|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 21, 2023 1:14:21 GMT
They are speaking generally, they claim to hate it in any and all forms. Despite it happening in things they did enjoy or at least never complained about.
It's not a new creation, he gave several examples of how it's happened throughout storytelling. Meanwhile there's never been a single documented case of actual "Fan Baiting". It's a boogeyman.
I very rarely see comments made by fabs who say any adaptation of previously crafted work needs to be 100% like the original creation these days. Most people appear to be accepting of change as along the spirit of the original work is retained and whatever alterations are made feel appropriate - be it that the original work is either dated, or the new version is trying to appeal to a specific audience. Most live-action attempts at Tarzan take liberties with the character and the backstory Edgar Rice Burroughs created because they are designed for commercial appeal. Tarzan of the Apes is a pretty violent and occasionally disturbing story that to be done right on film might require a hard R rating. It contains animal abuse, child abuse, very outdated historical knowledge, but the real kicker is that its titular character goes through a period where he is a racist and hunts down island natives. That wouldn't appeal to a wide marketplace, so they do away with some things and adjust for others. In Disney's Tarzan, Kerchak is a stern and prideful leader and a reluctant father to Tarzan after losing his own child to Sabor. In the novel, he is a violent brute who is responsible for his child's death and a horrible mate for Kala. No way would Disney portray Kerchak the same way as the novel, so they had to adjust him for their version, and it worked in that film's favor, and Lance Henriksen's vocal performance is fantastic. John Milius' Conan the Barbarian is not a very good translation of Robert E. Howard's character, but it is great cinema still. When I see people converse about race or gender swap, the argument made by those in opposition (often are they people of color and women) is that by doing so it undermines the source material's storytelling and feels like an attempt to score diversity points instead of giving a person of color an original character that the performer can really make their own, or that the gender swap is always going to be in the shadow of their original creation. It is an observation made by a person who coins a term, this they admit to. It isn't universally accepted as fact, and it seems you have to have specific ideological views to agree with it. Fan baiting is speculative, reasons for thinking so are presented in the videos as shared. Anytime there's any changes at all made to something in an adaptation it gets criticized or called "Political Correctness", no matter what the changes were.
If the Disney adaptation of Tarzan came out today, it would be called SJW for its changes. Saying a modern audience couldn't handle a racist Tarzan.
Fan Baiting is very much just a made up thing, no real evidence to it at all. The video I presented shows numerous examples of "Born Sexy Yesterday" and both Alita and WW fit the bill, and it harms their characters.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jan 21, 2023 1:23:19 GMT
I am sorry, but comparing She-Hulk in a serious way to that of Seinfeld on a writing level isn't going to make an effective argument. Not only are the two programs very different in design, but the critical and commercial appeal between the two just speaks volumes. She-Hulk's only good episode was its crossover with Daredevil, everything else felt like a mix-mash of ideas and approaches that didn't stick to landing. As for Dan Slott giving praise that shouldn't mean that a person has to like the series necessarily, Slott is also on Marvel's payroll and he has the habit of blocking many people who outright disagree with him which suggests he cannot take criticism very well and thus, for me, lessens his credibility. "Mish-mash of ideas and approaches" is how Seinfeld did things. It was just about random stuff that happened to Jerry and his friends. All the complaints about She-Hulk can be tossed at Seinfeld as well, except the CGI stuff. "Critical and Commercial" appeal doesn't mean much either, because you're basically saying "It's easier to take a white male comedian seriously than a superhero female one".
Lots of professionals on Twitter block others and have disagreements, it's the nature of Twitter.
You are missing my point. Seinfeld was created to be a situational comedy about a group of people living in the city and dealing with situations that are (at the time of its production) not particular fantastic in concept but are played out comedically and occasionally over-the-top. The formula was cracked pretty early on, and it remains one of the most iconic TV series in the last 30+ years. She-Hulk: Attorney at Law had an identity crisis right from episode one. It couldn't decide what direction to stick with - is it a straight up superhero series? Is it a courtroom series with a superhero twist? Is it a comedy that features superheroes and super villains? Is it a romantic comedy? It couldn't make up its mind, it also couldn't make up its mind with its approach to humor - one minute they're trying to be like New Girl, the next like Ally McBeal, and then Malcolm in the Middle following that, it just couldn't stick to landing and not very many jokes worked. Couple that with a very misandrist presentation with some very polarizing rhetoric, it just isn't a very well-crafted program, and probably the worst offering Marvel Studios has released to date. Dan Slott blocked me on Twitter even though I never interacted with him, nor had I liked or commented on anything in relation to him. Blocking in itself isn't a big deal, but Mr. Slott has the habit of doing so quite often with those who do not agree with him and the way he goes about himself suggests he has insecurity issues. And again, even if he likes it that doesn't mean people have to like the series necessarily.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jan 21, 2023 1:32:21 GMT
I very rarely see comments made by fabs who say any adaptation of previously crafted work needs to be 100% like the original creation these days. Most people appear to be accepting of change as along the spirit of the original work is retained and whatever alterations are made feel appropriate - be it that the original work is either dated, or the new version is trying to appeal to a specific audience. Most live-action attempts at Tarzan take liberties with the character and the backstory Edgar Rice Burroughs created because they are designed for commercial appeal. Tarzan of the Apes is a pretty violent and occasionally disturbing story that to be done right on film might require a hard R rating. It contains animal abuse, child abuse, very outdated historical knowledge, but the real kicker is that its titular character goes through a period where he is a racist and hunts down island natives. That wouldn't appeal to a wide marketplace, so they do away with some things and adjust for others. In Disney's Tarzan, Kerchak is a stern and prideful leader and a reluctant father to Tarzan after losing his own child to Sabor. In the novel, he is a violent brute who is responsible for his child's death and a horrible mate for Kala. No way would Disney portray Kerchak the same way as the novel, so they had to adjust him for their version, and it worked in that film's favor, and Lance Henriksen's vocal performance is fantastic. John Milius' Conan the Barbarian is not a very good translation of Robert E. Howard's character, but it is great cinema still. When I see people converse about race or gender swap, the argument made by those in opposition (often are they people of color and women) is that by doing so it undermines the source material's storytelling and feels like an attempt to score diversity points instead of giving a person of color an original character that the performer can really make their own, or that the gender swap is always going to be in the shadow of their original creation. It is an observation made by a person who coins a term, this they admit to. It isn't universally accepted as fact, and it seems you have to have specific ideological views to agree with it. Fan baiting is speculative, reasons for thinking so are presented in the videos as shared. Anytime there's any changes at all made to something in an adaptation it gets criticized or called "Political Correctness", no matter what the changes were.
