"Crappy SJW agendas": What's the deal?

[Mightymosy]

Let me preface this by saying that I'll be focussing on the feminst/female empowerment part because that's where my main interest lies, and also because I can't really talk much about other aspects (like black people: where I grew up, I have seen one black person in like 15 years, so not much discussion about that group; gay people: don't really want to speak for those because I don't have much to say about them either, simply because I myself don't have any problem with them, and I don't see much hate towards them either).

Ever since I have been watching The Last Jedi Reviews on Youtube, I have been seeing lots of videos that mention "SJW" and discuss how they are good or bad for that movie, for hollywood or even all media in general.
I didn't even know what that meant, so I googled it. Appearantly it means "social justice warrior".
I thought social justice was desirable, but appearantly, this term is mostly used to describe someone as bad and obnoxious. I wonder why that is the case, but that's not my main point.

My main point is, what are these agendas from hollywood about, or, more precisely, why do they mess up this badly? So badly that people complain that "SJWs" ruin Hollywood.

So, we want more females in important roles in movies, right?
I'm firmly on that side. Ever since I watched the first Star Wars movie, I was desperately hoping they would make a sequel with a cool female Jedi who kicked ass with badass one-liners (like Haley from early OotS, maybe?) - pink lightsabre or blue? Don't care, as long as she's cool. (I was soooooo sure they would bring Mara Jade in the sequels, but oh well).

So count me in that population who wants kickass female heros. I have always wanted them. Cera (from The Land Before Time) was my favourite Dino of the Littlefood gang, Trixie was my favourite Rescue Ranger, so on and so on. I have always considered it part of my male sexual identity that I would naturally swoon more for a cool feminine hero than a male equivalent (more bang for my buck, if you get where I'm going ;-) ).
I have never had problems with male heros, either. Love Indiana Jones, for example.

So, my point is I have always wanted more of those, and I acklowledge that Hollywod should make more of them.
What I don't get is why this is such a huge deal that it needs a dedicated agenda, and why it is appearantly sooo difficult. Heck, I even think they fail more the harder they're trying.
When in reality, it's fairly simple.

Write a good character.
Then, flip a coin to decide what gender they are.
Done.

The most famous example is probably Ripley, from the Alien franchise.
She was designed to be male, and only changed to female last second, just on a whim.
Result: One of the most famous franchises ever, and a female lead who is beloved by both male viwers and female viewers alike.

Similarily, Sarah Connor from the Terminator: just a good character. Men can swoon for her, women can want to be like her. And there is no stupid gender agenda in her role
(in one scene she mentions how men seem to destroy everything they ever begin. Given that she just a mental breakdown, and that she was bacially right, considering what we know from WW 1 and 2, I give her a pass here, though).

In the aftermath of TLJ, it seems to me that directors and writers (or Hollywood? I am not sure who's to blame) see things too difficult.

Hell, watch basically anything Angelina Jolie stars in. She knows how to play strong women. Her Maleficent is my favourite Disney movie so far, full stop.
Can't be that hard, can it?
(Admittedly, Tomb Raider 1 and 2's Lara was a little flat of a character, but at least it didn't make anyone complain about female leads. She was the movie version of a video game character, and that one was pretty one-dimensional).


Is it that hard to write women? Then just write a script with a male main character Bob, but before shooting replace main character Bob with second lead character Alice. Simple Strg+F in Word.
It sometimes seems that for Hollywood writers women are that weird alien from another world that no one understands. Which is weird.


There are awesome female characters.
Just make movies with them as main characters.
For example, I always get nerd chills when I see Marvel's Scarlet Witch on screen, roasting her enemies with her red fire.
(And I don't even like Comic movies that much in the first place. )
Why not make a movie with her?
Now that I think of it, a movie with Scarlet Witch and Dr Strange setting the baddies on fire side by side would rock.
Where is that movie??
It can't be that difficult to make, can it?

Side Note: Even if you are so cynic that you believe every male fan can only identify with male heros, guess what? They will still pay money to watch a movie with a female star, because, hey, boobies! It may not be the best reason, but in times where movies like Saw get a pass - which are selling because people want to see bloody torture - I really don't see why Disney or Marvel shouldn't sell movies with the knowledge that their male audience wants to see curvy female actors in spandex costumes (Hey there, Catwoman! love you too).

[Peelee]

My main point is, what are these agendas from hollywood about, or, more precisely, why do they mess up this badly? So badly that people complain that "SJWs" ruin Hollywood.
So far as an agenda goes, I think the only one is having more distribution among different people (like more women, to keep this on point). Which I think a large amount of people either actively encourage or have no problem with. And I don't think they mess it up, I think people who aren't in either of those mindsets rant and rail when they see more representation or distribution.

Write a good character.
Then, flip a coin to decide what gender they are.
Done.

I've been a proponent of this for a while now. I'm not aware of any downsides.

[Morty]

I really doubt this approach would stop anyone from complaining about "SJWs agenda", feminists or whatever else, since those complaints have little to do with what's actually there on the screen. I also see the "write a good character, flip a coin" attitude as needlessly reductionist. Maybe someday gender (or any other part of human experience) will be such an irrelevant detail that this will be possible. We're not at this point yet. Likewise, Ripley and Sarah Connor are great, but I don't see why female characters in film should be limited to them.

[Comrade]

My main point is, what are these agendas from hollywood about, or, more precisely, why do they mess up this badly? So badly that people complain that "SJWs" ruin Hollywood.

It's not really a matter of messing up-- you could make a fantastic film starring a black female character, and people will still whole-heartedly accuse you of pandering to the 'SJWs', probably without ever actually seeing the film. There's simply a certain population that's emerged in the internet age which treats any minority character as symptomatic of some overarching agenda to force diversity on media, and reacts to it with as much invective-- sometimes harassment-- as they can throw at either the producers or the actors.


What I don't get is why this is such a huge deal that it needs a dedicated agenda, and why it is appearantly sooo difficult. Heck, I even think they fail more the harder they're trying.

Well, how exactly are they failing?

As for 'such a huge deal that it needs a dedicated agenda', I don't buy your initial premise. If some directors or producers want to deviate from the standard 'white guy protagonist' model that's generally held true in Hollywood, that's not an agenda, that's just creative freedom. The presence of minority protagonists doesn't mean the viewer is being indoctrinated into... I don't know, respecting women? I'm not actually sure what people think the 'agenda' is trying to force them into thinking.

[Psyren]

My main point is, what are these agendas from hollywood about, or, more precisely, why do they mess up this badly? So badly that people complain that "SJWs" ruin Hollywood.

You're starting from an odd premise I think. It does not follow that "people complaining about SJW" in any way means that Hollywood has "messed up." Movies like Force Awakens, Last Jedi, and Wonder Woman were hugely successful both critically and commercially, and given that those are the primary factors that govern Hollywood decision-making, they probably wouldn't consider those to be "messing up." So how do you define "messing up?"

That should be the starting point before we start applying it to specific demographics or vectors.

[Forum Explorer]

I suppose that's the big sticking point. I mean, I don't disagree with anything you said. But take some modern examples of female leads and tell us why they fail to meet your criteria instead of just assuming we know.

[JadedDM]

The only agenda Hollywood has is to make lots and lots of money. That's always been the case. The reason there has been a push lately for movies with female or poc or LGBT focus is that is what audiences are asking for, and when Hollywood delivers, they usually make lots of money.

However, some people (mostly white men) are so used to Hollywood pandering to them exclusively, that they see this change as threatening. Rather than recognize that the market is changing and Hollywood is just following the money, they've instead cooked up wild conspiracy theories that involve secret feminist cabals that are somehow forcing movie producers to do what they want.

It's all quite ridiculous.

[Devonix]

One thing I have to say on the whole Write a good character and then decide if they're male or female.

Well A person's gender is part of their character. Their gender is part of the person's upbringing, how society views them. And if you're having something take place in a modern setting at least you have to factor it in.

Now a character can be male of female but you still approach it differently. Because men and women are different. Not better or worse, but very much different.

[Ibrinar]

About the flip a coin thing. First no that does not get rid of complaints, seriously it can be enough to have a predominantly female cast for a agenda to be suspected (while all male teams are hardly unusual). Second it works in some roles but no flipping man/woman does not universally work. Yes in a pure action or adventure story it can matter very little. But man and woman are treated differently by society have likely had different experiences growing up and for instance pregnancy is a rather big difference. There are many things where it doesn't matter Ridley is a good example but as a general rule it is reductionist. (Also I am not sure whether Sarah Connor is an example for that method though I guess that is beside the point.) Though I think it works decently in many cases at least before you go into details.

Anyway agree with Psyren here, you are starting from the perspective that because there is pushback that they have to be doing it wrong without actually talking about what they are doing wrong. Maybe they are doing it wrong I barely watch any movies so I can't really comment. But if you want to discuss the topic I think you should first name what they are doing wrong before trying to suggest solutions. Getting suspected of being "sjws" is not something they do it is just an effect.

[Devonix]

About the flip a coin thing. First no that does not get rid of complaints, seriously it can be enough to have a predominantly female cast for a agenda to be suspected (while all male teams are hardly unusual). Second it works in some roles but no flipping man/woman does not universally work. Yes in a pure action or adventure story it can matter very little. But man and woman are treated differently by society have likely had different experiences growing up and for instance pregnancy is a rather big difference. There are many things where it doesn't matter Ridley is a good example but as a general rule it is reductionist. (Also I am not sure whether Sarah Connor is an example for that method though I guess that is beside the point.) Though I think it works decently in many cases at least before you go into details.

