Movies/series thread
- Thread starter MadTinus
- Start date
Lifemocker
Active Member
- Jun 16, 2016
- 1,652
- 151
- 63
- 35
Holy shit I thought you were trolling
Nope
I repeat my request once again, nuke USA. All this cancer is their fault.
Nope
I repeat my request once again, nuke USA. All this cancer is their fault.
winters epilogue
Senior Lurker
TL;DR: While it’s understandable that someone would be hesitant about a property changing only to capitalize on a trend, outright dismissal of all character experiments impedes creativity.
- - -
If one is invested in these properties*, these types of changes should not be looked upon with ire, but rather (cautious) optimism. There are only so many plots in life (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Basic_Plots)—and those can become even tougher to build upon when a character has already been defined—so it should come of no surprise that creative people want to develop hybrids with their favorite characters in order to play with different scenarios and make interesting tales.
A property will several story lines, some of which wildly contradict one another, doesn’t suddenly invalidate the property. These imagined worlds can co-exist, and have their respective fan-bases. (Godzilla and Batman are both great examples of this. Over the decades they’ve existed, numerous interpretations have come to be—both visually and in terms of the storyline—and yet almost all have their share of fans.)
I don’t personally believe there’s anything sacred about one’s born traits—no one chooses their place of birth/gender/sexuality/race/etc—so I find this negative obsession to be misguided in the first place. The Little Mermaid story, for example, already asks that one accepts a mystical species living underwater that can speak to other aquatic species (as well as humans), and can wield magic—so how is accepting something other than Caucasian skin color such a stretch?
While sometimes traits play a role in certain stories, especially in historic contexts, I believe our stories should be able to reflect how we’re evolving. (Lifemocker, and other admitted-racists, have their excuse for caring, but I believe anyone else is being intellectually dishonest with themselves if they think it’s that important.)
So, to sum up this damn post: if you need to tell yourself that there’s only one true Little Mermaid, then treat this like a Rick & Morty episode (or Into the Spider-Verse) and pretend that this upcoming one takes place in a parallel universe. And, if you have no interest in seeing a 007 movie that features a female-lead, you still have have the twenty-six previous films that make no mention of that character. (I’m reminded of the Opeth discussions: Many (most?) of us may not care for the direction they’ve gone in, but that doesn’t take away from how good past material is. I think Still Life rules just as hard now as it did when I first heard it back in high school.)
Alright, off my soap box.
* If you’re not invested in these properties, then why worry about it? It’s not for you, and that’s perfectly fine. With 7.5 billion people on this planet, there’s room for some variation.
- - -
If one is invested in these properties*, these types of changes should not be looked upon with ire, but rather (cautious) optimism. There are only so many plots in life (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Basic_Plots)—and those can become even tougher to build upon when a character has already been defined—so it should come of no surprise that creative people want to develop hybrids with their favorite characters in order to play with different scenarios and make interesting tales.
A property will several story lines, some of which wildly contradict one another, doesn’t suddenly invalidate the property. These imagined worlds can co-exist, and have their respective fan-bases. (Godzilla and Batman are both great examples of this. Over the decades they’ve existed, numerous interpretations have come to be—both visually and in terms of the storyline—and yet almost all have their share of fans.)
I don’t personally believe there’s anything sacred about one’s born traits—no one chooses their place of birth/gender/sexuality/race/etc—so I find this negative obsession to be misguided in the first place. The Little Mermaid story, for example, already asks that one accepts a mystical species living underwater that can speak to other aquatic species (as well as humans), and can wield magic—so how is accepting something other than Caucasian skin color such a stretch?
While sometimes traits play a role in certain stories, especially in historic contexts, I believe our stories should be able to reflect how we’re evolving. (Lifemocker, and other admitted-racists, have their excuse for caring, but I believe anyone else is being intellectually dishonest with themselves if they think it’s that important.)
So, to sum up this damn post: if you need to tell yourself that there’s only one true Little Mermaid, then treat this like a Rick & Morty episode (or Into the Spider-Verse) and pretend that this upcoming one takes place in a parallel universe. And, if you have no interest in seeing a 007 movie that features a female-lead, you still have have the twenty-six previous films that make no mention of that character. (I’m reminded of the Opeth discussions: Many (most?) of us may not care for the direction they’ve gone in, but that doesn’t take away from how good past material is. I think Still Life rules just as hard now as it did when I first heard it back in high school.)
Alright, off my soap box.