If the Disney adaptation of Tarzan came out today, it would be called SJW for its changes. Saying a modern audience couldn't handle a racist Tarzan.
Fan Baiting is very much just a made up thing, no real evidence to it at all. The video I presented shows numerous examples of "Born Sexy Yesterday" and both Alita and WW fit the bill, and it harms their characters.
Since you speak generally, I have to ask when did anyone claim that The Batman's very plain looking batmobile was an example of "political correctness"? Same with the length of his ears. But there have been adaptations of Tarzan that have made similar changes from its source material, the character has been around for more than one hundred years, people are well adjusted to a more consumer friendly image of the character made for families. Most people also recognize that no studio would put a ton of money into a film where Tarzan is portrayed as racially insensitive for a period of time in the story, you can't have that as on-screen hero. All examples presented were a highly subjective observation by someone who admits to create a term. You can have your opinion that such a subjective thing undermines the characters of Wonder Woman and Alita as much as you wish, but it isn't objective truth as many people consider them to be strong female characters. I have said on repeat that fan baiting is speculative, I am not claiming it is fact, neither are the people in the videos shared.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 21, 2023 1:47:02 GMT
"Mish-mash of ideas and approaches" is how Seinfeld did things. It was just about random stuff that happened to Jerry and his friends. All the complaints about She-Hulk can be tossed at Seinfeld as well, except the CGI stuff. "Critical and Commercial" appeal doesn't mean much either, because you're basically saying "It's easier to take a white male comedian seriously than a superhero female one".
Lots of professionals on Twitter block others and have disagreements, it's the nature of Twitter.
You are missing my point. Seinfeld was created to be a situational comedy about a group of people living in the city and dealing with situations that are (at the time of its production) not particular fantastic in concept but are played out comedically and occasionally over-the-top. The formula was cracked pretty early on, and it remains one of the most iconic TV series in the last 30+ years. She-Hulk: Attorney at Law had an identity crisis right from episode one. It couldn't decide what direction to stick with - is it a straight up superhero series? Is it a courtroom series with a superhero twist? Is it a comedy that features superheroes and super villains? Is it a romantic comedy? It couldn't make up its mind, it also couldn't make up its mind with its approach to humor - one minute they're trying to be like New Girl, the next like Ally McBeal, and then Malcolm in the Middle following that, it just couldn't stick to landing and not very many jokes worked. Couple that with a very misandrist presentation with some very polarizing rhetoric, it just isn't a very well-crafted program, and probably the worst offering Marvel Studios has released to date. Dan Slott blocked me on Twitter even though I never interacted with him, nor had I liked or commented on anything in relation to him. Blocking in itself isn't a big deal, but Mr. Slott has the habit of doing so quite often with those who do not agree with him and the way he goes about himself suggests he has insecurity issues. And again, even if he likes it that doesn't mean people have to like the series necessarily. She-Hulk wasn't trying to stick to one identity, it's purpose was to do all kinds of stuff on purpose because that's what the comics did.
It's no more misandrist than the Mary Tyler Moore show was.
The real problem was that the audience wanted the show to really be all about Bruce and have Jen be his useless idiot sidekick whose name was on the title but really didn't do anything so the entire focus could be on Bruce and Bruce alone. They were against Jen from Day One.
You probably follow someone he's blocked, that's how the blocking system works now. And being a big Marvel Writer and saying what he said, it means the show wasn't some betrayal of the source material.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 21, 2023 1:49:26 GMT
Anytime there's any changes at all made to something in an adaptation it gets criticized or called "Political Correctness", no matter what the changes were.
If the Disney adaptation of Tarzan came out today, it would be called SJW for its changes. Saying a modern audience couldn't handle a racist Tarzan.
Fan Baiting is very much just a made up thing, no real evidence to it at all. The video I presented shows numerous examples of "Born Sexy Yesterday" and both Alita and WW fit the bill, and it harms their characters.
Since you speak generally, I have to ask when did anyone claim that The Batman's very plain looking batmobile was an example of "political correctness"? Same with the length of his ears. But there have been adaptations of Tarzan that have made similar changes from its source material, the character has been around for more than one hundred years, people are well adjusted to a more consumer friendly image of the character made for families. Most people also recognize that no studio would put a ton of money into a film where Tarzan is portrayed as racially insensitive for a period of time in the story, you can't have that as on-screen hero. All examples presented were a highly subjective observation by someone who admits to create a term. You can have your opinion that such a subjective thing undermines the characters of Wonder Woman and Alita as much as you wish, but it isn't objective truth as many people consider them to be strong female characters. I have said on repeat that fan baiting is speculative, I am not claiming it is fact, neither are the people in the videos shared. The Batman's complaints about being PC were aimed at Catwoman and Gordon more than anything else.
