SJW's have ruined Movies/TVseries

[Montrovant]

it was a great movie, one of the better superhero movies ever. That you think it sucks is all on you, and not on the movie.

i guess there were too many black people for you in it.,

Wow. YOu made it about race. What a shocker. I am shocked. Shocked.


It sucked. The story was weak as shit. They failed to explain, pretty much everything about Wakanda. They tried to have a fusion of high tech and ancient african culture, which was brave, but they failed, they pandered shamelessly to racist black nationalism, insulting the intelligence of their target audience by doing it badly.

But they made a shit load of money, because they pandered to what their audience wanted to see.


How much money do you think they could have made, if they had did something similar but to a much larger group? Only not without being shit?

Black Panther is the 12th highest grossing movie of all time, so....probably not much more.

REally? You think that if instead of pandering to a small minority, that they had instead pandered to a target audience five times bigger, that they could not have earned even more?

AND, my point was not that they had to choose between them, but that they could do BOTH.


BALANCE.


Not just serve one side of the socio-political divide, but both.


They are leaving BILLIONS on the table. BILLIONS.

Define how a movie might pander to a white audience the way Black Panther pandered to a black audience. As far as I see it, Black Panther pandered by having a black director, black star, and largely black cast. Those things have been true of many, many movies as far as whites are concerned. What, specifically, do you think should or could have been done to pander to the larger audience?

The Sokavia Accords are an UN treaty. Have Captain America reject it out of Patriotism and Nationalism, because America is better.

Show that the American People, are far more reasonable, than the morons in the UN. Show them support Captain America as the UN and foreign governments and to a lesser extent, US government establishment types fall for the bullshit of trying to control and limit the Avengers, when what is needed to save the world is immediate and strong action, led by AMERICANS.


Fits in just fine with his character, fits in with the cinematic timeline, and tells the majority of American movie goers that they are great because they are part of a great nation, and blah, blah, blah, blah.


I find it hard to believe that American movie goers, generally speaking, would not love the shit out of that, and tell their friends they need to see it, and they would tell their friends, and some of them would go multiple times and ect ect ect.


For one example.

Well, the Avengers aren't all Americans. So that wouldn't work very well.

And I hate to break it to you, but moviegoers already go to Marvel movies in large numbers, with many going multiple times, telling their friends, etc. etc. I wonder who it is you think that is currently not going to those movies that would be. Black Panther, the movie you've complained is such a bad movie because it pandered, made more money in the US than any other Marvel movie other than Avengers:Endgame. It also made the 4th most money in the US of any movie, ever. So I'm curious why you think that Marvel studios would want to change the clearly successful formula they've been using? Or why you think that the 4th highest grossing movie in US history, and the 2nd highest grossing Marvel movie in US history, is leaving so much money on the table?

Hey, if you think you can make a movie that so many people would want to watch, go do it! Get rich! Get famous! Then use that fame to try pushing for movies of the sort you clearly want!

 

[Correll]

Wow. YOu made it about race. What a shocker. I am shocked. Shocked.


It sucked. The story was weak as shit. They failed to explain, pretty much everything about Wakanda. They tried to have a fusion of high tech and ancient african culture, which was brave, but they failed, they pandered shamelessly to racist black nationalism, insulting the intelligence of their target audience by doing it badly.

But they made a shit load of money, because they pandered to what their audience wanted to see.


How much money do you think they could have made, if they had did something similar but to a much larger group? Only not without being shit?

Black Panther is the 12th highest grossing movie of all time, so....probably not much more.

REally? You think that if instead of pandering to a small minority, that they had instead pandered to a target audience five times bigger, that they could not have earned even more?

AND, my point was not that they had to choose between them, but that they could do BOTH.


BALANCE.


Not just serve one side of the socio-political divide, but both.


They are leaving BILLIONS on the table. BILLIONS.

Define how a movie might pander to a white audience the way Black Panther pandered to a black audience. As far as I see it, Black Panther pandered by having a black director, black star, and largely black cast. Those things have been true of many, many movies as far as whites are concerned. What, specifically, do you think should or could have been done to pander to the larger audience?

The Sokavia Accords are an UN treaty. Have Captain America reject it out of Patriotism and Nationalism, because America is better.

