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.
You mean like the fact she's half Spanish by birth and she's being called white, like American anglo, like her ancestry isn't stereotypically latina enough?
Because her full name is Daphne Keen Fernández?
Further compounded by the fact that if she is indeed Mexican in the film, she's not even a latina in any definition but the most wide-reaching slang, but hispanic.
Gods damn.
jungleroomx on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I'll just chalk this up as another "Pom Klementieff's Accent" whoopsiedoodle.
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.
As I said, if I'm misreading you please correct me when I do so. Clarification is important for clear communication and with your response I don't have any idea which parts you're agreeing with me on. Dismissing Jessica Jones and Luke Cage isn't exactly helping me think we see eye to eye on things, as well.
You're framing Supergirl's tv show entirely by that relationship/scene under the worst possible light, something which I've already explained that I agree you about and now I'm curious, how do you define the symbols relating to feminism as being out of date (you haven't explained why this is bad or what they mean being different from the past). Nor do I have any clue what you want the show do about its feminism slant, just that's bad because the show...likes Hillary? With their theme acknowledging a feminist event which was huge news from a year ago makes it relevant and, those messages are only more relevant given that politics about feminism and sexual harassment/assault was a rally cry from that campaign. You're telling me what you don't want the show to do, not what you want it to do - which is confusing. Honestly, I don't know if you like anything about the show at all, which is disappointing since I'm not feeling like I'm getting your full opinion on the subject.
I agree they shouldn't be putting those ideas undermining feminism themes, but my point wasn't that I disagreed with you on that it was about why they remained on air as it was. You can't just ignore the corporate context or how the industry functions, that comes part and parcel with every media and will impact what shape the product into the customers hands. That's not an excuse, it's acknowledging the full reality of what happened.
With comics the media is all over the place regarding political ideas, yeah in many cases it was less apparent but it was still boiling under the surface. Chuck Dixon, while keeping his politics close to his chest, still wrote stories which pushed his own ideology. Occasionally there were runs which went into issues of the day, sometimes badly (like when Cap got hooked on ice and clucked like a chicken) and sometimes they were a defining run like Green Arrow/Green Lantern: Hard Traveling Heroes, and while there may not have been as big a clash of ideologies on the left and right in that industry this has been going on for a long time in American culture for decades. Time isn't static, the media which is why social media is both a good and bad thing, It's given voices to those who didn't have the political capital to signal boost and create change which has allowed us to have victories we didn't get before. It's made comics finally more open to demographics which typically weren't catered to, its shone the spotlight on how ugly fandom is which not everyone saw and paved the way for minority groups to have greater representation than ever before.
WB and Fox are at the center of what you're talking about, they're conservative corporations - one of which you're worried is going to impact Marvel/Disney when they get bought out. I didn't bring those up at random. It's proof that what you're fearing isn't set in stone.
Yet you're ignoring the examples I gave you about Fox (and other companies under a similar conditions) where that wasn't the case. If X-men can get a pass with what they're doing the MCU should be ok. Like I said, none of the shows would exist in the shape they are or were if what you were saying was true if they get control of Disney. Rupert's children are supposed to be less conservative than him, too.
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.
You mean like the fact she's half Spanish by birth and she's being called white, like American anglo, like her ancestry isn't stereotypically latina enough?
Because her full name is Daphne Keen Fernández?
Further compounded by the fact that if she is indeed Mexican in the film, she's not even a latina in any definition but the most wide-reaching slang, but hispanic.
Gods damn.
Dogg I had forgotten about her ancestry I was just referring to the fact that casting for a Mexican child found a white af actress. And white is a helluva lot broader than Anglo. Here I was referring to white Latinos and there is absolutely a divide, down there and up here, between European and more Native populations. My roommate is 100% Mexican but he's nearly as white as me and he's about to go by an anglicized version of his name sometimes. Passing has always been a big deal.
0
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
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.
