I was REALLY surprised to see a new superhero series with a blond white male character and a red-hair female lead - The Boys (2019) Discussion

[–] captainbucky (15252) 5 years ago

You don’t get the subtle entandres

reply

[–] BrunoAntony (1198) 5 years ago

Damn, I hate being always right

LOL

reply

[–] Alex (1478) 5 years ago

Dunno, it looks like they chose the best blonde guy to play the Villain, dude IS a certified psychopath.

reply

[–] charliekelly (1018) 5 years ago

You mean Antony Starr? What did he do/say?

reply

[–] asom (6509) 5 years ago

I don't know if he is but he is playing the character perfectly ...

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6687) 5 years ago

I know. Imagine if Marvel had blonde white male actors playing Thor or Captain America, or a redheaded female like Black Widow in the Avengers. Oh wait, they do. Literally half the Avengers fit that description. Sadly, the other three are white and male, they just aren't blonde. Hawkeye has light brown hair-- does he sort of count?

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

I know. Imagine if Marvel had blonde white male actors playing Thor or Captain America, or a redheaded female like Black Widow in the Avengers.

Ahem... Captain America is now a black dude, Thor is a female brunette, and Black Widow is dead. (roll eyes)

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6687) 5 years ago

That wasn't your point. You were shocked that white, blonde males would be cast as lead heroes. After being reminded that most heroes are played by white males, many of whom are blonde, you are now saying you don't want any black or female actors cast as heroes-- only white blonde males?

By the way, Thor is still being played by white, blonde Chris Hemsworth. They are apparently doing a version of the story where Jane Foster uses Mjolnir for awhile, but Hemsworth is still playing Thor in Thor 4, probably in Guardians 3 as well.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

• «After being reminded that most heroes are played by white males, many of whom are blonde»

XDDDDDDDDDD

Dude, you (cough cough) 'remainded me' that using Captain America, that has been retired and blackwashed, Thor, that has been disempowered an femwashed, and Black Widow, that has been killed. Great examples! XD

Those characters were casted almost a decade ago, and now they've been killed or replaced by Diversitarian washed versions.

• «By the way, Thor is still being played by white, blonde Chris Hemsworth»

Not anymore. The new Thor is gonna be female brunette Natalie Portman. It was announced a couple of weeks ago.

reply

[–] Threadkiller (2952) 5 years ago

Hey buddy. Only 90+ percent of Hollywood leads are white when it should be 100 percent. Clearly there must be a secret anti white agenda being pushed by the 99% white owned and controlled Hollywood movie industry. We barely got to see Captain America as a blonde white male lead for a meager 6 films in 8 years & Black Widow as red haired/blonde for 4 . She's getting her own spin off film btw. I know it sounds like delusional sws talk but I tell ya all signs are pointing to pretty soon all white leads being reversed whitewashed.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Hey buddy. Only 90+ percent of Hollywood leads are white when it should be 100 percent

In Marvel Phase 4 movies there's only 2 white males main character remaining, Dr.Strange and StarLord. So much for your 90%...

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6687) 5 years ago

Only 2 remaining? Thor, Spider-Man, Winter Soldier, Hawkeye, Vision, Ant-Man, Hulk...

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

- Thor. It's being femwashed. The new Thor is Natalie Portman.
- Spider-Man. He doesn't appear in Marvel Phase 4. Spider-Man is not Marvel Movies, but Sony Movies. Perhaps some cross-over, but that's all.
- Winter Soldier. Fine, but he's a secondary character.
- Hawkeye. It's being femwashed. The new Hawkeye is a woman.
- Vision. Is that a joke? He's a red android.
- Ant-Man. As for now, he doesn't appear in Marvel Phase 4.
- Hulk. The same: as for now, he doesn't appear in Marvel Phase 4.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6687) 5 years ago

Thor is stil Hemsworth. Portman is going to acquire Thor's powers in Thor 4, but Hemsworth, according to Marvel, is still Thor. And we have no idea who is or isn't appearing in Phase 4. We didn't know when the films were announced that Spider-Man would be in Civil War, or Black Widow and Falcon in the Winter Soldier, or Hulk in Ragnarok, or Iron Man in Homecoming, etc. etc. Hell, remember the original Phase 3 announcement? Let me remind you:

11/3/2017 Black Panther
7/6/2018 Captain Marvel
11/2/2018 Inhumans

Those first two films were delayed, and third one was never even made. Marvel has a history of announcing one thing then switching it up down the road, so for now, we really don't have any clear idea what we're getting.

