VintageComics

I'm going to assume you're talking about me and want to point out that I am very thrilled that you didn't call me Greymane. If it wasn't about me, then I wish it was.

I remember when I noticed Audi appearing in every film and I was like, whaaaaaaaa? The reason it jumped out at me was (again) different than the reason everyone else would have noticed. Everyone else would have noticed because Audi is considered a cool car, but ANYBODY who knew anything about Audi 20 years ago would know they were horrid cars. I owned several in the 90's and they were known as 'the poor man's' Mercedes. I was well versed in them because VW/Audi/Porsche were my specialty. So when I started seeing them in the movies I was like "Eek, who wants one of those?" but they seemed to have done really well with their marketing and they've really built up their brand and reliability. So that was a very interesting evolution to watch for me. Most never even noticed it.

This dovetails perfectly into everything I've said in this thread. Outside corporate pressure and the push to continue to increase revenue to satiate investors against a hard limit (time only goes in one direction) has put too much pressure on the creative forces, causing them to dilute the artform. They need to back off to grow bigger. Pushing harder will splinter them as it does in everything. BOOM.

Because the world "misogyny" implies intent. The word is conflated to mean that society is doing it with intent when in fact there are clear biological and psychological reasons for why these things happen and there is no intent. Intent is wholly removed from the conversation. Let's look at this another way: When women WANT their men to be their leaders, are those women misogynistic to themselves? Let me guess, they need to be retrained. THAT'S where this conversation is leading. Women don't know what they want and need to relearn. That sounds EXACTLY what the communists told my family before they escaped. Like, who the heck is pushing for this, then? The media, WHICH EVERYONE can now more or less agree is wholly corrupt is spewing one thing. People on the street say an entirely different thing. I personally speak to 1000s of TOTAL STRANGERS in the general population around the world about this every year. I can even start recording these conversation if people want and post them. Which do you trust more at this point? The media or the general population? The ONLY negativity is coming from the media and those that stand by it. The word everyone means doesn't mean misogyny. You're going to need to pick another word that doesn't imply intent.

Carry over from a previous thread. Thanks for the explanation. I had no point of reference for that movie but had heard a lot about it. Unfortunately, everything I'd heard sounded very charged politically so I couldn't tell what was objective without seeing it. A patriarch used to be considered a good thing. Now, all of a sudden it's a bad thing. Let me explain: The word patriarchy these days is being misused to convey something other than what it originally meant, much like the discussion we had about misogyny being mistaken for chauvinism in the Marvels thread. Both terms are misused to imply that men as a group are bad and do these things to women with purpose. Since the word misogyny is misused, and anyone who is a patriarch would be a misogynist, that means the foundation for the new concept of patriarchy is being misused as well. ------------------------------------------------------------------ I've been married twice. In my 1st marriage she had a super strong will and I actually had to hold the line with MY boundaries so that they wouldn't get crossed over and yet, she preferred a traditional role in our private relationship, so where was the "patriarchy" there? In my 2nd marriage, she was the strongest willed person I'd known in many aspects of her life (especially business and friendships where she was a rock to many) as well as one of the smartest women I'd ever known (highly successful) but as I'd stated in another thread she preferred a traditional role in our relationship, so where was the patriarchy there? In nearly every experience with every woman in my life, save a small percentage they have ALL wanted to be in traditional relationship roles BY CHOICE. I know these are only anecdotal examples, but it's been my experience for 50 years that MOST of the women I've interacted with WANT THEIR MEN TO TAKE THE LEAD in their interpersonal relationship. This is going to sound crazy, but I quite literally ask this of strange women when I meet them if we strike up a convo over anything innocuous like world news or the weather and women start screaming "YES! YES! Someone finally gets it!" I'm telling you from first hand experience, and from what my wifes, daughters, friends AND TOTAL STRANGERS HAVE TOLD ME is that if you want to date a woman today, the media will tell you to act the opposite of what the majority of women on the street really want. You want proof? The media has never been more powerful, people have never been more lonely and people have never been more single than today. The proof is out there in your face. My grandfather rescued my dad, 6 siblings and my grandmother from communist Europe when they stole everything from my family, brought them here to the West and built a family with over 100 grandchildren and great grandchildren along with my over 30 aunts and unles. He literally built an empire of successful citizens from scratch who now all go on to help others. That's what a patriarch used to be defined as. How is a patriarch defined today? Certainly not like that.

