Superman

[Comrade 86]

1 minute ago, BucksRam said:

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. 

See, you just had to go and ruin a perfectly good bicker by introducing FACTS over assumptions!

What were you thinking?  ?

 

[TigerTedd]

45 minutes ago, maxjam said:

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 new you’d go with Doctor Who, but it’s failings weren’t with the female doctor, it was with sub par story lines, nothing PC. My daughter loved having a female doctor. No agendas shoved down peoples throats as far as I can remember. The arrow verse didn’t really suffer for putting diversity at the forefront. 

creative people like to break the mould. Superman is literally the mould, the first super hero. Of course the writers are going to take the opportunity to stretch the boundaries and break the mould when uk they get the opportunity, it’s what they do. 

hey, maybe it won’t work, maybe it’s a crap idea, but artists will always be artists. And whether you like it or not, you’re entertainment is in the hands of artists. 

you can either stand still, or move forward. 

[Stive Pesley]

3 hours ago, maxjam said:

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

and on the flipside - no one in the real world without a chip on their shoulder can hear the phrase "white saviour" without being triggered...

even if I take your point at face value, 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" I still don't really get what you're so bothered about

If anything, you're normally defending the rights to freedom of expression of those being "cancelled" for daring to say what they want to say.

Honestly, does it matter if they lose some readers? It's up to them right? They aren't hurting anyone or impinging on anyone's rights

It just comes across as you're saying it's bad and arguing that - on that basis - they shouldn't do it.

You might want to defend that point - because personally that's what we're getting from your posts

It surely can't be difficult for "defenders of free speech" to understand why people might suspect them of being you know..."a bit right wing" when they defending the rights of Yaxley-Lennon, Farage, Laurence Fox etc to have free speech on things like immigration - but then switch sides when someone as harmless as a sci-fi comic writer reveals a character to be gay, or a trans person wanting to simply live their life in peace asks to be referred to as him/her/they whatever

 

 

[maxjam]

2 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

I new you’d go with Doctor Who, but it’s failings weren’t with the female doctor, it was with sub par story lines, nothing PC. My daughter loved having a female doctor. No agendas shoved down peoples throats as far as I can remember. The arrow verse didn’t really suffer for putting diversity at the forefront. 

creative people like to break the mould. Superman is literally the mould, the first super hero. Of course the writers are going to take the opportunity to stretch the boundaries and break the mould when uk they get the opportunity, it’s what they do. 

hey, maybe it won’t work, maybe it’s a crap idea, but artists will always be artists. And whether you like it or not, you’re entertainment is in the hands of artists. 

you can either stand still, or move forward. 

TBH I went with Dr Who because other than recent big budget movies I know nothing about comic book super heroes and did recall the controversy surrounding Dr Who at the time.

As I said in an earlier post I recall all of the clickbait surrounding the first female Dr Who - as with the initial post in this thread, projecting assumed anger.  The show launched with record numbers however which negated that argument, it was only as the seasons progressed that audiences grew increasingly weary with the overly PC content that view numbers dropped significantly.

There are lots of articles on t'internet about Dr Who's woke storylines in the typical places, so lets post an article from a left wing publication instead defending them; 

https://www.theweek.co.uk/98226/has-doctor-who-become-too-politically-correct

Unfortunately ths 'stars' can defend the show as much as they want and whilst I have never been a Dr Who fan storylines involving visiting India in 1947 against the backdrop of partition or retelling the story of Rosa Parks and the struggle for civil rights don't strike me as being what the Dr Who audience really signed up for.  Evidence for that would be the declining viewership over the seasons ending in a record low season finale. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57940451

I had to google the arrow verse but a similar story unfolds, lots of articles in the usual places about woke, politically correct content and viewing figures that drop off massively - Batwoman being a particular target of both the anti-woke brigade and woeful viewing figures;

https://www.small-screen.co.uk/batwoman-season-2-ratings-hit-an-all-time-low/

I disagree that you can either stand still or more forward.  As the direction of these shows has shown, you can also move backwards.

Whilst you can't directly compare TV to cinema, the recent Marvel movies have shown that there is an audience for super hero content if done properly.  

I don't recall anyone getting upset with Captain Americas story arc ending and him handing the role over to a black person - the writing was excellent and the move made sense. 