Anyway agree with Psyren here, you are starting from the perspective that because there is pushback that they have to be doing it wrong without actually talking about what they are doing wrong. Maybe they are doing it wrong I barely watch any movies so I can't really comment. But if you want to discuss the topic I think you should first name what they are doing wrong before trying to suggest solutions. Getting suspected of being "sjws" is not something they do it is just an effect.


There's also SJW not being a real thing, just what people call something. You can't try to be an SJW because there is no one idea about what that means.

[Foeofthelance]

So, my point is I have always wanted more of those, and I acklowledge that Hollywod should make more of them.
What I don't get is why this is such a huge deal that it needs a dedicated agenda, and why it is appearantly sooo difficult. Heck, I even think they fail more the harder they're trying.


What it boils down to at the end of the day is that you can please some of the audience, some of the time, but you can't please the whole audience every single time. There is always someone out there who is going to find something to object to.

Using Ripley as an example. Ripley is a female officer on a giant mining ship. Her job is to make sure that everything is working so that things don't explode and everyone gets to go home at the end of her shift. Her ship then gets attacked by a murderous alien, which she deals with by judicious method of "blow everything up and run like Hell". Always a solid plan. Ripley is a woman, she is awesome, she saves the day. Three cheers for Ripley!

Except...

"Logic* and violence are primarily methods of male conflict resolution, therefore Ripley is not a feminine character at all. She is, in fact, just a guy with ***."

Seen that argument go round and round. So the next scriptwriter makes a movie where the Ripley-esque character stops to try and have a Kumbaya session with whatever antagonist she is trying to face down. At which point half the audience face palms and goes, "Just shoot the jerk!" And said character gets ripped apart for being a cliche pastiche of old 1950s beliefs, etc.

The truth of the matter is that there is no one singular archetype for women. Never really has been, never really will be. I know one woman who is a literal rocket scientist who enjoys spending her time off from trying to blow up the moon by going spelunking several hundred feet underground and doing cave restorations. I know a woman whose life ambition is to be a stay at home mother and housewife, modeling her aesthetic on the 1950s. Soldiers encounter different challenges than accountants and so the method of resolution changes as well. But the audience is only ever going to view the story through the lens of their own experiences and expectations.




*Not getting into the whole "Men are more logical than women" thing. Just quoting an (in my opinion, quite stupid) debate I'd witnessed.

[eggynack]

What it boils down to at the end of the day is that you can please some of the audience, some of the time, but you can't please the whole audience every single time. There is always someone out there who is going to find something to object to.

Using Ripley as an example. Ripley is a female officer on a giant mining ship. Her job is to make sure that everything is working so that things don't explode and everyone gets to go home at the end of her shift. Her ship then gets attacked by a murderous alien, which she deals with by judicious method of "blow everything up and run like Hell". Always a solid plan. Ripley is a woman, she is awesome, she saves the day. Three cheers for Ripley!

Except...

"Logic* and violence are primarily methods of male conflict resolution, therefore Ripley is not a feminine character at all. She is, in fact, just a guy with ***."

Seen that argument go round and round. So the next scriptwriter makes a movie where the Ripley-esque character stops to try and have a Kumbaya session with whatever antagonist she is trying to face down. At which point half the audience face palms and goes, "Just shoot the jerk!" And said character gets ripped apart for being a cliche pastiche of old 1950s beliefs, etc.
The real issue is that we only get the one lady. Have two hanging around, maybe even three, and you get to have both a face punching soldier and someone more peaceful. When you only represent a group in a single way, it's inevitably going to be super difficult to make that portrayal non-problematic in some sense. I'm not saying every work has to do this, but, y'know, it helps.

[Darth Ultron]

My main point is, what are these agendas from hollywood about, or, more precisely, why do they mess up this badly? So badly that people complain that "SJWs" ruin Hollywood.

It's the basic problem between being normal and having an agenda or even being normal and saving/changing the world. For the first one, you just act normal....for the second one is ''OH My Gosh! so much PreSsure it must be PerFeCt! . It's the difference between ''I will tell a funny joke and hope people will get it and laugh" and "Oh my gosh I am so perfect and funny that I know everyone will laugh at anything I say...or else".



What I [I]don't get is why this is such a huge deal that it needs a dedicated agenda, and why it is appearantly sooo difficult. Heck, I even think they fail more the harder they're trying.
When in reality, it's fairly simple.

The basic problem IS the agenda. If it was even possible to have a perfect world in whatever way ''they'' wanted: it would still not be enough. The problem is, unless they have ''the agenda'', they have nothing. And there is the even more deeper psychological roots: people do pick agendas for things they know are impossible, so they will always have their agenda. They might make progress...but there will always, always be more to do, always.



Write a good character.
Then, flip a coin to decide what gender they are.
Done.

This does not work for the agenda in question. The above only works if you want to have normal characters. And a normal character will never fit an agenda.

Also in fiction there are set roles, and while you can play with them a bit, and you can go crazy for a comedy, you otherwise must follow them.

Take a ''generic'' story with no genders: Cheerleader is attacked by football star, and uses magic to get revenge/justice. Fairly standard...bet you can guess the obvious gender for the characters. and sure you can flip them for a twist or a comedy...but most of the time you will have to go with the standard girl cheerleader and guy football star. The movie of a pretty and petite guy cheerleader and a tough and handsome girl football star just does not work for most viewers.

And worse, especially, for the Agenda people: they don't want to show their people the wrong way....they only want to show then the right agenda way.

Take the classic character of the best friend that betrays for money, well it sure does not fit the agenda to make that character a woman.

Or how about a dead beat parent that does not care about their kids and only cares about their much younger hookup? How about a military officer, or business professional that cares more about the job then family? Or how about just a criminal character in general?

See, for the agenda types, they would not want to ''send the wrong message''.



Is it that hard to write women? Then just write a script with a male main character Bob, but before shooting replace main character Bob with second lead character Alice. Simple Strg+F in Word.
It sometimes seems that for Hollywood writers women are that weird alien from another world that no one understands. Which is weird.

This is very true as:

1)The vast majority of everyone in Hollywoods movie-making is a male.
2)The vast majority of everyone in Hollywoods movie-making is part of the Agenda.



Why not make a movie with her?
Now that I think of it, a movie with Scarlet Witch and Dr Strange setting the baddies on fire side by side would rock.
Where is that movie??
It can't be that difficult to make, can it?

Well, in a couple years(?) we will get Captain Marvel as the first MCU female movie.....maybe you will like that? I think they are going to go way over board and Mary Sue her, but guess we will need to wait and see.



Side Note: Even if you are so cynic that you believe every male fan can only identify with male heros, guess what? They will still pay money to watch a movie with a female star, because, hey, boobies! It may not be the best reason, but in times where movies like Saw get a pass - which are selling because people want to see bloody torture - I really don't see why Disney or Marvel shouldn't sell movies with the knowledge that their male audience wants to see curvy female actors in spandex costumes (Hey there, Catwoman! love you too).


A lot of recent movies have done the sneak the woman in bit, like Transformers and Star Wars. They know the movies will make a TON of money. So they slip their agenda woman character in the movie, and then they can say people ''like'' that character and that ''character'' makes money. We got Oceans 8, but that will likely fizzle as the ''heist'' movie is just way over done now.

And the sad part is that ''looking good'' is against the agenda: they don't want that. A lot of recent movies have gone with the ''Frumpy'' female look to say the least, if not the full blown ''neo Gothic alternative style''. Wonder Woman, for example, showed a traditional attractive woman; Atomic Blonde does not.

Disney and Marvel also have the Kidz Problem: everything they make must be for Kidz. So no sexy stuff or body parts....they can't go to far past ''pretty princess'' and holding hands.

[Mightymosy]

Maybe my premise is a bit off, biased because Youtube shows me about a hundred movies of people complaining about SJW, because I have been watching so many TLJ reviews, and these are kinda attached to that topic. And a lot of these complain how female characters are so bad and ruin everything.
(my dislike of TLJ has been well documented on this forum, I think - but I don't want to discuss that movie in this thread. In my eyes, it treated both male and female characters badly, so there's that)

But come to think of it: The one big movie franchise these days is Marvel. It's bigger than Star Wars even, I think.
Sooo...how many movies with lead females does the Marvel franchise have?

Like I said, I would love to watch more of Scarlet Witch, for example - is there a movie about her?

The only thing that comes to mind is that the directors or producers or writers are afraid that it might flop, if they choose a female hero.
Is that the reason, though? If so, wy?

[eggynack]

Take a ''generic'' story with no genders: Cheerleader is attacked by football star, and uses magic to get revenge/justice. Fairly standard...bet you can guess the obvious gender for the characters. and sure you can flip them for a twist or a comedy...but most of the time you will have to go with the standard girl cheerleader and guy football star. The movie of a pretty and petite guy cheerleader and a tough and handsome girl football star just does not work for most viewers.
Yep, the problem with this mysterious "agenda" is that films are primarily populated by characters in roles that are 95% filled by people of one gender or the other.


Take the classic character of the best friend that betrays for money, well it sure does not fit the agenda to make that character a woman.

Or how about a dead beat parent that does not care about their kids and only cares about their much younger hookup? How about a military officer, or business professional that cares more about the job then family? Or how about just a criminal character in general?

See, for the agenda types, they would not want to ''send the wrong message''.
I would love to see more women in those roles. Can't imagine a single problem with that. Pretty sure all of those roles already have female characters that have taken them without any sort of objection. Again, if there is ever a problem along the lines of, "You have only a single female in your film and she's awful in stereotypical ways, while the larger contingent of male characters are all well developed and cool, and that makes it seem like that structure is a message of your film," then a really solid solution is just having another character be a woman.

