Oh lovely. I don’t want wokeisms in the movies I watch. I hear it too much in real life.
shareI’ll still buy the movie on 4k, it was really good but I will be hitting the mute button every time that scene comes up. Just like how I hit the mute button every time Padme say’s “it’s because I’m so in love” or any time Rey opens her mouth.
shareThese racists are on a mission. They're going to inject their dangerous gibberish into everything they possibly can.
shareIt exists everywhere now. It's the law. Do keep up old chap.
shareThat line took me out because I could see conservatives fuming over it.
shareWell, it's a term of anti-white racism, so why shouldn't "conservatives" or any real Americans "fume" over it being injected into our entertainment?
shareSo then by this logic the gay joke in Spider-man 2002 needs to be removed right? I mean by your logic that film is homophobic because of that joke correct?
shareCool whataboutism. I'm not surprised to see you supporting anti-white racism.
shareSo no retort? I am not surprised you support being homophobic.
shareSaid the man that did not address the point about anti-white racism. You are an asshole.
shareI do not believe it is anti-white racism. In fact this Batman movie is my favorite Batman movie of all time now and it is mainly because of that line. The fact that people like you hate it makes me like it even more. I hope the sequel has more lines like this.
shareReally? That line is why it is your favorite? LOL!!!!
That is pathetic of you.
Yep I actually used to think meh of it. However seeing how enraged people like you get elevates it to my favorite line.
shareLOL. You read what I wrote and imagine me "enraged"? LOL.
Do you realize how sad it is of you, to base your happiness on imagining me having a bad...movie experience?
It reveals you to be a pathetically small and petty and... hateful little man.
It was one cringe line. It undermined the movie's attempt to make the character sympathetic.
It is your opinion the line was cringe nothing more. I disagree and think it is the best line of the film. Obviously you are enraged otherwise you would not be posting about it.
shareYou do not have to be "enraged" to post about a subject.
That you would tell such a bald faced lie, shows that you are a troll and a liar.
No I know you and how you think. How does it feel knowing you won't get your way? I'm glad you don't make films. Sit back and take it like a man would. It's time to grow up.
shareYou are one of the worst people I have ever seen, for being able to get into someone else's head.
And you are an ass about it too.
The point stands. It was a racist line, that undermined the character.
It made her look like a racist. It made her look like a whiner. It made her look weak.
These are all things that you do NOT want with a Catwoman character.
Then by this logic Spider-man 2002 is a homophobic film. Thanks for confirming that.
shareWhy wasn't the mayor black?
shareWhat are you talking about?
shareThe mayor, the first victim in the movie. Why wasn't he black?
They changed the race of at least two cannon characters. And had a mayoral candidate that was a young black woman.
Why was the Mayor not an old, corrupt, black man who, according to catwoman, "deserved" to be killed?
Why should I answer your question when you don't answer mine? Is Spiderman a homophobic film since it had a gay joke in it? According to your logic it is. Also explain why in dark knight most of jokers victims were black. Once you do that I will gladly answer.
shareGot it. YOu are afraid of my question and me.
shareNope I just do not answer questions to those who refuse to answer mine. Your tactic is noted and dismissed.
shareI mean, after all the people making the movie clearly cared about representation. THey race flipped Gordon and catwoman.
The mayor, was a small role, but was an important scene. Why not give that to a middle aged or older black actor?
Have the power structure reflect the diversity of the city.
YEt, instead it was all white. Why was that? Seems odd in this day and age.
Yeah I wonder this same thing about the Dark Knight. Why did Joker kill mainly black people? Also the mayor of the Dark Knight was black and also got killed. Why couldn't they show an equal amount of kills between each race? Especially in todays day and age where things are equal. Seems suspicious to me. Is the Dark Knight racist against blacks? I can't help but ask this question considering how it portrayed blacks getting killed.
shareI doubt that you do wonder that. YOu are clearly a shit talker.
The mayor, was a small role, but was an important scene. Why not give that to a middle aged or older black actor?
Have the power structure reflect the diversity of the city.
YEt, instead it was all white. Why was that? Seems odd in this day and age.
I honestly did wonder that being a person of color. Another assumption of yours which I will gladly dismiss.
Why were most of Joker's victims black? Why didn't they make it equal in race to white victims seen killed by Joker? I mean things are supposed to be equal right?
Wow. Again you misunderstand me. I doubt you really wondered about THe Dark Knight.
I think you are just a shit talker.
The mayor, was a small role, but was an important scene. Why not give that to a middle aged or older black actor?
Have the power structure reflect the diversity of the city.
YEt, instead it was all white. Why was that? Seems odd in this day and age.
I did wonder about the Dark Knight. You are now being spiteful because you disagree with me. It is okay though.
I think you are a cloaked bigot. So we can agree to agree.
Why were most of Joker's victim black? Seems odd this day and age.
Not being spiteful. You are clearly a shit talker. I think it is very likely that most of the shit you say, is just shit you made up.
Meanwhile, my question stands. Why was the mayor white? I mean, the creative team clearly cared about representation, so why not make the most powerful person in the city, a POC?
No I just give what I get as I clearly explained.
Meanwhile my question remains. Is Spider-man 2002 a homophobic film? Is the Dark Knight a racist film? Answer those. Then we can move on.
No one believes that, not even you.
Your assumption is dismissed. Tell me do you do this with every film? I have a suspicion you only care about whites race and no one else.
shareDo what? Criticize bad lines that weaken characters and plots?
Generally.
YOu can take your assumptions and shove them up your ass.
It's your opinion that it weakens plots. Nothing more.
Now now play nice.
Well, D'uh.
I mean, I can explain why, and I'm willing to discuss with others, if they are willing, valid alternate pov.
NOt like you of course. YOu are just a shit talker.
