MovieChat Forums > fishpan > Replies
fishpan's Replies
Don't you know what the black Viking trope is? Look it up.
And how can you complain about Idris Elba????
And you didn't see non black actors play evil parts in the 19th century? I wasn't there so I don't know. Probably not a lot in Europe and North America. More black face if required.
But in Asia and Africa there would have been a lot of non white good and bad guys I'm guessing.
And to be honest there has been a lot more white straight males playing president than not, have been president than not. So law of averages - you have a white male playing the US President.
You said they were being excluding race gender and sexuality. I'm just coming back to you with the crap that every other race gender and sexuality is told when it is the other way around and you don't seem to like it. Especially seeing you are seeming to say you don't really watch the show but this is annoying you. Don't like it don't watch- again what other groups for years were told. Or you can watch and see how it pans out especially if the stories work.
Plus comparitively speaking for a show called Supergirl white men actually haven't been the main bad guy for most of the shows run time.
Jimmy, J'onn and Brainy - all cis males and so far straight.
They hit 2 of your three categories and Kara and Lena hit 2 of the three categories you asked for white and straight.
The issue you have is that they don't have all three together in the package you are use to being front and centre even though we've seen white men working at Catco and in the DEO. Hell be like everyone else take what you can get.
You are getting inclusivity just it is cycling through it and white male and straight hero hasn't been about this season but straight trans hasn't been there until now, Latino hasn't been there for 5, non binary hasn't been there at all. Gay in the sense of gay male hasn't been there.
So why complain that white straight and male isn't getting put on camera as hero club for one season when a lot of ethnic groups haven't had their time on Supergirl? Because Lex, Lockwood and the President were white men and the bad guys. Well it is for one season as look at the big bads of previous seasons.
Season 3 - the bad guys - women
Season 2 - the bad guy - a woman
Season 1 - most of the season bad guy - a woman
So what on Supergirl for one season the bad guys were white straight men. For the majority of the seasons the bad guys were mad women! Females should be more pissed. But you didn't get your representation, well you just got a taste what every other group has had for years and we were told to basically get over it.
Loving the shout out to the Black Viking trope but is anyone really complaining that Idris Elba was Heimdall, hell does anyone complain about Idris Elba in anything.
Hell its Idris Elba....which is very nice to think about in any sense.
Black Iron man - you mean Ironheart? That is a different character not a black Tony Stark
Black Spiderman - again a different character. Not simply a black Peter Parker.
the character in Batwoman (I can't stand Ruby Rose) is supposed to be linked to Lucas Fox, not Alfred
Black Jimmy Olsen - a lot better than the Zack Synder Jimmy Olsen
Black companions for Robin Hood - they are supposed to be Moors, which is at least a reason for being black in England at that point, rather than just have them without any excuse like they were born in Nottingham at that time and Jamie Foxx should give back his Oscar for that last movie.
Now black Lex Luthor? We have a white mother and Lena being the half sister through their father, so a black Lex wasn't going to happen. But why Black? Why not Asian or Hispanic?
A black evil president - yeah possible but roll the dice and look at the stats. More likely the President will be a white male seeing how we've only had one out of 45 not fit that mold. Or are you against the stats now??
If you don't watch this season then why complain?
You stopped caring about this show long ago. But now you care?
Winn was always the only white recurring male on the show so why not bitch in season 1 or 2 when he got sidelined?
So what though?
Considering you obviously know that Winn left last season and made it to the finale of this before you realised that there wasn't a straight WHITE male in the the starting hero line up then it says that the story this season actually worked on what a lot of those complaining about SJW's trying to shoehorning diversity in say should be the primary concern - the story stands up.
Because you didn't miss the lack of the obvious white maleness kicking arse. Black and Indo European maleness did the job as did LGBT and straight black and white femaleness.
As for white male villians, well what do you want Lex to be something else than white? Or Otis (who was white in the Chris Reeves films) And like it or not there has been only one black president, so a male president would most likely be white and most college professors are white.
So the question we have to ask is it casual racism or is it those characters being cast as the same ethnic groups they always were or most likely to be? If so does that mean we have to move the needle in other ways and how would you exactly say we should do that without people being inspired by what they see around them?
If you spend five minutes to think about the aftermath then it is messy. A handful of Lords who have burnt a lot bridges with their people and each other quickly deciding who gets to be King? And they pick an outsider gets voted in to rule the South while the Kingdom he is from goes walk about?
I get the unsullied head to Narth - sure it is because Grey Worm loved Messandai. But do the peaceful people of Narth get a say in it? They are peaceful but the slavers only just raid? Something fishy there. Maybe the people of Narth have a deal going on that lets them be left alone for the majority of the time and even if not an army who just turns up on your doorstep for your 'protection'??
