Scott Cawthon (FNaF guy) cancelled

[TheMysteriousGX]

Well, first, mutants aren't human. That isn't me speaking, that's Marvel itself, specifying them as Homo superior. Magneto's references the very idea in his opening debut.

Second, you've actually touched on a point I've raised numerous times, namely that the X-Men really don't fit the Marvel universe, because we simultaniously have a setting where people casually accept the existence of super-powers, yet are afraid of a specific group that has superpowers. Um, sure. Okay.

Third, I doubt that's the actual metaphor.

Nope, that's the one. You hit it right on the head. They aren't "real humans", they're hated and feared despite not being particularly special relative to the rest of humanity due to the circumstances of their birth, and that *doesn't* make sense when viewed with logic and compassion.

That's the entire metaphor. Racism, homophobia, etc, doesn't make sense

 

[Silvanus]

Which past behaviour and statements are you on about here?
Care to actually quote me?
Otherwise I suggest this seems more to be your thinking than reality.

Already provided two specific instances, which you ignored.

So you're claiming to know my mind better than myself and claim that despite my consistent protestations about your strawmanning my position that I'm engaging in bad faith despite me so often given you an out or benefit of the doubt? Despite me giving potential non malicious reasons for your claims and actions as a possibility?

You haven't given anybody the "benefit of the doubt". You've lied, accused, and denigrated your opponents.

I don't know your mind better than you. I imagine this is all just simple defensiveness, because winning the argument now matters more than examining your own past statements and accusations.

You can call me a liar all you like but in the end you have no actual evidence to support your case.
Now you're going to go with galighting claiming I conflated things despite not being able to provide quotes showing me doing so. I've been very clear cut on things and the only conflation going on here is yours trying to present libel and death threats as criticism.
I mean I get why you'd try because it's the only way to easily argue this if you support cancel culture and want to downplay its effects and actions.

Again: already provided two specific instances, which you ignored.

True because it's not conflating it is that.
Yet that's one of the things you took issue with. That example of Stanley Kubrick.
Why?

I don't know what you mean by the first sentence here.

As to Stanley Kubrick, I think you're the only one who's mentioned him. You can hardly say he's been "cancelled", though, seeing as he's been a highly prolific and successful filmmaker, whose work is widely available.

Yeh no that's bullshit. You know that's bullshit. I know that's bullshit.
You've tried strawmanning and gaslighting me and now you're pushing for performative outrage.
You chose to twist me giving you a possible out as personal attacks.
You are now making nebulous accusations against me using rather emotive language.
You want an accusation? Fine. Your actions so far either knowingly or unknowingly have mirrored the actions I've seen first had used by manipulators and your reaction to being called out is to continue said action and escalate. I called out the action out of desire for a good faith discussion and to better understand one another not to have this descend into a tawdry contest of who could cause the bigger knee jerk reaction in others against the other. It would seem you have chosen a different path.
It is not I who has been projecting.

Performative outrage, I believe you call this.

You crossed the line a great deal further than anything I've said, as soon as you accused me of condoning death threats, harassment and other criminal acts. Without a shred of evidence.

I?
I?
I've cooked up rules?
I've cooked up nothing my dear sir.
Civil society has cooked up these things and has them enshrined in law.

Criticism that has no validity is usually liable when it is aimed to harm and can be seen to have achieved said aim.

And yet you're applying the "invalid" and "cancel culture" descriptions to statements which the law has absolutely no problem with.

Such as that poster's mild criticism of Kovarex. "Civil society" is absolutely fine with that. There's no law about that. But you've deemed it not "valid" anyway.

 

[Hawki]

Nope, that's the one. You hit it right on the head. They aren't "real humans", they're hated and feared despite not being particularly special relative to the rest of humanity due to the circumstances of their birth, and that *doesn't* make sense when viewed with logic and compassion.

That's the entire metaphor. Racism, homophobia, etc, doesn't make sense

-Is it the actual metaphor though? From what I've read, the idea of the X-Men standing in for anything or anyone came after their conception, not before it. To quote Wikipedia, In 1963, with the success of Spider-Man, the Hulk, Thor, Iron Man, and the Fantastic Four, co-creator Stan Lee wanted to create another group of superheroes but did not want to have to explain how they got their powers. In 2004, Lee recalled, "I couldn't have everybody bitten by a radioactive spider or exposed to a gamma ray explosion. And I took the cowardly way out. I said to myself, 'Why don't I just say they're mutants? They are born that way.'"

-Actually, a degree of prejudice makes perfect sense, which is why comparing it to the 'isms' and 'obias' you list doesn't work that well. I mean, consider the X-Men themselves - Scott Summers could fry me to a crisp just by opening his eyes. Professor X can control my mind. Wolverine can stab me, and withstand anything I throw at him. Rogue can sap my strength just by touching me. Jubilee can...I dunno, do a fireworks show, but you get my point. You're talking about a different species entirely whose are born with inherent abilities that put my life in their hands. Doesn't matter how nice they are, or how well I get to know them, you're talking about people who are fundamentally, well, 'better' than humans, and in the context of X-Men media, this is shown time and time again. Which isn't something that exists in real life.

