> starkaos said:
> My problem with Ghostbusters 2016 is the same problem I have with The Last Jedi, making the male characters incompetent or evil to make the female characters have a stronger presence.
I do not agree that that was done with either film.
Lets look at the main male characters in each movie.
Ghostbusters 2016
Kevin Beckman (Chris Hemsworth) - is used as eye candy for most of the movie and later becomes a possessed villain that the female Ghostbusters have to take down.
Rowan North (Neil Casey) - is the main villain of the movie.
Mayor (Andy Garcia) - just another incompetent politician that is more interested in popularity than properly running his city.
Star, all three of those are classic film tropes regardless of the main cast's gender. Hell, that first one's a trope usually applied to female characters, and the third is a staple of Ghostbusters (and '80s filmography) in general.
I feel like there's a horrific defensive mentality nowadays where people go into films, games, TV shows &c looking for something to be offended by. Don't get me wrong, I understand the desire of disabled people, LGBT, and other minorities to see their roles in movies played by actors from their communities, but you can't blame the actors for that. Then we have the other side where people denounced ST: Beyond as SJW trash for one scene, which lasted all of 20 seconds, because it showed an LGBT couple. It was a scene nobody in the cinema commented on when I saw the film with my friends on release.
But on these forums? It was treated by some like it was the harbinger of the apocalypse. That was actually the first time I was introduced to the concept of an SJW (a concept I still find ludicrous).
I look on the Internet today, and I find myself often forced to keep my trap shut, because moderates are despised and the extremists reign. The number of times on these very forums I've been insulted as millennial trash (despite the fact I was born late-'90s, so I' M post-millennial) for the grievous crime of actually liking DSC (or, more accurately, for not hating it) for example.
Rattler is correct. People have forgotten about the middle ground. Everyone's looking for somebody who's out to get them.
In my experience, "SJW" is a term indicating near-total abdication of thought or reasoning. No one can even provide a coherent explanation of the term - it's been defined for me with meanings ranging from "racial mansplainer" to "holds views on gender relations with which I disagree". In general, when I see "SJW" being used as a pejorative, I find it's safe to simply discard the rest of the argument, as it usually turns out to be a load of dingo's kidneys (to borrow a phrase).
Besides, what's wrong with being a warrior for social justice? Isn't that supposed to be basically Starfleet's calling? (Too rough for me, I'm more of a social justice mage, but...)
I'm amused by the idea of being called a "Millennial" (as if that were insulting, too) for the crime of enjoying DSC. Go ahead, call me Millennial. I'm three years older than the franchise, but...
I'd say people that complain about an old picture with bunch of miners with dirty face as "black-facing" and as offensive, racist material, using "SJW" as pegorative might be warranted.
But when someone brings that as example and then talks about how the "white race is being marginalized" or whatever, I guess it is time to tune out again.
But in general, one has to be careful with expressions like this. "Social Justice" is a desirable goal, and using it to describe extremists that seemed to have lost their sense of proportion (or worse) kinda ruins that term. Which might be the intention of people that started using the term negatively in the first place. But I can't help occassionally using the term in that manner.
The reason I didn't watch Ghostbusters was because the jokes from the trailer sucked. I just didn't find them very funny, and if they picked these as their trailer material, it suggests to me that the rest of the material might not be any more to my taste.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
I believe that the issue with "Social Justice," and the "Social Justice Warrior," derive from how often such people form an opinion and take action based upon feelings while choosing to ignore relevant facts. However, there is another group of people who believe the first thing they hear and treat all subsequent information as an excuse. I have noticed that in one group one will often find the other as well.
As to Ghostbusters 2016, well, Kate McKinnon was the best part of that movie. Apart from one or two bad moments, she came of as the most natural and, thus, entertaining.
Leslie Jones played a stereotype that I could see in almost any film. That's more on the writers than on Miss Jones.
The other two were just bad. It was like they had one gag;
"Oh, were you going to..?"
"Yeah I was..."
"Because I was going to..."
"But I had the..."
"Oh, with the..."
"Yeah."
Over, and over, and over, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, add anti-psychotics to my popcorn because I'd rather skin the theater seats and huff the flatulence from the cushions directly.
