Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Any chance of an abstract, for those of us who can't watch the video? Who's lying, and what lies are "they" telling?

He seems to be saying what I have been saying all along, people are upset at the marketing and brie larsons racist/sexist comments, they used RT to leave a "want to watch" comments and said they didnt want to watch it on those grounds, using the function as a form of protest against such marketing/actions, now RT has removed this function is favour of censoring people legitimate concerns, they used "ism/phobes/ists" as an excuse for these actions in order to "poison the well" or delegitimise those views.

Long story short, no review bombing happened, the only people who calling it that were the "activist journalists" (self confessed) and the paid for reviewers, so no one trustworthy in the first place.


Edit: He also thinks its was done to stop these journalists constantly making mistakes about the review system.

Not liking marketing is not a legitimate concern though.

Otherwise, I'd have applied for a job at the ASA, and be utterly draconic in my rulings.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not liking marketing is not a legitimate concern though.

Otherwise, I'd have applied for a job at the ASA, and be utterly draconic in my rulings.

of course its important, its the thing that gets bums in seats, dont advertise AT ALL in ANY WAY, and no one every knows your film exists..... now if that marketing gives a specific image of the film and its perceived as "problamatic" to use the far lefts parlance, well, guess what happens, in fact i dont need to guess, we can look at the sheer amount of far lefties that have mobbed on movies over the years for this exact reason, scarlet johansons cancelled movie is a good example, she was going to play a trans person and the extreme left wing mob fell upon her as she is not trans, nevermind she would have brought a lot of people to see the movie based on her name, nevermind she is a woman, nope, the ever hypocritical fools decided to stop it, based on the FIRST wave of marketing alone.

So yes, marketing matters.

No it's not.

You've got upset by it, for no discernible reason other than 'opinion I don't care for expressed'.

What does it matter? Does anyone really give a monkey's outside those posting their displeasure by saying they don't want to see the film? Because they didn't like something this one person said that one time.

As for Scarlett Johanson? Casting a cis person as a trans person is taking away already limited roles from trans people. And there are trans actors and actresses out there. Whilst I do not defend extreme action of any kind, this is broadly similar to Black Face. You want a trans character? You want a gay character? You want a black character? You want a Chinese character? All those groups have, shock horror actors amongst them. Why not make use of them?

That's swings and roundabouts however. If you're an actor (playing pretend), it should be based on your ability, not if you happen to be gay or not, cis or whatever. No one would bat an eye if a gay actor played a straight character, it should be the same the other way. You get the part on your proven ability, that should be the only factor that matters.

Any clarification on what was racist or sexist about her comments yet

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
No it's not.

You've got upset by it, for no discernible reason other than 'opinion I don't care for expressed'.

What does it matter? Does anyone really give a monkey's outside those posting their displeasure by saying they don't want to see the film? Because they didn't like something this one person said that one time.

As for Scarlett Johanson? Casting a cis person as a trans person is taking away already limited roles from trans people. And there are trans actors and actresses out there. Whilst I do not defend extreme action of any kind, this is broadly similar to Black Face. You want a trans character? You want a gay character? You want a black character? You want a Chinese character? All those groups have, shock horror actors amongst them. Why not make use of them?

So lets take that reasoning to its logical conclusion, only criminals can play a criminal role, no race swapping is allowed as that takes away a white/black/asian role away from them, only a paraplegic can play those roles, nevermind that these people are so rare finding even one that can act would be a miracle.

its pure nonsense, its pandering and totally ignores how difficult it is to find the right person for the role in the first place, but i dont expect you to understand these things.

"cis person"

I think you meant straight white female there mate


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Casualty wrote:
Any clarification on what was racist or sexist about her comments yet

Yep loads, its all about context, had she made that statement in isolation then yes, there would be a good argument that she was being taken out of context, however just go and take a look at the long string of such comments from her and then you will understand the anti white, anti male rhetoric she spews on a fairly regular basis, but its ok, because she is on the "right side"

Like i have said many times, fighting racism with racism is still racism, two wrongs do not make a right.

A straight white female can be trans. I think you need to look up the meanings of "cis" and "trans", they don't mean what you think they mean.

Link to the comments? I don't spend my time trawling Twitter.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
That's swings and roundabouts however. If you're an actor (playing pretend), it should be based on your ability, not if you happen to be gay or not, cis or whatever. No one would bat an eye if a gay actor played a straight character, it should be the same the other way. You get the part on your proven ability, that should be the only factor that matters.