Or to put it another way, there's no shortage of animals that can kill me. I've seen plenty of snakes and spiders around where I live, and while those snakes and spiders have no interest in seeking me harm, that doesn't mean I don't keep my distance from them.

So if we're discussing metaphors for the X-Men standing in for minorites, or LGBT individuals, or somesuch, then the metaphor's already at a disadvantage, because if anything, it's an inversion of the metaphor - what if the minority has power over the majority? It's why I think the evolution metaphor from the film works, because it's actually applicable. Humans are the apex species of Earth, we outcompeted every other human species, so what happens when a new group of humans comes along that's just as intelligent as us, but posessing abilities that we don't have, and can't counter? And what happens when members of that species want us dead, while members of our own poke the tiger in the eye? Well, I dunno, but nothing good. Either it's Days of Future Past, or everything else where mutants save humans from other mutants.

-There's also the question of versimilitude. If the Marvel Universe is operating on the principle of "we're fine with these people with superpowers, but not THOSE people with superpowers," then you need a good reason as to why. It's part of why I don't think mutants can really work in the MCU, at least if it's going to keep true to the premise of humans fearing mutants. "Oh no, there's people with superpowers, we've absolutely never, ever seen anything like that before!"

Alagory/metaphor is fine, and can absolutely elevate a work, but if your work only works as alagory but fails as self-consistency, then you've got a problem.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Already provided two specific instances, which you ignored.

No I didn't ignore. Those weren't examples of what you claimed and how or why you feel able to claim otherwise I have no idea now other than your own determination to make me agree it is so. Thus I say there are 4 lights

You haven't given anybody the "benefit of the doubt". You've lied, accused, and denigrated your opponents.

I don't know your mind better than you. I imagine this is all just simple defensiveness, because winning the argument now matters more than examining your own past statements and accusations.

So why time and time again did I give options?
Why time and time again did I give a way out?
I asked before if you wanted to go down the line with the Jim Sterling video and yet you claimed Jim never said genocide. I then proved that claimed wrong.

Now if it's deliberate strawmanning or an accidental syllogism I don't know.

Guess I wasn't giving you an out by suggesting your position was entirely genuine and accidental?
That's just one example.
You however have chosen to ascribe malice to my position with absolute certainty and conviction at every turn.

Thus I must say I am no Romulan Spy,

Again: already provided two specific instances, which you ignored.

There are 4 lights

I don't know what you mean by the first sentence here.

As to Stanley Kubrick, I think you're the only one who's mentioned him. You can hardly say he's been "cancelled", though, seeing as he's been a highly prolific and successful filmmaker, whose work is widely available.

yeh was A Clockwork Orange not pulled from distribution in the UK?
Was that part of his stamp on history now attempted to be stopped?
People wanted the film cancelled and found a way to get it to happen because they opposed what Kubrick had to say

Performative outrage, I believe you call this.

You crossed the line a great deal further than anything I've said, as soon as you accused me of condoning death threats, harassment and other criminal acts. Without a shred of evidence.

No. If it were performative outrage I wouldn't have given you so many outs. So many chances to clarify your position or offer a alternative to you reasoning.
If you don't condone death threats and harassment what is actually your position?
Why when no-one is saying it do you keep claiming people are conflating death threats and harassment and liable with valid criticism?
Why when no-one else is saying it are you claiming people just are against criticism?

I say again there are 4 lights.

I also say you think I've crossed the line further than you? You think I've crossed the line further when you've employed gaslighting and made regular claims with absolute certainty about the malice of my actions? The only line I've crossed was being far too lenient and not calling you out sooner. The line you've crossed is the line where no-one should consider your engagement in a topic to be anything but bad faith and sophistry going forward.

And yet you're applying the "invalid" and "cancel culture" descriptions to statements which the law has absolutely no problem with.

Such as that poster's mild criticism of Kovarex. "Civil society" is absolutely fine with that. There's no law about that. But you've deemed it not "valid" anyway.

So you're going with "Because no-one has been arrested there was no crime"?
The law does have an issue with death threats and likely is investigating them.
The law does have an issue with libel but that would be up to Scott to pursue through the courts and given the requirements for a US court action it would likely be far more costly to Scott than any return considering the people making the accusations likely wouldn't have the money to pay even if he won.

The criticism of "Why aren't you joinning our angry mob, consider doing so?"
Pretty sure things like lynch mobs did get outlawed.
All that was going on there was the digital equivalent of trying to get such a mob together to destroy Uncle Bob.
Could Uncle Bob take the mob to court? Sure
Would it be worth it?
Likely not.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

-Actually, a degree of prejudice makes perfect sense, which is why comparing it to the 'isms' and 'obias' you list doesn't work that well. I mean, consider the X-Men themselves - Scott Summers could fry me to a crisp just by opening his eyes. Professor X can control my mind. Wolverine can stab me, and withstand anything I throw at him. Rogue can sap my strength just by touching me. Jubilee can...I dunno, do a fireworks show, but you get my point.