Oh I can explain my view but why do it to a closed minded person?
shareNo, you can't. You talk shit. I know, I've talked to you. You talk a lot of shit.
shareNo, you can't. You talk shit. I know, I've talked to you. You talk a lot of shit.
shareNo, you can't. You talk shit. I know, I've talked to you. You talk a lot of shit.
shareHeads up moviefanatic505 is only saying what he’s saying because it’s the opposite of what I would say. He’s on a mission to go to every board I post on and say the opposite. I doubt he believes his own bullshit. Just put him on ignore
shareI might. He seems to be just a troll.
shareNo I just can dismantle bigots and they dislike that. How about this I will answer your question and you answer mine. Sound like a deal?
shareSounds like shit talk. YOu want to have a serious discussion, calling people names like "bigot" is not how you go about it.
shareSays the guy who called me asshole. Okay do not call me asshole and I will not call you bigot. Sound cool?
shareI'm sure I had good cause to call you an asshole and that you did not, to call me a bigot.
So, no. It is not cool.
I had a good cause to call you a bigot. Two can play your game. I give what I get.
shareNo you don't. You make up shit and call people names based on that. That makes you an ass.
shareNope I give what I get. What I honestly do not like is you are allowed to call something anti white and racist against whites but nobody else can say anything the other way without you jumping down their throat. If I say something is racist you openly go see wacist wacist wacist. You do this in a mocking condescending manner. Yet you all the time comment on racism against whites. It is not a two way street. Only you are allowed to say something about racism. It honestly is messed up all insults aside. It is your way of thinking which leads to people not just being able to relax take a joke and enjoy films. Oh look a race joke against whites it is anti white. I applied this to Spider-man 2002. It has a gay joke. Is the film now homophobic because of a joke? You made the claim Black Panther was racist because it had a race joke in it. This is destroying our society. I say this honestly to me it is quite sad.
shareHe is a troll, he has a very unnatural obsession with me and he is literally only on this thread because I am. This loser has sent me hundreds of pages of PMs, it’s disturbing
shareYour assumption is dismissed. You proved you had a closed mind when you wouldn't provide any proof for a claim you made. It showed you wanted to accept your assumptions and generalizations as facts. Unfortunately for you I don't buy into that nonsense. Learn that the one making the claim has the burden of proof.
shareIf I bother you so much, why you follow me around? Does the idea of someone like me having a voice drive you mad with concern, that other people might find my ideas convincing?
shareI like to beat down idiots with their own logic. It's why I find it hysterical you have nothing to refute Spiderman 2002 being a homophobic film. We are getting a sequel to the Batman clearly the vast majority don't find your ideas convincing lol. You are in the minority and it will stay that way. Just rest easy you won't ever be involved in the film industry. I am glad you aren't either your taste in films is absolute trash. I called the batman being a success before it got released. I predicted it would be a critical and box office hit. I'm glad your entertainment gets destroyed. The less happiness for you the better.
shareWhy?
shareI'm tired of people like you. You aren't reasonable even though you pretend to be. It's a facade. You only want to exist in an echo chamber. Notice I call out corruption or any wrongdoing where I see it. I don't play the us vs them game. I defended Rittenhouse, I don't defend Biden or a corrupt Democrat. I couldn't stand Ghostbusters 2016. Oh a film had a race joke therefore mob mentality! By that logic Spiderman 2002 is a homophobic film because it had a gay joke. It's that mentality which leads to this stupid censorship crap. To a hammer everything books like a nail. You called Candace Owens brilliant. The reason you did that was because she is right wing. That's literally your whole reason for thinking she's brilliant.
shareSo, since we disagree on shit, you wish me ill?
That's kind of shitty of you. You can see that, right?
I don't care that you disagree. Where you rubbed me the wrong way was how you wanted me to accept your assumptions and generalizations as gospel truth. That screams arrogance and entitlement. Also your hypocrisy. You are allowed to say something is racist but no one else is.
You see how that's crappy right? Why are you the only one allowed to say something is racist? If I say anything you go wacist wacist in a condescending manner. Don't act like you are a nice guy. I don't buy it.
When I have presented a premise or a generalization that I want you to just accept, it has been one that is... generally seen as clearly true, such as Hollywood being left leaning.
As to discussions on whether or not something it racist, I'm certainly willing to discuss it. But you don't get to stonewall and insist something is wacist, when comparing it to the definition shows that it is not.
That being said, both of those positions are me being completely reasonable. SO you seething with hate, is a you problem, not a me problem.
THere is something wrong with YOU.
I never denied Hollywood being left. That wasn't the assumption or generalization I was talking about. Nice try. I was talking about the generalization and assumption that Kravitz was cast for a political reason. I don't accept that generalization and assumption. I asked you to prove that claim and you couldn't do it.
I didn't stonewall you did. You are the one who threw out a dictionary definition. You don't get to throw out a definition because you don't like it. You have no authority over the dictionary. Also no you aren't willing to discuss it. The only time you care about racism is if it's towards white people. Otherwise you couldn't care less.
Your position is not reasonable. If it was you would have provided proof about your Kravitz claim.
Nope I'm perfectly fine. Never been arrested, work a job, do not collect food stamps or welfare, no substance abuse issues, no illegitimate kids either. I'd say I'm doing ok. You are the one with the issue not me.
1. You made a general and universal sounding statement of always giving people the benefit of a doubt. That made any discussion of a pattern of behavior pointless. SO I dropped it. That you don't understand that, is again, something wrong with you.
2. Nope. Even using YOUR crappy dictionary definition, your claims of wacism were not supported. And you were too crazy or dishonest to admit it.
3. YEah, see above, weirdo.
4. Mmm, no. There is definitely something wrong with you, that you are so hateful at people simply for disagreeing with you.
No I just didn't accept your claim, generalizations or assumptions. I took a neutral stance, you did not.
Nope you wanted to throw out the dictionary definition. You don't get to do that. You have to concede that is in the dictionary whether you like the definition or not is irrelevant.
Got it you can't prove your claim. Your concession is noted.
Nope I'm looking at a bigot. Like I said you won't ever films and I'm glad. Your taste in cinema is trash. If it ain't white it ain't right.
1. You did not take a neutral stance. You are now lying.
2. Nope. i explained why it was crap and then pointed out that even so, what you claimed was wacism, was not. YOu are now lying.
3. Telling you to look to a point above, is not conceding. That is you lying again. YOu are quite the shit talker, are you not.
