|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 14, 2023 22:55:23 GMT
No, "woke" is progressive ideology taken to extreme lengths to justify and to satisfy the worldview of select people, even if it means to bend the rules to receive acknowledgment and special treatment from society and paint all opposition as repulsive. Normal and healthy progressivism is to be against issues which are in relation to the established ideals of a society - no mistreatment, no prejudice, to be open for debate with opposition who are willing to have conversation, without the expectation of being rewarded for success beyond what they are supporting. Stan Lee would not agree. And yet anytime we see a woman who isn't a useless shrieking damsel or a nonwhite in a leading role it's always automatically labeled "Woke". Which means the word now encompasses anything remotely progressive.
He can disagree, his works say otherwise.
Only if the work appears to have an agenda. If the product's mission statement reads as clear that all men are bad or that all white people are bad, then the average person isn't likely to be passive about it and think it is harmless entertainment. Art is by and large subjective and open to interpretation in the years that follow its release, but the intention isn't often as subjective if the originator of the work makes it known. In this case, Marvel published many progressive stories in the time when Stan Lee had been with the company, but Lee himself didn't set out to present the stories as being preachy and wanted the reader to be able to escape into a different world on the first page. He wanted to entertain, and he encouraged the mentality of being an entertainer first and foremost to the writers and artists throughout the company. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 14, 2023 23:02:21 GMT
As stated before - trying to justify your bigotry doesn't make you look like any less of a fool. You have equated me to such people, and have acted like a bully, you lost all respect I had for you. Justifying an attitude towards contemptible people who seek to ruin the experience for everyone else isn't wrong. The only ones who need to justify themselves are the ones who have done these appalling things like trying to make Jar-Jar's actor kill himself. Associating any opposition to your argument in the same group responsible for what you have described is wrong, and bad form. Have I or anyone else in this topic have said anything to suggest that we are exactly the sort of people who made racially and sexually motivated negative comments towards the cast of the Star Wars sequel trilogy or taking dislike of the Jar-Jar Binks character to such an extreme? How would you feel if I or another person present were to categorize you as belonging to the group of individuals who are trying to make lists of any person streaming the recently released Harry Potter video game Hogwarts Legacy on Twitch to stalk, bully, and harass them online because you present yourself as very progressive and or 'woke'? |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 14, 2023 23:06:26 GMT
I didn't say he was wrong in regard to that; I am saying it is wrong to assume the worst and automatically single out every single person who disagrees with him on the quality of media, which he has done often in this topic of discussion and elsewhere as of late. It's childish, ridiculous, and he is acting like a jerk and a bully. The last 7 years have given me little reason to assume there's any reason that the "fans" have learned anything. Do you think they learned anything? But to associate any person who was not in favor of the Star Wars sequel trilogy, or anything Star Wars related under Disney, with the same set of toxic individuals is childish, ridiculous, and just plain wrong - especially if the person you are debating with has not expressed their views in any such a way to warrant the categorization. How would you feel if someone were to say you are among the group of individuals wanting to collect all the names of people streaming the Hogwarts Legacy video game to publicly shame them online simply because you present yourself as very progressive / 'woke'? |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 14, 2023 23:36:49 GMT
So you're saying Gal Gadot wasn't the lead in Wonder Woman? Charlize Theron was so pathetic in Atomic Blonde? Someone else stole the lead from Alita? No, she wasn't. Due to being "Born Sexy Yesterday", Chris Pine was more of a real lead than her.
Yeah, her character was a real mess.
Alita was also "Born Sexy Yesterday", the lead role was stolen by her boyfriend and Christoph Waltz
The movie is called "Wonder Woman", the movie begins with her, most of the movie's story centers around her. Theron in Atomic Blonde wasn't squeaky clean, but she was very effective at her job. Nobody, other than you, has made the argument that Alita's dominance in the story was taken over by Christoph Waltz or Keean Johnson. And I have to ask if you even saw A Quiet Place or its sequel, because John Krasinski dies near the end of the first one and Emily Blunt saves the day, Emily Blunt is the general hero of the story in the sequel. Also, Creed III is a hotly anticipated release, Stallone is nowhere in the movie. I will add that Jyn Erso has been used in other Star Wars content post Rogue One, as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 15, 2023 2:25:02 GMT
So you're saying Gal Gadot wasn't the lead in Wonder Woman? Charlize Theron was so pathetic in Atomic Blonde? Someone else stole the lead from Alita? No, she wasn't. Due to being "Born Sexy Yesterday", Chris Pine was more of a real lead than her.