When that first trailer dropped, that was the one that started with the phrase, "30 years ago," one of my concerns was that the film was visually in very bad taste, as though Tammy Faye Baker and Twisted Sister had used the film to remove make-up after a particularly exhausting show. I mean it made 1960's Batman look positively grimdark. My own analogies here are infused with less garish color. Whether one agrees with me or not, that is a valid criticism. It makes no statement about race, gender, or preference, yet because of voicing that criticism I get to be called a racist, a sexist, etc... And I am not the only one.
But hey!, now we have a trailer with huge dislike numbers! We can use that to make all the claims we want and we'll even remove valid criticisms to make it look legit! Let's go on the talk show circuit and alienate a huge fan demographic!
That's how what was once Entertainment operates now.
Sony did it with Ghostbusters 2016.
Disney is doing it with Star Wars.
CBS is doing it Star Trek: Discovery.
The BBC has done it with Doctor Who.
In each case I held out hope that I was wrong. But I wasn't.
Now Marvel (Disney) is letting Brie Larson do it to the MCU.
I still hope that Captain Marvel will be good. I'm just not going to be all that disappointed when it isn't.
Will this next bit of Ghostbusters be good? I hope so. But I saw what happened with Blues Brothers 2000, which Dan Aykroyd also wrote.
" "Social Justice" is a desirable goal..."
-mustrumridcully0
I disagree, but perhaps in an entirely unusual way.
I don't find that the word justice needs a modifier. In fact I'll argue that to modify the concept of Justice is to diminish Justice.
I don't know if I'm explaining my position well enough, but I'm sure if someone gets the wrong idea they'll let me know!
I think I see what you mean. And you're right; justice as a whole is a highly desirable goal, without focusing on any one branch of it.
That's exactly what I mean. That's why I'm such a huge "fan" of judging a case on its own merits. It's also why I'm so into individual rights. I figure the best way to protect the rights of a certain group (race, religion, preference, etc...) is to protect the rights of ALL individuals. Doing so ensures that such groups are protected by default.
> @mustrumridcully0 said:
> I'd say people that complain about an old picture with bunch of miners with dirty face as "black-facing" and as offensive, racist material, using "SJW" as pegorative might be warranted.
>
> But when someone brings that as example and then talks about how the "white race is being marginalized" or whatever, I guess it is time to tune out again.
>
> But in general, one has to be careful with expressions like this. "Social Justice" is a desirable goal, and using it to describe extremists that seemed to have lost their sense of proportion (or worse) kinda ruins that term. Which might be the intention of people that started using the term negatively in the first place. But I can't help occassionally using the term in that manner.
>
> The reason I didn't watch Ghostbusters was because the jokes from the trailer sucked. I just didn't find them very funny, and if they picked these as their trailer material, it suggests to me that the rest of the material might not be any more to my taste.
Yes indeed mustrum, I can't stand the invented outrage of some, and in the example you cite of the coal miner picture, the bigot is the one offended by the picture. I am beyond pissed at the bs being spread about my ancestor (not in direct line, she was my fathers great-great aunt) Laura Ingalls-Wilder, the accusations she was racist against Native Americans are assinine. But yeah the second I read "white genocide" or see someone make a cut of The Last Jedi that removes the women then yeah I'm looking at another bigot.
Also a great example where discussion is often pointless - I didn't The Last Jedi, but I risk getting lumped in with some frackers that only hate it because of some anti-woman agenda. I am not one of them, the problems I had were the story, the kind of story they told, and what they did with Luke. All of that might still be subjective, but it's something one could discuss without needing to get into obsessive liberal/conservative or alt-right/ctrl-left trench warfare.
(I liked the discussion with jonsills on the matter, for example, but I almost always like discussions with him. Though usually we agree on matters, it's refreshing not to agree. )
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
In my experience, "SJW" is a term indicating near-total abdication of thought or reasoning. No one can even provide a coherent explanation of the term - it's been defined for me with meanings ranging from "racial mansplainer" to "holds views on gender relations with which I disagree". In general, when I see "SJW" being used as a pejorative, I find it's safe to simply discard the rest of the argument, as it usually turns out to be a load of dingo's kidneys (to borrow a phrase).
