|
Post by Cat on Mar 1, 2023 20:19:34 GMT
You mean you don't disagree with it enough for it to be preachy? I don’t mind gay characters but it shouldn’t be too overt in something aimed at kids. Stuff like the She-Ra reboot I was critical of because She-Ra was an established character who was heterosexual and was sexuality swapped and the creator of the show said that she tried to make every character in the show queer. So I may be open-minded but I have limits. It's not always about sexual orientation, but appearance. Have you seen the way the characters are drawn? Rogue in the cartoon is built like a Cajun Goddess stallion. It's already aimed at kids and they've got bodies like that.
Going back to this for a second:
"Yeah. Even Bryan Singer’s X-Men films were gayer than Sam Smith’s ass and that wasn’t as preachy as the MCU has become. Most on the right today aren’t anti-gay. The gay-friendly elements of the X-Men isn’t what I’m talking about."
I didn't think Bryan Singer's films were particularly great, but how are they gay? And how is the MCU preachy?
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 1, 2023 20:33:11 GMT
That they were considered to be the children of Whizzer and Ms. America is irrelevant as the writers decided to have them be Magneto's biological children which lasted for 30+ years and was only retconned a few years ago and was basically a way to excuse the two characters from being affiliated with the X-Men as they were going to be in Age of Ultron and the X-Men rights were still with 20th Century FOX. Not as many people knew who Star-Lord or Bucky were before their appearance on the silver screens in the 2010's through the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Outside of the comic books, Bucky was largely absent from other media presenting Captain America and The Avengers, with only a small cameo in The Ultimates animation and being more fleshed out in the 2010 Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes animated series. It was there also where Star-Lord first appeared in another medium too (if you don't count his non-speaking cameo in Planet Hulk). The X-Men property has been brought into other mediums for a number of years and have enough content a person can be familiar enough with the property without having picked up a single comic book. Not a lot of people see it as a mistake, and think things are fine as they are. It's not irrelevant, it's just that a lot of folks don't know the full history of the characters.
So double standards. Being "lesser known" is no excuse. People knew Catwoman and Penguin's origins before "Batman Returns" but it didn't stop that story from changing them vastly.
They simply haven't seen how a different version could work where Xavier was black, because no one had the guts to try it yet.
It is irrelevant because while it was suggested for a time it was refuted and Marvel established Magneto as their biological father for decades till recently when it was retconned. As I have argued before, I don't think your argument of there being double standards if logically sound because if you take into consideration that someone may be familiar with one intellectual property but another, they are not likely to be as judgmental on its alterations in an adaptation than they would with what they are actually well-versed in. On who is well-versed in Tolkien's Middle Earth doesn't need to be as equally passionate about Harry Potter, it's just a matter of preference and on the content creators and the effectiveness of their reach to the consumer. Marvel produced much X-Men content over the years and made deals with other companies to produce media like animation and film, much of the cast of characters are, as a result, pretty well known in the public consciousness and the bare essentials of their characteristics and relationships. They didn't really do much of anything with Star-Lord of Bucky Barnes beyond the comic page and when they started bringing them into other media it was when the Marvel Cinematic Universe was starting up and plans were in place to bring them onto the big screen. I would say, if anything, the fault probably lies with the company and not the consumer. Also, back in 1992 the internet wasn't as complex as it is today, if Batman Returns was being made now I do not doubt there would be many people complaining about the backstory changes to Catwoman and The Penguin, but back then there wasn't really a huge enough platform to express criticism for such. Also, not many people outside of fans of the comic books were aware of the origins of Catwoman and The Penguin back then, the general idea of the two were that they were criminals with gimmicks - Catwoman was a thief who liked to make cat sounds and dressed in tight, black clothing, and The Penguin was a mobster with a thing for birds. You need to also keep in mind that in 1992 Batman Returns wasn't as warmly received as it is today - it was seen as pretty controversial back when it came out and while it made profit it fell short of what its predecessor had and it wasn't seen as much of a crowd pleaser. Warner Bros. reconsidered how to handle the property, and that led to Batman Forever. What would it accomplish though?
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Mar 1, 2023 20:38:56 GMT
I don’t mind gay characters but it shouldn’t be too overt in something aimed at kids. Stuff like the She-Ra reboot I was critical of because She-Ra was an established character who was heterosexual and was sexuality swapped and the creator of the show said that she tried to make every character in the show queer. So I may be open-minded but I have limits. It's not always about sexual orientation, but appearance. Have you seen the way the characters are drawn? Rogue in the cartoon is built like a Cajun Goddess stallion. It's already aimed at kids and they've got bodies like that.
Going back to this for a second:
"Yeah. Even Bryan Singer’s X-Men films were gayer than Sam Smith’s ass and that wasn’t as preachy as the MCU has become. Most on the right today aren’t anti-gay. The gay-friendly elements of the X-Men isn’t what I’m talking about."
I didn't think Bryan Singer's films were particularly great, but how are they gay? And how is the MCU preachy?
I thought Angel and his father (although not a Singer film) was a relationship akin to his father not accepting his gay or trans son. Bobby’s parents saying ‘can’t you try not being a mutant’ was the same. So it was a subtext but a clear one. And although not part of the film but in the background is the large amount of gay people who starred in the films and Bryan Singer himself which pretty much confirmed these subtexts IMO. How is the MCU preachy? Oh IDK how about the speech Falcon gave at the end ti the senators? Plus the MCU didn’t want Dr Strange to teach Wanda how to contain her powers because it was considered mansplaining.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Mar 1, 2023 20:51:48 GMT
I have to disagree there. The politics in X-Men TAS were objectively a lot more subtle than the politics we get in modern-day shows, regardless of the age of the viewer. That probably depends on you. I can't speak to what all people see in the material, but it seemed clear to me, for example, that the debate over curing the mutant gene and doubling down on being fine the way you are was a metaphor for conversion therapy. Charles and Magneto have always been the liberal and conservative counterpoints to each other.
