Jump to content

The Marvel Cinematic Universe- Will Poulter cast as Adam Warlock


Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, Calvert28 said:

Also how is it that middle-aged white men don't understand the feminist movement

That's not what was said. He said the perspective of those minorities, not understanding their movements. There is a HUGE difference between understanding logically someones plight and experiencing it. I have never been shot in the leg, but I understand that its painful. However, someone who has been shot in the leg understands its better and will have insights into that pain that I might not even consider because it has never happened to me. That person is an infinitely better person to speak to it than I could ever hope to be unless I experience it myself. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The LBC said:

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.

So when you said:

I can fully accept not making a character homosexual just for the sake of making them homosexual (that's pandering in the opposite direction) when there is no basis other than, "We want to have greater appeal/scope."

 

 

 

You feel that there is a large majority of militant homosexuals threatening to boycott Marvel if half of their heros aren't gay? Or were you so excited about getting to call someone racist that you decided to illogically ignore that everybody (including yourself) uses "pandering" as a synonym for "catering to"?

+++

All that said, how the hell is what you're describing any better than "pandering" from a corporate morality standpoint???!?!?!?! How is making awful books in order to wave around your published diversity quota better?

If I'm coming off as a "fan-boy", you're coming off as a "snowflake" two stupid phrases, that I feel like you should be smart enough to not be using. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

You feel that there is a large majority of militant homosexuals threatening to boycott Marvel if half of their heros aren't gay? Or were you so excited about getting to call someone racist that you decided to illogically ignore that everybody (including yourself) uses "pandering" as a synonym for "catering to"?

Reread what I wrote, because I wrote just the opposite.  If that was what you interpreted you either read what you wanted to read or you just plain didn't read it.

You're not helping yourself with your tone either, which is showing as someone who is more than happy to dish it out but is ultra-sensitive about being shown the same aloof (and that's being nice and downplaying the attitude you're copping) tone in response.  Legit, the only stereotype you haven't broken out is dropping the "I hate PC/I don't adhere to being PC" trope.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Deadpulse said:

That's not what was said. He said the perspective of those minorities, not understanding their movements. There is a HUGE difference between understanding logically someones plight and experiencing it. I have never been shot in the leg, but I understand that its painful. However, someone who has been shot in the leg understands its better and will have insights into that pain that I might not even consider because it has never happened to me. That person is an infinitely better person to speak to it than I could ever hope to be unless I experience it myself. 

I understand that but it is not so unique that no other person besides someone of that particular group could only understand. This is not something like going from being a former child soldier in Africa to trying to cope and having a productive life in the UK or something. Many Americans have a tendency to their past problems much larger then they really were. I think there is a huge difference between being objectified sexually as opposed to being raped. Many people at one point or another were probably objectified because of their looks and such and sometimes they felt unnerved with the attention it brought and for some it was a pleasent experience because they liked the attention. But it's relatable, h/e there is a big difference between that and having someone force it on you uterally and completely without your consent. And more often then not people act as if their past experience is somehow near or as extreme as something like rape without wanting to say it so it doesn't sound ridiculous.

Plenty of people from all groups can identify with being objectified, that does not create the unique perspective as if something that a woman went through in her young adult years is somehow like the Handmaiden's tale which if you look around and read on the internet people are screaming that's what we're heading too.

Same people who like to compare every elected president to Adolf Hitler and such.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The LBC said:

Reread what I wrote, because I wrote just the opposite.  If that was what you interpreted you either read what you wanted to read or you just plain didn't read it.

You're not helping yourself with your tone either, which is showing as someone who is more than happy to dish it out but is ultra-sensitive about being shown the same aloof (and that's being nice and downplaying the attitude you're copping) tone in response.

Your early response to a differing opinion about a comic book character was to give a warning for language and start throwing out veiled racism accusations and you think i'm the one that's coming off as sensitive? Check the mirror friend.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Calvert28 said:

I understand that but it is not so unique that no other person besides someone of that particular group could only understand. This is not something like going from being a former child soldier in Africa to trying to cope and having a productive life in the UK or something. Many Americans have a tendency to their past problems much larger then they really were. I think there is a huge difference between being objectified sexually as opposed to being raped. Many people at one point or another were probably objectified because of their looks and such and sometimes they felt unnerved with the attention it brought and for some it was a pleasent experience because they liked the attention. But it's relatable, h/e there is a big difference between that and having someone force it on you uterally and completely without your consent. And more often then not people act as if their past experience is somehow near or as extreme as something like rape without wanting to say it so it doesn't sound ridiculous.

