https://www.theguardian.com/film/202...on-kevin-feige
Should be interesting.....
Printable View
https://www.theguardian.com/film/202...on-kevin-feige
Should be interesting.....
It will be obnoxious and most of us know it.
Hollywood needs to get away from all the "woke" BS.
It is like they have a list they need to tick off (one lesbian dwarf - check, one hispanic biesexual - check, etc.), and they forget about entertaining the public.
Hollywood needs to focus on stories first and foremost, and leave the social justice warrioring alone.
So transgendered people can kill, when most of the time they are being killed? And this is a step forward?
i'm holding out hope for the first pansexual, trangender eskimo amputee midget with a learning disability who overcomes all that life has put before them to fly into space and save the earth from Galactus.
If a holocaust survivor named Erik Lehnsherr can be a black man and 007 will eventually be a woman, we can fire Brie Larsen and find that midget above because zhe should be the next iteration of Captain Marvel.
What if Captain Marvel and Dr. Strange had a kid with all their powers...wouldn't the need for the Avengers cease. Let's start a trend. #MakeBrieACumberbitch!
Its not "social justice warrioring", & by the way warroiring isn't even a word, its called representation. Some of the public that want to be entertained by these movies are trans, why shouldn't they see people like them in these movies?Quote:
Originally Posted by mildcigar_2001
Bless - someone got triggered!Quote:
Originally Posted by mildcigar_2001
SJWs and "woke" culture have ruined many big movies/franchises. There are plenty of films and characters out there for everyone but when you take established stories and add identity politics and SJW bullshit to is just because you are pandering to what is considered culturally normative to a part of your audience, you've made a mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtrebus
I'll give you an example. If Atomic Blonde came out and was a about a black trans super spy, not too many of the wider audience would speak ill of it because the graphic novel it is based on has a niche audience and it is really not part of the cultural lexicon.
You make 007 a black woman and emasculate Bond by showing he is a relic, you've ruined an iconic character only because you can.
Now, you take away the suit away from Iron Man and he was a genius billionaire playboy philanthropist. That is because there is character development put into a character that is not one dimensional. Contrast that with Captain Social Justice where there was no development and her only arc was to be a woman rebelling against the man trying to keep her down, and the movie sucked. The role was written to cater to SJWs just looking for something to latch on to and SJWs took the Disney bait. The lapped it up and followed exactly as Marvel and Feige wanted like the mindless lemmings they are not realizing that Disney was just pandering and in no way made that twat a whole or interesting character.
My fear is that if Marvel actually puts a trans character on screen, that character will get the Captain Marvel treatment so that the house of mouse can say "Look at how progressive we are" and every SJW moron out there will clap when told to clap.
If they develop a character who among other things is trans AND most importantly not defined solely by being trans, then they will have the makings of an interesting character. At what point in time did it matter that Iron Man had a dick and a beard? Now juxtapose that with Batwoman or Captain SJ who defines themselves specifically for not having a dick? It is a disservice to women everywhere to make female characters victims of the woke craze.
Here here!Quote:
Originally Posted by mildcigar_2001
Making 007 a black woman doesn't ruin an iconic character. 007 is a code name for a secret agent. James Bond still exists. As for making him a relic. Well he is!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cereal Escapist
Love it!!!!!
Crazy how we have anti-"SJW" users getting triggered by the thought of a trans superhero on a forum dedicated to trans porn. I guess jerking off to trans women in porn and wanting them to be represented equally in our media are mutually exclusive.
Audition. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikka
So your logic is that transgender characters should never appear in mainstream movies? Please explain - in what circumstances do you think it would be appropriate to have a trans character?Quote:
Originally Posted by mildcigar_2001
It's revealing that you say that what matters is the story, yet you are prepared to write off this movie as obnoxious without knowing anything about the story.
Perhaps you should leave off the culture warrioring.
Or 'Hear, hear' maybe?Quote:
Originally Posted by dirtrail
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steezman96
social justice warriors and the media they rode in on can go fuck themselves because they are just as bad and wrong as the people they think they are criticizing.
adding a trans superhero to the MCU should not be done BECAUSE zhe is trans but that is exactly the reason why Disney will do it...all to make a buck and appear woke.
adding a new superhero who happens to be several things such as a human fucking being with extraordinary abiity and/or supernatural powers, that is also trans, where being trans is not the focus of any of their story line, is actually promoting diversity and inclusivity. in trying to focus a storyline on being trans actually is just pandering and I would hate it just as much as if Michael Cera was cast to play a lesbian Rosa Parks or Denzel Washington was cast to play a butch Helen of Troy in biopics. you don't need to force diversity to prove a point.
Forced inclusivity for agenda or profiit is utter trash and anyone who supports it without seeing how they are just a pawn, needs to have their head examined.
I will give you an example. How many of you saw Bookworm? It only grossed $25M worldwide but it is a movie that SJWs should have loved and seen in droves. It was a smart, female centric, well acted and scripted movie of 2 girls coming of age. It didn't make much money because all the SJWs would rather do is break down other tentpoles and franchises instead of coming up with their own and support a movie that was refreshingly awesome. SJWs love to complain then complain more that their initial complaints were not heard. When something is available to them that they can't complain about, they don't even recognize it.