Besides, what's wrong with being a warrior for social justice? Isn't that supposed to be basically Starfleet's calling? (Too rough for me, I'm more of a social justice mage, but...)
I'm amused by the idea of being called a "Millennial" (as if that were insulting, too) for the crime of enjoying DSC. Go ahead, call me Millennial. I'm three years older than the franchise, but...
Can you define what "Social Justice" even is? how it is different from..."Justice?"
"Social justice" is a subset of the larger set "justice", where the opposing injustice is based primarily on social factors (often matters of relative wealth, ethnicity, etc). So for instance judging a person as inherently "worthless" or even "dangerous to society" based on the fact that they are poor apart from any other factor, while judging another as sufficiently "valuable" to society that actual crimes can be overlooked based on their wealth (whether earned, inherited, or some combination of the two) would be a social injustice, and working to eliminate this perception would be working (fighting, if you will) toward social justice. Similar comparisons can be drawn based on the ethnicity of a person, particularly as regards skin tone, but I'll avoid one of the most obvious in the interests of not causing huge political arguments. (It may be worth noting, however, that such concerns are where I first encountered the term "SJW" being used pejoratively.)
As another example of social injustice that should be fought, there is the opinion expressed above that despite Marvel's track record for making hugely entertaining movies, Captain Marvel is expected by the poster to be terribly disappointing, apparently simply because the star is Brie Larson. (If there is a more substantive argument to be made, I have yet to hear it.) Now, let's look at the available data here, since all we know about the movie itself comes from the (rather impressive, IMO) trailers. There's another Captain in the MCU, Captain America, played by Chris Evans. Chris Evans, like Steve Rogers in the comics, is (intentionally) the Aryan ideal - tall, strong, blond, and white. (This was intentional on the part of the character's creators, as they loved having that "Aryan ideal" be the one to be taking down NSDAP troops in the comics.) He was granted extraordinary strength and coordination in an experiment near the beginning of WWII, one rendered irreproducible when the lead scientist, who made about as many notes as Nikola Tesla (that is, none), was assassinated. He earned the rank of Captain in the US Army, although that was primarily for propaganda purposes, as Rogers had enlisted at the rank of Private.
Carol Danvers, on the other hand, is tall, strong, blonde, and white, although her genetics have been admixed with that of a "lesser" branch of the Kree (pink Kree are regarded by their people much as black Americans were regarded in the 1950s). She has the powers of a Kree warrior, plus some extra thanks to Celestial meddling in the human genome over the millennia. She earned the rank of Captain in the USAF, primarily as a pilot (which is how she wound up in the position to become admixed with Kree in the first place, since she was Capt. Mar-Vell's liaison with the Pentagon).
What's the difference between the two, aside from power level? The first one that springs to mind, frankly, is that Carol is a girl, not a manly man like Steve. And the assumption that her movie will automatically be "less" than his ranks, in my view, as a social injustice - a small one, but an injustice nonetheless. Should such injustices not be fought?
(On a complete side note, I do wonder sometimes why they even bothered making Steve Rogers have a side job writing in-universe Captain America comics in the '70s. He was frozen into an iceberg in 1944, and didn't return to society until 1963 or so - one would think twenty years of back pay plus mandatory retirement at his age should cover his living expenses quite comfortably, even taking the costume into account.)
All of that might still be subjective, but it's something one could discuss without needing to get into obsessive liberal/conservative or alt-right/ctrl-left trench warfare.
That... is actually a pretty good analogy. I like it.
Now... on to what jonsills talked about...
I agree that there really is no reason to put down Captain Marvel. Automatically saying its going to be bad because "Bre Larson" and then trying to justify it is kinda showing a bias against the actress. Not the substance of a movie that has yet to come out.
Lets look at another movie with a strong female lead. Wonder Woman actually did VERY well, and DC was actually reluctant to have a female lead in one of their superhero movies for quite a while. Meanwhile Marvel was making a killing because of strong female characters like Black Widow, who weren't even in the spotlight role, although it could be argued that the lead was shared. Now we're actually gonna have one in a full on lead role.
Frankly... judge by its own merits. Don't judge a book by its cover.
I'll quote myself to make something clear because it was ignored, a common practice among those who would diminish the concept of justice via modifier, by the way...
