Guaranteed this whole thing came up before that it didn't match the style. She showed her cards and now makes it sound like she was the one who pushed against matching the original. Now that the fans see it and dislike it (probably like they warned that fans would), she's mad about it. It really sounds like she pushed for this design so it wouldn't hide her face and now she's furious that fans reacted in the exact way that was predicted.
The edit looks ridiculous, how is it better?
I'm not mixing this up right?
The first picture with the red lipstick is the fan made photo?
where you can't see half her face?
that is fucking weird.
The original looks so much better.
what are you talking about there's no emotions on her face?
in the fan edit they took away half her face!
this is crazy that people like the fan edit, It's like if you cut an origami crane in half, drew a smiley face on it with a Sharpie and you were like "yeah that's better."
The original's smile communicates much more stuff than the eyes on the face that looks like it's completely bored.
Trying to "communicate with her eyes" is exactly what makes the poster bad.
i disagree, but your interpretation of her eyes is your own and completely beside the point, in any case.
It's not besides the point. It's in fact the whole point. That's why there is a fan edit and a response and a backlash to the backlash.
All of this is the point here. You can't handwave away the other side cause you don't agree or want to handle that argument.
Her eyes look bored and like she's trying to look serious. Like she's worried you realized you can smell her last fart.
"All of this is the point here."
no, unless you are responding to somebody else, you are barking up a tree in a completely separate field.
"You can't handwave away the other side cause you don't agree or want to handle that argument."
I've swatted every insult and argument here so far without breaking a sweat because they have no standing or, like your comments, are completely irrelevant to my comments, what you might want to try reading before responding to.
what you think of her expression is completely immaterial and irrelevant to any of my comments.
maybe you think you're responding to somebody else?
you can think anything you like about her expression. whatever you like; it sounds like you like farts, so you're thinking about farts.
That's fine, and is completely irrelevant with respect to invalidating her own feelings of erasure.
that is what I have been addressing, and what most of you have completely whiffed on or shamefully been attacking her for.
I don't care how people see the poster, I care that people are not respecting her feelings at being erased from her own artwork.
it doesn't matter what you think of the artwork in the slightest.
it matters that you're disrespecting someone for expressing themselves, bullying someone because they are being sincere.
you're dehumanizing them because what they say makes you uncomfortable.
Her own artwork…. Movies are collaborations. She it a tiny but important part of the artwork not the entirety. Shit she’s like the sixth person playing the role. She created not much.
"She it a tiny but important part of the artwork..."
yes. and look how furious and contemptuous it has still made you that she has an opinion about her own work.
you claim she's so unimportant, so why is it that she deserves so much contempt and abuse from a dozen strangers in one post simply for expressing her opinion, without demanding change or attacking anyone.
Wow. Ok.
You know you can make something and it still be bad right?
what do you need help with understanding here?
you need an example of someone that made "bad" art, you mean?
what does her expression tell you about her character?
ooh good question.
she has a very deliberate stare and a relaxed face, so it looks like she's hearing something she doesn't like that concerns her and she's deciding what to do about it.
I also see something vulnerable in there,, since the muscles around her eyes aren't very tense, but still a very earnest look.
hoping for understanding, with a little resignation to do what must be done.
she's nailing it with respect to her role, now that you bring it up.
you described almost every "resting face".
I thought the resting face was supposed to be aggressive or bitchy?
she doesn't really have those qualities in this expression.
That was never the point. I'm not commenting on if it's better or not. Her reaction to something a fan made is what we're all talking about.
Imagine there was a live action Bleach remake where the actor bullied their way into having Ichigo's sword green and freaked out at fans when they edited it to make it look right. Then your dumbass comes in acting like everyone is wrong and the remake isn't actual garbage.
It's like you don't have a single gram of artistic vision or social awareness behind your eyes.
what a terribly irrelevant analogy you've left on the floor:
"Imagine there was a live action Bleach remake where the actor bullied their way into having Ichigo's sword green and freaked out at fans when they edited it to make it look right"
completely unrelated to the current situation.
Cynthia hasn't even asked the fan to revert their art.
not at all the same thing.
your actor is a bullying asshole demanding people do what they say and change the art direction of the production according to their preferences.
Cynthia has been erased from the official art of her production and would like people to know that being erased from art featuring her is offensive and hurts her feelings.
she is not making demands, she is expressing her valid feelings.
It's selfish, shameful and offensive for anyone, including you, to disrespect and dismiss the feelings of others.