Edit:

Disney and Marvel also have the Kidz Problem: everything they make must be for Kidz. So no sexy stuff or body parts....they can't go to far past ''pretty princess'' and holding hands.
See, this one I can agree with. My main criticism of Wreck-it Ralph? More characters needed to show some leg and have sex. Really ruined it for me that they didn't have even one sex scene, which is a thing all "adult" films have.

[137beth]

I suspect that a lot of the people complaining about "SJWs" are just parroting the abbreviation without stopping to think about what it actually stands for. Maybe some of them know it stands for "social justice warrior" but are still so used to hearing it as a buzz-phrase that they haven't bothered to think about what those words actually mean.

Try rephrasing the title, to something like "warrior for justice," and see how many people suddenly realize how nonsensical it is as an insult.

[Adderbane]

First, I should note that I haven't seen The Last Jedi yet, so I can't really comment on particulars of that movie.

One problem is that a lot of writers interpret "strong character" as "masculine character". This has led to a distinct lack of good "feminine" characters. Everyone loves a good kickass heroine, but Hollywood writers seem to be turning into one trick ponies. I'm not sure a lot of them have any idea how to go about doing it (Exhibit A: Black Widow's weird backstory in Age of Ultron). Contrast this with some really good female characters like Ripley in Aliens (hell hath no fury like a woman protecting a child (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MamaBear)), Starfire from the Teen Titans cartoon, or 90% of the cast of MLP.

[Kish]

My main point is, what are these agendas from hollywood about, or, more precisely, why do they mess up this badly? So badly that people complain that "SJWs" ruin Hollywood.
As other people have said, you're giving the complainers far too much credit. Someone who starts griping as soon as they see the words "Wonder Woman" or "reboot of Ghostbusters with the protagonists as female" or "new Star Wars movie with a female character in the position that Luke was in in the original Star Wars," whatever specific complaints they come up with later, is someone who didn't want to see female characters in protagonist roles, and that's all there is to it.

Like that guy who claimed, when Dragon Age 2 came out, to speak for "the straight male gamer" and said in so many words that it was ridiculous and offensive that "fans" was no longer understood by default to mean straight and male.

[Amazon]

Urrrrrg.... :smallannoyed:

There is no SJW agenda, that's just something created by men who feel threatened as these properties that have centered them for so long slowly start to acknowledge that the world doesn't revolve around white men in particular.

[eggynack]

Like that guy who claimed, when Dragon Age 2 came out, to speak for "the straight male gamer" and said in so many words that it was ridiculous and offensive that "fans" was no longer understood by default to mean straight and male.
Or that one dude who was like, "Well, in a couple years(?) we will get Captain Marvel as the first MCU female movie.....maybe you will like that? I think they are going to go way over board and Mary Sue her, but guess we will need to wait and see."

[Amazon]

If anyone has an agenda, they are the guys who can do nothing but complaim and cry about inclusiveness for ad revenue on youtube.

[Yora]

The only explanation I have for such complaints are "I don't like women and non-white people being given public space". I just can't find any other way to explain it.

I've never seen any reasons why something was "ruined by the SJW agenda", but it always seemed to refer to the presence of female or non-white protagonists.

[Lord Raziere]

Erh, while I agree with writing a good character coming first, I don't agree with the flip-coin part. it assumes that the number of good characters out there is already 50/50 split between female and male, and I'd rather as a writer, choose every detail of the character to get it right, than leave it up to something arbitrarily random that could screw it up, especially if I picture in my head of what they're already like, especially if they're female. that and it doesn't help with other representation issues, because the reality is that these things are far more entangled and complex than just flipping a coin. that and you don't want a universe where all the coin flips come up male.

[Darth Ultron]

See, this one I can agree with. My main criticism of Wreck-it Ralph? More characters needed to show some leg and have sex. Really ruined it for me that they didn't have even one sex scene, which is a thing all "adult" films have.

There is nothing wrong with having things for Kidz, and plenty of adults like to turn off their brains and watch such stuff too.

The problem is ''social justice'' is an adult theme and when you water it down for Kidz, it's like writing a message in the sand and then pouring tons of water all over it.

It's more the Problem that Disney/Marvel HAVE to make only stuff for Kidz: Any super hero movie is automatically a Kidz movie. DC and Warner Brothers have a similar problem, but less so. And Sony makes the adult super hero movies.


Or that one dude who was like, "Well, in a couple years(?) we will get Captain Marvel as the first MCU female movie.....maybe you will like that? I think they are going to go way over board and Mary Sue her, but guess we will need to wait and see."

Well, I stopped reading comics years ago.....but I guess the current story lines for Captain Marvel in the comics was like ''Captain Marvel is the all powerful one'' that even the wimps Iron Man and Captain America run to for help. So she is like The Sentry....comes out of nowhere and everyone is like ''oh no if they sneeze they will blow up the planet'', or whatever. But that is just modern comics.

And the ''spoilers'' do already say ''Captain Marvel is the most powerful hero in the whole world!", so that is not a good sign. They can't just make a ''good character'': she must be ''the most powerful character'', because she is a woman. And then on top of that she might have the super secret all powerful seventh Infinity Stone too.

[Peelee]

Erh, while I agree with writing a good character coming first, I don't agree with the flip-coin part. it assumes that the number of good characters out there is already 50/50 split between female and male

I didn't think it assumes that at all, but rather enforces a near 50/50 distribution. Though to be fair, I'm also in the Venn circle that doesn't much care, so if others who do care think it's problematic and want a different system, I see no reason to disagree.

There is nothing wrong with having things for Kidz, and plenty of adults like to turn off their brains and watch such stuff too.

The very fact that you say "for Kidz" and "Kidz stuff" makes it really seem like you think there is something wrong it.

[eggynack]

There is nothing wrong with having things for Kidz, and plenty of adults like to turn off their brains and watch such stuff too.
Yeah, every time I watch Up, I'm like, "Good thing I'm getting to turn off my brain right now, unlike when I'm watching Die Hard which taxes my mind like nothing else."


The problem is ''social justice'' is an adult theme and when you water it down for Kidz, it's like writing a message in the sand and then pouring tons of water all over it.
Which of these kids movies are supposedly too social justice oriented?


It's more the Problem that Disney/Marvel HAVE to make only stuff for Kidz: Any super hero movie is automatically a Kidz movie. DC and Warner Brothers have a similar problem, but less so. And Sony makes the adult super hero movies.

I don't even know what you're talking about at this point. Some of these super hero movies are quite violent. I dunno why they even should focus all that hard on sexual relationships.



Well, I stopped reading comics years ago.....but I guess the current story lines for Captain Marvel in the comics was like ''Captain Marvel is the all powerful one'' that even the wimps Iron Man and Captain America run to for help. So she is like The Sentry....comes out of nowhere and everyone is like ''oh no if they sneeze they will blow up the planet'', or whatever. But that is just modern comics.

And the ''spoilers'' do already say ''Captain Marvel is the most powerful hero in the whole world!", so that is not a good sign. They can't just make a ''good character'': she must be ''the most powerful character'', because she is a woman. And then on top of that she might have the super secret all powerful seventh Infinity Stone too.
Why's it matter if she's really strong? Character power level is near irrelevant to how a character is structured within the story. You just give them more powerful threats, or, alternatively, make their conflicts largely internal.

[Poiuytrewq]

And the ''spoilers'' do already say ''Captain Marvel is the most powerful hero in the whole world!", so that is not a good sign. They can't just make a ''good character'': she must be ''the most powerful character'', because she is a woman. And then on top of that she might have the super secret all powerful seventh Infinity Stone too.

The hell are you talking about?

She is and has always been Marvel superman, she's not that powerful because she's a woman she's all that power becuase she is who she is.

Don't spread miss information just becuase you don't like a character.

[Frozen_Feet]

How is it that people are so uncomprehending of basic verbal irony?

Let's deal with the term "SJW" first. Remember term "white knight"? It's an allusion to romantic chivalry - the concept of a knight on a white steed swooping in to defend a lady's honor.

It's used of people who are jumping to a woman's defense just to score points or get laid - that is, people who aren't actually chivalrous, but are putting up an act for their own benefit.

"Social Justice Warrior" is exactly the same. It is used of people who, instead of seeking to right actual social injustice, are just putting up airs and using the concept as an excuse to act rudely etc.

It's an external label. Very few people who actually do social work use the term of themselves. An unironic use is so rare some people apparently don't know it exists.

So, what, then, is a "crappy SJW agenda"? Well there isn't one. There are several, based on whatever crappy excuse is given for self-serving behaviour by a purported SJW. Again, it's an external evaluation. Basically no-one would unironically say they themselves are pursuing an "SJW agenda".

So what would be an example of such agenda? Putting token minority characters in a movie to pander to minority audience in order to get their money, while making big claims about representation and evening work opportunities in the movie industry. The superficial agenda is to right a social wrong, while the actual motive is just to rake in profits.

People who complain about this typically feel the moral posturing is hypocritical or getting in the way of making good movies. Right or wrong, this isn't particularly interesting. It is Tuesday in every big industry.

The hilarity ensues because for every SJW, there's an equal-but-opposite idiot. Most of these are the same type of people as the purported SJWs - that is, they are using perceived social wrongs as an excuse for self-serving and rude behaviour. The rest are honest-to-God conspiracy theorists who percieve social wrongs everywhere - and then the people with opposing delusions clash online, using even the most trivial of things as battleground.

