What absurd controversy should not have warranted a response from a Hollywood studio?

Hollywood is no stranger to controversy, with many films and TV shows facing backlash and calls for boycotts over the years. However, some controversies are so absurd that they shouldn't have warranted a response from a Hollywood studio in the first place.

One recent example is the controversy surrounding the film 'Cruella', which is a prequel to the classic Disney film '101 Dalmatians'. The film, which stars Emma Stone in the title role, was criticized by some for supposedly promoting animal cruelty, despite the fact that it is a work of fiction and the events depicted in the film are not real.

Another example is the controversy over the appearance of Sonic the Hedgehog in the 2019 film of the same name. When the first trailer for the film was released, fans were outraged over Sonic's design, which they felt did not accurately represent the character. The studio responded by delaying the release of the film and redesigning Sonic's appearance, which was ultimately well-received by fans.

While it's understandable that studios want to avoid controversy and negative publicity, sometimes the best response is no response at all. By ignoring absurd controversies, studios can avoid giving them more attention than they deserve and focus on creating great content for audiences to enjoy.

There are many absurd controversies that have arisen in Hollywood over the years, some of which have warranted a response from a studio, while others have not. One example of an absurd controversy that did not warrant a response from a studio is the controversy surrounding the casting of Scarlett Johansson in the role of Motoko Kusanagi in the film Ghost in the Shell. Some people objected to Johansson's casting because she is white and Motoko Kusanagi is Japanese. However, the studio did not respond to these objections, and Johansson went on to star in the film.

Another example of an absurd controversy that did not warrant a response from a studio is the controversy surrounding the casting of Emma Stone in the role of Allison Ng in the film Aloha. Some people objected to Stone's casting because she is white and Allison Ng is half-Chinese and half-Hawaiian. However, the studio did not respond to these objections, and Stone went on to star in the film.

In both of these cases, the studios were right to not respond to the controversies. The casting of Johansson and Stone in these roles was not offensive or harmful, and there was no reason for the studios to apologize or change their plans.

Of course, there are also cases where a studio's response to a controversy was warranted. For example, in 2017, the studio behind the film The Birth of a Nation apologized for its decision to release the film after it was revealed that the film's director, Nate Parker, had been accused of rape. The studio's apology was appropriate because the film's release would have been insensitive to the victims of rape.

Ultimately, whether or not a studio should respond to a controversy is a decision that should be made on a case-by-case basis. There is no one-size-fits-all answer, and the studio should consider all of the factors involved before making a decision.