Objectively is a strong word when a lot of it depends on the viewer. Someone to whom these issues aren't interesting or don't apply may never see it. I'm Jewish so all the stuff about segregation and bigotry toward mutants hit me right away.
Actually I think it's the opposite. The politics in X-Men TAS were subtle precisely because it was up to the viewer as to how to interpret it, whereas majority of politics in modern shows are specifically told to the viewer instead of the viewer being allowed to make an allegory on their own. Just to use your example, there was never anywhere in X-Men TAS where conversion therapy was mentioned. If you want to interpret their debate over curing the mutant gene as a metaphor for conversion therapy then that's up to you and your personal views in life. But the show itself certainly never mentioned anything about conversion therapy. Compare that to say CW's Supergirl, where there was an episode where a black Jimmie Olsen tried to be a superhero and was instead arrested by cops because he was black. They specifically mention in the episode that he was getting unfair treatment due to him being black. There's no metaphor there, no hidden meanings, no allegory. They spell out exactly what political point they were trying to make. And that's why X-Men TAS is objectively more subtle than modern day shows when it comes to politics. Because it deals with metaphors and allegories, whereas modern shows just preach it to you straight-up.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Mar 1, 2023 20:58:22 GMT
It's not always about sexual orientation, but appearance. Have you seen the way the characters are drawn? Rogue in the cartoon is built like a Cajun Goddess stallion. It's already aimed at kids and they've got bodies like that.
Going back to this for a second:
"Yeah. Even Bryan Singer’s X-Men films were gayer than Sam Smith’s ass and that wasn’t as preachy as the MCU has become. Most on the right today aren’t anti-gay. The gay-friendly elements of the X-Men isn’t what I’m talking about."
I didn't think Bryan Singer's films were particularly great, but how are they gay? And how is the MCU preachy?
I thought Angel and his father (although not a Singer film) was a relationship akin to his father not accepting his gay or trans son. Bobby’s parents saying ‘can’t you try not being a mutant’ was the same. So it was a subtext but a clear one. And although not part if the film but in the background is the large amount of gay people who starred in the films and Bryan Singer himself pretty much confirmed these subtexts. How is the MCU preachy? Oh IDK how about the speech Falcon gave at the end ti the senators? Plus the MCU didn’t want Dr Strange to teach Wanda how to contain her powers because it was considered mansplaining. Those are good, actually. Those subtexts in the Singer films. I don't think about them very often but now that you've said that it's coming back to me. Those are glimpses to what I think the X-Men is about.
I didn't think Falcon's speech was particularly preachy. Not in the sense that we were talking about a minute ago. To be fair, I wondered if you were going to bring up the instance where the white police officer asked Bucky in front of Falcon if Falcon was bothering him. I'd argue that was intentionally heavy-handed.
With Doctor Strange, I don't recall him mansplaining Wanda, but I'd wondered if you were thinking of the lead girl's dimension-jumping power as a metaphor for crossing borders, particularly as a Latina character, and during America's "Build the Wall" phase. I felt like that could resonate as heavy-handed, but it didn't seem like many people caught it.
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Mar 1, 2023 21:01:53 GMT
I thought Angel and his father (although not a Singer film) was a relationship akin to his father not accepting his gay or trans son. Bobby’s parents saying ‘can’t you try not being a mutant’ was the same. So it was a subtext but a clear one. And although not part if the film but in the background is the large amount of gay people who starred in the films and Bryan Singer himself pretty much confirmed these subtexts. How is the MCU preachy? Oh IDK how about the speech Falcon gave at the end ti the senators? Plus the MCU didn’t want Dr Strange to teach Wanda how to contain her powers because it was considered mansplaining. Those are good, actually. Those subtexts in the Singer films. I don't think about them very often but now that you've said that it's coming back to me. Those are glimpses to what I think the X-Men is about.
I didn't think Falcon's speech was particularly preachy. Not in the sense that we were talking about a minute ago. To be fair, I wondered if you were going to bring up the instance where the white police officer asked Bucky in front of Falcon if Falcon was bothering him. I'd argue that was intentionally heavy-handed.
With Doctor Strange, I don't recall him mansplaining Wanda, but I'd wondered if you were thinking of the lead girl's dimension-jumping power as a metaphor for crossing borders, particularly as a Latina character, and during America's "Build the Wall" phase. I felt like that could resonate as heavy-handed, but it didn't seem like many people caught it.
Dr Strange was supposed to appear in Wandavision to try to counsel Wanda but Kevin Feige didn’t want a ‘white guy’ to mansplain to her. Look it up, he really said that. It makes you wonder what else is going on regarding their decision making.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Mar 1, 2023 21:35:40 GMT
That probably depends on you. I can't speak to what all people see in the material, but it seemed clear to me, for example, that the debate over curing the mutant gene and doubling down on being fine the way you are was a metaphor for conversion therapy. Charles and Magneto have always been the liberal and conservative counterpoints to each other.
Objectively is a strong word when a lot of it depends on the viewer. Someone to whom these issues aren't interesting or don't apply may never see it. I'm Jewish so all the stuff about segregation and bigotry toward mutants hit me right away.
Actually I think it's the opposite. The politics in X-Men TAS were subtle precisely because it was up to the viewer as to how to interpret it, whereas majority of politics in modern shows are specifically told to the viewer instead of the viewer being allowed to make an allegory on their own. Just to use your example, there was never anywhere in X-Men TAS where conversion therapy was mentioned. If you want to interpret their debate over curing the mutant gene as a metaphor for conversion therapy then that's up to you and your personal views in life. But the show itself certainly never mentioned anything about conversion therapy. Compare that to say CW's Supergirl, where there was an episode where a black Jimmie Olsen tried to be a superhero and was instead arrested by cops because he was black. They specifically mention in the episode that he was getting unfair treatment due to him being black. There's no metaphor there, no hidden meanings, no allegory. They spell out exactly what political point they were trying to make. And that's why X-Men TAS is objectively more subtle than modern day shows when it comes to politics. Because it deals with metaphors and allegories, whereas modern shows just preach it to you straight-up. I'm not sure there is any other interpretation besides conversion therapy. It's homosexuality that isn't mentioned, but it's so obvious a metaphor that it'd be kind of shocking for the creators to come out and say it wasn't their intent. Mentioning conversion therapy by name would ruin the metaphor. It's trying to make curing the mutant gene into a metaphor for conversion therapy so it doesn't have to call it by name. That's the subversive part.
