Jump to content

The Marvel Cinematic Universe- X-Men 97 trailer (March 20)


Acgott

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

So because you're so much smarter than everybody else on the internet, when you say a movie is mediocre (or gasp, Black Panther is overrated) , that's your independent intelligent opinion, but when other people on the internet say the same thing it's because they can't accept not being pandered to. That's a very very strange double standard, and requires a seriously over inflated ego. 

Also, darn, you and LBC have this same playbook down. You call every one else selfish hypocrites and bigots, because they disagree with you, and then perceive their irritation at being accused as a sign that they're guilty of your accusations. 

Both you and he have now said you did not enjoy a marvel property, in his case the Thor comic books, and in your case Black Panther, repeating basically the same criticisms of the entire community, but somehow you're better than them in some way.

Has it occurred to you that you're not special and the majority of people who read these books and watch these movies are as capable of parsing nuance as you yourself are? Probably not, that would interfere with your ability to stereotype and demonize people you perceive yourself to be better than. Typical elitist.

All you have had to do this entire thread is say "yeah, there is a difference in how the internet as a whole criticized pandering to minorities versus how it criticized the pandering the the majority audience" and you would have been fine. That's a simple point of the hypocrisy of a general audience, not even you specifically, that should be really, really easy to admit, and you've over and over deflected and dug in.

I also haven't called you a bigot. Nor have I implied it. I'd assume @The LBC didn't do either of those things either, since even though he's a dirty LA Rams fan, he's a reasonable dude. But the fact that you think that's next on the script is certainly revealing.

There's really no point in discussing any of this further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What gets me is how offended LGBT people get when they're not included. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/avengers-endgame-lgbt-gay-character-joe-russo-marvel-mcu-a8896341.html

There's this whole article about complaining about a lack of the MCU being inclusive.  

We're pretty certain that Captain Marvel, Valkyrie and the gay guy talking with Captain America are gay.  

The world's LGBT percentage is under 5%.  

So we've got three characters on-screen who are LGBT.  So how many characters had lines of dialogue in Endgame?  Unless there were over 60 characters with a line of dialogue, three characters is literally the proper amount of inclusiveness for the LGBT community.  Five percent of sixty is three. 

MCU will surely be adding Iceman and making him gay.  Moondragon will almost surely be added. 

There's no lack of them being inclusive, so what exactly is the issue?  Is it not brazen enough? 

MCU has a long history of being inclusive.  I feel like they've had a perfect balance of being inclusive with sexual orientation, race, gender, etc.  So why do they have to change the orientation of characters in order to be more inclusive than the world average?  If you have 100 characters and 5 of them are gay, you are being inclusive.  It's literally that mathematically simple. 

Nobody gives a **** if Iceman or Valkyrie or Captain Marvel or Tazmanian Devil or any other number of established LGBT characters are added to the MCU, but if you go changing Thor or Captain America or Iron Man or Wolverine or Superman or Batman to gay, that is the definition of pandering, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, either.  You're literally pandering to 5% of the population, so I really don't get why people don't understand that. 

It's not being exclusive by Disney, it's knowing their audience.  95% of their audience is straight.  It's not sexist, it's not homophobic, it's for money.

If you are airing ads for tampons during an Ultimate Fighting or boxing program, you are not a very intelligent advertiser. 
It's why there are so many ads for scooters and emergency buttons for senior citizens on the weather channel. 

As far as having a movie about a gay character, it's even more absurd.  There are 20 MCU movies.  People who complain about there not being a gay-centric MCU movie do not understand math.  If you want to complain about women not having an equal amount of representation, fine.  You've got a case there.  Same thing with black characters, Asian characters, etc.  They're working on that.  The reality, however, is that Captain Marvel bombs if it had not been made so late in the process.  There's no interest there if not for the overall connectivity of the MCU.  The same thing with Black Panther.  It does not do as well if it was one of the earlier ones. 

This isn't some sexist or racist thing, it's just a fact.  Up to 78% of comic book purchasers are male.  Comic book fans are 71% white males. 

Disney is one of the most progressive movie studios out there if not THE most progressive, but at the end of the day it's still a business, and they knew damn well who their audience was.  As they continue building this world, more LGBT characters will be added/revealed, more racial diversity will be added, more female-led movies will be made, and they can do that because they are building an audience. 

I hate how people hint certain people are bigots or insensitive or whatever for pointing these facts out.  It's not homophobic to suggest that there shouldn't be 25 or 15 or even 10 percent of the characters being gay when that is not representative of the world.  It's not sexist to say that there should be more male-led movies.  As far as racial equality, there is literally nobody out there who doesn't want to see a Blade movie.  With Blade it's not even a demographic reason they haven't made it yet.  It's a realism thing.  How do you add Vampires to the MCU and be taken seriously? 