Show that the American People, are far more reasonable, than the morons in the UN. Show them support Captain America as the UN and foreign governments and to a lesser extent, US government establishment types fall for the bullshit of trying to control and limit the Avengers, when what is needed to save the world is immediate and strong action, led by AMERICANS.


Fits in just fine with his character, fits in with the cinematic timeline, and tells the majority of American movie goers that they are great because they are part of a great nation, and blah, blah, blah, blah.


I find it hard to believe that American movie goers, generally speaking, would not love the shit out of that, and tell their friends they need to see it, and they would tell their friends, and some of them would go multiple times and ect ect ect.


For one example.

Well, the Avengers aren't all Americans. So that wouldn't work very well.

And I hate to break it to you, but moviegoers already go to Marvel movies in large numbers, with many going multiple times, telling their friends, etc. etc. I wonder who it is you think that is currently not going to those movies that would be. Black Panther, the movie you've complained is such a bad movie because it pandered, made more money in the US than any other Marvel movie other than Avengers:Endgame. It also made the 4th most money in the US of any movie, ever. So I'm curious why you think that Marvel studios would want to change the clearly successful formula they've been using? Or why you think that the 4th highest grossing movie in US history, and the 2nd highest grossing Marvel movie in US history, is leaving so much money on the table?

Hey, if you think you can make a movie that so many people would want to watch, go do it! Get rich! Get famous! Then use that fame to try pushing for movies of the sort you clearly want!

1. Name one Avenger that is not an American, that could not be written as following Captain America.


2. Black Panther made more than all but on other Marvel movie, by pandering heavily to one minority group. What if they used that same strategy on a group five times bigger?

 

[Montrovant]

Black Panther is the 12th highest grossing movie of all time, so....probably not much more.

REally? You think that if instead of pandering to a small minority, that they had instead pandered to a target audience five times bigger, that they could not have earned even more?

AND, my point was not that they had to choose between them, but that they could do BOTH.


BALANCE.


Not just serve one side of the socio-political divide, but both.


They are leaving BILLIONS on the table. BILLIONS.

Define how a movie might pander to a white audience the way Black Panther pandered to a black audience. As far as I see it, Black Panther pandered by having a black director, black star, and largely black cast. Those things have been true of many, many movies as far as whites are concerned. What, specifically, do you think should or could have been done to pander to the larger audience?

The Sokavia Accords are an UN treaty. Have Captain America reject it out of Patriotism and Nationalism, because America is better.

Show that the American People, are far more reasonable, than the morons in the UN. Show them support Captain America as the UN and foreign governments and to a lesser extent, US government establishment types fall for the bullshit of trying to control and limit the Avengers, when what is needed to save the world is immediate and strong action, led by AMERICANS.


Fits in just fine with his character, fits in with the cinematic timeline, and tells the majority of American movie goers that they are great because they are part of a great nation, and blah, blah, blah, blah.


I find it hard to believe that American movie goers, generally speaking, would not love the shit out of that, and tell their friends they need to see it, and they would tell their friends, and some of them would go multiple times and ect ect ect.


For one example.

Well, the Avengers aren't all Americans. So that wouldn't work very well.

And I hate to break it to you, but moviegoers already go to Marvel movies in large numbers, with many going multiple times, telling their friends, etc. etc. I wonder who it is you think that is currently not going to those movies that would be. Black Panther, the movie you've complained is such a bad movie because it pandered, made more money in the US than any other Marvel movie other than Avengers:Endgame. It also made the 4th most money in the US of any movie, ever. So I'm curious why you think that Marvel studios would want to change the clearly successful formula they've been using? Or why you think that the 4th highest grossing movie in US history, and the 2nd highest grossing Marvel movie in US history, is leaving so much money on the table?

Hey, if you think you can make a movie that so many people would want to watch, go do it! Get rich! Get famous! Then use that fame to try pushing for movies of the sort you clearly want!

1. Name one Avenger that is not an American, that could not be written as following Captain America.


2. Black Panther made more than all but on other Marvel movie, by pandering heavily to one minority group. What if they used that same strategy on a group five times bigger?