"That's how what was once Entertainment operates now.
Sony did it with Ghostbusters 2016.
Disney is doing it with Star Wars.
CBS is doing it Star Trek: Discovery.
The BBC has done it with Doctor Who.
In each case I held out hope that I was wrong. But I wasn't.
Now Marvel (Disney) is letting Brie Larson do it to the MCU.
I still hope that Captain Marvel will be good. I'm just not going to be all that disappointed when it isn't."
Call me crazy, but it looks like I've put the onus on the studios and never even implied that I would dislike Captain Marvel because Brie Larson has the starring role. That bit of sexism exists in someone else. It's another example of the demand for bigotry far exceeding the supply.
One might also reliably equate the perjorative SJW with those who choose to ignore context.
> starkaos said:
> azrael605 wrote: »
>
> I'm not sure how you can misunderstand what I said like that rattler, I specifically denounced those broad strokes. I don't care why people don't like the movie, they are completely allowed to, but if their entire complaint can be boiled down to "its sjw bs" then they are not valid. I don't care if the heroes are male female trans white black or flipping purple and I will call out such bigoted complaints. None of that applies to you rattler and I'm not sure how you could read what I wrote and think it did.
>
>
>
>
> People have a reason to hate sjw bs and it is not about bigotry. Thinking it is about bigotry is just ignoring the valid concerns that certain people have like ruining the franchise of games and movies that they like or people getting injured or having their lives ruined because of sjw bs.
>
> If Ghostbusters 2016 wants to be a reverse gender remake, then there is nothing wrong with having a handsome male secretary, but there is something wrong with making him a complete idiot when the female secretary from the first Ghostbusters was intelligent and filled a purpose other than just being eye candy. Now if the female secretary from the first Ghostbusters was a 'dumb blonde', then it would have been poetic justice to have a dumb male secretary
Nothing in this constitutes a valid point.
How is it not valid when some people get injured and their lives ruined due to sjw bs? People are free to have opposing viewpoints, but there is never a valid reason to injure people, destroy property, or ruin their life due to opposing viewpoints.
I'll quote myself to make something clear because it was ignored, a common practice among those who would diminish the concept of justice via modifier, by the way...
"That's how what was once Entertainment operates now.
Sony did it with Ghostbusters 2016.
Disney is doing it with Star Wars.
CBS is doing it Star Trek: Discovery.
The BBC has done it with Doctor Who.
In each case I held out hope that I was wrong. But I wasn't.
Now Marvel (Disney) is letting Brie Larson do it to the MCU.
I still hope that Captain Marvel will be good. I'm just not going to be all that disappointed when it isn't."
Call me crazy, but it looks like I've put the onus on the studios and never even implied that I would dislike Captain Marvel because Brie Larson has the starring role. That bit of sexism exists in someone else. It's another example of the demand for bigotry far exceeding the supply.
One might also reliably equate the perjorative SJW with those who choose to ignore context.
Your context, sir, was the claim that putting "girls" into the lead roles was "ruining" franchises (in the face of available evidence; the Star Wars franchise is still pulling in billions, DSC is touted as the lead show for CBS All Access and was renewed for a second season, and the ratings for Doctor Who are better than they have been for years). All that "Brie Larson is doing to the MCU" is playing the part of Carol "Captain Marvel" Danvers. It's very difficult to interpret your statement in any other way.
Don't care that Captain Marvel is a girl. Woman, actually. I just don't care. It doesn't open up additional plots which may affect my enjoyment of the film, because the exact same subplots can be had by a male. It doesn't close off any particular potential subplots because, again, the same things affect boys and girls alike. So much of the difference between the sexes is nothing more than confirmation bias.
So, the question for me is, is it worth it to go to a theater filed with strangers, pay exorbitant prices to sit in a small, dirty chair, have the volume of the film cranked up to physically uncomfortable levels, and then be unable to walk to the kitchen for a snack or take a bio-break without losing a part of the story?
For me, not for these movies. They seem like a good way to spend a weekday evening when there's nothing else to do but, otherwise, I can wait.
If you are a fan of the Captain Marvel comics, then by all means go see the films and enjoy.
If you don't like female lead roles, then don't go see the movie. But realize that you are a part of a shrinking minority who is thankfully going to die soon and leave the world to better people.
