Controversial Opinions (For Everything Other Than DC Comics)

[Jack Dracula]

Greed is the worst aspect of human nature followed closely by apathy.

[CSTowle]

I'd put tribalism above (below?) both, but none are great.

[TheRay]

And we have a winner of the most controversial statement on a comicbook forum.

I don’t know why you people insist on being utterly obtuse to the point where you need to the most obvious things explained to you.
Yes, this is a comic forum, does that suddenly make it the center of the universe though? Life exists outside of CBR, and in that life there are other people who can dwarf this sites opinions.

[MajorHoy]

I don’t know why you people insist on being utterly obtuse to the point where you need to the most obvious things explained to you.
Yes, this is a comic forum, does that suddenly make it the center of the universe though? Life exists outside of CBR, and in that life there are other people who can dwarf this sites opinions.

Dude, didn't you realize a statement like

It’s good for people to read comics.

in a thread with the title

Controversial Opinions (For Everything Other Than DC Comics)

would probably generate some sarcastic responses?

[TheRay]

All reality tv isn’t dumb, whether it’s fake or not.
Some of it clearly is, but you can easily tell which ones those are.

[Catlady in training]

I don’t know why you people insist on being utterly obtuse to the point where you need to the most obvious things explained to you.
Yes, this is a comic forum, does that suddenly make it the center of the universe though? Life exists outside of CBR, and in that life there are other people who can dwarf this sites opinions.

Well, for comic book fans...

[godisawesome]

Here’s one that I think might genuinely be controversial, if a bit more of a mild one:

John Boyega as Finn in The Force Awakens is the best single film performance and story arc in the Star Wars films; other characters have better multi-film stories and performances by their actors, but no one has as much packed into one film as Boyega does as Finn in TFA.

The only reason that’s not acknowledged is because of how LFL “gaslit” the audience afterwards, assisted by how there *is* a sizable chunk of the audience that really, really doesn’t want to acknowledge that because they want the focus on other characters in the ST, usually TLJ’s version of Luke or more frequently Kylo Ren, sometimes for misapplied story reasons… and sometimes for racist reasons, consciously or subconsciously.

While Finn could have been more angsty in his dramatic moments or a more overall embittered character, he is *still* a highly dramatic character in TFA with a high concept as his basis, going from a literally nameless, faceless henchman into a full developed and multi-layered character out of dramatic but empathetic reactions to the horrors around him. His full transformation is both grander and better paced than Han’s in ANH, while Boyega turns in Harrison Ford-like performance in the film, all while the characters relationship with Rey helps out her in her best light in the ST and supplies enough magical chemistry there really is a sense of “family” for the characters that most of the Star Wars films can’t quite meet.

The problem for LFL and parts of the audience was that he was black, and that they wanted Ben Solo as the real main character, so Boyega as Finn was a threat to that.

So LFL intentionally leaned into the worst interpretation of him they could, intentionally downplaying him and making him bland when they did handle him, while letting Rian Johnson retcon out about 50% of the character’s story, stick him in a racist plotline in TLJ, and deliberately write him so that would end up “demoted” to the “lower decks” of the story. They and the audience who feared the character then proceeded to insist he was always that way.

TFA Finn can stand toe-to-toe with any other characters single film performance and come out on top… and there’s nothing that aggravates LFL more than the possibility someone points that out and it gets picked up by the larger audience someday.

[MajorHoy]

Here’s one that I think might genuinely be controversial, if a bit more of a mild one . . .

I couldn't say either way.

I really haven't paid much attention to the Star Wars movies beyond the original trilogy (which I guess are technically parts 4-6?).

Saw those three in actual movie theaters when they were originally released; never went back to see any others in a movie theater nor on video.

[shooshoomanjoe]

That seems less "it's bad for kids to read comics" and more "comics are badly written these days."

IMO, I think the previous generation just aren't into what the current generation is into, be it comics, TV or music. When we don't like what's "cool" anymore, it just means our generation got older.

[godisawesome]

IMO, I think the previous generation just aren't into what the current generation is into, be it comics, TV or music. When we don't like what's "cool" anymore, it just means our generation got older.

I think it’s a bit of both; there’s a natural progression where appealing to the current key demographic is going to be less appealing to the previous one… but right now, given the massive success of comic book properties even as comic books remain strictly niche, a lot of good or even just competent writers are being pulled away from the weeklies from the big 2 and towards movies, tv shows, cartoons other geek-related properties or deluxe graphic novels, online stories or indies they’ll see more profit from.

