Minorities in Comics and Other Media, etc

[CosmiComic]

I think the concern might be that some fans instead of meeting certain stories at the level the stories were intended, those fans might be looking for the characters to be activists in the way the fans would wish to be.

I mean, fans always project their own ideas onto characters. It's not necessarily correct. But Idk if it's just restricted to this.

Imagine it this way, someone you know asks if they can borrow your computer, car and phone. They need to drive to their friend&s house because they have a really great for making a website that’s about how much you suck. Would most people go along with that? Probably not, would most people in the military go along with that, probably not. And it’s not as if the military doesn’t hear criticism (and have all kinds of ‘introspection’) on a pretty regular basis as it is.

I guess. But I think there's a big difference between your scenario and the actual military that's been implicated in numerous problematic developments. Of course they're not going to support movies criticizing them, but in that case, it's fair to question why Marvel would work with them while also criticizing militarism and government in movies like CA:WS and shows like FaWS.

[CliffHanger2]

I guess. But I think there's a big difference between your scenario and the actual military that's been implicated in numerous problematic developments. Of course they're not going to support movies criticizing them, but in that case, it's fair to question why Marvel would work with them while also criticizing militarism and government in movies like CA:WS and shows like FaWS.

I guess because the situation isn't as simple as -working with the military=BAD.

[CosmiComic]

I guess because the situation isn't as simple as -working with the military=BAD.

That's true. It's not. Neither is it inherently good. I think some people just want a less absolute look at things.

[skyvolt2000]

So basically, the USA military is fragile and can't take criticism, right?

Here something for you.....

Independence Day the first movie had the SUPPORT of the military until once scene.

The Military wanted it CUT-the film makers REFUSED and thus the military did NOT support the movie.

What was that one scene-well reference??? AREA 52.

How is that for fragile?

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

Just thought it was relevant to what y'all were debating.

[CosmiComic]

Here something for you.....

Independence Day the first movie had the SUPPORT of the military until once scene.

The Military wanted it CUT-the film makers REFUSED and thus the military did NOT support the movie.

What was that one scene-well reference??? AREA 52.

How is that for fragile?

Why exactly did that scene bother them?

[CosmiComic]

Just thought it was relevant to what y'all were debating.

That's my problem with "villain has a point" storylines. Why can't the hero have a point?

[Agent Z]

[PwrdOn]

That's my problem with "villain has a point" storylines. Why can't the hero have a point?

You can't exactly have superhero plots that actually address real world problems, because the story would then imply that solving these issues is just a matter of making nice sounding speeches or applying whatever vapid, superficial ideology the hero stands for. Most major problems that we face are extraordinarily complex and can't be solved just by punching them really hard, letting a villain take an ideological position allows the writer to put forth a potential solution that may sound attractive but ultimately won't work, which is a much easier task than finding a solution that does work.

For example, lots of people who watched Black Panther will have sympathized with Killmonger's position to some extent, but most would probably agree that his solution is unworkable and how it turned out in the movie is about how it would go in real life too. In some ways this did diminish T'Challa's agency by putting him in the reactive role, but the alternative of putting him in the active role would imply that the filmmakers are endorsing whatever position he takes, which is a much more difficult territory to navigate, especially as the movie wasn't meant as a political statement.

[CosmiComic]

You can't exactly have superhero plots that actually address real world problems, because the story would then imply that solving these issues is just a matter of making nice sounding speeches or applying whatever vapid, superficial ideology the hero stands for. Most major problems that we face are extraordinarily complex and can't be solved just by punching them really hard, letting a villain take an ideological position allows the writer to put forth a potential solution that may sound attractive but ultimately won't work, which is a much easier task than finding a solution that does work.

For example, lots of people who watched Black Panther will have sympathized with Killmonger's position to some extent, but most would probably agree that his solution is unworkable and how it turned out in the movie is about how it would go in real life too. In some ways this did diminish T'Challa's agency by putting him in the reactive role, but the alternative of putting him in the active role would imply that the filmmakers are endorsing whatever position he takes, which is a much more difficult territory to navigate, especially as the movie wasn't meant as a political statement.

Um, ok, but why can't a hero try a solution that doesn't involve punching? What's to stop writers making the heroes try something else? And if they don't want to make a political statement, then why bother addressing anything in the first place?

[Agent Z]

I feel like agency is fast becoming one of the most misused words when it comes to talking about storytelling when people think the hero being reactive is a problem as opposed to just being a conventional storytelling choice.

[Surf]

Um, ok, but why can't a hero try...

Yo, if I may ask, where are you from? I've gathered it ain't the United States and my second guess prolly ain't right either as I don't think we've gotten beyond probes to Mars. This is not me making it hot, I just get big 'Brotha from another planet' energy and I just would like to know.

[Agent Z]

You can't exactly have superhero plots that actually address real world problems, because the story would then imply that solving these issues is just a matter of making nice sounding speeches or applying whatever vapid, superficial ideology the hero stands for. Most major problems that we face are extraordinarily complex and can't be solved just by punching them really hard, letting a villain take an ideological position allows the writer to put forth a potential solution that may sound attractive but ultimately won't work, which is a much easier task than finding a solution that does work.

For example, lots of people who watched Black Panther will have sympathized with Killmonger's position to some extent, but most would probably agree that his solution is unworkable and how it turned out in the movie is about how it would go in real life too. In some ways this did diminish T'Challa's agency by putting him in the reactive role, but the alternative of putting him in the active role would imply that the filmmakers are endorsing whatever position he takes, which is a much more difficult territory to navigate, especially as the movie wasn't meant as a political statement.

Guess no one told Ryan Coogler that.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...watch-1170585/

https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/...anther-203737/

[Malvolio]

Heroes do try non-reactive methods from time to time. I remember a story from Detective Comics in the early 1990s, where Batman catches some teenagers breaking into Wayne Enterprises, but when he sees that they're not really bad kids, just caught in bad circumstances, he doesn't turn them in. He seeks them out the next day as Bruce Wayne, telling him that Batman gave him their location, and offers them a deal. He won't press charges if they agree to stay in school, and when they graduate, he'll pay their college tuition through Wayne Foundation scholarships. The kids agree and it appears to be a happy ending. I don't remember if we ever got a follow-up on if any of the kids made it, but it was a nice story about how sometimes Batman can do more good as Bruce Wayne than as the Dark Knight.

[PwrdOn]

Um, ok, but why can't a hero try a solution that doesn't involve punching? What's to stop writers making the heroes try something else? And if they don't want to make a political statement, then why bother addressing anything in the first place?

Because there isn't enough time in a two hour film to really get into that kind of stuff. If BP2 just decides it wants to address climate change by having Shuri invent some super high tech anti-global warming device, then that's just making a mockery of the issue and you are just going to piss off people who really care about it, unless the intent is to highlight the inherent flaws with this kind of solution and preach about the need to wield technology responsibly, but then we're just back to square one.