So you get someone making a female-lead movie to get money from female audience, all the while claiming it's to improve life for underworked actresses... And then you get someone claiming this is a discriminatory act to push male actors from work, trying to get viewers for their social media account... And once the trenches have been dug, trolls from both sides will start harassing perceived opponents, and then on and on it goes.

[Rynjin]

I think the only real failure with pushing female leads is that it's always a big part of the marketing and really cringy lines get pushed in about "Gurl Power" and "Taking down the patriarchy one thug at a time" or **** like that, which is just a byproduct of most writers in Hollywood being talentless hacks.

Other than that, it's been pretty hit or miss, which is what you'd expect; not all male heroes are winners with the audience either.




Well, I stopped reading comics years ago.....but I guess the current story lines for Captain Marvel in the comics was like ''Captain Marvel is the all powerful one'' that even the wimps Iron Man and Captain America run to for help. So she is like The Sentry....comes out of nowhere and everyone is like ''oh no if they sneeze they will blow up the planet'', or whatever. But that is just modern comics.

And the ''spoilers'' do already say ''Captain Marvel is the most powerful hero in the whole world!", so that is not a good sign. They can't just make a ''good character'': she must be ''the most powerful character'', because she is a woman. And then on top of that she might have the super secret all powerful seventh Infinity Stone too.

Captain Marvel in any incarnation has pretty much always been one of the Cosmic level Marvel heroes that can 1 v 1 brawl with people like Thanos. S/he's had the power level (off and on, of course, because comics are inconsistent) at or above people/creatures like an amped up Thor or Silver Surfer.

It's not because Carol Danvers is a woman, it's because Captain Marvel is stronk as ****, in any of the incarnations (there's been like 5 or 6 of them).

[thorgrim29]

To take a slight devil's advocate position here, most of the people complaining online about diversity are being silly (or worse) but I will say that I noticed the the more emphasis is put on how "important" and "representative" and, my favourite, "empowering" a thing is the less likely it is to be good. Lazy hacks are taking advantage of the fact that there is an underepresentation of many people in fiction and substituting being a "ally" and writing an inclusive story for actually writing a good one, and if you dare point out that it sucks you will get called names.

I don't get how that applies to the latest Star Wars movies though... Sure Rey is a woman and overpowered but that's none of the reasons TLJ was a bad movie (or at least a bad Star Wars movie).

[Ibrinar]

I suspect that a lot of the people complaining about "SJWs" are just parroting the abbreviation without stopping to think about what it actually stands for. Maybe some of them know it stands for "social justice warrior" but are still so used to hearing it as a buzz-phrase that they haven't bothered to think about what those words actually mean.

Try rephrasing the title, to something like "warrior for justice," and see how many people suddenly realize how nonsensical it is as an insult.

It isn't though, it is simple sarcasm. The warrior part is mocking indicating that someone pretends to be a warrior not that one is. compare it with the phrase keyboard warrior. I don't take it serious as an insult because in reality it is used for anyone who cares about social justice topics at all but saying the phrase can't be used as an insult because Social Justice is good and so is someone fighting for it is a big understanding of how mocking insults work. Like Knight in shining armor can be an insult.

[Darth Ultron]

The very fact that you say "for Kidz" and "Kidz stuff" makes it really seem like you think there is something wrong it.

I was not aware anything was wrong with it? "Kidz'' is used all the time. And what is wrong with saying ''that stuff is for kidz"? That is a good thing. Things need to be safe for kidz. No good parent just lets thier kids watch ''whatever''.


Yeah, every time I watch Up, I'm like, "Good thing I'm getting to turn off my brain right now, unlike when I'm watching Die Hard which taxes my mind like nothing else."

Up, like all cartoon movies is good to turn your brain off for a while and just enjoy.



Which of these kids movies are supposedly too social justice oriented?

Um, that is the point...you can't do it in a Kidz movie.



I don't even know what you're talking about at this point. Some of these super hero movies are quite violent. I dunno why they even should focus all that hard on sexual relationships.

Violence is 100% approved for Kidz, as the vast majority of Kidz things show. And relationships to come more for the older kidz, as remember they are kidz until 18.



Why's it matter if she's really strong? Character power level is near irrelevant to how a character is structured within the story. You just give them more powerful threats, or, alternatively, make their conflicts largely internal.

Because they are not making a powerful character that just happens to be a woman, they are specifically making a woman character who is all powerful to save the day(and universe). It's the Agenda.


The hell are you talking about?

She is and has always been Marvel superman, she's not that powerful because she's a woman she's all that power becuase she is who she is.

Don't spread miss information just becuase you don't like a character.

Well, like I said, I have not read most modern comics.

I have the whole run of Ms. Marvel (Carol Danvers) and she just had enhanced physical form and some ESP. Her power level here was Low, like Spider Man level. Later as Binary, she got ''the power of a White Star'', and that put her up in power level like the Silver Surfer. Then she lost all that power, and went back to low power...but she could fly and absorb energy. So that put her around Iron Man level of power.

So....none of the above even comes close to ''Superman'', not even Binary, as she was just a blaster.

And then she has been in comics after that...but is now all powerful?

And I do like the character...the more original one, not the modern one. As, sure, the last couple of years they have made her to be ''all powerful'', because they want a powerful woman character.

[eggynack]

Up, like all cartoon movies is good to turn your brain off for a while and just enjoy.
Yep, I'm always watching It's Such a Beautiful Day with my brain turned off. Such a smooth experience.



Um, that is the point...you can't do it in a Kidz movie.
Wait, what? Your problem with kids films is that they're not SJW'y enough? Like, you want them to have more representation than they already have or something? I guess I'd be fine with that.



Violence is 100% approved for Kidz, as the vast majority of Kidz things show. And relationships to come more for the older kidz, as remember they are kidz until 18.
What do you even think is missing from these films then? It's really unclear.



Because they are not making a powerful character that just happens to be a woman, they are specifically making a woman character who is all powerful to save the day(and universe). It's the Agenda.
You're assuming that before even watching the film. Hell, before you even know when the film will be released. That's why I quoted you in that fashion, because your judgement was set from the minute you heard there was gonna be a powerful lady hero running about.

[Rynjin]

Well, like I said, I have not read most modern comics.

I have the whole run of Ms. Marvel (Carol Danvers) and she just had enhanced physical form and some ESP. Her power level here was Low, like Spider Man level. Later as Binary, she got ''the power of a White Star'', and that put her up in power level like the Silver Surfer. Then she lost all that power, and went back to low power...but she could fly and absorb energy. So that put her around Iron Man level of power.

So....none of the above even comes close to ''Superman'', not even Binary, as she was just a blaster.

And then she has been in comics after that...but is now all powerful?

And I do like the character...the more original one, not the modern one. As, sure, the last couple of years they have made her to be ''all powerful'', because they want a powerful woman character.

...She isn't even the first "all powerful" female superhero. See: Scarlet Witch, Phoenix/Jean Grey, Storm(ish), etc.

You're just looking for **** to complain about without any basis in fact.

[Lethologica]

What I don't get is why this is such a huge deal that it needs a dedicated agenda, and why it is appearantly sooo difficult. Heck, I even think they fail more the harder they're trying.
I wanted to comment on this part in particular.

Yes, the more a movie appears to be tryharding an agenda, the more of a failure it tends to be. Does that mean that tryharding an agenda is the problem? Absolutely not. The good movies have agendas, too, with people who really believe in them, or people who are cynically exploiting them for profit, or whatever else. The difference is that bad movies are, well, bad - everything is awkward and forced and contrived. That includes whatever agenda the filmmakers brought to the story. So it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Hell, a bad movie can even create the appearance of an agenda where none exists - humans are really good at reading into stories, and a clueless creative team can easily muck up and presented a twisted or even completely unrelated version of what they were trying to say in the first place.

[WindStruck]

There is an agenda. Take a look at that new Ghostbusters movie for a poster child example. The agenda is a bit nebulous to pin down, but it goes something like this:


Everyone is equal.
Only men are bad and evil.
Men are expendable.
Women can do anything men can do, with no effort.
It's funny to hit a man's genitals; not a woman.
Everyone is equal.


Also take a look at Force Awakens. It took tons of training for Luke Skywalker to achieve much use of the force back in the original movie. Now this new girl is not only a total badass at fighting from the get go, but figures out how to dominate someone else's mind completely on her own, when strapped to a table? I couldn't believe how ridiculous that was.

[Darth Ultron]

What do you even think is missing from these films then? It's really unclear.

Yes, it is, to some.




You're assuming that before even watching the film. Hell, before you even know when the film will be released. That's why I quoted you in that fashion, because your judgement was set from the minute you heard there was gonna be a powerful lady hero running about.

Well, and the spoilers and leaks and previews, and for example what the director has said. And that is all about ''yup, she is all powerful!".


...She isn't even the first "all powerful" female superhero. See: Scarlet Witch, Phoenix/Jean Grey, Storm(ish), etc.

You're just looking for **** to complain about without any basis in fact.

True, but they are not using the other women super heroes.

Look, first it would be great if The Scarlet Witch had her comic power of ''alter probability/reality'' and not the MCU ''red telekinesis'', and it would be great to have her win the Infinity War.

Phoenix/Jean Grey could also win the Infinity War, and as she can eat a star, she is more powerful then any hero on Earth(except maybe Dr. Strange, Scarlet Witch, or Franklin Richards).