Now, I think some of that is because of guys like Dan Didio being pretty bad at managing talent, but some of it is simple market economics; Chris Yost is a great comic writer with a still somewhat humble profile in that industry, but who would do that when you could be helping with The Mandalorian instead?

Comic writing stables depend more on solid workhorses than on superstars, and workhorses have the perfect skill set for more profitable work.

[Jim Kelly]

It's bad for kids to read comics. All the constantly changing "continuity", the retcons of retcons of retcons, the twisted knots of plot lines to undo other plot lines, the multiple deaths and re-births of characters, the way "Everything changes, and nothing will be the same again!" until two issues later when everything is in fact just the way it was before - all these gimmicks tend to tell impressionable early readers that actions don't have lasting consequences.

I would say what's wrong with this is it's specific just to the big two U.S. comics publishers. I don't like that stuff either in those comics, but there's a lot of other kinds of comics that kids can find. When I volunteered at the elementary school reading program for kids, the library had many different books in comic book format that the kids were always clamouring to read. And those weren't super-hero books. At the time I was there, the big thing was the Lego Ninjago books--some of the kids I worked with were really into that, so I went out and bought a lot of them. And when I left, I just donated all those books I had to the library. By now, I'm sure there's something else the kids are really into.

[ed2962]

Twitter is not the town square. It's probably the worst place on social media to discuss any topic with any level of complexity or nuance. Part of the problem with modern discourse is acting like Twitter of all places is where we need to fight the final battle for free speech.

[Jim Kelly]

More a question than a controversial statement, but in Canada the subject of removing the monarch always comes up and the pundits then say we would be a republic. But my question is, just because you remove the crown as head of state, does that automatically mean any country is a republic? I like our institutions and think we have better checks and balances than some republics. So I don't see why a country without a crown is a republic. Or am I missing something? If the crown is the only thing that stops us from becoming a republic, then I'd rather we kept the crown (we could just give the crown to a maple tree and that would be our figurehead).

[Zelena]

More a question than a controversial statement, but in Canada the subject of removing the monarch always comes up and the pundits then say we would be a republic. But my question is, just because you remove the crown as head of state, does that automatically mean any country is a republic? I like our institutions and think we have better checks and balances than some republics. So I don't see why a country without a crown is a republic. Or am I missing something? If the crown is the only thing that stops us from becoming a republic, then I'd rather we kept the crown (we could just give the crown to a maple tree and that would be our figurehead).

What “having a crown” adds to your country? I don’t think that removing it would change anything…

[Jim Kelly]

What “having a crown” adds to your country? I don’t think that removing it would change anything…

In law, the legal authority of the land is "the Crown"--not the government of the day, not the Queen per se, not a president--it's an abstract concept but an important term of art because we have crown land, indigenous people have signed treaties with the Crown (which go back before the existence of Canada as a confederation).

Even though the monarch is the head of state, represented by the Governor General of Canada, the monarch doesn't have anything to do with the daily politics of the country and is therefore above partisanship.

I like to think of the power resting in the crown itself, rather than in a human being. The queen has the crown at the moment, but the crown doesn't belong to her--it's the will of the people. The Governor General is appointed by the parliament--so in that sense is indirectly selected by a democratically elected body--yet is not elected by the popular vote and therefore can be above populism.

The prime minister is not the head of state and can be voted out of office, without too much fuss. The Governor General has the power (through the rule of law) to appoint the next prime minister or to dissolve parliament and call a new election when needed.

The people who say that we would become a republic if we removed the crown/queen/governor general seem to assume we would give that crown power to an elected president. Which would then mean our head of state would be partisan, would be tempted into populist politics and would have greater authority in the day to day running of the country.

I think having a government that is a mix of democratic and non-democratic institutions prevents populism from over-running the nation. If the government was always doing what was popular at the time, we would not have abolished capital punishment, had sensible gun laws, made abortion legal, passed the charter of rights and freedoms into law, allowed same sex marriage, welcomed so many people into our country as refugees. None of these policies were popular with the mainstream population at the time--they only became popular after, once people saw that doing these things wasn't going to destroy the nation. Sometimes you need government that can put aside their ratings in the poll and make rational decisions free of party politics.