Yeah, her character was a real mess.
Alita was also "Born Sexy Yesterday", the lead role was stolen by her boyfriend and Christoph Waltz
Born sexy yesterday? I'm not sure I understand your meaning here. Are you implying that a movie can't be called woke if the lead character is attractive? And if your reasoning for these movies not being called woke is that the supporting cast were more famous than the lead, then why was Captain Marvel called woke when SLJ is infinitely more famous than Brie Larson? Why was Terminator Dark Fate called woke when Arni was there? Why was the Charlie's Angels reboot called woke when Patrick Stewart was a supporting cast? Why was the female Ghostbusters movie called woke when Hemsworth was there? |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 15, 2023 2:58:54 GMT
And yet anytime we see a woman who isn't a useless shrieking damsel or a nonwhite in a leading role it's always automatically labeled "Woke". Which means the word now encompasses anything remotely progressive.
He can disagree, his works say otherwise.
Only if the work appears to have an agenda. If the product's mission statement reads as clear that all men are bad or that all white people are bad, then the average person isn't likely to be passive about it and think it is harmless entertainment. Art is by and large subjective and open to interpretation in the years that follow its release, but the intention isn't often as subjective if the originator of the work makes it known. In this case, Marvel published many progressive stories in the time when Stan Lee had been with the company, but Lee himself didn't set out to present the stories as being preachy and wanted the reader to be able to escape into a different world on the first page. He wanted to entertain, and he encouraged the mentality of being an entertainer first and foremost to the writers and artists throughout the company. Every story that's every existed has "An Agenda". That doesn't mean anything. Every product has a mission statement as well, and no one has every done one saying "All Men as bad" or "All Whites are Bad". It's all fake propaganda.
He can say he didn't set out to be preachy, but plenty of those older stories actually ARE.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 15, 2023 2:59:47 GMT
Justifying an attitude towards contemptible people who seek to ruin the experience for everyone else isn't wrong. The only ones who need to justify themselves are the ones who have done these appalling things like trying to make Jar-Jar's actor kill himself. Associating any opposition to your argument in the same group responsible for what you have described is wrong, and bad form. Have I or anyone else in this topic have said anything to suggest that we are exactly the sort of people who made racially and sexually motivated negative comments towards the cast of the Star Wars sequel trilogy or taking dislike of the Jar-Jar Binks character to such an extreme? How would you feel if I or another person present were to categorize you as belonging to the group of individuals who are trying to make lists of any person streaming the recently released Harry Potter video game Hogwarts Legacy on Twitch to stalk, bully, and harass them online because you present yourself as very progressive and or 'woke'? If they don't make it clear they don't stand for that kind of behavior, then it's on them.
I'd make it clear I don't stand for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 15, 2023 3:00:26 GMT
The last 7 years have given me little reason to assume there's any reason that the "fans" have learned anything. Do you think they learned anything? But to associate any person who was not in favor of the Star Wars sequel trilogy, or anything Star Wars related under Disney, with the same set of toxic individuals is childish, ridiculous, and just plain wrong - especially if the person you are debating with has not expressed their views in any such a way to warrant the categorization. How would you feel if someone were to say you are among the group of individuals wanting to collect all the names of people streaming the Hogwarts Legacy video game to publicly shame them online simply because you present yourself as very progressive / 'woke'? That DOES happen to me, even when I make it clear I detest such behavior. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 15, 2023 3:02:39 GMT
No, she wasn't. Due to being "Born Sexy Yesterday", Chris Pine was more of a real lead than her.
Yeah, her character was a real mess.