Misogyny: dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women One can claim anything by editing the past and we see it happening in real time as dictionary meanings change words unilaterally to fit new ideas rather than CREATE NEW WORDS, but that doesn't make it correct or true. Considering you routinely edit your posts to change their meanings, sometimes days after when nobody even thinks to look anymore, I'm not surprised you'd support this. Oh well. As long as people are aware it's happening, that's all anyone can ask for.

He's not 'mai boy' Nobody finds the truth more offensive than people who can only hurl insults. And on here, you've condoned violence as a resolution in the past, you've told me I don't know how to raise my daughters (paraphrasing) and when I told my daughters the things you said about them they disagreed with you and you're now talking about his personal life. Nobody is patting anyone on the back. It's just a discussion and you are constantly turning up the heat unnecessarily.

Yep.

There will ALWAYS be people who will want to watch REAL people, eat REAL food, hold REAL paper and have REAL conversations. Fake things are bad for humanity no matter how profitable they are. The media will try to brainwash the masses into accepting fake things, but it will never eradicate it.

Gotcha. I won't derail this thread but I assume there's a Barbie thread here so I'll take this convo over there as I have some great discussion points to make.

I removed the word misogyny. Figured it was better for everyone involved. Sorry about that.

So fire the only guy who's ever done what he's done. The guy Warner Brothers has been searching for their own version of for almost two decades without success. I had high hopes that Geoff Johns would be that guy, but I was skeptical from the start--with good reason, it turned out. Creative types like him usually get frustrated with the business aspect of films after a while when they're relatively young like he was, so I wasn't at all surprised when he stepped down. They never fully gave him control anyway, so I'm still not sure who to blame that on. So, fire a one of one dude in Feige and replace him with...who? Ideally it will be a superfan without writing or art creds like Feige has always been. There was never any danger that Feige would go back to writing or drawing because he didn't have skill at that to even fall back on it like a Geoff Johns did. That's Kathleen Kennedy's problem--she's a stellar producer, but she is NOT a content curator, nor does she appear to have much of an instinct for how to curate content and Star Wars has suffered for it. I'm guessing Kennedy has never known who Figrin D'an is, and that's who they need curating their content--a superfan. Pablo Hidalgo and Dave Filoni are superfans, but both are also writers so they're not ideal candidates. They're still both the best candidates to have creative control over that content, but neither has really been given that control to date so who knows how they'd do. Some people are quick to eat their own. I agree with you. Feige, at this point is irreplaceable. If he was replaceable all the other MULTI BILLION DOLLAR CORPORATIONS WOULD HAVE HIRED HIS REPLACEMENT and would be rivalling Marvel. They haven't. Ockam's razor. Let me ask you: In a simple answer, what exactly do you think is the reason Feige is faltering so much after so much success? I grew up with a lot of pressure from too many sides, that I wasn't able to care for myself for a long time. From a rough upbringing through my parents, to getting married young (21) and having 4 children by the time I was 30. Then I had 20 years of being the sole provider, so it wasn't until I hit 50 that I decided to focus on myself and undo a lot of the things I didn't like about myself. Thankfully, I'm in a great place. It's similar to Zen for people who may understand that term better, but it's more about me realizing that every obstacle is just a lesson now.

Ironically, Fiege seems to operate like DC did in the Silver Age. The editor charts the course, the writer writes the story, the artist draws the story, the letterer puts in the words. The Auteur theory is more like the Stan Lee / Marvel way, where Stan sets a course but the creative director or the artist follows just a loose outline while conveying MOST of the message in much the same way the Russo Brothers do in their own flavor. Very interested and I never thought about it that way.

I think the general tone is that people are being called misogynists in this thread for not liking a female lead, when in fact they're not misogynists. But anyway, I don't want to go down that road with this discussion. I was simply trying to point out that nobody dislikes female leads in this thread from what I can see.

There's a trend of mis-using that word over the past decade or so. What 80% of people mean when they say "misogyny" is actually chauvinism. Actual misogynists are pretty rare, but people who have an obvious bias towards their own gender are plentiful. I agree 100%, but I believe I used it correctly in my post.