4. Saying "wacism" is just you talking more shit. You are so closed minded and vicious, that you wish ill people, just for disagreeing with you. YOu are fucked in the head.
I did. I asked you to prove your claim, you backed away. You just want everyone to take your stance. Once you realized I don't take a generalization, or assumptions as gospel truth you got salty.
It's your opinion it's crap. It's a fact that it's in the dictionary. Your opinion on the definition does not change the fact that it's in the dictionary. You lost the point right there. Your opinion is not a fact. My claim that it was in the dictionary is not an opinion it's a fact.
It is a concession. You couldn't prove your claim. Therefore that's a concession.
You claimed racism first. Do not race bait prick!
1. So, you dropping your claim to a "neutral stance"? If I was an asshole I would pretend that you conceded and then crow about it. Lucky for both of us, I'm not an asshole like that.
2. Opinion? Conclusion? FACT is, you ignored the prime point, that EVEN USING YOUR DEFINITION, your claim of wacism was clearly false.
3. No, it is not conceding. That is you being a bald faced liar. We will keep that in mind in all future discussion.
4.Aye, I claimed racism and explained why in a reasoned and logical manner. You cry it like a retarded child and act like it means something.
My stance was neutral from the beginning. I asked you to prove your claim and you didn't. There was nothing further to say after you failed to prove your claim. You are pretending I took a stance because I didn't take your stance. Your deceit is noted and dismissed.
Opinion about the definition. You not liking the dictionary definition is irrelevant. You have no authority on the dictionary. You tried to omit a dictionary definition because you didn't like it. Not how the world works champ. The fact that you thought you had authority over the dictionary is cute though.
You failed to provide proof. You had the burden of proof and you failed.
Lol no you didn't. I asked for proof of your claim and you provided nothing. Here is another chance. Prove Kravitz was casted for a political reason. I will wait.
1. Bullshit. You are lying.
2. I explained my opinion on that. AND the fact remains. Even using your flawed definition, your accusation of wacism, was proven false.
3. Said the proven liar.
4. Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about the thread topic ie the racist concept of "white privilege". Yes, with Kravitz the discussion bogged down with you stonewalling and gaslighting. We never got to really looking at the creators behind the scenes. That is on you.
Nope you are the one lying.
Your opinion doesn't change the fact that it's in the dictionary. Therefore it's irrelevant.
Said the guy with no proof.
So you going to prove your claim about Kravitz or not?
1. You are the Liar here, not me.
2. My argument does. And even so, you are refusing to address the point that even using it, your accusation of wacism was still false.
3. For reasons already explained. That you are pretending otherwise, is another from of a lie.
4. To you? You would not admit it, even if I did, so no point in even trying to look it up.
Nope. I did not accept your assumptions and generalizations. I then asked you to prove your claim and you didn't. I took a neutral stance you think anyone who doesn't take your stance is picking a side opposite to it automatically. It just means I'm not going to take your claim as gospel truth. The burden of proof was on you. You failed.
No it doesn't. You can make any argument you want it doesn't change what's in the dictionary. It's a fact that's in the dictionary. There is no arguing your way out of that. That's the beautiful thing about facts you can't refute them. See that's called providing proof. I can cite the definition in the dictionary. You can't refute that it's in the dictionary. You failed again.
Again no proof and I'm the liar. That's rich.
Nope another assumption by you. See that's how you weasel your way out. Provide proof. Prove to me Matt Reeves casted her due to a political reason. I will wait.
1. Nope. you were not neutral, you were hostile.
2. The dictionary definition you found was clearly shit. And, even so, it still did not support your accusation of wasicm. So, why you even on about it? YOu lost.
3. For reasons already explained. That you are pretending otherwise, is another from of a lie.
4. It was an example is a pattern of behavior. You zeroed in on it, and insisted on discussing it out of context and were such a stonewalling weirdo, that the whole discussion never really got into looking at the people behind the scenes. This was all your fault. You are a weirdo. And a liar.
Because you wouldn't provide proof and wanted me to accept your claim without proof. You acted condescending when I couldn't accept your claim.
Doesn't matter. You like the definition does not change that it's in the dictionary. You thought you not liking the definition changed it. You lost here.
Nope I am waiting for proof.
No no. You made the claim. I want proof not generalizations and assumptions. Prove that Matt Reeves casted her due to political reasons. I am waiting.
1. No, i wasn't. You just went weird and hostile. Your claim of neutrality was a lie.
2. It does matter. And you lost because even your shit definition did not support your accusation of wacism.
3. For reasons already explained. That you are pretending otherwise, is another from of a lie.
4. It was an example is a pattern of behavior. You zeroed in on it, and insisted on discussing it out of context and were such a stonewalling weirdo, that the whole discussion never really got into looking at the people behind the scenes. This was all your fault. You are a weirdo. And a liar.
Yes you were. Do not lie. You lumped me into being liberal right from the jump.
No it doesn't matter. Your opinion doesn't change the fact that the definition I cited is in the dictionary. That's a fact.
Nope.
Lol. This game huh. Okay I am willing to play.
The way that in number two, you are ignoring the bit where I point out that even with your shit definition, your accusation was not supported?
That is you being an asshole.
Okay so answer this. Does you not liking that definition omit it from the dictionary? Yes or no?
shareWhy? I never said it was. Neither did you. What point is there is addressing a point that neither one of us believes?
Because you attempted to omit it simply because you didn't like the definition. Not how things work.
shareI DISAGREE WITH IT AND EXPLAINED WHY. AND REGARLESS, YOUR ACCUSATION WAS STILL NOT SUPPORTED EVEN BY YOUR SHIT DEFINITION.
DUMBASS.
You can disagree with it all day. It doesn't change the fact that it's in the dictionary. Fact vs opinion. You lost.
share1. Official sources can be full of shit.
2. And even so, even using your shit definition, your accusation of wacims was still wrong.
3. You are an asshole.
Your opinion nothing more. The fact remains it's in the dictionary. Aren't facts beautiful?
shareThe dictionary definition you found was shit.
THe point is, that even using that shit definition, your accusation of wacism, was still NOT supported.
That you refuse to address that, is you being an asshole.