All of that rant neglects to mention the real reason it's frustrating.  Nobody is talking about adding gay characters.  They're talking solely about not changing pre-established characters. 

Imagine they remade Harry Potter and the uproar if Dumbeldore was changed to heterosexual. 

There are 10 million Harry Potter fans out there who don't care that Dumbledore is gay.  Those 10 million Dumbledore fans would be pretty outraged if twenty years from now HBO makes Harry Potter into a 10 season event and makes Dumbledore straight and Hagrid gay.  Not because they're bigots, but because it's ****ing with the characters. 

So why is 95% of the population hinted at being bigots when they don't want the orientation of characters they are fans of being changed? 

There are at least a dozen potential LGBT characters Marvel could draw from.  So until or unless the MCU gets to 200 characters (5 percent of which would be 10), why do they need to change the orientation of characters when they can just introduce already gay characters? 

I'm not sure why this is even a discussion when the solution is so simple, and I'm not even a mathematician. 

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2017/10/20/63-of-comics-bought-by-men-37-by-women/

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/visualization/lgbt-stats/?topic=LGBT#density

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

All you have had to do this entire thread is say "yeah, there is a difference in how the internet as a whole criticized pandering to minorities versus how it criticized the pandering the the majority audience" and you would have been fine. That's a simple point of the hypocrisy of a general audience, not even you specifically, that should be really, really easy to admit, and you've over and over deflected and dug in.

I also haven't called you a bigot. Nor have I implied it. I'd assume @The LBC didn't do either of those things either, since even though he's a dirty LA Rams fan, he's a reasonable dude. But the fact that you think that's next on the script is certainly revealing.

There's really no point in discussing any of this further.

 

1 hour ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

All you have had to do this entire thread is say "yeah, there is a difference in how the internet as a whole criticized pandering to minorities versus how it criticized the pandering the the majority audience" and you would have been fine. That's a simple point of the hypocrisy of a general audience, not even you specifically, that should be really, really easy to admit, and you've over and over deflected and dug in.

I also haven't called you a bigot. Nor have I implied it. I'd assume @The LBC didn't do either of those things either, since even though he's a dirty LA Rams fan, he's a reasonable dude. But the fact that you think that's next on the script is certainly revealing.

There's really no point in discussing any of this further.

So in your opinion, the only acceptable opinion for me to have is one that matches your opinion. How remarkably consistent of you. 

Nothing cracks me up more than when people take a discussion on the internet, make a final counter point and then say, "No need to discuss this further" like your declaration of that to be true somehow ends the debate and I'll not allowed to address your comment. 

Look at Black Panther. It has a rotten tomato critic score of 97%. It has an audience score of 79%. Which do you think is more in line with the quality of the movie? Do you think it's one of the greatest movies ever made, or do you think it's an average super hero movie?

We know your answer already! Congratulations, welcome to the hateful internet mob, feel free to collect your MAGA hat and tiki torch around the corner. 

Or is there potentially more nuance to this than just labeling a demographic sensitive babies?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fl0nkerton said:

Oof. Lotta fragile fellas in here big mad about people messing with their super heroes 😂😭

Seeing a lot more snowflakes crying about people not liking comic books starring their favorite fictional token minority.

Edited by AlexGreen#20
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

If you're going to be mad at the pandering and argue that it's only about bad writing and lazy tropes, you have to be mad at all of it

No you don't. I am somewhere in between on the subject matter.

It seems like superhero movies/shows are becoming more about addressing societal issues recently. "Hey, let's push more women and minorities into high-profile roles in these movies!" Like, that's 100% fine and I could care less if they cast it that way, but it seems disingenuous. It hasn't taken anything away from the experience to me, but I don't like when movies try to CRAM things down your throat. Like the women coming together in Avengers Endgame. That is still my favorite movie and the scene didn't piss me off or anything, but it did make me go, "really?" I just wish they hired the best people to play the best roles (I think they did) and then just let the stories play out organically without trying to turn it into a PC campaign.

I could care less that they're doing a Scarlet Witch TV show. I think that could be perfectly fine. Her character seems a little underdeveloped to carry its own TV show, but who knows? I'm 100% open to it being awesome. I liked Captain Marvel. It was a little hokey, but it was still very well done. The woman badass can be done very well without having to remind people that shes a strong independent woman and don't need no man. Just carry on with the stories instead of trying to score progressive points with the audience. It's more effective that way anyways. My girlfriend even thought the Avengers women coming together scene was corny and she considers herself a feminist. It seems patronizing when it's done that way.

 

And Spiderman is literally following the script that was written decades ago. The story is what it is and you can't really tinker with it much. I hated Peter Parker before Homecoming (which was awesome). The older Spiderman movies made me want to beat the crap out of Tobey McGuire just because he was such a dweeb little cuck. He was super lame even if he did fit the trope almost perfectly. Conversely, Tom Holland also fits the same trope but it doesn't come off in a ridiculous way.   Maybe it's just me, but Tobey McGuire has the most punchable face ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BleedTheClock said:
6 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

If you're going to be mad at the pandering and argue that it's only about bad writing and lazy tropes, you have to be mad at all of it

No you don't. I am somewhere in between on the subject matter.