Alita was also "Born Sexy Yesterday", the lead role was stolen by her boyfriend and Christoph Waltz
The movie is called "Wonder Woman", the movie begins with her, most of the movie's story centers around her. Theron in Atomic Blonde wasn't squeaky clean, but she was very effective at her job. Nobody, other than you, has made the argument that Alita's dominance in the story was taken over by Christoph Waltz or Keean Johnson. And I have to ask if you even saw A Quiet Place or its sequel, because John Krasinski dies near the end of the first one and Emily Blunt saves the day, Emily Blunt is the general hero of the story in the sequel. Also, Creed III is a hotly anticipated release, Stallone is nowhere in the movie. I will add that Jyn Erso has been used in other Star Wars content post Rogue One, as well. It's her name on there, but it's Chris Pine's character who is the adult in the relationship.
Barely effective, actually. Enough of a mess that men couldn't feel threatened by her.
She needed them for everything. Says it all.
She needed him to do all the real work in the first movie and the heroic sacrifice, which taints the sequels too.
After using him for the 2 priors to get it to that point, because they knew that Jordan alone couldn't pull it off. He'll likely be in it anyways though.
Uh huh, and yet she's not remembered for what she did.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 15, 2023 3:04:43 GMT
No, she wasn't. Due to being "Born Sexy Yesterday", Chris Pine was more of a real lead than her.
Yeah, her character was a real mess.
Alita was also "Born Sexy Yesterday", the lead role was stolen by her boyfriend and Christoph Waltz
Born sexy yesterday? I'm not sure I understand your meaning here. Are you implying that a movie can't be called woke if the lead character is attractive? And if your reasoning for these movies not being called woke is that the supporting cast were more famous than the lead, then why was Captain Marvel called woke when SLJ is infinitely more famous than Brie Larson? Why was Terminator Dark Fate called woke when Arni was there? Why was the Charlie's Angels reboot called woke when Patrick Stewart was a supporting cast? Why was the female Ghostbusters movie called woke when Hemsworth was there? Born Sexy Yesterday, it's a very disgusting story trope associated with certain types of female characters:
Because Captain Marvel wasn't made useless in favor of her supporting cast.
Because he wasn't the lead, 3 women outnumbered him. He wasn't in the marketing, they were.
He wasn't in the marketing, the women were.
Again, marketing left Hemsworth out.
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 15, 2023 4:00:17 GMT
Only if the work appears to have an agenda. If the product's mission statement reads as clear that all men are bad or that all white people are bad, then the average person isn't likely to be passive about it and think it is harmless entertainment. Art is by and large subjective and open to interpretation in the years that follow its release, but the intention isn't often as subjective if the originator of the work makes it known. In this case, Marvel published many progressive stories in the time when Stan Lee had been with the company, but Lee himself didn't set out to present the stories as being preachy and wanted the reader to be able to escape into a different world on the first page. He wanted to entertain, and he encouraged the mentality of being an entertainer first and foremost to the writers and artists throughout the company. Every story that's every existed has "An Agenda". That doesn't mean anything. Every product has a mission statement as well, and no one has every done one saying "All Men as bad" or "All Whites are Bad". It's all fake propaganda.
He can say he didn't set out to be preachy, but plenty of those older stories actually ARE.
That's false, not every story that has ever existed presents agenda. Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy has no agenda, neither does Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, Orwell's 1984, Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island, Mark Twain's The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book, Edgar Rice Burroughs' John Carter of Mars, Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights, Sir Athur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories, Robert E. Howard's Conan, Kull, El Borak, and Solomon Kane, Gaston Leroux's The Phantom of the Opera, Kazuo Ishiguro's The Remains of the Day, Anne Rice's The Vampire Chronicles, J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle Earth, C.S. Lewis's Narnia, Sir J.M. Barrie's Peter Pan, Washington Irving's The Legend of Sleepy Hollow...I could go on, but I think it would take me all the rest of the week. Even going back to the days of fairy tales and myth, there were rare occasions when an agenda was addressed into a story. And of course, every product has a mission statement, otherwise it cannot exist as a published work. Agenda, though, isn't necessary to have in a story. Some stories are told with the intention to be funny; others strive to just take the consumer on an exciting, or an emotional adventure. And a product doesn't need to outright say one or the other to give the suggestion of agenda to the consumer, they can interpret that from absorbing the product. Lee would only on occasion allow the stories to touch base on subjects that hit close to home, and when handled the subject matter was treated like a universal truth everyone could get behind and wouldn't take away from the fantasy of it all. He saw himself, and the rest of the company, as entertainers. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 15, 2023 4:04:29 GMT
Associating any opposition to your argument in the same group responsible for what you have described is wrong, and bad form. Have I or anyone else in this topic have said anything to suggest that we are exactly the sort of people who made racially and sexually motivated negative comments towards the cast of the Star Wars sequel trilogy or taking dislike of the Jar-Jar Binks character to such an extreme? How would you feel if I or another person present were to categorize you as belonging to the group of individuals who are trying to make lists of any person streaming the recently released Harry Potter video game Hogwarts Legacy on Twitch to stalk, bully, and harass them online because you present yourself as very progressive and or 'woke'? If they don't make it clear they don't stand for that kind of behavior, then it's on them.