This is true of most superheroes

You're talking about a different species entirely whose are born with inherent abilities that put my life in their hands. Doesn't matter how nice they are, or how well I get to know them, you're talking about people who are fundamentally, well, 'better' than humans, and in the context of X-Men media, this is shown time and time again. Which isn't something that exists in real life.

Super weird how there's this "different species entirely" that tends to look just like normal people, can interbreed with humanity, and who's offspring are both fertile and can be normal human beings,

Or to put it another way, there's no shortage of animals that can kill me. I've seen plenty of snakes and spiders around where I live, and while those snakes and spiders have no interest in seeking me harm, that doesn't mean I don't keep my distance from them.

How many of those animals can you have an unknowing one night stand with and conceive a normal human child?

-There's also the question of versimilitude. If the Marvel Universe is operating on the principle of "we're fine with these people with superpowers, but not THOSE people with superpowers," then you need a good reason as to why. It's part of why I don't think mutants can really work in the MCU, at least if it's going to keep true to the premise of humans fearing mutants. "Oh no, there's people with superpowers, we've absolutely never, ever seen anything like that before!"

Yes, it not making sense on a rational level is what makes it bigotry, because bigotry doesn't make sense. It is not uncommon for bigots to celebrate traits in certain people that they demonize in others.

 

[Silvanus]

No I didn't ignore. Those weren't examples of what you claimed and how or why you feel able to claim otherwise I have no idea now other than your own determination to make me agree it is so. Thus I say there are 4 lights

OK. Let's walk through it.

Say, in response to your post, I say: "Oh, so now you're okay with demolishing schools, are you?!"

Would I be implying that you support demolishing schools? What would I be accusing you of supporting?

I asked before if you wanted to go down the line with the Jim Sterling video and yet you claimed Jim never said genocide. I then proved that claimed wrong.

He used the word in reference to the Republican Party. You then extrapolated that he accused Scott Cawthon of personally wanting it. This was untrue.

yeh was A Clockwork Orange not pulled from distribution in the UK?
Was that part of his stamp on history now attempted to be stopped?
People wanted the film cancelled and found a way to get it to happen because they opposed what Kubrick had to say

It was pulled from distribution by Kubrick himself, following idiotic criticism in the tabloid press.

Ideally, the tabloids would still be able to publish the op-eds, and Kubrick would have ignored them.

No. If it were performative outrage I wouldn't have given you so many outs. So many chances to clarify your position or offer a alternative to you reasoning.
If you don't condone death threats and harassment what is actually your position?
Why when no-one is saying it do you keep claiming people are conflating death threats and harassment and liable with valid criticism?
Why when no-one else is saying it are you claiming people just are against criticism?

No, repeating over and over again that I must be drunk is not "giving me an out". Accusing me repeatedly of being malicious is not "giving me an out". Making personal accusations about me over and over again isn't "giving me an out". You also accused me of malice twice (or maybe three times?) before I ever said anything like that to you, so I'd shut the fuck up about me calling you malicious as well. That's been your MO from the start.

You seriously need to take a look at your behaviour online. Every single thing you accuse me of, you did before me (accusations of malice, strawmanning) and worse (accusations of condoning violent criminal behaviour).

So you're going with "Because no-one has been arrested there was no crime"?

No. You were the one who claimed the law prevented statements like this. It demonstrably does not.

The law does have an issue with death threats and likely is investigating them.
The law does have an issue with libel but that would be up to Scott to pursue through the courts and given the requirements for a US court action it would likely be far more costly to Scott than any return considering the people making the accusations likely wouldn't have the money to pay even if he won.

The criticism of "Why aren't you joinning our angry mob, consider doing so?"

Which nobody said. You're conflating a single mild criticism with a lynch mob.

This is what I mean when I say that one minute you deny conflating the two, and the next moment you go and do it again. You spend most of this post repeating over and over and over again that you recognise that harassment and threats are distinct from mere criticism....

....and then at the end of the same post, you point at a mere criticism, and claim it's abuse and a violent threat.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

OK. Let's walk through it.

Say, in response to your post, I say: "Oh, so now you're okay with demolishing schools, are you?!"

Would I be implying that you support demolishing schools? What would I be accusing you of supporting?

Considering when I suggested you could be drunk posting you flew off the rails at me. Yes, by your own logic and rationale that you've applied to things I've said yes you would entirely be saying I am fine with demolishing schools and no amount of correction, denial or counter claim would be enough to satisfy that position because you THINK that's my position possibly because it's actually beneficial to you to argue vs that position rather than my actual one therefore you won't accept any other answer.

He used the word in reference to the Republican Party. You then extrapolated that he accused Scott Cawthon of personally wanting it. This was untrue.

He accused Scott of supporting it. That is wanting it.

