The Marvel/Sony Superhero Movies Thread

[Irish]

See, Wryan is right. My threshold is different than yours. I hadn't read that one, I read it, I chuckled. And you seem to think it's an unforgivable insult or something like that.

I don't think it's an insult. I think it's in bad taste. I think it's juvenile. That it tries to hard. I think, for a joke, it has poor construction. It's bad writing.

But I'm mystified that anyone can claim a general empathy and then turn around and also say it's funny.

It's simple. I think everyone should have the same rights and be judged in the same way regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation / identity, money, beliefs, etc.

But you don't really believe this, right? Because how does it translate into practice, if ever?

In any social discussion, you take the most extreme, conservative position possible and you defend the status quo regardless of what it is. (Here, you're literally the only person I've seen online who's backed Gunn on the merits of his tweets. Even reddit superfans didn't do that.)

Part of the problem with "everybody should be treated the same," blindly, is that it doesn't address existing imbalances; the people at the bottom stay at the bottom. (One can also twist it, easily, into odious constructs like "separate but equal.")

Adamantly defending the status quo mean the status quo never changes, and in practical terms it means you don't believe in social change. "Everyone should be treated equally" then becomes an empty expression.

But I only like individual people I meet and I think anyone who claims to like others is lying.

I'm not talking about liking someone on a personal level. I'm talking about the ability to empathize with a given group. I've never met a Somalian but that doesn't prohibit me from empathizing with their plight, either at home or abroad. I don't need to like an individual to feel for them.

So I don't know what you mean by "I think anyone who claims to like others is lying."

I mean, it might be naive to expect Disney to respect its employees, but if we surrender those rights that easily, what's left?

Oh, collectively we surrendered those rights long ago, before either you or I were born. That doesn't mean they aren't valuable but changing this would require changing American culture from the ground up. It'd mean challenging the status quo.

But it's curious to me that you demand Disney respect its employees but you'd never ask Gunn, as an artist or celebrity, to respect anyone at all.

[Grouchy]

I don't think it's an insult. I think it's in bad taste. I think it's juvenile. That it tries to hard. I think, for a joke, it has poor construction. It's bad writing.

But I'm mystified that anyone can claim a general empathy and then turn around and also say it's funny.

I never claimed a general empathy. It's also hard to explain a taste for comedy. It's why I don't find comedians like Cosby, Gervais or Fallon funny even though I realize they're objectively good.

But you don't really believe this, right? Because how does it translate into practice, if ever?

In any social discussion, you take the most extreme, conservative position possible and you defend the status quo regardless of what it is. (Here, you're literally the only person I've seen online who's backed Gunn on the merits of his tweets. Even reddit superfans didn't do that.)

That's not true at all and it's a ridiculous accusation. It would mean a search through my posts similar to what the alt-right guy did to Gunn, but you can find me voicing opinions about US foreign policy, economics, History and even film itself that are far from conservative or defensive of the status quo. If you can't appreciate any stand that's not a dichotomy between conservative and progressive that's not really my fault.

Part of the problem with "everybody should be treated the same," blindly, is that it doesn't address existing imbalances; the people at the bottom stay at the bottom. (One can also twist it, easily, into odious constructs like "separate but equal.")

Adamantly defending the status quo mean the status quo never changes, and in practical terms it means you don't believe in social change. "Everyone should be treated equally" then becomes an empty expression.

You're completely right here. The only reason I said that was because you'd previously accused me of not caring about the rights of people I haven't met personally by blatantly twisting my words.

Of course, by painting me as a constant defender of the status quo you're also lying to make me look bad.

I'm not talking about liking someone on a personal level. I'm talking about the ability to empathize with a given group. I've never met a Somalian but that doesn't prohibit me from empathizing with their plight, either at home or abroad. I don't need to like an individual to feel for them.

So I don't know what you mean by "I think anyone who claims to like others is lying."

I mean that the state of the culture nowadays forces people to express empathy in a compulsive, obviously fake manner. I mean, I'm not any sort of well known artist or public figure, but I run a film club on Tuesdays and I encountered a lot of scrutiny from the owners of the bar about the movies I show. Whether this one could be seen as sexist or offensive, or whether this one's themes are too strong, etc. It's exhausting and it forces people to tip toe around life like it's a minefield.