As I said, if I'm misreading you please correct me when I do so. Clarification is important for clear communication and with your response I don't have any idea which parts you're agreeing with me on. Dismissing Jessica Jones and Luke Cage isn't exactly helping me think we see eye to eye on things, as well.
You're framing Supergirl's tv show entirely by that relationship/scene under the worst possible light, something which I've already explained that I agree you about and now I'm curious, how do you define the symbols relating to feminism as being out of date (you haven't explained why this is bad or what they mean being different from the past). Nor do I have any clue what you want the show do about its feminism slant, just that's bad because the show...likes Hillary? With their theme acknowledging a feminist event which was huge news from a year ago makes it relevant and, those messages are only more relevant given that politics about feminism and sexual harassment/assault was a rally cry from that campaign. You're telling me what you don't want the show to do, not what you want it to do - which is confusing. Honestly, I don't know if you like anything about the show at all, which is disappointing since I'm not feeling like I'm getting your full opinion on the subject.
I agree they shouldn't be putting those ideas undermining feminism themes, but my point wasn't that I disagreed with you on that it was about why they remained on air as it was. You can't just ignore the corporate context or how the industry functions, that comes part and parcel with every media and will impact what shape the product into the customers hands. That's not an excuse, it's acknowledging the full reality of what happened.
With comics the media is all over the place regarding political ideas, yeah in many cases it was less apparent but it was still boiling under the surface. Chuck Dixon, while keeping his politics close to his chest, still wrote stories which pushed his own ideology. Occasionally there were runs which went into issues of the day, sometimes badly (like when Cap got hooked on ice and clucked like a chicken) and sometimes they were a defining run like Green Arrow/Green Lantern: Hard Traveling Heroes, and while there may not have been as big a clash of ideologies on the left and right in that industry this has been going on for a long time in American culture for decades. Time isn't static, the media which is why social media is both a good and bad thing, It's given voices to those who didn't have the political capital to signal boost and create change which has allowed us to have victories we didn't get before. It's made comics finally more open to demographics which typically weren't catered to, its shone the spotlight on how ugly fandom is which not everyone saw and paved the way for minority groups to have greater representation than ever before.
WB and Fox are at the center of what you're talking about, they're conservative corporations - one of which you're worried is going to impact Marvel/Disney when they get bought out. I didn't bring those up at random. It's proof that what you're fearing isn't set in stone.
Yet you're ignoring the examples I gave you about Fox (and other companies under a similar conditions) where that wasn't the case. If X-men can get a pass with what they're doing the MCU should be ok. Like I said, none of the shows would exist in the shape they are or were if what you were saying was true if they get control of Disney. Rupert's children are supposed to be less conservative than him, too.
Dude I have no idea why you keep saying that I'm framing the entire show around one beat. All I'm saying is that it's an egregious example of them not understanding the things they are constantly peppering the show with for social justice cred. When you are glorifying borderline violent sexual assault and throwing Clinton campaign slogans in the same episode it feels like clumsy and inauthentic pandering to the youth demo. I'd love to have more examples but in general CW shows are so vapid that I don't tend to retain a lot. Supergirl is definitely the one that makes me groan the most over flawed attempts at inserting progressive ideas though. I'm happy because at least they're trying and maybe the message reaches somebody who could use it more than me, but the way they do it makes me question their authenticity.
Jessica Jones and Luke Cage were both great, idk why you decided I don't like them. They're also not part of Fox or WB which is where you had tangented the conversation to when I was responding.
I am worried about further consolidation of media under extreme conservatives considering there is a new push for censorship and monolithic control of media that wasn't there previously. You think it's fine. Whatevs.
Just remember @Giggles_Funsworth the reason you're groaning is because we're the hyper politically active subset of their viewers. My "buries her head away from all political news" loves the CW progressive messaging because it's new and refreshing for her. She's their target demo, not you or I.
Just remember @Giggles_Funsworth the reason you're groaning is because we're the hyper politically active subset of their viewers. My "buries her head away from all political news" loves the CW progressive messaging because it's new and refreshing for her. She's their target demo, not you or I.