Sometimes I wonder if these shows, science fiction/comics/fantasy, are so couched in metaphor (particularly with aliens and other species) that the messages just slip by.
For my examples, I have to inhibit the mindset of someone looking to be preached to to find examples. I don't know how great an example the Jimmy Olsen one is because unfair treatment by police due to being black is kinda too realistic. It's not an episode (or show) I've seen so I can't confirm or deny it with any real sort of gusto.
I'm losing a little track of what the subject was. I think the point/observation was that the X-Men is incomplete without political messaging, and that to withhold it is to withhold its most stimulating parts. Even the Bryan Singer movies, which I don't think are that good, used Magneto's trauma as a Holocaust survivor who lost his mother has the basis for his beliefs toward human/mutant coexistence. Without political context, there would be no reason for him to have the goals he does. If you're Jewish, then using the Holocaust to make this point is as heavy-handed as it gets.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 1, 2023 22:06:10 GMT
It's not irrelevant, it's just that a lot of folks don't know the full history of the characters.
So double standards. Being "lesser known" is no excuse. People knew Catwoman and Penguin's origins before "Batman Returns" but it didn't stop that story from changing them vastly.
They simply haven't seen how a different version could work where Xavier was black, because no one had the guts to try it yet.
It is irrelevant because while it was suggested for a time it was refuted and Marvel established Magneto as their biological father for decades till recently when it was retconned. As I have argued before, I don't think your argument of there being double standards if logically sound because if you take into consideration that someone may be familiar with one intellectual property but another, they are not likely to be as judgmental on its alterations in an adaptation than they would with what they are actually well-versed in. On who is well-versed in Tolkien's Middle Earth doesn't need to be as equally passionate about Harry Potter, it's just a matter of preference and on the content creators and the effectiveness of their reach to the consumer. Marvel produced much X-Men content over the years and made deals with other companies to produce media like animation and film, much of the cast of characters are, as a result, pretty well known in the public consciousness and the bare essentials of their characteristics and relationships. They didn't really do much of anything with Star-Lord of Bucky Barnes beyond the comic page and when they started bringing them into other media it was when the Marvel Cinematic Universe was starting up and plans were in place to bring them onto the big screen. I would say, if anything, the fault probably lies with the company and not the consumer. Also, back in 1992 the internet wasn't as complex as it is today, if Batman Returns was being made now I do not doubt there would be many people complaining about the backstory changes to Catwoman and The Penguin, but back then there wasn't really a huge enough platform to express criticism for such. Also, not many people outside of fans of the comic books were aware of the origins of Catwoman and The Penguin back then, the general idea of the two were that they were criminals with gimmicks - Catwoman was a thief who liked to make cat sounds and dressed in tight, black clothing, and The Penguin was a mobster with a thing for birds. You need to also keep in mind that in 1992 Batman Returns wasn't as warmly received as it is today - it was seen as pretty controversial back when it came out and while it made profit it fell short of what its predecessor had and it wasn't seen as much of a crowd pleaser. Warner Bros. reconsidered how to handle the property, and that led to Batman Forever. What would it accomplish though? So it's fine for the initial retcon, but retconning the retcon is bad? Is that it?
No one complained about the major changes done to well known characters in other cases, like Catwoman and Penguin and Ra's Al Ghul and Bane. They're as well known as the X-Men, so why is it so awful to do the EXACT SAME THING to the X-Men?
They would've known them from the Adam West show which popularized them, and known that Catwoman wasn't mentally unstable and Penguin wasn't a deformed mutant man living in the sewers. And if Batman Returns was that bad, the advent of Internet Outrage Culture would have made its reputation worse, not better.
Modernization of outdated source material.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 1, 2023 22:07:05 GMT
It's not always about sexual orientation, but appearance. Have you seen the way the characters are drawn? Rogue in the cartoon is built like a Cajun Goddess stallion. It's already aimed at kids and they've got bodies like that.
Going back to this for a second:
"Yeah. Even Bryan Singer’s X-Men films were gayer than Sam Smith’s ass and that wasn’t as preachy as the MCU has become. Most on the right today aren’t anti-gay. The gay-friendly elements of the X-Men isn’t what I’m talking about."
I didn't think Bryan Singer's films were particularly great, but how are they gay? And how is the MCU preachy?
I thought Angel and his father (although not a Singer film) was a relationship akin to his father not accepting his gay or trans son. Bobby’s parents saying ‘can’t you try not being a mutant’ was the same. So it was a subtext but a clear one. And although not part if the film but in the background is the large amount of gay people who starred in the films and Bryan Singer himself pretty much confirmed these subtexts. How is the MCU preachy? Oh IDK how about the speech Falcon gave at the end ti the senators? Plus the MCU didn’t want Dr Strange to teach Wanda how to contain her powers because it was considered mansplaining. Falcon's speech was no worse than any Speech Steve ever gave.
So the MCU didn't want another character to come out of nowhere and resolve WandaVision's conflict for Wanda. That's GOOD WRITING.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 1, 2023 22:08:34 GMT
Those are good, actually. Those subtexts in the Singer films. I don't think about them very often but now that you've said that it's coming back to me. Those are glimpses to what I think the X-Men is about.
