The Marvel Cinematic Universe- Silver Surfer cast

[D82]

9 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Because Disney (who has a massive history of pandering actions) bought the publishing company three years before and pushed a massive diversifying initiative.

Because they pushed a minority/female/homosexual version of every main title character page except Deadpool. Wolverine, Spider-Man, Captain America, Thor, and Iron Man. 

And what has it hurt? Did it make the characters less than? Did it make for less interesting stories? No? Then what's the big deal?

[AlexGreen#20]

Just now, D82 said:

And what has it hurt? Did it make the characters less than? Did it make for less interesting stories? No? Then what's the big deal?

The conversation is about pandering. Are you seriously going to argue that there wasn't a major pandering effort made in the last decade?

That's not a stance anyone could actually have, right? Marvel leapt gleefully over pandering and landed firmly in propaganda on some of these things. Ms. Marvel #13 was actually published in a non satirical manner.

 

[NcFinest9erFan]

Has anyone posted about the rumor that Black widow's solo supposedly takes place after civil war now?

[The Gnat]

16 minutes ago, NcFinest9erFan said:

Has anyone posted about the rumor that Black widow's solo supposedly takes place after civil war now?

Just @NcFinest9erFan

I feel like I care about that movie less now? Though, it could be some interesting covert work that they could do with her. I suspect that we'll see her dealing with her past anyways if that's the case, so it'll be half origin still.

[NcFinest9erFan]

2 hours ago, The Gnat said:

Just @NcFinest9erFan

I feel like I care about that movie less now? Though, it could be some interesting covert work that they could do with her. I suspect that we'll see her dealing with her past anyways if that's the case, so it'll be half origin still.

Yeah I prefer it being set way back to how she became a spy and etc...It would be cool to see what happened to her after civil war and how she ends up with cap, falcon and wanda though.

[pwny]

19 hours ago, D82 said:

And what has it hurt? Did it make the characters less than? Did it make for less interesting stories? No? Then what's the big deal?

We're here to complain about the principle of having the audacity to allow underrepresented groups more representation. It's not about whether it's good or not, it's about complaining that things aren't like the good ol' days.

[Dr LBC]

18 hours ago, KManX89 said:

The funny thing is, Iceman was pretty much always straight in the comics and they literally decided to turn him gay just for the sake of it (or "diversity") after years of him being a womanizer, though once they set the benchmark, it's kinda hard to shy away from it in film adaptations without upsetting certain fans for "straightwashing". LGBT folk have to deal with enough of that already as it is. It's just like when they whitewash already limited roles written specifically for Asian-Americans or other AoCs (anime adaptations mainly fall victim to this, but other films have done it, too, namely Aloha and 21).

Contrast that to Deadpool, who's long flirted with both men and women in the comics and teased as much in Deadpool 2 (I think you know which scene I'm referring to). Ryan Reynolds even said he's interested in finding Wade a boyfriend in a later sequel. Not Peter, though, he's underage.

He wasn't a "womanizer."  Bobby pined after women he couldn't have (Polaris, Emma Frost at one point, Mystique).  He made more of a career being the 5th wheel than he ever did being remotely close to a player or a womanizer.

 

19 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Because Disney (who has a massive history of pandering actions) bought the publishing company three years before and pushed a massive diversifying initiative.

Because they pushed a minority/female/homosexual version of every main title character page except Deadpool. Wolverine, Spider-Man, Captain America, Thor, and Iron Man. 

So diversity is distasteful to you?  Because that's what pandering is.  It's indulging an immoral or distasteful desire.

The golden and silver age of Marvel was littered with stuff that, pretty blatantly, wasn't going to fly nowadays - and I'm not even talking about SJW communities, I'm talking about stuff that's just widely less accepted (people are less willing to turn a blind eye to in society anymore).  Hank Pym hitting Janet isn't gonna fly.  Female superheros opting to wear something a shade more protective than a glorified bathing suit flatly made sense.  The audience expanded from what it was in the 50's, 60's, and 70's.

They wanted a gay X-Man (and it could be argued that there are enough homosexual comic fans - there are - that that community deserved a character they could identify with that wasn't just a Nth generation throw-in the way Anole was) and if you actually read Bobby's personality throughout the arcs - and his failed relationships - he made the most sense to retcon as such (doing it to a physically-altered character like Beast or Nightcrawler would have created unnecessary PR backlash, they weren't going to sacrifice a relationship as iconic as Cyclops/Marvel Girl, very likely the same with Colossus and Shadow Cat, and they wanted a significant character).