Exactly this, i totally agree.

We all know why Johanson was cast for the role, she puts bums in seats, people know who she is, she is a good actor and would easily be able to do the role, but because of the mob this movie has been cancelled and the public exposure the plight of trans people have has been lost, because of the mob, not the "trolls" not the "alt right" only because of the idiots, these self same idiots that will wash their hands and walk away, blame others and claim no responsibility.

hyperthetically this film could have come out and led to even more roles becoming available for trans people if it proved popular, now that avenue is closed for god knows how long.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haighus wrote:
A straight white female can be trans. I think you need to look up the meanings of "cis" and "trans", they don't mean what you think they mean.

Link to the comments? I don't spend my time trawling Twitter.

already provided links earlier in the thread.

Also quoted earlier in the thread, rather than repeating it i urge you to just go and take a look or click my post history.

And i know what they mean, I am just making fun of the made up term being used, they are terms used only by a very specific set of people, they are not common parlance.

Clarification: Cis is not common parlance, Trans is.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


Listen to an actual journalist (and a left-wing one to boot! ):

..

uh huh course he is.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe02lGcO-ahAURWuxAJnjdA/videos



one could not help but note the two videos called " Leftist Media is LYING about Captain Marvel Reviews" and "Captain Marvel Audience Score WORST for MCU EVER??!"


or "CAPTAIN MARVEL Review Bombing?? No, Many People Just Don't Like ACTIVIST Movies"

so clearly he's a reliable and unbiased source of information here.


I mean the site he's connected to :

https://www.minds.com/groups/profile/939519407490174976/members

is clearly left wing -- hence the plethora of comments about the the new Gab app and how God Emperor Trump will kill all the leftists in 2020.

no issues here whatsoever.

Tim pool is a lefty redson, not all of his fans are, by your logic then all marvel films are alt right as they have alt right fans and support the alt right because of having alt right fans.

Also Gab was a message board used by the same idiots I have been decrying since the start, the new Gab App though may catch on and be very important for sharing ideas and discourse as it allows you to comment on sites that dont allow comments, hopefully it doesnt get taken over by the RW trolls though :(


Automatically Appended Next Post:
wait, are you one of those people that only reads the titles and makes a judgement on that alone Redson?

Speaking of trolls, Nerdotic covered the comments, wow so much hate hahah

OK, I watched the trailer with Mr. Snakes on a Plane. Am I the only one who sees and is unnerved by the CGI work on his face while he talks?

I think I'm an odd'un, as Uncanny Valley doesn't really bother me. Though I do agree it worked better on Cushing than Fisher in Rogue One!

It might just be me.

I'm still not really sure what all the controversy is about here, and the headlines on all the articles/videos about it I find lead me to believe they won't give me a non-partisan breakdown of events.

Incidentally, when did it become de rigeur for these idiots to put 'DESTROYS' in all their video titles?

 Formosa wrote:
Tim pool is a lefty redson,

.. I think we come from quite different ideas of what left wing is.

Also Gab was a message board used by the same idiots

Gab is literally twiiter for nazis and the lat right.

, the new Gab App though may catch on and be very important for sharing ideas and discourse as it allows you to comment on sites that dont allow comments, hopefully it doesnt get taken over by the RW trolls though :(

.....avoid any offers with regards to magic beans anyone makes towards you.

 Formosa wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Casualty wrote:
Any clarification on what was racist or sexist about her comments yet

Yep loads, its all about context, had she made that statement in isolation then yes, there would be a good argument that she was being taken out of context, however just go and take a look at the long string of such comments from her and then you will understand the anti white, anti male rhetoric she spews on a fairly regular basis, but its ok, because she is on the "right side".

Not really, actually. People keep questioning that, but all the responses are oddly vague and fuzzy.

Please indulge me, as if it's not self evident. Tell me, as specifically as possible, what she said that has you this many pages worth of worked up, and why that is.

Formosa wrote:Tim pool is a lefty redson, not all of his fans are, by your logic then all marvel films are alt right as they have alt right fans and support the alt right because of having alt right fans.

reds8n wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Tim pool is a lefty redson,

.. I think we come from quite different ideas of what left wing is.

What I think Formosa means (and what Tim Pool actually says) is that he is a liberal, not a leftist. There is a big difference nowadays between the two with many leftists ideals being only slightly less authoritarian in practice than Stalin's Five Year Plan.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Except no review bombing took place.

