So if you start the first week of the year and watch one movie per week, you can watch every MCU movie and be ready the week Infinity War drops.
I was gonna do this starting after Infinity War, and watching all of the movies, so that when Avengers 4 drops, I've seen all of them, in order, once every other week or so.
This doesn't count seeing the intervening new movies in theaters, but does count seeing them again on video between IW and A4.
I saw an unreputable source that the deal went through. Has any good news sites reported on it yet?
Kinda wanted to confirm before popping champagne.
Any news on whether a Murdoch spawn got an executive position or the stock for the deal came with voting rights (they'd have the largest stake after the deal otherwise)? Because after learning those things were on the table this deal started feeling a lot more ominous and I was hoping it would fall apart. If those things happen I worry it might be the end of Marvel Comics using super people to push progressive agendas.
Not necessarily, the X-men movies and animation have been able to do that without being censored and the comic division is beneath Ike's and Disney's notice despite. I've actually noticed a bit of this with WB, certain divisions there were more conservative (like Snyder's control over the DCEU - which became more progressive after his control faded) while the Arrow 'verse is progressive AF. Supergirl, in particular.
0
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
I saw an unreputable source that the deal went through. Has any good news sites reported on it yet?
Kinda wanted to confirm before popping champagne.
Any news on whether a Murdoch spawn got an executive position or the stock for the deal came with voting rights (they'd have the largest stake after the deal otherwise)? Because after learning those things were on the table this deal started feeling a lot more ominous and I was hoping it would fall apart. If those things happen I worry it might be the end of Marvel Comics using super people to push progressive agendas.
Not necessarily, the X-men movies and animation have been able to do that without being censored and the comic division is beneath Ike's and Disney's notice despite. I've actually noticed a bit of this with WB, certain divisions there were more conservative (like Snyder's control over the DCEU - which became more progressive after his control faded) while the Arrow 'verse is progressive AF. Supergirl, in particular.
Supergirl just jokingly had an executive sexually assault an employee and their attempts at inserting progressive ideals into their show strike me as crass virtue signalling more often than not. Everything X-Men save the 90s cartoon based on Claremont's work have been bland af and I would not term "progressive". The Gifted is maybe harnessing a little of that fire but it's to early to tell.
None of them have anything on the level of Ms. Marvel, Moon Girl, or Unbeatable Squirrel Girl though.
It just constantly blows my fragile little mind to know that the movie that kicked this all off, that was successful and popular enough to get the ball rolling to where we are today, the first step in the grand master plan... had no plan and was made by fucking winging it. And you can't tell at all from the final product.
the first iron man is a weird film, too; it spends almost half it's runtime on setup, and then the climax (the golmira fight/dogfight, at least imo) happens shortly after that. The whole confrontation with Stane basically is denoument and feels like a forgone conclusion (even though it's fun)
I didn't know the film didn't have a script, but that completely makes sense
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
+1
Options
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
I saw an unreputable source that the deal went through. Has any good news sites reported on it yet?
Kinda wanted to confirm before popping champagne.
Any news on whether a Murdoch spawn got an executive position or the stock for the deal came with voting rights (they'd have the largest stake after the deal otherwise)? Because after learning those things were on the table this deal started feeling a lot more ominous and I was hoping it would fall apart. If those things happen I worry it might be the end of Marvel Comics using super people to push progressive agendas.
Not necessarily, the X-men movies and animation have been able to do that without being censored and the comic division is beneath Ike's and Disney's notice despite. I've actually noticed a bit of this with WB, certain divisions there were more conservative (like Snyder's control over the DCEU - which became more progressive after his control faded) while the Arrow 'verse is progressive AF. Supergirl, in particular.
Supergirl just jokingly had an executive sexually assault an employee and their attempts at inserting progressive ideals into their show strike me as crass virtue signalling more often than not. Everything X-Men save the 90s cartoon based on Claremont's work have been bland af and I would not term "progressive". The Gifted is maybe harnessing a little of that fire but it's to early to tell.
None of them have anything on the level of Ms. Marvel, Moon Girl, or Unbeatable Squirrel Girl though.
No opinion on your assessment of Supergirl (I don't watch it) but my god do I wish we could get rid of the term "virtue signalling". Seems like it's most often used by right-wingers to indicate that progressives don't really believe in <insert thing>, they just say so to impress people.
+3
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
I saw an unreputable source that the deal went through. Has any good news sites reported on it yet?
Kinda wanted to confirm before popping champagne.
Any news on whether a Murdoch spawn got an executive position or the stock for the deal came with voting rights (they'd have the largest stake after the deal otherwise)? Because after learning those things were on the table this deal started feeling a lot more ominous and I was hoping it would fall apart. If those things happen I worry it might be the end of Marvel Comics using super people to push progressive agendas.
Not necessarily, the X-men movies and animation have been able to do that without being censored and the comic division is beneath Ike's and Disney's notice despite. I've actually noticed a bit of this with WB, certain divisions there were more conservative (like Snyder's control over the DCEU - which became more progressive after his control faded) while the Arrow 'verse is progressive AF. Supergirl, in particular.
Supergirl just jokingly had an executive sexually assault an employee and their attempts at inserting progressive ideals into their show strike me as crass virtue signalling more often than not. Everything X-Men save the 90s cartoon based on Claremont's work have been bland af and I would not term "progressive". The Gifted is maybe harnessing a little of that fire but it's to early to tell.
None of them have anything on the level of Ms. Marvel, Moon Girl, or Unbeatable Squirrel Girl though.
No opinion on your assessment of Supergirl (I don't watch it) but my god do I wish we could get rid of the term "virtue signalling". Seems like it's most often used by right-wingers to indicate that progressives don't really believe in <insert thing>, they just say so to impress people.
I really hate it generally and reserve it for insufferable pandering (to me!) that makes me want to vomit.
I saw an unreputable source that the deal went through. Has any good news sites reported on it yet?
Kinda wanted to confirm before popping champagne.
Any news on whether a Murdoch spawn got an executive position or the stock for the deal came with voting rights (they'd have the largest stake after the deal otherwise)? Because after learning those things were on the table this deal started feeling a lot more ominous and I was hoping it would fall apart. If those things happen I worry it might be the end of Marvel Comics using super people to push progressive agendas.
Not necessarily, the X-men movies and animation have been able to do that without being censored and the comic division is beneath Ike's and Disney's notice despite. I've actually noticed a bit of this with WB, certain divisions there were more conservative (like Snyder's control over the DCEU - which became more progressive after his control faded) while the Arrow 'verse is progressive AF. Supergirl, in particular.
Supergirl just jokingly had an executive sexually assault an employee and their attempts at inserting progressive ideals into their show strike me as crass virtue signalling more often than not. Everything X-Men save the 90s cartoon based on Claremont's work have been bland af and I would not term "progressive". The Gifted is maybe harnessing a little of that fire but it's to early to tell.