Calling it "pandering" is getting overly sensitive and going to a pole unnecessarily because... you disapprove of diversity?

[Broncofan]

4 hours ago, NcFinest9erFan said:

Has anyone posted about the rumor that Black widow's solo supposedly takes place after civil war now?

 

3 hours ago, The Gnat said:

Just @NcFinest9erFan

I feel like I care about that movie less now? Though, it could be some interesting covert work that they could do with her. I suspect that we'll see her dealing with her past anyways if that's the case, so it'll be half origin still.

 

1 hour ago, NcFinest9erFan said:

Yeah I prefer it being set way back to how she became a spy and etc...It would be cool to see what happened to her after civil war and how she ends up with cap, falcon and wanda though.

If this is the source of that rumor - https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/will-black-widow-movie-include-winter-soldier-1195677...

Honestly I don't have a problem with it, if it's just saying that the story will flash between the post-Civil War development, but it's not based mostly in that era.   I mean, if you are doing a solo movie for a supehero(ine), going origins is kinda necessary.

I could see 60+ percent of screen time devoted to her origins, and 20 percent post-Winter Soldier, and 15 percent post-Civil War, with a very small IW/Endgame nod  (just throwing out %;s, not married to it, you get the idea).    The rumors of including post-CW need context IMO - if it's the focus, sure, it's hardly as interesting.  If it's just 1 chapter in the story, I don't think it's a problem.   Let's face it, without knowing full storyboard, it's hard to dismiss using post-CW as part of the story, so long as it's not the focus of the movie.

[pwny]

16 minutes ago, The LBC said:

So diversity is distasteful to you?  Because that's what pandering is.  It's indulging an immoral or distasteful desire.

I’d also argue that it doesn’t necessarily have to be immoral or distasteful, just through the eyes of the others to be lesser. Making your stories overly simplistic and easy to follow for children, at the expense of more in depth storylines would be pandering to children. It’s not immoral or distasteful, but it can be widely unappealing to a more mature audience who wants depth and themes they can relate to. 

The problem with this argument is that when @D82 asks if the stories are lesser or no longer intriguing, and the answer is “that doesn’t matter, it is still pandering”. Then you have to wonder what the loss from making a more diverse cast is. All I really ever see for an argument is that “my hero isn’t a straight white man anymore”, and if that’s what we’re losing, it’s not really pandering. 

[AlexGreen#20]

55 minutes ago, The LBC said:

He wasn't a "womanizer."  Bobby pined after women he couldn't have (Polaris, Emma Frost at one point, Mystique).  He made more of a career being the 5th wheel than he ever did being remotely close to a player or a womanizer.

 

So diversity is distasteful to you?  Because that's what pandering is.  It's indulging an immoral or distasteful desire.

The golden and silver age of Marvel was littered with stuff that, pretty blatantly, wasn't going to fly nowadays - and I'm not even talking about SJW communities, I'm talking about stuff that's just widely less accepted (people are less willing to turn a blind eye to in society anymore).  Hank Pym hitting Janet isn't gonna fly.  Female superheros opting to wear something a shade more protective than a glorified bathing suit flatly made sense.  The audience expanded from what it was in the 50's, 60's, and 70's.

They wanted a gay X-Man (and it could be argued that there are enough homosexual comic fans - there are - that that community deserved a character they could identify with that wasn't just a Nth generation throw-in the way Anole was) and if you actually read Bobby's personality throughout the arcs - and his failed relationships - he made the most sense to retcon as such (doing it to a physically-altered character like Beast or Nightcrawler would have created unnecessary PR backlash, they weren't going to sacrifice a relationship as iconic as Cyclops/Marvel Girl, very likely the same with Colossus and Shadow Cat, and they wanted a significant character).

Calling it "pandering" is getting overly sensitive and going to a pole unnecessarily because... you disapprove of diversity?

1. Would you shut the **** up with your white knighting nonsense? Saying that I "Disprove of diversity" is akin to calling me your favorite flavor of -cist. At least have the courage to come out and do it rather than dancing around it. 

2. What I find distasteful (in order to meet your most critical definition) about the transitioning of these characters away from their traditional characterizations isn't that we're seeing diversity in the comics, it's that primarily the new characterizations suck. "Black" or "Gay" is not a personality trait, which is something that so many of these writers (often times because they're middle aged white men writing with an awful corporate driven agenda) struggle with.