I'd make it clear I don't stand for that.
I neither support or approve of the actions of the identified set of Star Wars fans you have described, but I still am not in favor of the Star Wars sequel trilogy and most of Disney's output with the property. How would you feel if someone kept placing you within that group of people, anyway? Because I have explained myself, as have others, and you still place us within the group of toxic individuals. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 15, 2023 4:05:39 GMT
But to associate any person who was not in favor of the Star Wars sequel trilogy, or anything Star Wars related under Disney, with the same set of toxic individuals is childish, ridiculous, and just plain wrong - especially if the person you are debating with has not expressed their views in any such a way to warrant the categorization. How would you feel if someone were to say you are among the group of individuals wanting to collect all the names of people streaming the Hogwarts Legacy video game to publicly shame them online simply because you present yourself as very progressive / 'woke'? That DOES happen to me, even when I make it clear I detest such behavior. So why do the same to someone like me, Ackbar and the Wasp, or Skaathar? |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 15, 2023 4:16:07 GMT
Every story that's every existed has "An Agenda". That doesn't mean anything. Every product has a mission statement as well, and no one has every done one saying "All Men as bad" or "All Whites are Bad". It's all fake propaganda.
He can say he didn't set out to be preachy, but plenty of those older stories actually ARE.
That's false, not every story that has ever existed presents agenda. Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy has no agenda, neither does Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, Orwell's 1984, Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island, Mark Twain's The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book, Edgar Rice Burroughs' John Carter of Mars, Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights, Sir Athur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories, Robert E. Howard's Conan, Kull, El Borak, and Solomon Kane, Gaston Leroux's The Phantom of the Opera, Kazuo Ishiguro's The Remains of the Day, Anne Rice's The Vampire Chronicles, J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle Earth, C.S. Lewis's Narnia, Sir J.M. Barrie's Peter Pan, Washington Irving's The Legend of Sleepy Hollow...I could go on, but I think it would take me all the rest of the week. Even going back to the days of fairy tales and myth, there were rare occasions when an agenda was addressed into a story. And of course, every product has a mission statement, otherwise it cannot exist as a published work. Agenda, though, isn't necessary to have in a story. Some stories are told with the intention to be funny; others strive to just take the consumer on an exciting, or an emotional adventure. And a product doesn't need to outright say one or the other to give the suggestion of agenda to the consumer, they can interpret that from absorbing the product. Lee would only on occasion allow the stories to touch base on subjects that hit close to home, and when handled the subject matter was treated like a universal truth everyone could get behind and wouldn't take away from the fantasy of it all. He saw himself, and the rest of the company, as entertainers. Foundation has its agenda, it's based on the collapse of the Roman Empire set in a space setting.
Brave New World has its agenda too, being about the future society they maintains control via drugs.
1984 definitely has an agenda.
I can keep going too. Social and Political Commentary is an inherent part of storytelling, always had been. There's no such thing as Apolitical Art.
If readers absorb the intent and subtext from the work, then that was part of the agenda.
Back in the 1960s, Captain America teaming up with a Black Man would not be seen as a Universal Truth everyone could get behind.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 15, 2023 4:17:21 GMT
If they don't make it clear they don't stand for that kind of behavior, then it's on them.
I'd make it clear I don't stand for that.
I neither support or approve of the actions of the identified set of Star Wars fans you have described, but I still am not in favor of the Star Wars sequel trilogy and most of Disney's output with the property. How would you feel if someone kept placing you within that group of people, anyway? Because I have explained myself, as have others, and you still place us within the group of toxic individuals. You can say that now that I've brought it up, sure. But would you have ever said "I disagree with the ones who harassed the actors" before I brought it up?