And if those changes were made today, they'd be condemned as "SJW corruption" or "Political Correctness Gone Mad", not pragmatism. That's because no changes can be made today without inviting someone to say you're "SJW" for doing so.
Many don't even realize they're endorsing "Born Sexy Yesterday" and perpetuating a deeply misogynistic fantasy that does more harm than good. Which shows how ingrained it is in society, and that's sad.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jan 21, 2023 2:06:13 GMT
You are missing my point. Seinfeld was created to be a situational comedy about a group of people living in the city and dealing with situations that are (at the time of its production) not particular fantastic in concept but are played out comedically and occasionally over-the-top. The formula was cracked pretty early on, and it remains one of the most iconic TV series in the last 30+ years. She-Hulk: Attorney at Law had an identity crisis right from episode one. It couldn't decide what direction to stick with - is it a straight up superhero series? Is it a courtroom series with a superhero twist? Is it a comedy that features superheroes and super villains? Is it a romantic comedy? It couldn't make up its mind, it also couldn't make up its mind with its approach to humor - one minute they're trying to be like New Girl, the next like Ally McBeal, and then Malcolm in the Middle following that, it just couldn't stick to landing and not very many jokes worked. Couple that with a very misandrist presentation with some very polarizing rhetoric, it just isn't a very well-crafted program, and probably the worst offering Marvel Studios has released to date. Dan Slott blocked me on Twitter even though I never interacted with him, nor had I liked or commented on anything in relation to him. Blocking in itself isn't a big deal, but Mr. Slott has the habit of doing so quite often with those who do not agree with him and the way he goes about himself suggests he has insecurity issues. And again, even if he likes it that doesn't mean people have to like the series necessarily. She-Hulk wasn't trying to stick to one identity, it's purpose was to do all kinds of stuff on purpose because that's what the comics did.
It's no more misandrist than the Mary Tyler Moore show was.
The real problem was that the audience wanted the show to really be all about Bruce and have Jen be his useless idiot sidekick whose name was on the title but really didn't do anything so the entire focus could be on Bruce and Bruce alone. They were against Jen from Day One.
You probably follow someone he's blocked, that's how the blocking system works now. And being a big Marvel Writer and saying what he said, it means the show wasn't some betrayal of the source material.
But they didn't do it as well as the comic books had, given the number of complaints made by long-time readers of the title. I don't I have ever seen an episode of The Mary Tyler Moore Show, so that argument means nothing to me and I still feel the same way that I do about the She-Hulk series. This feels like complete fiction, if not the impression of a few random people on the internet who have some mental health issues that really shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of conversation. The series is called She-Hulk, anyone knew it wasn't going to be about Bruce Banner and that it was going to be about Jennifer Walters. What they didn't want was for Jennifer Walters to berate her cousin and act like she has it far worse than he does (talk about going against canon, Banner had a difficult life) and generally doesn't act very likeable to where you really want to see more of her. I am not making the argument the series is a betrayal of its source material, I am arguing that the series didn't work outside of one episode.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jan 21, 2023 2:11:32 GMT
Since you speak generally, I have to ask when did anyone claim that The Batman's very plain looking batmobile was an example of "political correctness"? Same with the length of his ears. But there have been adaptations of Tarzan that have made similar changes from its source material, the character has been around for more than one hundred years, people are well adjusted to a more consumer friendly image of the character made for families. Most people also recognize that no studio would put a ton of money into a film where Tarzan is portrayed as racially insensitive for a period of time in the story, you can't have that as on-screen hero. All examples presented were a highly subjective observation by someone who admits to create a term. You can have your opinion that such a subjective thing undermines the characters of Wonder Woman and Alita as much as you wish, but it isn't objective truth as many people consider them to be strong female characters. I have said on repeat that fan baiting is speculative, I am not claiming it is fact, neither are the people in the videos shared. The Batman's complaints about being PC were aimed at Catwoman and Gordon more than anything else.
And if those changes were made today, they'd be condemned as "SJW corruption" or "Political Correctness Gone Mad", not pragmatism. That's because no changes can be made today without inviting someone to say you're "SJW" for doing so.
Many don't even realize they're endorsing "Born Sexy Yesterday" and perpetuating a deeply misogynistic fantasy that does more harm than good. Which shows how ingrained it is in society, and that's sad.
You said any changes, you didn't specify what they had to be, so I gave example of The Batman's vehicle and the length of his ears. And I don't recall very many people complaining about Jeffrey Wright playing Gordon or Lenny Kravitz's daughter playing Kyle, more people were obsessed with Pattinson playing Batman and that it wouldn't be in the DC cinematic universe. Disney's Tarzan wasn't the first time the character had been adapted for screen, if it would come out today people wouldn't have a problem with the source material being toned down because virtually every other cinematic version had to also tone down the novel for consumer appeal. I find it interesting that it was only till I mentioned Wonder Woman and Alita that you brought up "Born Sexy Yesterday", had I not brought up either would you still have used it in argument? It reads like an attempt to discredit the work of these two films and paint all those that enjoy them as ignorant and bad for society.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 21, 2023 14:30:37 GMT
She-Hulk wasn't trying to stick to one identity, it's purpose was to do all kinds of stuff on purpose because that's what the comics did.
It's no more misandrist than the Mary Tyler Moore show was.