And then there's you and your made up words-- femwashed, diversitarian... the whole world is one big conspiracy out to get you, isn't it? Marvel's heroes, like all other superheroes ever put on screen, are overwhelmingly played by white males. They've announced that some upcoming movies will feature women and/or non-white actors, and you're acting like "oh gosh, why can't they ever let a white man play a hero?"

We haven't even touched on Marvel's TV shows-- Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., or the DC films, or various other superhero films, but set aside your tinfoil hat for a moment and put on your reality spectacles and ask yourself-- why does the race or gender of an actor matter? And if you come up with an answer, please share it with me.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

• «Thor is stil Hemsworth. Portman is going to acquire Thor's powers in Thor 4, but Hemsworth, according to Marvel, is still Thor»

The movies are following the comic female Thor arc. Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) first acquires the hammer and the powers, but Thor (male) keeps his name. Finally, Thor (male) accepts he's not even worthy to keep his own name and gives it to a superior empowered woman.

• «And then there's you and your made up words-- femwashed, diversitarian... the whole world is one big conspiracy out to get you, isn't it?»

Nope. The world is just watching how a new religion is spreading, like many other before it. Religions are not 'conspiracies', they're just... religions, with their commandments ('you will have diversity, amen'), their obsession with sanctity (here the frequent virtue signalling in Diversitarians), their chosen people, their devils (this case, the nazis) and so on. Nothing new, really. It's not the first new religion to spread, and I suppose it won't be last. After all, religion has been a constant in World History, and considering the decline of Christians, it makes sense that a new one appears to fill the hole.

reply

[–] Threadkiller (2952) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FilmBuff (6687) 5 years ago

I know. Look at the main heroes of the MCU:

White Males: Captain America, Thor, Winter Soldier, Ant Man 1960s, Ant Man, Hulk, Iron Man, Spider-Man, Hawkeye, Loki, Starlord, Doctor Strange, and Quicksilver, not to mention Rocket and Groot both voiced by white men, and Vision is white, and blonde I think?, under all that CGI.

Only 2 or 3 are blonde? Lame. They should ALL be blonde, but a few have light brown hair, so that is kind of okay.

White Females: Captain Marvel, Wasp 1960s, Wasp, Scarlet Witch, Black Widow, Nebula

2 blondes, 2 redheads, 1 brown hair, 1 black hair

Black men? Black Panther and War Machine

I knew whoever played Gamora probably didn't have green skin in real life, but today I learned she is played by a Puerto Rican/Dominican actress. How dare they? That should be white skin under the green makeup, am I right?

And Drax-- he's half Greek, so that's good, but then he's half Filipino. I think that's like Chinese or something?

Mantis is also partly of the Orient-- French, Russian, Korean. But she's blonde, so maybe Kuku's ok with her? Or maybe only half the time?

What's the final tally? 16 white males, 6 white females, 2 black males, 0 black females, 1 Hispanic female, 1 Hapa male, 1 Hapa female

Come on Marvel, let's get those ratios up!! More blonde white men please!!!

reply

[–] Threadkiller (2952) 5 years ago

Enough! Whites are clearly under attack here by the 99% white owned Hollywood film industry and pretty soon I'm telling ya it will be required that all lead roles that all rightfully belong to white people be reversed whitewashed. It doesn't matter that the overwhelming majority of lead roles in films and television have always been and continue to be portrayed by white actors. Even the tiniest deviation from that should be taken as an anti white agenda of some sort and again that's totally not nonsensical sws conspiracy talk.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

So what if Hollywood was 99% white owned? Nobody asks Chinese movie industry to be diverse. Nobody asks African movie industry to be diverse. Nobody asks Irani or whatever other Muslim movie industry to be diverse. Why white movie industry has to become diverse? Why ONLY that one?

