Superman

[i-Ram]

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

It seems to me that that 'that guy' who has politely and thoughtfully engaged in an online forum is being attacked for who he is rather than what he has said.  

The hissy flounce most definately seems to be coming from the other side that haven't argued against what he has said - the fact that Son of Superman follows a long trend of similar IPs that have updated themselves for a new audience, only to find themselves cancelled a short while later as the existing audience leaves in droves. 

Instead, they have tried to deflect and attack the poster, attempting to make out he is a snowflake that isn't to busy enjoying his own life to post his imagined reasons, others would say thoughts, on a subject - then have the cheek to call him out for doubling down on his reasons, despite the fact we're on a 'discussion forum'.

If you want an echo chamber I can just stop posting.

 Stop posting…..Stop posting…………..Stop posting…………………………Stop posting……………………………….

 

[Comrade 86]

[Norman]

1 hour ago, maxjam said:

It seems to me that that 'that guy' who has politely and thoughtfully engaged in an online forum is being attacked for who he is rather than what he has said.  

The hissy flounce most definately seems to be coming from the other side that haven't argued against what he has said - the fact that Son of Superman follows a long trend of similar IPs that have updated themselves for a new audience, only to find themselves cancelled a short while later as the existing audience leaves in droves. 

Instead, they have tried to deflect and attack the poster, attempting to make out he is a snowflake that isn't to busy enjoying his own life to post his imagined reasons, others would say thoughts, on a subject - then have the cheek to call him out for doubling down on his reasons, despite the fact we're on a 'discussion forum'.

If you want an echo chamber I can just stop posting.

Imagine being THE guy who reads and replies to THAT guy about how seemingly empty his life is to belittle and mock him. 

[Mucker1884]

Well.  This is super, man.  

[Stive Pesley]

Well the thread was nice while it lasted and everyone was taking it at face value and being inclusive about a publishing company's right to reflect the world around us through realistic character development 

If you see an "agenda" then the problem is between yourself and your own prejudice.

Note that no one will accurately explain what they perceive the "agenda" to be - as to do so would be veering into hate speech

And sure, if some comic book guys don't like it they can stop buying it - that's how a free market works. But again, they have to justify to themselves exactly what it is about a character being gay that they "don't like". 

[JoetheRam]

I don't really get why Superman even has to have a sexuality?

When I watched Superman/read the comics (at the appropriate age of 10) I just wanted harmless fun like seeing him beat up robots or stopping a runaway train with one hand. I mean, it seemed to me that Lois Lane completely ruined the whole thing and just made his job more difficult because he couldn't be in two places at once.

Kissing, interspecies, gay or otherwise was not what I wanted to see and adults introducing all their problems into things would have just ruined it for me.

[Stive Pesley]

2 minutes ago, JoetheRam said:

When I watched Superman/read the comics (at the appropriate age of 10) I just wanted harmless fun like seeing him beat up robots or stopping a runaway train with one hand. I mean, it seemed to me that Lois Lane completely ruined the whole thing and just made his job more difficult because he couldn't be in two places at once.

Kissing, interspecies, gay or otherwise was not what I wanted to see and adults introducing all their problems into things would have just ruined it for me.

It's a fair point - at that age I used to skip past the Mary-Jane stuff in Spider-man because it was boring. My youngest enjoyed Solo at the cinema but his one criticism was that there was "too much kissing" ?

 

[Mucker1884]

12 minutes ago, JoetheRam said:

I don't really get why Superman even has to have a sexuality?

When I watched Superman/read the comics (at the appropriate age of 10) I just wanted harmless fun like seeing him beat up robots or stopping a runaway train with one hand. I mean, it seemed to me that Lois Lane completely ruined the whole thing and just made his job more difficult because he couldn't be in two places at once.

Kissing, interspecies, gay or otherwise was not what I wanted to see and adults introducing all their problems into things would have just ruined it for me.

First off, just try asking that robot how harmless that beating up was!  I heard he needed a capacitor transplant after that particular episode!

Secondly, stopping a runaway train by hand is not going to do those brake pads any good, thus putting future passengers in grave danger.  Again, not harmless at all, is it?

...And as for your description of Lois Lane's effect on Superman, I'd venture to say that is no different to how the vast majority of us suffer on a daily basis.

Consider yourself lectured!  Think on!  

?

 

[maxjam]

54 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Well the thread was nice while it lasted and everyone was taking it at face value and being inclusive about a publishing company's right to reflect the world around us through realistic character development 

Highlight one post that hasn't been sensitive to the subject matter or failed to be inclusive.

 

54 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

If you see an "agenda" then the problem is between yourself and your own prejudice.

I don't have an agenda.  All I have done is argue that reinventing IPs for a new audience has typically led to the existing audience leaving in droves and the show/comic/whatever doing badly.  

Any actual agenda was clearly laid out by the writer himself;  https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/oct/11/superman-bisexual-dc-comics

“The idea of replacing Clark Kent with another straight white savior felt like a missed opportunity,” Tom Taylor, the series writer, said in an interview with the New York Times.