The real problem was that the audience wanted the show to really be all about Bruce and have Jen be his useless idiot sidekick whose name was on the title but really didn't do anything so the entire focus could be on Bruce and Bruce alone. They were against Jen from Day One.
You probably follow someone he's blocked, that's how the blocking system works now. And being a big Marvel Writer and saying what he said, it means the show wasn't some betrayal of the source material.
But they didn't do it as well as the comic books had, given the number of complaints made by long-time readers of the title. I don't I have ever seen an episode of The Mary Tyler Moore Show, so that argument means nothing to me and I still feel the same way that I do about the She-Hulk series. This feels like complete fiction, if not the impression of a few random people on the internet who have some mental health issues that really shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of conversation. The series is called She-Hulk, anyone knew it wasn't going to be about Bruce Banner and that it was going to be about Jennifer Walters. What they didn't want was for Jennifer Walters to berate her cousin and act like she has it far worse than he does (talk about going against canon, Banner had a difficult life) and generally doesn't act very likeable to where you really want to see more of her. I am not making the argument the series is a betrayal of its source material, I am arguing that the series didn't work outside of one episode. Most of the people complaining were the ones who didn't know about She-Hulk to start with and were already angry she got a show to start with.
Well, it happened there too.
Yes and the hope was that the title was just a way of working around the restriction that kept Hulk from having his own show/movie (because of that deal with Universal) and the series would claim to be about Jen when it was really about Bruce and Jen turned out to be insignificant. That's how opposed the "fans" were to Jen from day one. Oh, and Jen never said that and Bruce doesn't have a hard life in the MCU. The "fans" had already made up their minds about her before the show started and already wrote her off as "too unlikable" before episode 1 aired.
The source material disagrees, seeing how it worked.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 21, 2023 14:33:17 GMT
The Batman's complaints about being PC were aimed at Catwoman and Gordon more than anything else.
And if those changes were made today, they'd be condemned as "SJW corruption" or "Political Correctness Gone Mad", not pragmatism. That's because no changes can be made today without inviting someone to say you're "SJW" for doing so.
Many don't even realize they're endorsing "Born Sexy Yesterday" and perpetuating a deeply misogynistic fantasy that does more harm than good. Which shows how ingrained it is in society, and that's sad.
You said any changes, you didn't specify what they had to be, so I gave example of The Batman's vehicle and the length of his ears. And I don't recall very many people complaining about Jeffrey Wright playing Gordon or Lenny Kravitz's daughter playing Kyle, more people were obsessed with Pattinson playing Batman and that it wouldn't be in the DC cinematic universe. Disney's Tarzan wasn't the first time the character had been adapted for screen, if it would come out today people wouldn't have a problem with the source material being toned down because virtually every other cinematic version had to also tone down the novel for consumer appeal. I find it interesting that it was only till I mentioned Wonder Woman and Alita that you brought up "Born Sexy Yesterday", had I not brought up either would you still have used it in argument? It reads like an attempt to discredit the work of these two films and paint all those that enjoy them as ignorant and bad for society. They were complaining just as much about Wright and Kravitz, which makes them hypocrites because they didn't complain about Eartha Kitt in the Adam West show. Pattinson got a lot too, but that doesn't excuse the reaction to Wright and Kravitz.
Oh it would. Disney has become a whipping boy and no matter what anyone else does, all that matters is what they do in their adaptations. Even if Tarzan was already toned down beforehand the reaction would still be "They should've had the guts to be more honest about him".
If you brought up other examples of it, like the 5th Element, I would've used it there too. WW And Alita are simply more modern day examples.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jan 22, 2023 2:09:32 GMT
You said any changes, you didn't specify what they had to be, so I gave example of The Batman's vehicle and the length of his ears. And I don't recall very many people complaining about Jeffrey Wright playing Gordon or Lenny Kravitz's daughter playing Kyle, more people were obsessed with Pattinson playing Batman and that it wouldn't be in the DC cinematic universe. Disney's Tarzan wasn't the first time the character had been adapted for screen, if it would come out today people wouldn't have a problem with the source material being toned down because virtually every other cinematic version had to also tone down the novel for consumer appeal. I find it interesting that it was only till I mentioned Wonder Woman and Alita that you brought up "Born Sexy Yesterday", had I not brought up either would you still have used it in argument? It reads like an attempt to discredit the work of these two films and paint all those that enjoy them as ignorant and bad for society. They were complaining just as much about Wright and Kravitz, which makes them hypocrites because they didn't complain about Eartha Kitt in the Adam West show. Pattinson got a lot too, but that doesn't excuse the reaction to Wright and Kravitz.
Oh it would. Disney has become a whipping boy and no matter what anyone else does, all that matters is what they do in their adaptations. Even if Tarzan was already toned down beforehand the reaction would still be "They should've had the guts to be more honest about him".
If you brought up other examples of it, like the 5th Element, I would've used it there too. WW And Alita are simply more modern day examples.