Oh, collectively we surrendered those rights long ago, before either you or I were born. That doesn't mean they aren't valuable but changing this would require changing American culture from the ground up. It'd mean challenging the status quo.

But it's curious to me that you demand Disney respect its employees but you'd never ask Gunn, as an artist or celebrity, to respect anyone at all.

Because it's humor, Irish. The offence is the point. None could look at the stuff Gunn posted and ask themselves if he's serious, which is why firing him is such a dick move.

[Grouchy]

Regarding this film club thing, something funny happened recently. The spot is called Kowalski's Bar because of Stanley Kowalski from A Streetcar Named Desire. There used to be a photo of the character but they took it down. I didn't think anything of it at the moment, just that they were changing decoration.

One day they interviewed me on video about the film club. And the girl who interviewed me asked me about the name of the bar, and I said it was because of the play and the Kazan film. At this moment the owner of the bar (a lesbian, by the way, and the person who had named it) burst in interrupting the interview, saying some bullshit about Kowalski being a painter she knew and asking to move on to the next question.

I was left very confused and when I asked her about it afterwards she said they were moving away from the homage to Stanley Kowalski because he was a bad example, violent towards women and so on.

This is just but one example of how depressing and hypocritical the world is getting.

[Irish]

I never claimed a general empathy. It's also hard to explain a taste for comedy. It's why I don't find comedians like Cosby, Gervais or Fallon funny even though I realize they're objectively good.

Gunn isn't a comedian. Most of your argument here seems like a more complicated version of "it's just a joke."

That's not true at all and it's a ridiculous accusation. It would mean a search through my posts similar to what the alt-right guy did to Gunn, but you can find me voicing opinions about US foreign policy, economics, History and even film itself that are far from conservative or defensive of the status quo. If you can't appreciate any stand that's not a dichotomy between conservative and progressive that's not really my fault.

I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything and I wasn't deliberately twisting your words. I was trying to parse out what you actually meant.

Of course, by painting me as a constant defender of the status quo you're also lying to make me look bad.

Oh, fuck off. Calling me a liar is a bad faith assumption and I resent it.

I wasn't talking about discussions of foreign policy or history. I was talking about discussions around social issues. (Eg: that long back and forth between you, me, and number8 about Hank Azaria, Apu, and The Simpsons.)

I don't think you can legitimately deny that you're conservative around issues of race, class, gender, or sexuality and how they're represented in media. Your basic stance seems to be that everything should be allowable under any circumstance, and you've repeatedly expressed confusion as to why anyone would think differently, regardless of larger contexts. Such a stance just so happens to align with the status quo, so whether you realize it or not, that's what you're defending.

I mean that the state of the culture nowadays forces people to express empathy in a compulsive, obviously fake manner. I mean, I'm not any sort of well known artist or public figure, but I run a film club on Tuesdays and I encountered a lot of scrutiny from the owners of the bar about the movies I show. Whether this one could be seen as sexist or offensive, or whether this one's themes are too strong, etc. It's exhausting and it forces people to tip toe around life like it's a minefield.

On one hand, I agree. On the other, I don't think it's a huge fucking burden to pause and consider other viewpoints, ie: how outsiders might interpret or react to something attempting to be "edgy."

Because it's humor, Irish. The offence is the point. None could look at the stuff Gunn posted and ask themselves if he's serious, which is why firing him is such a dick move.

No one thought he was serious. That was never the point.

[Grouchy]

Gunn isn't a comedian. Most of your argument here seems like a more complicated version of "it's just a joke."

Well... Yeah, that's it. I don't think jokes should get people fired from jobs.

wasn't trying to accuse you of anything and I wasn't deliberately twisting your words. I was trying to parse out what you actually meant.

Oh, fuck off. Calling me a liar is a bad faith assumption and I resent it.

I wasn't talking about discussions of foreign policy or history. I was talking about discussions around social issues. (Eg: that long back and forth between you, me, and number8 about Hank Azaria, Apu, and The Simpsons.)

I don't think you can legitimately deny that you're conservative around issues of race, class, gender, or sexuality and how they're represented in media. Your basic stance seems to be that everything should be allowable under any circumstance, and you've repeatedly expressed confusion as to why anyone would think differently, regardless of larger contexts. Such a stance just so happens to align with the status quo, so whether you realize it or not, that's what you're defending.