But what they are doing is the Agenda:

1.Ok, we have to have a all powerful woman character to show everyone that women are super all powerful in the fictional MCU.
2.Um, well, we got like the Black Widow?
3.No she must be all powerful! More powerful then all the men!
4.Ok, lets pick a random female character and make her all powerful!

Then we will get the movie Infinity War part Duex: Thantos defeats all the male heroes...hahahaha, and will destroy the universe, and only one person can stop him and save the day: The All Powerful Woman Hero!

[eggynack]

Also take a look at Force Awakens. It took tons of training for Luke Skywalker to achieve much use of the force back in the original movie. Now this new girl is not only a total badass at fighting from the get go, but figures out how to dominate someone else's mind completely on her own, when strapped to a table? I couldn't believe how ridiculous that was.
Not going to get into a big Force Awakens thing, but I've gotta point out that nearly none of the things in the supposed agenda above are in TFA. Everyone isn't apparently equal, there's at least one evil lady and multiple good dudes, men aren't treated as any more or less expendible than men, and I don't much genital violence. The only thing that it even comes close to is that women can do whatever men can do without effort, and I don't think that's all that present. Yeah, Luke works for some things, but he also does pilot space ships with less apparent training than Rey had, and Rey does pretty bad in her fight against Kylo as I recall. She's a tough lady who's strong in the force. I don't see much issue with that.

Edit:
Yes, it is, to some.
I'm literally asking. It was not a rhetorical question.



Well, and the spoilers and leaks and previews, and for example what the director has said. And that is all about ''yup, she is all powerful!".
Again, who cares if she's all powerful? That is not, in itself, sufficient to constitute a mary sue.

[Talakeal]

Write a good character.
Then, flip a coin to decide what gender they are.
Done.

I saw a very long thread on a different forum complaining about exactly this. It was about video games that randomly generate minor NPCs and how it "ruins immersion". Basically the argument is that most countries are still dominated by one ethnicity, and most profession are still dominated by one gender. Thus, if the game randomly chose minor NPCs race and / or gender you would get more or less equal representation, which is somehow such a slight to immersion that people actually boycott games because of it. People actually make mods for games to remove all of the "immersion breaking" characters, such as a Fallout mod that deletes all of the minor female NPCs in combat roles.

[Peelee]

I was not aware anything was wrong with it? "Kidz'' is used all the time.
By you, and only by you. Your near-constant insistence on capitalizing it and replacing the S with a Z means you want that specific word to be imbued with meaning, and a different meaning than "kids." And in that vein...

And what is wrong with saying ''that stuff is for kidz"? That is a good thing.
Then why are you pejorative about anything being "for Kidz"?

You're just looking for **** to complain about without any basis in fact.
Ah, I see you've gotten the full Darth Ultron experience!

[Psyren]

The only thing that comes to mind is that the directors or producers or writers are afraid that it might flop, if they choose a female hero.
Is that the reason, though? If so, wy?

For Marvel in particular the reason is obvious - back when the MCU phases were being planned out, their best-known and most bankable female characters were owned by other studios. That has only changed recently, so be patient.

Even for the ones they do have (like Scarlet Witch and even Captain Marvel herself) a lot of their more iconic details were tied up in properties they couldn't access, as above. Plotting your way around that stuff takes time. I'm fine with the progress being made, and I'm looking forward to Marvel getting their own female superhero, who will be if anything the most powerful one they have yet.

In the meantime, for me, it's quite telling meanwhile that the only DCEU movie that was remotely successful from a critical standpoint was Wonder Woman.



*MRA manifesto snipped*

Also take a look at Force Awakens. It took tons of training for Luke Skywalker to achieve much use of the force back in the original movie. Now this new girl is not only a total badass at fighting from the get go, but figures out how to dominate someone else's mind completely on her own, when strapped to a table? I couldn't believe how ridiculous that was.

It's almost like there was an awakening of the Force or something. Fancy that.

[Darth Ultron]

By you, and only by you. Your near-constant insistence on capitalizing it and replacing the S with a Z means you want that specific word to be imbued with meaning, and a different meaning than "kids." And in that vein...

Maybe you need to get out more? Kidz is used a lot in popular culture. There is a Kidz Goggle, for example.



Then why are you pejorative about anything being "for Kidz"?

I'm not? When did I ever say I was?



Again, who cares if she's all powerful? That is not, in itself, sufficient to constitute a mary sue.

Captain Marvel(Carol) is a broad, idealized character who possesses no real flaws, is loved by good people, and hated by bad people. She doesn't challenge her character or her readers by questioning Carol's methods or motives, even when her methods and motives are highly questionable. Marvel is so eager to create a strong female figure that she isn't willing to risk her looking weak or stupid or petty, yet those qualities are necessary to inform a complete character. If Peter Parker wasn't a little selfish, Uncle Ben would still be alive. If Batman weren't obsessively driven, he wouldn't be Batman. Without any tangible flaws, Carol Danvers is just boring.

But, of course, ''Warriors'' don't have flaws.

[eggynack]

Captain Marvel(Carol) is a broad, idealized character who possesses no real flaws, is loved by good people, and hated by bad people. She doesn't challenge her character or her readers by questioning Carol's methods or motives, even when her methods and motives are highly questionable. Marvel is so eager to create a strong female figure that she isn't willing to risk her looking weak or stupid or petty, yet those qualities are necessary to inform a complete character. If Peter Parker wasn't a little selfish, Uncle Ben would still be alive. If Batman weren't obsessively driven, he wouldn't be Batman. Without any tangible flaws, Carol Danvers is just boring.

But, of course, ''Warriors'' don't have flaws.
I can't argue against this. Because I haven't seen the movie. You have also not seen the movie, so you can't argue for it. Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd address all this other stuff, about what cartoons are supposedly missing.

[Darth Ultron]

I can't argue against this. Because I haven't seen the movie. You have also not seen the movie, so you can't argue for it. Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd address all this other stuff, about what cartoons are supposedly missing.

Well, sure this is the Comic Character Captain Marvel, and the MCU characters are different. So there is a chance they might do anything.

I'm not sure I ever said cartoons are missing anything?

[Mightymosy]

For Marvel in particular the reason is obvious - back when the MCU phases were being planned out, their best-known and most bankable female characters were owned by other studios. That has only changed recently, so be patient.

Even for the ones they do have (like Scarlet Witch and even Captain Marvel herself) a lot of their more iconic details were tied up in properties they couldn't access, as above. Plotting your way around that stuff takes time. I'm fine with the progress being made, and I'm looking forward to Marvel getting their own female superhero, who will be if anything the most powerful one they have yet.

In the meantime, for me, it's quite telling meanwhile that the only DCEU movie that was remotely successful from a critical standpoint was Wonder Woman.

[...].

Yeah, Wonder Woman seems to be an exception. A pity she's from the DC franchise. As I said, I don't like the comics movies that much (although Guardians really helped warm me up with the Marvel stuff). But DC is the one of the two I really can't get much enjoyment from. I don't hate it or anything, but I just don't find Batman, and especially not Superman, compelling to watch.....so there's that. I guess I will watch Wonder Woman some day, because my girlfriend mentioned interest. Let's see how it is.


If Captain Marvel is SUUUPER POWERFUL like Superman, then she won't be the character I like to watch, unfortunately. Characters who fight because they have to fight are way more interesting than superpowered-all-problems-solved-characters.


I still don't understand what you said about Scarlet Witch and Captain Marvel.
I have never seen Captain Marvel (I first heard of her this week, when I watched some video about speculations for the sequel to Infinity War).
But I have seen Scarlet Witch before. She was in that movie when all the Avengers fought together against that Ultron robot (Yeah, now I even remember the name: The "Age" of Ultron, that lasted a couple days ;-) )

From when was that movie? Why couldn't they have made a solo movie with her in that same year? Age of Ultron showed they had the rights!


Also, why not just invent a character? Too tied to source material?


Then there's the X-Men: How about a movie about Rogue, Storm, or my favourite, Mystique?

I like Wolverine as much as the next guy, but there clearly were some opportunities missed in that product line. That movie that ended up with Wolverine vs "Deadpool" on the powerplant chimney? Scratch that, and have a Mystique prequel or something.


Then again, take a step back: How about other movies? The only one that comes to my mind is the new Tomb Raider - which reminds me: is it any good? Still haven't watched it yet because time, but I have a little more time these days so I have begun watching a couple movies.

[Morty]

I get the feeling that if Sarah Connor or Ripley appeared today, they would be accused of pushing an agenda and being made by man-hating feminists.

[Fyraltari]

There is an agenda. Take a look at that new Ghostbusters movie for a poster child example. The agenda is a bit nebulous to pin down, but it goes something like this:


Everyone is equal.
Only men are bad and evil.
Men are expendable.
Women can do anything men can do, with no effort.
It's funny to hit a man's genitals; not a woman.
Everyone is equal.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0


Also take a look at Force Awakens. It took tons of training for Luke Skywalker to achieve much use of the force back in the original movie.
That is a weird way to say "Luke managed telekinesis without anyone ever telling him this was remotely possible, while Rey only ever copy things that are done in front of and to her".

is a broad, idealized character who possesses no real flaws, is loved by good people, and hated by bad people. She doesn't challenge her character or her readers by questioning Carol's methods or motives, even when her methods and motives are highly questionable.
Oh-oh I know that one! It's Superman, the last son of Krypton!

Those dastardly feminist were at it since the forties!

