First transgender Marvel superhero coming 'very soon'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

I think someone's been eating too many fruit loops. Your over-the-top reaction says more about you than it does about the movie business.

Don't tell me Hollywood is putting out movies to make money! Surely the superhero genre has some higher purpose than tawdry commerce - art for art's sake?

I'm wondering what your view is on Black Panther. The logic of your argument seems to be that black people should only be in these movies if their blackness is de-emphasised. I seem to recall that you have form on that issue - weren't you the guy who complained about the black-only thread? Your implicit assumption seems to be that being a white heterosexual is the norm and any departure from that needs to be strictly limited and justified.

You also seem to be contradicting yourself. You complained earlier about one-dimensional characters but now you say that trans characters are only okay if their transsexuality is kept out of the storyline. Given that's a key determinant of who they are wouldn't that make them one-dimensional?

---

I will not entirely concede your first point. I dislike agenda and identity politics, that much is clear and my posts in this thread do speak to more than just the movie industry BUT that doesn't mean that hollywood, in its cash grabs, is not without huge flaws. the movie industry today is a shell of its former self where there are not enough good movies made and 90% of wide releases are cookie-cutter rehashes or re-imagining of previous crap.

I mean do we really need 3 more Harry Potter-verse movies?

When you bring up Black Panther...that is a very good example of what I would call skirting the issue. Black Panther was a good movie but not great. Disney pandered by making a movie to appeal to a certain audience and that audience lapped it up and to a certain extent, I did find Black Panther a bit too sensationalized when it came to depicting the fake African culture. Everything that showed the tech and such was awesome and all the stuff that showed the tribal nature of what Disney thought Wakanda would look like and what the rituals would be were a bit too much for me...much of the movie just took me out of the experience.

Contrast Black Panther in his solo film with him in the other MCU films, or the fact that Sam Jackson played Nick Fury or how about Blade. In the 3 latter instances, it wasn't important that the character was black...it was just an awesome character. In the solo film, it did annoy me that Disney was so overt in making African references.

To your point about me being the guy that complained about the black only thread....that was not me. I am actually someone that constantly complains that there is an under representation of hot black women in trans porn because if your name is not Natassia Dreams, it seems as if your option on only to work for Grooby. I am not a white man and I am never one to claim that I am heterosexual so again, I am not sure who you have confused me with.

Finally, you are purposefully contorting the definition of a one dimensional character. Any effective character has multiple traits (Nolan's Batman) whereas a character like Batfleck is one-dimensional. A trans character can obviously have their trans status inform other parts of their character arc BUT when it becomes the sole driving force (T'challa in his solo flick) vs just part of who they are (T'challa in Winter Solider or Civil War), I find it tiresome, expected and bland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Just because the phrase Social Justice Warrior is used 99% of the time to demonize people who want to promote inclusion doesn't mean there's not a germ of an idea there. If it's coherent it might mean gratuitous offense taker or someone whose protests are entirely symbolic.

And yet, here you are, writing these 15 one and a half sentence paragraphs trying to create a faux-distinction between forced inclusion and inclusion that you're okay with. While you vainly try to articulate this micro-distinction you fail to distinguish between biographical works and fiction. Most people can see why making an ahistorical biopic about Rosa Parks would be offensive in a country that has discriminated against black people and why this is different from making a fictional character black. Historically there have been social and institutional barriers that kept black people and women out of certain professions. It might be interesting to see a black female 007 if it challenges some people's expectations.

On the other hand, a movie that changes the history of the U.S. Civil Rights movement or whitewashes atrocities is probably going to be viewed differently to one that adapts a fictional character to a different cultural context.

I read just fine and simply wasn't impressed with your excuse-making.

---

laughable.

