|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 15, 2023 5:18:24 GMT
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.
What is your play? I have said already that the people who have made verbally terrible comments addressed to performers of the property are toxic individuals. So why is it okay for you to do the same with me, Ackbar, and Skaathar? |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 15, 2023 5:19:33 GMT
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. And do I, Ackbar, and Skaathar qualify as being such people and therefore deserve such categorization? |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 15, 2023 8:21:04 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.
See, that's actually a very prejudiced mentality that you have there. Just because someone doesn't go around shouting that they're against something doesn't mean that they actually support that something. Making assumptions like you do is what leads to discrimination. It's pretty much the whole "if you're not with us then you're against us" mentality. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 15, 2023 13:54:29 GMT
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. I expected Diana to be more than a naive woman child who gets easily seduced by the first man she's ever met and for Trevor to be the "adult" between the two.
The movie was more about James McAvoy than her, and they had to oversex things with the Lesbian relationship as well while making her look pathetic.
Yes she did, she needed her BF to get involved in the sport to start with and Waltz to get her into the hunting business. She needed them to make all her big choices for her.
He was the smarter and more capable of the two of them, start to finish and then his sacrifice is what led her to learn the sound weakness.
So it took two movies to get to that point.
She's not. Nowhere in other SW media is anything the R1 team did remembered.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 15, 2023 13:55:01 GMT
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. He was barely in the trailers and in the background of the posters, when he was in any posters at all. Most didn't know he was in it. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 15, 2023 13:58:08 GMT
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. Not completely useless, but she very much was a naive woman child who needed Trevor to be the intelligent adult between the two of them. And for the record, she needed Steve to beat Ares.
I'm neither. I just know how Injustice Warriors are.
Pine had a way bigger role than SLJ did in their movies. He was the real adult lead between him and WW, whereas Fury didn't steal CM's movie from her. Plus certain folks were still mad at stuff Brie Larson never said.
Because Diana was less of a naive woman child in WW1984 and Pine wasn't as much the mature adult anymore.
Barely in the trailers and in the background of the posters.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 15, 2023 14:03:37 GMT
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. They cannot. Conflict and Metaphor are part of the Agenda. Tell me that there was no Agenda in Spider-Man, or Captain America, or X-Men. And no you can't say "Analogy and Allegory aren't Agendas".
Your thing is that you're taking offense anytime the author says they meant anything with the story they were telling.
You can find politics in all those things. Yes, even the soup can. It was a critique of the banality of everyday life.
The Raven for example represents the inability to let go of the pain of the past rather than accepting loss and moving forward. A conservative view of constantly clinging to the past.
Those movies don't exist, for starters. They're a Boogeyman. Meanwhile movies where women are all stupid do exist, yet no one talks about the "Anti-Woman" Agenda. Gone with the Wind is rather anti-woman, really.
The Conqueror, starring John Wayne. It had an Anti-Asian Agenda because they cast a white man to play Genghis Khan, to show how little the US thought of them and how easily they'd take one of their historical figures for themselves.
Yes and despite 5 years passing things still weren't much better for black people in America. Civil Rights and Vietnam were still topical things, you can say he wasn't there for political reasons but that's what he ended up being when introduced just at the right time. Actions don't line up with statements.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 15, 2023 14:05:53 GMT
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.
What is your play? I have said already that the people who have made verbally terrible comments addressed to performers of the property are toxic individuals. So why is it okay for you to do the same with me, Ackbar, and Skaathar? Would you have made that distinction if I hadn't brought it up? Separating them from others who hate the Sequels on principle?
Fair Play is all, the setting that OT "fans" created in the fandom.
OT Fans advocated a "One Strike You're Out" mentality. Therefore, they receive one in turn.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 15, 2023 14:07:30 GMT
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. And do I, Ackbar, and Skaathar qualify as being such people and therefore deserve such categorization? If you indulge in the same rhetoric, then yes. The whole "It's all just forced diversity and agendas" nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 15, 2023 14:09:35 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.