So, yes, it's anti-white. That's the trendy racism nowadays.

Right now, Disney blackwashes a Danish folktale as the Little Mermaid, while it shoots Mulan with ZERO diversity, the cast being fully Asian. It happens that it the movie industry built by whites, the whites have become the low cast, the underclass.

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

Who s going to ask the African or Irani movie industries to do this???

These are very poor countries compared to the U.S., not to mention that they have a whole bunch of political turmoil going on. Do you think their citizens really give a shit about what color the actors playing their movies are? Their citizens don't have as much free time as we Americans do

And I don't even know if Iran has a movie industry

China does actually cast white actors in lots of their movies. I don't think they have any problem whatsoever casting whites. Plenty of washed up white actors like Adrien Brody, Bruce Willis, and John Cusack are taking roles in China

If anything they probably want to lure more white actors. The only thing is that their movie industry is still much less sophisticated than Hollywood's. But since their economy will probably eclipse the U.S. in a couple of decades, I'm sure the balance will shift and you will start to see real heavyweight stars doing Chinese movies

I am not sure if you are aware, but liberal celebrities in Hollywood do not have the power to control casting in other countries. If they did, I'm sure they would "diversify" other countries too. Homosexuality is punishable by death in Iran. If Hollywood had the power to make all countries more liberal they would

You seem to be suffering from a full-on persecution complex. "Low cast underclass"? This is crazy talk. I mean, look at the Oscars. Even with the whole Oscarssowhite bullshit, white actors/actresses/writers/directors still win the majority of Oscars every year. Except maybe director, Mexicans have been on a hot streak, but I don't think Inarritu, Cuaron, and Del Toro are undeserving

You seem to be focusing almost entirely on blockbusters. Maybe because those are mainly the kinds of movies that you watch or you think those are the most important

Look at Tarantino's latest film. It has a pretty much all white cast. It's not getting negative press. People still love stars like DiCaprio

reply

[–] Satan2016 (23334) 5 years ago

"Look at Tarantino's latest film. It has a pretty much all white cast. "

How many blacks on TV 50 years ago who weren't servants? Cosby in I Spy. Latinos?

Manson was a psycho hippy trying to start a race war. Was that in Once Upon?

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

That is not the point

The point is that he chose to make this film in the modern climate and no one threw a tantrum over it. Tarantino is a very high-profile director. When he makes a movie, people talk about them. This would have been a good opportunity for SJWs to throw a hissy-fit if the industry was as really far gone and hopeless as some of the loonies on this board would have us believe

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Tarantino is one of the few people in Hollywood that does his own thing, at least for now.

That's why he has been heavily criticized by feminists, by the way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyErR1FS1_0

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

• «And I don't even know if Iran has a movie industry»

Not a surprise. It turns out that Diversitarians use to have a extremely low interest in world's real diversity. Well, it's small, but it's active, and you have some interesting movies once in a while. Probably it's the best one in Middle East. It's quite popular in European Film Festivals.

• «China does actually cast white actors in lots of their movies. I don't think they have any problem whatsoever casting whites. Plenty of washed up white actors like Adrien Brody, Bruce Willis, and John Cusack are taking roles in China»

Do you have some idea about Chinese cinema???

I love Asian movies, and no, they don't cast white actors. In China, perhaps you can find some white actors in secondary roles in Hong Kong movies, usually playing some kind of neutral consultant associated to the villain. And then you had a couple of movies that hired western actors, Dragon Blade, the one with Willis and the one about the Great Wall, you can count them with the fingers of one hand, and that's it.