* If you’re not invested in these properties, then why worry about it? It’s not for you, and that’s perfectly fine. With 7.5 billion people on this planet, there’s room for some variation.
rj rl
multidimensionally dyslexic
- Oct 13, 2009
- 1,351
- 309
- 83
I think they couldn't care less about the Bondiana, they're just alarmed by yet another mindless hype-driven forceful installment of modern feminism. I don't necessarily see it as such and, like you said, it doesn't really bother me and I probably won't be seeing the film anyway.
Why mindless and forceful - because the attempt is to capitalize on a franchize (tried that many times already, see Ghostbusters) instead of going the honest way: let the money talk. Make a rip-off with a female lead, call it Jean Bend or whatever and just launch it. If women are truly in need of a reassurance (they really aren't) they'll go watch it, some men will also go watch it and it's gonna be a hit and soon there'll be a "Bend 25" movie. Obviously, no one's gonna see it because that's a dull and uninspired concept that was done countless times, which is why they want it to be the next Bond instead.
You know who did it right? The people behind Lara Croft. It satisfies both sides: men like her because bobs and vegana, girls like her because she's a strong inspiring girl, everyone's happy and the games sell. Although I'd much rather they popularized women in science than women who are literally, physically strong, can do a roundhouse kick and shoot guns and are cool. Thankfully, that's beginning to happen.
Why mindless and forceful - because the attempt is to capitalize on a franchize (tried that many times already, see Ghostbusters) instead of going the honest way: let the money talk. Make a rip-off with a female lead, call it Jean Bend or whatever and just launch it. If women are truly in need of a reassurance (they really aren't) they'll go watch it, some men will also go watch it and it's gonna be a hit and soon there'll be a "Bend 25" movie. Obviously, no one's gonna see it because that's a dull and uninspired concept that was done countless times, which is why they want it to be the next Bond instead.
You know who did it right? The people behind Lara Croft. It satisfies both sides: men like her because bobs and vegana, girls like her because she's a strong inspiring girl, everyone's happy and the games sell. Although I'd much rather they popularized women in science than women who are literally, physically strong, can do a roundhouse kick and shoot guns and are cool. Thankfully, that's beginning to happen.
Lifemocker
Active Member
- Jun 16, 2016
- 1,652
- 151
- 63
- 35
I don't really care about Bond. But if you ant diversity YOU ARE FREE TO CREATE NEW CHARACTERS AND STOP TURNING OLD ONES INTO FUCKING NEGROS OR WOMEN 24/7
It's really starting to piss me off and just fuels the racism
Edit:
And I just wanted to repeat one thing. I wasn't a racist. Aggressive left ridiculousness turned me into one. I still treat individuals with respect, I just now "hate" certain groups as a whole.
It's really starting to piss me off and just fuels the racism
Edit:
And I just wanted to repeat one thing. I wasn't a racist. Aggressive left ridiculousness turned me into one. I still treat individuals with respect, I just now "hate" certain groups as a whole.
winters epilogue
Senior Lurker
Blaming racism on "aggressive left ridiculousness" is as weak as blaming bad bands for hating music. There are plenty of stupid humans out there, but that doesn't make believing there are superior races a good idea.
I, too, find the extreme left to be obnoxious, but I still consider myself quite liberal. (I.e., I have no desire to die on the sword of "if every single movie doesn't feature a person of ever race, creed, gender, and sexual orientation, then it's a failure" because that's a silly & forced idea of progressiveness, but I also find the extreme-right to be abhorrent.)
Three things on "being free to create new characters...":
On this thread's actual topic: Chernobyl and I Kill Giants were very good. Godzilla: King of the Monsters had some absolutely killer effects, probably the best those characters have ever looked/sounded, but fucking hell the human scenes were atrocious. A bunch of neat ideas—e.g., Godzilla's recharging palace—mixed with terrible plot. So it goes.
I, too, find the extreme left to be obnoxious, but I still consider myself quite liberal. (I.e., I have no desire to die on the sword of "if every single movie doesn't feature a person of ever race, creed, gender, and sexual orientation, then it's a failure" because that's a silly & forced idea of progressiveness, but I also find the extreme-right to be abhorrent.)
Three things on "being free to create new characters...":
- None of us on this forum have been alive that long, but we're benefitting from decades upon decades of media starring people that look more like us. I could probably watch a different action movie with some straight white male every day for multiple years without repeating—and it's not as if they've suddenly stopped being made.