I HAVE been placed in groups like that, repeatedly.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 15, 2023 4:18:44 GMT
That DOES happen to me, even when I make it clear I detest such behavior. So why do the same to someone like me, Ackbar and the Wasp, or Skaathar? Folks who dislike the Sequels have no problem doing this to anyone who liked the Sequels and weren't scared of new characters. They made the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 15, 2023 4:30:20 GMT
The movie is called "Wonder Woman", the movie begins with her, most of the movie's story centers around her. Theron in Atomic Blonde wasn't squeaky clean, but she was very effective at her job. Nobody, other than you, has made the argument that Alita's dominance in the story was taken over by Christoph Waltz or Keean Johnson. And I have to ask if you even saw A Quiet Place or its sequel, because John Krasinski dies near the end of the first one and Emily Blunt saves the day, Emily Blunt is the general hero of the story in the sequel. Also, Creed III is a hotly anticipated release, Stallone is nowhere in the movie. I will add that Jyn Erso has been used in other Star Wars content post Rogue One, as well. It's her name on there, but it's Chris Pine's character who is the adult in the relationship.
Barely effective, actually. Enough of a mess that men couldn't feel threatened by her.
She needed them for everything. Says it all.
She needed him to do all the real work in the first movie and the heroic sacrifice, which taints the sequels too.
After using him for the 2 priors to get it to that point, because they knew that Jordan alone couldn't pull it off. He'll likely be in it anyways though.
Uh huh, and yet she's not remembered for what she did.
Trevor as much of a stranger on Themyscira as Diana is outside of it, coming from two very different backgrounds is what creates an effective relationship between them, and it is from learning about the rest of the world that develops her as a character and makes her a better hero. Did you anticipate Diana to leave Themyscira knowing everything about the outside world despite obvious lack of knowledge? If so, why? And she proved them wrong and kicked lots of rear-end. She didn't need them to beat Nyssiana, Zapan, Grewishka, Vector, or her opponents in motorball. If anything, it says that you may not have watched the movie. If not, have a poor memory of it. They both learned to adapt and survive in the world once the alien race came to present itself in society and managed to work effectively in keeping themselves and their children safe. Krasinski didn't really need to make his sacrifice, but he did so anyway. The sequel shows she is still an effective parent despite being down one partner. Jordan was not a star at the time of the original, but he is now and has also taken on directing duties for the third installment. Stallone has confirmed that he is not in the sequel, if anything Rocky might be mentioned in conversation and something like a photograph or archieved footage, but Stallone filmed no scenes for the movie. She is. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 15, 2023 4:31:48 GMT
Born sexy yesterday? I'm not sure I understand your meaning here. Are you implying that a movie can't be called woke if the lead character is attractive? And if your reasoning for these movies not being called woke is that the supporting cast were more famous than the lead, then why was Captain Marvel called woke when SLJ is infinitely more famous than Brie Larson? Why was Terminator Dark Fate called woke when Arni was there? Why was the Charlie's Angels reboot called woke when Patrick Stewart was a supporting cast? Why was the female Ghostbusters movie called woke when Hemsworth was there? Born Sexy Yesterday, it's a very disgusting story trope associated with certain types of female characters:
Because Captain Marvel wasn't made useless in favor of her supporting cast.
Because he wasn't the lead, 3 women outnumbered him. He wasn't in the marketing, they were.
He wasn't in the marketing, the women were.
Again, marketing left Hemsworth out.
But Chris Hemsworth appeared in the merketing for the fillm - you see him on the poster, home release covers, in the trailers, and TV ads. |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 15, 2023 4:57:20 GMT
Born sexy yesterday? I'm not sure I understand your meaning here. Are you implying that a movie can't be called woke if the lead character is attractive? And if your reasoning for these movies not being called woke is that the supporting cast were more famous than the lead, then why was Captain Marvel called woke when SLJ is infinitely more famous than Brie Larson? Why was Terminator Dark Fate called woke when Arni was there? Why was the Charlie's Angels reboot called woke when Patrick Stewart was a supporting cast? Why was the female Ghostbusters movie called woke when Hemsworth was there? Born Sexy Yesterday, it's a very disgusting story trope associated with certain types of female characters:
Because Captain Marvel wasn't made useless in favor of her supporting cast.