I've said this several times at this point.
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.
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.
You mean like the fact she's half Spanish by birth and she's being called white, like American anglo, like her ancestry isn't stereotypically latina enough?
Because her full name is Daphne Keen Fernández?
Further compounded by the fact that if she is indeed Mexican in the film, she's not even a latina in any definition but the most wide-reaching slang, but hispanic.
Gods damn.
Dogg I had forgotten about her ancestry I was just referring to the fact that casting for a Mexican child found a white af actress. And white is a helluva lot broader than Anglo. Here I was referring to white Latinos and there is absolutely a divide, down there and up here, between European and more Native populations. My roommate is 100% Mexican but he's nearly as white as me and he's about to go by an anglicized version of his name sometimes. Passing has always been a big deal.
First, she's not a Mexican child, she's a clone of a white dude who may be half-hispanic, kind of like the actress herself.
Second, she's not a Latina because she's not from Latin America. This is kind of a big deal and not just semantics.
Third, isn't saying someone isn't "Hispanic enough" because of their skin tone kind of gross? It's like saying someone from the Marshall Islands isn't "asian" enough because they don't look Japanese.
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.
You mean like the fact she's half Spanish by birth and she's being called white, like American anglo, like her ancestry isn't stereotypically latina enough?
Because her full name is Daphne Keen Fernández?
Further compounded by the fact that if she is indeed Mexican in the film, she's not even a latina in any definition but the most wide-reaching slang, but hispanic.
Gods damn.
Dogg I had forgotten about her ancestry I was just referring to the fact that casting for a Mexican child found a white af actress. And white is a helluva lot broader than Anglo. Here I was referring to white Latinos and there is absolutely a divide, down there and up here, between European and more Native populations. My roommate is 100% Mexican but he's nearly as white as me and he's about to go by an anglicized version of his name sometimes. Passing has always been a big deal.
she's a clone of a white dude who may be half-hispanic, kind of like the actress herself.
I'm sorry, I know this is a heated discussion and all, but I'm giggling over here in mock panic about how they are cloning our actresses from white dudes???!!!!!!!
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.
You mean like the fact she's half Spanish by birth and she's being called white, like American anglo, like her ancestry isn't stereotypically latina enough?
Because her full name is Daphne Keen Fernández?
Further compounded by the fact that if she is indeed Mexican in the film, she's not even a latina in any definition but the most wide-reaching slang, but hispanic.
Gods damn.
Dogg I had forgotten about her ancestry I was just referring to the fact that casting for a Mexican child found a white af actress. And white is a helluva lot broader than Anglo. Here I was referring to white Latinos and there is absolutely a divide, down there and up here, between European and more Native populations. My roommate is 100% Mexican but he's nearly as white as me and he's about to go by an anglicized version of his name sometimes. Passing has always been a big deal.
she's a clone of a white dude who may be half-hispanic, kind of like the actress herself.
I'm sorry, I know this is a heated discussion and all, but I'm giggling over here in mock panic about how they are cloning our actresses from white dudes???!!!!!!!
Sorry, you can resume your argument
There might be a Nolan film in there somewhere.
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Isn't she the Hispanic female clone of a Canadian male? It makes perfect sense.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
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.
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.
You mean like the fact she's half Spanish by birth and she's being called white, like American anglo, like her ancestry isn't stereotypically latina enough?
Because her full name is Daphne Keen Fernández?
Further compounded by the fact that if she is indeed Mexican in the film, she's not even a latina in any definition but the most wide-reaching slang, but hispanic.
Gods damn.
Dogg I had forgotten about her ancestry I was just referring to the fact that casting for a Mexican child found a white af actress. And white is a helluva lot broader than Anglo. Here I was referring to white Latinos and there is absolutely a divide, down there and up here, between European and more Native populations. My roommate is 100% Mexican but he's nearly as white as me and he's about to go by an anglicized version of his name sometimes. Passing has always been a big deal.