1. Anyone can be written to do anything.

2. Which group do you think has not been represented in the superhero genre that could be in a similar fashion? Not whites, obviously. Conservatives? That wouldn't work in the same way. Also, you seem to be thinking that Black Panther was only watched by blacks. Marvel fans are going to watch their movies, generally speaking, regardless of who the movie may pander to. Marvel fans watched Black Panther, they watched Captain Marvel, they watched Avengers, etc. I doubt very many decided to stay home because they felt the movies pandered to a particular audience. So unless you want to argue that many marvel fans didn't bother going to see Black Panther because it pandered, who is it you think is not watching Marvel movies now but would be if they followed whatever formula you think is best?

 

[Montrovant]

On This Tinsel Thread, Rightist Extremists Cover Up the Fact That Monopolists Don't Need Outside Funding


Because Liberal degenerates monopolize Hollywood, the public is not given an alternative to compete with them, so they make profits through that. Second, they make sure their pictures have all the bells and whistles to distract the public from being disgusted by their message.

Look at the hippie-scum loving propaganda in Billy Jack. It drew large audiences simply because of all the dramatic action-hero sensationalism and the fact that Tom Laughlin is a typical handsome Jean-Claude Van Damme he-man type, despite his acted preference for sissyboy lazy crybabies and the typical trash glorified by spoiled-putrid Limousine Liberals.

"Because Liberal degenerates monopolize Hollywood, the public is not given an alternative to compete with them,"


I see....

so.....liberal hollywood should make movies with BALANCE that are fair to BOTH sides!

How do you feel about conservative movie makers creating 100% pro-conservative propaganda films?

Is that "THEIR RIGHT!"

a RIGHT that you seem to deny liberals?

Or, at least create some product that appeals to the other half of America, that is different from them.


Seems like a reasonable request.

Black Panther appealed to far more than black people, your refusal to acknowledge this is why I am convinced racism is involved.
You are literally the first person I have talked to about the movie that did not like it.

Or the first person who was brave enough to admit that they did not like it.

Did you find the villain impressive? Could you really see him as a threat to the world?

Your view of yourself is as skewed as you view of the country.

He was not supposed to be a threat to the world, it was a more personal conflict. Was Ivan Vanko a threat to the world?

Killmonger was absolutely a threat to the world. The point was that, if he ruled Wakanda, he would use their advanced tech and start getting revenge for perceived wrongs.

I think Black Panther was overrated. It wasn't bad, it just wasn't one of the best Marvel movies. The concept of the most advanced nation in history keeping that advanced technology secret, while at the same time transferring near-dictatorial power by means of individual combat, is just terrible. The battle rhinos were so ridiculous it was cringe-worthy. I thought some of the CGI was less-than-stellar (although there was worse in Infinity War). Killmonger was a fairly weak villain, although Marvel tends to have problems with that in most movies. I hated that so many Wakandans seemed perfectly willing to follow what Killmonger decided because he beat T'challa in a fight.

I still enjoyed the movie, I just found it to be middle-of-the-road Marvel, not exceptional.

 

[Correll]

REally? You think that if instead of pandering to a small minority, that they had instead pandered to a target audience five times bigger, that they could not have earned even more?

AND, my point was not that they had to choose between them, but that they could do BOTH.


BALANCE.


Not just serve one side of the socio-political divide, but both.


They are leaving BILLIONS on the table. BILLIONS.

Define how a movie might pander to a white audience the way Black Panther pandered to a black audience. As far as I see it, Black Panther pandered by having a black director, black star, and largely black cast. Those things have been true of many, many movies as far as whites are concerned. What, specifically, do you think should or could have been done to pander to the larger audience?

The Sokavia Accords are an UN treaty. Have Captain America reject it out of Patriotism and Nationalism, because America is better.

Show that the American People, are far more reasonable, than the morons in the UN. Show them support Captain America as the UN and foreign governments and to a lesser extent, US government establishment types fall for the bullshit of trying to control and limit the Avengers, when what is needed to save the world is immediate and strong action, led by AMERICANS.


Fits in just fine with his character, fits in with the cinematic timeline, and tells the majority of American movie goers that they are great because they are part of a great nation, and blah, blah, blah, blah.


I find it hard to believe that American movie goers, generally speaking, would not love the shit out of that, and tell their friends they need to see it, and they would tell their friends, and some of them would go multiple times and ect ect ect.


For one example.

Well, the Avengers aren't all Americans. So that wouldn't work very well.

And I hate to break it to you, but moviegoers already go to Marvel movies in large numbers, with many going multiple times, telling their friends, etc. etc. I wonder who it is you think that is currently not going to those movies that would be. Black Panther, the movie you've complained is such a bad movie because it pandered, made more money in the US than any other Marvel movie other than Avengers:Endgame. It also made the 4th most money in the US of any movie, ever. So I'm curious why you think that Marvel studios would want to change the clearly successful formula they've been using? Or why you think that the 4th highest grossing movie in US history, and the 2nd highest grossing Marvel movie in US history, is leaving so much money on the table?

Hey, if you think you can make a movie that so many people would want to watch, go do it! Get rich! Get famous! Then use that fame to try pushing for movies of the sort you clearly want!

1. Name one Avenger that is not an American, that could not be written as following Captain America.


2. Black Panther made more than all but on other Marvel movie, by pandering heavily to one minority group. What if they used that same strategy on a group five times bigger?

1. Anyone can be written to do anything.

2. Which group do you think has not been represented in the superhero genre that could be in a similar fashion? Not whites, obviously. Conservatives? That wouldn't work in the same way. Also, you seem to be thinking that Black Panther was only watched by blacks. Marvel fans are going to watch their movies, generally speaking, regardless of who the movie may pander to. Marvel fans watched Black Panther, they watched Captain Marvel, they watched Avengers, etc. I doubt very many decided to stay home because they felt the movies pandered to a particular audience. So unless you want to argue that many marvel fans didn't bother going to see Black Panther because it pandered, who is it you think is not watching Marvel movies now but would be if they followed whatever formula you think is best?

1. Characters can be written to do anything. If you have no respect for the product or the fans.

2. Why not whites?

3. Why not conservatives?

4. Incorrect. I am well aware that non-blacks went and watched Black Panther in large numbers. That does not mean it was not targeted at blacks, specifically Black Nationalists.

 

[Correll]

"Because Liberal degenerates monopolize Hollywood, the public is not given an alternative to compete with them,"


I see....

so.....liberal hollywood should make movies with BALANCE that are fair to BOTH sides!

How do you feel about conservative movie makers creating 100% pro-conservative propaganda films?

Is that "THEIR RIGHT!"

a RIGHT that you seem to deny liberals?

Or, at least create some product that appeals to the other half of America, that is different from them.


Seems like a reasonable request.

Black Panther appealed to far more than black people, your refusal to acknowledge this is why I am convinced racism is involved.
You are literally the first person I have talked to about the movie that did not like it.

Or the first person who was brave enough to admit that they did not like it.

Did you find the villain impressive? Could you really see him as a threat to the world?

Your view of yourself is as skewed as you view of the country.

He was not supposed to be a threat to the world, it was a more personal conflict. Was Ivan Vanko a threat to the world?

Killmonger was absolutely a threat to the world. The point was that, if he ruled Wakanda, he would use their advanced tech and start getting revenge for perceived wrongs.

I think Black Panther was overrated. It wasn't bad, it just wasn't one of the best Marvel movies. The concept of the most advanced nation in history keeping that advanced technology secret, while at the same time transferring near-dictatorial power by means of individual combat, is just terrible. The battle rhinos were so ridiculous it was cringe-worthy. I thought some of the CGI was less-than-stellar (although there was worse in Infinity War). Killmonger was a fairly weak villain, although Marvel tends to have problems with that in most movies. I hated that so many Wakandans seemed perfectly willing to follow what Killmonger decided because he beat T'challa in a fight.

I still enjoyed the movie, I just found it to be middle-of-the-road Marvel, not exceptional.

1. Wakada tech plus black resistance fighters was such a credible threat, that Gator completely forgot about it.

2. I had no problem with the idea of a hidden advanced nation. That had potential imo. They just had to explain it some. THeir explanation was completely weak.

3. Agree on the personal combat. That was terrible.

4. Agree on the war rhinos. That was terrible.

5. Agreed Killmonger was weak. Though it is was a more limited scale fight as Gator mis remembered it, he could have been better. Give him an actual faction of support. Hell, there is no reason that their was not a serious interventionist faction inside of the nation.


6. Agree on having so many people following Killmonger because he won the duel. It was not convincing.

 

[anynameyouwish]

They must be catered to. It doesn't work that way. Nobody is forcing them to watch anything, yet they complain that they are being "forced" to watch.