None of them have anything on the level of Ms. Marvel, Moon Girl, or Unbeatable Squirrel Girl though.
No opinion on your assessment of Supergirl (I don't watch it) but my god do I wish we could get rid of the term "virtue signalling". Seems like it's most often used by right-wingers to indicate that progressives don't really believe in <insert thing>, they just say so to impress people.
I really hate it generally and reserve it for insufferable pandering (to me!) that makes me want to vomit.
It does get overly sappy sometimes, but overall it's ok with what it does.
I saw an unreputable source that the deal went through. Has any good news sites reported on it yet?
Kinda wanted to confirm before popping champagne.
Any news on whether a Murdoch spawn got an executive position or the stock for the deal came with voting rights (they'd have the largest stake after the deal otherwise)? Because after learning those things were on the table this deal started feeling a lot more ominous and I was hoping it would fall apart. If those things happen I worry it might be the end of Marvel Comics using super people to push progressive agendas.
Not necessarily, the X-men movies and animation have been able to do that without being censored and the comic division is beneath Ike's and Disney's notice despite. I've actually noticed a bit of this with WB, certain divisions there were more conservative (like Snyder's control over the DCEU - which became more progressive after his control faded) while the Arrow 'verse is progressive AF. Supergirl, in particular.
Supergirl just jokingly had an executive sexually assault an employee and their attempts at inserting progressive ideals into their show strike me as crass virtue signalling more often than not. Everything X-Men save the 90s cartoon based on Claremont's work have been bland af and I would not term "progressive". The Gifted is maybe harnessing a little of that fire but it's to early to tell.
None of them have anything on the level of Ms. Marvel, Moon Girl, or Unbeatable Squirrel Girl though.
I should have been clearer, it's not about being "progressive" it's about having leftist political stances, and I'd have thought progressives would be ok with shows and movies delving into feminism, racism etc. The DCEU has been inching toward this direction post-Wonder Woman. Another instance of a leftist political ideal being represented by a conservative corporation.
What does the sexual assault charges have to do with anything? It makes him a terrible human being, I draw the line at crucifying what they were doing with left issues on those shows. And what was with this "just joking" retort, as if the Supergirl's series and characters endorses being a sexual predator? Yes, they had fucked up things sometimes, that isn't a sign that every relationship in the Arrow 'verse is a sexual predator's wish fulfillment as well as severely undermine Supergirl's feminist message. How the show does send its messages, which yeah they go overboard, is a matter of opinion, that and the above are not proof that the Arrow 'verse is
My point wasn't that the shows weren't progressive (btw, the left has more factions than progressives), it's that they had left political influences - your argument was that they didn't. Singer's X-men movies heavily tied into mutants being an allegory for minorities like LGBT, and Jews, not exactly right wing propaganda.
This is not about whether you feel the material is great or not, it's that they had the freedom to include these themes at all. Which I've shown numerous examples with two big conservatives corporations his isn't the case. They didn't turn Supergirl or the X-men into 24 or the O'Reilly Factor.
Can you clarify your last sentence, are you saying you'd like them to be like those comics?
edit: If you want to call them awful because you don't like how the shows are doing what they're doing, it's fine. However, that's not the same thing as saying those shows under Fox or WB have no room for leftist themes.
It just constantly blows my fragile little mind to know that the movie that kicked this all off, that was successful and popular enough to get the ball rolling to where we are today, the first step in the grand master plan... had no plan and was made by fucking winging it. And you can't tell at all from the final product.
It probably helps tremendously that Robert Downey Jr. is Tony Stark.
I mean, talk about "born to play _____".
It's never been bad, but it's so unmemorable there's that one video about how unmemorable it is.
And yet I bet damn near everyone in this thread got chills when the brass of the Avengers theme hit in that new trailer.
It was more of a "where do I know that from?", actually.
There's the Human Torch from Fox's Fantastic Four, there's Captain Kirk's father (how'd he survive?), Sherlock Holmes from Sherlock, Amy Pond from Doctor Who, The Major from Ghost in the Shell, Burt Macklin, Jackie Robinson, the other Sherlock Holmes from the movies by Guy Ritchie etc.
Harry Dresden on
+2
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I saw an unreputable source that the deal went through. Has any good news sites reported on it yet?
Kinda wanted to confirm before popping champagne.
Any news on whether a Murdoch spawn got an executive position or the stock for the deal came with voting rights (they'd have the largest stake after the deal otherwise)? Because after learning those things were on the table this deal started feeling a lot more ominous and I was hoping it would fall apart. If those things happen I worry it might be the end of Marvel Comics using super people to push progressive agendas.
Apparently I was reading the rumors wrong. The speculation was that he'd be the next CEO, in 2019 or so, when Iger retires. Obviously, we won't know for sure until then
+1
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
edited December 2017
I'm having a little trouble following a lot of this but I wanted to try to address a couple bits.
What does the sexual assault charges have to do with anything? It makes him a terrible human being, I draw the line at crucifying what they were doing with left issues on those shows. And what was with this "just joking" retort, as if the Supergirl's series and characters endorses being a sexual predator? Yes, they had fucked up things sometimes, that isn't a sign that every relationship in the Arrow 'verse is a sexual predator's wish fulfillment as well as severely undermine Supergirl's feminist message. How the show does send its messages, which yeah they go overboard, is a matter of opinion, that and the above are not proof that the Arrow 'verse is
Dude this is what happened in the show. Third party suggests to boss that they could surprise their employee with a kiss under the mistletoe. Boss points out their employer employee relationship and how wildly inappropriate that would be. Third party scoffs about how everybody's doin' it! Boss grabs employee by a piece of clothing around their neck and forces a kiss on them shortly thereafter. Even if this was in the can before news about Weinstein broke and the metoo campaign started, which is fairly unlikely unless I misunderstand typical TV production schedules; it is super fucking inappropriate to showcase that kind of attitude in the same episode in which they try to say that the Kryptonian S sigil translates to "Stronger Together" (*barf*).
My point wasn't that the shows weren't progressive (btw, the left has more factions than progressives), it's that they had left political influences - your argument was that they didn't. Singer's X-men movies heavily tied into mutants being an allegory for minorities like LGBT, and Jews, not exactly right wing propaganda.
This is not about whether you feel the material is great or not, it's that they had the freedom to include these themes at all. Which I've shown numerous examples with two big conservatives corporations his isn't the case. They didn't turn Supergirl or the X-men into 24 or the O'Reilly Factor.
Can you clarify your last sentence, are you saying you'd like them to be like those comics?
edit: If you want to call them awful because you don't like how the shows are doing what they're doing, it's fine. However, that's not the same thing as saying those shows under Fox or WB have no room for leftist themes.
