MCU to "Refocus” and Disney sinking faster than the Titanic (Starwars is dead Marvel is dead)

Tony Edwards said:
How many of the 'woke agenda' brigade have seen My Beautiful Laundrette? Or the Crying Game?

This 'woke agenda' stuff as they call it has been around for decades.

Christ Crying Game is 30 years old and My Beautiful Laundrette is from 1985.
Click to expand...

I understand the sentiment of the angle Tony. When I saw the thread title I knew you'd be hooked into it by the usual narrative, which I might add is entirely predictable. Is it really worth it? I guess if you have nothing better to do, go for it.

Throwing those two classic films into the argument kind of highlights their point though. They are well written and the existence of LGBT characters within makes perfect sense, they are an integral part of the plot or deal with themes they bring up - also at time of release they was still a long way to go for general acceptance.

I'd add in that 'Call me by your name' is one of the finest romance films recently released. Universal praise and enjoyed by a large audience.

Contrast tonsome of the stuff where it's just shoehorned in for the sake of it, e.g. "oh sorry Bond, can't help, I have my BF coming over" from Q in the latest Bond is just pointless signalling that the writers have suddenly decided to draw attention to, it didn't serve much purpose at all - if anything I see it less as representation and more exploitative. So I see it from the other side too.

There's got to be a point to it within the story, not just what reaction it will get in media, social media or whatever. Make it natural and nobody bats an eyelid, as tbh, it totally is normal within our society here in the UK and sonit should and remain.
 
Fubsy said:
Contrast tonsome of the stuff where it's just shoehorned in for the sake of it, e.g. "oh sorry Bond, can't help, I have my BF coming over" from Q in the latest Bond is just pointless signalling that the writers have suddenly decided to draw attention to, it didn't serve much purpose at all - if anything I see it less as representation and more exploitative. So I see it from the other side too.
Click to expand...
Maybe, just maybe, it's an entirely incidental line that doesn't even merit comment. I didn't notice it when I watched the film.

If you are the one drawing attention to it, and claiming it's part of some 'agenda', maybe you're the problem?
 
Fubsy said:
Contrast tonsome of the stuff where it's just shoehorned in for the sake of it, e.g. "oh sorry Bond, can't help, I have my BF coming over" from Q in the latest Bond is just pointless signalling that the writers have suddenly decided to draw attention to, it didn't serve much purpose at all - if anything I see it less as representation and more exploitative. So I see it from the other side too.
Click to expand...

Did you have a problem with moneypenny's boyfriend being in Spectre (I think it was Spectre)?
 
As so
mid_gen said:
Maybe, just maybe, it's an entirely incidental line that doesn't even merit comment. I didn't notice it when I watched the film.

If you are the one drawing attention to it, and claiming it's part of some 'agenda', maybe you're the problem?
Click to expand...

I did notice it, yea, there's nothing 'incidental' about it as it was written in specifically for his character consciously by a writer, it's purely exploiting the trend of having some level of representation in stuff. After however many Bond films all of a sudden it's like we'll give you some indicator of a supporting character's sexuality because "it matters today". It's not even the sexuality thing that bothers me, it's the way it was done - maybe if there was some angle where Q was hiding it because he didn't feel he could be himself in the office, or whatever, especially in the hyper-hetero world of Bond, may have served some on-screen purpose of why he didn't feel comfortable. I guess in reflection, the way nobody even batter an eye, other than he had a life outside of work is good enough.

Besides the point I was trying to make though, which tells me all I need to know about the level of good faith your reply was in, which I don't have time for. Sorry.
 
Shamikebab said:
Did you have a problem with moneypenny's boyfriend being in Spectre (I think it was Spectre)?
Click to expand...

I do. But only because again, it's unnecessary social commentary*. I suppose again, it's reflecting our societal values into something that is complete fiction. It's unnecessary writing in that type of film imo.

*I see that again about changing the historic perception of Bond's hold over the women in the films. All it serves is to retcon the fact Bond as a character and franchise is toxic to ****. Which is fine, we all know this to be the case, he's a flawed hero.
 
Fubsy said:
As so


I did notice it, yea, there's nothing 'incidental' about it as it was written in specifically for his character consciously by a writer, it's purely exploiting the trend of having some level of representation in stuff. After however many Bond films all of a sudden it's like we'll give you some indicator of a supporting character's sexuality because "it matters today". It's not even the sexuality thing that bothers me, it's the way it was done - maybe if there was some angle where Q was hiding it because he didn't feel he could be himself in the office, or whatever, especially in the hyper-hetero world of Bond, may have served some on-screen purpose of why he didn't feel comfortable. I guess in reflection, the way nobody even batter an eye, other than he had a life outside of work is good enough.

Besides the point I was trying to make though, which tells me all I need to know about the level of good faith your reply was in, which I don't have time for. Sorry.
Click to expand...
The fact that someone mentioning the gender of their partner is triggering such strong emotions in you does suggest that you are in fact, the one with the problem.
 
