Shitty movie choices..

[unholytestament]

I said they should have used miles i never said why me pointing out that they stole most of miles life was never the reason, your jumping to conclusions.

You literally said they should have used him since they already used elements of his life. How ELSE could that be read?

and yes peter got the iron spider suit from tony in civil war but peter's first interaction with tony wasn't him being recruited , peter didn't get a high tech suit from tony to start out, tony didn't scold peter and take the suit away leaving peter to whine that hes nothing without it, peters story's haven't just been about the aftermath of tony's and peter never tried to replace tony.

The MCU peter has more or less just been a side character to tony stark instead of being his own main character with the story's being about him even home coming only happens because of tony and damage.

I want spiderman movies i don't want movies about tony starks side kick and id rather have no spiderman then what we are getting.

How did you make it all the way to phase three of the Marvel cinematic universe and not realize there was not going to be 100% faithful adaptations of these characters? If you honestly believed that then how the fuck did you make it through Age of Ultron without your head exploding?

[vipers]

For further clarification, Tom Holland said we would be open to Spiderman being gay, not that he should be gay.

The context of that was, he was asked what would he think if directors or some such made Spiderman a gay character. His response was that he would be for it.

But he did put foot to mouth by saying that there should be more LGBTQ inclusion to MCU. I have no problem with inclusivity fitting the story of a character arc, but inclusivity just for the sake of inclusivity or checking off a checkbox is dipshittastic stupid.

Changing a story or character to fit a politic narrative we have seen for the past 10 years that, this is just not how it should be done. The box office and audiences have even shown such. Now, if they would create a character with a story that fits politic narrative I would be all for watching that movie. But this is going OT.

Tom Holland must be happy if they change Peter Parker to Mike Morales when he did say "The world isn’t as simple as a straight white guy... these films need to represent more than one type of person,"

[montana]

So I was checking out Dark phoenix and noticed that the Mystique on there and the other X-men movies are completely different. Dark phoenix version looks like the studio didn't even TRY to make her look like the other one. Unless there was a huge age gap, the costume design is outright shitty. T.T
All but dark phoenix, she was sexy af. Dark phoenix makes her look like a kid or some anime character turned into a movie character.

I read some where that Jennifer Lawrence didn't want to go thru the hole make up session cause it was a pain and she didn't want to be in the movie. So they went with a shitty easy to apply make up

[Lorgar Aurelian]

You literally said they should have used him since they already used elements of his life. How ELSE could that be read?

How did you make it all the way to phase three of the Marvel cinematic universe and not realize there was not going to be 100% faithful adaptations of these characters? If you honestly believed that then how the fuck did you make it through Age of Ultron without your head exploding?

I didn't say that, i said they should have used miles and that they stole most of his life that doesn't mean said life stealing is the reason they should have used miles.

I also never expect them to be 100% faithful and i never said i did. I expected bare minimum effect and in the case of peter and the hulk I wouldn't say that got that and i wouldn't say the movies are good enough to make up for it. sure tis better then the amazing spiderman but that bar is so low its burning in hell.

- - - Updated - - -

Most of the rest of the viewing audience loudly disagrees with you, and your voice doesn't overrule theirs.

something being popular doesn't make it above criticism and i never said my voice over ruled any ones.

[Stormspellz]

No, her makeup is .... well, low quality now, it is more "Blue-ish Jennifer Lawrence" than Mystique (same as the Genie in Aladdin is now more Blue Will Smith than Genie).

That was more due to her complaining about the original makeup then a "direction" thing

[unholytestament]

I didn't say that, i said they should have used miles and that they stole most of his life that doesn't mean said life stealing is the reason they should have used miles.

You made both statements at the exact same time, in the exact same sentence. I repeat, how else could that have been read?

I also never expect them to be 100% faithful and i never said i did. I expected bare minimum effect and in the case of peter and the hulk I wouldn't say that got that and i wouldn't say the movies are good enough to make up for it. sure tis better then the amazing spiderman but that bar is so low its burning in hell.

Your reasons are completely arbitrary and there's no point arguing it since you can change them on a whim.