If the original Capt America had made it to the new movies however and Marvel had decided to reinvent the character as black because they didn't want another white saviour, and make him bi-sexual because despite spending his life pining for Peggy Carter he never once came out and overtly said he wasn't interested in blokes, people would have seen it as pandering to woke ideology and a betrayal to the character they had become invested in.

[maxjam]

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

even if I take your point at face value, 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" I still don't really get what you're so bothered about

I am personally not bothered, I am having a discussion on a forum - thats what they are for.

 

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

If anything, you're normally defending the rights to freedom of expression of those being "cancelled" for daring to say what they want to say.

I do defend everyones right to free speech, where have I said they can't make this sort of content?

 

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

Honestly, does it matter if they lose some readers? It's up to them right? They aren't hurting anyone or impinging on anyone's rights

I don't know, you tell me?  I seem to recall you mentioning on this forum that you enjoy Dr Who - do you wish that they had stuck to more widely accepted storylines and be able to continue watching it or was the overly PC content just that good you are satisfied with what you got from the show?  Actually, don't answer that ?

 

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

It just comes across as you're saying it's bad and arguing that - on that basis - they shouldn't do it

You might want to defend that point - because personally that's what we're getting from your posts

I am not saying that the content is bad,  I am saying that reinventing characters or radically changing the content of shows/comics/whatever beyond what the existing audience has grown to enjoy has always ended badly.  The new audience they want to chase doesn't seem to exist and the fans that have made people rich over the years are angry at being cast aside.

 

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

It surely can't be difficult for "defenders of free speech" to understand why people might suspect them of being you know..."a bit right wing" when they defending the rights of Yaxley-Lennon, Farage, Laurence Fox etc to have free speech on things like immigration - but then switch sides when someone as harmless as a sci-fi comic writer reveals a character to be gay, or a trans person wanting to simply live their life in peace asks to be referred to as him/her/they whatever

Going off at a tangent here a bit I think.  The freedom to mess with their lore is not being questioned - they are free to do whatever it is they want with their characters and universe.  Just don't expect die hard fans to stay for content they didn't ask for and don't then double down calling them bigots for not sticking around.

There is a reason for the phrase 'go woke, go broke'.   There are lots of examples of veering from the tried and tested, from what the audience wants and expects, from what the audience is willing to pay for ending badly.  What evidence is there for the opposite? 

Again, they are free to do what they want with their IP, but doing so generally ends up with an angry fan base and people losing their jobs for not delivering success. 

[Norman]

I am sick of people sat on massive horses, twisting words, over-dramatising, purposefully missing the point, trying to compare a gay storyline in a made up comic to taking the knee, go on about inclusivity whilst showing none of that to differing views, exaggerating posts and making tenuous efforts at proving someone is bordering on hate speech. 

Have a ducking word with yourselves. 

And now it's going to get turned into a thread on free speech because they can't address the points being made. Every argument comes back to Hitler, or Farage in the case of this forum. 

And the same people think they are inclusive. I will throw a label in. It's called bullying. Snide remarks about flouncing, not having a life, accusing a poster of verging on hate speech etc, but the same posters will be first to be inclusive of an online bullying campaign, i'm sure.

Drop the flouncey, over-dramatic, exaggerations. Don't like the point being made? Move on. When you're belittling, mocking and assuming and suggesting some pretty distasteful stuff, it's not a debate.

I'm interested to read the views. I'm not interested in all the above. 

[Stive Pesley]

41 minutes ago, maxjam said:

There is a reason for the phrase 'go woke, go broke'. 

I still can't tell if you think people being cancelled for having views that people don't like is good or bad

[Stive Pesley]

27 minutes ago, Norman said:

I am sick of people sat on massive horses,

[cstand]

4 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

and on the flipside - no one in the real world without a chip on their shoulder can hear the phrase "white saviour" without being triggered...

even if I take your point at face value, 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" I still don't really get what you're so bothered about

If anything, you're normally defending the rights to freedom of expression of those being "cancelled" for daring to say what they want to say.

Honestly, does it matter if they lose some readers? It's up to them right? They aren't hurting anyone or impinging on anyone's rights

It just comes across as you're saying it's bad and arguing that - on that basis - they shouldn't do it.