See, that's actually a very prejudiced mentality that you have there. Just because someone doesn't go around shouting that they're against something doesn't mean that they actually support that something. Making assumptions like you do is what leads to discrimination. It's pretty much the whole "if you're not with us then you're against us" mentality. It's the mentality that OT fans have been perpetuating for about 7 years now and they haven't changed at all. That if you don't hate absolutely everything new that wasn't created by a pre-Disney writer, then you're a traitor to SW and not a "real" fan.
They threw the first punch here, they started this. They set the rules and standards. They were the ones who declared "With us or against us" and we've all been suffering for it ever since.
If they advocated a "One Strike, You're Out" mentality then they receive one in turn.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 15, 2023 16:15:29 GMT
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. Not completely useless, but she very much was a naive woman child who needed Trevor to be the intelligent adult between the two of them. And for the record, she needed Steve to beat Ares.
I'm neither. I just know how Injustice Warriors are.
Pine had a way bigger role than SLJ did in their movies. He was the real adult lead between him and WW, whereas Fury didn't steal CM's movie from her. Plus certain folks were still mad at stuff Brie Larson never said.
Because Diana was less of a naive woman child in WW1984 and Pine wasn't as much the mature adult anymore.
Barely in the trailers and in the background of the posters.
Before we continue, I want to confirm if you're admitting you were wrong when you said Hemsworth was not in the marketing for Ghostbusters? Or are you going to keep making excuses? I mean, we can't continue this conversation if you can't actually admit when you're wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 15, 2023 16:42:29 GMT
Not completely useless, but she very much was a naive woman child who needed Trevor to be the intelligent adult between the two of them. And for the record, she needed Steve to beat Ares.
I'm neither. I just know how Injustice Warriors are.
Pine had a way bigger role than SLJ did in their movies. He was the real adult lead between him and WW, whereas Fury didn't steal CM's movie from her. Plus certain folks were still mad at stuff Brie Larson never said.
Because Diana was less of a naive woman child in WW1984 and Pine wasn't as much the mature adult anymore.
Barely in the trailers and in the background of the posters.
Before we continue, I want to confirm if you're admitting you were wrong when you said Hemsworth was not in the marketing for Ghostbusters? Or are you going to keep making excuses? I mean, we can't continue this conversation if you can't actually admit when you're wrong. If he was, then it shows how little he got that I barely remember him on the Movie Posters and ads.
But if it makes you feel better, yes I was wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 15, 2023 16:47:56 GMT
Before we continue, I want to confirm if you're admitting you were wrong when you said Hemsworth was not in the marketing for Ghostbusters? Or are you going to keep making excuses? I mean, we can't continue this conversation if you can't actually admit when you're wrong. If he was, then it shows how little he got that I barely remember him on the Movie Posters and ads.
But if it makes you feel better, yes I was wrong.
He was included since the very first trailer and poster. He wasn't the lead but he certainly wasn't lacking in marketing. So if you were wrong about Hemsworth, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong with your other excuses as well. As for Pine vs. SLJ, dude SLJ's Fury has been a staple character in the MCU since the first movie. Nick Fury is a way bigger character in the MCU and CM than Steve Trevor will ever be in the DCEU and the WW movies. Your claim that Steve Trevor played a bigger part than Fury is based on no measurable metrics. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 15, 2023 17:09:00 GMT
If he was, then it shows how little he got that I barely remember him on the Movie Posters and ads.
But if it makes you feel better, yes I was wrong.
He was included since the very first trailer and poster. He wasn't the lead but he certainly wasn't lacking in marketing. So if you were wrong about Hemsworth, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong with your other excuses as well. As for Pine vs. SLJ, dude SLJ's Fury has been a staple character in the MCU since the first movie. Nick Fury is a way bigger character in the MCU and CM than Steve Trevor will ever be in the DCEU and the WW movies. Your claim that Steve Trevor played a bigger part than Fury is based on no measurable metrics. Was he as prominent as the female Ghostbusters? No? Then he was lacking in marketing.
Was Fury the romantic lead opposite Larson? Did he steal the movie from her and lead her around because CM couldn't do anything without him leading her around? Was it him who made the actual sacrifice at the end and Larson only won because of that?