If I remember correctly, though, you guys made me change my mind about the Apu thing. Maybe I didn't phrase it like that but I got some new and interesting viewpoints out of that conversation. That isn't happening in this one, but I'm not some kind of cranky defender of old values and I appreciate discussing stuff with you or 8. I'm not closed to learning new things or seeing stuff in a different light.

You're right that I repeteadly defend movies, comics or shows against accusations of racism or sexism. But again, I do that when I think the accusation is unfair. Few people have pointed out that there's a very sexist message near the end of Once Upon a Time in the West, one of my favorite movies, when Cheyenne (the Jason Robards character) advises Jill (Claudia Cardinale) to ignore one of the train workers when he caresses her ass. The way that speech is framed makes it look like it's a message that comes directly from the filmmaker. I realize that's sexist and I wouldn't defend it even though the movie as a whole is very good.

Other times, though, I think political correctness works as censorship and not at all different from the Hays Code or any other puritan endeavor. Like when they were bashing a Batgirl issue because the villain was a transvestite. Like the only correct way to portray transgender people is in a positive light. That's bullshit.

[transmogrifier]

But I'm mystified that anyone can claim a general empathy and then turn around and also say it's funny.

This here makes absolutely no sense to me at all. You are essentially saying that to be a good person, there are some groups of people that are simply not allowed to be the subject of a joke? Otherwise, I really don't get it.

Different versions of the joke:

Some say laughter is the best medicine. This is why I only laugh at people who are sick.
Some say laughter is the best medicine. This is why I only laugh at people with a headcold.
Some say laughter is the best medicine. This is why I only laugh at people who have atopic dermatitis.
Some say laughter is the best medicine. This is why I only laugh at people who have cancer.
Some say laughter is the best medicine. This is why I only laugh at people who have AIDS.

The entire joke is predicated on the misunderstanding of the idiom. The choice of the group at the end has some importance to the overall joke because the more sensitive/serious the disease, the greater the discrepancy between good intentions and horrendous results. That's the entire joke. To turn around and claim that you lack general empathy if you laugh at the joke because AIDS is used as the punchline to me shows zero understanding of how humor works.

[Irish]

Some say laughter is the best medicine. This is why I only laugh at people who are sick.
Some say laughter is the best medicine. This is why I only laugh at people with a headcold.
Some say laughter is the best medicine. This is why I only laugh at people who have atopic dermatitis.
Some say laughter is the best medicine. This is why I only laugh at people who have cancer.

^ Not part of a historically oppressed class.

Some say laughter is the best medicine. This is why I only laugh at people who have AIDS.

^ Part of a historically oppressed class. (At least, potentially)

I guess we could turn the thread into a comedy workshop, but whether these "jokes" were funny wasn't, largely, my point.

[transmogrifier]

So you're saying to be a good person we need general empathy for historically oppressed classes, but we don't need empathy for people with cancer (for example)?

Because I still for the life of me cannot figure out this claim:

But I'm mystified that anyone can claim a general empathy and then turn around and also say it's funny.

EDIT: I will add that I am not arguing that you should find the joke funny, because all humor is subjective. But I don't think you should be making generalizations about the character of those who do find it funny given the nature of how the joke is constructed.

[Irish]

So you're saying to be a good person we need general empathy for historically oppressed classes, but we don't need empathy for people with cancer (for example)?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

[Grouchy]

Hey I'm sorry I called you a liar. I kind of got "offended" because I sensed like you painted me as some right wing troll defending traditional values and such.

[Dukefrukem]

That was fun to read.

And a new rumor today suggests Fox may scrap both New Mutants and Dark Phoenix.

[TGM]

That was fun to read.

And a new rumor today suggests Fox may scrap both New Mutants and Dark Phoenix.

I hope that really is just rumor.

[Ezee E]

Isn't New Mutants already completed? Or is the idea to restart everything/

[TGM]

Isn't New Mutants already completed? Or is the idea to restart everything/

It was completed, and ready to be released, but then with only about a month to go before release, they decided to reshoot a lot of it to really improve on the horror aspect, which in turn got it delayed by a year and a half.

[Irish]

Hey I'm sorry I called you a liar. I kind of got "offended" because I sensed like you painted me as some right wing troll defending traditional values and such.

Thanks, Grouchy. I appreciate that.

[megladon8]

I think it’s a very slippery slope to fire someone over an offensive joke.

Even putting aside the changing moral compass of the times, whose tastes decide what is fireable? What is worth just a reprimand?