SJW is a pejorative because it is deserving so. There is a vast difference between advocacy and SJWs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/u...l-culture.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by collinswriters

The idea of equal representation is BS in the first place, the world is not equal in any way. No two people are born equal. Making movies that were once written thoughtfully ridiculous by adding a group of "minorities" just cus of who they are or identify as (which they have no control over) and not what they have to offer is pure stupidity. If you must make a movie, it should make sense and not just coming out and saying the individual is trans. It simply means the person did not get the role based on merit but manipulations at the expense of the person who is better for that role based on merit. Making 007 a black woman will be the biggest mistake they ever made cus it's clear she didn't get it cus she was the best for the role or according to the texts but just because she is a woman and black which is actually demeaning to people because you don't allow them to achieve things on their own, you just give them freely and we know free things are not the best for anyone. You'll know deep down that you did not work to get to where you are but just because of your gender, color or sexual preference which is irrelevant in all ways possible. And a trans character in the MCU is just ridiculous, it'll be a heavily budgeted piece of garbage at the end. People will only see it cus of the reputation Marvel built when they were still making movies to entertain and not to cater to crap.

---

Yawn. Just say you only support trans representation when it comes to jerking off and that's it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Don't tell me Hollywood is putting out movies to make money! Surely the superhero genre has some higher purpose than tawdry commerce - art for art's sake?

---

I agree that filmmakers are highly motivated by commerce, and some artists see social messaging as undermining their artistic work, but social messages have been embedded in artwork for as long as people have created art. Screenwriters and directors, motivated though they are by money, and motivated though they are by creating the perfect work of art, also have ideals and aspirations. And it would not surprise me if at a time when transsexuals are killed for who they are and subjected to discrimination, some might think the inclusion of a transgender character who is very conscious of identity promotes tolerance. It's hard for me to believe people would be exercised by that. Honey nut cheerio doesn't have a leg to stand on and has simply resorted to posting articles about "SJWs" and writing the word as though it's a substitute for an argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cereal Escapist

To your point about me being the guy that complained about the black only thread....that was not me. I am actually someone that constantly complains that there is an under representation of hot black women in trans porn because if your name is not Natassia Dreams, it seems as if your option on only to work for Grooby. I am not a white man and I am never one to claim that I am heterosexual so again, I am not sure who you have confused me with.

---

My apologies - I confused you with crazyeditor, probably due to some similarities in name and style.

My fundamental point is that you seem to be applying standards to the inclusion of minority characters that you would not apply to white heterosexual characters. When you see a trans character you ask why they have chosen to make that character trans and what does it add to the story, yet it would never occur to you to ask the same question of a white heterosexual character because you assume that their presence requires no justification.

Whether you are a white heterosexual yourself is not relevant because we're talking about attitudes toward characters. I wasn't suggesting you were a hard bigot, but it is a form of unconscious soft bigotry and members of minority groups can also be prone to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cereal Escapist

When you bring up Black Panther...that is a very good example of what I would call skirting the issue. Black Panther was a good movie but not great. Disney pandered by making a movie to appeal to a certain audience and that audience lapped it up and to a certain extent, I did find Black Panther a bit too sensationalized when it came to depicting the fake African culture. Everything that showed the tech and such was awesome and all the stuff that showed the tribal nature of what Disney thought Wakanda would look like and what the rituals would be were a bit too much for me...much of the movie just took me out of the experience.

Contrast Black Panther in his solo film with him in the other MCU films, or the fact that Sam Jackson played Nick Fury or how about Blade. In the 3 latter instances, it wasn't important that the character was black...it was just an awesome character. In the solo film, it did annoy me that Disney was so overt in making African references.

---

This is a good illustration of my point. Your criticism of this movie is that the African aspects were 'sensationalised' and 'fake', yet surely that is true of the whole superhero genre. It's pure fantasy for chrissakes, so how can realism be a sensible criterion? I think you just don't like stories that don't fit in with your conservative worldview. Fantasies that are purely about technology are good but you seem to dislike those that raise political or social questions.