Your opinion. It does not change the fact that it is in the dictionary. I can therefore say that it is a fact that racism means that. Opinions do not change facts. Once you acknowledge this I will address the rest.
shareI never claimed it did.
And further more, I was happy to use it, to point out that even with your shit definition, your accusation of wacism was still not supported.
You are obsessing over something I never claimed, ie that my disagreeing with with the definition somehow meant is was not there any more, or some such retarded shit.
This is just you being a troll.
So now acknowledge that I can refer to that definition and it is a fact that I can call it racism. According to the definition. Once you say yes it is a fact that it is in the dictionary boom we can move onto me proving it or not.
shareYour shit definition required a someone to be harmed by my action.
No group was harmed by me opposing politically motivated race flips.
Thus, even by your shit definition, it was not wacism,
which makes you, for making the accusation, a fucking asshole.
It is not my definition it is the dictionary's definition. Do not misrepresent the facts.
I can openly stand corrected that I did not prove it by the dictionary's stance.
DUde. Don't be a loser. I was clearly not claiming you had any form of personal ownership, merely that it was the one you found and presented.
Query: What kind of person makes such a vile accusation without just cause?
Query: DO you retract your vile slur?
Why did you make a accusation against Matt Reeves about casting Kravitz?
shareFor years our society has been pushing for and celebrating "diversity", which in context means discrimination against whites in hiring and promotion.
Hollywood has certainly been part of this din of propaganda.
And similar race and gender swapping has been seen in many I.P.s.
Often with creative types happy if certain people, ie people like me, got angry with it.
THus, seeing another race flip, especially in teh context of all the other woke elements, seemed likely that it was made as a political message AGAINST me and mine.
I've explained this before.
No it does not. It means they want more representation for races other than whites. See when you have dominion over a race equality to you feels like oppression. That is why you see it that way. Black Panther you called a racist film because of a race joke. So by that logic that makes Spider-man 2002 a homophobic film because of a gay joke. See why that is dumb?
Or it could also be trying to represent other races outside of white people. Who gets more representation in Hollywood whites or blacks? Compare the amount of whites in Hollywood to any other race.
Hollywood does not revolve around you buddy. That is you being self absorbed and arrogant. It all boils down to the almighty dollar. If you can represent more people you can get a larger audience.
So then Catwoman should remain white forever. Even though she has depicted as other races before. Now she needs to remain white from here on out is what you are saying? See I like this you are allowed to make accusations and generalizations to others but do not like it being done to you.
The way you have gloated about me losing or having my entertainment ruined, ect?
I've seen creative people and/or their partisans making the same types of gloats, with other I.P.s over time.
So, a pattern.
So, it is not me being self absorbed. The enmity is real.
Oh I gloated because if it were up to you the only representation would be whites. So yes I will gladly gloat that you are not getting your way.
That is anecdotal. Again I am not going to take your word for it.
No pattern only your words and your personal experiences.
It is being self absorbed. How does it feel knowing you will not get your way?
I see you’ve encountered his like only debate tactic “well the dictionary says this so there”, even though half the time the dictionary doesn’t actually say what he asserts it says. Moviefanatic505 is the very definition of a loser.
shareYou paint at as if Matt Reeves specifically knows who you are and made the decision to cast Kravitz to get at you. That's incredibly self centered and arrogant. I see no proof to believe you on this. Provide proof Matt Reeves casted Kravitz based on a political reason. No assumptions or generalizations. I want proof. You still have not provided it. It is not a fact that Matt Reeves casted her due to a political reason it's your opinion. You said it was if it were a fact but then refused to prove it. The burden of proof is on you.
shareNo I don't. What you just said there, was fucking retarded. You are being an incredible asshole.
shareYes you do. Matt Reeves is white himself is he going against his own race? Sounds a bit silly to me. I also highly doubt he was thinking about you when making the film. Get over yourself. It literally is the dumbest thing ever. You think film makers are more concerned with pissing you off or making money? I promise you money is the end goal.
shareIt would be the dumbest thing ever. If I actually said it. Which is probably why you are claiming I said it.
Since it is not. And I clearly stated something else, YOU saying it, becomes the dumbest thing ever said.
You said people like me. So is Matt Reeves going against his own race?
shareOh, so you do remember what I actually said.
So, that bit where you pretended I was talking about me personally as a single individual?
So, what was that? Just you being a fucking asshole?
Which indicates Matt Reeves thought of you when making the decision to cast Kravitz. You aren't that important trust me. You never answered my question is Matt Reeves going against his own race?
shareAre you serious? You just read a post and took the exact opposite meaning from what was written.
you are either a gaslighting fucking asshole, or someone with brain damage.
Your quote.
Often with creative types happy if certain people, ie people like me, got angry with it.
Yep. And you thinking that that means me personally, is you either being a gaslighting fool, or someone with a serious personality disorder.
Listen dude. I willing to converse with you. But you are either refusing or incapable of engaging in actual communication.
You also dodged my question. Is Matt Reeves going against his own race? Also see you painted it as if you were on his mind when making the film. Even if you meant people like you in general it's still arrogant. I think the end goal is money not to piss off white conversatives.
shareI am unable to believe you are this stupid. Of course he is going against his own race. White libs do that all the time. For you to act like it is, impossible is fucking retarded.
Okay finally answered. So then I believe Candace Owens is going against her own race. Anyway aside from that it's dumb to assume that money isn't the end goal but pissing off white conservatives takes priority over that. Are you honestly that ignorant?
shareAre you honestly that stupid that you think that people can't have multiple and conflicting goals?
I mean, you would have to be so fucking stupid that I would think that you would not have the brain power to BREATH on your own.
Ok wise one what was Matt Reeves goal then? So he was in a board meeting and was like okay so I want to make money but I also want to piss off white conservatives. The studio execs said yes Matt aside from making money we also want to target white conservatives. This is the most nonsensical logic I have ever come across.
shareHe probably didn't phrase it that way. Probably spun it as something along the lines of claiming that "the new majority of diversity" would like seeing "representation" and that anyone that had a problem with it, were "wacist" or some such shit.
Two points about that.