Nope.

We're not watching.

That's the point of the thread, why would film producers purposely drive away half the American population, and therefore cut their revenues in half?

Who is making up for this loss of potential profit? Show me the tax returns and I'll tell you.

On This Tinsel Thread, Rightist Extremists Cover Up the Fact That Monopolists Don't Need Outside Funding


Because Liberal degenerates monopolize Hollywood, the public is not given an alternative to compete with them, so they make profits through that. Second, they make sure their pictures have all the bells and whistles to distract the public from being disgusted by their message.

Look at the hippie-scum loving propaganda in Billy Jack. It drew large audiences simply because of all the dramatic action-hero sensationalism and the fact that Tom Laughlin is a typical handsome Jean-Claude Van Damme he-man type, despite his acted preference for sissyboy lazy crybabies and the typical trash glorified by spoiled-putrid Limousine Liberals.

I've noticed that HATE RADIO is 100% conservative biased, complete with lies, hate, fear, extreme generalizations....

seems to me they should be more FAIR and BALANCED. It would be great if, for every false accusation against liberals, they would give one true accusation against conservatives....

like;

"LIBERALS are HYPOCRITES!....and so are conservatives...."

 

[Harpy Eagle]

"Because Liberal degenerates monopolize Hollywood, the public is not given an alternative to compete with them,"


I see....

so.....liberal hollywood should make movies with BALANCE that are fair to BOTH sides!

How do you feel about conservative movie makers creating 100% pro-conservative propaganda films?

Is that "THEIR RIGHT!"

a RIGHT that you seem to deny liberals?

Or, at least create some product that appeals to the other half of America, that is different from them.


Seems like a reasonable request.

Black Panther appealed to far more than black people, your refusal to acknowledge this is why I am convinced racism is involved.
You are literally the first person I have talked to about the movie that did not like it.

Or the first person who was brave enough to admit that they did not like it.

Did you find the villain impressive? Could you really see him as a threat to the world?

Your view of yourself is as skewed as you view of the country.

He was not supposed to be a threat to the world, it was a more personal conflict. Was Ivan Vanko a thirst to the world?

Actually Ivan Vanko, is an excellent point to bring up. And the movie would have been a lot better, if the main villain was a "more personal conflict" as you remember it.


BUT, there was a larger "threat to the world" plot point added in, with the villain ordering high tech weapons shipped to black resistant groups or whatever, all around the world.


That you forgot that is understandable. It was not believable and had all the drama of watching paint dry. Well, maybe not that bad.


But bad enough that you forgot all about it.



Do you want to discuss that failure of the movie some more, or can I bring up another one to discuss?

There was no failure, the movie got outstanding reviews, it got outstanding viewer ratings and it made a shit ton of money, it was a success by every meaningful measure.

The only failure is you trying to hide your contempt for a movie about a strong black man.

 

[Correll]

Or, at least create some product that appeals to the other half of America, that is different from them.


Seems like a reasonable request.

Black Panther appealed to far more than black people, your refusal to acknowledge this is why I am convinced racism is involved.
You are literally the first person I have talked to about the movie that did not like it.

Or the first person who was brave enough to admit that they did not like it.

Did you find the villain impressive? Could you really see him as a threat to the world?

Your view of yourself is as skewed as you view of the country.

He was not supposed to be a threat to the world, it was a more personal conflict. Was Ivan Vanko a thirst to the world?

Actually Ivan Vanko, is an excellent point to bring up. And the movie would have been a lot better, if the main villain was a "more personal conflict" as you remember it.


BUT, there was a larger "threat to the world" plot point added in, with the villain ordering high tech weapons shipped to black resistant groups or whatever, all around the world.


That you forgot that is understandable. It was not believable and had all the drama of watching paint dry. Well, maybe not that bad.


But bad enough that you forgot all about it.



Do you want to discuss that failure of the movie some more, or can I bring up another one to discuss?

There was no failure, the movie got outstanding reviews, it got outstanding viewer ratings and it made a shit ton of money, it was a success by every meaningful measure.

The only failure is you trying to hide your contempt for a movie about a strong black man.

You forgot that super villain plot was one of world conquest.

That is a massive failure on ether the movie or you.


Personally I think it was the movie. THe threat was not credible. So it is understandable that you forgot.