Fubsy said:
Contrast tonsome of the stuff where it's just shoehorned in for the sake of it, e.g. "oh sorry Bond, can't help, I have my BF coming over" from Q in the latest Bond is just pointless signalling that the writers have suddenly decided to draw attention to, it didn't serve much purpose at all - if anything I see it less as representation and more exploitative. So I see it from the other side too.
Click to expand...

So how / when do we reach the position where someone like Q saying 'oh my boyfriend is coming over' is just seen as an entirely normal and non-noteworthy simplistic story device to indicate he's busy, just as if the dialogue had been 'oh my girlfriend is coming over'?

Neither of these is much more than a slightly lazy writing device to indicate a character needs to be convinced to help out because they've got 'stuff going on'.
 
Begbie said:
Because the agenda wasn't pushed to children, no child movie/show should have some sort of 'agenda'.
Click to expand...
Previous Disney films did a pretty good job pushing the "Change to find a man"/"Women need to be saved" agendas, The Little Mermaid and Beauty & The Beast were toxic AF :D
 
Kenai said:
So how / when do we reach the position where someone like Q saying 'oh my boyfriend is coming over' is just seen as an entirely normal and non-noteworthy simplistic story device to indicate he's busy, just as if the dialogue had been 'oh my girlfriend is coming over'?

Neither of these is much more than a slightly lazy writing device to indicate a character needs to be convinced to help out because they've got 'stuff going on'.
Click to expand...

We already are at that point. The problem I have here fundamentally is, OK, Q has a partner that happens to be male, but why is he keeping it from his co-workers in a security service? That to me is immersion breaking, because hiding things like that, is from a security perspective, dodgy. Is it because MI6 in the Bond universe has an issue with it? Is he uncomfortable with his sexuality? Is he just very private? Is he a double agent? It was just all glossed over. Hence, me thinking it was only mentioned as an indicator that the writer wanted us to know this one thing about Q for external purposes over internal story purposes. It's extremely minor and just an example I pulled from the top of my head when responding to Tony.

For the removal of doubt, I have no problem at all with 'woke' stuff in writing, it's just that having it for the sake of it is disrespectful and exploitative. LGBT people deserve better writing is my argument.

Shamikebab said:
PS. If you think everyone else has brain rot then it might just be that the problem is you.
Click to expand...

It's the bad faith of the argument, framing me as sexist, homophobic, having strong emotions about gender etc, why project all that onto my post and ignore the points about the writing and how it pertains to the story vs external social reflection. It is social commentary, because after dozens of films the writers have barely touched on the personal lives of the supporting characters, now the writers have decided to do it, but not been clear on why other than it reflecting current norms. I'm fine with that, but I'd appreciate writers "show their working" when suddenly announcing revealing things about characters. Q being gay, or Moneypenny have a partner are NOT trivial in the history and toxic world of Bond.
 
krooton said:
Previous Disney films did a pretty good job pushing the "Change to find a man"/"Women need to be saved" agendas, The Little Mermaid and Beauty & The Beast were toxic AF :D
Click to expand...

Yea, along with the ridiculous levels of "Prince Charming" levels of expectation too. How about we don't have some universal ideal, and show inspiring stories about people that also have flaws. Shrek was cool like that :D
 
Kenai said:
What is this in reference to?
Click to expand...
Where have you been? They have constantly attacked fans calling then racist, homophobic and anything they can think of to deflect criticism.

The worst I seen was a Lucas writer openly mock a cancer surviver crying at Luke Skywalkers return in Mando.
 
Fubsy said:
Yea, along with the ridiculous levels of "Prince Charming" levels of expectation too. How about we don't have some universal ideal, and show inspiring stories about people that also have flaws. Shrek was cool like that :D
Click to expand...
So were Moana and Encanto imo, no love interest stuff for the main character.
 
Fubsy said:
Contrast tonsome of the stuff where it's just shoehorned in for the sake of it, e.g. "oh sorry Bond, can't help, I have my BF coming over" from Q in the latest Bond is just pointless signalling that the writers have suddenly decided to draw attention to, it didn't serve much purpose at all - if anything I see it less as representation and more exploitative. So I see it from the other side too.

There's got to be a point to it within the story, not just what reaction it will get in media, social media or whatever. Make it natural and nobody bats an eyelid, as tbh, it totally is normal within our society here in the UK and sonit should and remain.
Click to expand...
I get the exploitative angle...a lot of companies out there that DGAF about LGBTQ+ rights but will happily pretend they do to make a quick buck.
However in the case of Bond, when the actor themselves is gay surely that becomes less exploitation and more of an acknowledgement by the writers that they have a gay actor playing a new Q.

Bond is interesting since its always seen as a product of the times and I would expect certain parts to reflect that (Bond being less rapey, women not just seen as damsels being two examples that come to mind)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom