|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jul 25, 2018 16:55:23 GMT
Are you still going on about the wizard being black? No. I bet he isn't acting like a little kid though.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimanchower on Jul 25, 2018 17:07:32 GMT
It's not a parody, but it's essentially the concept of Spider Man made younger and taken to an extreme. "What if a 12 year old got super powers?" Without question, the arc of the film will be "With great power comes great responsibility." I can't wait. You “can’t wait” for a Shazam movie? |
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Jul 25, 2018 17:09:29 GMT
It's not a parody, but it's essentially the concept of Spider Man made younger and taken to an extreme. "What if a 12 year old got super powers?" Without question, the arc of the film will be "With great power comes great responsibility." I can't wait. You “can’t wait” for a Shazam movie? For A Shazam movie? Not all that interested. For THIS Shazam movie? Can't wait. |
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Jul 25, 2018 17:10:45 GMT
Oh god... Is this the start of that same tired argument that insists white male characters have to be boring and one dimensional in order to be acceptable? Nope. Just the end of the observation that Hollywood has the same tired propaganda message.  |
|
|
|
Post by jimanchower on Jul 25, 2018 17:11:13 GMT
You “can’t wait” for a Shazam movie? For A Shazam movie? Not all that interested. For THIS Shazam movie? Can't wait. Makes sense. |
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jul 25, 2018 18:12:23 GMT
Cant have a strong white male authority figure. That goes against Liberal ideology. They either make him feeble or change his race. You're right! Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Dr. Strange, Ant man, Winter Soldier, Deadpool, Cable, Wolverine, the majority of the of the X-Men, Superman, Batman, Aquaman, Movie Flash, TV Flash, Arrow, Legion, None of them are white, and they're all feeble and have had their races changed! I think you're on to something!
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jul 25, 2018 18:20:03 GMT
You're right! Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Dr. Strange, Ant man, Winter Soldier, Deadpool, Cable, Wolverine, the majority of the of the X-Men, Superman, Batman, Aquaman, Movie Flash, TV Flash, Arrow, Legion, None of them are white, and they're all feeble and have had their races changed! I think you're on to something!
All of them neurotics (usually a parental atonement issue) or require some mentoring to make decisions, unless they are some other racial group.
Compared to Robin Hood in the Adventures of Robin Hood or The Man With No Name in A Fistful of Dollars.
You simply cannot find any old fashioned naturalistic white male portrayal in Hollywood-linked media. They have completely erased it. Even Dracula cannot be produced as the novel suggests because it is anti-liberal. The bad guy is a foreigner who is killed by a group of white men.
Why is the 1958 Dracula so well regarded? One reason is because Van Helsing is an English white male hero figure. He's basically doing the same thing that Beowulf did.
Having him crying about his father or some subplot about being a bad husband or making Dracula a misunderstood positive agent of cultural enrichment would not help the story.
|
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Jul 25, 2018 18:31:59 GMT
You're right! Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Dr. Strange, Ant man, Winter Soldier, Deadpool, Cable, Wolverine, the majority of the of the X-Men, Superman, Batman, Aquaman, Movie Flash, TV Flash, Arrow, Legion, None of them are white, and they're all feeble and have had their races changed! I think you're on to something!
All of them neurotics (usually a parental atonement issue) or require some mentoring to make decisions, unless they are some other racial group.
Compared to Robin Hood in the Adventures of Robin Hood or The Man With No Name in A Fistful of Dollars.
You simply cannot find any old fashioned naturalistic white male portrayal in Hollywood-linked media. They have completely erased it. Even Dracula cannot be produced as the novel suggests because it is anti-liberal. The bad guy is a foreigner who is killed by a group of white men.
Why is the 1958 Dracula so well regarded? One reason is because Van Helsing is an English white male hero figure. He's basically doing the same thing that Beowulf did.
Having him crying about his father or some subplot about being a bad husband or making Dracula a misunderstood positive agent of cultural enrichment would not help the story.
And there it is...that argument that insists white male characters have to be one dimensional in order to be acceptable. (and as an aside...you seriously think that the 58 Dracula is well regarded because Van Helsing is a white guy?) lenlenlen1 I have had this discussion numerous times on this board with different people. It is equal parts hilarious and deeply sad. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jul 25, 2018 18:49:17 GMT
And there it is...that argument that insists white male characters have to be one dimensional in order to be acceptable. That is your interpretation. People still watch Hammer's Dracula or the Adventures of Robin Hood. If "one dimensional" is passe why do people still watch them? Or the Maltese Falcon? Or, why do people dislike whiny Anakin in the Star Wars prequels? He is the perfect example of the white male failure-neurotic.