Especially as you liked the movie and misremembered fondly as a more reasonable scaled personal fight.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You forgot that super villain plot was one of world conquest.

That is a massive failure on ether the movie or you.


Personally I think it was the movie. THe threat was not credible. So it is understandable that you forgot.


Especially as you liked the movie and misremembered fondly as a more reasonable scaled personal fight.

The villain's world conquest were secondary part of the story, mostly there to tie it into the other Marvel movies. It was never meant to be a major story line.

But again, there is no metric by which this movie was a failure expect the Correll scale, which could not mean less to anyone.

Seems once again you have a problem with the strong black man being the center of attention.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Or, at least create some product that appeals to the other half of America, that is different from them.


Seems like a reasonable request.

Black Panther appealed to far more than black people, your refusal to acknowledge this is why I am convinced racism is involved.
You are literally the first person I have talked to about the movie that did not like it.

Or the first person who was brave enough to admit that they did not like it.

Did you find the villain impressive? Could you really see him as a threat to the world?

Your view of yourself is as skewed as you view of the country.

He was not supposed to be a threat to the world, it was a more personal conflict. Was Ivan Vanko a thirst to the world?

Actually Ivan Vanko, is an excellent point to bring up. And the movie would have been a lot better, if the main villain was a "more personal conflict" as you remember it.


BUT, there was a larger "threat to the world" plot point added in, with the villain ordering high tech weapons shipped to black resistant groups or whatever, all around the world.


That you forgot that is understandable. It was not believable and had all the drama of watching paint dry. Well, maybe not that bad.


But bad enough that you forgot all about it.



Do you want to discuss that failure of the movie some more, or can I bring up another one to discuss?

There was no failure, the movie got outstanding reviews, it got outstanding viewer ratings and it made a shit ton of money, it was a success by every meaningful measure.

The only failure is you trying to hide your contempt for a movie about a strong black man.

No one is going to give a black movie a bad review. That would be a career ender.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Black Panther appealed to far more than black people, your refusal to acknowledge this is why I am convinced racism is involved.
You are literally the first person I have talked to about the movie that did not like it.

Or the first person who was brave enough to admit that they did not like it.

Did you find the villain impressive? Could you really see him as a threat to the world?

Your view of yourself is as skewed as you view of the country.

He was not supposed to be a threat to the world, it was a more personal conflict. Was Ivan Vanko a thirst to the world?

Actually Ivan Vanko, is an excellent point to bring up. And the movie would have been a lot better, if the main villain was a "more personal conflict" as you remember it.


BUT, there was a larger "threat to the world" plot point added in, with the villain ordering high tech weapons shipped to black resistant groups or whatever, all around the world.


That you forgot that is understandable. It was not believable and had all the drama of watching paint dry. Well, maybe not that bad.


But bad enough that you forgot all about it.



Do you want to discuss that failure of the movie some more, or can I bring up another one to discuss?

There was no failure, the movie got outstanding reviews, it got outstanding viewer ratings and it made a shit ton of money, it was a success by every meaningful measure.

The only failure is you trying to hide your contempt for a movie about a strong black man.

No one is going to give a black movie a bad review. That would be a career ender.

What exactly is a "black movie"?

Does this qualify?

 

[Correll]

You forgot that super villain plot was one of world conquest.

That is a massive failure on ether the movie or you.


Personally I think it was the movie. THe threat was not credible. So it is understandable that you forgot.


Especially as you liked the movie and misremembered fondly as a more reasonable scaled personal fight.

The villain's world conquest were secondary part of the story, mostly there to tie it into the other Marvel movies. It was never meant to be a major story line.

But again, there is no metric by which this movie was a failure expect the Correll scale, which could not mean less to anyone.

Seems once again you have a problem with the strong black man being the center of attention.