1. It's not true.
2. That you pretend it is impossible is just you talking shit.
And this is an assumption by you. You have no way of proving it. It is not logical and is you being a delusional idiot. I don't believe it.
It is true.
Nope it's me not taking your assumptions and paranoid behavior as gospel truth.
ONly an extreme racist needs to see themselves "represented" in a story, in order to enjoy the story. I've had no problem identifying with non-white male characters in various I.P.s and I've had plenty of discussions with plenty of non-white male people that identified with and enjoyed white male characters also. YOu are living in a wacist fantasy.
Assumption? Nope. What we are talking about now, is you pretending that such a scenario is impossible. That is fucking retarded.
It is completely possible, and considering some of the shit that Hollywood has been putting out, more likely than not.
Lol considering Batman is my favorite hero and he's white. Where did I say I needed to see myself represented in a story? I said it can nice for people to see that it's not required for enjoyment. I myself can enjoy any character so long as they are well written. Example of a good female heroin Ellen Ripley from Aliens. Example of a poor one Captain Marvel. I like Blade as an action hero I find the falcon to be bland and boring.
It is an assumption. You get mad that people don't adopt your generalization. You are also denying that it's possible to not be political. How are you being any different? I didn't deny it bring possible but I don't see it because it's not logical.
That swings both ways then bud. Since it's possible that also means it could not be also.
So, to be clear, before we move on, so that you don't play games and walk it back...
You are dropping that shit where you were pretending it was impossible for matt reeves to do what I described?
Now we are moving on to whether or not he actually did it?
Anything is possible. I'm not going to take your assumptions and generalizations as gospel truth though. The burden of proof is on you. Until you prove it I am free to think otherwise. I never said it was impossible, I just played it out logically and it is highly unlikely considering how illogical it is. I never pretended it was impossible, I said it was not logical and highly unlikely. Nice assumption on your part though. You have a habit of doing that lol.
You were never able to prove he did it, but you played like you did. I am still waiting for you to prove it.
Dude. YOur position, seriously, you are holding to, is that it is highly unlikely for people to have multiple, and/or conflicting goals.
That is just you talking shit. Your position is absurd.
Clearly a man can have a multiple motives and goals, specifically in this case, wanting to make money but also wanting to put in a political message.
It is impossible to have a serious discussion about serious issues, with someone who is playing at talking shit like a child.
In this scenario it's illogical to do what you are claiming. People can have multiple goals but what you are suggesting is not logical. Inserting politics is one thing racism that you are claiming is another. So should all politics be left out of stories period? Answer that question.
Sure. NO.
It is worth noting that once again, your response is dishonest. Being against a hostile political message with the intent of attacking me and mine,
is miles away from being against all political messages or themes.
Of course by exaggerating my position into a strawman, that makes it easier for you to attack it.
You know, your actions seems to indicate that you are absolutely terrified of addressing my position honestly or seriously.
Why is that?
I don't believe the political message is hostile and attacking anyone. I think that is your paranoid delusion kicking in. I am not taking your assumptions and generizations as gospel truth. I will say that for the hundredth time. This upsets you.
I'm not afraid to address your position I just disagree with it. You can't handle this. I then even ask okay if you feel that strongly why did you go and support it by buying a ticket? If I felt that strongly I wouldn't be supporting it.
If you willingly give money to racists who is the fool? You want to give money to them then proceed to complain. You lost your right to complain when you bought a ticket. Make a stand do not support racist people. You won't do this. I have no respect for people who won't stand by their own morals values and logic. You lost credibility not that you had much to begin with.
You say you don't believe it, but you have been caught talking shit lies time and time again.
I think that you DO believe it, but you lie about it for three reasons,
1. You agree with the political message and like to see it in your entertainment.
2. You hope that such constant repetition can support the leftard agenda though the Logical Fallacy of Proof By Assertion used as propaganda.
3. You are also hostile to the same people that the Hollywood left is, and also get off on seeing them insulted, because you are an asshole.
Nope I don't. I get annoyed when people like you want people to take their assumptions and generalizations as fact. I asked you to prove it. You wouldn't do it. Then proceeded to be condescending. That's why I talked trash.
I don't have to agree or disagree when you haven't proven your claim. Anyone who doesn't take your opinion as fact you label a leftist nut job. Tell me wise one what's the political message? Go ahead prove it. I'm still waiting for those facts from you.
Nope wrong. I disliked Ghostbusters 2016, didn't care for power of the dog and hated Captain Marvel. All films left wing nut jobs adore. Your insecurities are showing here. I'm not even the biggest fan of black panther either. Doesn't even crack my favorite films list. It's ok it's your right to be wrong.
Nope I'm hostile towards hypocrites and people who can't prove their claim.
No, you pretended it was absurd to think that people could have conflicting motives, like wanting to make money but also wanting to put nice "progressive" political messages in their movies so they could feel cool and tell themselves they are stunning and brave and such shit.
That was you talking shit. You are a shit talker. I don't trust anything you say.
Lol nice backpedaling you just did. Originally you claimed I said it was impossible for Matt Reeves to have conflicting motives now you say absurd. Wrong on both counts.
I said it was silly based on the premise you have tried to present. It's not logical and highly unlikely. If you would actually prove your case it would give you more credibility to speak. You want respect that isn't earned. Why should I give your view credibility when I asked you to provide factual proof and you wouldn't do it? Answer that.
I was just watching some hollywood types being interviewed on tv about a upcoming tv show. They were all patting themselves on the back with how stunning and brave they were being with "representation" and "diversity" and such shit.
EVERYONE on this forum, has seen similar talk from Hollywood.
For you to act like it is "silly" of me to see a political motive in Hollywood and in the a movie,
is you trying to gaslight me.
And you overplayed it. YOur position is laughable. This is me laughing at it.
LOL.
Again the whole guilty by association deal does not convince me nor prove your point. I am going to flip your logic around you act as if just because Hollywood leans left that it is impossible for them to make a film without left leaning ideologies. You want to assume every film has an agenda because you know Hollywood. Sorry but that does not suffice as proof of your point. Is every cop evil because there are bad ones? Nope it is a case by case basis. There are good and bad cops.