I didn't really see any complaining about Wright and Kravitz casting, if anything I, on rare occasion, saw an argument being made that they deserve better roles than Gordon and Catwoman. Eartha Kitt played a Catwoman who was not established as Selina Kyle, in fact none of the other two actresses were established as Selina Kyle, they were villains with the same name and gimmick. The movie is PG, anyone expecting an honest and faithful retelling of Burroughs' story would have to be not very bright. Nobody was upset by the Hotel Transylvania series for portraying characters like Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, and The Invisible Man comedically because not only are they public domain it would be really, really hard to stay true to their source material to a T and make a kids movie out of it. Because I was wanted to list more modern examples of female characters.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jan 22, 2023 2:17:27 GMT
But they didn't do it as well as the comic books had, given the number of complaints made by long-time readers of the title. I don't I have ever seen an episode of The Mary Tyler Moore Show, so that argument means nothing to me and I still feel the same way that I do about the She-Hulk series. This feels like complete fiction, if not the impression of a few random people on the internet who have some mental health issues that really shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of conversation. The series is called She-Hulk, anyone knew it wasn't going to be about Bruce Banner and that it was going to be about Jennifer Walters. What they didn't want was for Jennifer Walters to berate her cousin and act like she has it far worse than he does (talk about going against canon, Banner had a difficult life) and generally doesn't act very likeable to where you really want to see more of her. I am not making the argument the series is a betrayal of its source material, I am arguing that the series didn't work outside of one episode. Most of the people complaining were the ones who didn't know about She-Hulk to start with and were already angry she got a show to start with.
Well, it happened there too.
Yes and the hope was that the title was just a way of working around the restriction that kept Hulk from having his own show/movie (because of that deal with Universal) and the series would claim to be about Jen when it was really about Bruce and Jen turned out to be insignificant. That's how opposed the "fans" were to Jen from day one. Oh, and Jen never said that and Bruce doesn't have a hard life in the MCU. The "fans" had already made up their minds about her before the show started and already wrote her off as "too unlikable" before episode 1 aired.
The source material disagrees, seeing how it worked.
And those people were a minority, most people knew who She-Hulk was and understood the source material to a point. Why should if it happened there that I accept the presentation of it in She-Hulk? I never saw anyone make that argument before in any of the online adventures and misadventures I have had since the series was announced. Unless you have screenshots of people saying such things I am going to say this is bunk. But she did say that in the episode, and what are you talking about? Bruce Banner has a hard life in the Marvel Cinematic Universe - he almost killed the people he loved after becoming the Hulk for the first time, he had to go on the run, he tried to commit suicide, he was mind-controlled twice into causing destruction and harming innocent lives, he sent himself into outer space out of depression and fear of what he could do as the Hulk, he blacked out for some time because he stayed in Hulk mode permanently for a while, his inability to turn into the Hulk contributed to The Snap in Infinity War, and in Endgame he loses a good friend and potential romantic interest in Black Widow, his friend Tony Stark dies, and he injured an arm. It worked there, but it didn't work here. That's the issue fans have with the series.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 22, 2023 15:08:29 GMT
They were complaining just as much about Wright and Kravitz, which makes them hypocrites because they didn't complain about Eartha Kitt in the Adam West show. Pattinson got a lot too, but that doesn't excuse the reaction to Wright and Kravitz.
Oh it would. Disney has become a whipping boy and no matter what anyone else does, all that matters is what they do in their adaptations. Even if Tarzan was already toned down beforehand the reaction would still be "They should've had the guts to be more honest about him".
If you brought up other examples of it, like the 5th Element, I would've used it there too. WW And Alita are simply more modern day examples.
I didn't really see any complaining about Wright and Kravitz casting, if anything I, on rare occasion, saw an argument being made that they deserve better roles than Gordon and Catwoman. Eartha Kitt played a Catwoman who was not established as Selina Kyle, in fact none of the other two actresses were established as Selina Kyle, they were villains with the same name and gimmick. The movie is PG, anyone expecting an honest and faithful retelling of Burroughs' story would have to be not very bright. Nobody was upset by the Hotel Transylvania series for portraying characters like Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, and The Invisible Man comedically because not only are they public domain it would be really, really hard to stay true to their source material to a T and make a kids movie out of it. Because I was wanted to list more modern examples of female characters. In the 1960s, Selina Kyle was the only identity Catwoman had meaning it was assumed by default she was her. And no one complained about Eartha Kitt, which makes modern people hypocrites when they do complain.
Oh, I saw people complaining about both Wright and her.
It doesn't matter how "bright" they are, the Injustice Warriors would still condemn Disney for not having "The Guts" to do what other adaptations did.
You used secondaries, which automatically invalidates them.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 22, 2023 15:11:50 GMT
Most of the people complaining were the ones who didn't know about She-Hulk to start with and were already angry she got a show to start with.
Well, it happened there too.
Yes and the hope was that the title was just a way of working around the restriction that kept Hulk from having his own show/movie (because of that deal with Universal) and the series would claim to be about Jen when it was really about Bruce and Jen turned out to be insignificant. That's how opposed the "fans" were to Jen from day one. Oh, and Jen never said that and Bruce doesn't have a hard life in the MCU. The "fans" had already made up their minds about her before the show started and already wrote her off as "too unlikable" before episode 1 aired.
The source material disagrees, seeing how it worked.
And those people were a minority, most people knew who She-Hulk was and understood the source material to a point. Why should if it happened there that I accept the presentation of it in She-Hulk? I never saw anyone make that argument before in any of the online adventures and misadventures I have had since the series was announced. Unless you have screenshots of people saying such things I am going to say this is bunk. But she did say that in the episode, and what are you talking about? Bruce Banner has a hard life in the Marvel Cinematic Universe - he almost killed the people he loved after becoming the Hulk for the first time, he had to go on the run, he tried to commit suicide, he was mind-controlled twice into causing destruction and harming innocent lives, he sent himself into outer space out of depression and fear of what he could do as the Hulk, he blacked out for some time because he stayed in Hulk mode permanently for a while, his inability to turn into the Hulk contributed to The Snap in Infinity War, and in Endgame he loses a good friend and potential romantic interest in Black Widow, his friend Tony Stark dies, and he injured an arm. It worked there, but it didn't work here. That's the issue fans have with the series. No, a majority never knew her or barely knew her and some thought she was a newer character.