3. There have been examples of the changing of the guard that have been handled excellently. X-23 taking over as Wolverine for example. And then there have been examples that were gross, Jane Foster and her WNBA All-Stars taking over as Thor. Was there a lot of irritation about Kinney taking over at the time? Certainly didn't feel like it. 

4. When you sacrifice the story quality for the majority of your viewers to appeal to a small niche audience (and frequently fail even at that), you are pandering. Maybe the biggest source of irritation with these characters though is how the authors go about proving they're "For Real". Almost every time it's done by defeating an established hero or villain that's already popular and established (Hulk especially was on a roll for a few years where all he did was get beat down by new heros). It's the equivalent of Rey telling Han how to fix the Hyper Drive in the Millennium Falcon. It's eye rolling.

There's no "earning your stripes" period. It's pick up the hammer and be as powerful as Thor in one day. It's inconsistent with our understanding of the universe.

5. And you know what, if you're comfortable with saying, "I understand that what I'm reading is not coherent narrative, but I'm willing to accept it because Kamala Khan is the first Woman, Arab, Feminist, Liberal superhero and I think that's cool." More power to you. Just check the accusations at the door and know what you are when the rest of us talk about the incoherence.

Edited May 28, 2019 by AlexGreen#20

[AlexGreen#20]

16 minutes ago, pwny said:

I’d also argue that it doesn’t necessarily have to be immoral or distasteful, just through the eyes of the others to be lesser. Making your stories overly simplistic and easy to follow for children, at the expense of more in depth storylines would be pandering to children. It’s not immoral or distasteful, but it can be widely unappealing to a more mature audience who wants depth and themes they can relate to. 

The problem with this argument is that when @D82 asks if the stories are lesser or no longer intriguing, and the answer is “that doesn’t matter, it is still pandering”. Then you have to wonder what the loss from making a more diverse cast is. All I really ever see for an argument is that “my hero isn’t a straight white man anymore”, and if that’s what we’re losing, it’s not really pandering. 

Your first point is excellently put. I couldn't have said it better.

Your second point is probably my own personal failing at understanding my audience here. I don't see any way that anyone could possibly read Jane Foster as Thor as anything other than "Lesser". Same with Riri Wilson as Ironheart (Remind me why Bendis is headlining this character). I just assumed that no rational thinking fan of comic books actually liked those characters. If someone wants to make a content based argument for either of those characters, I'm happy to read it.

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, pwny said:

We're here to complain about the principle of having the audacity to allow underrepresented groups more representation. It's not about whether it's good or not, it's about complaining that things aren't like the good ol' days.

Go ahead and give me any of the merits for Riri as Ironheart other than as a representation merit badge. I'll wait.

I think there's a whole lot of non-comic readers who don't understand how truly unreadable some of the worst of the "Inclusion Era" comics were. And I'm not just talking about the characters that got changed, there was a ton of trash being published due to a number of competing interests, the pandering being only the most obvious.

[Dr LBC]

26 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

1. Would you shut the **** up with your white knighting nonsense? Saying that I "Disprove of diversity" is akin to calling me your favorite flavor of -cist. At least have the courage to come out and do it rather than dancing around it. 

2. What I find distasteful (in order to meet your most critical definition) about the transitioning of these characters away from their traditional characterizations isn't that we're seeing diversity in the comics, it's that primarily the new characterizations suck. "Black" or "Gay" is not a personality trait, which is something that so many of these writers (often times because they're middle aged white men writing with an awful corporate driven agenda) struggle with.

3. There have been examples of the changing of the guard that have been handled excellently. X-23 taking over as Wolverine for example. And then there have been examples that were gross, Jane Foster and her WNBA All-Stars taking over as Thor. Was there a lot of irritation about Kinney taking over at the time? Certainly didn't feel like it. 

4. When you sacrifice the story quality for the majority of your viewers to appeal to a small niche audience (and frequently fail even at that), you are pandering. Maybe the biggest source of irritation with these characters though is how the authors go about proving they're "For Real". Almost every time it's done by defeating an established hero or villain that's already popular and established (Hulk especially was on a roll for a few years where all he did was get beat down by new heros). It's the equivalent of Rey telling Han how to fix the Hyper Drive in the Millennium Falcon. It's eye rolling.

There's no "earning your stripes" period. It's pick up the hammer and be as powerful as Thor in one day. It's inconsistent with our understanding of the universe.