Bro, the bolded is super patronizing.
That fact is exactly why I like the comics. They've had their problems, but Marvel (especially when compared to DC, who do try sometimes, but usually in a clumsier less radical fashion) has had a long history of pushing counter culture progressive ideas that were too cutting edge for a lot of other media at the time. Comics can cater to smaller fringier demographics which makes them a much more fertile beachhead than something like TV or movies, which need to have at least as much mass appeal as something like the Democratic Party. Sure they might be able to present some milquetoast liberal ideas with editorial direction from the Murdochs, but would they be heavily promoting a Pakistani Muslim American character? Would they have stories where an Imam shelters people from a hostile authoritarian government? Would they have nearly as diverse a roster of heroes? Would they be as open to talking about queer issues? How about playing fast and loose with the idea of terrorists being freedom fighters?
I didn't bring up Supergirl as an example of what I wanted, you did. I'm saying it's a terrible example of what I want and giving an example from this week of why. Narrowing the amount of radical left views in our entertainment only helps push the Overton Window further right.
I dont know how anyone could NOT know the Avengers theme by now. It pops up everywhere in the movies. I def got chills when it swelled in to the main melody in the IW trailer (the editors clearly have been watching Star Wars trailers)
There's a lot of speculation about who's going to die and whatnot in IW/IG. I feel like there's going to be a ton of deaths, possibly a super megaton of deaths if they follow the comics. They're going to be "deaths" though, because the gauntlet is the biggest deus ex macguffin ever made.
I feel like there will still be a big permanent one, though. Most likely Cap or Iron Man. Iron Man feels like the smart bet, but Cap could be interesting. Bucky could take up the shield. Falcon too, I guess but that wouldn't be as neat.
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
I dont know how anyone could NOT know the Avengers theme by now. It pops up everywhere in the movies. I def got chills when it swelled in to the main melody in the IW trailer (the editors clearly have been watching Star Wars trailers)
It's one of those things that I recognize immediately, but if you caught me on a random Tuesday morning and asked me to hum it or something, maybe 50/50 I'd actually be able to.
My guess for the next two Avengers movies is Cap dies. Iron Man either dies or is paralyzed so he can't use the suit anymore. And those rolls go to Bucky and Rhodes. I'm picking Bucky over Falcon due to contracts. When Sebastian Stan signed on for Bucky, he signed a 9 picture deal, which means he'll still have 4 movies in his contract.
"How about a gun? Can I get a gun instead? I never said a shield was my thing... Can I at least get a sword too or something? Bucky, lemme use one of your guns. Come on maaaan, you've got like... 5 guns!"
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
+22
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
My guess for the next two Avengers movies is Cap dies. Iron Man either dies or is paralyzed so he can't use the suit anymore. And those rolls go to Bucky and Rhodes. I'm picking Bucky over Falcon due to contracts. When Sebastian Stan signed on for Bucky, he signed a 9 picture deal, which means he'll still have 4 movies in his contract.
I'd lean towards having Cap lose some limbs (dude deserves some sort of semi-happy retirement) and Stark deaded but he created an AI backup, so future writers can bust out holo-Tony if they need five minutes of Starksnark.
Bucky and Rhodes can take over those physical roles, but Falcon is the closest to Cap in his willingness to put himself on the line for others. In Winter Soldier Rogers and Natasha just show up on his doorstep, say they're marked for death, and he immediately invites them in for coffee and volunteers to join up.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
What does the sexual assault charges have to do with anything? It makes him a terrible human being, I draw the line at crucifying what they were doing with left issues on those shows. And what was with this "just joking" retort, as if the Supergirl's series and characters endorses being a sexual predator? Yes, they had fucked up things sometimes, that isn't a sign that every relationship in the Arrow 'verse is a sexual predator's wish fulfillment as well as severely undermine Supergirl's feminist message. How the show does send its messages, which yeah they go overboard, is a matter of opinion, that and the above are not proof that the Arrow 'verse is
Dude this is what happened in the show. Third party suggests to boss that they could surprise their employee with a kiss under the mistletoe. Boss points out their employer employee relationship and how wildly inappropriate that would be. Third party scoffs about how everybody's doin' it! Boss grabs employee by a piece of clothing around their neck and forces a kiss on them shortly thereafter. Even if this was in the can before news about Weinstein broke and the metoo campaign started, which is fairly unlikely unless I misunderstand typical TV production schedules; it is super fucking inappropriate to showcase that kind of attitude in the same episode in which they try to say that the Kryptonian S sigil translates to "Stronger Together" (*barf*).
You're missing my point, I'm not suggesting that wasn't inappropriate on the show or that they didn't have screwed up things occasionally get past the writers (Flash does, as well). How you're framing it is that all relationships on the show are like that, and that the show shouldn't be having a pro-feminist message at all.
This isn't about what we'd like reality to be like, we don't have that luxury it's about how and why that got on screen in the first place and why it wasn't changed at the last minute. Which means acknowledging the cold realities of the corporate environment who make the show, who are not going to grind the show to a halt and re-do entire scenes on their backlog on a weekly tv show. They don't have the time or money for that, the industry isn't built for that turnaround even if they wanted to do it. They'd have even less room were this on a streaming format like Netflix when they transit entire seasons in one burst.
My point wasn't that the shows weren't progressive (btw, the left has more factions than progressives), it's that they had left political influences - your argument was that they didn't. Singer's X-men movies heavily tied into mutants being an allegory for minorities like LGBT, and Jews, not exactly right wing propaganda.
This is not about whether you feel the material is great or not, it's that they had the freedom to include these themes at all. Which I've shown numerous examples with two big conservatives corporations his isn't the case. They didn't turn Supergirl or the X-men into 24 or the O'Reilly Factor.
Can you clarify your last sentence, are you saying you'd like them to be like those comics?
edit: If you want to call them awful because you don't like how the shows are doing what they're doing, it's fine. However, that's not the same thing as saying those shows under Fox or WB have no room for leftist themes.
Bro, the bolded is super patronizing.
That fact is exactly why I like the comics. They've had their problems, but Marvel (especially when compared to DC, who do try sometimes, but usually in a clumsier less radical fashion) has had a long history of pushing counter culture progressive ideas that were too cutting edge for a lot of other media at the time. Comics can cater to smaller fringier demographics which makes them a much more fertile beachhead than something like TV or movies, which need to have at least as much mass appeal as something like the Democratic Party. Sure they might be able to present some milquetoast liberal ideas with editorial direction from the Murdochs, but would they be heavily promoting a Pakistani Muslim American character? Would they have stories where an Imam shelters people from a hostile authoritarian government? Would they have nearly as diverse a roster of heroes? Would they be as open to talking about queer issues? How about playing fast and loose with the idea of terrorists being freedom fighters?