[Amazon]

:smallsigh:

Captain America(Steve) is a broad, idealized character who possesses no real flaws, is loved by good people, and hated by bad people. He doesn't challenge his character or his readers by questioning Captain America's methods or motives, even when his methods and motives are highly questionable. Marvel is so eager to create a strong male figure that he isn't willing to risk him looking weak or stupid or petty, yet those qualities are necessary to inform a complete character. If Scarlet witch wasn't so emotional, Vision would still be alive. If Emma Frost weren't ambition driven, she wouldn't be the white queen. Without any tangible flaws, Steve rogers is just boring.

But, of course, ''Warriors'' don't have flaws.

There fixed for you. :smallamused:

[Lethologica]

Psyren was defending the MCU, and they only just got the X-Men back, but with regards to Singer: Mystique in particular is super-hard to make a movie for, just from the production side. First you have her regular appearance, which is makeup hell (or it was then - I dunno how much could be done with mocap now, but it's still bad enough that Jennifer Lawrence all but eschewed the blue in Apocalypse). Then there's all the characters she would inevitably shapeshift into in a movie focused on her, and coordinating all the acting performances to line up as the same character would be a massive challenge.

Storm could have been a good choice, but Halle Berry did a different female superhero movie instead, and we all remember how that went. No surprise she wasn't called on to carry an X-Men movie after that.

Then there's the movies that were made. The original X-Men movie was basically a movie about Rogue and Wolverine, and of course there's Jean Grey. If anything, Singer has a problem where he can't get away from Jean Grey, rather than the reverse - even a reboot couldn't escape her gravity. Also, X-23 came out of nowhere and thrilled everyone.

So I'd say Singer's X-Men was pretty good about putting female characters front and center along with male characters.

[Amazon]

Can we all just agree that the x-men movies were kind of ****? Plz? Thanks. :smallannoyed:

[Fyraltari]

I get the feeling that if Sarah Connor or Ripley appeared today, they would be accused of pushing an agenda and being made by man-hating feminists.
For sure. The more a movement gains tractions, the more people that faer that specific change start worrying and crying out, until the change becomes the new status quo.

This as always happenned but the existence of the Internet probably makes it more visible.

Can we all just agree
On the Internet? Fool. :smalltongue:

Also, that's not related to anything but Yora's avatar is all kinds of awesome.

[Psyren]

If Captain Marvel is SUUUPER POWERFUL like Superman, then she won't be the character I like to watch, unfortunately.

Have you read, like, anything about Superman? She won't be.



Also, why not just invent a character? Too tied to source material?

They're doing that constantly, that doesn't mean using (and reconfiguring) existing characters need to stop.

[Amazon]

To me MCU is certainly certanlly NOT too tied to the to source material.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkrCK3QP3h4

[Ebon_Drake]

On the Scarlet Witch point in particular, the movie rights for her and her brother Quicksilver are very murky. They've both been in the Avengers in the comics so Marvel Studios believed they had the rights to the characters, but they're also mutants so Fox believed they fell under the rights to the X-men franchise. That's why different versions of Quicksilver ended up appearing in both Age of Ultron and Days of Future Past at virtually the same time. I believe the settlement was that Marvel Studios were only able to use the characters without making any reference to them being mutants. It's complicated and you can find out more info online if you care to look, but the short of it is that a Marvel Scarlet Witch solo movie would be incredibly unlikely until Marvel Studios gets the rights to the X-Men back - particularly as doing her backstory in line with the comics would require involving characters whose film rights definitely sit with other companies.

I'd also argue that Scarlet Witch isn't really that interesting as a stand-alone character anyway, since most (if not all) of her comic history is as part of various team books. If she'd really stood out in Age of Ultron and caught on with fans then maybe Marvel could have found a way to make a solo movie for her, but then that also goes for the likes of Hawkeye and especially Black Widow.

[Kitten Champion]

Psyren was defending the MCU, and they only just got the X-Men back, but with regards to Singer: Mystique in particular is super-hard to make a movie for, just from the production side. First you have her regular appearance, which is makeup hell (or it was then - I dunno how much could be done with mocap now, but it's still bad enough that Jennifer Lawrence all but eschewed the blue in Apocalypse). Then there's all the characters she would inevitably shapeshift into in a movie focused on her, and coordinating all the acting performances to line up as the same character would be a massive challenge.

Storm could have been a good choice, but Halle Berry did a different female superhero movie instead, and we all remember how that went. No surprise she wasn't called on to carry an X-Men movie after that.

Then there's the movies that were made. The original X-Men movie was basically a movie about Rogue and Wolverine, and of course there's Jean Grey. If anything, Singer has a problem where he can't get away from Jean Grey, rather than the reverse - even a reboot couldn't escape her gravity. Also, X-23 came out of nowhere and thrilled everyone.

So I'd say Singer's X-Men was pretty good about putting female characters front and center along with male characters.

The problem wasn't that those characters weren't there or had literally nothing to do, it's that Fox so centred the universe around Wolverine, Xavier, and Magneto that it became too narrow for further exploration and development of characters outside of that. Rogue gets attention sure, but she doesn't get to do much. To the point that they cut her almost entirely out of the Days of Future Past because her story felt so superfluous there. Jean Grey's relevant because of her relationship with Wolverine and Xavier - and Cyclops exists too, I guess - with very little time spent actually trying to make you care for her and a great deal more spent on how she impacts those two with her actions. Then there's Mystique, who again exists as an oscillating needle between Xavier and Magneto in both the ideological and character sense.

This isn't a gender issue or anything, it's a structural issue with the meta-verse they've constructed. Movies like Logan and Deadpool pushed outside X-Men norms and showed the potential for something different with these characters or this universe, which, well, it needed earlier.

[Solaris]

Yeah... yeah, this thread went pretty much about how I expected.

Okay, so. For those of you who are unaware, "SJW" doesn't just refer to everyone on the political left... unless you're reading the Youtube comments section. (Which you just shouldn't. If ever you feel a glimmer of hope or love for your fellow human beings, read the comments section of just about any video to correct that.) It originally referred to internet activists who shrill about first world problems from the safety of their keyboards, hence the "Warrior" part of it. Now it refers to those people both online and when they congregate in the real world to shrill about first world problems. A characteristic trait is a complete inability to maintain perspective, deep snuggles in hugboxes (you may prefer the term "echo chamber"), and a massive amount of ad hominem used in lieu of... anything, really. They seem to like to use emotional reasoning, labeling, dehumanization, and other really terrifying tactics that make their fetishization of attacking Nazis deeply ironic.

Those of us not on the left will often refer to a movie that apparently put more effort into Representation (which is apparently a very big deal... see again about first world problems) than storytelling, plot, etc. as having a crappy SJW agenda. It's not because anybody objects to seeing someone with boobs or brown skin leading a movie - it's because we object to "Hey! I want my lead to have boobs, brown skin, or both!" being the sum total of the writing process. It's insulting to everyone involved. That's why you don't see a lot of people complaining about Wonder Woman (... except for incels, but a lot of those guys really just object to the existence of women in general) - but they do complain about Ghostbusters. The Ghostbusters reboot is a pretty good example of this because of how very transparent the writers were about valuing their agenda over everything. They didn't do the CGI well, and didn't put the effort into producing a good comedy. Instead, they hired propagandists to start this very cynical campaign to ingrain the idea that the only reason anyone could possibly dislike that movie was misogyny.

[eggynack]

Well, sure this is the Comic Character Captain Marvel, and the MCU characters are different. So there is a chance they might do anything.
Precisely. A character can be portrayed in any number of ways. It's weird to go after a film in this way before it even exists.


I'm not sure I ever said cartoons are missing anything?
You said, "Disney and Marvel also have the Kidz Problem: everything they make must be for Kidz. So no sexy stuff or body parts....they can't go to far past ''pretty princess'' and holding hands," which strongly implies that kids films are missing something of some sort that represents a problem. You also said, "The problem is ''social justice'' is an adult theme and when you water it down for Kidz, it's like writing a message in the sand and then pouring tons of water all over it," which, again, means that there is something missing from these films that renders the creation of only them problematic. You keep talking about these things absent from supposed kids entertainment, and discussing a supposed associated problem, but you're incredibly unclear about what the problem is or how it functions.

[Lethologica]

Well, that's certainly a narrative.


The problem wasn't that those characters weren't there or had literally nothing to do, it's that Fox so centred the universe around Wolverine, Xavier, and Magneto that it became too narrow for further exploration and development of characters outside of that. Rogue gets attention sure, but she doesn't get to do much. To the point that they cut her almost entirely out of the Days of Future Past because her story felt so superfluous there. Jean Grey's relevant because of her relationship with Wolverine and Xavier - and Cyclops exists too, I guess - with very little time spent actually trying to make you care for her and a great deal more spent on how she impacts those two with her actions. Then there's Mystique, who again exists as an oscillating needle between Xavier and Magneto in both the ideological and character sense.

This isn't a gender issue or anything, it's a structural issue with the meta-verse they've constructed. Movies like Logan and Deadpool pushed outside X-Men norms and showed the potential for something different with these characters or this universe, which, well, it needed earlier.
That's true. That and the casting. Stewart and McKellan...hard to stand out against that presence. And Hugh Jackman became like that for X-Men after the first movie.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Those dastardly feminist were at it since the forties!


I get the feeling that if Sarah Connor or Ripley appeared today, they would be accused of pushing an agenda and being made by man-hating feminists.


I can see those pesky feminist acting since 1964, just look at at Bewitched! A strong and independent woman, with the power to bend reality and do as she please with no limits for her powers(Mary Sue) who can learn new spells and gain new powers every episode with no need for training.

Her husband the main male figure is a clueless and incompetent buffoon. That serves only to undermine the male authority.