I didn't think Falcon's speech was particularly preachy. Not in the sense that we were talking about a minute ago. To be fair, I wondered if you were going to bring up the instance where the white police officer asked Bucky in front of Falcon if Falcon was bothering him. I'd argue that was intentionally heavy-handed.
With Doctor Strange, I don't recall him mansplaining Wanda, but I'd wondered if you were thinking of the lead girl's dimension-jumping power as a metaphor for crossing borders, particularly as a Latina character, and during America's "Build the Wall" phase. I felt like that could resonate as heavy-handed, but it didn't seem like many people caught it.
Dr Strange was supposed to appear in Wandavision to try to counsel Wanda but Kevin Feige didn’t want a ‘white guy’ to mansplain to her. Look it up, he really said that. It makes you wonder what else is going on regarding their decision making. It's hilarious all you can see is the "mansplain" stuff and not that having Dr Strange come out of nowhere to resolve the main conflict for Wanda is just a bad idea to start with. The main characters solving their own conflict is just good writing.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 1, 2023 22:09:45 GMT
Actually I think it's the opposite. The politics in X-Men TAS were subtle precisely because it was up to the viewer as to how to interpret it, whereas majority of politics in modern shows are specifically told to the viewer instead of the viewer being allowed to make an allegory on their own. Just to use your example, there was never anywhere in X-Men TAS where conversion therapy was mentioned. If you want to interpret their debate over curing the mutant gene as a metaphor for conversion therapy then that's up to you and your personal views in life. But the show itself certainly never mentioned anything about conversion therapy. Compare that to say CW's Supergirl, where there was an episode where a black Jimmie Olsen tried to be a superhero and was instead arrested by cops because he was black. They specifically mention in the episode that he was getting unfair treatment due to him being black. There's no metaphor there, no hidden meanings, no allegory. They spell out exactly what political point they were trying to make. And that's why X-Men TAS is objectively more subtle than modern day shows when it comes to politics. Because it deals with metaphors and allegories, whereas modern shows just preach it to you straight-up. I'm not sure there is any other interpretation besides conversion therapy. It's homosexuality that isn't mentioned, but it's so obvious a metaphor that it'd be kind of shocking for the creators to come out and say it wasn't their intent. Mentioning conversion therapy by name would ruin the metaphor. It's trying to make curing the mutant gene into a metaphor for conversion therapy so it doesn't have to call it by name. That's the subversive part.
Sometimes I wonder if these shows, science fiction/comics/fantasy, are so couched in metaphor (particularly with aliens and other species) that the messages just slip by.
For my examples, I have to inhibit the mindset of someone looking to be preached to to find examples. I don't know how great an example the Jimmy Olsen one is because unfair treatment by police due to being black is kinda too realistic. It's not an episode (or show) I've seen so I can't confirm or deny it with any real sort of gusto.
I'm losing a little track of what the subject was. I think the point/observation was that the X-Men is incomplete without political messaging, and that to withhold it is to withhold its most stimulating parts. Even the Bryan Singer movies, which I don't think are that good, used Magneto's trauma as a Holocaust survivor who lost his mother has the basis for his beliefs toward human/mutant coexistence. Without political context, there would be no reason for him to have the goals he does. If you're Jewish, then using the Holocaust to make this point is as heavy-handed as it gets.
The point is that he's fine with metaphors and commentary as long as they're only using the made-up stuff in the setting and never ever bring real world equivalence into it.
Like, having a black guy get mistreated is somehow "too political" and not just a thing about basic human decency.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Mar 2, 2023 1:08:13 GMT
Actually I think it's the opposite. The politics in X-Men TAS were subtle precisely because it was up to the viewer as to how to interpret it, whereas majority of politics in modern shows are specifically told to the viewer instead of the viewer being allowed to make an allegory on their own. Just to use your example, there was never anywhere in X-Men TAS where conversion therapy was mentioned. If you want to interpret their debate over curing the mutant gene as a metaphor for conversion therapy then that's up to you and your personal views in life. But the show itself certainly never mentioned anything about conversion therapy. Compare that to say CW's Supergirl, where there was an episode where a black Jimmie Olsen tried to be a superhero and was instead arrested by cops because he was black. They specifically mention in the episode that he was getting unfair treatment due to him being black. There's no metaphor there, no hidden meanings, no allegory. They spell out exactly what political point they were trying to make. And that's why X-Men TAS is objectively more subtle than modern day shows when it comes to politics. Because it deals with metaphors and allegories, whereas modern shows just preach it to you straight-up. I'm not sure there is any other interpretation besides conversion therapy. It's homosexuality that isn't mentioned, but it's so obvious a metaphor that it'd be kind of shocking for the creators to come out and say it wasn't their intent. Mentioning conversion therapy by name would ruin the metaphor. It's trying to make curing the mutant gene into a metaphor for conversion therapy so it doesn't have to call it by name. That's the subversive part.
Sometimes I wonder if these shows, science fiction/comics/fantasy, are so couched in metaphor (particularly with aliens and other species) that the messages just slip by.
For my examples, I have to inhibit the mindset of someone looking to be preached to to find examples. I don't know how great an example the Jimmy Olsen one is because unfair treatment by police due to being black is kinda too realistic. It's not an episode (or show) I've seen so I can't confirm or deny it with any real sort of gusto.
I'm losing a little track of what the subject was. I think the point/observation was that the X-Men is incomplete without political messaging, and that to withhold it is to withhold its most stimulating parts. Even the Bryan Singer movies, which I don't think are that good, used Magneto's trauma as a Holocaust survivor who lost his mother has the basis for his beliefs toward human/mutant coexistence. Without political context, there would be no reason for him to have the goals he does. If you're Jewish, then using the Holocaust to make this point is as heavy-handed as it gets.