Just like the Schumacher films didn't stop me from enjoying Batman as a character, if they remake in X amount of years with someone else, that's not gonna change it either. I don't own that character, no one does, so it can be molded however someone wants to. That doesn't mean it'll be good—it could be absolute trash—but I am not going to discount it just because they decided to try something different. (Just like it was silly to discount Heath Ledger from playing the Joker because he wasn't Jack Nicholson.) - Of course there are still indie films/shows being made—plenty of which have come to light thanks to Netflix & Amazon producing their own media—but you have to recognize that the vast majority of people only care about the properties they've heard of. If it isn't a known property, it's an extreme gamble, so studios would rather stick to safe bets. ("Damned if you do, damned if you don't.)
- I'm well aware of how many shitty cover songs and remakes exist, but there are also good cover songs, and good film remakes—some of those even better than the original versions—so to act as if any media property is inherently sacred and can't ever be touched again is do discount what creative people can do.
On this thread's actual topic: Chernobyl and I Kill Giants were very good. Godzilla: King of the Monsters had some absolutely killer effects, probably the best those characters have ever looked/sounded, but fucking hell the human scenes were atrocious. A bunch of neat ideas—e.g., Godzilla's recharging palace—mixed with terrible plot. So it goes.
Lifemocker
Active Member
- Jun 16, 2016
- 1,652
- 151
- 63
- 35
Well, I agree with first paragraph, it's not only that.
To my defence, im also "racist" towards my own nation. My mindset is simple -> you ruin my fun, I hate you. So maybe I should just declare "i hate people" but then I sound like edgy teenage girl.
And let me offer another perspective on creating new characters:
As a weeblet (i still have shitton of shows to watch) maybe I don't have a complete look on the industry, but more or less it looks like this:
1. Create an anime to promote manga / novel (or other source material). So it's 1st season
2. And in most cases it then looks like this:
a) Anime was a hit, and it promoted the source material enough it's not worth to create more seasons anymore.
b) anime was shit so it's not worth making anymore
This "allows" to have TONS of new characterts every 3 months. It's really rare cases when quality anime gets more seasons. Not talking about some obvious animes aimed at young adults, because animation is mostly shit and plot is "im gonna charge my attack for 5 episodes" - see Dragonball, which was popular in the west.
So I see it's definitely possible to try and create a lot of characters. Animation is not cheap, I'd say making a show / movie is cheaper, unless you are spensing millions of dollars on popular face, something I'll never understand.
Anime has:
Males
Females
People with disabilities
Animal hybrids of both genders
Literal animals
Traps
Milfs
Children
Monsters
Aliens
Machines
What I mean, if you cant find a character you could identify with, you're blind and deaf.
To my defence, im also "racist" towards my own nation. My mindset is simple -> you ruin my fun, I hate you. So maybe I should just declare "i hate people" but then I sound like edgy teenage girl.
And let me offer another perspective on creating new characters:
As a weeblet (i still have shitton of shows to watch) maybe I don't have a complete look on the industry, but more or less it looks like this:
1. Create an anime to promote manga / novel (or other source material). So it's 1st season
2. And in most cases it then looks like this:
a) Anime was a hit, and it promoted the source material enough it's not worth to create more seasons anymore.
b) anime was shit so it's not worth making anymore
This "allows" to have TONS of new characterts every 3 months. It's really rare cases when quality anime gets more seasons. Not talking about some obvious animes aimed at young adults, because animation is mostly shit and plot is "im gonna charge my attack for 5 episodes" - see Dragonball, which was popular in the west.
So I see it's definitely possible to try and create a lot of characters. Animation is not cheap, I'd say making a show / movie is cheaper, unless you are spensing millions of dollars on popular face, something I'll never understand.
Anime has:
Males
Females
People with disabilities
Animal hybrids of both genders
Literal animals
Traps
Milfs
Children
Monsters
Aliens
Machines
What I mean, if you cant find a character you could identify with, you're blind and deaf.
DarkGift
ov Doom
Lifemocker
Active Member
- Jun 16, 2016
- 1,652
- 151
- 63
- 35
yes
Stop making me wet.
Now excuse me while I fap to 9000 years old child.
winters epilogue
Senior Lurker
I confess that I have no idea what a "weeblet" is. (Urban Dictionary was no help.)
Our respective vantage points here are obviously colored by what's popular where we live. Anime is not at popular here, and Hollywood loves to spend millions of dollars on names that are already in people's heads, because they know that'll get people into theaters. It sucks, but it also helps explain why something like the Ghostbusters reboot happened the way it did.