Are you completely retarded? She's an actress. She's supposed to portray the artwork, not herself. She's the bullying asshole trying to self insert.
"Are you completely retarded?"
no.
"She's an actress."
yes.
"She's supposed to portray the artwork, not herself."
so there's no difference between any actor? Ian mckellen was just chosen randomly off the street with no regard for his experience, look or ability to act?
that is an objectively false understanding of how acting works.
"She's the bullying asshole trying to self insert."
projecting much?
she is not bullying anyone.
Cynthia is expressing how she feels in reaction to being erased from official artwork of her production featuring her.
half of her face, most of her hair was erased from that poster.
she's not even demanding the poster be changed, she is letting people know how being erased makes her feel.
it makes her feel very bad.
you are dehumanizing her and disrespecting her feelings, that she, as a human, is entitled to.
you are the bully.
The ego and vanity is astounding. And the movie poster sucks because she's looking straight at the camera.
And I'm 90% sure that originally they wanted to make it matches the original styling but she fought to keep her face fully visible. So that's why she's so irked that there's a fan who made that edit and proved the people who suggested that in the first place right.
That's quite the oversimplification of a real life human being, who chose to look right down the barrel of the camera to you, the viewer… because, without words we communicate with our eyes.
She makes no mention of the hand covering up the other actresses face either.
I keep staring at the original, trying to figure out what she's trying to communicate. I've seen the Broadway musical. I know the story. The vacant expression just doesn't fit. It doesn't convey any emotion I associate with the character.
Imo the fan one is better. They should have done the red lipstick with a smirk rather than green and looking bored.
Congratulations I guess?
It's nice to know her problems are absolutely miniscule.
If that’s the most offensive thing they have seen they live a charmed life.
I could easily make it worse by simply copying and posting a cup onto the poster.
Yes, the Internet has broken me....
Bit of an overreaction if you ask me
Putting it mildly.
Nerve status: Struck
As we all know snapping at the fans, especially over matters of source material accuracy, always works out well for everyone involved in the making of the adaptation.
Yeah. Metallica sued their fans 20 years ago and I still won’t listen to them on purpose and shit talk them when I hear them.
Never forget what Napster was. Someday we'll have that convenience again.
What's that drummer douche name? Nevermind I don't care, fuck Metallica.
I think it was Fuckface McGillicutty.
Especially in the lead up to its release when you're trying to hype up the fans
Yeah maybe not calling out your fans on making things that build excitement for your upcoming project is the best course of action as an actor. It's like Daisy Ridley calling out Star Wars fans for having the wrong body shape in cosplay or something else equally stupid. They're fans. They're having fun. You don't get to tell your fans how they're supposed to enjoy your work.
IDK, the original and the edit both communicate way more mystique and mischievousness than the one with her eyes visible
You know, like how the wicked witch would
In matters of taste, the customer is always right.
Nobody but the audience gets to decide what the audience wants. Not writers, not actors, not directors, not graphic designers. If you can give the audience something they didn't know that they wanted until they got it, so much the better for you. But if the audience just plain wants something else, then there's no amount of cajoling or negotiation that will make them feel otherwise.
That said, I have no idea what the collective response is to either of these posters, and this does feel a bit like a tempest in a teapot.
You haven't worked a service gig comrade. When someone asks for they're bacon sandwich to be raw you'll understand.
Fans did a service on that one
Totally proportionate reaction.
Yup, not psycho at all.
I read the text before the post title and thought it was some witchymemes joke rant about people stereotyping witches which would have been kinda funny. A shame that she's serious.
As an occultist, I was offended. /s
She should take notes from Coolio regarding his beef with Weird Al:
Yea lady, that's totally just as bad as people asking if your ***** is green.
The original composition with her eyes covered is just better and way more interesting.
Right? Plus it's an homage to the musical and instantly recognisable.
One thing I've noticed over time is that people in Hollywood are pretty normal.
/s
I was on the fence about giving any time to viewing Wicked but I think it's gonna be a hard pass now.
Yup, fuck that movie with a rake. I ain't seeing it either!
Same. Was going to see it in the cinema opening week. Now I’ll wait for the reviews and streaming release. I’ve already seen the broadway show (excellent show btw).
What is she trying to communicate anyway? She has the plainest, most boring face of all time, just staring at the camera with the eyes of a dead fish. There is no communication going on.
I think she's trying to communicate her skincare routine.
She’s just remembered she has some video tapes to return.
Maybe it's a PR thing.
Can't tell who it is on the edited version.