I'll quote myself to make something clear because it was ignored, a common practice among those who would diminish the concept of justice via modifier, by the way...
"That's how what was once Entertainment operates now.
Sony did it with Ghostbusters 2016.
Disney is doing it with Star Wars.
CBS is doing it Star Trek: Discovery.
The BBC has done it with Doctor Who.
In each case I held out hope that I was wrong. But I wasn't.
Now Marvel (Disney) is letting Brie Larson do it to the MCU.
I still hope that Captain Marvel will be good. I'm just not going to be all that disappointed when it isn't."
Call me crazy, but it looks like I've put the onus on the studios and never even implied that I would dislike Captain Marvel because Brie Larson has the starring role. That bit of sexism exists in someone else. It's another example of the demand for bigotry far exceeding the supply.
One might also reliably equate the perjorative SJW with those who choose to ignore context.
Your context, sir, was the claim that putting "girls" into the lead roles was "ruining" franchises (in the face of available evidence; the Star Wars franchise is still pulling in billions, DSC is touted as the lead show for CBS All Access and was renewed for a second season, and the ratings for Doctor Who are better than they have been for years). All that "Brie Larson is doing to the MCU" is playing the part of Carol "Captain Marvel" Danvers. It's very difficult to interpret your statement in any other way.
Brie Larson represents Captain Marvel so any comments she makes in an interview or twitter will affect the sales of the movie. The only controversy I see with Brie Larson in regards to Captain Marvel is that she wants to the press coverage to be more inclusive. However, some people will take that Brie Larson wants less white men in her press coverage to make it more inclusive as an attack on them. A higher percentage of men prefer superhero movies compared to women, but there is less discrepancy compared to 20 years ago. A poll I read showed that about 5% to 10% more males watched a certain MCU movie over females.
All that matters to most is if the story is entertaining and it doesn't matter if the lead is male, female, or alien. Although, I suspect that some people have a problem with Captain Marvel beating up an old woman in both trailers even if they were a Skrull in disguise. Toon Sandwich's version of the Captain Marvel trailer is pretty fun even if it takes the old woman and cat scenes to the extreme.
I hated the GB 'reboot' not because of the fact that the team was made up of girls, but because I thought the movie was horrible written and because of the main cast choices. Also, because imho, some great movies should never receive a 'reboot' GB and ST being two of them. reboots will never be as good as the original. I have yet to see a case where they have. if they had had a better story, and quite literally, any different main cast choices, it would have been a better movie imo.
Star Treking, across the universe. Only going forward because we can't find reverse...
I'll quote myself to make something clear because it was ignored, a common practice among those who would diminish the concept of justice via modifier, by the way...
"That's how what was once Entertainment operates now.
Sony did it with Ghostbusters 2016.
Disney is doing it with Star Wars.
CBS is doing it Star Trek: Discovery.
The BBC has done it with Doctor Who.
In each case I held out hope that I was wrong. But I wasn't.
Now Marvel (Disney) is letting Brie Larson do it to the MCU.
I still hope that Captain Marvel will be good. I'm just not going to be all that disappointed when it isn't."
Call me crazy, but it looks like I've put the onus on the studios and never even implied that I would dislike Captain Marvel because Brie Larson has the starring role. That bit of sexism exists in someone else. It's another example of the demand for bigotry far exceeding the supply.
One might also reliably equate the perjorative SJW with those who choose to ignore context.
Your context, sir, was the claim that putting "girls" into the lead roles was "ruining" franchises (in the face of available evidence; the Star Wars franchise is still pulling in billions, DSC is touted as the lead show for CBS All Access and was renewed for a second season, and the ratings for Doctor Who are better than they have been for years). All that "Brie Larson is doing to the MCU" is playing the part of Carol "Captain Marvel" Danvers. It's very difficult to interpret your statement in any other way.
Incorrect, dear fellow.
As I have written elsewhere on these forums, the current business strategy seems to be to alienate a built in fan base then paint them as villains for not wanting anything to do with the new production.
