Sfdebris.net

Worffan101 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:38 pm

BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 7:39 pm

Worffan101 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:35 am

BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:54 am When did I ever call you a Commie??

Never? I never accused you specifically of doing so?

WTF is your point in this argument?

Agree to disagree, I suppose.

That's ignoring my question. What exactly are you arguing for here?

Captain Marvel as a breakout movie property is a positive thing for woman representation. Boyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

It would be more of a breakout property if they made the gay thing explicit instead of still leaving just enough plausible deniability for people with their Straight Person goggles on to say "they're just gal pals".

Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:46 pm It would be more of a breakout property if they made the gay thing explicit instead of still leaving just enough plausible deniability for people with their Straight Person goggles on to say "they're just gal pals".

And they would have got away with it too if it wasn't for you pesky kids.

BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:47 pm Captain Marvel as a breakout movie property is a positive thing for woman representation. Boyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

It's a positive thing for cheap, corporate-approved, politics-free yet politics-capitalizing, cowardly, spineless pandering that refuses to actually take a stand on anything that wasn't already non-controversial a decade ago.

FFS, we had attempts at female superhero movies as early as '84, and while most of them sucked, that doesn't mean they didn't exist.

I do admit there was a bit of "Oh shit, DC got Wonder Woman out, we better catch up!" vibe.

JKR tried to tick the boxes, but not enough.
Villain is male, straight, cis het White man, all the things that SJW loathe, but then she made the Villain a murderer. Doesn't JKR know how offensive that is to the murderer community? Is JKR murderphobic?

ok boomer

Worffan101 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:08 am

BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:47 pm Captain Marvel as a breakout movie property is a positive thing for woman representation. Boyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

It's a positive thing for cheap, corporate-approved, politics-free yet politics-capitalizing, cowardly, spineless pandering that refuses to actually take a stand on anything that wasn't already non-controversial a decade ago.

FFS, we had attempts at female superhero movies as early as '84, and while most of them sucked, that doesn't mean they didn't exist.

I'm not sure if you read a memo on this, but it's a matter of diversity and inclusion. I'm not looking for an environmentally friendly vegan operation that's only working to satisfy nothing less than 3rd wave appropriate plot lines and LGBT activism (like that robot in that Star Wars movie, which was of the most clunkiest pieces of writing I've seen in a while).

Not being progressively satisfied because the movie isn't controversial is on you, and it's also not a matter of being unprecedented. Yes the older movies suck, and no one wanted to see them. The new ones aren't full of overt political themes, and people do want to see them.

Two women holding hands isn't queer baiting, it's passing the bechdel test.

All that being said, I think what you're saying isn't wrong, and is distinctly relevant, and even pertinent, as far as Disney is concerned.

It's pretty apparent that Kevin Feige intends to use his new position to have a more well rounded brand.

I'm fairly certain Bob Iger had a lot more conditional directive up to phase 3's conclusion. Given that, I can understand how Captain Marvel comes off tainted. In itself though, I mean it's fine.

BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:45 am I'm not sure if you read a memo on this, but it's a matter of diversity and inclusion. I'm not looking for an environmentally friendly vegan operation that's only working to satisfy nothing less than 3rd wave appropriate plot lines and LGBT activism (like that robot in that Star Wars movie, which was of the most clunkiest pieces of writing I've seen in a while).

Not being progressively satisfied because the movie isn't controversial is on you, and it's also not a matter of being unprecedented. Yes the older movies suck, and no one wanted to see them. The new ones aren't full of overt political themes, and people do want to see them.

Two women holding hands isn't queer baiting, it's passing the bechdel test.

All that being said, I think what you're saying isn't wrong, and is distinctly relevant, and even pertinent, as far as Disney is concerned.

If a movie is marketed to me as some kind of progressive triumph, I expect more than an incredibly generic cardboard protagonist with no personality who happens to be female. That stuff is crappy when it's a dude doing the dumb action stuff, and it's crappy when it's a woman, too.

The last Marvel movie I liked that I can actually remember (Ant-Man and the Wasp was OK but I keep forgetting that it even exists) was Black Panther, because that one had the balls to have a point beyond shilling Disney's alleged progressive credentials as its old white male corporate officers engage in cartoonish levels of environmental abuse, profiteering, and actively supporting totalitarian regimes engaged in ethnic cleansing.

Basically, if they want me to buy their movies, they'd better START with having an openly, explicitly LGBT protagonist in a competently written movie, and start making real, significant progress in de-evilifying their business operations before I even consider patronizing their products again.