Well, the alternative interpretation is to simply take it for what it is: a discussion about curing mutation. No metaphors, no allegories. Just plain and simple story plotline. Like how most plotlines are written. And that's why it's subtle. If the viewer wanted to read deeper into it and apply some kind of metaphor, then that's up to the viewer. If the viewer wanted to interpret it as nothing more than an entertaining plotline, they could do that as well. In comparison, let's use the She-Hulk show as an example (since you're not familiar with Supergirl). There's a part there where the message they want to deliver is that women are better at controlling their anger than men. So how'd they deliver the message? Not via metaphors or allegories, she just comes right out and says that she's infinitely better at controlling her anger than Bruce because she's a woman. Again, it's very unsubtle because they pretty much just say it straight-up. In any case, I'm not averse to including political messaging in shows provided it's done to service the show, as in they use it to improve the storyline or the characters... which is what X-Men TAS did and what even older cartoons like He-Man and Captain Planet did. What I dislike is when a show is being primarily used like a mouthpiece for a political message, disregarding smart writing completely in order to just preach, which is what we're seeing more and more often with modern shows.
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Mar 2, 2023 1:40:28 GMT
I'm not sure there is any other interpretation besides conversion therapy. It's homosexuality that isn't mentioned, but it's so obvious a metaphor that it'd be kind of shocking for the creators to come out and say it wasn't their intent. Mentioning conversion therapy by name would ruin the metaphor. It's trying to make curing the mutant gene into a metaphor for conversion therapy so it doesn't have to call it by name. That's the subversive part.
Sometimes I wonder if these shows, science fiction/comics/fantasy, are so couched in metaphor (particularly with aliens and other species) that the messages just slip by.
For my examples, I have to inhibit the mindset of someone looking to be preached to to find examples. I don't know how great an example the Jimmy Olsen one is because unfair treatment by police due to being black is kinda too realistic. It's not an episode (or show) I've seen so I can't confirm or deny it with any real sort of gusto.
I'm losing a little track of what the subject was. I think the point/observation was that the X-Men is incomplete without political messaging, and that to withhold it is to withhold its most stimulating parts. Even the Bryan Singer movies, which I don't think are that good, used Magneto's trauma as a Holocaust survivor who lost his mother has the basis for his beliefs toward human/mutant coexistence. Without political context, there would be no reason for him to have the goals he does. If you're Jewish, then using the Holocaust to make this point is as heavy-handed as it gets.
Well, the alternative interpretation is to simply take it for what it is: a discussion about curing mutation. No metaphors, no allegories. Just plain and simple story plotline. Like how most plotlines are written. And that's why it's subtle. If the viewer wanted to read deeper into it and apply some kind of metaphor, then that's up to the viewer. If the viewer wanted to interpret it as nothing more than an entertaining plotline, they could do that as well. In comparison, let's use the She-Hulk show as an example (since you're not familiar with Supergirl). There's a part there where the message they want to deliver is that women are better at controlling their anger than men. So how'd they deliver the message? Not via metaphors or allegories, she just comes right out and says that she's infinitely better at controlling her anger than Bruce because she's a woman. Again, it's very unsubtle because they pretty much just say it straight-up. In any case, I'm not averse to including political messaging in shows provided it's done to service the show, as in they use it to improve the storyline or the characters... which is what X-Men TAS did and what even older cartoons like He-Man and Captain Planet did. What I dislike is when a show is being primarily used like a mouthpiece for a political message, disregarding smart writing completely in order to just preach, which is what we're seeing more and more often with modern shows. Exactly. If you’re going to have a message, make sure the story is entertaining at least. Some seem to think that preaching in itself IS good writing or a replacement for good writing. It isn’t.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Mar 2, 2023 1:46:13 GMT
I'm not sure there is any other interpretation besides conversion therapy. It's homosexuality that isn't mentioned, but it's so obvious a metaphor that it'd be kind of shocking for the creators to come out and say it wasn't their intent. Mentioning conversion therapy by name would ruin the metaphor. It's trying to make curing the mutant gene into a metaphor for conversion therapy so it doesn't have to call it by name. That's the subversive part.
Sometimes I wonder if these shows, science fiction/comics/fantasy, are so couched in metaphor (particularly with aliens and other species) that the messages just slip by.
For my examples, I have to inhibit the mindset of someone looking to be preached to to find examples. I don't know how great an example the Jimmy Olsen one is because unfair treatment by police due to being black is kinda too realistic. It's not an episode (or show) I've seen so I can't confirm or deny it with any real sort of gusto.
I'm losing a little track of what the subject was. I think the point/observation was that the X-Men is incomplete without political messaging, and that to withhold it is to withhold its most stimulating parts. Even the Bryan Singer movies, which I don't think are that good, used Magneto's trauma as a Holocaust survivor who lost his mother has the basis for his beliefs toward human/mutant coexistence. Without political context, there would be no reason for him to have the goals he does. If you're Jewish, then using the Holocaust to make this point is as heavy-handed as it gets.
Well, the alternative interpretation is to simply take it for what it is: a discussion about curing mutation. No metaphors, no allegories. Just plain and simple story plotline. Like how most plotlines are written. And that's why it's subtle. If the viewer wanted to read deeper into it and apply some kind of metaphor, then that's up to the viewer. If the viewer wanted to interpret it as nothing more than an entertaining plotline, they could do that as well. In comparison, let's use the She-Hulk show as an example (since you're not familiar with Supergirl). There's a part there where the message they want to deliver is that women are better at controlling their anger than men. So how'd they deliver the message? Not via metaphors or allegories, she just comes right out and says that she's infinitely better at controlling her anger than Bruce because she's a woman. Again, it's very unsubtle because they pretty much just say it straight-up. In any case, I'm not averse to including political messaging in shows provided it's done to service the show, as in they use it to improve the storyline or the characters... which is what X-Men TAS did and what even older cartoons like He-Man and Captain Planet did. What I dislike is when a show is being primarily used like a mouthpiece for a political message, disregarding smart writing completely in order to just preach, which is what we're seeing more and more often with modern shows. This is kindof what I came in saying though, without the examples. The politics in the X-Men were what made it good, and as an animated show, beneath the radar of most viewers who were young. I don't remember He-Man, but Captain Planet is another show that did that. Political subtext adds so much. I don't even really care about the other shows. My only point was that if you take political messaging out of the X-Men, you don't leave it with much.