No? Then Jacksons' role in CM wasn't like Trevors was in WW.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 15, 2023 18:11:40 GMT
He was included since the very first trailer and poster. He wasn't the lead but he certainly wasn't lacking in marketing. So if you were wrong about Hemsworth, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong with your other excuses as well. As for Pine vs. SLJ, dude SLJ's Fury has been a staple character in the MCU since the first movie. Nick Fury is a way bigger character in the MCU and CM than Steve Trevor will ever be in the DCEU and the WW movies. Your claim that Steve Trevor played a bigger part than Fury is based on no measurable metrics. Was he as prominent as the female Ghostbusters? No? Then he was lacking in marketing.
Was Fury the romantic lead opposite Larson? Did he steal the movie from her and lead her around because CM couldn't do anything without him leading her around? Was it him who made the actual sacrifice at the end and Larson only won because of that?
No? Then Jacksons' role in CM wasn't like Trevors was in WW.
Because Hemsworth wasn't lead character. You know, same way Christopher Waltz wasn't the lead character in Alita and thus wasn't s prominent in promotions either. Yet earlier you kept using him as an excuse for why Alita wasn't woke. And none of the things you mentioned about Trevor are true other than him being a love interest. He didn't steal the movie from Diana, he wasn't leading her around (it was made very clear in the movie that Diana was pretty headstrong) and while he did sacrifice himself in the end, that wasn't what defeated Ares. Diana was still the one who killed Ares. Are you even capable of having an honest conversation at this point? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2023 18:26:52 GMT
And do I, Ackbar, and Skaathar qualify as being such people and therefore deserve such categorization? If you indulge in the same rhetoric, then yes. The whole "It's all just forced diversity and agendas" nonsense. Show me where I said anything remotely like that about the sequels. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 15, 2023 18:52:03 GMT
Was he as prominent as the female Ghostbusters? No? Then he was lacking in marketing.
Was Fury the romantic lead opposite Larson? Did he steal the movie from her and lead her around because CM couldn't do anything without him leading her around? Was it him who made the actual sacrifice at the end and Larson only won because of that?
No? Then Jacksons' role in CM wasn't like Trevors was in WW.
Because Hemsworth wasn't lead character. You know, same way Christopher Waltz wasn't the lead character in Alita and thus wasn't s prominent in promotions either. Yet earlier you kept using him as an excuse for why Alita wasn't woke. And none of the things you mentioned about Trevor are true other than him being a love interest. He didn't steal the movie from Diana, he wasn't leading her around (it was made very clear in the movie that Diana was pretty headstrong) and while he did sacrifice himself in the end, that wasn't what defeated Ares. Diana was still the one who killed Ares. Are you even capable of having an honest conversation at this point? Waltz may not have been as prominent in promotions, in the actual story he certainly was seeing how Alita needed him and her BF for everything.
He did, he was the one making intelligent observations, he was the one leading her around even if she started doing her own thing partway through, he seduced her easily by virtue of being the first man she ever met, he made the big sacrifice at the end that got Diana to beat Ares (who was losing till then).
Compare to Jackson, who didn't steal Carol's role from her.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 15, 2023 18:55:01 GMT
If you indulge in the same rhetoric, then yes. The whole "It's all just forced diversity and agendas" nonsense. Show me where I said anything remotely like that about the sequels. Talking about how all the characters sucked, which ties into the rhetoric about "forced diversity" and "agendas" and then "gender politics".
Never mind Kyle Kataarn was a Gary Stu no one complained about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2023 19:54:58 GMT
Show me where I said anything remotely like that about the sequels. Talking about how all the characters sucked, which ties into the rhetoric about "forced diversity" and "agendas" and then "gender politics".
Never mind Kyle Kataarn was a Gary Stu no one complained about.
No. It does not tie in. Not at all. The characters sucked because they sucked. Don’t put words in my mouth to justify your trolling. I had zero problem with a female lead. Another character I’ve never heard of. |
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Feb 15, 2023 20:31:46 GMT
I like to take on the side of the underdog, so I’m going to agree with Formersamhd. What are his positions again?
|
|