5. And you know what, if you're comfortable with saying, "I understand that what I'm reading is not coherent narrative, but I'm willing to accept it because Kamala Khan is the first Woman, Arab, Feminist, Liberal superhero and I think that's cool." More power to you. Just check the accusations at the door and know what you are when the rest of us talk about the incoherence.

First off, cool your language filter circumventing.  You're not cooler or edgier because you swear.

Secondly, you didn't provide examples until the post above.  Maybe that would have been a more appropriate approach than "ZOMG!  They've changed every major character under the sun that they don't have a current movie franchise hanging on!"  You still continue to do that in #5.  If you can't talk reasonably (and it's clear you can because you do it in points 3 and 4 (and some in point 2, though you're demonstratively getting your panties in a twist in that point as well), don't expect to be taken seriously.

Next, I get it, you don't like the way the way the stories have gone - I don't like some of them too.  But when you're using the wrong words to describe something, I'm going to call it out.  It's crappy writing.  Agreed.  It's not pandering.  They are probably fishing for new or increased audience members (and doing a crappy job of it because - like you said, you've got middle-aged white men trying to write the perspectives of POC's, feminists, etc. that they flatly don't understand).  It's something different than pandering; pandering requires that there be a demand for that sort of thing - and demand to be "catered to."  If there are people out there threatening to boycott Marvel if they don't immediately instill equal representation (and equal-powered-ness), they're in a very low-vocal minority.  What Marvel is doing right now is closer to Vince McMahon spending most of last year pushing a "Women's Evolution" and still putting out the same largely one-dimensional, single-named female characters who might get 1 prominent match on a card, but the rest of the female talent gets the same treatment they always did (5 minute matches with so many of them shoved in to "get them on the card" that they're all rushing to get their stuff in and the product suffers).  And WWE has actually lost ground in the female demographic during that period because it was booking for what men thought women should want rather than actually bothering to look at what women wanted.

You really ought to reread some of your posts though because low-key, you come across like the fanboys (not saying you are, saying that's what you come across as) who arrogantly act as though their opinion is more important than any of the other plebes and make "missing forest for the trees" arguments without even realizing it.  Now I stopped reading Thor comics a while ago, specifically because I just never cared for the Jane Foster character, but you said it yourself... she has a whole team.  She, by herself, if what you've said is true, isn't replacing Thor; it's taken a whole team to replace Thor.

[Deadpulse]

1 hour ago, The LBC said:

They are probably fishing for new or increased audience members (and doing a crappy job of it because - like you said, you've got middle-aged white men trying to write the perspectives of POC's, feminists, etc. that they flatly don't understand).

For anyone who is interested, this is demonstrably the antithesis to the middle aged white men writers that Marvel, in their infinite wisdom cancelled after 8 issues.

https://www.amazon.com/Mockingbird-Vol-Explain-Chelsea-Cain/dp/1302901222

There are so few issues of this wonderful comic, intended to be an ongoing, that they padded out the trades with issues from other books to make it two volumes because otherwise they wouldnt have enough. I highly recommend reading it. 

The big problem with this book was the comic world wasnt ready. Misogyny is still very prevalent in comics both in the industry and with the fans as Chelsea Cain, the writer, got a storm of backlash from both. I think @The LBC is right to liken the current efforts to that of the WWE and its "Women's Rev.. sorry Evolution". Its very much there at face value only akin to Lady Thor and the like. 

[Calvert28]

1 hour ago, The LBC said:

Next, I get it, you don't like the way the way the stories have gone - I don't like some of them too.  But when you're using the wrong words to describe something, I'm going to call it out.  It's crappy writing.  Agreed.  It's not pandering.  They are probably fishing for new or increased audience members (and doing a crappy job of it because - like you said, you've got middle-aged white men trying to write the perspectives of POC's, feminists, etc. that they flatly don't understand).  It's something different than pandering; pandering requires that there be a demand for that sort of thing - and demand to be "catered to." 

Pandering as you said is catering too and you only have to read interviews from Feige, Russo's, Iger, Kennedy, etc to know they are pandering.

Also how is it that middle-aged white men don't understand the feminist movement and don't know how to write for them but anyone arguing against said poor stories is somehow "correctly"  labeled a white male racist, bigot, etc just by reading the text? As if those men writing can't understand the other side but your side seems to have the "trolls" all figured out. Seems like setting a double standard of trying to appear smarter then they really are.