Holding people accountable for their actions is an aim that continually warrants merit. Seeking such accountability can also reasonably be extended to the art and media we produce; it is tremendously important to foster critical conversations, to learn how to improve as human beings, and to strengthen the messages we hope to impart to the world. 

Nothing I am about to say would argue otherwise. These efforts, however, have culminated in a cancel culture that isn’t always as constructive as it claims to be. While holding real-life people to certain standards may constitute a noble pursuit, this doesn’t mean flawed characters in film and television should cease to exist. The quality of our art is on the line.

Daily headlines, sent straight to your inbox.

Subscribe to our newsletter to keep up with the latest at and around USC.

The recent film adaptation, “Mean Girls,” is a perfect example of how certain negative character traits have been diluted to make a story’s content more palatable, or less at risk of being canceled. While the film modernizes the story to set it in 2024 — and admittedly, there are notable differences from 2004 — it seems to gloss over some realities of high school that still exist. 

Homophobia and fat-shaming, for example, are all toned down substantially in the remake. While it may be realistic to depict Gen-Z as more socially conscious, the result is a story with far less impact. If even the so-called “mean girls” aren’t problematic, where is the story? 

We need room for problematic characters so the narratives rejecting them can pack more of a meaningful punch. The pressure to not invoke any outrage results in both characters and stories that can end up falling flat. Mere likeability should not be conflated with a character’s merit. 

The new live-action adaptation of “Avatar: The Last Airbender” is another example of a story that has been weakened in its aim to modernize one of its main characters. Sokka, one of the lead roles in the series, has been changed substantially. 

In the original show, Sokka is boyish, immature and, at his worst, misogynistic in constant disbelief that women are worthy rivals or protectors. The story, however, is consistently framed to prove Sokka wrong. Time and time again, he is defeated or else saved by a powerful woman and slowly, humbly learns to evolve in his worldview. 

The result is a profound character arc as well as a complex human narrative. Audiences can learn a lesson through the education of Sokka. It makes for impactful television as well as masterful storytelling. 

In contrast, the newest iteration of the series depicts Sokka as respectful of women from the start and leaves little room for meaningful growth. This conscious reframing of Sokka and moving away from the “iffy” content of the original series, albeit having honorable intentions, ironically undermined its very goal. 

During a famous sequence of the original show, Sokka and his friends meet the all-female Kyoshi Warriors. After being relieved to find that they are “just girls,” Sokka is very quickly put in his place. The remake, however, instead of focusing on Sokka’s prejudice, uses this scene to build sexual tension between Sokka and head Kyoshi Warrior, Suki. 

Whereas in the original cartoon, their relationship grew as a result of mutual respect and admiration, the remake simplifies their connection by diminishing it to love at first sight. This change also has the effect of situating Suki as a lovesick teenager rather than a powerful, intimidating, fighting machine. In this instance, replacing sexism with sexuality actually weakens a strong female character and results in a story that is less nuanced and progressive. 

 Having problematic or flawed characters does not mean that the stories being told have to endorse them. In fact, possessing multi-faceted or even unlikeable characters may result in a story that is more grounded, realistic and impactful. This is something that seems to have been lost in recent reimaginings. Depicting bad behavior does not necessitate its glorification. Stripping media of so-called problematic elements not only diminishes its storytelling merit but further undercuts its moral impact — which is somewhat ironic.