First, she's not a Mexican child, she's a clone of a white dude who may be half-hispanic, kind of like the actress herself.
Second, she's not a Latina because she's not from Latin America. This is kind of a big deal and not just semantics.
Third, isn't saying someone isn't "Hispanic enough" because of their skin tone kind of gross? It's like saying someone from the Marshall Islands isn't "asian" enough because they don't look Japanese.
1. Y'know, you're right I totally forgot that she was a straight up clone and thought she was supposed to have a Mexican mother.
2. Mexico is generally considered part of Latin America for the purposes of the word Latino, this is pedantic af. Maybe it's a regional thing, I dunno.
3. It's not that she's not enough, it's that Hollywood (and the film industries in Central and South America, and Bollywood, and probably some other regions film industries I'm less familiar with) have a history of casting mostly lighter skinned minorities. Same suspect with their politicians and businessman. It's fucked up, it's racism, and outcomes are very different on average based on how Native you are. But this is a moot point considering she's a full on clone of Logan, sorry, I misremembered how they did it.
So that Marvel Rising cartoon, is that an attempt to salvage the canned Secret Warriors show?
+1
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Ghost-Spider is such a dumb name. That's the best you could do? Just use Arachne since Julia Carpenter is dead or Madame or Spider or whatever, hell co-opt a Slinger's name instead.
Quake (Chloe Bennett), Miss Marvel/ Kamala Khan (Kathreen Kmhavari), Ghost-Spider (Dove Cameron), Squirrel Girl (Milana Vayntrub), Captain Marvel (Kim Raver), Patriot (Kamil McFadden), Inferno (Tyler Posey), and America Chavez (Cierra Ramirez) all in one cartoon!
That's a really interesting mix of MCU characters played by their MCU actors, MCU characters played by non-MCU actors, and non-MCU characters played by MCU actors (Ming-Na Wen). Probably the best side effect of this will be Vayntrub getting comfortable with the Squirrel Girl role well before New Warriors comes out.
Ghost-Spider is such a dumb name. That's the best you could do? Just use Arachne since Julia Carpenter is dead or Madame or Spider or whatever, hell co-opt a Slinger's name instead.
But it combines the fear of spiders with the fear of ghosts, how could it not be intimidating?
0
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
It's the common name for spiders in the Anyphaenidae family on account of being pale white to semi-translucent
It's not a scientific term for any specific species of spider, it's a common parlance for a type of spider based on appearance.
It's also a common name for a host of other spider species that are white or semi-translucent for the same reason
In the same way that "Daddy Longlegs" actually refers to three completely different kinds of creature, two of which aren't even spiders (Crane flies, which are flies, and harvestmen, which are a non-spider arachnid)
Quake (Chloe Bennett), Miss Marvel/ Kamala Khan (Kathreen Kmhavari), Ghost-Spider (Dove Cameron), Squirrel Girl (Milana Vayntrub), Captain Marvel (Kim Raver), Patriot (Kamil McFadden), Inferno (Tyler Posey), and America Chavez (Cierra Ramirez) all in one cartoon!
That's a really interesting mix of MCU characters played by their MCU actors, MCU characters played by non-MCU actors, and non-MCU characters played by MCU actors (Ming-Na Wen). Probably the best side effect of this will be Vayntrub getting comfortable with the Squirrel Girl role well before New Warriors comes out.
I like how they're using the actresses playing the roles in tv shows (aside from Ming-Na - who'll be great as a villain!), and reusing VA's for characters, like Dove Cameron with Spider-Gwen. That's smart casting, and excellent corporate synergy.
My fear is that the animation will be terrible, given the latest Spider-man tv show and the Disney cartoon adaptions haven't been so hot in that department. Step up your game, Disney - DC has Young Justice season 3 coming soon.
I think they meant "nope" as in "kill it with fire" :razz:
This.