That makes two of us.
Lifemocker
Active Member
- Jun 16, 2016
- 1,652
- 151
- 63
- 35
Weeblet -> baby weeb -> degenerate watching chinese cartoons
As for me, where I live anime is not popular whatsoever, hell, I thought it's for children, but most of the stuff I watched is quality entertainemnt surpassing a lot of live action movies and shows. Animation allows for something that would not look good live action.
No, Death Note, you are perfect anime for live action adaptation, you just got ruined by some western retard. And I think it's the same retard that ruined godzilla with human scenes nobody cared about.
I swear to god, if hollywood ruins Attack on Titan with this PC bullshit im gonna flip. INB4 main character is female and a "strongest family" is black instead of asian, and most characters are not german / scandinavian but are actually arabic or whatever.
Just to clarify, I dont think you can make good AoT adaptation unless youre budget is going to be huge. It's basically a zombie show, but zombies range from 3-15 meters tall, and there are few that are 40. And you have to use complicated machinery with hooks, so you can slash the nape of the zombie (instead of destroying it's brain).
Lifemocker
Active Member
- Jun 16, 2016
- 1,652
- 151
- 63
- 35
Geralt looks absolutely terrible, I cant stand this baby face.
Blackened Yennefer and black Triss wasnt enough, even goddamn dryads and elves are black.
Thank god there is no dwarves in this show, I know what they would look like.
Could actually be an avarage series, but casting is just terrible. I never really liked 80's fantasy series, and it looks equally gay.
And Nilfgaardian armors were legit lmao.
Geralt on roids, there is no chance a chunk of meat like that could move fast enough. I havent seen a good, ripped swordsman.
And just cherry on top, contact lenses (terrible, obvious ones at that) BECAUSE THEY CLEARLY CARE ABOUT EYE COLOR SOMEHOW XD Shame they ignored all other colors that needed to be correct
Last edited:
Lifemocker
Active Member
- Jun 16, 2016
- 1,652
- 151
- 63
- 35
Ciri wasnt pretty in the books, and she was a child, so whatever. I'm just laughing how they gave her contact lenses, like it matters when they shit on everything else and just makes her look like she has strabismus
Lifemocker
Active Member
- Jun 16, 2016
- 1,652
- 151
- 63
- 35
Polish fan film looks 100x better and seems to have 10000x better atmosphere. Im waiting for this one, fuck this western shit.
Blurry_Dreams
Active Member
- Apr 2, 2018
- 5,144
- 466
- 83
- 46
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
The problem with this new trend of race and gender swaps beyond the obvious hackiness of it is that it operates entirely like a parasite, latching onto already successful, established and beloved franchises.
Notice they don't bother doing this with stuff nobody cares about, because simply having a black or female lead isn't what they care about. They're attracted to the pre-existing influence and power of the Bond franchise. This is generally a trait of the more cynical elements in the progressive left, so opposed to power structures in rhetoric, that they crave pre-existing power structures and do what they can to co-opt them and utilize the influence therein.
Nobody cares if a director creates a new original film with a black female lead and they know this. People accept such things, or simply don't see the film, but co-opt something people already care about and it ticks all the right boxes for them.
The outrage proves that bigotry still exists, the anti-bigotry mobs circle the wagon even though beforehand they didn't give a shit about Bond/Ghostbusters/etc, the industry itself defends them, the message that more diversity is needed is amplified tenfold, activists get their boost, the carcass of the used franchise is left irredeemable for future projects, they move on to the next host.
Notice they don't bother doing this with stuff nobody cares about, because simply having a black or female lead isn't what they care about. They're attracted to the pre-existing influence and power of the Bond franchise. This is generally a trait of the more cynical elements in the progressive left, so opposed to power structures in rhetoric, that they crave pre-existing power structures and do what they can to co-opt them and utilize the influence therein.
Nobody cares if a director creates a new original film with a black female lead and they know this. People accept such things, or simply don't see the film, but co-opt something people already care about and it ticks all the right boxes for them.
The outrage proves that bigotry still exists, the anti-bigotry mobs circle the wagon even though beforehand they didn't give a shit about Bond/Ghostbusters/etc, the industry itself defends them, the message that more diversity is needed is amplified tenfold, activists get their boost, the carcass of the used franchise is left irredeemable for future projects, they move on to the next host.
Similar threads