I created a character, called Socially Awkward Steve, that I was going to use to comment on such things. I didn't get very far with that, but here is my take on Jodi Whittaker being cast as Doctor who. Mind you, the cringe can get pretty thick:
So you see, it isn't sexism that drives me. It's the disrespect for fans, the disrespect for the property in question, and the use of said properties as a podium for the evangelism that is social justice. The only sexism on display is yours.
The way I would have handled the female ghostbusters would have been to make it a father, daughter movie, like the original cast characters have daughters who are are mentoring and passing the touch to, it would have given the movie alot of heart and it could have been done in the original universe. It would have been alot more popular, gain the support of both MRAs (MRAs like positive depictions of fathers) and Feminists (female ghostbusters), made fans of the originals feel more respected , instead of the disasterous PR campaign that made them feel hated.
If you make a good movie, and you market it AS a good movie (as in an entertaining movie, with lots of appeal to a lot of people), you will succeed, making a movie and then trying to market it as a 'Culturally/socially/politically relevant piece of activism" and you will only get fellow-believers in the seats, and an echo chamber for feedback, and you'll lose money.
It is amazing how many businesses don't understand the first rule of business. The only color that matters is green. Businesses should only care about getting more green for as long as possible. Supporting the environment and raising countries out of poverty is good for business since they get more customers, reduce the costs in production, and can get more money in the long run. Therefore, the best way to combat Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change is use the power of greed. Supporting one group of people at the expense to their customers is bad for business which happens far too often.
Comments
Star, all three of those are classic film tropes regardless of the main cast's gender. Hell, that first one's a trope usually applied to female characters, and the third is a staple of Ghostbusters (and '80s filmography) in general.
I feel like there's a horrific defensive mentality nowadays where people go into films, games, TV shows &c looking for something to be offended by. Don't get me wrong, I understand the desire of disabled people, LGBT, and other minorities to see their roles in movies played by actors from their communities, but you can't blame the actors for that. Then we have the other side where people denounced ST: Beyond as SJW trash for one scene, which lasted all of 20 seconds, because it showed an LGBT couple. It was a scene nobody in the cinema commented on when I saw the film with my friends on release.
But on these forums? It was treated by some like it was the harbinger of the apocalypse. That was actually the first time I was introduced to the concept of an SJW (a concept I still find ludicrous).
I look on the Internet today, and I find myself often forced to keep my trap shut, because moderates are despised and the extremists reign. The number of times on these very forums I've been insulted as millennial trash (despite the fact I was born late-'90s, so I' M post-millennial) for the grievous crime of actually liking DSC (or, more accurately, for not hating it) for example.
Rattler is correct. People have forgotten about the middle ground. Everyone's looking for somebody who's out to get them.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Besides, what's wrong with being a warrior for social justice? Isn't that supposed to be basically Starfleet's calling? (Too rough for me, I'm more of a social justice mage, but...)
I'm amused by the idea of being called a "Millennial" (as if that were insulting, too) for the crime of enjoying DSC. Go ahead, call me Millennial. I'm three years older than the franchise, but...
But when someone brings that as example and then talks about how the "white race is being marginalized" or whatever, I guess it is time to tune out again.
But in general, one has to be careful with expressions like this. "Social Justice" is a desirable goal, and using it to describe extremists that seemed to have lost their sense of proportion (or worse) kinda ruins that term. Which might be the intention of people that started using the term negatively in the first place. But I can't help occassionally using the term in that manner.
The reason I didn't watch Ghostbusters was because the jokes from the trailer sucked. I just didn't find them very funny, and if they picked these as their trailer material, it suggests to me that the rest of the material might not be any more to my taste.
As to Ghostbusters 2016, well, Kate McKinnon was the best part of that movie. Apart from one or two bad moments, she came of as the most natural and, thus, entertaining.
Leslie Jones played a stereotype that I could see in almost any film. That's more on the writers than on Miss Jones.
The other two were just bad. It was like they had one gag;
"Oh, were you going to..?"
"Yeah I was..."
"Because I was going to..."
"But I had the..."
"Oh, with the..."
"Yeah."
Over, and over, and over, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, add anti-psychotics to my popcorn because I'd rather skin the theater seats and huff the flatulence from the cushions directly.