I didn't bring up Supergirl as an example of what I wanted, you did. I'm saying it's a terrible example of what I want and giving an example from this week of why. Narrowing the amount of radical left views in our entertainment only helps push the Overton Window further right. [/quote]
It is the truth, which seemed to be implying that anything not progressive didn't out on the left as a political group or relevant to the concerns regarding issues related to things like feminism etc. I may be reading your intentions wrong, but that's how it felt to me.
Comics are able to do that due to their media, and do that under conservative leadership - Ike, for example lets them be (as well as Netflix) despite being a hyper partisan right winger. DC does this occasionally, like the Batgirl and Birds of Prey series. Cartoons tend to be more conservative in general, that's why the X-men were a big deal in the 90's they were doing what few were at the time and in the context of the time period that was a big deal, under no conditions were Marvel ever going to make a cartoon like Squirrel Girl or Moon Girl, they can barely make that now despite the progress made.
Comics have a conflicted history with non-white and non-male demographics, it has been until recently that the media started taking a serious interest in expanding readership to women and girls, and they are a massive boys club. X-men's history with minorities analogs has been polarizing, especially among minority fans (some of which find it patronizing and insulting) and how many of the cast of characters tend to white. In many ways the comic industry is behind the curve compared to industries like tv, who sometimes have to add in or change characters so they're not so white bread. Comics have a bad history in long term change and big, iconic characters can be difficult to alter too much without the fandom going crazy. Like, say, having Batman be a black man. Or having a minority or female Robin. Indie comics are another matter entirely.
Appealing to be more people isn't necessarily a sin, even comics do that to a degree or they know they're going to get canceled. Everyone has bills to pay, corporate comics are no different. Plus, it gets the positive messages out there, they're going to get more eye balls seeing storylines in a tv show or movie than a comic book. Organizations like the Democrat party are in a position where they can't afford to solely cater to fringe elements, they do that they become fringe themselves and their mainstream rivals will be uncontested on multiple fronts which helps nobody.
As I said upthread Fox itself has done numerous scenes and themes with the X-men based on racial and LGBT prejudice in their X-men films and cartoons. In The Wolverine, the movie was moved to Japan where they had a majority Japanese cast, with the two biggest leads are Japanese women.The co-lead for Logan was a Latina child actress. Who the director, James Mangold, wants to make spin-off films around.
They're already doing what you want, I don't know why you can't see it. If what you were was true none of this, or shows like Supergirl, would exist.
Do you count Jessica Jones and Luke Cage's shows as milquetoast? AoS started the show with an Asian female lead, and a brilliant secondary Asian female (Melinda May) on day one and half the cast was female on top of that. Their first named villain who was worth anything was Raina, whose actress is half Ethiopian, and the big bad for season 2 was an Asian woman. One of the right spots in Iron Fist who stole the show was Colleen Wing, an Asian woman (someone who's typically drawn as a white lady in the comics despite her Asian heritage), and a re-occuring villain in the Netflix shows is an elderly Asian woman. Agent Carter dealt with sexism heavily.
Yes, I did as an example for a leftist show operating in a conservative corporation - which is correct. I also bought up other things like the X-men at Fox, who are in a similar position. What you are saying is right, however, it completely dismisses the good messages the show has been making while being on the air like they aren't worth anything. I agree, which is why I want shows like Supergirl on the air and yet you don't? That's what's confusing about this discussion, here's an example of a show doing exactly what you want but since it has a shitty show runner (who is a leftist as far as I know, not every scumbag is a right winger and they're not doing it in a fashion you like) and you want to kill it? That's doing the opposite of turning the Overton Window left.
"How about a gun? Can I get a gun instead? I never said a shield was my thing... Can I at least get a sword too or something? Bucky, lemme use one of your guns. Come on maaaan, you've got like... 5 guns!"
Wasn't there some iteration of Captain America that had full armor and a sword? I fucking know I saw this somewhere. Off to the wiki I go for the next six hours.
Edit: Apparently several versions, but I can't find the one I actually remember, which was some kind of post-apocalypse where the US had fallen into some kind of Arthurian feudal system. I do see that one appeared in a couple of the various mobile games, but can't find his comic of origin. Closest one I can find is Yeoman America.
"How about a gun? Can I get a gun instead? I never said a shield was my thing... Can I at least get a sword too or something? Bucky, lemme use one of your guns. Come on maaaan, you've got like... 5 guns!"
Wasn't there some iteration of Captain America that had full armor and a sword? I fucking know I saw this somewhere. Off to the wiki I go for the next six hours.
It's only fresh in my mind because of Lego Marvel 2, but yes. There's apparently an entire medieval Marvel universe...
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
I think this is the one I'm remembering, because I remember him having a kite shield and not a round one. But, yeah, that's the only one of that style I can find outside of Avengers Alliance and Future Fight.
Hevach on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I dont know how anyone could NOT know the Avengers theme by now. It pops up everywhere in the movies. I def got chills when it swelled in to the main melody in the IW trailer (the editors clearly have been watching Star Wars trailers)
It's one of those things that I recognize immediately, but if you caught me on a random Tuesday morning and asked me to hum it or something, maybe 50/50 I'd actually be able to.
I just tried and ended up doing a Star Wars theme in my head.
It's a great melody line, but it's slower and more dramatic than say the LOTR theme or GOT.
0
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
"How about a gun? Can I get a gun instead? I never said a shield was my thing... Can I at least get a sword too or something? Bucky, lemme use one of your guns. Come on maaaan, you've got like... 5 guns!"
Wasn't there some iteration of Captain America that had full armor and a sword? I fucking know I saw this somewhere. Off to the wiki I go for the next six hours.
It's only fresh in my mind because of Lego Marvel 2, but yes. There's apparently an entire medieval Marvel universe...
Not sure on medieval, but I was/am a big fan of the:
I dont know how anyone could NOT know the Avengers theme by now. It pops up everywhere in the movies. I def got chills when it swelled in to the main melody in the IW trailer (the editors clearly have been watching Star Wars trailers)
It's one of those things that I recognize immediately, but if you caught me on a random Tuesday morning and asked me to hum it or something, maybe 50/50 I'd actually be able to.
This is probably a more accurate way to say what I said.
0
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
edited December 2017
Comparing the sadistic choice scene of DDS2 vs Punisher comic, DDS2 did it way better. In the comic it’s an afterthought, DD didn’t even need to be in there at all. Feels like Ennis just giving him shit.
Netflix does good adaptions that can be better than their sources is what I’m saying. Sometimes.