It was pulled from distribution by Kubrick himself, following idiotic criticism in the tabloid press.

Ideally, the tabloids would still be able to publish the op-eds, and Kubrick would have ignored them.

It was pulled because people threatened to kidnap and or harm his daughter.
It wasn't pulled because some tabloids made some stupid claims.

No, repeating over and over again that I must be drunk is not "giving me an out". Accusing me repeatedly of being malicious is not "giving me an out". Making personal accusations about me over and over again isn't "giving me an out". You also accused me of malice twice (or maybe three times?) before I ever said anything like that to you, so I'd shut the fuck up about me calling you malicious as well. That's been your MO from the start.

You seriously need to take a look at your behaviour online. Every single thing you accuse me of, you did before me (accusations of malice, strawmanning) and worse (accusations of condoning violent criminal behaviour).

I offered the options of Malice or drunken accident because I was giving you the credit to assume you couldn't possibly fail to keep understandings thing again and again without some actual reason at play and you actually being a dog typing at a keyboard or a 5 year old child IRL seemed less likely options.

I'll stop calling you malicious when you stop trying to strawman and gaslight as you have been doing. When you stop the obvious manipulation tactics of nebulous accusations in the hope of causing a knee jerk reaction.

Also you haven't accused me of anything? You admitted only post or a few back that you believed I had some nefarious ulterior motive and my position wasn't actually my real one. You presented it as me wanting to see all criticism banned. How is it not ascribing Malice when you've admitted basically from the start you believed I had ulterior motives? How me calling you out for straw manning was entirely right and what you were doing because you believe I hold this secret ulterior motive and were trying to force me to argue a position that isn't actually my position just one you believe I secretly hold. Yet now you get tetchy and claim how it wasn't malice to demand I own up to holding and argue from a position that isn't my actual own position?

THERE ARE 4 LIGHTS!

No. You were the one who claimed the law prevented statements like this. It demonstrably does not.

No I claimed it allows action against them.
Preventing them entirely would be pre-crime and well plenty of stuff has explored the dangers of such a system that tries to entirely prevent what might happen.

Which nobody said. You're conflating a single mild criticism with a lynch mob.

This is what I mean when I say that one minute you deny conflating the two, and the next moment you go and do it again. You spend most of this post repeating over and over and over again that you recognise that harassment and threats are distinct from mere criticism....

....and then at the end of the same post, you point at a mere criticism, and claim it's abuse and a violent threat.

No I'm pointing out the criticism of not helping attack Uncle Bob and call him a bad person is calling for said person to join a mob.
This is the "He who refuses to punch a person deemed a fascist is therefore a fascist too" mentality. The Factorio dev refused to play and so was banned from the games own subreddit and faced an attempt to harm the game itself.

I spend most of my posts repeating things and trying to phrase them different ways in my posts because it seems very much like you're either not reading what I'm saying or not comprehending it.

 

[Hawki]

This is true of most superheroes

Which kind of undercuts the idea that the X-Men are particuarly special from a thematic point of view.

Super weird how there's this "different species entirely" that tends to look just like normal people, can interbreed with humanity, and who's offspring are both fertile and can be normal human beings,

That's entirely common for these types of settings, where different humanoid species can produce offspring. Even in the context of the Marvel universe, kree and humans can produce offspring, it doesn't change the fact that the kree are still a different species.

How many of those animals can you have an unknowing one night stand with and conceive a normal human child?

None.

How many humans can produce offspring possessed of superhuman powers, in the midst of multiple humans possessing superhuman powers, that put humans at their mercy?

Yes, it not making sense on a rational level is what makes it bigotry, because bigotry doesn't make sense. It is not uncommon for bigots to celebrate traits in certain people that they demonize in others.

That sounds more like an excuse for bad writing.

Also, there's no real-world examples of an equivalent for what mutants are in the setting.

 

[Schadrach]

So the believe the woman who was charged with a hate crime?

Woman Who Falsely Accused Black Teen in SoHo Is Charged With Hate Crime (Published 2021)

The charges against the woman, Miya Ponsetto, stem from an episode at a New York City hotel where she tackled a teenager who she wrongly said had taken her phone.

www.nytimes.com

And if you don't then you're never allowed to believe a woman who says she was sexually assualted? That is just so unbelievably stupid.

So are you saying that a woman charged with a hate crime cannot be sexually assaulted, that if she is her victimization should be ignored, or that she's acceptably far enough from being a perfect victim to disbelieve her by default? If the last one, where is the line between "believe even in the face of evidence against" and "disbelieve by default"?

So the skin colour is different. Yes, and?

Something that is only said when the original character is white. If the original character weren't white, then suddenly casting them with the skin color different is a serious problem.

 

[Hawki]

Something that is only said when the original character is white. If the original character weren't white, then suddenly casting them with the skin color different is a serious problem.

Come on, you can't have missed the numerous outrages over "blackwashing" over the years.