And what about the Dorkathi? They staying in Westeros or going with the unsullied? If they go anywhere what are they going to do? They aren't farmers Dany still had a large enough number of them to be prominant at Dany's speech. They planning to continue their own way of life? Won't go down well in Narth or in Westeros and in Essos will it be easy to go back to what they had?
Bronn gets the Reach? What about all the Lords who served the Tyrells? What is their say on it?
Sam has oath broken from one side of the continent to the other - but he gets to be Grandmaester? Something fishy there.
Gendry is Lord of the Stormlands because of Dany? Sure Bran could back him up but can't say whoever was looking after the Stormlands before that is going to be happy and not have local support.
The Iron Islands didn't demand to stay independent like the North did - how is that going to play in the Iron Islands? Because that means Yara is meant to be their 'Queen' and she didn't tell the other six kingdoms that hate them she was staying that? But Sansa did?
The prince of Dorne - where was he when the Sand Snakes were running amoke? Is his power solid.
The council looked easy but you spend five minutes thinking then it is a bit messy about the outcomes of all of them
It definitely subverted the trope.
But that is the thing I'm not saying it was a great episode, but we've watched a show about politics and aftermaths in real life are boring and messy and no-one is happy and the people who we think should get power very rarely do.
Guess that was what they were going for - that and getting out to get to their new project
Maybe being mediocre is the whole point.
The throne itself is pointless, power is fleeting and real change that benefits the majority isn't exactly emotionally satisfying.
Didn't Tyrion say that no-one 'No-one is really happy. It is a good compromise I suppose'
Because like previously they are playing the long game to control the 6 kingdoms. Voting Bran in, the last True Born son of Ned Stark, who can't have kids and having relatively little to no blood on his hands regarding the war in terms of the South means the high lords get the people under control with little bloodshed now and then they may gain control in the future.
Think about it - for the minor lords and ladies in the South do they even believe that the 'Great War' really involved Ice Zombies? Course not. What is more sellable is that the North fought something, roided out Wildlings or something but Bran showed up has seen shit and is now semi catatonic which in a way a blessing for pacifying the realm at that point. To the lords Bran is a symbol the blood shed will end for the people but he isn't really going to 'rule' them, it will be the council who decide the big crap and local lords will be left to their own devices - mind there is no 'Master of Laws' on Bran's council at the end. They don't really understand what Bran truly is or can do.
Because think of how the Southern Lords are thinking- the common folk as long as they have food in the bellies and are left alone in the sense they aren't being threatened with being killed on the streets on a whim don't really care about who is on the throne but they do care when it they aren't getting those things.
In terms of what is needed for the South they need a King who is either the messiah or someone who isn't really touched by the backbitting of the war the South really knows about - the one over the throne or the Faith Militant or the Lord of Light publicly, which like it or not Bran is.
Because Tyrion is right - Bran has the best story, in the sense of the most marketable one to the common people. Just like Robert did long ago - the rebellion over his love being stolen. It was Brandon Stark who triggered the rebellion by demanding his sister back and Ned who had rights to demand vengeance for 3 members of his family but it was Robert the rebellion was named after not Ned or Brandon or Lyanna. Why? Because Robert was more charismatic than Ned and after the mad King that is what the realm needed.
Plus the voting thing means that the high lords may get their hands on the throne although that will probably be Bronn's descendent if Bronn can hold onto the Reach considering the the Reach feeds and now pays for the 6 Kingdoms. You want to piss off the bread basket by not giving them a crown if they want it in the future?
Yeah agree with that.
At least they had Thanos as the 'mad' Titan, so the idea he wasn't thinking to far outside his snap and had Captain Marvel say that the cosmos was not handling the snap too well when they kept asking when she was coming back.
But to have the avengers do their snap and have everything come back after 5 years of pain so Stark could keep his kid?......5 years of pain and then suddenly poof everything back. How many would be slaughtered because of the mass panic of populations who still don't get that the dissemination was due to Thanos and then think that people suddenly reappearing is devils and demons trying to inflict more pain on them.
Though I still have to have someone explain to me how the original snap worked since Thanos of 2014 was the one who got killed in the end. I know they explained it a bit but if Thanos of 2014 died how is he around to do the snap after that.
Sure and Game of Thrones is one of Dragons and ice zombies but look how crazy people went over that.
As for over thinking the snap -
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4XgpB7WbYY[/url]
I agree doubling resources would have not done much either but it would have been a step up from what he did do.
But having him bail without telling every planet why - that is lazy writing considering he had the infinity stones and could have put that info into every brain in the cosmos along with the snap.
Now I get why they changed the motive of the snap bit Thanos reasoning as trying to introduce Lady Death would be confusing as hell. But we also have to talk about the Avengers bringing everyone back but leaving the five years - well you think about it the cosmos was screwed by Thanos, doubling everything in a split second without warning everyone it was coming back well that is going to be an even bigger mess, people with no idea of what is going on are coming back to a different reality and to people who have had to move on to survive. Planets, countries as I said have probably been invaded for food - you think people are just going to give things up because people came back?