You just committed a fallacy which you got all pissy with me about. We are not talking about other people we are talking about you proving your claim. Even if the majority agrees with you it does not prove your point. All you have given is an opinion not an objective fact. I want facts that Matt Reeves did this since you claimed that.
Nope we are not talking about Hollywood in general nice attempt to divert. We are talking this particular film. Not every film is inserting politics.
I think it is funny you laugh, I am not the idiot who paid money to racist people willingly. To me the fool who supports that should be laughed at. When I do not like the people behind something I make it a point to not give them money. You know because I use this bizarre thing called logic...
When your response was to ridicule the very idea that a man could have more than one motive, as though you were unaware of the very concept of having multiple and/or conflicting motives,
that was you revealing that you are not a good faith person.
There is no reason to take anything you said above, seriously.
My position is that it was very lame of them to put the "white privilege" line into The Batman.
IMO, they made a woke film, adn they did it, as a political message made with malicious intent towards people like me.
I think you know that it true, but that you lie, because you support the political message and like the hollywood types, you tell yourself that only "bad people" could disagree with you,
thus, in your mind, you are justified in being a lying ass.
No my response was to ridicule the reasons you had for it in this scenario since it is not logical.
Nope it was me looking at how flawed your logic is.
You know I am right so now you are looking for a way to dismiss it. Both of us know this. It is sad when people resort to things like this.
Key word your position. In my book I loved the line.
In your opinion. So I can simply respond and say in my opinion they did not do that. See how it sucks when you can't prove your claim? All I have to do is say well in my book it is different. I gave you several chances to offer up facts to prove Matt Reeves did this and you did not do it.
Nope I just am not going to accept your generalizations and assumptions as gospel truth. You provided no proof of your claim. Only generalizations and assumptions.
I am justified to call you a fool since you gave racist people money lol.
Yes, you ridiculed me as though it was impossible for a man to have two conflicting motives in his actions.
Make money and put in a political message.
This was insanely dishonest of you, for two good reasons off the top of my head.
1 All sane people know personally that it is possible to have conflicting motives.
2. Hollywood for years, has been openly bragging about including political messages in their product. For you to act like my conclusion was absurd, was nothing but the worst, asshole, gaslighting.
I ridiculed you because in this scenario your logic makes no sense. I never said it was impossible but highly unlikely.
However I thought the term was go woke go broke? So run the risk of your movie tanking? What matters more money or the political message?
No I just broke down your logic I was not dishonest at all. What was not genuine of you is you wanting people to blindly accept your claim.
Possible but not likely in this scenario.
We are not talking about Hollywood we are talking about this film. You don't get to generalize and assume and think that proves your claim. I asked you to prove Matt Reeves did this and you could not do it. Own up to this.
It is highly unlike that hollywood would make movies with political messages?
Dude. They have bene loudly crowing about doing that, for generations, and more and more recently.
The things you are saying, are just not true. You are spouting nonsense.
Yes, it runs the risk of the movie tanking. That has happened.
In this scenario it is not logical. I did not say Hollywood I am talking about this specific scenario. Batman had seen some pretty bad days now hadn't he? The utter disaster of Batman V Superman Dawn of Justice and Justice League. Both of which did not meet expectations at all financially. Rather risky to put him in a place where he could flop again don't you think?
Again prove it in this scenario. You do not get to lump it all together. I am not going to go well Hollywood is left so that is concrete proof this film is spreading that political message. Prove your claim.
No you just want me to accept your assumptions and generalizations as facts this movie is spreading that message. It does not work that way. You claimed Black Panther to be a racist film. Going off of your past it is obvious you do not like anything that does not agree with your agenda. Black Panther is not a racist film. If that is the case then Spider-man 2002 is a homophobic film.
Yep but it did not tank. So is the term go woke go broke true or not? Tell me did you see the Northman? A guy like you should be first in line to see a film like this. I did because I love good cinema. I want movies other than superhero films. I loved the performances, cinematography and direction. Unfortunately it is not doing well financially. There is proof you can have an all white cast. This is Hollywood remember the place you say is guilty until proven innocent and wacist against whites.
Are you admitting that, generally speaking, it is reasonable to expect that Hollywood film makers have the conflicting motives of wanting to make money AND wanting to be "woke" by pushing "diversity" and/or "representation" and/or progressive political ideas?
It depends on a lot of things. There are movies that have no diversity and no left political leanings in them. Such as movies like the lighthouse, the northman, Old Henry etc. Also there are big budget films that don't have politics inserted either. Although... Your camp gets trigger happy quite easily.
The newest Spiderman didn't have left leaning politics in it but idk Zendaya and his friend on there are diverse and not white. Zendaya is basically a spin on the mj character. Michelle but you know it's basically Mary Jane. Anyway your camp would count that as left leaning. Literally the only way you don't hear from your camp is if the entire cast is white. Not every film has political messages inserted in. Some do some don't. So no I'm not taking your generalizations as facts. I just proved there are cases where it's not true.
Do you understand that the word "generally" does not mean "in ever single case"?
(Because your post there, indicates that you do not understand that. POsting examples of non-woke films, does not mean that generally speaking, Hollywood wants to make woke films.)
Then why did you paint it as if it did? Your words were guilty until proven innocent. Which is fine you can assume what you want but that doesn't count as factual proof. I don't have to adopt your generalizations and assumptions. I asked for proof and that's all you offered. You then proceeded to pretend you had proven Matt Reeves dead to rights as a racist leftist film maker.
The burden of proof was on you to prove your claim. You did no such thing. Remember when you asked me to prove a whitewash in the last decade? I did in providing Tigerlily. That was not an assumption or generalization that was a fact. This is the part where I drop the mic but I don't have one...
I clearly made a general statement about Hollywood wanting to make woke movies and you choose to base your argument on made up shit, and waste all of our time, arguing based on that.
That is just you being an ill mannered child.
My point stands. The woke elements of The Batman, such as the several race flips AND the "white privilege" comments are political propaganda, that diminishes the movie and are an insult to the majority of the fans, including those such as myself.
A purposeful and malicious insult.