All irrelevant, wether you just jerk off or not. The important thing is making a solo movie or new movies for whoever you want and coming up with a good story rather than ruining all good movies with your agenda. It's not a requirement that you like trans porn and support everything they want. It's just porn as the name implies. I can support some aspects but not every crap. Movies are made for entertainment and not to push some silly agenda. Make a new movie and if it's good, people will love it and if it's not, people will not love it. Don't try to force everything on everyone by taking the entertainment out of movies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by collinswriters

All irrelevant, wether you just jerk off or not. The important thing is making a solo movie or new movies for whoever you want and coming up with a good story rather than ruining all good movies with your agenda. It's not a requirement that you like trans porn and support everything they want. It's just porn as the name implies. I can support some aspects but not every crap. Movies are made for entertainment and not to push some silly agenda. Make a new movie and if it's good, people will love it and if it's not, people will not love it. Don't try to force everything on everyone by taking the entertainment out of movies.

---

bravo sir!

so...a simple google search yields that there are not that many trans characters in the comic cannon.

https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Categ...der_Characters

The obvious name that has been mentioned in a couple of articles is Sera

https://filmschoolrejects.com/marvel...haracter-sera/

This article fully supports my POV

Quote:

---

In the comics, Sera’s gender identification is evident but it’s also not the focus of her story. It’s completely normalized. It’s not the only thing that defines her. She’s a fully-fledged character with an entertaining personality who’s given a co-starring role alongside Thor and Loki’s half-sibling in Angela: Asgard’s Assassin. If she’s brought into the MCU, she deserves to play a substantial role that honors her strengths and personality traits.

Disney has faced criticism in the past over its handling of LGBTQ+ characters, most recently with the throwaway lesbian kiss scene in Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, which has been accused of being nothing more than basic lip-service to fill a diversity quota. No matter how well-intentioned the studio’s efforts might have been, better representation is something that it needs to work on going forward.

---

Short version with my own opinion throw in:

Disney panders to woke people for $$$ and they suck just as much as woke people do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

This is a good illustration of my point. Your criticism of this movie is that the African aspects were 'sensationalised' and 'fake', yet surely that is true of the whole superhero genre. It's pure fantasy for chrissakes, so how can realism be a sensible criterion? I think you just don't like stories that don't fit in with your conservative worldview. Fantasies that are purely about technology are good but you seem to dislike those that raise political or social questions.

---

Oh, I am not conservative at all...I just lump the alt-right and SJWs into the same group of extremists that I don't care for. I'm a social liberal that believes in targeted and poignant activism and attempts at normalization. Any time ANYONE decides they are special because of a subset of traits they share and what recognition for those differences, I don't like them. We are all humans with different dispositions and therefore since everyone is special, no one really is.

I just compare a movie like Black Panther to that of Iron Man or Blade where in the latter two, the race of the main character is not important whereas in Black Panther, it was too essential to the plot. Let's put it this way, to make a movie with an astounding Wakanda that still has war rhinos and tribal crap is exploitive and unnecessary.

I mean this (see below) actually happened after Black Panther. I didn't see anyone trying to find a fictional place after Blade. That means that this fantasy world is that important to some people, idiots that they were.

https://www.express.co.uk/entertainm...akanda-flights

Let's take this to another (potential) movie.

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/248...e-dcs-superman

First off, Superman can be black, chinese or whatever. I don't care that he has always been white in the comics and movies. Second, I really want this to happen because the same actor would have starred as Johnny Storm for Fox, Killmonger for Disney and Supes for Warner Bros. which does tickle me quite a bit as far as the business of hollywood goes. This possibility is almost as funny to me as Daniel Radcliffe playing Snape in the Harry Potter reboot movies that will happen in the next decade.

All of that said...if the character traits of Superman as played by Jordan are basically in tact, I'm quite interested to see what he and JJ will do with the character. If, however, Jordan's character crash lands in the middle of Mobile, Al to a single black mother and identity politics force a change of the canon, I'll pass.

also...

irrespective of whether we agree or not, this forum could use more threads like this instead of just more and more "who has the biggest dick" or "tgirls topping men" pic threads. A little discourse is far more entertaining than just porn pics all the time