|
I phrased it poorly, but I was referring to your complaining about wanting Iron Man to fight a magic dude. It's not a bad wish, it's just that you should be more willing to actually look past that and at least try to appreciate what they did with the character.
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 05:12 |
|
|
Lick! The! Whisk! posted:Regardless, IM3 is a terrible movie that does a bunch of regressive awful horseshit, I trust it to handle an actual minority character as well as it handled PTSD and mental illness, which is to say horribly. I never understand this argument, it reminds me of when somebody (or maybe multiple somebodies, I forget) complained a while back that "IM2 didn't really do Demon In A Bottle". Yeah, of course a superhero movie that children are gonna see isn't gonna have accurate portrayals of things like PTSD because that's not exciting or funny, that's dark as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
TwoPair posted:I never understand this argument, it reminds me of when somebody (or maybe multiple somebodies, I forget) complained a while back that "IM2 didn't really do Demon In A Bottle". Yeah, of course a superhero movie that children are gonna see isn't gonna have accurate portrayals of PTSD because that's not exciting or funny, that's dark as gently caress. I'm warning you, man, don't start this argument with Toxx, you'll regret it. e: wait when did he change his username
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
MrAristocrates posted:I phrased it poorly, but I was referring to your complaining about wanting Iron Man to fight a magic dude. Did you ignore the post where I explicitly said I enjoyed what they did? Because I liked it a lot. I just also would have liked to see him fight magic ring guy. Not in the movie as presented, because I agree it wouldn't have fit, but there's nothing beyond budgetary constraints stopping writers from creating whatever movie they want.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Is there an Iron Man comic where Tony gets the rings and makes a suit / 10 suits around them? I could see him being like "well it's magic so who knows how it works but if I rigged it up into a new weapon anyway"
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
The Mandarin's rings aren't magic, they're alien tech.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
MrAristocrates posted:I'm warning you, man, don't start this argument with Toxx, you'll regret it. There's a thread in GBS where you get a random name if you post there. I didn't realize it until you mentioned it either!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
If you bring in the Mandarin - terrorist leader and Chinese nationalist - Who are you offending? Now, since the movies already did this, why is nobody actually offended? Why are people only trying to be offended by saying the movies better not do this thing they already did? I'm not even talking about the short. These things were established in the movies themselves, so if you saw the Iron Man movies, you knew that there was a terrorist group called the Ten Rings, and you knew there was mysterious person called the Mandarin that may be leading them. With that there, you don't have people going "Oh man that's so racist that they did those things in those movies!" And if you are going to argue that it's not overt enough, what about having Middle Eastern/Asian terrorists in the movies to begin with? Why is that not offensive? People get really fixated on the name. Why? We already used the name out loud in Iron Man 3 and it was totally OK, but to actually attribute it to a Chinese dude would be bad... why? Was it bad to have T'Challa be called Black Panther because that sounds offensive? Neither of those things are actually offensive but they kinda sound racist because of the skin colors of the people involved and where they are from so I dunno maybe? I'm a pretty progressive dude and I'm all for not offending people and not doing dumb racist poo poo, but I absolutely do not fathom how there is any reasonable justification for this argument beyond "It just seems bad and I don't like it!" and that's a really weak argument, especially since all the things you think would be bad have already been established and nobody is freaking out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:Now, since the movies already did this, why is nobody actually offended? Because they didn't? They did a "there might be a guy OFFSCREEN!!" in a short bonus extra. He doesn't even have a frigging actor. Jamesman posted:And if you are going to argue that it's not overt enough, what about having Middle Eastern/Asian terrorists in the movies to begin with? Why is that not offensive? It was. Iron Man 3 also criticizes that as well in fact. Jamesman posted:you knew there was mysterious person called the Mandarin that may be leading them Where was this established in Iron Man 1 and 2. The Rings were. They were never established as being lead by anyone. Jamesman posted:We already used the name out loud in Iron Man 3 and it was totally OK, but to actually attribute it to a Chinese dude would be bad... why? Because the point of the name in Iron Man 3 was that it was intentional xenophobic fearmongering. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Sep 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
I'm sure ImpAtom will fine-tooth-comb this dumb post but I felt like answering some of these dumb things myself. edit: ah Jamesman posted:If you bring in the Mandarin - terrorist leader and Chinese nationalist - Who are you offending? Jamesman posted:I'm not even talking about the short. These things were established in the movies themselves, so if you saw the Iron Man movies, you knew that there was a terrorist group called the Ten Rings, and you knew there was mysterious person called the Mandarin that may be leading them. With that there, you don't have people going "Oh man that's so racist that they did those things in those movies!" And if you are going to argue that it's not overt enough, what about having Middle Eastern/Asian terrorists in the movies to begin with? Why is that not offensive? That said, it's a bit alleviated by the fact that the ultimate villain turned out to be the white warmonger who was manipulating everyone, with the bonus that even Stark himself was just as culpable for the existence of the terrorists. Even in the first film there were shades of what the Killian character would be. Jamesman posted:People get really fixated on the name. Why? We already used the name out loud in Iron Man 3 and it was totally OK, but to actually attribute it to a Chinese dude would be bad... why? Was it bad to have T'Challa be called Black Panther because that sounds offensive? Neither of those things are actually offensive but they kinda sound racist because of the skin colors of the people involved and where they are from so I dunno maybe? What you're suggesting instead is for them to play the racism completely straight, for there to be the scary foreign villain with the foreign name and magical foreign powers out to destroy "the west" and that's it, that's the end of the story. That's racist, friend. It's not criticizing racism, it's not commenting on it, it's just using an offensive stereotype as a villain and calling it a day. I don't even know where to begin with the Black Panther thing other than to say it's not comparable. If you're suggesting that mnemonically associating a superhero with the Black Panther party should be objectionable to black audiences, I urge you to read up on what the Black Panther party actually was and how black Americans at the time actually related to it; it wasn't entirely different from the Black Lives Matter movement nowadays. All this is while there is not a single Asian superhero in the eight years that Marvel has been making films, nor in any of the films they have planned to date, and people -- for "some" "reason" -- just cannot loving let go of the fact that single most racist Asian supervillain from the comics wasn't depicted accurately enough on the screen. BrianWilly fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Sep 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
The real tragedy was that AIM didn't have MODOK.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Roth posted:Ghe real tragedy was that AIM didn't have MODOK. This I can agree with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Roth posted:The real tragedy was that AIM didn't have MODOK. Well yeah
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Pretty sure Jamesman has spiraled out about racism stuff before. Not surprised by his posts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Is Man Ape in the movie? Because then we have a problem.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Roth posted:The real tragedy was that AIM didn't have MODOK. Hodgman for MODOK
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Roth posted:The real tragedy was that AIM didn't have MODOK.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Is Man Ape in the movie? Because then we have a problem. But the Man part is black and the Ape part is white; doesn't that make it okay???