Kadoken on
+1
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
What does the sexual assault charges have to do with anything? It makes him a terrible human being, I draw the line at crucifying what they were doing with left issues on those shows. And what was with this "just joking" retort, as if the Supergirl's series and characters endorses being a sexual predator? Yes, they had fucked up things sometimes, that isn't a sign that every relationship in the Arrow 'verse is a sexual predator's wish fulfillment as well as severely undermine Supergirl's feminist message. How the show does send its messages, which yeah they go overboard, is a matter of opinion, that and the above are not proof that the Arrow 'verse is
Dude this is what happened in the show. Third party suggests to boss that they could surprise their employee with a kiss under the mistletoe. Boss points out their employer employee relationship and how wildly inappropriate that would be. Third party scoffs about how everybody's doin' it! Boss grabs employee by a piece of clothing around their neck and forces a kiss on them shortly thereafter. Even if this was in the can before news about Weinstein broke and the metoo campaign started, which is fairly unlikely unless I misunderstand typical TV production schedules; it is super fucking inappropriate to showcase that kind of attitude in the same episode in which they try to say that the Kryptonian S sigil translates to "Stronger Together" (*barf*).
You're missing my point, I'm not suggesting that wasn't inappropriate on the show or that they didn't have screwed up things occasionally get past the writers (Flash does, as well). How you're framing it is that all relationships on the show are like that, and that the show shouldn't be having a pro-feminist message at all.
This isn't about what we'd like reality to be like, we don't have that luxury it's about how and why that got on screen in the first place and why it wasn't changed at the last minute. Which means acknowledging the cold realities of the corporate environment who make the show, who are not going to grind the show to a halt and re-do entire scenes on their backlog on a weekly tv show. They don't have the time or money for that, the industry isn't built for that turnaround even if they wanted to do it. They'd have even less room were this on a streaming format like Netflix when they transit entire seasons in one burst.
My point wasn't that the shows weren't progressive (btw, the left has more factions than progressives), it's that they had left political influences - your argument was that they didn't. Singer's X-men movies heavily tied into mutants being an allegory for minorities like LGBT, and Jews, not exactly right wing propaganda.
This is not about whether you feel the material is great or not, it's that they had the freedom to include these themes at all. Which I've shown numerous examples with two big conservatives corporations his isn't the case. They didn't turn Supergirl or the X-men into 24 or the O'Reilly Factor.
Can you clarify your last sentence, are you saying you'd like them to be like those comics?
edit: If you want to call them awful because you don't like how the shows are doing what they're doing, it's fine. However, that's not the same thing as saying those shows under Fox or WB have no room for leftist themes.
Bro, the bolded is super patronizing.
That fact is exactly why I like the comics. They've had their problems, but Marvel (especially when compared to DC, who do try sometimes, but usually in a clumsier less radical fashion) has had a long history of pushing counter culture progressive ideas that were too cutting edge for a lot of other media at the time. Comics can cater to smaller fringier demographics which makes them a much more fertile beachhead than something like TV or movies, which need to have at least as much mass appeal as something like the Democratic Party. Sure they might be able to present some milquetoast liberal ideas with editorial direction from the Murdochs, but would they be heavily promoting a Pakistani Muslim American character? Would they have stories where an Imam shelters people from a hostile authoritarian government? Would they have nearly as diverse a roster of heroes? Would they be as open to talking about queer issues? How about playing fast and loose with the idea of terrorists being freedom fighters?
I didn't bring up Supergirl as an example of what I wanted, you did. I'm saying it's a terrible example of what I want and giving an example from this week of why. Narrowing the amount of radical left views in our entertainment only helps push the Overton Window further right.
It is the truth, which seemed to be implying that anything not progressive didn't out on the left as a political group or relevant to the concerns regarding issues related to things like feminism etc. I may be reading your intentions wrong, but that's how it felt to me.
Comics are able to do that due to their media, and do that under conservative leadership - Ike, for example lets them be (as well as Netflix) despite being a hyper partisan right winger. DC does this occasionally, like the Batgirl and Birds of Prey series. Cartoons tend to be more conservative in general, that's why the X-men were a big deal in the 90's they were doing what few were at the time and in the context of the time period that was a big deal, under no conditions were Marvel ever going to make a cartoon like Squirrel Girl or Moon Girl, they can barely make that now despite the progress made.
Comics have a conflicted history with non-white and non-male demographics, it has been until recently that the media started taking a serious interest in expanding readership to women and girls, and they are a massive boys club. X-men's history with minorities analogs has been polarizing, especially among minority fans (some of which find it patronizing and insulting) and how many of the cast of characters tend to white. In many ways the comic industry is behind the curve compared to industries like tv, who sometimes have to add in or change characters so they're not so white bread. Comics have a bad history in long term change and big, iconic characters can be difficult to alter too much without the fandom going crazy. Like, say, having Batman be a black man. Or having a minority or female Robin. Indie comics are another matter entirely.
Appealing to be more people isn't necessarily a sin, even comics do that to a degree or they know they're going to get canceled. Everyone has bills to pay, corporate comics are no different. Plus, it gets the positive messages out there, they're going to get more eye balls seeing storylines in a tv show or movie than a comic book. Organizations like the Democrat party are in a position where they can't afford to solely cater to fringe elements, they do that they become fringe themselves and their mainstream rivals will be uncontested on multiple fronts which helps nobody.
As I said upthread Fox itself has done numerous scenes and themes with the X-men based on racial and LGBT prejudice in their X-men films and cartoons. In The Wolverine, the movie was moved to Japan where they had a majority Japanese cast, with the two biggest leads are Japanese women.The co-lead for Logan was a Latina child actress. Who the director, James Mangold, wants to make spin-off films around.
They're already doing what you want, I don't know why you can't see it. If what you were was true none of this, or shows like Supergirl, would exist.
Do you count Jessica Jones and Luke Cage's shows as milquetoast? AoS started the show with an Asian female lead, and a brilliant secondary Asian female (Melinda May) on day one and half the cast was female on top of that. Their first named villain who was worth anything was Raina, whose actress is half Ethiopian, and the big bad for season 2 was an Asian woman. One of the right spots in Iron Fist who stole the show was Colleen Wing, an Asian woman (someone who's typically drawn as a white lady in the comics despite her Asian heritage), and a re-occuring villain in the Netflix shows is an elderly Asian woman. Agent Carter dealt with sexism heavily.
Yes, I did as an example for a leftist show operating in a conservative corporation - which is correct. I also bought up other things like the X-men at Fox, who are in a similar position. What you are saying is right, however, it completely dismisses the good messages the show has been making while being on the air like they aren't worth anything. I agree, which is why I want shows like Supergirl on the air and yet you don't? That's what's confusing about this discussion, here's an example of a show doing exactly what you want but since it has a shitty show runner (who is a leftist as far as I know, not every scumbag is a right winger and they're not doing it in a fashion you like) and you want to kill it? That's doing the opposite of turning the Overton Window left.