When that first trailer dropped, that was the one that started with the phrase, "30 years ago," one of my concerns was that the film was visually in very bad taste, as though Tammy Faye Baker and Twisted Sister had used the film to remove make-up after a particularly exhausting show. I mean it made 1960's Batman look positively grimdark. My own analogies here are infused with less garish color. Whether one agrees with me or not, that is a valid criticism. It makes no statement about race, gender, or preference, yet because of voicing that criticism I get to be called a racist, a sexist, etc... And I am not the only one.
But hey!, now we have a trailer with huge dislike numbers! We can use that to make all the claims we want and we'll even remove valid criticisms to make it look legit! Let's go on the talk show circuit and alienate a huge fan demographic!
That's how what was once Entertainment operates now.
Sony did it with Ghostbusters 2016.
Disney is doing it with Star Wars.
CBS is doing it Star Trek: Discovery.
The BBC has done it with Doctor Who.
In each case I held out hope that I was wrong. But I wasn't.
Now Marvel (Disney) is letting Brie Larson do it to the MCU.
I still hope that Captain Marvel will be good. I'm just not going to be all that disappointed when it isn't.
Will this next bit of Ghostbusters be good? I hope so. But I saw what happened with Blues Brothers 2000, which Dan Aykroyd also wrote.
-mustrumridcully0
I disagree, but perhaps in an entirely unusual way.
I don't find that the word justice needs a modifier. In fact I'll argue that to modify the concept of Justice is to diminish Justice.
I don't know if I'm explaining my position well enough, but I'm sure if someone gets the wrong idea they'll let me know!
I think I see what you mean. And you're right; justice as a whole is a highly desirable goal, without focusing on any one branch of it.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
That's exactly what I mean. That's why I'm such a huge "fan" of judging a case on its own merits. It's also why I'm so into individual rights. I figure the best way to protect the rights of a certain group (race, religion, preference, etc...) is to protect the rights of ALL individuals. Doing so ensures that such groups are protected by default.
(I liked the discussion with jonsills on the matter, for example, but I almost always like discussions with him. Though usually we agree on matters, it's refreshing not to agree. )
As another example of social injustice that should be fought, there is the opinion expressed above that despite Marvel's track record for making hugely entertaining movies, Captain Marvel is expected by the poster to be terribly disappointing, apparently simply because the star is Brie Larson. (If there is a more substantive argument to be made, I have yet to hear it.) Now, let's look at the available data here, since all we know about the movie itself comes from the (rather impressive, IMO) trailers. There's another Captain in the MCU, Captain America, played by Chris Evans. Chris Evans, like Steve Rogers in the comics, is (intentionally) the Aryan ideal - tall, strong, blond, and white. (This was intentional on the part of the character's creators, as they loved having that "Aryan ideal" be the one to be taking down NSDAP troops in the comics.) He was granted extraordinary strength and coordination in an experiment near the beginning of WWII, one rendered irreproducible when the lead scientist, who made about as many notes as Nikola Tesla (that is, none), was assassinated. He earned the rank of Captain in the US Army, although that was primarily for propaganda purposes, as Rogers had enlisted at the rank of Private.
Carol Danvers, on the other hand, is tall, strong, blonde, and white, although her genetics have been admixed with that of a "lesser" branch of the Kree (pink Kree are regarded by their people much as black Americans were regarded in the 1950s). She has the powers of a Kree warrior, plus some extra thanks to Celestial meddling in the human genome over the millennia. She earned the rank of Captain in the USAF, primarily as a pilot (which is how she wound up in the position to become admixed with Kree in the first place, since she was Capt. Mar-Vell's liaison with the Pentagon).
What's the difference between the two, aside from power level? The first one that springs to mind, frankly, is that Carol is a girl, not a manly man like Steve. And the assumption that her movie will automatically be "less" than his ranks, in my view, as a social injustice - a small one, but an injustice nonetheless. Should such injustices not be fought?
(On a complete side note, I do wonder sometimes why they even bothered making Steve Rogers have a side job writing in-universe Captain America comics in the '70s. He was frozen into an iceberg in 1944, and didn't return to society until 1963 or so - one would think twenty years of back pay plus mandatory retirement at his age should cover his living expenses quite comfortably, even taking the costume into account.)
That... is actually a pretty good analogy. I like it.
Now... on to what jonsills talked about...