Everything is about brand and name recognition these days
Without words we communicate with our eyes
True, but this actress ain't doing that. She's completely dissociated in the pic, her expression so blank and emotionless, screaming that she's dead inside. While a dissociated character could make a good villain, it's not hard to see that the character in the poster for the musical isn't a dissociated villian who is unaware of her cruelty but someone who is fully conscious of and revels in it. It's only natural that people who are fans of the original work notice just how out of character this is and try to fix it.
Don't like it? Stop making stupid remakes of ancient stuff and make something original for once! Maybe try putting some emotion into it!
But you know, that'd require Hollywood actually put in effort and they've probably forgotten how to do that by now. Seriously, is anyone watching the new shit that they fart out over there these days? Most everyone I know either rewatches old shit or watches anime. Hey, maybe we'll see the rise of Bollywood over the next couple decades, who knows?
I prefer the original poster. The new poster still looks like Wicked to me, and I would be disappointed if it recreated the original exactly. The fan edit is fun, I like it, but I understand artists from current year who made the modern poster would want to make a statement different than artists from when the original came out.
Everyone is making art, why do we have to be mad about that?
I'm just here to downvote Varyk into oblivion 😂
Don't you know? By disagreeing with her feelings it's the same as thinking she's subhuman. We are all 100% evil for thinking her feelings come off as vain and self centered.
The sad thinng is, that's not even a good troll.
Oof, if she’s that offended by a poster edit, she should probably hide out on a deserted island for three months when the movie releases. That’s quite the reaction to a probably well-intentioned edit.
The other things she mentioned are not OK, obviously. But I’d keep my annoyance private as this will only encourage trolling…
...when the actual wounded party (if any could really be found) would be the photographer and/or the graphic artist who produced the image. The model had no idea or say in how their image would ultimately be used. No doubt dozens of images were taken probably some with brim down. It's not up to the model to decide how the images are used.
https://www.sbs.com.au/voices/article/headless-women-project-highlights-gross-sexism-in-movie-posters/2bhgrghmc
Compare movie posters of women whose eyes or even whole heads you can't see or that are reduced to legs vs. movie posters of male actors to whom this is rarely done and it is clear what is happening.
Top this with the problems people of color face and that the new poster takes away her facial look, the look of a person of color and replaces everything that reminds of her with a bland face that could be anyone and I understand her anger.
She could have explained the issue instead of lashing out, because so many of her fans (and people in ths thread) don't understand the problem and education is necessary and more helpful for everyone.
That article, which does highlight a valid criticism of society and Hollywood, doesn't really apply to this scenario. The fan edit isn't about sexing up the characters. The edit is doing a more effective job of recreating the original poster than the movie studio did.
I don't fault the actors or even the studio for wanting to feature their high paid actors on the movie poster but by trying to recreate the original but failing to capture the mood, of course fans are going to want to put their spin on it. There is probably even a middle ground that could have been struck to make her face mysterious but still mostly visible.
Is it rude and offensive when fans edit the Lord of the Rings films to better reflect the original story as told in the books?
In the end, I'm pretty sure this whole thing is a PR stunt to stir up word of mouth. Which of course is working because we all like to argue.
But already the original failed to do that. Imagine a movie like that featuring high paid male actors in a way that their faces are minimalized to a point they are unrecognizable (just check their posters and how prominent their faces stare at you). No one would do that. Just because people are used to the old poster does not make it good. The original is a failure that did a disservice to the women on it, just one we know and are nostalgic for. I do not think this fan poster was done in malice but because it is still not recognized wildly as a problem and we need to get the message out: Show the women's faces as much as you show the men's faces.
I don't think this is a PR stunt, I think it is honest feelings that come up for a reason.
Imagine finally as a person of color having made it to a point in your career that YOU are the center piece of a movie poster of a highly anticipated movie and just with a finger snip someone erases that because they love an old poster that erased other women's faces at a time where no one bat an eye about it.
Again, I understand nostalgia. I am 58 y.o. and I had to let go a myriad of things that were just fine in my youth and learn why they definitely were bad back then and are now. Let that old poster die. It is not good, its mood is erasing women, which is wicked, I give it that.
What? Isn't the original poster based on the book cover? How does it do a disservice to the fictional characters of the book?
Until this moment, I thought everyone was saying shits.
it's not like they didn't know the original poster existed when they made the official poster. they made it a particular way on purpose and the edit doesn't respect that
But who cares. It's a fan edit. It's not like they're ripping down the poster wherever they see it and replacing it
Even if they were who cares it's a fucking poster. It's giving buzz to your project. This lady has lost the plot.