Yup, no review bombing but rather individuals simply using the site feature as intended. This wasn't another fictious russian bot campaign like was claimed with Last Jedi to save face although it was an uptick of like minded individuals (calling it a coordinated campaign would be an insult to real coordination though). That uptick though is just a piss drop in the bucket compared with the entire potential movie going audience until proven otherwise. Rotten Tomatoes simply didn't like the results they were getting and likely were getting pressure from Disney threatening to pull their massive advertising budget if they didn't respond.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

And the worst part about all of this nonsense? None of it will be in the film. It'll just be another Marvel Origin Story™, good or bad (and most Marvel films are good, there haven't been any bombs) and all of this crap will blow over.

Probably. It's usually not the first movie that suffers the fan backlash blowback but rather the second. The Last Jedi soured many fans but they had already spent money to see it themselves and was still very profitable (albeit much less than the derivative Force Awakens) so Solo was the one that actually bombed by Star Wars standards. If and only if Captain Marvel is mediocre to bad (unlikely) will Brie Larson's sexist/racist comments that most folks don't know or care about have a real effect beyond the opening weekend but I don't think there is any chance that it will bomb.

 Formosa wrote:


already provided links earlier in the thread.

Also quoted earlier in the thread, rather than repeating it i urge you to just go and take a look or click my post history.

Had a look at the links you posted on pg. 24, I don't see anything untoward at all? Most of the links are opnion pieces done by random journalists, one of them doesn't do anything except post the link to the trailer, and the others have minimal stuff by Marvel direct about the film, and are more discussing that Captain Marvel is potentially lip-service that doesn't go far enough, rather than being a feminist icon. Brie herself mentions some stuff about how it is an empowering movie for young women, which I don't at all see the controversy about. Women make up over half the population, it is hardly controversial to go for their wallets. One of the articles even discusses the psychological effects of modern society on young women (with links), and how some of that is likely linked to poor representation (again, not a difficult leap to make). Honestly, I don't see the overt feminist angle beyond "we should probably make some heroes for half the population".

And i know what they mean, I am just making fun of the made up term being used, they are terms used only by a very specific set of people, they are not common parlance.

Clarification: Cis is not common parlance, Trans is.

Made up term? All terms are made up. Take the word "dog"- its ancestor first appears out of nowhere in Anglo-Saxon English, and then somehow gradually replaces the venerable (and well-attested) hound as the primary term for mans' best friend in English. Cis and trans are not new this millennium, or even the preceding two. Of course, the use as an abbreviation for cisgender is modern, but words change meaning and new words are crafted by sticking together bits of old words all the time. In this context, cisgender makes an extremely logical counterpoint to transgender, and is readily understandable to a lot of people who will never have had the word explained to them (because cis- and trans- are used in that way in multiple other applications, notably chemistry. Anyone who has done at least A-level chemistry will understand the terms without explanation). It is commonplace amongst my age group, it will become the norm over the next few years. Language changes. You may have noticed I used the phrase "mans' best friend" above- this is using the word man in its original, Old English meaning as a cognate to human or person. The word mankind still uses man in this way. Man has evolved to mean a male human over time, originally men were called wer.

It is very short-sighted to decry a term as "made up" when language is far from immutable. It does not strengthen your point, and in fact weakens it that you feel a perfectly valid, useful term needs to be attached to a bunch of unrelated parameters that are not mutually exclusive with being cis/trans. It really only suggests that you feel those parameters are being attacked in someway, and that the phrase cis is a method by which this is done- hence why I stated you do not seem to know what it means. If you do know what it means, then that is just willful misrepresentation for some agenda of yours.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Casualty wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Casualty wrote:
Any clarification on what was racist or sexist about her comments yet

Yep loads, its all about context, had she made that statement in isolation then yes, there would be a good argument that she was being taken out of context, however just go and take a look at the long string of such comments from her and then you will understand the anti white, anti male rhetoric she spews on a fairly regular basis, but its ok, because she is on the "right side".

Not really, actually. People keep questioning that, but all the responses are oddly vague and fuzzy.

Please indulge me, as if it's not self evident. Tell me, as specifically as possible, what she said that has you this many pages worth of worked up, and why that is.

My thoughts too.

 Frazzled wrote:
OK, I watched the trailer with Mr. Snakes on a Plane. Am I the only one who sees and is unnerved by the CGI work on his face while he talks?

Yeah, it's not good. Worse than Henry Cavil's mustache coverup in Justice League.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There are many people that have told me that we need to separate the actor from the movie. That it's not fair to judge the movie even if the actor is a douche.