Although it sounds to me like the issue is the writing, not the messaging. In that She-Hulk example, which I thought was a terrible show, that example doesn't work for me because it didn't come across as sloppily or badly written. She's using a fantastical scenario like thinking she's been mutated into a creature that transforms when they get angry to labor how much they've learned to control their anger as a woman. That's not disregarding smart writing. That's a character showing who they are. Exposition, I guess. Disregarding smart writing is ending with a free-for-all of everyone showing up in the final fight, then leaving the show to talk to a robot named Kevin.
My question I guess is are you interesting in political subtext done well or would you rather none at all?
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 2, 2023 1:58:51 GMT
Well, the alternative interpretation is to simply take it for what it is: a discussion about curing mutation. No metaphors, no allegories. Just plain and simple story plotline. Like how most plotlines are written. And that's why it's subtle. If the viewer wanted to read deeper into it and apply some kind of metaphor, then that's up to the viewer. If the viewer wanted to interpret it as nothing more than an entertaining plotline, they could do that as well. In comparison, let's use the She-Hulk show as an example (since you're not familiar with Supergirl). There's a part there where the message they want to deliver is that women are better at controlling their anger than men. So how'd they deliver the message? Not via metaphors or allegories, she just comes right out and says that she's infinitely better at controlling her anger than Bruce because she's a woman. Again, it's very unsubtle because they pretty much just say it straight-up. In any case, I'm not averse to including political messaging in shows provided it's done to service the show, as in they use it to improve the storyline or the characters... which is what X-Men TAS did and what even older cartoons like He-Man and Captain Planet did. What I dislike is when a show is being primarily used like a mouthpiece for a political message, disregarding smart writing completely in order to just preach, which is what we're seeing more and more often with modern shows. Exactly. If you’re going to have a message, make sure the story is entertaining at least. Some seem to think that preaching in itself IS good writing or a replacement for good writing. It isn’t. You must have hated "The Wire".
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Mar 2, 2023 3:13:00 GMT
Well, the alternative interpretation is to simply take it for what it is: a discussion about curing mutation. No metaphors, no allegories. Just plain and simple story plotline. Like how most plotlines are written. And that's why it's subtle. If the viewer wanted to read deeper into it and apply some kind of metaphor, then that's up to the viewer. If the viewer wanted to interpret it as nothing more than an entertaining plotline, they could do that as well. In comparison, let's use the She-Hulk show as an example (since you're not familiar with Supergirl). There's a part there where the message they want to deliver is that women are better at controlling their anger than men. So how'd they deliver the message? Not via metaphors or allegories, she just comes right out and says that she's infinitely better at controlling her anger than Bruce because she's a woman. Again, it's very unsubtle because they pretty much just say it straight-up. In any case, I'm not averse to including political messaging in shows provided it's done to service the show, as in they use it to improve the storyline or the characters... which is what X-Men TAS did and what even older cartoons like He-Man and Captain Planet did. What I dislike is when a show is being primarily used like a mouthpiece for a political message, disregarding smart writing completely in order to just preach, which is what we're seeing more and more often with modern shows. Exactly. If you’re going to have a message, make sure the story is entertaining at least. Some seem to think that preaching in itself IS good writing or a replacement for good writing. It isn’t. Depends if it's well built-up. Using social commentary or political subtext is no guaranteed formula for anything. It's all such a toss-up. This stuff's never been an exact science.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 2, 2023 4:34:21 GMT
It is irrelevant because while it was suggested for a time it was refuted and Marvel established Magneto as their biological father for decades till recently when it was retconned. As I have argued before, I don't think your argument of there being double standards if logically sound because if you take into consideration that someone may be familiar with one intellectual property but another, they are not likely to be as judgmental on its alterations in an adaptation than they would with what they are actually well-versed in. On who is well-versed in Tolkien's Middle Earth doesn't need to be as equally passionate about Harry Potter, it's just a matter of preference and on the content creators and the effectiveness of their reach to the consumer. Marvel produced much X-Men content over the years and made deals with other companies to produce media like animation and film, much of the cast of characters are, as a result, pretty well known in the public consciousness and the bare essentials of their characteristics and relationships. They didn't really do much of anything with Star-Lord of Bucky Barnes beyond the comic page and when they started bringing them into other media it was when the Marvel Cinematic Universe was starting up and plans were in place to bring them onto the big screen. I would say, if anything, the fault probably lies with the company and not the consumer. Also, back in 1992 the internet wasn't as complex as it is today, if Batman Returns was being made now I do not doubt there would be many people complaining about the backstory changes to Catwoman and The Penguin, but back then there wasn't really a huge enough platform to express criticism for such. Also, not many people outside of fans of the comic books were aware of the origins of Catwoman and The Penguin back then, the general idea of the two were that they were criminals with gimmicks - Catwoman was a thief who liked to make cat sounds and dressed in tight, black clothing, and The Penguin was a mobster with a thing for birds. You need to also keep in mind that in 1992 Batman Returns wasn't as warmly received as it is today - it was seen as pretty controversial back when it came out and while it made profit it fell short of what its predecessor had and it wasn't seen as much of a crowd pleaser. Warner Bros. reconsidered how to handle the property, and that led to Batman Forever. What would it accomplish though? So it's fine for the initial retcon, but retconning the retcon is bad? Is that it?
No one complained about the major changes done to well known characters in other cases, like Catwoman and Penguin and Ra's Al Ghul and Bane. They're as well known as the X-Men, so why is it so awful to do the EXACT SAME THING to the X-Men?
They would've known them from the Adam West show which popularized them, and known that Catwoman wasn't mentally unstable and Penguin wasn't a deformed mutant man living in the sewers. And if Batman Returns was that bad, the advent of Internet Outrage Culture would have made its reputation worse, not better.