Even on a macro level its going to cause chaos - say you got a farm because the previous owner just disappeared in the snap, you going to give it up once they come back - you've done nothing wrong why should your family suffer?
Imagine you lost you spouse and kids after a couple of years and hard times you grieved and moved on to find a new partner and family and started a life with them - you give that up because your old family is standing outside your old home.
The kid who finds themself orphaned by Thanos, gets adopted by another family who lost their kids - do they simply get handed back after five years because old families just return?
And Thanos solution doesn't work either it makes things worse as it doesn't deal with the route of the problem of people not using resources responsibly.
Thanos was
A) taking out his anger about what happened on Titan on everyone else because really they seemed a space faring race. Why not leave when things got.so bad?
B) was lazy about not actually getting races to change their tact on how to manage their resources
Because really after a while and things settle down. (Granted it maybe a millennium or two). Populations would eventually go back to being a size Thanos thought was out of balance and he's not planning on coming back to rebalance things???
The problem with that response is kind of like saying
'after they are born, well I don't know'
Because valuing life in the sense that a lot of pro life bills propose is simply not enough in the world as it is today.
Now I'm not saying that having an abortion purely on a disability that doesn't cause pain or danger to the mother is 'right' in any sense. It isn't really but I am also not blind to think that disability isn't a reason abortion occurs.
We don't put enough resource into looking after the disabled, mentally or physically at any age and those who are poor and unsure how to provide - its heart breaking but after a point society as you know doesn't see the disabled adult as such a cute cause as a disabled kid. And that is on society.
We also still allow the death penalty in some areas and some of arguments of 'assisted suicide' for the elderly about quality of life is really about not wanting to burden anyone else. That should not be a reason to ask someone else to help you end it.
If life is life then we need to properly provision for all situations from people with disability to the elderly who may go on for years.
But without provisioning for that and why choices of abortion are made then we are saying life is cheap and all talk about banning abortion is just hypocrisy as we are quite prepared to allow adults to die horrific deaths if they don't cause a fuss over all or is a punishment. As I said we ban abortion it will still happen for poor women without the resources to get safe abortions and/or care for children that they don't have the resources for.
I don't like it, never have but the way to stop abortion is to decrease the numbers happening through less pregnancy and less need for them to occur. Better maternity support, better housing, better adoption, better care for any child with a disability, less stigma, ensuring if the father is safe to be around that he is responsible in all senses of the word, more flexible working, which would lead to more in employment. Without those a knitting needle or a fall down the stairs looks like a decent option because we are saying right now that the majority of things are a private individuals responsibility and a private individual has to have autonomy over their own body to be a private individual.
I was raised Catholic and don't like abortion but I am also a pragmatist.
Abortion predates Christianity. Even if it is made illegal it will still occur and we can go on about the morals etc.
So if we ban it all that will happen is poorer women will either made to carry to term or they will head to less safe methods as the more well off will always find doctors to perform safe procedures for the cash rewards.
Also at present there is no way transfer embryos and the fetus is not viable outside the womb until at least 22 weeks and that is with major medical intervention. So all we are doing with bans is we are telling women who don't want to have these children to gestate them so upsetting their lives (families and work) and making them incur medical costs which I don't see the proposed bans dealing with. That means these women go through mental torment while having a growing human being they don't want inside them.
Now all of this may seem cold and inconsiderate as you can say we are talking about when life begins. But like it or not life is still considered cheap in the world. So unless banning abortion comes with a way to down play the stigma to pregnant women, or shifts the stigma to men who sow their wild oats, has housing, medical costs, counselling and adoption procedures and a stipend to allow family members to keep the children if they want to step up to make it viable then these bills are nothing but pandering to the right. Any ban will also lead to pain, infertility or even the death of the poorer women who have to turn to extreme means to deal with the situation they find themselves in.
It's worse than that - Thanos wiped out 50% of all living things. That includes plants and animals - what we eat!
Think about the people who farmed or were into logistics of moving food around - 50% are gone and the majority of the people don't know why. Animals left who see 50% of their herds go will run riot in panic but there will be less people to manage that in a long term way so either farm land is destroyed or the sentient survivors would panic and decide to store meat or get rid of the competetion for crops. Which depletes animal life more.
So even with 50% of sentient population gone famine is going to hit at first.
Space faring planets would be do the quick thing and head to other planets to take their resources to feed their people. But that means wars over resources such as food for a few years. Technologically poor planets would have their food taken by more technologically advanced planets for at least a few years until things settle down and they may never get out from under the other planets boot because why farm your world if you can get another to do it for you.