The DCEU (or just DC in general) is having a black superman movie, and that generated its share of controversy. On this very thread, there's been whining about James Olson and Iris West being portrayed by black actors, whereas the original comic counterparts were ginger. In Harry Potter, that a black british actress played Hermione in the stage play set off a controversy. In James Bond, the idea of a black actor playing him is still a matter of contention. In The Hobbit trilogy, there was contention about Asian and African extras seen in Laketown, and in Shadow of Mordor/Shadow of War, contention about a black Gondorian soldier being seen in the cinematic trailer (coveniently ignoring that the trailer is already breaking canon in far more extreme ways). In Lost in Space, that Julie Robinson was black was met with YouTube howls. In Marvel, Michelle Jones in the MCU set off a firestorm about her being "Mary Jane," and people arguing about discrimination against redheads or somesuch. In the upcoming Resident Evil TV series, that a black actor is playing Wesker set off the usual complaints. For The Little Mermaid, people were so outraged about Halle Bailey playing Ariel that some peple even resorted to "science!" to prove that mermaids couldn't have dark skin, because being so far underwater would make them have pale skin, and Jesus Christ, are we really debating the science of mermaids? And that's not even covering the idea of "forced diversity."

I also want to make some things clear. One, I'm generally going to roll my eyes as much over "whitewashing" as "blackwashing," and yes, I am keeping in mind historic context. Two, not all instances are equal, because there are some cases where you'd expect certain characters to look certain ways. For instance, it's kind of surreal to see Jodie Turner-Smith play Anne Boelyn, since we know what the real Anne Boelyn looked like. On the other hand, if you want me to get outraged over a dark-skinned mermaid, then shove it.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Come on, you can't have missed the numerous outrages over "blackwashing" over the years.

The DCEU (or just DC in general) is having a black superman movie, and that generated its share of controversy. On this very thread, there's been whining about James Olson and Iris West being portrayed by black actors, whereas the original comic counterparts were ginger. In Harry Potter, that a black british actress played Hermione in the stage play set off a controversy. In James Bond, the idea of a black actor playing him is still a matter of contention. In The Hobbit trilogy, there was contention about Asian and African extras seen in Laketown, and in Shadow of Mordor/Shadow of War, contention about a black Gondorian soldier being seen in the cinematic trailer (coveniently ignoring that the trailer is already breaking canon in far more extreme ways). In Lost in Space, that Julie Robinson was black was met with YouTube howls. In Marvel, Michelle Jones in the MCU set off a firestorm about her being "Mary Jane," and people arguing about discrimination against redheads or somesuch. In the upcoming Resident Evil TV series, that a black actor is playing Wesker set off the usual complaints. For The Little Mermaid, people were so outraged about Halle Bailey playing Ariel that some peple even resorted to "science!" to prove that mermaids couldn't have dark skin, because being so far underwater would make them have pale skin, and Jesus Christ, are we really debating the science of mermaids? And that's not even covering the idea of "forced diversity."

I also want to make some things clear. One, I'm generally going to roll my eyes as much over "whitewashing" as "blackwashing," and yes, I am keeping in mind historic context. Two, not all instances are equal, because there are some cases where you'd expect certain characters to look certain ways. For instance, it's kind of surreal to see Jodie Turner-Smith play Anne Boelyn, since we know what the real Anne Boelyn looked like. On the other hand, if you want me to get outraged over a dark-skinned mermaid, then shove it.

There's a bit of a difference between the fan reaction and what studios see as acceptable.

It's weird to me that they're race swapping characters though when DC actually has a fair selection of black characters it's just they're not seeing the light of day it seems now. It's the ultimate trying to have their cake and eat it because Superman is a bigger name than Steel. Or they push it so the character is a side role.

In the case if Iris West I will say it's obvious why they did it and it wasn't Blackwashing just for the sake of it. It was done as an easy visual cue to the audience that Iris is not his sister and Joe not his father from the start of the CW series so they didn't have to do quite such an exposition dump right away.

With James Bond they're going to have to try and justify it because well when you have a spy trying to infiltrate what was primarily Russian / Russian linked enemies for a lot of the books etc in an Era when it was mostly the Russians seen as the enemy lets just say picking the black guy to operate in Russia would be a very dumb move. I have no doubt Idris Elba could do the gruff spy persona but you're telling me no-one has a story about a black spy? Hell here's a radical idea Kingsman 4 starring Idris Elba there's a spy franchise that's pretty successful so far but is almost built to allow new people to step into it because it would be fairly easy to expand it beyond the just Eggsy or allow Eggsy to sort of retire to being royalty etc.

 

[thebobmaster]

There's a bit of a difference between the fan reaction and what studios see as acceptable.

It's weird to me that they're race swapping characters though when DC actually has a fair selection of black characters it's just they're not seeing the light of day it seems now. It's the ultimate trying to have their cake and eat it because Superman is a bigger name than Steel. Or they push it so the character is a side role.

There may be another reason to decide on "black Superman" rather than "adapting Steel".

