Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It tracks that an entire thread of probably-white women wouldn't be able to relate to a Black woman's upset at being erased, but...

It's pretty sad that none of y'all can put yourself in an artist's shoes, and face makeup, and imagine the time that went into making those artistic decisions, setting up the shot(s), making that work, only to have some punk with photoshop or AI think they knew better by making something that's already been made as an illustration. If they'd wanted it to look like the illustration, don't you think they could've replicated it themselves, and better?

Yes, yes they could've. And they didn't. Why not? She obviously had some agency to present the character and her interpretation of same in the way she wanted, and you're mad at her for being upset that some anon stole that away to make her work derivative and basic? And that the edits remove the features that make her "her" in the process? What of what's left in that edit says "That's Cynthia Erivo"? That could be literally anyone, and you don't think she has a right to be upset about being erased so you can have your trite repeat image?

Probably because you're basic, and can't appreciate anything beyond what you already know. And now you want to call her names and call her a homewrecker and all this other unrelated trash.

Who's het up about a picture now?

It’s random fan art. I put it in the category as fan fic. People have all sorts of artistic variation in skill level and may not always do the source material justice. This edit would have faded into oblivion if she hadn’t made a big deal of it. At first I though she was upset because the actual movie producers edited something, but to get this angry at some internet rando is totally weird.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are being more dramatic in the comments than she was in her reaction. The play poster is intentionally generic because it isn't made to be changed every time a new actor is hired. The movie poster showed both actresses' faces because they're the stars of the show, and there won't be any substitutions. Hiding most of their faces does erase them and revert to just showcasing the idea of the character, which makes sense for Broadway but not for a movie.

She was hurt to be erased from a movie poster where she's the main character, and I don't think it's crazy to say that out loud since people were probably asking her about it. Her reaction certainly doesn't make her unintelligent, even if it does seem sensitive.

Close, but not quite. It erases HER, only. The other actress's hand is moved, and dimple removed, but she's still herself. There's nothing left in the photo to indicate that the hat-wearer is Cynthia Erivo at all. It's total erasure.

Anonymous wrote:It tracks that an entire thread of probably-white women wouldn't be able to relate to a Black woman's upset at being erased, but...

It's pretty sad that none of y'all can put yourself in an artist's shoes, and face makeup, and imagine the time that went into making those artistic decisions, setting up the shot(s), making that work, only to have some punk with photoshop or AI think they knew better by making something that's already been made as an illustration. If they'd wanted it to look like the illustration, don't you think they could've replicated it themselves, and better?

Yes, yes they could've. And they didn't. Why not? She obviously had some agency to present the character and her interpretation of same in the way she wanted, and you're mad at her for being upset that some anon stole that away to make her work derivative and basic? And that the edits remove the features that make her "her" in the process? What of what's left in that edit says "That's Cynthia Erivo"? That could be literally anyone, and you don't think she has a right to be upset about being erased so you can have your trite repeat image?

Probably because you're basic, and can't appreciate anything beyond what you already know. And now you want to call her names and call her a homewrecker and all this other unrelated trash.

Who's het up about a picture now?

Anonymous wrote:So this was just some rando fan’s edit? The way she reacted I thought this new one was put out by the studio or something

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bizarro-world

Apologies for going off topic here, but my DH says "bizarro world" and I thought he made it up, lol. I didn't realize anyone else says this.

Anonymous wrote:It tracks that an entire thread of probably-white women wouldn't be able to relate to a Black woman's upset at being erased, but...

It's pretty sad that none of y'all can put yourself in an artist's shoes, and face makeup, and imagine the time that went into making those artistic decisions, setting up the shot(s), making that work, only to have some punk with photoshop or AI think they knew better by making something that's already been made as an illustration. If they'd wanted it to look like the illustration, don't you think they could've replicated it themselves, and better?

Yes, yes they could've. And they didn't. Why not? She obviously had some agency to present the character and her interpretation of same in the way she wanted, and you're mad at her for being upset that some anon stole that away to make her work derivative and basic? And that the edits remove the features that make her "her" in the process? What of what's left in that edit says "That's Cynthia Erivo"? That could be literally anyone, and you don't think she has a right to be upset about being erased so you can have your trite repeat image?

Probably because you're basic, and can't appreciate anything beyond what you already know. And now you want to call her names and call her a homewrecker and all this other unrelated trash.

Who's het up about a picture now?

Anonymous wrote:It tracks that an entire thread of probably-white women wouldn't be able to relate to a Black woman's upset at being erased, but...

It's pretty sad that none of y'all can put yourself in an artist's shoes, and face makeup, and imagine the time that went into making those artistic decisions, setting up the shot(s), making that work, only to have some punk with photoshop or AI think they knew better by making something that's already been made as an illustration. If they'd wanted it to look like the illustration, don't you think they could've replicated it themselves, and better?

Yes, yes they could've. And they didn't. Why not? She obviously had some agency to present the character and her interpretation of same in the way she wanted, and you're mad at her for being upset that some anon stole that away to make her work derivative and basic? And that the edits remove the features that make her "her" in the process? What of what's left in that edit says "That's Cynthia Erivo"? That could be literally anyone, and you don't think she has a right to be upset about being erased so you can have your trite repeat image?

Probably because you're basic, and can't appreciate anything beyond what you already know. And now you want to call her names and call her a homewrecker and all this other unrelated trash.

Who's het up about a picture now?