Don't give spiders such a bad rap, they eat the other tiny things that try to eat us. Also why I like birds. Because fuck mosquitoes, for instance.
And both have some really awesome nests / traps they put together, like that one spider that can make a diving bell, IIRC.
It is weird that so many people (myself among them) are freaked out by spiders, considering how much they do for us in the way of removing pest bugs while being fairly harmless to humans (for the most part).
I mean, you never hear about spiders blighting a field of grain or spreading a deadly plague.
But something about the way they move or look just... nope.
+4
Options
Brainiac 8Don't call me Shirley...Registered Userregular
So I finally started watching Inhumans and I'm about halfway through. I've been putting it off because all of you scared me.
So far though...it's actually not that bad. I'm enjoying it. Definitely not the best show by Marvel (that honor goes to Agents of Shield) and I'd even put it in the lower tiered shows they've done, but still not nearly as bad as everyone said. In fact, as a huge fan of the Inhumans, there are some things they did I appreciate, such as Black Bolt using sign language. Thought that was neat.
There are several choices the show made that was obviously due to the budget, such as Medusa losing her hair in the first episode (which actually did happen in the comics), Lockjaw pretty much being MIA constantly, and the show missing some of the neater Inhuman characters that would require a much higher budget to pull off (such as Jolen and San). I am a bit sad that I won't get that Inhuman movie I was promised, but the show so far is still enjoyable.
One thing the show does get right though, is the relationship between the royal family. Medusa and Black Bolts relationship was nailed pretty well, as is Gorgan and Karnak's relationship. The weak link in the casting to me was Crystal, as her actress had some pretty bad spots throughout.
I did notice that the writer's didn't know how to convey Karnak's powers correctly, but I'll give them a pass there as they kind of turned his powers into an almost hyper perception/precognition and it worked for what they were trying to do.
I think they meant "nope" as in "kill it with fire" :razz:
This.
Don't give spiders such a bad rap, they eat the other tiny things that try to eat us. Also why I like birds. Because fuck mosquitoes, for instance.
And both have some really awesome nests / traps they put together, like that one spider that can make a diving bell, IIRC.
It is weird that so many people (myself among them) are freaked out by spiders, considering how much they do for us in the way of removing pest bugs while being fairly harmless to humans (for the most part).
I mean, you never hear about spiders blighting a field of grain or spreading a deadly plague.
But something about the way they move or look just... nope.
2/3rds of the spiders in Australia can kill you with poisons, and some like hiding under toilets. Then there's the large spiders who eat birds.
I think they meant "nope" as in "kill it with fire" :razz:
This.
Don't give spiders such a bad rap, they eat the other tiny things that try to eat us. Also why I like birds. Because fuck mosquitoes, for instance.
And both have some really awesome nests / traps they put together, like that one spider that can make a diving bell, IIRC.
It is weird that so many people (myself among them) are freaked out by spiders, considering how much they do for us in the way of removing pest bugs while being fairly harmless to humans (for the most part).
I mean, you never hear about spiders blighting a field of grain or spreading a deadly plague.
But something about the way they move or look just... nope.
2/3rds of the spiders in Australia can kill you with poisons, and some like hiding under toilets. Then there's the large spiders who eat birds.
Ghost-Spider is such a dumb name. That's the best you could do? Just use Arachne since Julia Carpenter is dead or Madame or Spider or whatever, hell co-opt a Slinger's name instead.
Characters are licenses now. Can't call Spider-Gwen "Arachne" without muddling the rights to both characters. Ghost Spider is a secondary name they can use for the character without conflating her with another license.
Ghost-Spider is such a dumb name. That's the best you could do? Just use Arachne since Julia Carpenter is dead or Madame or Spider or whatever, hell co-opt a Slinger's name instead.
Characters are licenses now. Can't call Spider-Gwen "Arachne" without muddling the rights to both characters. Ghost Spider is a secondary name they can use for the character without conflating her with another license.
As far as I know Marvel owns all those licenses, that's why it's odd. What's she called in other adaptions?