• «You seem to be suffering from a full-on persecution complex»

Nope. I not saying that whites males are persecuted. Don't make up things. I'm saying that they're becoming a second class in their own countries. A low cast.

• «Even with the whole Oscarssowhite bullshit, white actors/actresses/writers/directors still win the majority of Oscars every year»

Let's have a look to the 2019 Oscars. Let's check the big one (director, actors, screenwriters). Not a single non-Hispanic white male. Zero. Nada.

Best director? Hispanic
Best actor? Arab
Best supporting actor? Black
Best screenwriter? Hispanic
Best (adapted screenplay) screenwriter? Black

And we're talking about US movie industry, that was built by western white males.

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

I am not a "diversitarian". In fact, that's not even a word. That's just something you disturbed nutjobs on this board made up

Rami Malek looks pretty fucking white to me. Mixed, I guess, but white-ish. So does this Nick Vallelonga guy who won Best Adapted Screenplay. Where exactly are you getting that he is Hispanic from? Are you just basing it off of his name? Because people with Spanish ancestry share names with Latinos

And even if he was Hispanic, he was born in America and looks white. If you really find it "diversitarian" that someone like this would win an Oscar, then you have serious issues. Just so you know, white people do live in countries outside of the United States or Europe. If you only consider "true whites" to have a recent European ancestry then I can only assume you legit have Nazi sympathies

And you're only focusing on this year's Oscars (2019). A thing you do often, ignore examples that don't fit your narrative of an anti-white conspiracy. Last year all 4 acting Oscars went to white people. One Screenplay Oscar went to a white guy. In fact, the animated film Coco, which is about Mexico, won the Oscar, but the winners were two white people lol

The year before that (2018) we had two white people win Best Actor and Best Actress. Two black people won the Supporting Actor awards. White guy for Best Director. White guy for Best Original Screenplay

The year before that (2017) we AGAIN had 4 white people sweeping the Acting Oscars. White guys win for Best Picture. White guys win both Screenplay Oscars

The year before that (2016) we AGAIN AGAIN had 4 white people sweep the Acting Oscars. And one Screenplay Oscar went to a white guy

The year before that (2015) white actors took 3/4

This is not even looking at the Documentary or Technical awards, which I have no doubt would be dominated by white people

Sorry, but you do have a persecution complex. You make some good points, OCASSIONALLY. But then you ruin that with hyperbole and exaggeration

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

• «Rami Malek looks pretty fucking white to me»

Sure. But for anyone that has traveled a bit, he looks clearly Arab.

• «The year before that (2018) we had two white people win Best Actor and Best Actress. Two black people won the Supporting Actor awards. White guy for Best Director. White guy for Best Original Screenplay»

Fine. Of course, that means counting Guillermo del Toro (best director, Hispanic) as a non-Hispanic white Oscar, and Jordan Peele (best original screenplay) as another non-Hispanic white Oscar.

But hey, if you wanna consider even Jordan Peele as a non-Hispanic white Oscar, be my guest. I can't understand what kind of reasoning got you there... but anyway, most of your reasonings don't make much sense, so fine with me. SJW/Diversitarian people don't make much sense (as any other religious group), so it doesn't come as a surprise.

• «Sorry, but you do have a persecution complex»

And here we go again (SIGH...). I haven't said such a thing. As usual, you're putting words in my mouth that I haven't said.

Whites males are not persecuted. They're redefined as a low cast, which is different. That's why heroes are being blackwashed or femwashed: in a society based in casts, it feels wrong having heroes that belong to the low cast.

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

You ignored like 4 more years of Oscar results in which white people dominated. You also ignored the fact that this Vallelongo guy you haven no proof is Hispanic. Show me your source where you read he was hispanic.

And you only focus on the wins of non-whites for the Oscars. As if every single time that any non-white person wins it is a travesty. Pretty sick

Keep using stupid made-up words like diversitarian if it makes you feel superior. Fact is you have issues and are out of touch with reality

Moviechat is kind of toxic, but nowhere near the level of toxic that you seem to bring. I can only assume that you frequent 4chan or some sort of weird alt-right websites that have got you so paranoid about the state of the world. There is really no reasoning with you

You are either a troll or legit like that guy in American History X

reply

[–] Jproof (40) 5 years ago

"And we're talking about US movie industry, that was built by western white males."