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:It is offensive. The fact that they played the scary brown terrorists stereotypes so straight in the first film is part of the thing that the third film was highlighting and criticizing. Killian didn't make up the name. He came up with the character based on the stories he heard of the real Mandarin. I think the problem is everyone just assumes that a Chinese Mandarin has to be a commentary on China as a whole, and if you really think there would be a blockbuster movie that would dare to offend China, then I really don't know what to tell you. But taking into account everything that's lead up to this point, you have a foundation for a story and a character that is presented in a way that is not in any way that you are imagining it. You do not have a racist caricature. You do not have a story that preys on xenophobia. You either have faith that they could do that based on the evidence of everything they've shown you so far in their movies and television shows, or you don't. quote:I don't even know where to begin with the Black Panther thing other than to say it's not comparable. If you're suggesting that mnemonically associating a superhero with the Black Panther party should be objectionable to black audiences, I urge you to read up on what the Black Panther party actually was and how black Americans at the time actually related to it; it wasn't entirely different from the Black Lives Matter movement nowadays. I was not at all bringing up the Black Panther Party. I was saying because the character is black and he has "Black" in his name, and "Panther" which is a jungle animal and oh so this black African guy MUST be associated with a jungle animal. OFFENSIVE. quote:All this is while there is not a single Asian superhero in the eight years that Marvel has been making films, nor in any of the films they have planned to date, and people -- for "some" "reason" -- just cannot loving let go of the fact that single most racist Asian supervillain from the comics wasn't depicted accurately enough on the screen. You can't say Mandarin is the most racist Asian supervillain when Egg Fu exists. And sure, having more Asian heroes represented in the movies would be nice (so long as they have NEVER been portrayed badly in 80 years of comic book history so help me god). At least they are getting good representation in the TV shows.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
hey you're being really dumb
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Ireallylikeeggs posted:hey Cool. I think I said this in the last thread, but people just automatically assume that they couldn't do Mandarin without it being racist and offensive. Well, Iron Man 3 exists, doesn't it? We got a version of him that seems to be approved by the ImpAtoms and BrainWillies of the forums, so what makes people so positive that they couldn't make that happen again? People were absolutely sure, before Iron Man 3 was even a thing, that Mandarin could never work in a film, and they were proven wrong, so don't you think it's possible you could be proven wrong again? You don't think there's even a teeny tiny chance? Even based on Marvel's track record of doing things that didn't send you into a frothing rage? Jamesman fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Sep 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
TwoPair posted:I never understand this argument, it reminds me of when somebody (or maybe multiple somebodies, I forget) complained a while back that "IM2 didn't really do Demon In A Bottle". Yeah, of course a superhero movie that children are gonna see isn't gonna have accurate portrayals of things like PTSD because that's not exciting or funny, that's dark as gently caress. Silk, the comic, is exciting, funny, and an accurate portrayal of, among other things, deep mental illness, rage issues, and PTSD. It can and does happen. IM3 centrally failed at doing so to the point where it's genuinely offensive. I even sorta agree with you that the movie, being a movie, should've sanded down the edges for more palatable consumption (although, again, Silk manages to treat mental illness honestly without feeling pandering or like it's hectoring you, and if I were to estimate I'd say the target demo of the book is YA, so it can be done), my issue isn't that IM3 isn't 100% honest, it's that it's so actively dishonest it furthers an actively toxic stereotype that PTSD is something that you can just think your way through if you're a rich billionaire like Tony Stark. It's a bad, harmful message it sends, not that it's not an honest one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Is Man Ape in the movie? Because then we have a problem. i was amazed the got away with Man-Ape in the EMH cartoon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:Cool. Jamesman is a mess! Toxx going on again about IM3. It's a toxic meltdown in this thread right now!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
rantmo posted:The Mandarin's rings aren't magic, they're alien tech. Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Sep 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:People were absolutely sure, before Iron Man 3 was even a thing, that Mandarin could never work in a film, and they were proven wrong, so don't you think it's possible you could be proven wrong again? You don't think there's even a teeny tiny chance? Wait, so your argument here is that they managed to do the thing no one thought could be done by going in a radically different direction with it, so therefore they can play it straight?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Posters: The reason the character worked is because they completely separated him from his racist roots, and then used this new version as a commentary on racism and xenophobia. Jamesman: So why do you think it wouldn't work if they left all the racist stuff in?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