Plenty of people from all groups can identify with being objectified, that does not create the unique perspective as if something that a woman went through in her young adult years is somehow like the Handmaiden's tale which if you look around and read on the internet people are screaming that's what we're heading too.

Same people who like to compare every elected president to Adolf Hitler and such.

Im really not sure what you are arguing here. You are picking out one very specific and small piece of what women face every day. If you truly think being objectified sexually is the big ticket item, you really are proving my point of understanding vs. first hand perspective. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Deadpulse said:

Im really not sure what you are arguing here. You are picking out one very specific and small piece of what women face every day. If you truly think being objectified sexually is the big ticket item, you really are proving my point of understanding vs. first hand perspective. 

What items are you looking for them to convey in a comic book?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Your early response to a differing opinion about a comic book character was to give a warning for language and start throwing out veiled racism accusations and you think i'm the one that's coming off as sensitive? Check the mirror friend.

To the first part, I'm a global moderator.  If you don't like my checking you on using inappropriate language (which I've done for more than 8 years on this site, consistently, and across most sub-forums (because it's my job given that we have a rule against using inappropriate language) take it up with Webby.

You chose to interpret my statement as veiled racism accusations.  You don't know my intentions and there's literally no defense by which you can claim you did.  Something clearly struck home with you.  So yes, I'd say you were sensitive.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The LBC said:

To the first part, I'm a global moderator.  If you don't like my checking you on using inappropriate language (which I've done for more than 8 years on this site, consistently, and across most sub-forums (because it's my job given that we have a rule against using inappropriate language) take it up with Webby.

You chose to interpret my statement as veiled racism accusations.  You don't know my intentions and there's literally no defense by which you can claim you did.  Something clearly struck home with you.  So yes, I'd say you were sensitive.

 

But you can claim you know my intentions when you say:

Or do you view any introduction or deviation from the 50's and 60's canon as "pandering?"

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

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

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)

You know exactly what you're implying here. You just don't want to admit that's what you're doing. Why? Because you made a stupid statement in defense of some poorly rationalized, awful comic books meant as a cash grab to convince soft-hearted suckers that buying this book is a win for Wokeness. And you're not willing to go down with it.

Just admit it, you made a bad assumption, got excited, and made some insulting statements. Happens to the best of us. You thought you were doing good and ended up with egg on your face. 

Just let it go man

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Deadpulse said:

Im really not sure what you are arguing here. You are picking out one very specific and small piece of what women face every day. If you truly think being objectified sexually is the big ticket item, you really are proving my point of understanding vs. first hand perspective. 

Where's the outrage over all of the other pandering in superhero movies? I mean dear god, the whole Spiderman origin is that a high school loser wakes up one day with superhero powers, get the hottest chick in school, and embarrasses the guy who bullied him.

Somehow the only pandering that isn't okay is when the audience getting pandered to isn't straight, white, nerdy, and male.

Edited by ramssuperbowl99
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Where's the outrage over all of the other pandering in superhero movies? I mean dear god, the whole Spiderman origin is that a high school loser wakes up one day with superhero powers, get the hottest chick in school, and embarrasses the guy who bullied him.

Somehow the only pandering that isn't okay is when the audience getting pandered to isn't straight, white, nerdy, and male.

your rolling in what other's have said into what I have said. We are all individual voices here, please dont put words in my mouth. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Deadpulse said:
51 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Where's the outrage over all of the other pandering in superhero movies? I mean dear god, the whole Spiderman origin is that a high school loser wakes up one day with superhero powers, get the hottest chick in school, and embarrasses the guy who bullied him.

Somehow the only pandering that isn't okay is when the audience getting pandered to isn't straight, white, nerdy, and male.

your rolling in what other's have said into what I have said. We are all individual voices here, please dont put words in my mouth.

I'm agreeing with you - sorry if that wasn't clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Deadpulse said:

You're agreeing with @The LBC ;)

Are moderators all not the same person?

But seriously, the outrage tends to dramatically oversimplify what it means to be any minority, but then also ignores that same ridiculous oversimplification of the nerd. It's the other side of the same coin, but only 1 of those is offensive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Acgott changed the title to The Marvel Cinematic Universe- Will Poulter cast as Adam Warlock

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...