Oh, those who built it, then own it? Fine, then America belongs to black people since it was built by black saves. Done.

reply

[–] asom (6509) 5 years ago

Lol, what?

Picking up cotton doesn't really mean building america. 1-3% of the population would have to be inhumanely productive to build a country and make it the "greatest" in the world.

What pushed america forward and built the bulk of wealth was the industrial revolution, not slavery.

https://reason.com/2018/07/19/slavery-did-not-make-america-r/

reply

[–] Jproof (40) 5 years ago

I never thought I'd encounter a slavery-denier like a Holocaust-denier, but here we are.

We found somebody dumb enough to think that slaves only picked cotton. We found somebody stupid enough to think that this alone didn't build America, never mind the non cotton job half the slaves did. We found somebody stupid enough to believe that industrial revolution happened on its own and didn't depend on the dominoes that fell before it powered by slaves.

reply

[–] asom (6509) 5 years ago

You are too stupid to understand it seems. No one is denying slavery, moron.

Do you even know how many slaves were in US at that moment? They made up to 10-13% of the population. No, 10% of the population cannot "build a nation".

And yes, the bulk of them were on plantations.

https://www.theroot.com/slavery-by-the-numbers-1790874492

"Of the 3.2 million slaves working in the 15 slave states in 1850, 1.8 million worked in cotton."

Industrial revolution, moron, happened in the whole world, not just in america, and it was a development that would not rely on slaves, would have, and did, nullify the need for slave work.

Actually that was the reason for the North victory, the industrial revolution was adopted much sooner in the North states that didn't rely on slaves to further the economy. It's basic history and knowledge.

I'm not saying that slavery was not beneficial for USA. But to say that "US was built by black slaves" is idiotic and an exaggeration.

reply

[–] Jproof (40) 5 years ago

"Of the 3.2 million slaves working in the 15 slave states in 1850, 1.8 million worked in cotton."

So just under half weren't in cotton at all. But okay, for sake of argument, let's say they were ALL in cotton.

Although it wouldn't surprise me you're too stupid understand cause and effect, I'll try.

If I had to PAY workers on my cotton farm, it would cost me X amount. But because I saved X amount because I had slaves, I can now invest that X amount in buying a factory and being part of the industrial revolution. But in your mind, history STARTED at the industrial revolution.

Some morons can't fathom that America had the wealth to be part of the world's industrial revolution directly because of slavery.

reply

[–] asom (6509) 5 years ago

Read a bit on the history, North was heavily industrialized and almost slaves free, South mainly agricultural and heavily relying on slaves.

History didn't start at the industrial revolution, explosive wealth production did - you know, what actually america was built on.

And it's quite stupid to say that slaves work was free. Slaves are not productive all their lives and you have to actually sustain them while being too young or too old to be really productive, which are not "savings". Plus you have to provide rooms, food, clothing, etc. Maybe not expensive but not for free for sure.

That X amount might have been lower than paying a worker, per hour, but per total you would have to add a bit more elements in the equation, not just the price paid for, if any.

And point is: if America was built exclusively by the 10% of black slaves ... is should have collapsed after slavery was abolished and there were no more slaves to ... you know, continue the building because the other 90% of the population was doing, according to you, nothing.

reply

[–] Goliard (1413) 5 years ago

To be fair, it *is* a subtle point. Some morons don't get it, and some willfuly ignore/discount it, because of their (clear) agenda. It's admittedly difficult at times to tell which camp a person falls in. Ah well. Carry on. . .

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

If I had to PAY workers on my cotton farm, it would cost me X amount. But because I saved X amount because I had slaves, I can now invest that X amount in buying a factory and being part of the industrial revolution

Actually, you weren't saving money. Seedtime and harvest are a small period of the year, the rest of it you'd have most of your slaves idling.