You might want to defend that point - because personally that's what we're getting from your posts

It surely can't be difficult for "defenders of free speech" to understand why people might suspect them of being you know..."a bit right wing" when they defending the rights of Yaxley-Lennon, Farage, Laurence Fox etc to have free speech on things like immigration - but then switch sides when someone as harmless as a sci-fi comic writer reveals a character to be gay, or a trans person wanting to simply live their life in peace asks to be referred to as him/her/they whatever

 

 

A Gay or Trans person wanting to live their life in peace you do know that community are at loggerheads with each other.

https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/lesbian-strength-march-through-leeds-16882234.amp

Ruin my day out in Leeds along with the Tommy Robinson supporters march and counter demo by the Anti everything league all on the same day bloody police everywhere.

Luckily I missed the anti Brexit demo as it was in another part of Leeds. 

 

Edited October 14, 2021 by cstand
Added more info

[Anon]

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

I still can't tell if you think people being cancelled for having views that people don't like is good or bad

The phrase "Get woke, go broke" has naff all to do with being cancelled. Cancelled in modern parlance usually refers to a thing or individual that has been pressured into being removed from media due to some indiscretion, real or perceived. Get woke, go broke refers to consumers not buying a product.

[Comrade 86]

2 hours ago, Norman said:

I am sick of people sat on massive horses, twisting words, over-dramatising, purposefully missing the point, trying to compare a gay storyline in a made up comic to taking the knee, go on about inclusivity whilst showing none of that to differing views, exaggerating posts and making tenuous efforts at proving someone is bordering on hate speech. 

Have a ducking word with yourselves. 

And now it's going to get turned into a thread on free speech because they can't address the points being made. Every argument comes back to Hitler, or Farage in the case of this forum. 

And the same people think they are inclusive. I will throw a label in. It's called bullying. Snide remarks about flouncing, not having a life, accusing a poster of verging on hate speech etc, but the same posters will be first to be inclusive of an online bullying campaign, i'm sure.

Drop the flouncey, over-dramatic, exaggerations. Don't like the point being made? Move on. When you're belittling, mocking and assuming and suggesting some pretty distasteful stuff, it's not a debate.

I'm interested to read the views. I'm not interested in all the above. 

Think you've had one too many macchiatos. 

[BucksRam]

6 hours ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

See, you just had to go and ruin a perfectly good bicker by introducing FACTS over assumptions!

What were you thinking?  ?

 

For someone feeling rough with poxy covid, that made me laugh. Thanks for cheering me up @86 Hair Islands

[Comrade 86]

1 minute ago, BucksRam said:

For someone feeling rough with poxy covid, that made me laugh. Thanks for cheering me up @86 Hair Islands

Feel better soon bud

[maxjam]

2 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

I still can't tell if you think people being cancelled for having views that people don't like is good or bad

FWIW, @Anon gave an excellent reply. 

No one is being cancelled in this instance or having their free speech curtailed.  Writers are free to create new characters or storylines about whatever they want.  They can even change the characters or worlds they have created as they see fit - my argument is, and remains, that doing so will alienate the audience they have already built up.   

This thread started with 'the far right are going to impode' my argument has always been that 99% of any animosty comes from devotees of IPs that disapprove of changes to characters and worlds that they have grown to love, discarded in the search for a new audience that I have yet to be convinced exists. 

[TigerTedd]

3 hours ago, maxjam said:

Unfortunately ths 'stars' can defend the show as much as they want and whilst I have never been a Dr Who fan storylines involving visiting India in 1947 against the backdrop of partition or retelling the story of Rosa Parks and the struggle for civil rights don't strike me as being what the Dr Who audience really signed up for. 

I fear you’ve not got doctor Who at all then. It was specifically founded in the beginning with the idea that one week he (or she) could go have a fantastical adventure in the future, and the next they could go back in time to some obscure point in history, and be educational. That was specifically the remit of doctor who, to educate as well as entertain. I learned loads about Pakistan that episode. Not entirely sure what was woke about it. 

the reason I’m continuing this discussion is not to merely be belligerent. I’m willing to listen to your point of view. But what annoys me is that people who have a problem with this kind of representation in media may well just want to live their life reading the same stories they always did and not have an agenda forced down their throat. But to me that sounds like they want to stick their head in the sand and pretend the world changing around them isn’t happening. 

They want to remain stuck in a time when gay people remained behind closed doors, where you could use a racial slur without being branded a racist, where Alf garnet was relevant, where white middle classes people could feel safe in their bubble. 

it’s indicative of the world. There’s a great swathe of people that are actively holding the world back from moving forward. 

granted, as a reaction to this, some writers tend to force the issue. And there’s no accounting for just plain bad writing. 

an idea that always amuses me is that the Fox News crowd in America probably like watching films like everyone else, but the vast majority of Hollywood is very left leaning. Absolutely riddled with gays it is. So they must be seething when some left agenda is threaded into an otherwise great movie. 