0
Options
HeatwaveCome, now, and walk the path of explosions with me!Registered Userregular
Why not just call Spider-Gwen Spider-woman? There can be more than just one Spider-woman.
Are they going to call Miles Morales Redback Spider in his upcoming movie?
Besides, the first Spider-woman (Jessica Drew) sucks. She flies, shoots energy blasts and has shitty pheromone powers. Plus her first costume was terribad.
Why not just call Spider-Gwen Spider-woman? There can be more than just one Spider-woman.
Are they going to call Miles Morales Redback Spider in his upcoming movie?
Besides, the first Spider-woman (Jessica Drew) sucks. She flies, shoots energy blasts and has shitty pheromone powers. Plus her first costume was terribad.
There's already a whole lot of Spider-women, all of them fairly lackluster team-filler types. Spider-Gwen is unusually popular, so they want her to stand out a bit.
Why not just call Spider-Gwen Spider-woman? There can be more than just one Spider-woman.
Are they going to call Miles Morales Redback Spider in his upcoming movie?
Besides, the first Spider-woman (Jessica Drew) sucks. She flies, shoots energy blasts and has shitty pheromone powers. Plus her first costume was terribad.
There's already a whole lot of Spider-women, all of them fairly lackluster team-filler types. Spider-Gwen is unusually popular, so they want her to stand out a bit.
They don't have to do that, Spider-woman isn't a well known title to the public and even if it was it wouldn't matter. There have been plenty of Spider-mans, and Flashes and Batmans etc. All that matters is what she is Spider-woman on the show.
Posts
Didn't you see the first movies stinger?
You mean like the fact she's half Spanish by birth and she's being called white, like American anglo, like her ancestry isn't stereotypically latina enough?
Because her full name is Daphne Keen Fernández?
Further compounded by the fact that if she is indeed Mexican in the film, she's not even a latina in any definition but the most wide-reaching slang, but hispanic.
Gods damn.
As I said, if I'm misreading you please correct me when I do so. Clarification is important for clear communication and with your response I don't have any idea which parts you're agreeing with me on. Dismissing Jessica Jones and Luke Cage isn't exactly helping me think we see eye to eye on things, as well.
You're framing Supergirl's tv show entirely by that relationship/scene under the worst possible light, something which I've already explained that I agree you about and now I'm curious, how do you define the symbols relating to feminism as being out of date (you haven't explained why this is bad or what they mean being different from the past). Nor do I have any clue what you want the show do about its feminism slant, just that's bad because the show...likes Hillary? With their theme acknowledging a feminist event which was huge news from a year ago makes it relevant and, those messages are only more relevant given that politics about feminism and sexual harassment/assault was a rally cry from that campaign. You're telling me what you don't want the show to do, not what you want it to do - which is confusing. Honestly, I don't know if you like anything about the show at all, which is disappointing since I'm not feeling like I'm getting your full opinion on the subject.
I agree they shouldn't be putting those ideas undermining feminism themes, but my point wasn't that I disagreed with you on that it was about why they remained on air as it was. You can't just ignore the corporate context or how the industry functions, that comes part and parcel with every media and will impact what shape the product into the customers hands. That's not an excuse, it's acknowledging the full reality of what happened.
With comics the media is all over the place regarding political ideas, yeah in many cases it was less apparent but it was still boiling under the surface. Chuck Dixon, while keeping his politics close to his chest, still wrote stories which pushed his own ideology. Occasionally there were runs which went into issues of the day, sometimes badly (like when Cap got hooked on ice and clucked like a chicken) and sometimes they were a defining run like Green Arrow/Green Lantern: Hard Traveling Heroes, and while there may not have been as big a clash of ideologies on the left and right in that industry this has been going on for a long time in American culture for decades. Time isn't static, the media which is why social media is both a good and bad thing, It's given voices to those who didn't have the political capital to signal boost and create change which has allowed us to have victories we didn't get before. It's made comics finally more open to demographics which typically weren't catered to, its shone the spotlight on how ugly fandom is which not everyone saw and paved the way for minority groups to have greater representation than ever before.