To be clear, if Disney comes up with a trans superhero character and they make a movie like Iron Man, I'll watch it. If they make an agenda movie, I'll pass.
Agenda and identity politics are ruining this country because as the SJWs get entrenched on one side, those who oppose them get entrenched on the other side and both are equally wrong and just victims of the media who are trying to profit off the discourse. get over yourself and remember, YOLO because there is no sequel to this so why go through life so mad at the world.
It's hard to imagine the combination of self-loathing and bigotry it takes to join a forum for people attracted to transsexuals and then write an idiotic diatribe about how wanting cultural inclusion of transsexuals makes someone a pawn. Or that one bad analogy demonstrating an incompatibility between characters and actors is remedied by a half dozen more. How many posts asking about a Jewish Muslim half Asian female who works at a yada yada Lesbian Samoan themed restaurant do we have to read Cereal box? The idea of a transgender character is not meant to shock people nor should it. It's disappointing and sad to see people show so much resistance to the idea, especially on this forum.
I think someone's been eating too many fruit loops. Your over-the-top reaction says far more about you than it does about the movie business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cereal Escapist
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 tend to make them more one-dimensional?
hey bronco fan....reading is fundamental. you clearly can't do it well as you retorted without realizing you agree with me!!!
you did what every SJW does and goes right for pigeonholing anyone that doesn't agree with you as a bigot. the hypocrisy of the modern SJW is on full display.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I will repeat:
if Disney includes a trans character just BECAUSE they are trans, they are part of the problem and just pandering to SJW morons. That is exactly what they are likely to do. They want to appear woke and will be celebrated by SJWs for being that, even though that is the same studio that just went out of their way to show Finn and Poe were heterosexual in Episode 9.
If Disney wrote and effective character where one of their traits was they they were trans, that is moving the needle forward on acceptance and inclusivity because they would not make an example of that character for a single trait. I simply don't trust Disney; they will not do this because they need the agenda media to celebrate them as woke.
SJWs want shock and awe and that is what Disney will give them in droves.
If reading comprehension was your strong suit, you would have realized that we actually agree as the inclusion of a trans character should never be to shock or impress especially in something like a superhero movie.
Finally, conflating my utter disdain for agenda and identity politics with any other point of view when it comes to trans people or anything else, is also something only a simple person would do. It is possible to be an advocate for trans people and never agree with any SJWs, whether they are mild mannered or a vigilante. Perhaps you should think about that instead of being so judgmental.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
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.
laughable.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
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
Yawn. Just say you only support trans representation when it comes to jerking off and that's it.Quote:
Originally Posted by collinswriters
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 filghy2
My apologies - I confused you with crazyeditor, probably due to some similarities in name and style.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cereal Escapist
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cereal Escapist
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by collinswriters
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
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
So you lump together the alt-right, who think minorities are inferior and have inspired at least two synagogue shootings, with people you think are too heavy-handed in their social messaging?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cereal Escapist
There's a lot I disagree with in your posts and we can argue all day about what should be included in films, but this is beyond idiotic in my view.
Yes I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Don't confuse the messaging with intent and delivery.
The Alt-right is clearly more inflammatory than SJWs are but I lump both groups together as people who are intractable in their beliefs therefore they don't need to be part of my life. Intolerance on both sides runs deep and inflexibility to see any other perspective other than the one they adopt is what I can't stand. I am not addressing the morality of either message because the delivery method of both annoy me.
To me, intractable people are insufferable and as soon as a person can't see the hypocrisy in what they are doing, I just zone out on the message. People like this remind me of my 3 year old that gets fixated on only one toy and perseverate over it except grown adults should know better. Life is too short to go through forcing your agenda on everyone else because ultimately, if forcing the actions of others is what makes you happy, you are not a complete person and you should turn a bit more introspective.
So when's the right time to unforcefully introduce a trans/gay/disabled superhero?
Uhm..... Maybe we wait and see on this it's another stepp ( even if its comercial)
Oh dear, it looks like you have an incurable case of 'bothsidesism'. In the current environment that is the equivalent of putting your head in the sand and refusing to make any judgements about which side presents the greater dangers. You have a theory for how you look at the world (inflexible thinking is bad), but you refuse to apply common sense to it (what matters is the potential impacts).Quote:
Originally Posted by Cereal Escapist
I agree that it's good to have discussions like this rather than the usual endless round of porn-posting and trivial comments. It's also good that you've made an effort to engage and explain your thinking, unlike some others who fired off shots and then scampered at the first whiff of return fire. However, these discussions always get to a point where they just go round in the same circle, and I think we're getting to that point.
To be clear, I'm not a particular fan of this movie genre, so most of your references are lost on me. To me it's a prime example of where the movie business has gone wrong - with the focus on technology-driven spectacle at the expense of depth and the endless mining of successful franchises.
I agree. Why would we have to know the hero is transgender? It makes no sense. Are they planning on showing the persons cock in the movie? SmhQuote:
Originally Posted by mildcigar_2001