1. That you, a man that liked the movie, forgot what the plot was, is failure of story telling.


2. That your defense is, that the plot was not a major part of the story, is a failure of the story telling.


3. And then you race bait. Why do you want to be an asshole? Can't you disagree without being an asshole?

4. Do you think building a community center in LA was a strong dramatic ending?


5. What did you think of an advanced nation, choosing it's leader by individual combat?

 

[22lcidw]

Ultron had a point. Just saying. He was misunderstood.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

1. That you, a man that liked the movie, forgot what the plot was, is failure of story telling.


2. That your defense is, that the plot was not a major part of the story, is a failure of the story telling.


3. And then you race bait. Why do you want to be an asshole? Can't you disagree without being an asshole?

4. Do you think building a community center in LA was a strong dramatic ending?


5. What did you think of an advanced nation, choosing it's leader by individual combat?

1. It was the minor part of the plot to a movie I saw almost 2 years ago.

2. No defense needed.

3. It is the only thing that makes sense.

4. It was a superhero movie ending.

5. That is an integral part of the comic book, to remove it would be to fail the nature of the comic.

 

[Correll]

1. That you, a man that liked the movie, forgot what the plot was, is failure of story telling.


2. That your defense is, that the plot was not a major part of the story, is a failure of the story telling.


3. And then you race bait. Why do you want to be an asshole? Can't you disagree without being an asshole?

4. Do you think building a community center in LA was a strong dramatic ending?


5. What did you think of an advanced nation, choosing it's leader by individual combat?

1. It was the minor part of the plot to a movie I saw almost 2 years ago.

2. No defense needed.

3. It is the only thing that makes sense.

4. It was a superhero movie ending.

5. That is an integral part of the comic book, to remove it would be to fail the nature of the comic.

It is not the only thing that makes sense. Why are being an asshole? You can't disagree over a freaking MOVIE, without being an asshole about it?


You can be true to canon, without shitcanning realism, or I guess I should say, "realism". The netflix shows have done a masterful job of that, for example.


Did you like the trained war rhinos? What about the excessive use of spears?


You know one part I just loved? When Killmonger, makes a snide comment about being watched by security, in the museum at the beginning of the movie. He made it to a woman he had already poisoned, because he was seconds from robbing the museum and killing all the guards.

That is just so great. A robber, complaining that he is being profiled, when he is actively robbing the place.

Hilarious. Great writing that.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It is not the only thing that makes sense. Why are being an asshole? You can't disagree over a freaking MOVIE, without being an asshole about it?


You can be true to canon, without shitcanning realism, or I guess I should say, "realism". The netflix shows have done a masterful job of that, for example.


Did you like the trained war rhinos? What about the excessive use of spears?


You know one part I just loved? When Killmonger, makes a snide comment about being watched by security, in the museum at the beginning of the movie. He made it to a woman he had already poisoned, because he was seconds from robbing the museum and killing all the guards.

That is just so great. A robber, complaining that he is being profiled, when he is actively robbing the place.

Hilarious. Great writing that.

It makes sense because it is not just this movie you have issues with.

I do not go to superhero movies for realism, I go for entertainment. I have realism in my day to day life, I go to movies to get away from all of that. The war rhinos were cool and the spear use fit the story.

Most of the Netflix superhero shows are crap, watched a couple episodes of most and never went back. Daredevil started out ok, but went down hill quickly. Iron Fist which I was so happy when I heard it was coming out, was basically unwatchable

Now the Witcher is great, as was the Umbrella Academy.

 

[Correll]

It is not the only thing that makes sense. Why are being an asshole? You can't disagree over a freaking MOVIE, without being an asshole about it?


You can be true to canon, without shitcanning realism, or I guess I should say, "realism". The netflix shows have done a masterful job of that, for example.


Did you like the trained war rhinos? What about the excessive use of spears?


You know one part I just loved? When Killmonger, makes a snide comment about being watched by security, in the museum at the beginning of the movie. He made it to a woman he had already poisoned, because he was seconds from robbing the museum and killing all the guards.

That is just so great. A robber, complaining that he is being profiled, when he is actively robbing the place.

Hilarious. Great writing that.

It makes sense because it is not just this movie you have issues with.

I do not go to superhero movies for realism, I go for entertainment. I have realism in my day to day life, I go to movies to get away from all of that. The war rhinos were cool and the spear use fit the story.

Most of the Netflix superhero shows are crap, watched a couple episodes of most and never went back. Daredevil started out ok, but went down hill quickly. Iron Fist which I was so happy when I heard it was coming out, was basically unwatchable

Now the Witcher is great, as was the Umbrella Academy.

1. That still does not make it make sense. We disagree on a movie, and you have to call me names?

2. So, you have very low standards for superhero movies. That does not justify you denying the obvious flaws that those of us that care more, might notice. Nor calling us names for doing so.