I agree that there really is no reason to put down Captain Marvel. Automatically saying its going to be bad because "Bre Larson" and then trying to justify it is kinda showing a bias against the actress. Not the substance of a movie that has yet to come out.
Lets look at another movie with a strong female lead. Wonder Woman actually did VERY well, and DC was actually reluctant to have a female lead in one of their superhero movies for quite a while. Meanwhile Marvel was making a killing because of strong female characters like Black Widow, who weren't even in the spotlight role, although it could be argued that the lead was shared. Now we're actually gonna have one in a full on lead role.
Frankly... judge by its own merits. Don't judge a book by its cover.
"That's how what was once Entertainment operates now.
Sony did it with Ghostbusters 2016.
Disney is doing it with Star Wars.
CBS is doing it Star Trek: Discovery.
The BBC has done it with Doctor Who.
In each case I held out hope that I was wrong. But I wasn't.
Now Marvel (Disney) is letting Brie Larson do it to the MCU.
I still hope that Captain Marvel will be good. I'm just not going to be all that disappointed when it isn't."
Call me crazy, but it looks like I've put the onus on the studios and never even implied that I would dislike Captain Marvel because Brie Larson has the starring role. That bit of sexism exists in someone else. It's another example of the demand for bigotry far exceeding the supply.
One might also reliably equate the perjorative SJW with those who choose to ignore context.
How is it not valid when some people get injured and their lives ruined due to sjw bs? People are free to have opposing viewpoints, but there is never a valid reason to injure people, destroy property, or ruin their life due to opposing viewpoints.
So, the question for me is, is it worth it to go to a theater filed with strangers, pay exorbitant prices to sit in a small, dirty chair, have the volume of the film cranked up to physically uncomfortable levels, and then be unable to walk to the kitchen for a snack or take a bio-break without losing a part of the story?
For me, not for these movies. They seem like a good way to spend a weekday evening when there's nothing else to do but, otherwise, I can wait.
If you are a fan of the Captain Marvel comics, then by all means go see the films and enjoy.
If you don't like female lead roles, then don't go see the movie. But realize that you are a part of a shrinking minority who is thankfully going to die soon and leave the world to better people.
GhostBusters 3 came out in 2009..... it was called GhostBusters: The Video Game.
Brie Larson represents Captain Marvel so any comments she makes in an interview or twitter will affect the sales of the movie. The only controversy I see with Brie Larson in regards to Captain Marvel is that she wants to the press coverage to be more inclusive. However, some people will take that Brie Larson wants less white men in her press coverage to make it more inclusive as an attack on them. A higher percentage of men prefer superhero movies compared to women, but there is less discrepancy compared to 20 years ago. A poll I read showed that about 5% to 10% more males watched a certain MCU movie over females.
All that matters to most is if the story is entertaining and it doesn't matter if the lead is male, female, or alien. Although, I suspect that some people have a problem with Captain Marvel beating up an old woman in both trailers even if they were a Skrull in disguise. Toon Sandwich's version of the Captain Marvel trailer is pretty fun even if it takes the old woman and cat scenes to the extreme.
I have a feeling that Battlestar Galactica somewhat disagrees with that statement.
Incorrect, dear fellow.
As I have written elsewhere on these forums, the current business strategy seems to be to alienate a built in fan base then paint them as villains for not wanting anything to do with the new production.
I created a character, called Socially Awkward Steve, that I was going to use to comment on such things. I didn't get very far with that, but here is my take on Jodi Whittaker being cast as Doctor who. Mind you, the cringe can get pretty thick:
So you see, it isn't sexism that drives me. It's the disrespect for fans, the disrespect for the property in question, and the use of said properties as a podium for the evangelism that is social justice. The only sexism on display is yours.
and Feminists (female ghostbusters), made fans of the originals feel more respected , instead of the disasterous PR campaign that made them feel hated.
It is amazing how many businesses don't understand the first rule of business. The only color that matters is green. Businesses should only care about getting more green for as long as possible. Supporting the environment and raising countries out of poverty is good for business since they get more customers, reduce the costs in production, and can get more money in the long run. Therefore, the best way to combat Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change is use the power of greed. Supporting one group of people at the expense to their customers is bad for business which happens far too often.