Because no one ever complained about the Mary Tyler Moore show.
I did, on Facebook and Twitter and Grifter Videos.
She didn't. All she said was that she had to learn to control her anger as a human while Bruce never did. Bruce only had to learn control after he was transformed. Jen was referring to Bruce's pre-Hulk life and only that, nothing after he transformed mattered in the context of their conversation.
It was exactly the same in both. Only difference was, the comics didn't have a large amount of "fans" out to hate the character before she debuted whilst MCU Jen didn't have that Luxury.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jan 23, 2023 7:20:42 GMT
I didn't really see any complaining about Wright and Kravitz casting, if anything I, on rare occasion, saw an argument being made that they deserve better roles than Gordon and Catwoman. Eartha Kitt played a Catwoman who was not established as Selina Kyle, in fact none of the other two actresses were established as Selina Kyle, they were villains with the same name and gimmick. The movie is PG, anyone expecting an honest and faithful retelling of Burroughs' story would have to be not very bright. Nobody was upset by the Hotel Transylvania series for portraying characters like Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, and The Invisible Man comedically because not only are they public domain it would be really, really hard to stay true to their source material to a T and make a kids movie out of it. Because I was wanted to list more modern examples of female characters. In the 1960s, Selina Kyle was the only identity Catwoman had meaning it was assumed by default she was her. And no one complained about Eartha Kitt, which makes modern people hypocrites when they do complain.
Oh, I saw people complaining about both Wright and her.
It doesn't matter how "bright" they are, the Injustice Warriors would still condemn Disney for not having "The Guts" to do what other adaptations did.
You used secondaries, which automatically invalidates them.
The name "Selina Kyle" was never used in the series, the character hadn't even been used in the comic book since 1954 as a result of the Comics Code Authority, and Batman wasn't a hot selling title for a period of time (if not for the television series, it would have been cancelled). Not only that but comic books as a general medium were not held to a higher degree of having merit in creativity and in quality story telling for that matter, because they were not really encouraged to be read and the lack of interest for a time since the Comics Code Authority was given the go ahead the 1966 Batman television was for many people their introduction to the characters. Eartha Kitt was cast as Catwoman in the third season because Newmar was filming a movie at the time and the producers thought she would be electric as the character given her acting talent and how she presented herself as an entertainer in general, it wasn't because they didn't like Newmar or Meriwether's portrayals or that they thought the source material needed updating, they saw a talented performer and thought she would be good, and she was good. Not only that, but the character of Selina Kyle wouldn't see solid ethnic classification till many years later in modern times, but generally speaking in the grand scheme of things her being white, black, asian, latin, etc. isn't really important - she's a street kid turned cat burglar who walks the line between good and bad. Jim Gordon's race and ethnicity are not really important, either he's a lawman of Gotham City who befriends Batman. I am not saying there weren't people complaining about Wright and Kravitz casting, I was saying I rarely did see people speak terribly about it, most of what I saw were people who thought both actors deserved better roles for their talents, most concerns about the movie were it being another reboot and Robert Pattinson's casting. Since Disney's Tarzan came out in 1999, your speculation can only go so far and remains as fallacy. Because you didn't specify that the characters had to be leads, genius.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jan 23, 2023 7:37:48 GMT
And those people were a minority, most people knew who She-Hulk was and understood the source material to a point. Why should if it happened there that I accept the presentation of it in She-Hulk? I never saw anyone make that argument before in any of the online adventures and misadventures I have had since the series was announced. Unless you have screenshots of people saying such things I am going to say this is bunk. But she did say that in the episode, and what are you talking about? Bruce Banner has a hard life in the Marvel Cinematic Universe - he almost killed the people he loved after becoming the Hulk for the first time, he had to go on the run, he tried to commit suicide, he was mind-controlled twice into causing destruction and harming innocent lives, he sent himself into outer space out of depression and fear of what he could do as the Hulk, he blacked out for some time because he stayed in Hulk mode permanently for a while, his inability to turn into the Hulk contributed to The Snap in Infinity War, and in Endgame he loses a good friend and potential romantic interest in Black Widow, his friend Tony Stark dies, and he injured an arm. It worked there, but it didn't work here. That's the issue fans have with the series. No, a majority never knew her or barely knew her and some thought she was a newer character.
Because no one ever complained about the Mary Tyler Moore show.
I did, on Facebook and Twitter and Grifter Videos.
She didn't. All she said was that she had to learn to control her anger as a human while Bruce never did. Bruce only had to learn control after he was transformed. Jen was referring to Bruce's pre-Hulk life and only that, nothing after he transformed mattered in the context of their conversation.
It was exactly the same in both. Only difference was, the comics didn't have a large amount of "fans" out to hate the character before she debuted whilst MCU Jen didn't have that Luxury.
Sir, 10 to 20 people is not a majority. Not even 50 people. Not when compared to the world population. As I am unfamiliar with The Mary Tyler Moore Show, I have no argument against your claim or can find myself in agreement with you, either. I thought the She-Hulk series wasn't a very good product, and the writing came off pretty misandrist. If an acclaimed series practiced the same writing, then I am not likely to check that one out in the near future. Very well, share those messages and videos so we all can judge for ourselves. Nice fanfiction, but a polarizing scene is a polarizing scene at the end of the day. If you liked it, fine, but that doesn't mean your word is final. There are people who liked that run on the character that didn't like the series.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 24, 2023 1:13:47 GMT
In the 1960s, Selina Kyle was the only identity Catwoman had meaning it was assumed by default she was her. And no one complained about Eartha Kitt, which makes modern people hypocrites when they do complain.