Pure propaganda I tell you! :smallbiggrin:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/pt/thumb/e/e2/Bewitched.jpg/250px-Bewitched.jpg

[Kyberwulf]

Why is SJW kind of an insult?

Don't think of the SJ part to mean what you think it means. It's called Irony. It's a stand in for "Mob Justice". Mob justice isn't good. Mob Justice warriors will tilt at windmills, and go tear you down if you try pointing out their are windmills. They will look at something and demand it be lynched based of some pretty flimsy characteristics. If you try to point out that it's wrong to do that, then the Mob Justice warriors will come for you. Like mobs, not everyone is part of them, they just tend to be some of the noisiest people around, so they drown out anyone who doesn't agree with them.

How can you not see being a "Warrior for Justice", or SJW not an insult. It's saying that you and the group of people you are with know inherently, what justice is. There are a lot of other people that saw what they were doing as just and right. They stripped people of their rights in service of "Justice" and had a final solution for people that didn't fit their idea of what is right. They drive Trucks of Peace into things, and blow off party poppers in a crowded area, in the name of "all that is right." They take their ideals way to far, and expect everyone to be the same.


I find it so illogical to claim that female representation matters, because women need heroes. That changing movies in such a way isn't a big deal. Yet, by that very logic. How can male viewers identify with female heroes?

How can you sit there and say, Ray was a good step. Without, by your very logic, saying that as men we had a star wars movie "Taken" from us. Again, by your very logic, men can't identify as her?

[Z3ro]

It took tons of training for Luke Skywalker to achieve much use of the force back in the original movie.

I'm not going to touch anything else in this topic, but I can't just let this go. I don't care how much training you think it should take, he did not get tons. He had a five minute session with Obi Wan in the Falcon, then like a long weekend with Yoda. Now I'm not going to debate how much training he should have, but that's not tons.

[S@tanicoaldo]

I don't get "anti-sjw" people, movies with representation are fun, good and profitable.

I ask the OP back, what's the deal? Why not like something that is cleary working for all involved, women are happy, lgbt people are happy and poc are happy.

Movies are making tons of cash again and all is good.

What's the deal?

[Lord Raziere]

I don't get "anti-sjw" people, movies with representation are fun, good and profitable.

I ask the OP back, what's the deal? Why not like soemthing that is cleary working for all involved, womena re happy, lgbt people are happy and poc are happy.

Movies are making tons of cash again and all is good.

What's the deal?

Thats kind of my confusion with people being against representation in general, yes.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Thats kind of my confusion with people being against representation in general, yes.

Not only that, just check at ocean's 8, the movies is great, super fun and just made tons of cash.

Not even the mega-super crossover that was Avengers: Infinity War was able to top the amout of money Black Panther did on his own.

So they are cleary what people want, is making a lot of money and they are good, I think these are the kind of people who would go againts the cure of cancer if it was a female doctor who discovered, crazy people I say.

[Fyraltari]

I don't get "anti-sjw" people, movies with representation are fun, good and profitable.

I ask the OP back, what's the deal? Why not like something that is cleary working for all involved, women are happy, lgbt people are happy and poc are happy.

Movies are making tons of cash again and all is good.

What's the deal?

The problem comes from being used to movies that pander to you specifically. When a movie doesn't do that it feels like something that belongs to you is taken from you because you take having a lead that looks like you as granted.

The problem with privilege is how insidious it is. Because things being the way they are is the only system they know, people who don't suffer from it think the way things are are the correct way, they don't realize the privilege they have. So when non-privileged people start getting amore even share from the point of view of the (formerly) privileged people it looks like the other group, rather than going from "discriminated against" (quotes because while close to my meaning I don't think that's the exact word) to equal, went from equal to privileged.

[Talakeal]

Not even the mega-super crossover that was Avengers: Infinity War was able to top the amout of money Black Panther did on his own.

That is incorrect. Infinity war is the highest grossing marvel movie. While black oanther is the highest grossing solo marven movie all three of the avengers movies outgrossed it.

[Morty]

As I understand it, "social justice warrior" was originally a label for a particular brand of Internet "activist" who uses the ideas of equality and fairness as an excuse to bully and harass people and generally be obnoxious while not actually accomplishing any social progress in any way. By now it's evolved into a derisive label meaning anyone who cares about those issues, used by people who don't want them discussed, brought up or acted on at all.

[Talakeal]

As I understand it, "social justice warrior" was originally a label for a particular brand of Internet "activist" who uses the ideas of equality and fairness as an excuse to bully and harass people and generally be obnoxious while not actually accomplishing any social progress in any way. By now it's evolved into a derisive label meaning anyone who cares about those issues, used by people who don't want them discussed, brought up or acted on at all.

That is my understanding as well.

[Fyraltari]

I think these are the kind of people who would go againts the cure of cancer if it was a female doctor who discovered, crazy people I say.

"... It was when coming home from that unpleasant man's
That he fell victim of a critical indigestion
And refused the therapeutic's rescue
Corne d'Auroch, (https://youtu.be/iAn172kdL9A?t=114)
Because it was a German, ogé ogé
That invented the medicine, ogé ogé"

[thorgrim29]

To be fair political labels on the internet have about a week from first use to total uselessness.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Are you sure?

This site says BP still beats AIW in the box office:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=marvelcomics.htm

But I bet it's all a sjw plot!

[Talakeal]

Are you sure?

This site says BP still beats AIW in the box office:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=marvelcomics.htm

But I bet it's all a sjw plot!

My mistake, I was talking world wide. Domestic only Black Panther is indeed the highest grossing Marvel movie.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Still, I bet that for the "Anti-Sjw" cry babies AIW still is a sjw movie since it has female characters who are able to figth, black folks, and *gasp* female characters that are black, bald no less! :smalleek:

[Elanasaurus]

The bad thing about this The Agenda thing is that when it's done badly, it can be kinda offensive. For example, Rose and her sis from TLJ. I'd rather not getting lead Asian characters than getting them.
:elan:

[Saph]

I don't get "anti-sjw" people, movies with representation are fun, good and profitable.

What's the deal?

From a writer's perspective:

"Representation" is a zero-sum game. If I want to make a character one race, that means they have to not be another race. If I make a character male, they can't be female. And there's only so much room in the story. Now it's not very hard to have a balance of male and female characters, but it's a lot more troublesome once you get into races, since there are an awful lot of varieties of human out there. Someone's getting the short straw,and given that a lot of people define their race/ethnicity fairly narrowly, this means most of them are getting the short straw. I've literally never seen a character on screen who matches my particular racial background, for instance.

But okay, let's say I put in a variety of male and female characters of a few different major racial groups. Most people aren't going to see someone who looks exactly like them, but we've got some variety. Everyone's happy now, right?

Nope! Because now the same people who complain about representation are going to start complaining about portrayals. It's not enough that their group's getting represented, it has to be a positive representation. Again, this becomes a zero-sum game, except this time it's a lot nastier. Someone has to be the villain, and there are only so many heroes to go around. So who gets to be the good guys and who gets to be the bad guys? Well, in practice, this usually gets decided by social attitudes and prejudice. The groups with the most PR and the most vocal representatives get sorted into the good-to-neutral category, while the groups that are regarded as acceptable targets are more likely to get cast as the villain.

This isn't always the case – there are always stories that subvert expectations, and there are others that don't split neatly into good guys and bad guys. But most of the time it is, and that means that in practice, what a lot of these "social justice" advocates are actually saying is "I want you to favour my preferred groups at the expense of the ones I don't like". I don't know about you, but that kind of talk starts making me uncomfortable. And once you start getting into discussions with them about that, you also start to notice that a lot of these social justice people seem to be very much okay with discrimination in its various forms (such as dismissing opinions based on the speaker's race or sex) so long as it's directed at the "right" people.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Nope! Because now the same people who complain about representation are going to start complaining about portrayals. It's not enough that their group's getting represented, it has to be a positive representation. Again, this becomes a zero-sum game, except this time it's a lot nastier. Someone has to be the villain, and there are only so many heroes to go around.

I don't think that's true, look at marvel for exemple we have diverse cast of characters but also a diverse cast of villans, we have both black heros and black villains.

We have women in both sides, main characters, support characters and villains.

And I don't think anyone is complaining, you don't have to change your story to fit anything, people are just telling new stories from diferent perspectives and that's a good thing.

[Saph]

And I don't think anyone is complaining, you don't have to change your story to fit anything, people are just telling new stories from diferent perspectives and that's a good thing.

Yeah, no. Lots of people are complaining, and it goes beyond complaints into full-on harassment campaigns. People in my business get their books pulled and their deals cancelled because someone's decided that it's the "wrong" sort of story, often for ludicrously thin reasons. What people call the "SJW agenda" is vaguely defined, but it's very much a real thing in the media industry.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Yeah, no. Lots of people are complaining, and it goes beyond complaints into full-on harassment campaigns. People in my business get their books pulled and their deals cancelled because someone's decided that it's the "wrong" sort of story, often for ludicrously thin reasons. What people call the "SJW agenda" is vaguely defined, but it's very much a real thing in the media industry.

Unless you are publishing outright nazi propaganda I don't see how this is true. There are plenty of stories that are not inclusive that are being published and consumed all around the globe.

Unless you provide me evidence I call this BS.

[Dragonexx]

Why is SJW kind of an insult?