I would argue the bare minimum has certainly been met. Though the MCU didn't go back over it again he's still an orphaned kid living with his aunt May after his uncle dies because of a tragic incident he could have stopped and he is still guided by Ben's wisdom. Though he doesn't say the exact iconic words they manage to get all of this across when Tony picks him up in Civil War. We know where he comes from and what drives him and they all match up with his comic book origin.

[Highelf]

All I know is just about any story that resorts to alternate dimensions and trying appease certain demographics usually ends up being bad.

[Biomega]

All I know is just about any story that resorts to alternate dimensions and trying appease certain demographics usually ends up being bad.

But is that BECAUSE of those appeasement changes, or for some other reason?

Many of the movies that are controversial because of race/gender/whatever changes are remakes, reboots, sequels, or adaptations - that's WHY there's controversy, as we already have established characters that are now changed.

However, remakes/reboots/adaptations/etc. are also more prone to being poorly received in general (at least with some critics and old fans of the series/franchise). That means they had a good chance of being bad even if the controversial casting choices had NOT been made.

A good example are adaptations of anime and video games. Ghost in the Shell, for example, was criticized for casting a white woman in the role of a Japanese character; however, the movie was bad for entirely unrelated reasons, and most anime/manga adaptations are in fact terrible, regardless of who's cast.

Conclusion: just make good movies, please. Who cares if the characters are gay or black or whatever, just don't let the movie suck.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

You made both statements at the exact same time, in the exact same sentence. I repeat, how else could that have been read?

Your reasons are completely arbitrary and there's no point arguing it since you can change them on a whim.

I would argue the bare minimum has certainly been met. Though the MCU didn't go back over it again he's still an orphaned kid living with his aunt May after his uncle dies because of a tragic incident he could have stopped and he is still guided by Ben's wisdom. Though he doesn't say the exact iconic words they manage to get all of this across when Tony picks him up in Civil War. We know where he comes from and what drives him and they all match up with his comic book origin.

my reasons aren't arbitrary they hold true for all MCU content and all content with an outside source for that matter. which is why i don't think the hulk reaches the minimum either. I expect one of two things from movies based off of some other source material either for them to be close to the original material or for them to be good enough story/production wise to stand on its own.

I wouldn't say the MCU spider man hit either of those as i don't think aunt may and uncle ben are all there is to peter. well i don't expect the MCU to be 1 to 1 i expect more then it hitting one point and what we have gotten instead isn't good enough to stand on its own if you ask me.

[Highelf]

But is that BECAUSE of those appeasement changes, or for some other reason?

Many of the movies that are controversial because of race/gender/whatever changes are remakes, reboots, sequels, or adaptations - that's WHY there's controversy, as we already have established characters that are now changed.

However, remakes/reboots/adaptations/etc. are also more prone to being poorly received in general (at least with some critics and old fans of the series/franchise). That means they had a good chance of being bad even if the controversial casting choices had NOT been made.

A good example are adaptations of anime and video games. Ghost in the Shell, for example, was criticized for casting a white woman in the role of a Japanese character; however, the movie was bad for entirely unrelated reasons, and most anime/manga adaptations are in fact terrible, regardless of who's cast.

Conclusion: just make good movies, please. Who cares if the characters are gay or black or whatever, just don't let the movie suck.

I understand that and personally could careless. I stopped caring about disney a while ago. My issue is, these people saying to those complaining about the casting choice for Ariel that they're racist or cry babies etc. Would they be ok with a white, Asian, etc playing the role of black panther? Or the princess from princess and the frog? Would they be ok with replacing the Charlies Angels with all men like they did with Ghostbusters?

On a side note, while i'm a fan of Tom Holland as Peter Parker I did not particularly like Homecoming.

[qwerty123456]

This isn't entirely right.