If anything people saying the Mandarin wouldn't work were proved right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:Wait, so your argument here is that they managed to do the thing no one thought could be done by going in a radically different direction with it, so therefore they can play it straight? My argument is that they presented a variation of a character that appeased the majority audience (something they've done time and time again, actually). Why couldn't they revisit that same character and present yet another variation that could again appease the majority audience? If you think just the idea of having a bad guy be from Asia or the Middle East is racist and xenophobic, then we're not going to see eye-to-eye here ever. If you think there are specific behaviors and actions that they can do that would be considered insensitive, then the idea is that maybe those things are probably not incorporated how about, but you still have this foreign non-white villain. If you think it is absolutely impossible to have a foreign villain without having them do offensive poo poo, I don't know what else to say except maybe we should just go back to talking about how bad Man of Steel is or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:My argument is that they presented a variation of a character that appeased the majority audience (something they've done time and time again, actually). Why couldn't they revisit that same character and present yet another variation that could again appease the majority audience? Because it wouldn't be a variation! It only worked because they did it so differently! To the point that "the MCU used the Mandarin" is only a sort of factual statement. Jamesman posted:If you think just the idea of having a bad guy be from Asia or the Middle East is racist and xenophobic Literally no one is saying this and people keep telling you and you keep not getting it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Somebody: The idea behind this character is kinda racist This guy: Are you saying that all villains should just be white?!?!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Jamesman, its like you're not only arguing that you don't care about context and problematic history and associations when it comes to culture, you're also arguing that everyone else should not care too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:My argument is that they presented a variation of a character that appeased the majority audience (something they've done time and time again, actually). Why couldn't they revisit that same character and present yet another variation that could again appease the white audience?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
I think some people wanting to see "The Real Mandarin" thing is less about race than some of you think and more that people just want to see a dude with Wacky Magic/Alien Rings fight Iron Man instead of Glowy Red Fire Guy With a Dragon Tattoo. I don't really care either way because I never liked the character in the comics anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Is Man Ape in the movie? Because then we have a problem. Actually the majority of the cast is man-apes. Vision is a weird... robot... thing but all the others are good ol' Homo s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:Literally no one is saying this and people keep telling you and you keep not getting it. I may have misunderstood BrainWilly when he commented that it was offensive after I asked if having the terrorists be foreign in the Iron Man movies was offensive. It seemed like there were some people who genuinely felt that presenting foreign, non-white villains was bad form. Shageletic posted:Jamesman, its like you're not only arguing that you don't care about context and problematic history and associations when it comes to culture, you're also arguing that everyone else should not care too. I admit that I am, to a degree. When you're talking about decades of comics, with different versions and different timelines and different writers with different interpretations, it doesn't seem like focusing solely on a starting point makes much sense when a character can be taken in so many different directions. Mandarin still exists today as far as I'm aware, and I can't imagine he shares much similarities to how he was first presented. That's why I am arguing that. Because why should we hang on to this problematic history if even the company (I imagine) distances themselves from it? If you really think I'm talking only about white people when talking about a global audience, you have been grossly misinformed about how many white people live in China. X-O posted:I think some people wanting to see "The Real Mandarin" thing is less about race than some of you think and more that people just want to see a dude with Wacky Magic/Alien Rings fight Iron Man instead of Glowy Red Fire Guy With a Dragon Tattoo. I don't really care either way because I never liked the character in the comics anyway. And someone finally gets it. Thank you. So, how loving bad was Man of Steel, you guys? Superman sure killed that guy for no reason!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
X-O posted:I think some people wanting to see "The Real Mandarin" thing is less about race than some of you think and more that people just want to see a dude with Wacky Magic/Alien Rings fight Iron Man instead of Glowy Red Fire Guy With a Dragon Tattoo. I don't really care either way because I never liked the character in the comics anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Iron Man really doesn't have a lot of other notable villains. It's Iron Monger, Mandarin, and then it's people no one's ever heard of. You can try to argue Modok is an Iron Man villain but he really isn't.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
X-O posted:I think some people wanting to see "The Real Mandarin" thing is less about race than some of you think and more that people just want to see a dude with Wacky Magic/Alien Rings fight Iron Man instead of Glowy Red Fire Guy With a Dragon Tattoo. I don't really care either way because I never liked the character in the comics anyway. BrianWilly posted:Is "Wacky Magic/Alien Rings Guy" seriously such a big draw that inspires such devotion from anyone? I just don't understand why people give such a poo poo about this one specific C-list villain -- "C-list" being a generous moniker, here -- that taking the piss at him is such a huge loving contention with some viewers. Exactly. Obviously it's more than wanting to see Sci Fi Manchu on the big screen, but it's the denial of that which triggers some kind of overcompensating defensiveness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 05:12 |
|
|
This Mandarin argument is pretty dumb. They did a good interpretation of the character in Iron Man 3, why revisit the character so soon? I'd much rather see them tackle MODOK in the next movie and revisit AIM as a super shady organization.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 23:48
|
|