Somehow you managed to both put words in my mouth and restate most of what I said using 5x as many words.
I never said anything about that being every relationship on Supergirl, I said it was inappropriate (for any show, and especially given current events), and incongruent with the milquetoast liberal white view of social justice they keep ramming down the audience's throat. Not everything needs a line, and symbols that have existed for decades don't suddenly mean the same thing as a failed political slogan from last year. It's a clumsy, lowest common denominator attempt at including these things, and I'm mostly happy it's there because it's noti]for[/i] me, but I sure wish they wouldn't present such harmful ideas alongside it.
You also keep trying to center the discussion on WB and Fox brands, which isn't what I was talking about. I'm talking about Marvel, especially their comics division. And while they've managed to do their thing under more conservative editorial in the past, attitudes toward media feel like they were a lot different back then. There wasn't as much siloing of conservative vs. liberal ideas, or concerted attempts to destroy liberal and progressive media so conservative ideas could reign supreme.
I'm worried about what will happen, if in the current political environment in 2017 the Murdochs gain major control of Disney and Marvel, and why they want it in the first place. This doesn't seem like they don't want Fox entertainment to me, it seems like they want Disney.
Giggles_Funsworth on
0
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
Also I don't really want to get too into it because it's an aside and doesn't have to do with the main thrust of my argument and a main problem here is scope creep; but X-23 being a white Latina is another example of least they could do diversity, not breaking down barriers.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Also I don't really want to get too into it because it's an aside and doesn't have to do with the main thrust of my argument and a main problem here is scope creep; but X-23 being a white Latina is another example of least they could do diversity, not breaking down barriers.
Is this a criticism of a latina being white?
Because that's a thing.
0
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
Also I don't really want to get too into it because it's an aside and doesn't have to do with the main thrust of my argument and a main problem here is scope creep; but X-23 being a white Latina is another example of least they could do diversity, not breaking down barriers.
Is this a criticism of a latina being white?
Because that's a thing.
It's only a thing for people who don't understand that all of the Americas, not just the United States, have had to deal with issues around national identity, ethnicity, cultural and ancestral heritage, their impacts on society, and the confounding and conflation therein.
Argentina struggles with a blatantly racist, whitewashed Nazi past. The divide between the Dominican Republic and Haiti is one giant object lesson in political and historical dynamics fueled with a dash of racism. The entire Spanish-speaking world still readily identifies by placement along a literal skin-darkness spectrum (e.g., mestizo).
All of these things can be generalized as a "New World" vs. "Old World" problem. On other continents these dynamics are muted or more easily separated due to the strong correlation between ethnicity and national identity.
All this to say that you can be Latina and also 100% white. Which is different from being Latina and black, or dark-skinned due to Native American ancestory. Which begs the question of whether or not the criticism is levelled at the person's race or their cultural identity. Or if people who don't understand the difference are using it as a shorthand, ignorant rebuttal to the argument that such casting helps to perpetuate racial bias in the audience.
+2
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
If Steve goes down I hope they have a movie where Bucky and Falcon compete for the mantle. They have good chemistry together and a friendly-rivalry + bromance movie would be fun to see.
+3
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
Also I don't really want to get too into it because it's an aside and doesn't have to do with the main thrust of my argument and a main problem here is scope creep; but X-23 being a white Latina is another example of least they could do diversity, not breaking down barriers.
Is this a criticism of a latina being white?
Because that's a thing.
It's only a thing for people who don't understand that all of the Americas, not just the United States, have had to deal with issues around national identity, ethnicity, cultural and ancestral heritage, their impacts on society, and the confounding and conflation therein.
Argentina struggles with a blatantly racist, whitewashed Nazi past. The divide between the Dominican Republic and Haiti is one giant object lesson in political and historical dynamics fueled with a dash of racism. The entire Spanish-speaking world still readily identifies by placement along a literal skin-darkness spectrum (e.g., mestizo).
All of these things can be generalized as a "New World" vs. "Old World" problem. On other continents these dynamics are muted or more easily separated due to the strong correlation between ethnicity and national identity.
All this to say that you can be Latina and also 100% white. Which is different from being Latina and black, or dark-skinned due to Native American ancestory. Which begs the question of whether or not the criticism is levelled at the person's race or their cultural identity. Or if people who don't understand the difference are using it as a shorthand, ignorant rebuttal to the argument that such casting helps to perpetuate racial bias in the audience.
Beaten to responding but this is 100% what I was getting at.
If Steve goes down I hope they have a movie where Bucky and Falcon compete for the mantle. They have good chemistry together and a friendly-rivalry + bromance movie would be fun to see.
I dunno, that seems like it would be pretty tasteless in-universe.
+3
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
If Steve goes down I hope they have a movie where Bucky and Falcon compete for the mantle. They have good chemistry together and a friendly-rivalry + bromance movie would be fun to see.
I dunno, that seems like it would be pretty tasteless in-universe.
He doesn't have to be dead to give up the name Captain America.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Oh hey Guardians of the Galaxy 2 is on Netflix now. I'm about a half hour in.
Posts
I was gonna do this starting after Infinity War, and watching all of the movies, so that when Avengers 4 drops, I've seen all of them, in order, once every other week or so.
This doesn't count seeing the intervening new movies in theaters, but does count seeing them again on video between IW and A4.
Not necessarily, the X-men movies and animation have been able to do that without being censored and the comic division is beneath Ike's and Disney's notice despite. I've actually noticed a bit of this with WB, certain divisions there were more conservative (like Snyder's control over the DCEU - which became more progressive after his control faded) while the Arrow 'verse is progressive AF. Supergirl, in particular.
Supergirl just jokingly had an executive sexually assault an employee and their attempts at inserting progressive ideals into their show strike me as crass virtue signalling more often than not. Everything X-Men save the 90s cartoon based on Claremont's work have been bland af and I would not term "progressive". The Gifted is maybe harnessing a little of that fire but it's to early to tell.
None of them have anything on the level of Ms. Marvel, Moon Girl, or Unbeatable Squirrel Girl though.
the first iron man is a weird film, too; it spends almost half it's runtime on setup, and then the climax (the golmira fight/dogfight, at least imo) happens shortly after that. The whole confrontation with Stane basically is denoument and feels like a forgone conclusion (even though it's fun)
I didn't know the film didn't have a script, but that completely makes sense
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
No opinion on your assessment of Supergirl (I don't watch it) but my god do I wish we could get rid of the term "virtue signalling". Seems like it's most often used by right-wingers to indicate that progressives don't really believe in <insert thing>, they just say so to impress people.
I really hate it generally and reserve it for insufferable pandering (to me!) that makes me want to vomit.