I’m interested to see how Eternals does, with the first gay superhero in the MCU. If it has a backlash, it’s not because it’s crap, or overly PC, it’s from people who just can’t accept that, out of the many superheroes in the MCU, statistically, one or two are bound to be gay, and that should be represented.

I had a famously close minded mate (no longer a mate), who would revel in conversing about the scene in avengers where all the female superheroes were in the shot and posed for a second. I didn’t get his problem with it. He’s got two daughters like me. ducking girl power, my wife loved it, my daughter loved it. What the hell is not to love.

You might call it positive discrimination, but when a section of society has been under represented for so long, they need to be over represented for a time so that they can get an equal footing. Some may say there should be a balancing shot of all the male superheroes. But male superheroes don’t need the leg up. 

Which brings me back on point. Making the new superman bisexual gives lgbtq some sort of representation even over representation to bring it in the light and help in the effort to normalise it. I know you’re argument is to create a new IP - gay-man or something, flouncing round in his pink spandex like Matt Lucas in a Welsh village, but that would be making it niche and marginalising it again. No one would read that. And again lgbtq ends up in the shadows, in the bargain bucket, a weird little niche thing. 

20, 30, 40 years from now, it will all be completely normal. Surely that’s what we’re aiming for. It could take decades. It will probably require our generation with our stuck in our ways attitudes to die and our kids to takeover (I include me in that, I’m not pretending I don’t have an uncomfortable feeling seeing superman snog a guy, it’s there in me, I can’t deny it, and it probably always will be - but for my daughter it’s 100% accepted as normal and part of life, and I try my best to promote that), but things like this will be where that normalisation started. If no one ever starts it, no change will ever happen.

[maxjam]

2 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

I fear you’ve not got doctor Who at all then. It was specifically founded in the beginning with the idea that one week he (or she) could go have a fantastical adventure in the future, and the next they could go back in time to some obscure point in history, and be educational. That was specifically the remit of doctor who, to educate as well as entertain. I learned loads about Pakistan that episode. Not entirely sure what was woke about it. 

I've got no idea what-so-ever about Dr Who tbh.  I vaguely recall watching it as a kid but certainly nothing recently.  I just recall the controversy surrounding it.  Judging by the comments and viewer numbers, from what I can tell, people wanted less preachy history and more fantasy.

 

2 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

the reason I’m continuing this discussion is not to merely be belligerent. I’m willing to listen to your point of view. But what annoys me is that people who have a problem with this kind of representation in media may well just want to live their life reading the same stories they always did and not have an agenda forced down their throat. But to me that sounds like they want to stick their head in the sand and pretend the world changing around them isn’t happening. 

They want to remain stuck in a time when gay people remained behind closed doors, where you could use a racial slur without being branded a racist, where Alf garnet was relevant, where white middle classes people could feel safe in their bubble. 

I don't think you are being belligerant, yours are some of the more considered posts I've responded to today.

Re. Son of Superman, now I know that it is a new character I kinda applaud the writer for trying a new approach *but* can also understand the reaction of fans (of the wider Superman IP) that may voice disapproval.  Now my knowledge of Superman only extends as far as the successful movies of the past few years and him fighting, General Zod, Batman and some wierd alien type thing in Justice League but if we put Son of Supermans sexuality aside for one moment I highly doubt stories about protesting the deportation of refugees is what the fanbase is clamouring for...

IMO that has nothing to do with the white middle classes feeling safe in their bubble or bad writing, more to do with giving the audience what they want.  They became invested in Superman because he did fantastical super out of this world stuff, not join whatever cause it is the Democrats and Republicans are arguing about at the moment.

 

2 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

I’m interested to see how Eternals does, with the first gay superhero in the MCU. If it has a backlash, it’s not because it’s crap, or overly PC, it’s from people who just can’t accept that, out of the many superheroes in the MCU, statistically, one or two are bound to be gay, and that should be represented.

We shall see.  In an earlier post I mentioned the fact that no one complained about Chris Evans passing the shield over to Anthony Mackie.  Capt America's arc had finished and the transition was very well written.  If you don't force an agenda and grow the story organically the amount of resistance you face is minimal to non.