Nope you claimed guilty until proven innocent. Which means you believe it to be woke even before going in. Now after seeing it you still didn't offer any facts about Matt Reeves only generalizations and assumptions. So no wrong.
Your point got debunked. So no it doesn't stand. In order for a race swap to occur the race has to be essential. Catwoman has been portrayed by Eartha Kitt and as ethnic in the year one comic. So I see nothing political about Kravitz casting. I will use the evidence as the year one comic and Eartha Kitt to wipe that away. No race swap occurred you are incorrect. Or is it only ever possible for Catwoman to be white or else it's political? So then your comments about the new Spiderman were incorrect then? Zendaya is an ethnic spin on mj. Therefore that alone is political which means you lied about the new spiderman being non political. Lol keep burying yourself dude. This is too easy.
I would be willing to discuss such points, if there was someone who wanted to discuss them.
BUt you? YOu have repeatedly demonstrated that you will just say absurd shit based on made up reasons.
Your pretense of not knowing that general statements allow for exceptions, for one example.
So, I'm not going to try to have a nuanced discussion about specifics while a liar is peppering the thread with shit about "men not being able to have conflicting motives".
The newest Spiderman didn't have left leaning politics in it
You are lying now. You told me that Hollywood doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. I said okay but I am free to not accept your assumptions and generalizations. I asked you for facts and you only provided assumptions. What you wanted was me to take those assumptions as facts. I don't have an issue with you generalizing even though I disagree. I take issue with you expecting me to take your assumptions as gospel truth. I already disproved your race swap theory. Year one comic and Eartha Kitt. If you were reasonable you would have provided proof or facts. You didn't so you are lying. It's ok though people like yourself are a dime a dozen.
I didn't make up your assumptions. I just didn't take them as facts.
Never denied generalizations allow for exceptions. You didn't present it that way. That's why when I asked for facts you didn't provide any.
Translation your game doesn't work therefore you will side step. Concession noted. You do not understand the simple concept of burden of proof do you?
When you argue against a generalization by citing a few exceptions, you are either arguing from the unstated premise that any exception invalidates the generalization (it doesn't)
Or you are just talking moot shit.
Either you are lying about your intent, or you were just talking shit, OR door number three, you are too fucking stupid to know teh meaning of the word "generalization".
Then why when I asked you to prove your claim did you back away? An exception actually can invalidate a generalization actually. Not all generalizations are true now are they? Irrelevant though I asked fo you to prove your claim and you would not do it.
I think you do not understand the what the burden of proof is. You realize that I can dismiss your claim simply by disagreeing if you have no facts to support that claim. You could not dispute Tigerlily because it was not an assumption it was a fact. See how that works?
DUde. I'v answered that question like 5 times. Stop being an asshole.
So your excuse is you did not think I would accept the proof? To me that sounds like an excuse and you know you have no facts.
shareMy stated reason was explained to you many times. Stop being an asshole.
Have you ever spoken in this style to a man in real life?
Your stated reason showcases you knew you had no facts. You also had no rebuttal to the Year One comic or Eartha Kitt. You responded in easily debunked claims. That is why I bring these points back up, you did not answer them in logical manner.
I do not usually encounter people such as yourself. However people like you yes I do talk that way in real life.
Everything you just said there, was a lie. And everyone reading this knows it.
I ask again, have you ever dared speak to a man like this in real life?
No lie there. Read it again get your eyes checked.
I already answered that.
You made a statement of principle, that made it clear that you would not accept judging a group by a pattern of behavior.
That closed that line of discussion.
So i addressed my point in other ways.
I've made that statement, many times. For you to still pretend it is some form of "gotcha" is you being a lying whore.
Your opinion. I think it's an excuse for you to not provide proof.
All those other ways were not facts.
1. You say that, but you are a know liar.
2. We are talking about my reason for my action. It is irrelevant that you disagree with it, it was my reason for my action. YOu are not only an liar, but a fool.
Nope I know you are a dishonest person.
No we are talking about how you failed to prove your claim. I asked you to backup your claim and you have bs reasons as to why you wouldn't. So ok take your stance but I don't have to agree with it.
You are the one that pretended that it was ridiculous to think that a hollywood producer might want to put woke elements such as "diversity" or "representation" or progressive politics into a movie,
all the while they are openly discussing and celebrating doing that exact thing.
That makes YOU the dishonest person.
I said in this scenario it is not logical. Also we were not talking about other producers we were talking about Matt Reeves. Nice deflection. You never provided facts that Matt Reeves did this. Once I see video proof of Matt Reeves doing this I will believe it. Until then I don't believe it to be true.
So Matt Reeves openly discussed doing this? Provide the link and video please.
You are the dishonest one.
YOu said a lot of shit. A lot of it made no sense at all, and was clearly you just talking shit.
Nope. I did not provide facts that Reeves did it. You jumped the gun and set the bar that all I had to do was show that it was not ridiculous.
And I did, so you already lost.
Ha nope! You failed to prove your claim that's how the debate originally started. You never proved your claim. So that's a win for me actually. I like how you think offering up assumptions counts as facts. Learn what the burden of proof means. I set a bar of offering proof for your claim you did no such thing. Nice deflection.
shareCorrect. The discussion never got that far. You bogged it down in stupid shit like insisting that you would never pay attention to patterns of behavior. or that it was ridiculous for men to have conflicting motives.
That was just you, talking shit, to prevent serious discussion of a serious issue.
Nope I said I wouldn't accept your assumptions and generizations as gospel truth or facts. You failed to prove your claim. It's not about ignoring behavior it's about you failing to prove your claim. You proved nothing. Only offered up assumptions and generalizations. You are an entitled moron.
shareYeah, we covered that. Weeks ago. Why are you posting about it now?
DO you realize that no one else has posted in this thread for weeks? You've ruined it for everyone. YOu are nothing but a troll.
So that's a concession then. You didn't prove your claim so I win. Scoreboard me 1 you 0.
shareSaid the asshole that ridiculed the idea that a man could have conflicting motives.
Lol you salty? Take your loss like a man.
shareNo loss here. YOU are a troll. YOur words have no credibility nor weight.