A character can be complicated without being a dependent neurotic. Achilles in the Iliad, Odysseus in the Odyssey, Hamlet, Ahab, etc. As for Van Helsing, that he is a white guy is beside the point--it is that he is an amalgamation of the novel characters--basically a supernatural Sherlock Holmes. A smart resourceful character is usually an attractive component in a story. The problem is that Hollywood will only allow non Europeans to have that persona now. They do not see art as something immutable and ancient-they see it as an ideological propaganda device.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jul 25, 2018 18:59:47 GMT
Are you still going on about the wizard being black? No. I bet he isn't acting like a little kid though.
It’s more lighthearted to have him acting like a kid even when he’s a superhero. |
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Jul 25, 2018 19:06:37 GMT
And there it is...that argument that insists white male characters have to be one dimensional in order to be acceptable. That is your interpretation. People still watch Hammer's Dracula or the Adventures of Robin Hood. If "one dimensional" is passe why do people still watch them? Or the Maltese Falcon? Or, why do people dislike whiny Anakin in the Star Wars prequels? He is the perfect example of the white male failure-neurotic.
A character can be complicated without being a dependent neurotic. Achilles in the Iliad, Odysseus in the Odyssey, Hamlet, Ahab, etc. As for Van Helsing, that he is a white guy is beside the point--it is that he is an amalgamation of the novel characters--basically a supernatural Sherlock Holmes. A smart resourceful character is usually an attractive component in a story. The problem is that Hollywood will only allow non Europeans to have that persona now. They do not see art as something immutable and ancient-they see it as an ideological propaganda device. B ecause they are classic films with iconic performances, not because they are great character studies. Nobody is holding Errol Flynn's Robin Hood up as a complex character.
At least you will allow flaws. There are others that make similar arguments who disqualify most of the characters you list because they aren't Aryan and have some sort of flaw. The last person I discussed this with held up one of the secondary army leaders in the original Clash of the Titans as some sort of pinnacle of masculinity in film.
Well, you DID say that one of the reasons the film is still watched and is popular is because the hero is White and European, which makes absolutely no sense to me. If the character is still liked it is because of Peter Cushing's performance more than anything, and if the film is still watched it is for the Hammer "Camp" elements and Christopher Lee being amazingly over the top. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jul 25, 2018 19:06:45 GMT
It’s more lighthearted to have him acting like a kid even when he’s a superhero. But only if he is white. if the black guy does it then it would be unPC. But that's the point. Hollywood is hopelessly trapped in ideological propaganda.
The Adventures of Captain Marvel did not inject any kind of political agenda message (except perhaps that different societies can get along best if they are not being manipulated to fight each other by two-faced people).
And the serial is being re-discovered because people like that old fashioned storytelling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jul 25, 2018 19:15:01 GMT
At least you will allow flaws. There are others that make similar arguments who disqualify most of the characters you list because they aren't Aryan and have some sort of flaw. The last person I discussed this with held up one of the secondary army leaders in the original Clash of the Titans as some sort of pinnacle of masculinity in film.
Why or why do you have to use the rainbow font?
Actually I was the one who may have brought that up in Clash of the Titans. The Thallo character. But you know--there is another soldier character who fits that characterization. The Colour Sergeant in ZULU. People often cite Nigel Green's character as a stand out. Why--because he is presented as a completely non-neurotic, do the job kind of soldier character.
"And a bayonet with guts behind it." The neurotics are Stanley Baker and Michael Caine.
People do not even have to think about it, and they will respond naturally to the character types. I think Lovecraft said it and I am just finding examples to demonstrate his point.
But a character can be complicated without being either neurotic or dependent. It's just that Hollywood must make the male white characters neurotic or dependent.
On the other hand, Adrian Brody was able to beat up a Predator alien in Predators, and Shia LaBoueuf was able to destroy a giant evil robot. Even he saw the lunacy of being asked to be the new Indiana Jones. He is way too beta to be an acceptable hero to most audiences. But Hollywood tried.
|
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Jul 25, 2018 19:43:18 GMT
At least you will allow flaws. There are others that make similar arguments who disqualify most of the characters you list because they aren't Aryan and have some sort of flaw. The last person I discussed this with held up one of the secondary army leaders in the original Clash of the Titans as some sort of pinnacle of masculinity in film.
Why or why do you have to use the rainbow font?
