The woke outrage about Hollywood
Here we go.
sharePerhaps an position statement from you, or a serious question, would be a good way to start.
shareSo lets start how we began which is race swapping. Lets start with Selina Kyle/Catwoman. How do you portray her as something other than white and have it be acceptable? Before a trailer was shown, a plot beat was revealed people complained about the casting of Kravitz. Why is that?
shareIn today's environment it would be tough.
Most important part, a credible claim by the director or writer(s) that the choice is made for creative reasons. Espectially if delivered with a DEFENSE of the fans, instead of attacking them.
So you basically just proved my point for me. In today's world it is basically impossible.
Matt Reeves never attacked the fans once. Second you know as well as I do it would not matter what was said. The mere fact that Kravitz was hired sparks an outrage. The artist can say what they want it will not stop your camp from screaming woke agenda. Thanks for proving my point.
Show me him stating that the decision was made based on creative decisions AND admitting that fans who are skeptical have understandable reasons for their skeptism and that he hopes his final product will win them over.
That is what would have been the right thing to do, if he was motivated by real creative ideas, and wanted to please the pre-existing fan base instead of trolling them.
You said do not insult the fans. He did no such thing. I never claimed he assured them I said it would make no difference if he did. It would not matter what he said and even if he played your game your camp would still scream about the woke agenda.
The right thing to do? No he makes films and you either like them or you don't. The Batman was a financial, critical success and a success with the mass majority. Your approval is not needed. He does not owe you anything, enough with the entitled attitude. His product did win them over and it is shown by it's success.
Do you have ANY examples of producers or writers, dealing with these questions in a credible and/or respectful manner and the fad base still being offended by similar changes, that we can look at to see if it went the way you believe it would?
Or are you just "assuming"?
The second part of your post, is again, just an unsupported assertion. It served no purpose. I have not forgotten your position. You seem to be just throwing it out there, perhaps so, once I get tired of addressing it, you can do some stupid gotcha game, where you claim not addressing it, is a "concession" or something equally stupid.
You claimed Matt Reeves attacked the fanbase. He never did. Now since you could not prove your claim you are trying to shift the burden of proof to me. You openly admitted in today's world it would be extremely difficult to cast Kravitz without it being a problem. You honestly believe if Matt Reeves came out publicly and said listen folks this is not a political agenda we are trying to just make the best movie we can that your camp would accept that? You truly are ignorant if you believe that. Like I said before a trailer was shown, an image revealed your camp was belly aching about her casting. If you are trying to emulate a specific comic don't you basically mimic the appearance? Year One was one of the big influences on the film. Kravitz Catwoman is almost a spitting image of that comic book counterpart in Year One.
So you are free to make assumptions but I am not. Interesting how that works.
It is not merely me asserting it. It is me backing it up with facts. The fact is the Batman was a financial success, critically liked and liked by the majority. You are in the minority in not liking it. That is not an assertion that is a fact.
I did not claim he attacked the fan base. I stopped reading there.
Here is my previous post, please respond to it honestly and seriously.
Do you have ANY examples of producers or writers, dealing with these questions in a credible and/or respectful manner and the fad base still being offended by similar changes, that we can look at to see if it went the way you believe it would?
Or are you just "assuming"?
The second part of your post, is again, just an unsupported assertion. It served no purpose. I have not forgotten your position. You seem to be just throwing it out there, perhaps so, once I get tired of addressing it, you can do some stupid gotcha game, where you claim not addressing it, is a "concession" or something equally stupid.
Cool so we he did not insult the fanbase we got that covered. He does not owe you anything, enough with the entitled attitude got it?
I already addressed your question about assuming. So I am not allowed to do it but you are? Kind of like how you assume if there is a race swap it is political? Since you are free to assume that I am free to assume that your camp would not care if the director came out and assured the people the hiring was not political that they would still be outraged.
Nope it is a fact. The Batman is a success that is a fact. You are in the minority in disliking it. No feelings facts. Learn the difference between assertion and fact. I did not assert the film being a success it is a success and I can prove it.
You made a claim, an unsupported claim and now you are dodging all questions about that claim.