Because he wasn't the lead, 3 women outnumbered him. He wasn't in the marketing, they were.
He wasn't in the marketing, the women were.
Again, marketing left Hemsworth out.
If you think Wonder Woman was made useless in her movie by her supporting cast then you have never watched the movie. Either that or you're just flat out trolling at this point. Who do you think broke the stalemate in no-man's land or defeated Ares? So which is it? Are you a liar or a troll? Chris Pine didn't have a role any bigger in WW than SLJ did in CM, but only one of those movies got called woke. Heck, you can even compare it with WW84. Same lead, same supporting cast, yet WW84 was called woke but not the original movie. Why? You're literally digging your grave deeper and deeper here with every new excuse you try to come up with. I mean, Hemsworth was literally shown in trailers and posters for Ghostbusters, so you're absolutely lying when you claim he wasn't included in marketing. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 15, 2023 5:13:34 GMT
That's false, not every story that has ever existed presents agenda. Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy has no agenda, neither does Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, Orwell's 1984, Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island, Mark Twain's The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book, Edgar Rice Burroughs' John Carter of Mars, Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights, Sir Athur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories, Robert E. Howard's Conan, Kull, El Borak, and Solomon Kane, Gaston Leroux's The Phantom of the Opera, Kazuo Ishiguro's The Remains of the Day, Anne Rice's The Vampire Chronicles, J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle Earth, C.S. Lewis's Narnia, Sir J.M. Barrie's Peter Pan, Washington Irving's The Legend of Sleepy Hollow...I could go on, but I think it would take me all the rest of the week. Even going back to the days of fairy tales and myth, there were rare occasions when an agenda was addressed into a story. And of course, every product has a mission statement, otherwise it cannot exist as a published work. Agenda, though, isn't necessary to have in a story. Some stories are told with the intention to be funny; others strive to just take the consumer on an exciting, or an emotional adventure. And a product doesn't need to outright say one or the other to give the suggestion of agenda to the consumer, they can interpret that from absorbing the product. Lee would only on occasion allow the stories to touch base on subjects that hit close to home, and when handled the subject matter was treated like a universal truth everyone could get behind and wouldn't take away from the fantasy of it all. He saw himself, and the rest of the company, as entertainers. Foundation has its agenda, it's based on the collapse of the Roman Empire set in a space setting.
Brave New World has its agenda too, being about the future society they maintains control via drugs.
1984 definitely has an agenda.
I can keep going too. Social and Political Commentary is an inherent part of storytelling, always had been. There's no such thing as Apolitical Art.
If readers absorb the intent and subtext from the work, then that was part of the agenda.
Back in the 1960s, Captain America teaming up with a Black Man would not be seen as a Universal Truth everyone could get behind.
You confuse conflict and metaphor with agenda when the two can exist without it. Apolitical art does in fact exist, what is the agenda behind works such as Edgar Allan Poe's The Raven? What about the story Good Night Moon? Where The Wild Things Are? What of the other written works that I have cited? What is the agenda of the Mona Lisa? Dali's The Persistence of Memory? Warhol's Campbell's Soup? So, if someone sees a film in which all male characters are made out to be bad or in which all white people are made to be repulsive slime, then is it wrong for them to assume the agenda behind the works was anti-male and anti-white? Sam Wilson made his first appearance in the Fall of 1969, five years after congress passed Public Law 88-352, The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which "prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as, race in hiring, promoting, and firing." Stan Lee was progressive thinking, and was opposed to bigotry, cruelty, and sexism, and would on occasion incorporate messages that were against them into the stories, protests against The Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Vietnam war became regular occurrences on the news, and Marvel became to place itself closer to the reality of the world at the time, but Lee still didn't want to come across as preachy when universal truths were being expressed in the storytelling. The Falcon was pitched to Lee by Gene Colan because he liked to draw black people and thought it would be a neat idea to have another superhero of color after the success of characters like Black Panther and he was for the concept. The character's purpose wasn't to be a political talking point, they gave him personality and purpose to exist alongside Captain America, and readers took an instant liking to him, hence his longevity. |
|