Actually I was the one who may have brought that up in Clash of the Titans. The Thallo character. But you know--there is another soldier character who fits that characterization. The Colour Sergeant in ZULU. People often cite Nigel Green's character as a stand out. Why--because he is presented as a completely non-neurotic, do the job kind of soldier character.
"And a bayonet with guts behind it." The neurotics are Stanley Baker and Michael Caine.
People do not even have to think about it, and they will respond naturally to the character types. I think Lovecraft said it and I am just finding examples to demonstrate his point.
But a character can be complicated without being either neurotic or dependent. It's just that Hollywood must make the male white characters neurotic or dependent.
On the other hand, Adrian Brody was able to beat up a Predator alien in Predators, and Shia LaBoueuf was able to destroy a giant evil robot. Even he saw the lunacy of being asked to be the new Indiana Jones. He is way too beta to be an acceptable hero to most audiences. But Hollywood tried. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jul 25, 2018 20:00:38 GMT
I used the colors to correspond to specific thoughts in your post without having to break it up into individual sections. Ok I hate the he said-she said approach so this better.
I think you are wrong about the injection of neurosis being necessary to make the story interesting. There is no reason to add a discussion in ZULU about being ashamed or the wildly out of character rant by the doctor about war butchers. Eliminating those moments would remove nothing from the story.
Whether a character is boring or not depends on the writing skill. It has nothing to do with political ideology unless it is consciously added.
Whether or not Lovecraft was a white supremacist is irrelevant to the points on storytelling and character unless you are admitting that old works should be destroyed (which would actually back up Lovecraft's predictions on history).
As I have mentioned before-in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, he needs his father to tell him to save his life. At the end, Indiana Jones reaches for the Grail, even though someone had already fallen to her death-and he was going to do the same-and he needed fatherly advice on survival to snap him out of it. That is totally neurotic.
You would never see a Gregory Peck or Stewart Granger acting out such a scene.
If such types were eliminated from the gene pool then maybe we could say the neurotic beta qualities is all there is-but if they still exist then it means that aspect of Nature is not being shown in art works-and one of the key elements of great art is truth. Something that tries to circumvent truth is not art, it is propaganda.
|
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Jul 25, 2018 20:14:20 GMT
I used the colors to correspond to specific thoughts in your post without having to break it up into individual sections. Ok I hate the he said-she said approach so this better.
I think you are wrong about the injection of neurosis being necessary to make the story interesting. There is no reason to add a discussion in ZULU about being ashamed or the wildly out of character rant by the doctor about war butchers. Eliminating those moments would remove nothing from the story.
Whether a character is boring or not depends on the writing skill. It has nothing to do with political ideology unless it is consciously added.
Whether or not Lovecraft was a white supremacist is irrelevant to the points on storytelling and character unless you are admitting that old works should be destroyed (which would actually back up Lovecraft's predictions on history).
As I have mentioned before-in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, he needs his father to tell him to save his life. At the end, Indiana Jones reaches for the Grail, even though someone had already fallen to her death-and he was going to do the same-and he needed fatherly advice on survival to snap him out of it. That is totally neurotic.
You would never see a Gregory Peck or Stewart Granger acting out such a scene.
If such types were eliminated from the gene pool then maybe we could say the neurotic beta qualities is all there is-but if they still exist then it means that aspect of Nature is not being shown in art works-and one of the key elements of great art is truth. Something that tries to circumvent truth is not art, it is propaganda. You are a paranoid person. We have discussed this on numerous previous occasions. And I still think you are paranoid and nuts. I have shown with examples in our numerous other identical discussions why I think you are dead wrong on many many levels. You don't accept the examples and generally move the goalposts to keep making your own point. I have no desire to do it all again.
You have a view of the world that makes me sad and tired. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jul 25, 2018 20:20:01 GMT
You are a paranoid person. Not at all. You only need to provide examples from modern Hollywood media that prove this view to be wrong. Yet here we are--yet another revision to a character--Captain Marvel as a child-mind, which just so happens to fit in with Hollywood political agendas. The issue at hand is really, did they have to make him a child-mind? Would it have been impossible to do a traditional story?
I would think anyone who suggests it is impossible to do a traditional story in an entertaining fashion has an extremely limited view on storytelling and lacks imagination.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShadowSouL: Padawan of Yoda on Jul 26, 2018 5:40:14 GMT
Were Kal-El's/Clark Kent's/Superman's values not shaped by the advice and guidance of his Kryptonian and Earth fathers?
Does that not go back to the 1950s, 1940s, and even the late 1930s?
Is Hamlet not counseled by the ghost of his murdered father?
|
|