Thanos' balance isn't a balance it is whole scale war on life as more than 50% of life would be destroyed just simply because a lot of planets won't know why 50% disappeared and nature of living things makes us panic.
I can't say Annihilation is a great film or not as haven't seen it. Alex Garland films and books are hit and miss for me.
The issue I think a lot of women have with the films with a supposed female lead slasher that 'people' don't complain about...well they are trope tastic and after a while the tropes are a bit boring. Hence why Scream was such a breath of fresh air.
Also it was why Buffy become such a big hit - the blonde cheerleader who is supposed to be victim No1 actually turns round and makes the monsters run. It inverted the tropes that a lot of women in films find themselves outside a 'message movie'.
As for Cameron for all his 'strong' women. Well with the exception of Rose in Titanic they all hit the same trope notes. Women with warrior hearts, who go gooey for something and will fight anyone who comes to hurt them - Ripley, Sarah Connor, Neytri, Brigham. Even that god awful Battle Angel film. Yes I said it was bad, not Nick Cage 'I want those hours of my life back' but it was great outside looking pretty and my take away from it was I hoped Jai Courtney got paid for his cameo in it and any sequel should just focus on the hunter bloke with the mecha dogs.
But that doesn't change the fact that the majority of Cameron written/directed films focus on women who has the defining feature that is basically them having the sort of personality where you can see grabbing an iron bar and beating someone to death with it if push came to shove at the beginning of the film. Which is a kick in the tail from the final girl who gets to scream a lot, is sacrificially vulnerable and then picks up a iron bar to defend herself at the end of it. Cameron's women just have a little more edge on being almost three dimensional.
As for the Ghostbusters mess, well the people who complained I never saw them as 'real' Ghostbusters fans. They were worse than the 'SJW's they were complaining about and the 'SJW's' came out because the supposed real fans were being bullying dicks. Because that was the fight it was a dick measuring contest to excuse the parlance.
Now I'm not saying the reboot was any good - it wasn't. But the film was more than capable of falling flat without the 'real' fans hitting the internet. Hell look at Ghostbusters 2, it was shit and it paid the price for it without the 'real' fans complaining about everything pre the film actually being released. Also the ones that complained the remake ruined their childhood...well if true and they were under 45 then all I can say is they had shitty childhoods with parents who refused to rent or download more recent films and needed help.
But really so what if women are being put into traditionally 'male' type roles. It's different, and it's the marketing that is the problem as the ad department gets there are a lot of women/girls out there who are an untapped market. They just have been so focused on getting young men in seats they have gotten to a point where they don't know how to market to young women properly - sticking Melissa McCarthy in something or a token waif fu warrior when the foyer is selling soda measures that could double as a lake doesn't work to get young women to buy merch.
Because you are right if a movie isn't good (studio fault more than the supposed SJW's) then I won't want to pay. But I get that it is a work in progress that they are trying females out in roles they traditionally didn't do before and so are just breaking out the boxes that were comfy for some audiences. However if I as a female am told that a film is pandering and all the 'fanboys' come out and tell me so - bad film or not I'll part with my cash just to see what the fuss is about and give them the bird. Hell I wasn't fussed about Captain Marvel (personally hate Carol Danvers as a character) but I went to see the film because....well 'f' the bastards and Brie Larson seems like a decent person who seems to be crumbling a lot of hate that seems reserved for politicians who actually deserve it.
Also personally the girl power action shot in Avengers:endgame was just BS! Didn't work outside a marketing shot to minimise the fact that DC made Wonder Woman before the MCU got their shit together to do a Black Widow one. I say that because Captain Marvel is supposed to be the mega hitter of Marvel but unlike Black Panther she is supposed to needed a very photocall tastic starting squad to juice her up to start her run? But that is studio BS not rising to the occasion of actually doing more than lip service.
Now with regards to Terminator - Salvation and Genysis were fucking awful to the point they make rise of the machines look like Lawrence of Arabia.
With this one if the story works in this film and its lead by women so what as you said. I just don't get the BS outrage over this trailer or others like it. Does a trailer threaten some men that much?????
If we are just keeping to films with sequences that 'men' may seem acceptable
AtomicBlonde
Mad Max Fury Road
Alien
Aliens
Wonder Woman
The majority of Disney's out put since Beauty and the Beast (exceptions being the Lion King and Aladdin and a Lion does not count a 'male') Admit it you've seen Frozen
The Craft
Resident Evil
Kill Bill
Thelma and Louise
Monster
Salt
Gravity
The River Wild
Long Kiss Goodnight
Lucy - not a great story but good film to park your brain
Peppermint
Scream 1&2
For all we know phase 4 is going to bring in the Pet Avengers and they are introducing a rat to the group.
Lockjaw, Throg and co deserve their own film