3. A lot of the netflix stuff was very good. Daredevil was good. Jessica Jones was good. Luke Cage was good. And my point was, they did a great job of balancing comic book canon, with "Realism".


4. I've heard good stuff on both of those. My wife and I plan to watch the Witcher once we finish The Good Place.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It is not the only thing that makes sense. Why are being an asshole? You can't disagree over a freaking MOVIE, without being an asshole about it?


You can be true to canon, without shitcanning realism, or I guess I should say, "realism". The netflix shows have done a masterful job of that, for example.


Did you like the trained war rhinos? What about the excessive use of spears?


You know one part I just loved? When Killmonger, makes a snide comment about being watched by security, in the museum at the beginning of the movie. He made it to a woman he had already poisoned, because he was seconds from robbing the museum and killing all the guards.

That is just so great. A robber, complaining that he is being profiled, when he is actively robbing the place.

Hilarious. Great writing that.

It makes sense because it is not just this movie you have issues with.

I do not go to superhero movies for realism, I go for entertainment. I have realism in my day to day life, I go to movies to get away from all of that. The war rhinos were cool and the spear use fit the story.

Most of the Netflix superhero shows are crap, watched a couple episodes of most and never went back. Daredevil started out ok, but went down hill quickly. Iron Fist which I was so happy when I heard it was coming out, was basically unwatchable

Now the Witcher is great, as was the Umbrella Academy.

1. That still does not make it make sense. We disagree on a movie, and you have to call me names?

2. So, you have very low standards for superhero movies. That does not justify you denying the obvious flaws that those of us that care more, might notice. Nor calling us names for doing so.

3. A lot of the netflix stuff was very good. Daredevil was good. Jessica Jones was good. Luke Cage was good. And my point was, they did a great job of balancing comic book canon, with "Realism".


4. I've heard good stuff on both of those. My wife and I plan to watch the Witcher once we finish The Good Place.

1. It goes well beyond the movie

2. Not at all, and most of the world agrees with me.

3. The superheros on Netflix are a different tier than those in the Marvel Movies. They lead normal lives and have minor powers. Thus the are different than Thor and Black Panther.

 

[Correll]

It is not the only thing that makes sense. Why are being an asshole? You can't disagree over a freaking MOVIE, without being an asshole about it?


You can be true to canon, without shitcanning realism, or I guess I should say, "realism". The netflix shows have done a masterful job of that, for example.


Did you like the trained war rhinos? What about the excessive use of spears?


You know one part I just loved? When Killmonger, makes a snide comment about being watched by security, in the museum at the beginning of the movie. He made it to a woman he had already poisoned, because he was seconds from robbing the museum and killing all the guards.

That is just so great. A robber, complaining that he is being profiled, when he is actively robbing the place.

Hilarious. Great writing that.

It makes sense because it is not just this movie you have issues with.

I do not go to superhero movies for realism, I go for entertainment. I have realism in my day to day life, I go to movies to get away from all of that. The war rhinos were cool and the spear use fit the story.

Most of the Netflix superhero shows are crap, watched a couple episodes of most and never went back. Daredevil started out ok, but went down hill quickly. Iron Fist which I was so happy when I heard it was coming out, was basically unwatchable

Now the Witcher is great, as was the Umbrella Academy.

1. That still does not make it make sense. We disagree on a movie, and you have to call me names?

2. So, you have very low standards for superhero movies. That does not justify you denying the obvious flaws that those of us that care more, might notice. Nor calling us names for doing so.

3. A lot of the netflix stuff was very good. Daredevil was good. Jessica Jones was good. Luke Cage was good. And my point was, they did a great job of balancing comic book canon, with "Realism".


4. I've heard good stuff on both of those. My wife and I plan to watch the Witcher once we finish The Good Place.

1. It goes well beyond the movie

2. Not at all, and most of the world agrees with me.

3. The superheros on Netflix are a different tier than those in the Marvel Movies. They lead normal lives and have minor powers. Thus the are different than Thor and Black Panther.

1. Nothing I have ever said or done, justifies you accusing me of having some racist opposition to having a black in power or represented as in a position of power. That was you, being a prick.


2. Easily explained as fear of SJW assholes.

3. Which does not negate the challenge of balancing canon and "Realism".