In the real world, Hollywood is turning out plenty fo woke shit, and THe Batman has it's share of that shit. ANd it suffered for it.
Feast your eyes to the box office and weep. You won't be getting your way and I'm glad. Idiots like yourself have trash taste in cinema. The batman sequel is being made and you will be paying your money to see it.
shareWhat could it have made, if they didn't have conflicting motives, and just focused on making money?
shareI don't humor hypotheticals. The result I couldn't make me happier for. It's considered one of the best Batman movies to date. You claimed avengers endgame to be woke lol. Sure didn't hurt that films box office now did it? Same goes for black panther lol.
shareThese producers are mining generations of fan base. But they are using it up and not replacing it. Sooner or later, it will crash and burn and they will pay the price for their woke shit.
shareWell until then sit back and pay your money. I will enjoy the show.
shareAnd I will call out woke shit, when liberal asshole shove it in intellectual properties I care about.
And you can't stop me.
Go ahead you won't be affecting anything. Keep paying money to them I encourage it. I don't think the batman is woke. You offered no facts that Matt Reeves wanted to insert politics into it. Also newsflash these properties don't belong to you. Therefore they can do what they please.
shareExcept, you are a liar.
So, i think you do thing it is woke. YOu are just lying, because you are a cowardly asshole.
I'm not a liar I just don't generalize like you do. I know it makes you angry when people disagree with you.
shareIt does not make me angry when people disagree with me. It makes me angry when they are dishonest assholes, like when you ridiculed me for the idea that a man could have conflicting motives.
I ridiculed your logic because you wouldn't prove your claim. Don't make a claim and expect people to believe it without facts to back it.
shareYou ridiculed the idea that a man could have more than one motive, and that anyone in Hollywood would have a motive other than making money.
That was you revealing yourself to be a blatant liar.
Even if I proved something, you would never admit it. You are a liar.
I ridiculed it in this scenario not in general. Now you are making up things about hypothetical scenarios because you know you lost. It's okay to be wrong.
shareYou ridiculed the very idea that a hollywood film maker could have any motive other than making money.
That was you revealing yourself to be a blatant liar.
In this scenario I did yep. Unlike you I don't generalize. It is a case by case basis for me.
shareYou ridiculed the very idea that a man making a film could have a motive other than making money.
That was you revealing that you are a shit talker.
I did because you made a claim and failed to prove it. Little advice don't make claims you can't prove. It makes you look ignorant.
shareI made a claim and if you had challenged me as to why I thought that, I would have been happy to discuss it.
But instead, you ridiculed the very idea that a man could have more than one motive, especially if one of them is money.
That was you being a shit talker.
Lol no, I asked you to prove the claim and you wouldn't do it. I keep asking to you to prove your claim and you won't do it. You just want your generalizations and assumption to suffice as facts. Not going to fly with me.
shareNope. You went to ridicule, like an asshole. That defined your position.
And only a complete asshole would expect a person to have an nuanced debate about an issue, while peppering their posts with fucktarded ridicule.
AND, only a completely assholed bastard would even ASK for "proof" when we are discussing ideas inside of another person's head. That is not a valid bar.
Nope I ridiculed you because you wanted me to accept your claim and assumptions as gospel truth. You deserve ridicule for that.
I'm just glad you will keep paying money for these films. I sit back and laugh that you don't get your way.
You ridiculed the idea that a man could have more than one motive. You are an asshole.
shareYou failed to prove a claim. You are also pay money to racist people. You are an idiot.
shareWe were discussing another man's reasons for doing something he did, and you ridiculed me suggesting he had mixed motives.
That was you being an asshole and a shit talker.
Nope I ridiculed you for wanting me to accept your assumptions and generalizations as gospel truth. You deserve to be ridiculed for that entitled behavior.
shareAsking you to accept a premise that everyone knows is true, was reasonable of me. YOu refusing was you being a troll.
No you wanted me to accept that the casting of Kravitz casting being political was a fact. Yet when I asked you to prove it you offered assumptions and generalizations. So no you are lying now.
shareWell, Hollywood is constantly spewing shit about "diversity" and "representation" so, a race flip in that context, is almost certainly, political.
A person of good faith, would have just agreed. You talked shit about never respected patterns of behavior and always giving a benefit of a doubt.
So, i dropped it and moved on. And you got weirdly obsessed.
You are fucked in teh head.
Almost certainly means it isn't a fact. So do not pretend that it is. If Catwoman's race isn't essential then no race swap happened. I guess year one comic and Eartha Kitt are guilty of the same thing.
So basically I must accept your generalizations and assumptions as gospel truth then? If you are free to assume then I can assume myself. How is that for you?
No you were not used to being challenged and got pissy.
You provide a good example of how communication is impossible if one side is not operating in good faith.
If one side is an asshole refusing to accept any common terms, no communication, let alone agreement is possible.
You seem to get off on being a dick. That makes you a bad person.
Your argument was in bad faith. You go wah race swap. You completely ignored the year one comic and Eartha Kitt. Catwoman has not only ever been white... Your argument gets destroyed by that alone.
shareI ignored nothing. YOu are a lying whore.
shareLol then how did a race swap occur if she's not only ever been portrayed as white? Kravitz wasn't the first ethnic Catwoman you clown.
shareBecause as you admit, she has generally been portrayed as white.
Your setting the bar to "only" is just you being an asshole.
So generally means if it's not how it generally is it's a political agenda then? Also just because she's generally been portrayed that way does it make her race essential. You are contradicting yourself.
shareNo, I'm not. You are the one assuming those issues are...somehow defining. And then you are assuming that I agree with you.
Which is fucking retarded of you.
So then answer the question then. Since Catwoman has generally been portrayed as white she should stay that way correct? Also she can't be changed from the general depiction because it's automatically political if it changes from the general depiction correct?
shareIT IS A REAL TERM...IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS A REAL THING...MOVIES REFLECT REALITY...YOU MAY WANT TO TOUGHEN UP A LITTLE.
shareBack to the thread topic.
Yes, hollywood sucks. They are woke asses, that are willing to put their politics ahead of their job of making good movies.