WB and Fox are at the center of what you're talking about, they're conservative corporations - one of which you're worried is going to impact Marvel/Disney when they get bought out. I didn't bring those up at random. It's proof that what you're fearing isn't set in stone.
Yet you're ignoring the examples I gave you about Fox (and other companies under a similar conditions) where that wasn't the case. If X-men can get a pass with what they're doing the MCU should be ok. Like I said, none of the shows would exist in the shape they are or were if what you were saying was true if they get control of Disney. Rupert's children are supposed to be less conservative than him, too.
edit: Quake (Chloe Bennett), Miss Marvel/ Kamala Khan (Kathreen Kmhavari), Spider-Gwen Ghost-Spider (Dove Cameron), Squirrel Girl (Milana Vayntrub), Captain Marvel (Kim Raver), Patriot (Kamil McFadden), Inferno (Tyler Posey), and America Chavez (Cierra Ramirez) all in one cartoon! Pls, don't have bad animation, Disney!
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
Dogg I had forgotten about her ancestry I was just referring to the fact that casting for a Mexican child found a white af actress. And white is a helluva lot broader than Anglo. Here I was referring to white Latinos and there is absolutely a divide, down there and up here, between European and more Native populations. My roommate is 100% Mexican but he's nearly as white as me and he's about to go by an anglicized version of his name sometimes. Passing has always been a big deal.
Dude I have no idea why you keep saying that I'm framing the entire show around one beat. All I'm saying is that it's an egregious example of them not understanding the things they are constantly peppering the show with for social justice cred. When you are glorifying borderline violent sexual assault and throwing Clinton campaign slogans in the same episode it feels like clumsy and inauthentic pandering to the youth demo. I'd love to have more examples but in general CW shows are so vapid that I don't tend to retain a lot. Supergirl is definitely the one that makes me groan the most over flawed attempts at inserting progressive ideas though. I'm happy because at least they're trying and maybe the message reaches somebody who could use it more than me, but the way they do it makes me question their authenticity.
Jessica Jones and Luke Cage were both great, idk why you decided I don't like them. They're also not part of Fox or WB which is where you had tangented the conversation to when I was responding.
I am worried about further consolidation of media under extreme conservatives considering there is a new push for censorship and monolithic control of media that wasn't there previously. You think it's fine. Whatevs.
I've said this several times at this point.
First, she's not a Mexican child, she's a clone of a white dude who may be half-hispanic, kind of like the actress herself.
Second, she's not a Latina because she's not from Latin America. This is kind of a big deal and not just semantics.
Third, isn't saying someone isn't "Hispanic enough" because of their skin tone kind of gross? It's like saying someone from the Marshall Islands isn't "asian" enough because they don't look Japanese.
I'm sorry, I know this is a heated discussion and all, but I'm giggling over here in mock panic about how they are cloning our actresses from white dudes???!!!!!!!
Sorry, you can resume your argument
There might be a Nolan film in there somewhere.
1. Y'know, you're right I totally forgot that she was a straight up clone and thought she was supposed to have a Mexican mother.
2. Mexico is generally considered part of Latin America for the purposes of the word Latino, this is pedantic af. Maybe it's a regional thing, I dunno.
3. It's not that she's not enough, it's that Hollywood (and the film industries in Central and South America, and Bollywood, and probably some other regions film industries I'm less familiar with) have a history of casting mostly lighter skinned minorities. Same suspect with their politicians and businessman. It's fucked up, it's racism, and outcomes are very different on average based on how Native you are. But this is a moot point considering she's a full on clone of Logan, sorry, I misremembered how they did it.
Agents of SHIELD is the Secret Warriors show, so I'm not sure what you're referring to.
Oh, right, New Warriors is what I meant. There's so many damn '[adjective] Warriors' I get them mixed up.
But it combines the fear of spiders with the fear of ghosts, how could it not be intimidating?
Noooope.
...yes they are?
It's the common name for spiders in the Anyphaenidae family on account of being pale white to semi-translucent
It's not a scientific term for any specific species of spider, it's a common parlance for a type of spider based on appearance.
It's also a common name for a host of other spider species that are white or semi-translucent for the same reason
In the same way that "Daddy Longlegs" actually refers to three completely different kinds of creature, two of which aren't even spiders (Crane flies, which are flies, and harvestmen, which are a non-spider arachnid)
It reminds me of Ghost Dog
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I like how they're using the actresses playing the roles in tv shows (aside from Ming-Na - who'll be great as a villain!), and reusing VA's for characters, like Dove Cameron with Spider-Gwen. That's smart casting, and excellent corporate synergy.
My fear is that the animation will be terrible, given the latest Spider-man tv show and the Disney cartoon adaptions haven't been so hot in that department. Step up your game, Disney - DC has Young Justice season 3 coming soon.
edit: It's an animated movie, not a cartoon.
This.
Don't give spiders such a bad rap, they eat the other tiny things that try to eat us. Also why I like birds. Because fuck mosquitoes, for instance.
And both have some really awesome nests / traps they put together, like that one spider that can make a diving bell, IIRC.
It is weird that so many people (myself among them) are freaked out by spiders, considering how much they do for us in the way of removing pest bugs while being fairly harmless to humans (for the most part).
I mean, you never hear about spiders blighting a field of grain or spreading a deadly plague.
But something about the way they move or look just... nope.
So far though...it's actually not that bad. I'm enjoying it. Definitely not the best show by Marvel (that honor goes to Agents of Shield) and I'd even put it in the lower tiered shows they've done, but still not nearly as bad as everyone said. In fact, as a huge fan of the Inhumans, there are some things they did I appreciate, such as Black Bolt using sign language. Thought that was neat.
There are several choices the show made that was obviously due to the budget, such as Medusa losing her hair in the first episode (which actually did happen in the comics), Lockjaw pretty much being MIA constantly, and the show missing some of the neater Inhuman characters that would require a much higher budget to pull off (such as Jolen and San). I am a bit sad that I won't get that Inhuman movie I was promised, but the show so far is still enjoyable.
One thing the show does get right though, is the relationship between the royal family. Medusa and Black Bolts relationship was nailed pretty well, as is Gorgan and Karnak's relationship. The weak link in the casting to me was Crystal, as her actress had some pretty bad spots throughout.
I did notice that the writer's didn't know how to convey Karnak's powers correctly, but I'll give them a pass there as they kind of turned his powers into an almost hyper perception/precognition and it worked for what they were trying to do.
So yea, flawed but enjoyable. Works for me.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
2/3rds of the spiders in Australia can kill you with poisons, and some like hiding under toilets. Then there's the large spiders who eat birds.
Australia is Earth's Hard Mode.
I really don't like spiders. But I'm okay with tarantulas because they have fur, and my brain equates fur with cuteness.
Phobias are weird, man.
Characters are licenses now. Can't call Spider-Gwen "Arachne" without muddling the rights to both characters. Ghost Spider is a secondary name they can use for the character without conflating her with another license.
As far as I know Marvel owns all those licenses, that's why it's odd. What's she called in other adaptions?
Are they going to call Miles Morales Redback Spider in his upcoming movie?
Besides, the first Spider-woman (Jessica Drew) sucks. She flies, shoots energy blasts and has shitty pheromone powers. Plus her first costume was terribad.
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
There's already a whole lot of Spider-women, all of them fairly lackluster team-filler types. Spider-Gwen is unusually popular, so they want her to stand out a bit.
They don't have to do that, Spider-woman isn't a well known title to the public and even if it was it wouldn't matter. There have been plenty of Spider-mans, and Flashes and Batmans etc. All that matters is what she is Spider-woman on the show.