It does get overly sappy sometimes, but overall it's ok with what it does.
I should have been clearer, it's not about being "progressive" it's about having leftist political stances, and I'd have thought progressives would be ok with shows and movies delving into feminism, racism etc. The DCEU has been inching toward this direction post-Wonder Woman. Another instance of a leftist political ideal being represented by a conservative corporation.
What does the sexual assault charges have to do with anything? It makes him a terrible human being, I draw the line at crucifying what they were doing with left issues on those shows. And what was with this "just joking" retort, as if the Supergirl's series and characters endorses being a sexual predator? Yes, they had fucked up things sometimes, that isn't a sign that every relationship in the Arrow 'verse is a sexual predator's wish fulfillment as well as severely undermine Supergirl's feminist message. How the show does send its messages, which yeah they go overboard, is a matter of opinion, that and the above are not proof that the Arrow 'verse is
My point wasn't that the shows weren't progressive (btw, the left has more factions than progressives), it's that they had left political influences - your argument was that they didn't. Singer's X-men movies heavily tied into mutants being an allegory for minorities like LGBT, and Jews, not exactly right wing propaganda.
This is not about whether you feel the material is great or not, it's that they had the freedom to include these themes at all. Which I've shown numerous examples with two big conservatives corporations his isn't the case. They didn't turn Supergirl or the X-men into 24 or the O'Reilly Factor.
Can you clarify your last sentence, are you saying you'd like them to be like those comics?
edit: If you want to call them awful because you don't like how the shows are doing what they're doing, it's fine. However, that's not the same thing as saying those shows under Fox or WB have no room for leftist themes.
It probably helps tremendously that Robert Downey Jr. is Tony Stark.
I mean, talk about "born to play _____".
(Favreau is pretty damn good at his thing too.)
And yet I bet damn near everyone in this thread got chills when the brass of the Avengers theme hit in that new trailer.
It was more of a "where do I know that from?", actually.
There's the Human Torch from Fox's Fantastic Four, there's Captain Kirk's father (how'd he survive?), Sherlock Holmes from Sherlock, Amy Pond from Doctor Who, The Major from Ghost in the Shell, Burt Macklin, Jackie Robinson, the other Sherlock Holmes from the movies by Guy Ritchie etc.
Apparently I was reading the rumors wrong. The speculation was that he'd be the next CEO, in 2019 or so, when Iger retires. Obviously, we won't know for sure until then
Dude this is what happened in the show. Third party suggests to boss that they could surprise their employee with a kiss under the mistletoe. Boss points out their employer employee relationship and how wildly inappropriate that would be. Third party scoffs about how everybody's doin' it! Boss grabs employee by a piece of clothing around their neck and forces a kiss on them shortly thereafter. Even if this was in the can before news about Weinstein broke and the metoo campaign started, which is fairly unlikely unless I misunderstand typical TV production schedules; it is super fucking inappropriate to showcase that kind of attitude in the same episode in which they try to say that the Kryptonian S sigil translates to "Stronger Together" (*barf*).
Bro, the bolded is super patronizing.
That fact is exactly why I like the comics. They've had their problems, but Marvel (especially when compared to DC, who do try sometimes, but usually in a clumsier less radical fashion) has had a long history of pushing counter culture progressive ideas that were too cutting edge for a lot of other media at the time. Comics can cater to smaller fringier demographics which makes them a much more fertile beachhead than something like TV or movies, which need to have at least as much mass appeal as something like the Democratic Party. Sure they might be able to present some milquetoast liberal ideas with editorial direction from the Murdochs, but would they be heavily promoting a Pakistani Muslim American character? Would they have stories where an Imam shelters people from a hostile authoritarian government? Would they have nearly as diverse a roster of heroes? Would they be as open to talking about queer issues? How about playing fast and loose with the idea of terrorists being freedom fighters?
I didn't bring up Supergirl as an example of what I wanted, you did. I'm saying it's a terrible example of what I want and giving an example from this week of why. Narrowing the amount of radical left views in our entertainment only helps push the Overton Window further right.
I feel like there will still be a big permanent one, though. Most likely Cap or Iron Man. Iron Man feels like the smart bet, but Cap could be interesting. Bucky could take up the shield. Falcon too, I guess but that wouldn't be as neat.
It's one of those things that I recognize immediately, but if you caught me on a random Tuesday morning and asked me to hum it or something, maybe 50/50 I'd actually be able to.
"How about a gun? Can I get a gun instead? I never said a shield was my thing... Can I at least get a sword too or something? Bucky, lemme use one of your guns. Come on maaaan, you've got like... 5 guns!"
I'd lean towards having Cap lose some limbs (dude deserves some sort of semi-happy retirement) and Stark deaded but he created an AI backup, so future writers can bust out holo-Tony if they need five minutes of Starksnark.
Bucky and Rhodes can take over those physical roles, but Falcon is the closest to Cap in his willingness to put himself on the line for others. In Winter Soldier Rogers and Natasha just show up on his doorstep, say they're marked for death, and he immediately invites them in for coffee and volunteers to join up.
You're missing my point, I'm not suggesting that wasn't inappropriate on the show or that they didn't have screwed up things occasionally get past the writers (Flash does, as well). How you're framing it is that all relationships on the show are like that, and that the show shouldn't be having a pro-feminist message at all.
This isn't about what we'd like reality to be like, we don't have that luxury it's about how and why that got on screen in the first place and why it wasn't changed at the last minute. Which means acknowledging the cold realities of the corporate environment who make the show, who are not going to grind the show to a halt and re-do entire scenes on their backlog on a weekly tv show. They don't have the time or money for that, the industry isn't built for that turnaround even if they wanted to do it. They'd have even less room were this on a streaming format like Netflix when they transit entire seasons in one burst.
Bro, the bolded is super patronizing.
That fact is exactly why I like the comics. They've had their problems, but Marvel (especially when compared to DC, who do try sometimes, but usually in a clumsier less radical fashion) has had a long history of pushing counter culture progressive ideas that were too cutting edge for a lot of other media at the time. Comics can cater to smaller fringier demographics which makes them a much more fertile beachhead than something like TV or movies, which need to have at least as much mass appeal as something like the Democratic Party. Sure they might be able to present some milquetoast liberal ideas with editorial direction from the Murdochs, but would they be heavily promoting a Pakistani Muslim American character? Would they have stories where an Imam shelters people from a hostile authoritarian government? Would they have nearly as diverse a roster of heroes? Would they be as open to talking about queer issues? How about playing fast and loose with the idea of terrorists being freedom fighters?