While I tend to agree, many of these people are the same ones that wanted to boycott Mel Gibson movies over his controversies.

 cuda1179 wrote:

Yeah, it's not good. Worse than Henry Cavil's mustache coverup in Justice League.

Why the movie leads with that front and center absolutely baffled and terrified me.

 cuda1179 wrote:
There are many people that have told me that we need to separate the actor from the movie. That it's not fair to judge the movie even if the actor is a douche.

Yeah, I've heard that, but I don't know that I agree with it. If you (for example) go see a Roman Polanski movie, you're putting money in his pockets. There isn't any other way to slice it.

I find it really hard to handwave away odious acts away from the responsible artists and I'm not sure it's even a good idea to try.

 Ouze wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
There are many people that have told me that we need to separate the actor from the movie. That it's not fair to judge the movie even if the actor is a douche.

Yeah, I've heard that, but I don't know that I agree with it. If you (for example) go see a Roman Polanski movie, you're putting money in his pockets. There isn't any other way to slice it.

I find it really hard to handwave away odious acts away from the responsible artists and I'm not sure it's even a good idea to try.

So only watch such films on dodgy internet sites of dubious legality? No money will reach Mr Polanski from those sites. Well, unless he also runs a spam advert company, which wouldn't surprise me.

Casualty wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Casualty wrote:
Any clarification on what was racist or sexist about her comments yet

Yep loads, its all about context, had she made that statement in isolation then yes, there would be a good argument that she was being taken out of context, however just go and take a look at the long string of such comments from her and then you will understand the anti white, anti male rhetoric she spews on a fairly regular basis, but its ok, because she is on the "right side".

Not really, actually. People keep questioning that, but all the responses are oddly vague and fuzzy.

Please indulge me, as if it's not self evident. Tell me, as specifically as possible, what she said that has you this many pages worth of worked up, and why that is.

Well that really depends on you too, you may not see an issue with targeting a specific race and gender and claiming it needs to be fixed as racist/sexist, its down to your own personal bias that we all have.

But trying to be objective (as much as one can be) would you consider this racist?

Excluding black woman from a press tour based ONLY upon their racial or sexual characteristics, not upon their own merits, do you find it acceptable to target any race based upon just their skintone, would it be ok to say that there are too many hispanic critics in a hispanic country? would you find it ok if any other person came out and said "captain america is only for white people, white soldiers, i only want hear what they think, it was made for them, not black woman, not asian woman"

Do you find any of that acceptable, as for context, Brie larson is an open far left activist, she has made sexist comments in the past, she has openly stated that this movie is her form of activism.

We are not misrepresenting her, she is open about what she is doing and what she has said, and like I keep saying, i do not find fighting sexism with sexism acceptable or racism with racism acceptable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Most words are an organic continuation of language. You just might not be part of the communications they evolved from.

 LunarSol wrote:
Most words are an organic continuation of language. You just might not be part of the communications they evolved from.

A completely fair point, but like i said, i will not be compelled to use a term, a term that is actually used as a derogatory term by a specific set of ideologues I disagree with, maybe in 10-15 years time it will be the norm, i dont know, but right now its not and people are actively trying to force its use and using the law in an immoral way to support their ideology, but this is a bad tangent to go down, anyone can feel free to PM me to carry on this tangent.

Folks, we have driven the convo way off topic here. Please continue that tangent in PMs. Bring the in-thread posts back to this movie please. Thanks!

[deleted, wrote the post before Manchu made his yellowtext]

Anyways. I’ll be off to see it on Saturday 9th, on account I’ve got a colleague’s birthday dinner on the 8th, and will then need to get the train back from Nodnol, leaving no time to go see it on release day.

Really wondering if we’ll get a credits sting this time around.

We didn’t with Homecoming, and that immediately preceded Infinty War. So we may get the same treatment here.

Or it’ll be a ‘20 years later’ (or whatever) type thing, of her receiving Nick’s page.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Anyways. I’ll be off to see it on Saturday 9th, on account I’ve got a colleague’s birthday dinner on the 8th, and will then need to get the train back from Nodnol, leaving no time to go see it on release day.

Really wondering if we’ll get a credits sting this time around.

We didn’t with Homecoming, and that immediately preceded Infinty War. So we may get the same treatment here.

Or it’ll be a ‘20 years later’ (or whatever) type thing, of her receiving Nick’s page.

I look forward to hearing what you have to say on the film Doc I hope you enjoy the film.

(this is NOT Sarcasm)