Modernization of outdated source material.
You are misunderstanding the point that I am trying to get across. The period of time Marvel has portrayed Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver as the biological children of Magneto in media is far longer compared to when they had suspicion of being the children of Whizzer and Miss America. The idea was introduced in the early 80's, when the title was really taking off in popularity, and was preserved in other forms of media adapting the property. Because of this, you have generations of people who associate the two characters as Magneto's children, the latest retcon by Marvel (made to make it so that neither character is required to have ties to the X-Men because of film and television rights issues) wasn't well received which is why you still have Erik treat Wanda and Pietro as his own and whenever the plot needs it they acknowledge him as a father. By contrast, Star-Lord was generally placed in stories for more niche titles and Bucky was still presented as a ghost from Captain America's past, Bucky didn't get a retooling till the 00's and they wisely made him more Rogers' age for the movie version because they wanted to follow it up with The Winter Soldier storyline. Star-Lord didn't appear on television till, as previously mentioned, Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes, at the time when they were developing a Guardians of the Galaxy feature that was taking cues from the more recent title revamp. (To simplify it, a person who understands one property or characters but doesn't know of the other is not likely to be as judgmental to changes made to it than they would with one they have most history with). If memory serves, you were one of those people who were criticizing the past X-Men movies for being detached from the source material, and you weren't the only one to express such criticism, either. And people have complained about the changes made to those characters - one of the biggest sins of Batman & Robin is considered to be the mistreatment of Bane (Not even his creators Chuck Dixon and Graham Nolan bothered to see the movie and wouldn't for a number of years because it wasn't a good adaptation of the character). Catwoman was mentally unstable in the Adam West series. She might not have been playing tic-tac-toe on people's eyes, licking herself, or swallowing a bird whole in Batman Returns in 1992, but she was a criminal with sinister goals and whenever the occasion didn't call for a change in attire, she was always wearing her catsuit, necklace, claws, and ears on top of her head. Every villain of the series was framed in a slanted angle to illustrate that they were psychologically crooked, Catwoman (any version) was no different. Both versions of Catwoman and The Penguin in Batman Returns were serious departures from the source material, but outside of comic book fans the general impression most people had of them was that they were villains and in the 1990's everything was becoming "extreme" to stay hip and exciting to consumers. The approach backfired on initial release as the film was deemed very controversial for being too atypical from the regular summer blockbuster and not as exciting or as crowd pleasing as its predecessor was, McDonald's had to shut down the production of its line of happy meals due to the outrage by concerned parents. The film's reception improved over time, especially in light of the release of Batman & Robin in 1997, and became respected for going against the norm, which is still see as one of its strengths today, not to mention many of the kids who grew up in the 1980's and 1990's have nostalgia for it. The Fantastic Four and Charles Xaiver being white isn't an outdated concept, there's nothing wrong with them being as they are now.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 2, 2023 4:51:44 GMT
So it's fine for the initial retcon, but retconning the retcon is bad? Is that it?
No one complained about the major changes done to well known characters in other cases, like Catwoman and Penguin and Ra's Al Ghul and Bane. They're as well known as the X-Men, so why is it so awful to do the EXACT SAME THING to the X-Men?
They would've known them from the Adam West show which popularized them, and known that Catwoman wasn't mentally unstable and Penguin wasn't a deformed mutant man living in the sewers. And if Batman Returns was that bad, the advent of Internet Outrage Culture would have made its reputation worse, not better.
Modernization of outdated source material.
You are misunderstanding the point that I am trying to get across. The period of time Marvel has portrayed Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver as the biological children of Magneto in media is far longer compared to when they had suspicion of being the children of Whizzer and Miss America. The idea was introduced in the early 80's, when the title was really taking off in popularity, and was preserved in other forms of media adapting the property. Because of this, you have generations of people who associate the two characters as Magneto's children, the latest retcon by Marvel (made to make it so that neither character is required to have ties to the X-Men because of film and television rights issues) wasn't well received which is why you still have Erik treat Wanda and Pietro as his own and whenever the plot needs it they acknowledge him as a father. By contrast, Star-Lord was generally placed in stories for more niche titles and Bucky was still presented as a ghost from Captain America's past, Bucky didn't get a retooling till the 00's and they wisely made him more Rogers' age for the movie version because they wanted to follow it up with The Winter Soldier storyline. Star-Lord didn't appear on television till, as previously mentioned, Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes, at the time when they were developing a Guardians of the Galaxy feature that was taking cues from the more recent title revamp. (To simplify it, a person who understands one property or characters but doesn't know of the other is not likely to be as judgmental to changes made to it than they would with one they have most history with). If memory serves, you were one of those people who were criticizing the past X-Men movies for being detached from the source material, and you weren't the only one to express such criticism, either. And people have complained about the changes made to those characters - one of the biggest sins of Batman & Robin is considered to be the mistreatment of Bane (Not even his creators Chuck Dixon and Graham Nolan bothered to see the movie and wouldn't for a number of years because it wasn't a good adaptation of the character). Catwoman was mentally unstable in the Adam West series. She might not have been playing tic-tac-toe on people's eyes, licking herself, or swallowing a bird whole in Batman Returns in 1992, but she was a criminal with sinister goals and whenever the occasion didn't call for a change in attire, she was always wearing her catsuit, necklace, claws, and ears on top of her head. Every villain of the series was framed in a slanted angle to illustrate that they were psychologically crooked, Catwoman (any version) was no different. Both versions of Catwoman and The Penguin in Batman Returns were serious departures from the source material, but outside of comic book fans the general impression most people had of them was that they were villains and in the 1990's everything was becoming "extreme" to stay hip and exciting to consumers. The approach backfired on initial release as the film was deemed very controversial for being too atypical from the regular summer blockbuster and not as exciting or as crowd pleasing as its predecessor was, McDonald's had to shut down the production of its line of happy meals due to the outrage by concerned parents. The film's reception improved over time, especially in light of the release of Batman & Robin in 1997, and became respected for going against the norm, which is still see as one of its strengths today, not to mention many of the kids who grew up in the 1980's and 1990's have nostalgia for it. The Fantastic Four and Charles Xaiver being white isn't an outdated concept, there's nothing wrong with them being as they are now. The point is, it worked for Star-Lord and Bucky which shows it's not a bad thing and neither Pietro nor Wanda are terribly affected by the family relation being dropped either. Which means changes during adaptations are not a "Always wrong" game.