Without slaves, you hire only during sowing and harvesting. And salaries were extremely low, people barely survived back then. Having slaves in a plantation is probably more expensive than hiring temporal workers. That's why the South was poor*.

Cultures with a much longer experience in handling slaves, like Islam or African cultures, didn't use them as farm workers. They used them as cleaners or servants (a full-year job) or sexual slaves (a full-year job). And then they killed them when they got old, so you don't have to maintain them. They killed the kids too, it's cheaper to buy a new slave than to raise one (that's why you don't see blacks in Islamic countries, even when slavery there was bigger than in the western world).

With ages comes wisdom. They had slaves for many centuries. Whites, we had them for only 2-3, we never got good at making the most of it.

---
*Not to say when rich people import slaves for a plantation, poor class loses the chance to work in the harvest, so I can imagine most of the white people, South included, weren't happy about bringing slaves. It was just a elite thing. For some reason, elites seem to push the massive importation of foreign unqualified workers. It happened in the Roman Empire (and it fell), it happened with slaves in US south (and it fell), and it's happening in the Western World nowadays (and... well, you know the drill). Funny thing, the same white elite that were the ones that pushed slavery into the Western World... now they put the blame in the white low class.

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

Even in blockbusters

In the Avengers you still have Benedict Cumberbatch, Chris Pratt, Sebastian Stan, Tom Holland, Paul Rudd, Hemsworth, and Mark Ruffalo. Plus Brie Larson who is white and blonde. Plus Bradley Cooper on voice-over. Bautista is half-white. Ryan Reynolds is now in the MCU

In Sony's side, Venom is played by Tom Hardy. Morbius will be played by Jared Leto. Carnage is Woody Harrelson. No "blackwashing" or "femwashing" there

In Justice League, while it existed, only two were non-white. Cyborg and Aquaman, and Momoa is half-white. The new Batman is possibly the palest actor in all of Hollywood, Robert Pattinson. I don't see any complaints from this supposed cabal of anti-whites

Wait and see what they do with F4 and X-Men and then MAYBE I'll believe you. Taron Egerton is supposedly who Marvel wants for the new Wolverine. Pretty much the prototype of a white male lead actor

To me it seems that you are clearly doing what is called "confirmation bias". Selecting examples that fit your narrative while ignoring the many examples that dispute it

reply

[–] mcqueen (1150) 5 years ago

I have really bad news for you, but Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth are not blonde, and ScarJo is not a red head. You're welcome.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6687) 5 years ago

We're talking about how they're portrayed on screen. Who knows what any of them look like in real life, sans makeup, hair dye, CGI, plastic surgery, etc. :P

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

• «I have really bad news for you, but Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth are not blonde, and ScarJo is not a red head»

So what? If they can look realistically like blond or red head, that works.

I don't need ScarJo to be red head to play a red head character, I just need her to be able to look like a real red head, and she does.

The same: I don't need ScarJo to be a transgender woman to play a transgender woman. Of course, Diversitarians, you only accept transgender women characters played by transgender women. And red head characters played by real red head women. But that's you. I don't give a sh*t.

reply

[–] asom (6509) 5 years ago

I can't imagine anyone else but Seymour playing Rusty in Flawless.

reply

[–] mcqueen (1150) 5 years ago

Luke Skywalker, one of the biggest heroes ever ( he saved an entire Galaxy ) was blonde.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6687) 5 years ago

Yes, but he was FEMWASHED in the new films by a DIVERSITARIAN studio because they are SJWs out to FREE NELSON MANDELA because #METOO. Did I miss any buzzwords?

reply

[–] asom (6509) 5 years ago

Actually you are kinda right.

But Hughei and Butcher are white. And although Butcher is quite psychotic Hugh is more than decent. And white.

But, again, i see your point and i agree with it.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Well, I haven't seen the series, just the trailer.

Anyway, I think there's four archetypes when it comes to white males and modern Hollywood.