The problem is marginalization, not existence. If you make a story about, say, the vikings, then chances are there were barely if any black people around. Okay, understandable. But if you make a story about 1990s USA and everyone you ever meet just "happens" to be white, that's not understandable. And, similarly, having a group of people that all just "happen" to be completely straight is likely to not be representative of an actual cross-section of most societies. Such biases require an explanation - and if there's not some plausible diegetic reason, then that explanation is very often just the above-mentioned implicit homophobia. This doesn't necessarily mean active HATRED of homosexuality (and there's still plenty of that around the world), but marginalization is also part of the problem. We know that a fairly significant part of the population is not simply straight and cis-gendered; ignoring those people or making them invisible is effectively discrimination.

I live in the US and there wasn't a single black person in my town until sometime around/after 2010. The only minority people in the town up until then were Hispanic, Amish, and Hmong. Excluding school and parades and stuff I can and do go without seeing a minority for years at a time(in the streets/shops/etc of my town) because the odds of being the grocery store at the same time as someone non white is so low. The US is vast depending on the area and size of the setting something takes place it its completely reasonable and factual to not have a white, black, etc.. person in your film/book/etc.
The same goes with different sexual orientations. There have been several lgbtq people in my town over the years but they all end up leaving as adults as there are no options for them.
Also people tend to befriend others like themselves so to have a film where everyone is straight(or gay) isn't really a problem when you aren't making a book/film/etc about an entire city but a group or groups of people.

As always, though, don't construe this as me demanding agenda-driven storytelling. I see no problem in both being for more diverse representation, and being against forcing such representation through ham-fisted activist design. I'll be the first in line to protest against all those characters you see of late whose only apparent function is "LOOK AT ME I'M GAY!" - but I'll also be first in line to demand more gay people, more trans people, more people of all colors, creeds, and convictions in all forms of media. It has to be done RIGHT, but it does also definitely have to be done. That's the only way we can arrive at a new normal. Because the old normal sucks.

The problem is unless you write a character as X, or just liked a specific actor so changed the part then every time you change something for the sake of changing it its forced.

Does that mean we need more furry representation in media? Or Hmong? Where is the line drawn? And how much is enough? And what is allowed to be replaced and for what? For example, look at all the redheads getting replaced in movies and stuff, just because they don't have souls doesn't mean we should replace them in everything. If we have a character and you have to choose between making them gay or black what do you do? Or do you just change everything and make them gay and black?

[Halyon]

I'll admit I don't know the entire back catalogue of Spiderman, well, at all... but what part EXACTLY about the character requires him to be straight??

Relationship with female partners? Make them dudes... Children? Gay people can have those to...

It might be significant part, but is it really relevant? If it isn't relevant, why would you care?

Nothing as such requires any character to have x sexuality when the plot doesn't revolve around such things, and then it has it's place, so to speak. However, there's no problem in a character being LGBT+ as long as it isn't a character trait or 'their plot', that's what's annoying about it.

It should be Arthur Sparklepants, who just happens to be gay, or Tifanny Sunshine, who just happens to be gay. Building up a character is it's own thing, and having different sexualities is just portraying it organically, not shining a spotlight on it like it's some unicorn.

[Biomega]

I understand that and personally could careless. I stopped caring about disney a while ago. My issue is, these people saying to those complaining about the casting choice for Ariel that they're racist or cry babies etc. Would they be ok with a white, Asian, etc playing the role of black panther? Or the princess from princess and the frog? Would they be ok with replacing the Charlies Angels with all men like they did with Ghostbusters?

Those are bad examples because in those cases the race/gender of the characters actually matters in terms of how the story is set up. Ariel's race has literally zero impact on the story. You could transport the entire plot to basically any part of the world and it would play out the same - but Black Panther doesn't work the same way at all if it was set in, say, Europe. Same with Charlie's Angels - the whole point of it is that it's WOMEN working as secret agents, which is something unexpected and out of the ordinary and they play on that very fact. Whereas something like Ghostbusters is pretty much gender-agnostic in terms of plot.