I was referring to the Chris Nolan Bane, actually. He changed a lot of things.
The X-Men changes were doing out of contempt for the source material, rather than pragmatism.
Catwoman was a camp villain in a camp series, not a mentally unstable secretary who wanted revenge on her boss like Burton did. Yet the Pfeiffer Catwoman is loved for the change.
Uh huh, like you said it went against the norm and is loved for it.
It is, making things as homogeneous as they were was a mistake. Now it's time to start correcting that mistake.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 2, 2023 6:41:04 GMT
You are misunderstanding the point that I am trying to get across. The period of time Marvel has portrayed Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver as the biological children of Magneto in media is far longer compared to when they had suspicion of being the children of Whizzer and Miss America. The idea was introduced in the early 80's, when the title was really taking off in popularity, and was preserved in other forms of media adapting the property. Because of this, you have generations of people who associate the two characters as Magneto's children, the latest retcon by Marvel (made to make it so that neither character is required to have ties to the X-Men because of film and television rights issues) wasn't well received which is why you still have Erik treat Wanda and Pietro as his own and whenever the plot needs it they acknowledge him as a father. By contrast, Star-Lord was generally placed in stories for more niche titles and Bucky was still presented as a ghost from Captain America's past, Bucky didn't get a retooling till the 00's and they wisely made him more Rogers' age for the movie version because they wanted to follow it up with The Winter Soldier storyline. Star-Lord didn't appear on television till, as previously mentioned, Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes, at the time when they were developing a Guardians of the Galaxy feature that was taking cues from the more recent title revamp. (To simplify it, a person who understands one property or characters but doesn't know of the other is not likely to be as judgmental to changes made to it than they would with one they have most history with). If memory serves, you were one of those people who were criticizing the past X-Men movies for being detached from the source material, and you weren't the only one to express such criticism, either. And people have complained about the changes made to those characters - one of the biggest sins of Batman & Robin is considered to be the mistreatment of Bane (Not even his creators Chuck Dixon and Graham Nolan bothered to see the movie and wouldn't for a number of years because it wasn't a good adaptation of the character). Catwoman was mentally unstable in the Adam West series. She might not have been playing tic-tac-toe on people's eyes, licking herself, or swallowing a bird whole in Batman Returns in 1992, but she was a criminal with sinister goals and whenever the occasion didn't call for a change in attire, she was always wearing her catsuit, necklace, claws, and ears on top of her head. Every villain of the series was framed in a slanted angle to illustrate that they were psychologically crooked, Catwoman (any version) was no different. Both versions of Catwoman and The Penguin in Batman Returns were serious departures from the source material, but outside of comic book fans the general impression most people had of them was that they were villains and in the 1990's everything was becoming "extreme" to stay hip and exciting to consumers. The approach backfired on initial release as the film was deemed very controversial for being too atypical from the regular summer blockbuster and not as exciting or as crowd pleasing as its predecessor was, McDonald's had to shut down the production of its line of happy meals due to the outrage by concerned parents. The film's reception improved over time, especially in light of the release of Batman & Robin in 1997, and became respected for going against the norm, which is still see as one of its strengths today, not to mention many of the kids who grew up in the 1980's and 1990's have nostalgia for it. The Fantastic Four and Charles Xaiver being white isn't an outdated concept, there's nothing wrong with them being as they are now. The point is, it worked for Star-Lord and Bucky which shows it's not a bad thing and neither Pietro nor Wanda are terribly affected by the family relation being dropped either. Which means changes during adaptations are not a "Always wrong" game.
I was referring to the Chris Nolan Bane, actually. He changed a lot of things.
The X-Men changes were doing out of contempt for the source material, rather than pragmatism.
Catwoman was a camp villain in a camp series, not a mentally unstable secretary who wanted revenge on her boss like Burton did. Yet the Pfeiffer Catwoman is loved for the change.
Uh huh, like you said it went against the norm and is loved for it.
It is, making things as homogeneous as they were was a mistake. Now it's time to start correcting that mistake.
But I wasn't making the argument that change equates to being bad, you can still produce a bad adaptation of a work and still make something entertaining from it, however, you may end up creating a different impression of the property and character and eliminating potentially rich stories to tell from the source material if you cut out specific key elements. I have actually seen plenty of people complain about Christopher Nolan's take on Bane, in that he was a hired hand, didn't have venom, and wasn't easy to hear, for starters. Curious, but what is an example of something in an adaptation (I am not limiting it to the X-Men) that you consider as being contempt for the source material and what you believe is an example of pragmatism? Catwoman in the '66 series was mentally unstable, you would have to be to want to commit the kind of crimes she had and wanting to wear that outfit every minute of the day. I don't think Pfeiffer's Catwoman is loved necessarily because of the change in origin but more because of how well Pfeiffer performed in the role. I don't think it would be as popular a portrayal if another actress had played the part. There's no need to correct anything, the characters are fine as they are, and there are plenty of other characters in the Marvel universe who aren't white and do warrant their own movies and television series.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Mar 2, 2023 8:38:27 GMT
And I keep getting reminded how unbearable the internet will be once the MCU does bring in the X-Men.
From the Fox-Men who are still salty that it's over to the cancerous anti-sjw/woke people crying about "forced politics" in whatever Xmen movie or show we get.
Abandon hope all ye who enter here...
|
|