Since you are free to make an unsupported claim I am free to as well.
shareYou seem to be trying to confuse teh issue to dodge my points.
You talk about this shit A LOT. Yet, when you finally make a thread about it, specifically IT, now you have nothing of substance to say.
My position is clear. I want creative decisions made for creative reasons and not political reasons.
Can you explain why that is a problem for you?
I just addressed your point. I believe Kavitz was not cast a political reason but for a creative one. Catwoman's race is not essential therefore I do not see it being a political hire. You assume anytime a race is not what you are used to seeing it is a political move. I disagree with that view. Creative decisions are taking place you just choose to see many which are not as political moves. To a hammer everything looks like a nail.
shareRace being "essential" or not, is irrelevant to whether or not the decision was made for political as opposed to creative reasons.
The rest of your post is equally senseless.
You are defending anti-white discrimination, for reasons you refuse to be honest about.
No it is completely relevant. If the race is not essential then you are free to interpret them as any race you see fit. An agenda does not have to take place in order for them to be a different race. You just proved my point, Catwoman can only be white otherwise it is political.
shareMy point is about the motive, whether it is for creative or political reasons.
THe level of "essentialness" is irrelevant.
You seem to be determined to avoid addressing my actual point.
My position is that such decisions should be made for creative reasons, not political ones.
You disagree. But refuse to be honest WHY.
Okay and how do you prove motive? I want you to prove motive not lob an assumption or an assertion.
They are made for creative decisions in my opinion. I have made cases where I believed it was political. I do not believe the hiring of Kravitz was a political move.
I am honest. If you are trying to emulate a specific comic don't you mimic the appearance in lots of ways? https://www.awn.com/news/eliza-dushku-talks-batman-year-one-catwoman-short
That is a picture of Selina Kyle in the Year One comic. Kravitz obviously resembles what they are going for. Right down to even showing her next to having pet cats. Matt Reeves openly stated that the Year One comic was a big influence on the Batman. I believe it is inspired from that comic book how is it political if you are trying to emulate a comic book appearance?
What was there about the story, that required the character to be black?
shareYou just buried yourself further. Nothing so then what about the story required the character to be white? So what does this indicate? It shows the race is not essential to the character. Also in the Year One comic she is mixed and Kravitz fits that appearance. So you also have a stronger reason to make her mixed if that is the comic you are trying to emulate.
shareYou just claimed that it was creative reasons that led to the decision to cast the character as black.
Then you admitted that there were NO creative reasons for the change.
And you think that "buried" MY point? LOL.
Nope did I or did I not reference the Year One comic? Matt Reeves in many interview before the movie constantly cited that specific comic book as a major inspiration and influence on the film. Is Selina Kyle/Catwoman white in that comic book?
Boom checkmate!
What color was Gordon in the Year One comic?
shareNope I will do like you, we are talking about Catwoman. I will gladly address Gordon once we finish the Catwoman point. So is this you conceding and dropping the point about Catwoman? If so I will gladly address Gordon and we can shift to another topic since you realize you lost the Catwoman debate.
shareGordon was white in Year One. Funny. Despite the creative "inspiration" of Year One, he did not follow that "inspiration" and keep Gordon as white....
Seems like the actual events do not fit your world view, but does fit mine.
Normal people would see that and conclude that I was right and you were wrong.
Nope staying on Catwoman. So since you did not address that we will be not moving on to Gordon. So you dropping the Catwoman point? Until you address Catwoman your attempt to shift to Gordon will be ignored.
Nope it seems like it fits mine exactly actually.
Not when you completely abandoned the Catwoman point. That is seen as a concession from most people.
I addressed your counter opint about Year One.
It was clearly NOT the literary "cannon" that you were trying to present it as.
When I insist on you stayhing on point, it is becasue you are running away from a point.
When you do it, it is because you are playing a stupid rhetorical tactical evasion.
By attempting to deflect to Gordon. That is not addressing the Catwoman point.
Yes it was when you consider that is the big inspiration for Catwoman. The appearance is uncanny and quite obvious to anyone who is not blind.