1. The violent psychopath. Aggressive, evil, a textbook born-oppressor. Nazi-like. Usually blond, sometimes dark-haired.
2. The pathetic psychopath. Evil, but useless. A loser. His main function is to be easily beaten by the PC hero or to be the clown. Usually blond or red-hair.
3. The submissive cuck. Weak, emasculated, insecure. Usually dark-haired white.
4. The white knight. This represents the white SJW alter-ego. This is seen as a positive character, but it's some isolated white male that sides with the diverse cast against the evil white males. Usually dark-haired white.

Just out of curiosity... does Hugh fits any of the archetypes?

reply

[–] asom (6509) 5 years ago

Starts as the 3 but determined and becomes stronger as the show goes on. Still a 3 by the end, lol

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

LOL

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6687) 5 years ago

I question your judgment there. Spoilers ahead, so those that haven't watched it yet read at your own risk...

Hugh starts out as a slacker type, who has a girlfriend. She loves him, and asks him to move in with her when she is killed by one of the two main villains, a black male.

Hugh reluctantly gets drawn into a revenge plot, and kills a thought to be invulnerable superhero. He teams up with two other white guys, an Asian female, a black guy, and a white girl and they seek revenge on the black guy and his white male partner. Along the way he gets the hot superhero girl into bed, and is generally confident and adept, though maintains a conscience about his actions.

Don't know where any of this fits into Kuku's list, but he is way off with his presuppositions regarding how various races are depicted on screen.

reply

[–] asom (6509) 5 years ago

He is defo 3, specially at the start of the show:

weak, emasculated, insecure. Dark haired white.

"the other 2 white guys"? Hmmm, did you see the show actually? Frenchie is anything but white, the actor is of israeli origins, which makes him quite semitic and not white (at least european white, how is generally understood in US). In the show he plays a second or third generation France immigrant, i would think.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6687) 5 years ago

I watched the entire show. Frenchie looks, acts, and sounds, well, French. I don't know if the actor is Jewish or not, but to most people Jewish=white, especially if we're talking about looks. The real point, however, is that Kuku has come up with a ridiculous list of characters, none of which are common in cinema, and none of which fit Hugh's character in the show.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

I don't know if the actor is Jewish or not, but to most people Jewish=white

Jews don't see themselves as white, but as an independent group.

The same way Hispanics are not included inside the 'white' group, even Hispanics whose blood is mostly European and look white.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6687) 5 years ago

Well, if you don't consider Jewish people to be white people, then it's probably rare to see a white person in a movie. :P

Seriously, though, "the Jews" are typically lumped in with "the Whites" by most people. No one was up in arms about a "non-white" being cast as Harry Potter. When people talk about the Beastie Boys, "white rappers" comes up pretty early in the conversation.

Despite all that aren't we getting away from the main point? You are of the opinion that Hollywood never casts white men as strong heroes, yet all you can bring up to back up your assertion are your hunches about who/what might be in future films. Meanwhile, The Boys, the show whose board we've hijacked for this debate, is a show featuring primarily white actors, and the "good guys" are nearly all white, many are blonde, and at least one is a rehdhead.

reply

[–] papamihel (1574) 5 years ago

Jews are considered white nowadays for the same reason pre-Liberal Jew-haters considered all of the Jews filthy rich. It's just an Antisemitic generalization.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6687) 5 years ago

Or maybe it's because to most people, they see white skin and think white person, the same way people lump together all people with black skin as black people, not distinguishing between someone from the Dominican Republic or Ghana, etc. As for pre-Liberal Jew-haters, I'm not even sure who they are. Seems like maybe you're lumping a bunch of people together, too?

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

• «Seriously, though, "the Jews" are typically lumped in with "the Whites" by most people»

Yeap, they are... today.

A century ago, they weren't considered as white Europeans, but as Jews. Not to say Jews are a Semitic people. They've mixed with European blood, but they're still in a middle zone between Semitic and European.