Actor: I was doing my own thing.
Fans: We literally never asked for that.
That's my big thing. If an actor wants to be serious and do their own thing - awesome, do an arthouse film, or theater. Jumping into an existing franchise that is already known and beloved by fans is a completely different thing. It's not for you, an actor, to make it your own, your job is to uphold the character we already know and love.
Robert Downey Jr came in and learned about Iron Man, and did his own little flairs to it, but never at the expense of who or what Iron Man was, and over time he became Iron Man, to the point where pop culture doesn't recognize anyone but RDJ as Iron Man. He didn't get that by jumping in and saying "My face is more important than Iron Man". (In fact, his face was literally covered a good chunk of the first movie now that I think about it)
So?
What's the harm of the fan edit? Why get upset that someone edited a movie poster to more closely match the original poster?
Fans didn't do it to demean or belittle the actors in the movie. They did it because they're excited for the movie.
What a silly thing to get mad over.
I mean that fan poster looks terrible, so I get why she's pissed.
fans prefer that poster?
weirdos.
let people enjoy erasing someone's face and hurting their feelings?
that's not okay and it's offensive and shameful to defend them.
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.'
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.
Thank you for demonstrating this concept so ably with the entirety of your comment.
you're welcome.
I never liked bullies, and I like you all less now.
being proud of erasing someone after is shameful of you. bearing indignant Pride in their pain when they tell you it hurts them is shameful of you.
leave Britney alone!
I have never given the slightest fuck about the real person behind any of the characters I’ve watched, nor have I cared to portray the real me in any role I’ve acted.
It’s a fucking mask. Fuck the person behind it. Acting is not for expressing the self.
"I have never given the slightest fuck about the real person..."
mmhmmm.
"nor have I cared to portray the real me in any role I’ve acted"
can't imagine why.
"Fuck the person behind it."
oh, that's probably why.
"Acting is not for expressing the self."
yes, yesss, that's why all actors are interchangeable and you'll never get different performances from any of them.
That's why studios don't make remakes.
well!
other people have been dehumanizing in this post, but you are the most blatantly sociopathic.
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.
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.
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 she needs to tackle herself, not dump on the people who were excited to see her play elphaba.
So yeah. I'm not accepting the victim blaming title because i don't see her as a victim. She made herself a victim in her own mind when one fan did this. You know who I see as the victim? The fan who was probably really excited to see this movie, so excited they made their own poster, and then had the Hollywood celebrity call them out publicly who now has people like you defending her for basically calling this person (who again all we know is just a super big Wicked fan) basically the devil
Literally all she had to do was nothing and it would have passed with no one noticing.
"Her feelings are unjustified and come off as narcissistic."
her own feelings are justified and not subject to your or anyone's approval.
her feelings are justified.
they come off as narcissistic only to you because you do not see her as deserving of feelings.
this is your problem, not hers.
"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."
her reaction does not invalidate her feelings or her basic humanity, both of which you are shamefully dismissing as irrelevant.
"Have we seen Ian mckellan go on a tirade because fans made a two towers poster that doesn't include his face?"
this situation is about a different person, Cynthia erivo, whose feelings were hurt, not Ian, whose feelings were not hurt.
"that's her problem she needs to tackle herself,"
she is. she is explaining her feelings to the public, which as an actor is very natural.
she isn't attacking other people, she didn't "dump on the people", she is explaining how she was hurt and how this feels to her, personally.
read her statement, you apparently have no idea what it says.
"now has people like you defending her for basically calling this person (who again all we know is just a super big Wicked fan) basically the devil."
neither erivo in her statement nor i here have called the creator " basically the devil" or attacked this person at all, in any way.
we're talking about the feelings of Cynthia, and her basic humanity, which you are shamefully dismissing as irrelevant.
there was no attack in this statement, it is an explanation of how she feels as a result of being erased from a work she cares about.
you don't respect and are dismissing her perspective, feelings and her right to express her feelings, which is offensive and shameful of you.
Correct. I dismiss her feelings. We're just going in circles now. I dismiss her feelings, because they are something again that she needs to deal with, not me, not her audience. She said what she wanted to say, I say that she was wrong and vain to do so. Her simply "having feelings" does not make her suddenly perfect and right. She was wrong jump to conclusions that she was being erased. She was wrong to call out a fan who just made a poster and assume that they were doing it as a personal slight. She was petty for not just ignoring the thing and moving on with her life. Those are all of my feelings, does that make me right too? We can all have our own feelings, and we've evolved a bit into being allowed to express them. However the same adage applies, my freedom ends where my fist ends and your face begins. Same thing here. Her feelings are valid - internally. Making them public like this exposes her to criticism, which I now have a lot of. If she didn't want that criticism she was welcome to not say anything.