Oh, I saw people complaining about both Wright and her.
It doesn't matter how "bright" they are, the Injustice Warriors would still condemn Disney for not having "The Guts" to do what other adaptations did.
You used secondaries, which automatically invalidates them.
The name "Selina Kyle" was never used in the series, the character hadn't even been used in the comic book since 1954 as a result of the Comics Code Authority, and Batman wasn't a hot selling title for a period of time (if not for the television series, it would have been cancelled). Not only that but comic books as a general medium were not held to a higher degree of having merit in creativity and in quality story telling for that matter, because they were not really encouraged to be read and the lack of interest for a time since the Comics Code Authority was given the go ahead the 1966 Batman television was for many people their introduction to the characters. Eartha Kitt was cast as Catwoman in the third season because Newmar was filming a movie at the time and the producers thought she would be electric as the character given her acting talent and how she presented herself as an entertainer in general, it wasn't because they didn't like Newmar or Meriwether's portrayals or that they thought the source material needed updating, they saw a talented performer and thought she would be good, and she was good. Not only that, but the character of Selina Kyle wouldn't see solid ethnic classification till many years later in modern times, but generally speaking in the grand scheme of things her being white, black, asian, latin, etc. isn't really important - she's a street kid turned cat burglar who walks the line between good and bad. Jim Gordon's race and ethnicity are not really important, either he's a lawman of Gotham City who befriends Batman. I am not saying there weren't people complaining about Wright and Kravitz casting, I was saying I rarely did see people speak terribly about it, most of what I saw were people who thought both actors deserved better roles for their talents, most concerns about the movie were it being another reboot and Robert Pattinson's casting. Since Disney's Tarzan came out in 1999, your speculation can only go so far and remains as fallacy. Because you didn't specify that the characters had to be leads, genius. IE, double standards. It's fine for Eartha Kitt to play Catwoman in the 1960s but if a nonwhite Selina shows up now it must be "SJW Propaganda".
It still happened, showing that this is still a bit problem even today. Anytime a nonwhite gets any role in an adaptation it's scrutinized harder than anyone else.
Doesn't matter when, Disney would still get complaints about "wimping out" and "not being true to the story".
Still, secondaries. Automatically disqualifies them.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 24, 2023 1:16:25 GMT
No, a majority never knew her or barely knew her and some thought she was a newer character.
Because no one ever complained about the Mary Tyler Moore show.
I did, on Facebook and Twitter and Grifter Videos.
She didn't. All she said was that she had to learn to control her anger as a human while Bruce never did. Bruce only had to learn control after he was transformed. Jen was referring to Bruce's pre-Hulk life and only that, nothing after he transformed mattered in the context of their conversation.
It was exactly the same in both. Only difference was, the comics didn't have a large amount of "fans" out to hate the character before she debuted whilst MCU Jen didn't have that Luxury.
Sir, 10 to 20 people is not a majority. Not even 50 people. Not when compared to the world population. As I am unfamiliar with The Mary Tyler Moore Show, I have no argument against your claim or can find myself in agreement with you, either. I thought the She-Hulk series wasn't a very good product, and the writing came off pretty misandrist. If an acclaimed series practiced the same writing, then I am not likely to check that one out in the near future. Very well, share those messages and videos so we all can judge for ourselves. Nice fanfiction, but a polarizing scene is a polarizing scene at the end of the day. If you liked it, fine, but that doesn't mean your word is final. There are people who liked that run on the character that didn't like the series. No, the amount who complained about Jen's very existence in the MCU were much higher than that. Much higher.
Shows how the double standards have become worse over the decades.
Sorry, they're gone by now.
It wasn't polarizing to anyone who understood the actual context of what Jen was saying and were just ready to hate Jen over anything she did or said.
Still shows how characters are getting the shaft before they even debut thanks to how intolerant the "fans" have become.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jan 24, 2023 4:01:14 GMT
The name "Selina Kyle" was never used in the series, the character hadn't even been used in the comic book since 1954 as a result of the Comics Code Authority, and Batman wasn't a hot selling title for a period of time (if not for the television series, it would have been cancelled). Not only that but comic books as a general medium were not held to a higher degree of having merit in creativity and in quality story telling for that matter, because they were not really encouraged to be read and the lack of interest for a time since the Comics Code Authority was given the go ahead the 1966 Batman television was for many people their introduction to the characters. Eartha Kitt was cast as Catwoman in the third season because Newmar was filming a movie at the time and the producers thought she would be electric as the character given her acting talent and how she presented herself as an entertainer in general, it wasn't because they didn't like Newmar or Meriwether's portrayals or that they thought the source material needed updating, they saw a talented performer and thought she would be good, and she was good. Not only that, but the character of Selina Kyle wouldn't see solid ethnic classification till many years later in modern times, but generally speaking in the grand scheme of things her being white, black, asian, latin, etc. isn't really important - she's a street kid turned cat burglar who walks the line between good and bad. Jim Gordon's race and ethnicity are not really important, either he's a lawman of Gotham City who befriends Batman. I am not saying there weren't people complaining about Wright and Kravitz casting, I was saying I rarely did see people speak terribly about it, most of what I saw were people who thought both actors deserved better roles for their talents, most concerns about the movie were it being another reboot and Robert Pattinson's casting. Since Disney's Tarzan came out in 1999, your speculation can only go so far and remains as fallacy. Because you didn't specify that the characters had to be leads, genius. IE, double standards. It's fine for Eartha Kitt to play Catwoman in the 1960s but if a nonwhite Selina shows up now it must be "SJW Propaganda".