Don't think of the SJ part to mean what you think it means. It's called Irony. It's a stand in for "Mob Justice". Mob justice isn't good. Mob Justice warriors will tilt at windmills, and go tear you down if you try pointing out their are windmills. They will look at something and demand it be lynched based of some pretty flimsy characteristics. If you try to point out that it's wrong to do that, then the Mob Justice warriors will come for you. Like mobs, not everyone is part of them, they just tend to be some of the noisiest people around, so they drown out anyone who doesn't agree with them.

How can you not see being a "Warrior for Justice", or SJW not an insult. It's saying that you and the group of people you are with know inherently, what justice is. There are a lot of other people that saw what they were doing as just and right. They stripped people of their rights in service of "Justice" and had a final solution for people that didn't fit their idea of what is right. They drive Trucks of Peace into things, and blow off party poppers in a crowded area, in the name of "all that is right." They take their ideals way to far, and expect everyone to be the same.


I find it so illogical to claim that female representation matters, because women need heroes. That changing movies in such a way isn't a big deal. Yet, by that very logic. How can male viewers identify with female heroes?

How can you sit there and say, Ray was a good step. Without, by your very logic, saying that as men we had a star wars movie "Taken" from us. Again, by your very logic, men can't identify as her?

Someone's been watching Micah Curtis.

[Saph]

Unless you provide me evidence I call this BS.

Here's an article on the subject from the New Yorker (http://www.vulture.com/2017/08/the-toxic-drama-of-ya-twitter.html?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=s3&utm_campaign=sharebutton-b). It focuses on a story that happened in the YA (young adult) section of the market, but it's not at all confined to that genre.

Relevant quote:


Authors seem acutely aware of that fact, and are tailoring their online presence — and in some cases, their writing itself — accordingly. One New York Times best-selling author told me, “I’m afraid. I’m afraid for my career. I’m afraid for offending people that I have no intention of offending. I just feel unsafe, to say much on Twitter. So I don’t.” She also scrapped a work in progress that featured a POC character, citing a sense shared by many publishing insiders that to write outside one’s own identity as a white author simply isn’t worth the inevitable backlash. “I was told, do not write that,” she said. “I was told, ‘Spare yourself.’

Like I said, it's very much a thing that you have to deal with in my industry.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Here's an article on the subject from the New Yorker (http://www.vulture.com/2017/08/the-toxic-drama-of-ya-twitter.html?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=s3&utm_campaign=sharebutton-b). It focuses on a story that happened in the YA (young adult) section of the market, but it's not at all confined to that genre.

Relevant quote:



Like I said, it's very much a thing that you have to deal with in my industry.

Interesting... But don't you think that's more like a social media thing? Actors and celebrities are the same, some ruin their reputation via a single tweet. Authors are the same, as people with fans they need to becareful.

This kind of thing is not new or "sjw" exclusive, in the past people got all worked up on comcis becuase they had horror elements, demons and violence.

It's the same thing they only changed the topics. Anoying people that complain is something authors always had to face, no?

[Darth Ultron]

You said, "Disney and Marvel also have the Kidz Problem: everything they make must be for Kidz. So no sexy stuff or body parts....they can't go to far past ''pretty princess'' and holding hands," which strongly implies that kids films are missing something of some sort that represents a problem. You also said, "The problem is ''social justice'' is an adult theme and when you water it down for Kidz, it's like writing a message in the sand and then pouring tons of water all over it," which, again, means that there is something missing from these films that renders the creation of only them problematic. You keep talking about these things absent from supposed kids entertainment, and discussing a supposed associated problem, but you're incredibly unclear about what the problem is or how it functions.

Maybe you read another post?

Yes, both Disney and Marvel have quite willingly branded themselves as For Kidz as a great marketing ploy. They want everything they do to be seen as Kidz Safe, so parents don't have to worry about their stuff. They lift the burden from parents to Gatekeep everything a Kid watches: Disney and Marvel will do it for you. And this comes with the burden of they can't do anything ''close'' to adult, as they will risk losing that brand image.

The Kidz Problem is that you must make everything safe for all the Kidz, or in other words, safe for the seven and under. And super heroes are the worst as super heroes are For The Kidz. If you make an Iron Man movie, all the kids will want to see it. And with that in mind, you can't have ''adult'' stuff in their as all the kids will see it. So, in turn, any Iron Man movie must be made for the Kidz.

And yes, things like social justice and the social problems have to be watered down to nothing for anything that is for Kidz. You, of course, can't show the kidz any hint of adult social society: that would be wrong and might very well send the wrong message. Worst of all, the kids might ''like'' the ''way things really are in the adult world'' message, and then totally miss and/or dismiss the social justice message...and you don't want to risk that. And the only way to do that is to have your social justice message as the only message, but it's the classic ''without the dark, there is nothing for the light to shine on''.


I don't think that's true, look at marvel for exemple we have diverse cast of characters but also a diverse cast of villans, we have both black heros and black villains.

We have women in both sides, main characters, support characters and villains.

And I don't think anyone is complaining, you don't have to change your story to fit anything, people are just telling new stories from diferent perspectives and that's a good thing.

Do you really think this is true?

Run through the MCU movies......how many major female villains did you count? Exactly how many female super heroes did you count? How many major super heroes of any race other then white did you count?

Sure you could count the handful of female and other races as support characters....that are still just a few.

And we have the ''evil wicked queen witch'', a classic Disney Trope, for Hela...and all the other female villains like...like

Now Dc/Warner and Sony do a bit better, but they do still suffer from the same problem. Like Sony has Mystique as the one evil mutant woman and, has there even been one Spider Man female villain?

[Callos_DeTerran]

I don't get "anti-sjw" people, movies with representation are fun, good and profitable.

I ask the OP back, what's the deal? Why not like something that is cleary working for all involved, women are happy, lgbt people are happy and poc are happy.

Movies are making tons of cash again and all is good.

What's the deal?


Thats kind of my confusion with people being against representation in general, yes.

I can't speak for others but for me the deal is when the representation is bad. As in either a person of color or LGBT exists in a movie and the fact that they are a person of color or LGBT is the sole facet of their character and as such it is often blown out of proportion. Or when they change something that already works just for the sake of inclusion.

That's the big deal for me at least. If you want to include them go right ahead..but make them a good character! Make them more than just their skin color, sexual orientation, sexual identity, or whatnot. Make them a person.

[Ibrinar]

I am surprised how obnoxious I find the whole "Kidz" thing, I mean it is just a minor deliberate misspelling.

[Adderbane]

Unless you are publishing outright nazi propaganda I don't see how this is true. There are plenty of stories that are not inclusive that are being published and consumed all around the globe.

Unless you provide me evidence I call this BS.

Google "ConCarolinas Ringo" if you want to see what kind of flame wars can ignite off this sort of thing. No matter which side you support, it isn't pretty.

[JadedDM]

How can you sit there and say, Ray was a good step. Without, by your very logic, saying that as men we had a star wars movie "Taken" from us. Again, by your very logic, men can't identify as her?

In order for something to be taken from you, it has to first belong to you. Star Wars never belonged to white men, ergo, it cannot be taken from them.

[Shamash]

Weird there was no SJw talk when the new mad max came out, or when Hermione was the most powerful character, Daenerys Targaryen or Katniss Everdeen.

It's almost as if some people are trying to push an idea via youtube and other social media, spreading some idea that some people are out to get them and are againts somethign that is harmless. Creating a thread where there is none.

Almost. :smallcool:

[Talakeal]

Weird there was no SJw talk when the new mad max came out, or when Hermione was the most powerful character, Daenerys Targaryen or Katniss Everdeen.

It's almost as if some people are trying to push an idea via youtube and other social media, spreading some idea that some people are out to get them and are againts somethign that is harmless. Creating a thread where there is none.

Almost. :smallcool:

I don't know about the others, but I saw a ton of MRA backlash against Mad Max.

[eggynack]

Maybe you read another post?
Not sure what this means. Those were direct you quotes.



The Kidz Problem is that you must make everything safe for all the Kidz, or in other words, safe for the seven and under. And super heroes are the worst as super heroes are For The Kidz. If you make an Iron Man movie, all the kids will want to see it. And with that in mind, you can't have ''adult'' stuff in their as all the kids will see it. So, in turn, any Iron Man movie must be made for the Kidz.

And yes, things like social justice and the social problems have to be watered down to nothing for anything that is for Kidz. You, of course, can't show the kidz any hint of adult social society: that would be wrong and might very well send the wrong message. Worst of all, the kids might ''like'' the ''way things really are in the adult world'' message, and then totally miss and/or dismiss the social justice message...and you don't want to risk that. And the only way to do that is to have your social justice message as the only message, but it's the classic ''without the dark, there is nothing for the light to shine on''.
I'm really not sure what's so watered down in children's media. Up opens on a miscarriage+death. Movies like Zootopia and Black Panther have pretty well developed messages about race relations and such. Steven Universe is all LGBTQ about stuff. Inside Out is one of the better depictions of depression I've seen out there. I can't identify much that children's media is really missing. You keep insisting it's watered down, and I disagree.

[Darth Ultron]

Weird there was no SJw talk when the new mad max came out, or when Hermione was the most powerful character, Daenerys Targaryen or Katniss Everdeen.

It's almost as if some people are trying to push an idea via youtube and other social media, spreading some idea that some people are out to get them and are againts somethign that is harmless. Creating a thread where there is none.

Mad Max:Thunder Road? The movie with two strong powerful lead characters that just happen to be of different sexes? That movie?

Harry Potter? The movie with two strong powerful lead characters that just happen to be of different sexes?(and um, tag along Ron) That movie?

And then there is Rae, the most powerful Jedi in the galaxy ever...because is is a woman.

[Haruki-kun]

The Winged Mod: Thread locked for review.