I live in the US and there wasn't a single black person in my town until sometime around/after 2010. The only minority people in the town up until then were Hispanic, Amish, and Hmong. Excluding school and parades and stuff I can and do go without seeing a minority for years at a time(in the streets/shops/etc of my town) because the odds of being the grocery store at the same time as someone non white is so low. The US is vast depending on the area and size of the setting something takes place it its completely reasonable and factual to not have a white, black, etc.. person in your film/book/etc.
The same goes with different sexual orientations. There have been several lgbtq people in my town over the years but they all end up leaving as adults as there are no options for them.
Also people tend to befriend others like themselves so to have a film where everyone is straight(or gay) isn't really a problem when you aren't making a book/film/etc about an entire city but a group or groups of people.

It feels like you're not getting my point. As I keep saying, if there IS a good, plausible diegetic reason behind the racial/gender/orientation/etc. makeup of a cast then that's fine. But just going "there exist places in the US with almost no black people" is not an excuse - because in much the same way, there also exist places with a lot of black people, so you need a very good reason to be selective in your racial makeup.

Also, it's a bit different when it comes to race and gender, because that's more difficult to hide than something like sexual orientation. It's an argument people bring up a lot, the whole "well there didn't used to be many gays around" spiel - when the reality is that far too many people were or felt forced to either deny or hide their sexual orientation for a long time because of social, economic, and/or political pressures. You also don't go around advertising your sexuality at every occasion, and so it's easier to just not KNOW who's gay and who isn't from casual everyday contact, even for people who aren't denying or hiding it.

Still, the same logic applies: you need a REASON to have everyone be white and straight; and if there's no diegetic reason, then the suspicion mounts that it's just a bias on the part of the creator (either implicit or explicit). If you HAVE a reason, that's fine. But even then you need to carefully examine if it's a good reason. Realism, as I mentioned, isn't necessarily an iron bond. To go back to a previous example - why would people have more problems with a village of vikings where some are played by black actors than they would with a time traveling alien arriving in that village? It's not like either of those has any particularly reasonable basis in fact, yet somehow one is more readily accepted than the other. Not because of internal logic, but because of biases.

The problem is unless you write a character as X, or just liked a specific actor so changed the part then every time you change something for the sake of changing it its forced.

I agree that forcing change for the sake of change can be very problematic - however, just maintaining old structures of marginalization is ALSO problematic. Change has to start somewhere, if it is to come at all. Both extremes are troubling: change for the sake of change, and constancy for the sake of constancy. Just as you don't HAVE to change characters just for the sake of change, characters also don't HAVE to remain the same they always were either.

Does that mean we need more furry representation in media? Or Hmong? Where is the line drawn? And how much is enough? And what is allowed to be replaced and for what? For example, look at all the redheads getting replaced in movies and stuff, just because they don't have souls doesn't mean we should replace them in everything. If we have a character and you have to choose between making them gay or black what do you do? Or do you just change everything and make them gay and black?

There's no patent solution, and suggesting that a lack of one is an argument against change is both ludicrous and fallacious. There's also no reason everyone should be white and straight other than that's how it's been for a long time because white straight people were the ones who had the power to exclude everyone else.

The line is drawn where you reach some sort of equilibrium between the zeitgeist and creative expression. That's neither static nor strictly defined. It shouldn't be. It's subjective, mutable, and fluid - and that's a GOOD thing. It's to be expected that there will be overcompensation, given the long history of marginalization. It's a bandaid solution, really, to arrive at a new normal. There'll be mistakes along the way, but that's how change happens. Resisting change out of principle is a worse alternative.

[qwerty123456]

Those are bad examples because in those cases the race/gender of the characters actually matters in terms of how the story is set up. Ariel's race has literally zero impact on the story. You could transport the entire plot to basically any part of the world and it would play out the same - but Black Panther doesn't work the same way at all if it was set in, say, Europe. Same with Charlie's Angels - the whole point of it is that it's WOMEN working as secret agents, which is something unexpected and out of the ordinary and they play on that very fact. Whereas something like Ghostbusters is pretty much gender-agnostic in terms of plot.


It feels like you're not getting my point. As I keep saying, if there IS a good, plausible diegetic reason behind the racial/gender/orientation/etc. makeup of a cast then that's fine. But just going "there exist places in the US with almost no black people" is not an excuse - because in much the same way, there also exist places with a lot of black people, so you need a very good reason to be selective in your racial makeup.