It still happened, showing that this is still a bit problem even today. Anytime a nonwhite gets any role in an adaptation it's scrutinized harder than anyone else.
Doesn't matter when, Disney would still get complaints about "wimping out" and "not being true to the story".
Still, secondaries. Automatically disqualifies them.
I don't think you read all of the first paragraph in my response sir, if not none of it. The Catwomen in the Batman '66 series were never referred to as Selina Kyle (it has been speculated for years all three are not even the same person), Catwoman being Selina Kyle wasn't mainstream knowledge back in the 1960's, and Selina Kyle being white, black, asian, or latin, etc. is not important to her character. What matters is she is a resident of Gotham City who was raised on the streets and grew up to be a cat burglar who walks the line between good and bad. Which is why I call your claim that nobody today is willing to accept a non-white Selina Kyle bunk - as I have seen plenty of people over the years fan cast the likes of Rosario Dawson, Eiza Gonalez, Logan Browning, Sofia Boutella, and Sonoya Mizuno as the character. Just the same, it doesn't really matter if Gordon isn't white in an adaptation, either, because his character is that he is a lawman in Gotham City who is an ally to the Caped Crusader. Evidently, most people thought Kravitz and Wright were good in their roles, so that really doesn't lift your argument any higher. An example of compare and contrast would be nice to assist your argument here. If it reads like fallacy, is argued like fallacy, it is a fallacy. You didn't establish that rules, how did you expect me to know?
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 24, 2023 4:06:37 GMT
IE, double standards. It's fine for Eartha Kitt to play Catwoman in the 1960s but if a nonwhite Selina shows up now it must be "SJW Propaganda".
It still happened, showing that this is still a bit problem even today. Anytime a nonwhite gets any role in an adaptation it's scrutinized harder than anyone else.
Doesn't matter when, Disney would still get complaints about "wimping out" and "not being true to the story".
Still, secondaries. Automatically disqualifies them.
I don't think you read all of the first paragraph in my response sir, if not none of it. The Catwomen in the Batman '66 series were never referred to as Selina Kyle (it has been speculated for years all three are not even the same person), Catwoman being Selina Kyle wasn't mainstream knowledge back in the 1960's, and Selina Kyle being white, black, asian, or latin, etc. is not important to her character. What matters is she is a resident of Gotham City who was raised on the streets and grew up to be a cat burglar who walks the line between good and bad. Which is why I call your claim that nobody today is willing to accept a non-white Selina Kyle bunk - as I have seen plenty of people over the years fan cast the likes of Rosario Dawson, Eiza Gonalez, Logan Browning, Sofia Boutella, and Sonoya Mizuno as the character. Just the same, it doesn't really matter if Gordon isn't white in an adaptation, either, because his character is that he is a lawman in Gotham City who is an ally to the Caped Crusader. Evidently, most people thought Kravitz and Wright were good in their roles, so that really doesn't lift your argument any higher. An example of compare and contrast would be nice to assist your argument here. If it reads like fallacy, is argued like fallacy, it is a fallacy. You didn't establish that rules, how did you expect me to know? And those people who are fine with that are hypocrites because of other characters who get the "It's just SJW Propaganda!" thing leveled at them.
Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City. The response to nonwhites being cast in that movie like Hannah John-Kamen.
It shows how even when Disney goes along with pragmatic changes, they still get criticized.
I was hoping you'd know that if they're secondaries trapped in the shadows of white male leads, it automatically disqualifies them.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jan 24, 2023 4:24:44 GMT
Sir, 10 to 20 people is not a majority. Not even 50 people. Not when compared to the world population. As I am unfamiliar with The Mary Tyler Moore Show, I have no argument against your claim or can find myself in agreement with you, either. I thought the She-Hulk series wasn't a very good product, and the writing came off pretty misandrist. If an acclaimed series practiced the same writing, then I am not likely to check that one out in the near future. Very well, share those messages and videos so we all can judge for ourselves. Nice fanfiction, but a polarizing scene is a polarizing scene at the end of the day. If you liked it, fine, but that doesn't mean your word is final. There are people who liked that run on the character that didn't like the series. No, the amount who complained about Jen's very existence in the MCU were much higher than that. Much higher.
Shows how the double standards have become worse over the decades.
Sorry, they're gone by now.
It wasn't polarizing to anyone who understood the actual context of what Jen was saying and were just ready to hate Jen over anything she did or said.
Still shows how characters are getting the shaft before they even debut thanks to how intolerant the "fans" have become.
Still a minority compared to the population of the world, which makes up the entire consumer marketplace. I am disinterested in what other others make of a television series that I have no impression on in comparison with the She-Hulk series, as I was under the impression this was about my understanding and relation with the two programs. Without proof I cannot consider your argument to either have substance, be sound, or be valid. Again, nice fanfiction. You first argued that it was because Bruce Banner in the Marvel Cinematic Universe doesn't have it rough, now you're saying it is in relation to so-and-so. People understood the scene fine and walked away unsatisfied as a consumer. If you have to reach to alter perception of a polarizing sequence, it doesn't really show that the filmmakers were being very competent. So, anyone who dislikes the She-Hulk series must have personal issues? Interesting. What if they just didn't like the program because they thought the writing was bad, that it wasn't funny, and that they didn't think it complimented the Marvel Cinematic Universe very well?
|
|