 

[Trunkage]

You guys know there have been black Supermen in the comics right? They had a whole continent on Krypton. Some comic stories have just been swapping the place where Superman was sent in a spaceship from.

 

[Hawki]

There's a bit of a difference between the fan reaction and what studios see as acceptable.

You don't think studios are aware of what their fans want?

Anyway, this thread is testament to how angry little shits can get their way if they scream loud enough.

It's weird to me that they're race swapping characters though when DC actually has a fair selection of black characters it's just they're not seeing the light of day it seems now. It's the ultimate trying to have their cake and eat it because Superman is a bigger name than Steel. Or they push it so the character is a side role.

The black Superman film though, last I heard, is predicated on the question of what if Supes landed in the US in the 1960s, and what if he was dark skinned? By extension, how would he view humanity, and how would he regard "the American way?"

Basically, there's two approaches to character development in these cases (for me). One is the idea of colour-blind casting, so if a character deviates from their original template, it's academic to their actual character (see Nick Fury for instance). On the other hand, you can go the route of "I want this character to be X," which raises the question of whether you should create a new character or not. Least in this case, there's a clear point of divergence here.

I mean, it's not as if this would be the first time that Supes landing on Earth in a different context would produce different stories and outcomes - see Red Son.

In the case if Iris West I will say it's obvious why they did it and it wasn't Blackwashing just for the sake of it. It was done as an easy visual cue to the audience that Iris is not his sister and Joe not his father from the start of the CW series so they didn't have to do quite such an exposition dump right away.

Sorry, I don't buy that. You're not going to stake a major character's casting solely on the need to cut down on some exposition.

With James Bond they're going to have to try and justify it because well when you have a spy trying to infiltrate what was primarily Russian / Russian linked enemies for a lot of the books etc in an Era when it was mostly the Russians seen as the enemy lets just say picking the black guy to operate in Russia would be a very dumb move. I have no doubt Idris Elba could do the gruff spy persona but you're telling me no-one has a story about a black spy? Hell here's a radical idea Kingsman 4 starring Idris Elba there's a spy franchise that's pretty successful so far but is almost built to allow new people to step into it because it would be fairly easy to expand it beyond the just Eggsy or allow Eggsy to sort of retire to being royalty etc.

That's not really how the James Bond films work these days though.

The Bond films have usually kept in sync with the time period they're made in. GoldenEye was very aware that the film was being made in a post-Cold War world, and had its story accordingly. Casino Royale explicitly takes place after 9/11. The eras up to that were firmly set in the context of the Cold War. Also, even if they took Bond back to the Cold War, you really think the writers couldn't get around it? The USSR had plenty of influence in Africa at the time after all.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

You don't think studios are aware of what their fans want?

Anyway, this thread is testament to how angry little shits can get their way if they scream loud enough.

Only the "right kind" of fans.

Studios have learned they get free advertising by pushing by making changes to things and saying it's in the name of diversity with journalists eager to tell everyone how good the thing is to have happened often ignoring anything else plus any perceived outrage from "The wrong kind of fan" gets the property more advertising with hipsters who just want to see everyone else unhappy sharing and helping push the property because they think the actual fans are inferior people and they are coming in to save the fandom.

Studio love hipster types because they're some of the people with most money they're willing to throw around and are least cautious with their money as they yell about how Capitalism is evil on twitter while sitting in a Starbucks on their Macbook Pro in $500 Doc Martens.

They're a mythical demographic studios will happily chase off a cliff thinking they will be the ones to capture them this time.

The film or whatever fails? Well just go infront of the board and claim racists / sexist caused it to fail play chicken with investors hoping they won't call the bluff on the claims for fear of themselves being labelled as bigots etc (and blasted by the press)

The black Superman film though, last I heard, is predicated on the question of what if Supes landed in the US in the 1960s, and what if he was dark skinned? By extension, how would he view humanity, and how would he regard "the American way?"

Basically, there's two approaches to character development in these cases (for me). One is the idea of colour-blind casting, so if a character deviates from their original template, it's academic to their actual character (see Nick Fury for instance). On the other hand, you can go the route of "I want this character to be X," which raises the question of whether you should create a new character or not. Least in this case, there's a clear point of divergence here.

I mean, it's not as if this would be the first time that Supes landing on Earth in a different context would produce different stories and outcomes - see Red Son.

Red Son etc have always been Elseworlds stuff really even Injustice is more of an Elseworlds story than a main one similar to Marvel's What If stuff.

Sorry, I don't buy that. You're not going to stake a major character's casting solely on the need to cut down on some exposition.

It's an episodic hero show where Barry spent most of like the first 2 seasons living with Joe and Iris while at various points talking about how much he likes Iris. It's an easy visual shorthand to tell the audience no he's not actually related to them without them needing to wait for backstory stuff or look stuff up. It's the Stan Lee principal, every comic could be a persons first so they need to be able to get into things and understand dynamics quickly.