Being critical of someone does not remove their humanity.
I mean, if it's shameful to not empathize with someone over the slight of their face being partially covered in a movie poster, then I'll accept that. Your disdain of people means nothing to me.
Face erasing is an odd way to say shaded their eyes to match an earlier poster.
I didn't see that one.
in this fan poster, they completely coloured over the top half of her face and her hair, which are very striking in the original artwork, then colored her lips bright red.
It's a pretty weird edit.
they even messed up the sky.
Horse water drink. Meh.
it's spelled "neigh".
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
"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.
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.
"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 life.
"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.
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.
"Cynthia's hurt arises from her own actions of hurting the fans of the original."
this is incorrect and more victim blaming.
when you are assaulted, it is not your fault that you are assaulted.
is the fault of those assaulting you.
"Cynthia is allowed to be upset. "
Yes, glad tp hear at least one person admitting that she is allowed to be upset.
"What she is not entitled to do is pretend that this is degrading, or in someway offensive."
she's not pretending anything, and do you alleging that is rejecting her right to be upset, invalidating her emotions, dehumanizing her.
she finds erasing her face from her portrayal of the character offensive.
That's perfectly valid, as you finally agreed with earlier.
"That's no more or less wrong than what she did."
you mean making fan art in general?
do you understand fan art as morally wrong in some way?
"If her feelings are hurt, that's unfortunate, but it is incidental."
it is not incidental, it is a direct result of having erased her from the official artwork featuring her.
that was not an incidental action, that was a deliberate action to erase part of her face and her hair. and color the sky green. which looks terrible.
"if people disagree with yours, it's not a personal attack, even if it feels like one."
this isn't a disagreement. this is a personal erasure. an erasure of her person.
It's not the same as a fan thinking to themselves that "aw gee, I like the cartoon poster better."
"I understand her feelings are hurt, and she is "lashing out" in what is ultimately a very small potatoes kind of way. "
this acknowledgment of her feelings are the simple concept that other people will not admit to.
If you now understand her feelings are hurt, there's not much more to worry about.
people are saying Cynthia isn't allowed to be upset, but she is because she is a real person with feelings.
other people do not understand that or are dehumanizing her by rejecting her feelings and upset it having her identity erased as invalid.
fans are allowed to make fan art, Cynthia is allowed to be upset by fan art that erases her identity.
I'm sure I'll watch it at some point, but it's number 700 on my watch list for now(I try to go chronologically).
I like musicals and have fond, if vague, memories of wicked.
they're going to try and make cats again in the next 20 years also. no property will be left untouched.
but... she wasn't assaulted...
how exciting for you.
It's not about her feelings. It doesn't need to be. When I play chess, it's got nothing to do with the person who carved the pieces.
"It's not about her feelings."
It's literally all about her feelings. her personal feelings are what her entire statement is about.
how she was erased from art featuring her and how that affected her.
"When I play chess, it's got nothing to do with the person who carved the pieces."
what a coincidence, it also has nothing to do with this situation.
The art isn't featuring her. It's depicting a character. The fan art is depicting the character better than she is. She's literally failing at her job and complaining about the people doing it better for her.
Seeing as you're obviously here arguing in bad faith just to troll, I'm not replying to you anymore. You're not fooling anyone.
It's depicting a character featuring the real person Cynthia Erivo who you are dehumanizing.
"She's literally failing at her job..."
no, she isn't, and there's zero evidence for this. being erased as an actress is not her job.
her job was to be featured on the official artwork, which she did.
she is succeeding at her job.
for some reason you are dehumanizing her.
"complaining about the people doing it better for her."
this is also not true. she is not complaining about anyone.
she is complaining about edited changes to her identity that have hurt her feelings.
she is sharing her personal experience. You are dehumanizing her and dismissing her feelings.
"you're obviously here arguing in bad faith just to troll"
trolls often dehumanize and dismiss the feelings of others, especially minorities, as you are doing.
trolls do not support the validity of human expression and sharing feelings, as I am doing.
you're the troll here, you're the bully, you're the problem, and I honestly don't think you're even aware of how dehumanizing and disrespectful you're being.