LogFAQs > #965043846

All things being equal, there's no reason to be up in arms about something like this. It actually speaks to something more disappointing about the modern creative space, and that's the commodification of storytelling to the point that parts have become so interchangeable that nothing matters aside from glutting your market with new, easily replaceable characters. Stories so ultimately meaningless that it doesn't matter what parts are played and by who. I had a professor in college who once challenged me to write a story where the characters reflected the exact demographics of their setting in terms of gender, sexual orientation, education, martial status, age, etc. And I found it difficult as an exercise because it forced me to re-examine the purpose of characters and alter what I thought the story was meant to be. But in that case, it felt more purpose-driven. In this case, it feels like a pachinko-style spin-the-wheel situation. Apples to oranges, I know, but there's no real meaning in the diversification here.

There is great value in not developing the same six characters over and over forever, however. I just think this is an easy way out of being bold or original. But as a thought exercise? I think it might open the door forward.