If this was a "just casting whomever was best" then that would mean it was Joe, Iris, Wally and Nora being cast similarly and oddly just happening to be all black actors. Or there was a plan at work somewhere and the West family were black by design. I can totally see a network executive with no clue about The Flash flicking through some shit and going "So wait this Barry dude wants to nail his sister?" and some DC writer going "No she's not his sister" and well you can see things going from there.

That's not really how the James Bond films work these days though.

The Bond films have usually kept in sync with the time period they're made in. GoldenEye was very aware that the film was being made in a post-Cold War world, and had its story accordingly. Casino Royale explicitly takes place after 9/11. The eras up to that were firmly set in the context of the Cold War. Also, even if they took Bond back to the Cold War, you really think the writers couldn't get around it? The USSR had plenty of influence in Africa at the time after all.

I doubt African war lord villains would go down too well in the long run (yes I'm aware of the other villain in Casino Royale). They could get around it but still more of a pain in the arse than just getting Idris Elba to be in a new Kingsman movie

 

[Hawki]

Red Son etc have always been Elseworlds stuff really even Injustice is more of an Elseworlds story than a main one similar to Marvel's What If stuff.

What's your point? You're saying these things shouldn't be done in love action?

It's an episodic hero show where Barry spent most of like the first 2 seasons living with Joe and Iris while at various points talking about how much he likes Iris. It's an easy visual shorthand to tell the audience no he's not actually related to them without them needing to wait for backstory stuff or look stuff up. It's the Stan Lee principal, every comic could be a persons first so they need to be able to get into things and understand dynamics quickly.

Okay, you really don't need visual shorthand for that, and it's a strange thing to obsess over. That Barry isn't biologically related to Iris or Joe is something that can easily be established through dialogue. They have an entire season to do that, and it's established almost immediately regardless.

If this was a "just casting whomever was best" then that would mean it was Joe, Iris, Wally and Nora being cast similarly and oddly just happening to be all black actors. Or there was a plan at work somewhere and the West family were black by design. I can totally see a network executive with no clue about The Flash flicking through some shit and going "So wait this Barry dude wants to nail his sister?" and some DC writer going "No she's not his sister" and well you can see things going from there.

I don't know exactly how casting works, but I imagine that if you cast someone, and then have relatives of that person, the relies are kind of obliged to look somewhat like the character they cast. I mean, I imagine that Candice Patton was among the first people cast, so that would dictate Joe, Wally, and Francine West looking a certain way, the same way that when Grant Gustin was cast, Nora and Henry Allen had to look a certain way as well.

Or, maybe not, but again, it's strangely myopic to be obsessing over stuff like this. Before all this nonsense raised its head, this kind of stuff wouldn't even be in my mind, but now it is, and I say without reservation that it's mind poison. But it sucks, and it's here, and I can at least try not to obsess over this stuff, despite how many people on the Internet (and society) do.

I doubt African war lord villains would go down too well in the long run (yes I'm aware of the other villain in Casino Royale). They could get around it but still more of a pain in the arse than just getting Idris Elba to be in a new Kingsman movie

A new Kingsman movie and a new James Bond movie aren't mutually exclusive. I also don't know why you're obsessed with Idris Elba, since I really can't imagine him as Bond - he's a bit old, and in every action movie I've seen him in, he has a 'weight' that I don't think fits Bond. If Bond is the Porche, Elba is the 4WD.

And again, you're getting into semantics. I don't think that any group or person should be off-limits as a villain, but it wouldn't be the same scenario, every time. And you really think that the story can't be framed in such a way to account for this? FFS, we can send Bond into space, but this is where the line is drawn? Really?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

The black Superman film though, last I heard, is predicated on the question of what if Supes landed in the US in the 1960s, and what if he was dark skinned? By extension, how would he view humanity, and how would he regard "the American way?"

Basically, there's two approaches to character development in these cases (for me). One is the idea of colour-blind casting, so if a character deviates from their original template, it's academic to their actual character (see Nick Fury for instance). On the other hand, you can go the route of "I want this character to be X," which raises the question of whether you should create a new character or not. Least in this case, there's a clear point of divergence here.

I mean, it's not as if this would be the first time that Supes landing on Earth in a different context would produce different stories and outcomes - see Red Son.

Not even the first time it's been done:

Justice League: Gods and Monsters presents Superman, except raised by undocumented workers, and how that fundamentally changes his relationship with the United States. There's a short on YouTube for each of their versions of Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman, and the flick itself is pretty good. Minus some weird sex stuff I'm gonna blame on Bruce Timm.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

What's your point? You're saying these things shouldn't be done in love action?

No by all means do them but it should be a clear "Yeh this is an Elseworlds story don't expect this to be the new cinematic universe direction".

Okay, you really don't need visual shorthand for that, and it's a strange thing to obsess over. That Barry isn't biologically related to Iris or Joe is something that can easily be established through dialogue. They have an entire season to do that, and it's established almost immediately regardless.

Yeh but it's working on the assumption people could join in at any episode and don't want to have to try to establish it in dialogue each episode as such.