Some of the stuff Seth MacFarlane has said and gotten away with is very similar to stuff Gunn got canned for, but MacFarlane’s career has never been in question. I mean, he has a regularly recurring character whose entire schtick is that he’s a pedophile and constantly tries to get Chris to “eat his popsicle”.

I mean, Disney can do what they want. But it’s worisome.

[Dukefrukem]

It was completed, and ready to be released, but then with only about a month to go before release, they decided to reshoot a lot of it to really improve on the horror aspect, which in turn got it delayed by a year and a half.

Pretty much this. And now the delay has caused Disney execs to get involved- and decide whether the movie will hurt the X-Men brand enough, where they wouldn't want to release it at all. Sounds like they really want to fast track the X-Men into the MCU.

Dark Phoenix is getting screened by Disney execs too, and the word is it's another step down from Apocalypse.

[Dukefrukem]

It's semi-officially official. Just need Gov approval now. I'm 100% on board ditching Netflix in favor of a Disney streaming service that allows me access to the Simpsons, the MCU, Star Wars, Alien, Pixar, Indy, Avatar Sequels....

https://www.wsj.com/articles/shareho...d=hp_lead_pos2

[Grouchy]

After Apocalypse I don't really care about Dark Phoenix but New Mutants at least looked like something different.

As per the other subject, good ol' Lloyd thinks the same as me:

If Disney wants to kick somebody else out, they should look at their own movies, their sexist, racist movies that have influenced an entire generation of Americans. Why do we have so much racism and sexism? It may well have to do with the Disney movies. So maybe Disney [you] should fire yourselves.

[Irish]

Even putting aside the changing moral compass of the times, whose tastes decide what is fireable?

Apparently, Bob Iger's.

What is worth just a reprimand?

Behavior that makes your coworkers complain but isn't bad enough to leak to the media.

Some of the stuff Seth MacFarlane has said and gotten away with is very similar to stuff Gunn got canned for, but MacFarlane’s career has never been in question.

The context around a minor character on a shitty cartoon is different than the one around Gunn's tweets.

As per the other subject, good ol' Lloyd thinks the same as me:

Lloyd is too dumb to realize that he's just argued movie studios should be held morally responsible for the work they release. This, coming from the founder of Troma.

[Ezee E]

It was completed, and ready to be released, but then with only about a month to go before release, they decided to reshoot a lot of it to really improve on the horror aspect, which in turn got it delayed by a year and a half.

Damn. I hope I get to see it. Looked good.

[Grouchy]

Lloyd is too dumb to realize that he's just argued movie studios should be held morally responsible for the work they release. This, coming from the founder of Troma.

Damn, man. Did Troma release films with blatant racial stereotypes in the 1940s? I thought their stuff was pretty self-aware.

[transmogrifier]

Damn, man. Did Troma release films with blatant racial stereotypes in the 1940s? I thought their stuff was pretty self-aware.

You really have to give up with Irish; his heart is in the right place, but his sense of context and logic is not.

[Irish]

Damn, man. Did Troma release films with blatant racial stereotypes in the 1940s? I thought their stuff was pretty self-aware.

The biggest defense of Gunn is around time and context: The tweets are old and he's changed since he made them.

If you believe time and context are relevant, then they should be relevant for Disney, too. Bringing up old films ignores the obvious: That social standards progressed, that the people who produced these films are long gone, that Disney is a different company today than it was 70 years ago (quite literally, in terms of manpower; no one who worked on "Song of the South" is still working at Disney).

That Disney buried "Song of the South" in the U.S. but continues to make it available in other countries does make them massive hypocrites, or at the very least sleazy opportunists. (That's not, strictly, the argument that Kaufman made, though.)

But this isn't zero sum, either. Even if Disney is still a terrible company, their being so doesn't automatically excuse Gunn's behavior. Disney's wrongs don't make Gunn somehow right. It's possible to demand they they both be held responsible for their actions.

It's also ridiculous to suggest, as Kaufman does, that issues of race and gender are solely Disney's responsibility. The man is standing in an enormous glass house, and one located in a country made of glass.

You really have to give up with Irish; his heart is in the right place, but his sense of context and logic is not.

Try harder. It's a bit early for you to need passive aggressive insults in a vain attempt to score points, trans.

[transmogrifier]

Well, I asked you what you meant by an earlier comment, and you never bothered to explain, so here we are.