Your entire post is derogatory, personal, insulting and you are bringing in views that nobody has expressed WHILE insulting him. It's not OK and a post like this shouldn't be allowed. I've heard you talk about your "Long Island, Italian", mobster form of justice and it's THAT that I disapprove of. I've disagreed with you before on it and I will always disagree with you on it. You actually deserve a strike for this taunting post. It's not OK and I've lost a lot of respect for you because of it.

I have yet to see the movie but plan to. What do you mean by this?

It's either that, or this place is a Mecca for people who are unable to like anything. GOD BLESS... -jimbo(a friend of jesus) Openly calling people out for disliking females in lead roles is intentionally offensive and abrasive when in fact, many of us have already clearly suggested MANY movies we've loved, where powerful females were the leads. It's not that anyone dislikes a female lead, it's that by forcing people into roles the very people they are trying to elevate are being patronized and demeaned. By forcing observers to accept them. And to be more specific, I don't even think that's the case in this movie (I can't comment for sure because I haven't seen it), although it is pretty weird that every movie, show or television commercial now has to have an unnatural, cookie cutter, spread of minorities in every scene. It doesn't even happen like that in real life. Forcing minorities into roles JUST SO EVERYONE CAN BE REPRESENTED is like forcing people to like something. It'll have the opposite effect and they will start to hate it. It's parenting 101. By trying to stop the discussion, you escalate a lack of understanding and in turn escalate tension. The best way to integrate culture and underrepresented minorities is to openly discuss the topic and bring awareness around it. This is unequivocally proven through scientific and psychological literature. If anyone wants to see it, I can provide it. You want to make a show or a movie that appeals to women? Do it. Make it ALL about women. I thought the movie "What women want" with Mel Gibson and Helen Hunt was a funny and good flick, because it had great insights into how women think but it did it without being offensive. It got the point across elegantly. But forcing views is not only counterproductive, it's dangerous.

I gotta say, I am in love with her face. I have always had a soft spot for a woman with a nice strong facial structure and a square jaw and she is beautiful to me.

No, Dr.Love wrote that.

It's not a say so. I just think it's better for everyone to ignore what they don't like rather than gripe about it. It makes the world go round better and it's the entire reason there's an ignore feature. I have NO desire to take a thread out of the loop. The discussion has been about is how horrible the movie is, and this discussion was happening before I even got here. I am simply replying THE WAY I HAVE ALWAYS REPLIED ON THIS FORUM with my insights and opinions on why Disney is making the decisions they are. Sure I stray a bit, but it's not intentional. Like, when FF asked me if I was still on my high, I thought it was worth replying to. If you put me on ignore, you wouldn't have to see any of my replies and the thread would be as clean as you wanted it to be, while allowing others to engage as they please. Anyway, sorry you don't like discussions. I'm out. I genuinely wish you a good day.

While I might agree, this is no longer the place IMO. I know you're hurting. I'm hurting too. If ANYONE championed these things, it was me and that's no secret (40 strikes and a ban from the Watercooler for proof). I've committed to not do it here anymore for everyone's sake including my own. I've taken my points elsewhere where they'll be more effective. I would humbly suggest the same. You have made great points and I would hate if you couldn't do that anymore. Just offering advice as a friend.

That's what I was thinking as well.

The conversations in this thread have actually been fantastic, nuanced, inspiring and engaging. The fact that people are replying, agreeing, disagreeing respectfully and "liking" posts shows that engagement is positive. So far the only people that have complained are people who are constantly complaining. Some people have no interest in reading 1000 memes and would rather have proper, LONG FORM discussion. It's why I've had you on ignore since this place opened up and why I NEVER reply to you, out of respect for your right to say whatever you want. I made an exception this time because someone quoted you and I feel like your post is not only out of line, it's contentious and negative. If you actually took the time to read some of it, you'd see that every single post is totally on point with either the thread or answering a question someone asked. You might even learn something. I'm sorry if you don't like it but this isn't any single person's personal living room. It's the internet, so if someone is not interest in discussion just don't read it. It's what everyone else does to make this place a safe space for everyone. I have to say I am grateful that moderation allows such great conversation. If I wanted to read walls of memes, I'd be on Facebook. Have a nice day.