 

2 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

Which brings me back on point. Making the new superman bisexual gives lgbtq some sort of representation even over representation to bring it in the light and help in the effort to normalise it. I know you’re argument is to create a new IP - gay-man or something, flouncing round in his pink spandex like Matt Lucas in a Welsh village, but that would be making it niche and marginalising it again. No one would read that. And again lgbtq ends up in the shadows, in the bargain bucket, a weird little niche thing. 

Thats kind of the problem though isn't it?  As we have seen from 'woke' revamps, the market really isn't there at the moment.  Creating a new character from scratch would struggle to gain an audience so they piggy back on existing IPs, ripping up what the fans pay their money for and starting again - you can understand why they get upset.  Well, I can.

 

2 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

20, 30, 40 years from now, it will all be completely normal. Surely that’s what we’re aiming for. It could take decades. It will probably require our generation with our stuck in our ways attitudes to die and our kids to takeover (I include me in that, I’m not pretending I don’t have an uncomfortable feeling seeing superman snog a guy, it’s there in me, I can’t deny it, and it probably always will be - but for my daughter it’s 100% accepted as normal and part of life, and I try my best to promote that), but things like this will be where that normalisation started. If no one ever starts it, no change will ever happen.

Agree, it could take a long time ? 

Forcefully pushing the agenda on the current market has a negative impact - we've seen it happen before and we'll no doubt see it happen again for reasons stated.  What is the answer?  I don't know, all I do know is the way they are currently attempting to do it - by reinventing existing IPs for a new audience, isn't working.

Maybe they have to take smaller steps and introduce more diverse background characters first and emply better writing to broach difficult subjects - again Marvel did an excellent job at this with the 'Sokovia Accords'.  Rather than re-imagining their heroes and awkwardly shoehorning them into politically correct stories their writing about the consequences of thei Avengers actions was spot on. 

Alternatively they could create new characters - or reinvent existing ones and bite the bullet and accept that they may have a small fanbase for a long time, but work on expanding it.  Dunno really I'm just rambling now, its late ? 

[uttoxram75]

This thread sums up everything that is wrong with our country.

Our National Health Service is being privatised without a whimper and yet people are falling out over Superman.

We're ducked.

[ariotofmyown]

5 minutes ago, uttoxram75 said:

This thread sums up everything that is wrong with our country.

Our National Health Service is being privatised without a whimper and yet people are falling out over Superman.

We're ducked.

Dry your eyes mate, who cares if some old scutter dies cos they had to wait 18 months for an NHS op. They could have just worked harder and gone private.

The real tragedy is legacy superman fans crying into their camp cosplay outfits because the fictional son of the fiction superman has a fictional bisexual storyline.

It's like people get more wound up about things that are actually made up, than the things that are supposed to be true, but are instead made up.

Anyway, my 11 year old boys were telling me about a kid at a club the other day. They called them Roxy, then Dave. I asked what they meant and they told me that Roxy wants to be a boy so is called Dave now. Didn't care two hoots and just accepted them for what they are. 

[cstand]

4 hours ago, ariotofmyown said:

Dry your eyes mate, who cares if some old scutter dies cos they had to wait 18 months for an NHS op. They could have just worked harder and gone private.

The real tragedy is legacy superman fans crying into their camp cosplay outfits because the fictional son of the fiction superman has a fictional bisexual storyline.

It's like people get more wound up about things that are actually made up, than the things that are supposed to be true, but are instead made up.

Anyway, my 11 year old boys were telling me about a kid at a club the other day. They called them Roxy, then Dave. I asked what they meant and they told me that Roxy wants to be a boy so is called Dave now. Didn't care two hoots and just accepted them for what they are. 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/metro.co.uk/2020/03/01/woman-sue-nhs-rushed-gender-reassignment-treatment-12330020/amp/

so Roxy might want to be called Dave then back to Roxy again 

No wonder the NHS is running out of money. Perhaps employ gender identity manager for every trust on £70,000 a year same as diversity managers.

Edited October 15, 2021 by cstand

[cstand]

5 hours ago, uttoxram75 said:

This thread sums up everything that is wrong with our country.

Our National Health Service is being privatised without a whimper and yet people are falling out over Superman.

We're ducked.

I wonder how more claims will go in now. Where are the over paid managers putting procedures in place to stop this

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-58718290.amp
 

My neighbours are going to leave the NHS and start up their own private business visiting people in their own home flexible working hours and better pay and not answering to any over paid manager

 

Edited October 15, 2021 by cstand