I didn't bring up Supergirl as an example of what I wanted, you did. I'm saying it's a terrible example of what I want and giving an example from this week of why. Narrowing the amount of radical left views in our entertainment only helps push the Overton Window further right. [/quote]
It is the truth, which seemed to be implying that anything not progressive didn't out on the left as a political group or relevant to the concerns regarding issues related to things like feminism etc. I may be reading your intentions wrong, but that's how it felt to me.
Comics are able to do that due to their media, and do that under conservative leadership - Ike, for example lets them be (as well as Netflix) despite being a hyper partisan right winger. DC does this occasionally, like the Batgirl and Birds of Prey series. Cartoons tend to be more conservative in general, that's why the X-men were a big deal in the 90's they were doing what few were at the time and in the context of the time period that was a big deal, under no conditions were Marvel ever going to make a cartoon like Squirrel Girl or Moon Girl, they can barely make that now despite the progress made.
Comics have a conflicted history with non-white and non-male demographics, it has been until recently that the media started taking a serious interest in expanding readership to women and girls, and they are a massive boys club. X-men's history with minorities analogs has been polarizing, especially among minority fans (some of which find it patronizing and insulting) and how many of the cast of characters tend to white. In many ways the comic industry is behind the curve compared to industries like tv, who sometimes have to add in or change characters so they're not so white bread. Comics have a bad history in long term change and big, iconic characters can be difficult to alter too much without the fandom going crazy. Like, say, having Batman be a black man. Or having a minority or female Robin. Indie comics are another matter entirely.
Appealing to be more people isn't necessarily a sin, even comics do that to a degree or they know they're going to get canceled. Everyone has bills to pay, corporate comics are no different. Plus, it gets the positive messages out there, they're going to get more eye balls seeing storylines in a tv show or movie than a comic book. Organizations like the Democrat party are in a position where they can't afford to solely cater to fringe elements, they do that they become fringe themselves and their mainstream rivals will be uncontested on multiple fronts which helps nobody.
As I said upthread Fox itself has done numerous scenes and themes with the X-men based on racial and LGBT prejudice in their X-men films and cartoons. In The Wolverine, the movie was moved to Japan where they had a majority Japanese cast, with the two biggest leads are Japanese women.The co-lead for Logan was a Latina child actress. Who the director, James Mangold, wants to make spin-off films around.
They're already doing what you want, I don't know why you can't see it. If what you were was true none of this, or shows like Supergirl, would exist.
Do you count Jessica Jones and Luke Cage's shows as milquetoast? AoS started the show with an Asian female lead, and a brilliant secondary Asian female (Melinda May) on day one and half the cast was female on top of that. Their first named villain who was worth anything was Raina, whose actress is half Ethiopian, and the big bad for season 2 was an Asian woman. One of the right spots in Iron Fist who stole the show was Colleen Wing, an Asian woman (someone who's typically drawn as a white lady in the comics despite her Asian heritage), and a re-occuring villain in the Netflix shows is an elderly Asian woman. Agent Carter dealt with sexism heavily.
Yes, I did as an example for a leftist show operating in a conservative corporation - which is correct. I also bought up other things like the X-men at Fox, who are in a similar position. What you are saying is right, however, it completely dismisses the good messages the show has been making while being on the air like they aren't worth anything. I agree, which is why I want shows like Supergirl on the air and yet you don't? That's what's confusing about this discussion, here's an example of a show doing exactly what you want but since it has a shitty show runner (who is a leftist as far as I know, not every scumbag is a right winger and they're not doing it in a fashion you like) and you want to kill it? That's doing the opposite of turning the Overton Window left.
Wasn't there some iteration of Captain America that had full armor and a sword? I fucking know I saw this somewhere. Off to the wiki I go for the next six hours.
Edit: Apparently several versions, but I can't find the one I actually remember, which was some kind of post-apocalypse where the US had fallen into some kind of Arthurian feudal system. I do see that one appeared in a couple of the various mobile games, but can't find his comic of origin. Closest one I can find is Yeoman America.
It's only fresh in my mind because of Lego Marvel 2, but yes. There's apparently an entire medieval Marvel universe...
I just tried and ended up doing a Star Wars theme in my head.
It's a great melody line, but it's slower and more dramatic than say the LOTR theme or GOT.
Not sure on medieval, but I was/am a big fan of the:
1602 Universe
Course I'm also an alternate-history and Neil Gaiman whore, so YMMV.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
This is probably a more accurate way to say what I said.
Netflix does good adaptions that can be better than their sources is what I’m saying. Sometimes.
Somehow you managed to both put words in my mouth and restate most of what I said using 5x as many words.
I never said anything about that being every relationship on Supergirl, I said it was inappropriate (for any show, and especially given current events), and incongruent with the milquetoast liberal white view of social justice they keep ramming down the audience's throat. Not everything needs a line, and symbols that have existed for decades don't suddenly mean the same thing as a failed political slogan from last year. It's a clumsy, lowest common denominator attempt at including these things, and I'm mostly happy it's there because it's noti]for[/i] me, but I sure wish they wouldn't present such harmful ideas alongside it.
You also keep trying to center the discussion on WB and Fox brands, which isn't what I was talking about. I'm talking about Marvel, especially their comics division. And while they've managed to do their thing under more conservative editorial in the past, attitudes toward media feel like they were a lot different back then. There wasn't as much siloing of conservative vs. liberal ideas, or concerted attempts to destroy liberal and progressive media so conservative ideas could reign supreme.
I'm worried about what will happen, if in the current political environment in 2017 the Murdochs gain major control of Disney and Marvel, and why they want it in the first place. This doesn't seem like they don't want Fox entertainment to me, it seems like they want Disney.
Is this a criticism of a latina being white?
Because that's a thing.
It's only a thing for people who don't understand that all of the Americas, not just the United States, have had to deal with issues around national identity, ethnicity, cultural and ancestral heritage, their impacts on society, and the confounding and conflation therein.
Argentina struggles with a blatantly racist, whitewashed Nazi past. The divide between the Dominican Republic and Haiti is one giant object lesson in political and historical dynamics fueled with a dash of racism. The entire Spanish-speaking world still readily identifies by placement along a literal skin-darkness spectrum (e.g., mestizo).
All of these things can be generalized as a "New World" vs. "Old World" problem. On other continents these dynamics are muted or more easily separated due to the strong correlation between ethnicity and national identity.
All this to say that you can be Latina and also 100% white. Which is different from being Latina and black, or dark-skinned due to Native American ancestory. Which begs the question of whether or not the criticism is levelled at the person's race or their cultural identity. Or if people who don't understand the difference are using it as a shorthand, ignorant rebuttal to the argument that such casting helps to perpetuate racial bias in the audience.
Beaten to responding but this is 100% what I was getting at.
I dunno, that seems like it would be pretty tasteless in-universe.
He doesn't have to be dead to give up the name Captain America.
Yes.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I dunno, have you seen Thor 3 yet?