Also, it's a bit different when it comes to race and gender, because that's more difficult to hide than something like sexual orientation. It's an argument people bring up a lot, the whole "well there didn't used to be many gays around" spiel - when the reality is that far too many people were or felt forced to either deny or hide their sexual orientation for a long time because of social, economic, and/or political pressures. You also don't go around advertising your sexuality at every occasion, and so it's easier to just not KNOW who's gay and who isn't from casual everyday contact, even for people who aren't denying or hiding it.

Still, the same logic applies: you need a REASON to have everyone be white and straight; and if there's no diegetic reason, then the suspicion mounts that it's just a bias on the part of the creator (either implicit or explicit). If you HAVE a reason, that's fine. But even then you need to carefully examine if it's a good reason. Realism, as I mentioned, isn't necessarily an iron bond. To go back to a previous example - why would people have more problems with a village of vikings where some are played by black actors than they would with a time traveling alien arriving in that village? It's not like either of those has any particularly reasonable basis in fact, yet somehow one is more readily accepted than the other. Not because of internal logic, but because of biases.


I agree that forcing change for the sake of change can be very problematic - however, just maintaining old structures of marginalization is ALSO problematic. Change has to start somewhere, if it is to come at all. Both extremes are troubling: change for the sake of change, and constancy for the sake of constancy. Just as you don't HAVE to change characters just for the sake of change, characters also don't HAVE to remain the same they always were either.


There's no patent solution, and suggesting that a lack of one is an argument against change is both ludicrous and fallacious. There's also no reason everyone should be white and straight other than that's how it's been for a long time because white straight people were the ones who had the power to exclude everyone else.

The line is drawn where you reach some sort of equilibrium between the zeitgeist and creative expression. That's neither static nor strictly defined. It shouldn't be. It's subjective, mutable, and fluid - and that's a GOOD thing. It's to be expected that there will be overcompensation, given the long history of marginalization. It's a bandaid solution, really, to arrive at a new normal. There'll be mistakes along the way, but that's how change happens. Resisting change out of principle is a worse alternative.

TRying to read all this but its 4 am so not sure if im answering it right:

If everyone is straight and white then what makes them different characters? You are implying that there needs to be skin/sex diversity and yet the characters are already diverse. And look at the diversity we get in movies now days. What is everyone swapped to? A black person and occasionally a white person. Look at all the preexisting asian, redhead, white, etc characters that get swapped, its always either a white or black person how is that your diversity?

And you don't need to have a reason to make people straight as humans can only reproduce through sex unless of course you are changing someone from being a lesbian or what ever into a straight person. Unless you change the rules of your universe straight people will always be required and basic.

Lets be clear straight white people are the majority in the US with black people being the second most populous group. None of these "diversity" changes are for empowering X its about making money. Typically Asian markets still make money with a white lead so its safer using a white person then using a Chinese person and pissing of some of the Japanese market or what ever. They have noticed that more black and LGBTQ people will go to a film with them in it tho and so will almost always change a person to one of those options(or white).

[Stormcall]

For those complaining about the casting of the little mermaid, did you all complain when Disney made changes to the characters from the original story? Just curious.

Although the double standard is annoying. Blade being a black guy is not at all central to his character. But if you said you were making a new Blade movie, and you had some white guy in mind to play Blade, all these people saying people "have no reason to get mad about Ariel being black because her skin color isn't important!" would be pitching a fit, and suddenly, skin color would be the most important thing in the entire fucking world to them.

[Rennadrel]

Well i'm not even sure if i still can trust Disney.

I just heard rumors Tom Holland thinks spiderman should be gay...

How is that possible when said character has always had a female love interest? Sounds to me like this Tom Holland douche needs to stick to canon. If he wants to make some flamboyant, openly gay character, he can create his own fucking franchise.

- - - Updated - - -

For those complaining about the casting of the little mermaid, did you all complain when Disney made changes to the characters from the original story? Just curious.