I don't know exactly how casting works, but I imagine that if you cast someone, and then have relatives of that person, the relies are kind of obliged to look somewhat like the character they cast. I mean, I imagine that Candice Patton was among the first people cast, so that would dictate Joe, Wally, and Francine West looking a certain way, the same way that when Grant Gustin was cast, Nora and Henry Allen had to look a certain way as well.

Or, maybe not, but again, it's strangely myopic to be obsessing over stuff like this. Before all this nonsense raised its head, this kind of stuff wouldn't even be in my mind, but now it is, and I say without reservation that it's mind poison. But it sucks, and it's here, and I can at least try not to obsess over this stuff, despite how many people on the Internet (and society) do.

As I said it was likely some dumb executive move trying to make sure no-one mistakenly thought Iris and Barry were brother and sister.

A new Kingsman movie and a new James Bond movie aren't mutually exclusive. I also don't know why you're obsessed with Idris Elba, since I really can't imagine him as Bond - he's a bit old, and in every action movie I've seen him in, he has a 'weight' that I don't think fits Bond. If Bond is the Porche, Elba is the 4WD.

And again, you're getting into semantics. I don't think that any group or person should be off-limits as a villain, but it wouldn't be the same scenario, every time. And you really think that the story can't be framed in such a way to account for this? FFS, we can send Bond into space, but this is where the line is drawn? Really?

They're not mutually exclusive but one would probably work far better than the other. Also I say Idris Elba because he was the person being pushed by people for the role before, he also is 5 years younger than the present Bond.

It could be done but then you're relying on Hollywood writers to make it work. Lets say I don't have much confidence there.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Not even the first time it's been done:

Justice League: Gods and Monsters presents Superman, except raised by undocumented workers, and how that fundamentally changes his relationship with the United States. There's a short on YouTube for each of their versions of Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman, and the flick itself is pretty good. Minus some weird sex stuff I'm gonna blame on Bruce Timm.

That's also technically Lor Zod son of General Zod not Kal-El son of Jor-El

 

[Silvanus]

Considering when I suggested you could be drunk posting you flew off the rails at me.

"Flew off the rails". What did I say, exactly? The first three times you said it, I just ignored it. The fourth (?) time, I just pointed out that you'd used the same line four times, which is more indicative of drunk posting than anything else. Hardly "flying off the rails". You're projecting, after several posts of sputtering outrage.

Yes, by your own logic and rationale that you've applied to things I've said yes you would entirely be saying I am fine with demolishing schools and no amount of correction, denial or counter claim would be enough to satisfy that position because you THINK that's my position possibly because it's actually beneficial to you to argue vs that position rather than my actual one therefore you won't accept any other answer.

"By my logic"? What logic is there in which that isn't an accusation?

He accused Scott of supporting it. That is wanting it.

In an unrelated video (nothing to do with the tweet), he said Scott Cawthon supported the Republican Party's agenda.

Which he does, financially speaking. Do you not believe that financially donating to a party is financially supporting that party?

It was pulled because people threatened to kidnap and or harm his daughter.
It wasn't pulled because some tabloids made some stupid claims.

I can't find a source for that, but I'll take your word for it.

So if it was in response to criminal threats, how does this reflect badly on people who weren't making criminal threats?

Also you haven't accused me of anything? You admitted only post or a few back that you believed I had some nefarious ulterior motive and my position wasn't actually my real one. You presented it as me wanting to see all criticism banned. How is it not ascribing Malice when you've admitted basically from the start you believed I had ulterior motives? How me calling you out for straw manning was entirely right and what you were doing because you believe I hold this secret ulterior motive and were trying to force me to argue a position that isn't actually my position just one you believe I secretly hold. Yet now you get tetchy and claim how it wasn't malice to demand I own up to holding and argue from a position that isn't my actual own position?

Essentially: it's fine when you do it, but not fine when someone else does it.

When you accuse me of malice five or six times, and accuse me of condoning criminal actions, then yes, it's very difficult to keep giving you the benefit of the doubt. You did all of that first. And those accusations themselves indicate that you're acting in bad faith.

No I claimed it allows action against them.
Preventing them entirely would be pre-crime and well plenty of stuff has explored the dangers of such a system that tries to entirely prevent what might happen.

The law does not allow actions against statements such as the mild criticism on Factorio's subreddit.

If the law allowed actions against that statement, then almost all the posts on The Escapist would be landing us in legal trouble. Because that criticism was absolutely nothing serious whatsoever.

No I'm pointing out the criticism of not helping attack Uncle Bob and call him a bad person is calling for said person to join a mob.
This is the "He who refuses to punch a person deemed a fascist is therefore a fascist too" mentality. The Factorio dev refused to play and so was banned from the games own subreddit and faced an attempt to harm the game itself.

This is a set of events you've entirely hallucinated.

One person made a polite and mild criticism, and did not even make any requests for anything to be taken down. Kovarex then personally insulted him, breaking the rules of the subreddit.