You are proving my point further. Even if Gordon was white your camp would still complain about the casting of Kravitz. Despite me showing you that she was not white in that comic your camp still moans and groans. Even if Gordon was white you guys would complain about the casting of Kravitz. Yet again is Gordon's race essential to his character? Yes or no? Notice how I wouldn't care what race they were? Notice how I do not care about the Whistler race swap? It does not bother me. However since I am going to be like you now it does. See how childish it is? If the race is not essential why care?
YOU moved the discussion to the YEAR ONE comic.
Complaining that I addressed that point of yours, is dishonest.
Catwoman was race changed. Gordon was race changed. The mayor happens to be white and corrupt. THe next mayor is young and black and seems good. ect. ect. ect.
You are tryingn so hard, to avoid seeing the forest by focusing on trees and talking a lot of shit.
As a means to show you what they were attempting to do with Catwoman. You refused to acknowledge that Kravitz resembles that interpretation of the character. Also Gordon in Batman Begins heavily resembled the comic book version of Gordon in Year One. If you try to emulate that version of the comic book character again you run the risk of copying Gary Oldman's Gordon appearance. Kravitz's style of Catwoman had never been done before. Therefore it made it unique and different. Thus made it desirable to interpret Catwoman that way.
Nope in order for a race change the race has to be essential. Race is not essential for Catwoman or Gordon. Year One is a comic book Catwoman is not white in that comic. That debunks your entire premise right there. To say they are white means no other comic of them being another race exists. Unfortunately for you Year one says hello! Also Eartha Kitt. Nice way to skip over the main hero. The main hero is a heterosexual white male. Alfred is white and a good person. Whites were not discriminated against in this film.
Nope I am calling out you for being ignorant and closed minded.
That bit about race having to be essential to a character for it to be a race change, is your personal "definition".
And it is irrelevant my complaint about wokism leading to anti-white discrimiation based on political agenda of "diversity".
Nope it is how things are. If the race is not essential are you not free to interpret it anyway you want to?
It is completely relevant. If we were talking about Abe Lincoln and he was being played by a black guy I would back you 100%.
They are free to interpret it any way they want to.
And if the REASON they are doing that, is a political agenda of racial discrimination against whites, then that IMO, is morally and ethically wrong.
That is my position. Would you like to stop pretending to not understand that now, and actually explain why you are supporting anti-white discrimination?
Okay good they are free to interpret it anyway they want to we can agree on that.
How do I support anti white discrimination? The Batman has a main hero who is white. I do not believe any race was discriminated against when it comes to casting Kravitz. If that is the case then that means races were discriminated against to cast Selina Kyle/Catwoman in the Dark Knight Rises.
See but this is just it. I asked you how you would cast Kravitz and have it be ok? You literally had no answer for it. You only said oh assure the fans it's not political. You really think that would make people ok yeah we are on board? You are truly foolish if you think that.
I already answered both of those repeatedly. One in the post you JUST responded to. Are you just trolling?
shareI addressed how your answer made no sense. You know damn well it would not matter what Matt Reeves said the Kravitz casting was not going to fly. To suggest otherwise is dumb.
Also the main hero of the Batman is white correct?
Going back to a previous assertion, ignoring the massive points raised since then, is quite a dick move. And a logical fallacy. You lose.
shareAn assertion exactly that is all you have. Your assertion is dismissed and I win another point. Scoreboard me 22 you 0. You claiming I lose is also a dick move. Anytime you do that I will do the same in return to you.
shareThe difference is that the reason I cited for why you lost was true, while yours was bullshit. And you know it.
shareNope when you assert something and want me to accept an assumption and generalization as gospel truth without proof shows your argument means nothing. If you can make a claim without proving it I am free to do the same. Choke on it.
shareYou are wasting your time.
I don't know you, but I would suggest to take a step back and realize you are talking to a hollow wall and your attempts will lead nowhere.
Do something of value. Play with your pets, spend time with your family, or do literally whatever else - everything is more useful than trying to make a man see who holds his eyes shut.
Thank you, Cornell. I’m sure you’re as sick as I am of topics where the topic statement consists of but 1 word, like “Well?” or “Discuss.”
It’s sad how much sloth permeates the internet. Is him mommy still wiping him bitty ass for him?