Kent’s sexuality is not the only way in which the character has been updated for a new audience and time. Recent issues have seen him protesting against the deportation of refugees, stopping a high school shooting and trying to put out wildfires that were the cause of the climate crisis.

 

54 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Note that no one will accurately explain what they perceive the "agenda" to be - as to do so would be veering into hate speech

Not hate speech in the slightest and I have repeated my point several times but it keeps being willfully ignored.  Then I get called out for doubling down...

 

54 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

And sure, if some comic book guys don't like it they can stop buying it - that's how a free market works.

Finally a point we can agree on - and the only real point I've been making.  Recent history has shown us that reinviting IPs for a new audience or suddenly switching to overly PC content kills the fanbase.  Maybe try creating new IPs and building a following up rather trying to hijack an existing audience, dramatically change what they have grown to like then call them bigots for not enjoying something other than what they originally wanted.

In summery your entire post ingores what has been written in the thread and once again tries to deflect blame onto people writing posts rather than the content of the argument put forwards.  

As I stated in my previous post, if you want an echo chamber I'll stop posting.  Enjoy your echo chamber ?

[JoetheRam]

37 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

First off, just try asking that robot how harmless that beating up was!  I heard he needed a capacitor transplant after that particular episode!

Secondly, stopping a runaway train by hand is not going to do those brake pads any good, thus putting future passengers in grave danger.  Again, not harmless at all, is it?

...And as for your description of Lois Lane's effect on Superman, I'd venture to say that is no different to how the vast majority of us suffer on a daily basis.

Consider yourself lectured!  Think on!  

?

 

I nearly went there but I was being careful not to sound anti-anything!

I've actually just watched the first Superman episode (1941 I think it is) on YouTube for some nostalgia as I had the VHS back in the day and it actually seems quite progressive for it's time. Lois pilots a plane by herself and takes the lead in investigating the case alone (with some reluctance due to safety fears from the Newspaper chief). I was expecting foreign-sounding baddies, male chauvinism and casual racism.

Compared to something like the James Bond's of 20 odd years later it's streets ahead in the inclusivity stakes.

That's them bloody Commie 1940's Yanks for you.

 

Edited October 14, 2021 by JoetheRam

[Stive Pesley]

56 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Any actual agenda was clearly laid out by the writer himself;  https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/oct/11/superman-bisexual-dc-comics

“The idea of replacing Clark Kent with another straight white savior felt like a missed opportunity,” Tom Taylor, the series writer, said in an interview with the New York Times.

Kent’s sexuality is not the only way in which the character has been updated for a new audience and time. Recent issues have seen him protesting against the deportation of refugees, stopping a high school shooting and trying to put out wildfires that were the cause of the climate crisis.

So the agenda is to update the character for a new audience and time - clearly laid out, like you said.

Which is what you suggest they should be doing

The fact that you still refer to it as "overly PC content" is a bit of a giveaway though.

Put it this way - if a gay writer had been forced by his publishing house to make his lead gay character straight because "we don't want to hijack our existing audience by dramatically changing it to be something other than what they originally wanted" - would you have written multiple lengthy posts defending his right to freedom of expression?

 

 

[maxjam]

13 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

So the agenda is to update the character for a new audience and time - clearly laid out, like you said.

No one in the real world without a chip on their shoulder talks about not needing anymore white saviours.

 

14 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

So the agenda is to update the character for a new audience and time - clearly laid out, like you said.

Which is what you suggest they should be doing

Yup, with a new IP, not piggy-backing of the audience of an existing one.  Technically in this case I understand that Son of Superman is a new character but it remains to be seen whether the Superman audience wants this kind of content.

 

14 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

The fact that you still refer to it as "overly PC content" is a bit of a giveaway though.

Thank you for noticing that I am not soley talking about the sexuality of the character but the choice of stories the writer has decided to insert him into.  Do Superman readers want stories about protesting deportation of refugees or would they prefer more fantasy alien battles or clashing with Lex Luther type megalomanics etc?

 

15 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Put it this way - if a gay writer had been forced by his publishing house to make his lead gay character straight because "we don't want to hijack our existing audience by dramatically changing it to be something other than what they originally wanted" - would you have written multiple lengthy posts defending his right to freedom of expression?

Exactly the same principle would apply - the writers would have dramatically changed the background of the character and the existing audience would have been rightly angry.  Would I have written multiple lengthy posts defending his right to freedom of expression?  As this is the only social media I 'do', if a thread had been started I would have joined in, so Yes.

[Comrade 86]

So there you have it folks. Inclusivity is an agenda. Addressing climate change, yep, agenda. Fighting for those who can't defend themselves (like Superman saving us from space aliens), mad agenda.

But old men not wanting any of these things addressed in a kids' comic book that they've no intention of reading themselves?