And that's why Jews, particularly from Israel, don't see themselves as whites. They weren't, a century ago. And now, when being a western white is a handicap and a label that will get you discriminated, why should they adopt that label?. And I can understand it. If they weren't considered as western whites before, why should they accept that label now, when anti-white racism has become mainstream?.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6687) 5 years ago

Who is discriminating against "western whites?" What exactly is a "western white?" Am I a "western white?" Are you?

reply

[–] Jproof (40) 5 years ago

"Jews don't see themselves as white"

Jews, or any other group, aren't a hive mind, dumbass. Each INDIVIDUAL has their own sense of racial/ethnic identity.

reply

[–] asom (6509) 5 years ago

Actually those are pretty much present in the present trend at Hollywood.

You don’t see it because you are thinking about cinema as a whole, not just for the last few years. If you take the last few years in the mainstream cinema you will see the trend.

And yes, Frenchie sounds and looks like a French with Middle East origins. Which is not considered European white, which is the representation of white for most Americans.

Just how Latinos are ... Latinos, not white.

reply

[–] Alex (1478) 5 years ago

The bad superheroes have a Latino Aquaman ripoff, Black Flash ripoff and Black Snake Eyes ripoff.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6687) 5 years ago

The Deep, the Aquaman guy, is a white guy...

reply

[–] papamihel (1574) 5 years ago

What they did to Hughie is even worse. They made him American...

reply

[–] papamihel (1574) 5 years ago

OK, in the comic books The Seven is a local version of the Justice League. The authors of the show clearly got that and that's why the members look even more like the DC characters. Do I need to spell out who is who?
So it's not about the skin color (A-Train is white in the books BTW). It's about mocking the stereotypes.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Sure. Tell me who is blond in the Justice League, and who is redhead in the Justice League. Waiting :-)

reply

[–] papamihel (1574) 5 years ago

Starlight is not supposed to represent someone - she is a newcomer and one of the main original characters.
But the core 7 are parodies. And Queen Maeve is the Wonder Woman. Well, as a chronic drunkard.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

So, the redhead it's a redhead version of Wonder Woman. And the blond is a blond version of Superman. Isn't that?

Blackwashing and femwashing superheros has become a mainstream trend. But here... well, they're making it blond and redhead. What the odds?

Except... it happens that they're actually evil psychopaths. For once, a superhero is not blackwashed, but it's 'blondwashed'... ut hey, only when it's a psychopath!!!

(sigh)

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

Holy shit, dude. Do you think about this stuff all day?

You are going to go full on Dylann Roof one of these days

reply

[–] Threadkiller (2952) 5 years ago

LOL! Yeah. A Long since pegged sws but lately is increasingly abandoning all subtlety/plausible deniability that usually goes along with these race bait threads .

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Holy shit, dude. Do you think about this stuff all day?

Well, when I watched the image I linked in the original post I ran to watch the trailer, because I thought... 'finally, a series that's not PC/diversity propaganda!!'.

Guess what? It was propaganda too.

It's not that I think about that stuff all day. It's that nowadays, it's impossible to find some movie or series (US/UK) which is not diversity propaganda. HBO? converged. CBS? converged. Netflix? converged. BBC? converged. Amazon?. converged. Disney? converged. Pixar? converged. Marvel? converged. X-Men? converged. DC? converged (at least, comics). Star Wars? converged. Star Trek? converged. Doctor Who? converged. Ghostbusters? converged. .

There's nothing left. And even when you think you found something that's not trying to evangelize you, like here... guess what? It was trying to evangelize you.

However, you wanna talk about a series without politics? Be my guest. I just opened a thread about one of my favorite anime series. Zero politics, just brilliant comedy. People here don't give a shit about Japanese, Korean or Chinese stuff. But hey, you're welcome to comment:
https://moviechat.org/tt5370118/Kono-subarashi-sekai-ni-shukufuku-o/5d3e678c2232a5721f3e0d24/Best-comedy-anime-Ive-seen

reply