Although the double standard is annoying. Blade being a black guy is not at all central to his character. But if you said you were making a new Blade movie, and you had some white guy in mind to play Blade, all these people saying people "have no reason to get mad about Ariel being black because her skin color isn't important!" would be pitching a fit, and suddenly, skin color would be the most important thing in the entire fucking world to them.

I'm of the mind that you should stick to canon if there's already precedent set. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, as they say. Don't get me wrong, I don't have any issue with having a diverse representation of actors, but I also don't believe in trying to change what already exists. The right way to do it is to create new characters that young people can look up to. Disney has already shown they can do that with films like Moana, so why can't they keep doing that and leave the old stuff alone?

[Stormcall]

I'm of the mind that you should stick to canon if there's already precedent set. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, as they say. Don't get me wrong, I don't have any issue with having a diverse representation of actors, but I also don't believe in trying to change what already exists. The right way to do it is to create new characters that young people can look up to. Disney has already shown they can do that with films like Moana, so why can't they keep doing that and leave the old stuff alone?

The Little Mermaid was based on a story. In the story, the mermaid didn't have a name, had fucking green skin, and wasn't a red head. Why was it okay for Disney to change the original story and make her a white redhead and everyone was fine with it but this change is offensive?

[Tiwack]

Imo: Spending hours in the make-up-chair is part of the job for some roles, instead pressure them to be well-prepared and smart about shooting the scenes, getting as much done as fast as possible to minimize suffering for everyone involved just because some director can't make-up-their-minds.

[unholytestament]

my reasons aren't arbitrary they hold true for all MCU content and all content with an outside source for that matter. which is why i don't think the hulk reaches the minimum either. I expect one of two things from movies based off of some other source material either for them to be close to the original material or for them to be good enough story/production wise to stand on its own.

I wouldn't say the MCU spider man hit either of those as i don't think aunt may and uncle ben are all there is to peter. well i don't expect the MCU to be 1 to 1 i expect more then it hitting one point and what we have gotten instead isn't good enough to stand on its own if you ask me.

Then you are certainly applying them arbitrarily. How can only Hulk and Spider-Man be the ones to not pass your standard? Like, seriously, did you watch Age of Ultron at all?

How about Civil War? Where Baron Zemo, a LITERAL NAZI, German noble, super soldier, etc. gets turned into a regular guy from Sakovia that is out for revenge for the death of his regular family.

Black Panther? Because, I mean, shit... Is anyone what they're supposed to be in this movie? Kilmonger got upgraded to royalty, Shuri is helpless without her tech, the Dora Malaje now apparently have command over the Panther tribe's army (which makes NO sense considering how they are supposed to be the daughters of the other tribes), the War Dogs are now common knowledge to apparently everyone in Wakanda instead of being the king's secret police, Bast is mentioned ONCE in the entire movie and has no authority over anything at all, etc. This movie has so little to do with the comics I'm surprised it's not called Constantine.

Planet Hulk Thor: Ragnarok? Valkyrie isn't Valkyrie, she's Caiera. The Grandmaster shouldn't even be here since he was not involved in Ragnarok nor Planet Hulk. And Hela's backstory? Fuck me... And does anyone want to talk about how the Valkyrie army has taken the place of the Einherjar? That's some bullshit.

I mean, how is Spider-Man a top offender when you have all of this and more?

And don't be too hard on Hulk. He can't have his own movies because of twisty rights issues with Universal.

[WoWGoneBad]

Tom Holland must be happy if they change Peter Parker to Mike Morales when he did say "The world isn’t as simple as a straight white guy... these films need to represent more than one type of person,"

Ok so why not create new films where they represent others? Is it really that hard to write a story based on a representation character with superpowers? See that is what I don't get that people do not get. Hollywood would rather recycle movies with representation than create new movies with representation and everyone shouts muh diversity and representation not realizing that Hollywood is laughing to the bank as you don't even realize that you are being given sloppy seconds rather than something original.

But hey if you guys are happy with sloppy seconds by all means be happy.