The argument I'm calling hypocritical is "this isn't about the demographics, it's about the fact that I don't like pandering and bad writing". If you want to make that specific argument, then you have to be mad at all of it.

Because really, it is about demographics. Not in the sense that I think everyone who is bothered by the Captain Marvel or Black Panther movies is prejudice. They've just been constantly pandered to and what bothers them isn't the pandering, it's that the pandering is to a different audience. But they think that they can't say that, so they pretend that they think all pandering is bad, but only point out the times that they aren't the target audience.

Edited by ramssuperbowl99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

The argument I'm calling hypocritical is "this isn't about the demographics, it's about the fact that I don't like pandering and bad writing". If you want to make that specific argument, then you have to be mad at all of it.

Because really, it is about demographics. Not in the sense that I think everyone who is bothered by the Captain Marvel or Black Panther movies is prejudice. They've just been constantly pandered to and what bothers them isn't the pandering, it's that the pandering is to a different audience. But they think that they can't say that, so they pretend that they think all pandering is bad, but only point out the times that they aren't the target audience.

You're saying this I assume based on everybody loving such monochromatic master pieces as Thor 2, and the Ironman sequels?

Ignoring that what you're claiming doesn't really seem to have much in the way of backing:

A big part of the difference in the pandering is that it's targeted directly across class and racial lines. In the case of Wakanda it came across as highly critical of "White America", in a way that really didn't make a ton of sense.

Have you ever met someone who was raised in the United States and spent significant time in Saharan Africa and the Middle East in a military role and come to the conclusion that it's America and Europe that's evil? Of course not, anybody who's ever been to any of these places knows that for all our issues, we're not anywhere the biggest problem.

Combine that with a lot of confrontational language like the Primatives line, and making the two white characters a villain and a buffoon and it's pretty clear we're operating with different rules and the movie is written by someone who isn't a fan of America at minimum, and white people at worst. That's not a crime, but I don't know why you would expect White Americans to take their ribbing with a smile when that's not what any other group does.

Now it's entirely possible that we're just dealing with ignorance here. They did spend a good portion of the movie calling America "Colonizers" and I'm struggling to come up with an African nation that America colonized. But after all, this is a movie that was almost universally praised so I can't make that conclusion. It had to have been intentional and magnificent in some way, right? 

Spider-Man may be a nerd fantasy, but he at least isn't going and beating up the black kids at his high school in some misguided attempt at political messaging. 

Do we even need to discuss Brie Larson drawing first blood with her antagonistic comments?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kingseanjohn said:

Today I learned that Dumbeldore was gay

Rowling "Well if you know that then you should know the real reason Fudge was voted out of office was because Dumbledore leaked it to the media he was a masochist sadist during Fudge's re-election campaign and that what caused him to lose."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Calvert28 said:

Rowling "Well if you know that then you should know the real reason Fudge was voted out of office was because Dumbledore leaked it to the media he was a masochist sadist during Fudge's re-election campaign and that what caused him to lose."

If we're mocking Rowling for her insanity, I'm all aboard.

That said, I think there was enough in the last two books that making that statement isn't entirely out of line (assuming we're ignoring the Fantastic Beasts movie, which I think everyone is better off doing). 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

 

Do we even need to discuss Brie Larson drawing first blood with her antagonistic comments?

 

So your jimmies are rustled because Brie Larson stated that she doesn't care what a white guy has to say about her movies? 

Ever stop to think that maybe the film wasn't specifically FOR you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Seeing a lot more snowflakes crying about people not liking comic books starring their favorite fictional token minority.

Some of them are just beta's coming out, defending this pandering to impress the girl they like and yet always seem to be stuck here no matter what.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQPwixQiu8eU0ZKJcZVvIK

Edited by Calvert28
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Fl0nkerton said:

So your jimmies are rustled because Brie Larson stated that she doesn't care what a white guy has to say about her movies? 

Ever stop to think that maybe the film wasn't specifically FOR you? 

Robert Downey Junior saying, "I don't care what a black person has to say about Iron Man" would have created a media firestorm. 

Just because you're too much of a sissy to call prejudice what it is, doesn't mean it isn't prejudiced. 

Also, and this is a train of thought that I am extremely confused by, if a movie wasn't made for me, why am I expected to praise it, or even go see it?

Should I condescending tell my girlfriend, "I don't care if you don't like Iron-Man, this movie isn't made for you."

And actually, let's loop LBC's staunch defense that there was no pandering in Marvel back into these Larson comments.

Edited by AlexGreen#20
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...