Nope. Definitely no agenda there ?‍♀️

 

[maxjam]

28 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

So there you have it folks. Inclusivity is an agenda. Addressing climate change, yep, agenda. Fighting for those who can't defend themselves (like Superman saving us from space aliens), mad agenda.

Completely misses the point.

No one is saying you can't have those things - all I have argued is that by 'reinventing' existing IPs and dramatically changing the content of storylines the existing fanbase enjoys, generally leads to a disgruntled audience followed by cancellation. 

 

28 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

But old men not wanting any of these things addressed in a kids' comic book that they've no intention of reading themselves?

Nope. Definitely no agenda there ?‍♀️

No agenda, just commenting on subject on a discussion forum that led with 'The far right are going to implode.' 

I offered an alternate opinion - rather than being the far right that are upset it is actually the existing audience of [insert IP] that are generally called bigots or shamed for not enjoying the new direction of something they have grown to love.  

Rather than point to instances of such changes being successful however - of which there surely must be some?  I could name a number that back up my opinion.  This has now increasingly become a drawn out argument that has been directed at myself and not my argument. 

I have really got nothing more to say.

[Comrade 86]

8 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Completely misses the point.

Nope. You stated on multiple occasions that the writer 'clearly has an agenda'. I'm stating that you do too. I stand by that opinion.

10 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I have really got nothing more to say.

That much we can agree upon.

[maxjam]

86 Hair Islands - Nope. You stated on multiple occasions that the writer 'clearly has an agenda'. I'm stating that you do too. I stand by that opinion.

What would that agenda be then?  All I have written, multiple times, is that recent history has shown us that reinventing IPs for a new audience hasn't ended well.  Anything else you read into that is imagined. 

EDIT

12 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

That much we can agree upon.

Typical tactic of the modern left - can't argue the point, try and shut the person making it to shut up.

Edited October 14, 2021 by maxjam
Made a right horlicks of that edit :P

[TigerTedd]

3 minutes ago, maxjam said:

What would that agenda be then?  All I have written, multiple times, is that recent history has shown us that reinventing IPs for a new audience hasn't ended well.  Anything else you read into that is imagined. 

List those multiple occasions, and I bet I can give you good reasons about why they have ended well. 

Might have lost a few older viewers / readers that they were losing anyway, but also would’ve gained new viewers / readers and empowered a whole new generation. 

Depends on your definition of ‘hasn’t ended well.’

[maxjam]

13 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:

List those multiple occasions, and I bet I can give you good reasons about why they have ended well. 

Might have lost a few older viewers / readers that they were losing anyway, but also would’ve gained new viewers / readers and empowered a whole new generation. 

Depends on your definition of ‘hasn’t ended well.’

Classic example... Dr Who. 

Loads of preemptive clickbait about the first female Doctor - as with the initial post in this thread, projecting assumed anger.  The show actually launched with record numbers however which negated that argument but as it progressed fans become increasingly depressed with the overly PC storylines, the final season finale ending with record low viewers.

Now where are the ones that have dramatically reinvented themselves and gone on to do well?  I'm sure there must be some.  All that seems to happen however is the discussion gets twisted back onto the perceived agenda of the poster rather than the actual argument and ends with a laughing emoji when there is nothing clever to add.

[i-Ram]

Give it a couple more years and it will be Superthey.

Not that I properly understand all this non-binary stuff. I don’t know my ******** from my elbow.

[BucksRam]

Another one of those sex, race, religion threads that most probably read, and not comment on for fear of backlash or saying something that'll be taken out of context.  

I have zero issue with progression and openness.  I have gay friends, my sister-in-law is gay, and in fact the first wedding my girls went to was a Mrs & Mrs wedding, one of whose daughters is now called Jack.  

Probably down to my age but I struggle a bit with seeing "Superman" as gay but that's because to me Superman was the super-hero I grew up reading about, fighting Lex Luthor, and who fell in love with Lois Lane.  The fact they are now referring to his son as Superman is what's muddying the waters for me as to me, he's not The Superman, but A Superman.  Kids of today however won't think like that as they have no link to the Superman of old.

Lesbian and homosexual superheroes have existed for decades now - think Northstar of the late 80s/early 90s.  If you watch The Boys on Prime, lesbian and homosexual relationships are part of the show.  Similarly in the latest Star Trek Discovery series, on Netflix, there's a multi-character personality who's asked to be referred to as "they" not her/she.  It fits with the context of the character as they have the memories of several people (Trill symbionts for the Trekkies reading this), but in real life the actress is non-binary and goes by "they".  It's cleverly built into the show (or they were cleverly cast). 

Take Sense8 too (Netflix if you've not seen it).  8 people, all different backgrounds, European, American, Indian, African and Asian, including heterosexual, homosexual and transgender relationships.  It's an acknowledgment that this is the world we now live in. 

I've heard people make comments about She-Hulk, along the lines of they've only made a film of a female equivalent to Hulk be politically correct, but She-Hulk has existed in the Marvel Universe for over 40 years.  I guess some of those raising eyebrows thinking it's ticking a sexism box probably aren't aware of the history.