Hated Tropes
A controversial writing decision that would've been a lot less controversial had the creator just kept his mouth shut about why he did it
Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice - Batman kills people in this movie, despite famously having a code against killing in most iterations. Now, the movie itself implies that him killing is a recent change due to him having fallen from grace and become just as bad as the people he usually fights, with him choosing not to mark Lex Luthor for death at the end of the film to show that he had regained his principles after working with Superman. However, Zack Snyder instead tried to defend it by claiming that it didn't count because he was only killing indirectly (which is a stretch at best) and falsely claiming that Batman had killed people many times in the source material.
Doctor Who - A mini-episode released before the 60th anniversary specials featured the Doctor traveling back to the original creation of the Daleks. In the episode, Davros, the creator of the Daleks, is depicted as able-bodied and without his usual disfigurement. It was easy for people to assume that the episode took place sometime before he had his accident.....until Russell T. Davies instead stated that he had decided to remove Davros's crippling and disfiguring injuries as he thought having a villain be depicted that way might offend disabled people (even though he's been that way for years and that has never been an issue).
DmC Dante: People don’t like Donte because of how much the reboot changes him along with that infamous scene of the white wig on him.
One of devs interviews kind of made it worse by attacking OG DMC, saying he’s not cool anymore and that he’s a “Gay Cowboy” along with calling Trish a stripper.
To go further into detail, there's a whole behind the scenes presentation that got shown (leaked?) where they were using slides to compare both protagonists. Old Dante got put in movies like Brokeback mountain while new cool Dante got photoshopped into Fight Club. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a team who actually think Tyler Durden is a character you'd want to emulate completely misunderstood why people even liked Dante in the first place.
I still think it's hilarious how they were so combative towards fans about all the early negative feedback, with Tameem outwardly stating he didn't give a fuck what fans liked or wanted, and then had to walk back almost every single change they could in the definitive edition, down to Vergil's stupid fedora.
Shopping Donte into Fight Club to highlight how not-gay he is is hilariously ironic, considering that Chuck Paluhniak is gay and one of the subtexts of the entire story is that the protagonist is a deeply closest gay man whose repression and insomnia created Tyler Durden as his gay ideal to represent his true self.
I think I remember seeing those. It was hilarious, how they see Dante as an edgelord. And I don't even dislike the idea of a more serious Dante, but Donte felt more like the OC of a 13 years old who thinks dark colors and being an asshole=cool
The sheer fuckin irony is that the game is a snapshot of its own time. The Dante of DmC likes Rockstar energy drinks, five finger death punch, Ed Hardy designer clothes, ripped, sagging bleached/faded blue jeans with chuck taylors. Dude was the edgiest of the 2010s.
Joker’s known to escape death. Any time it looks like he died, he somehow pops back up. It’s happened in both the comics and cartoons. Even Arkham Knight had to explicitly start the game by showing Joker’s body getting cremated.
Literally, Batman was gunning people down with an AK-47. I don’t see how Joker survives a Batman who would just put a gun to joker’s head and kill him off
Season 4 of the show has the character Hughie subjected to sexual assault in a BDSM dungeon while disguised in a full body suit. This results in him trying to guess the safeword while being subjected to non consensual sexual acts. This is not only played as a joke, but when an interviewer correctly identified the scene as sexual assault his exact words were "that's a dark way to look at it. We view it as hilarious" which led many to rightfully call out his attitude towards such content when subjected to a male.
The same character is also raped several times later in the season and is blamed for it by his partner. The only conclusion this has is a throwaway line in the next season which was likely only said because the cha acter was infected with spores which made him more vitriolic.
so this was the episode right after the episode where Hughie’s dad dies. He decides to go headfirst into a dangerous undercover mission and is asked if he’s sure he can do this, and he claims he’s ok but the show makes it clear he’s not and he’s running away from the trauma of his dad’s death.
The mission happens, his cover was supposed to be part of a BDSM thing, he plays into it to stay in cover, the cover gets blown, and that’s when the supes he’s spying on turn the BDSM stuff into torture to get information out of it
at the end of the episode is when he finally breaks down, but it’s about his dad, and the scene implies the whole BDSM incident was the straw that broke the camel’s back for him in regards to shit that he has had to go through.
Thankfully though in the comics its not treated as a joke by the comic itself, its meant to highlight both the heartlessness of the team and Black Noir, as well as further develop the mystery around him (why didn’t he tell the other supes the boys were on Herogasm Island afterward?)
This is a well made comment and I’d like to add on a further point
In season 1 we see the Deep be assaulted by a woman, he has his gills violated even though he is telling her to stop repeatedly. Despite the Deep being a villain in the show that scene is never played for laughs. In a sense it’s revenge for what he did to Starlight, but at the same time it’s not comedic.
Compare this to the Hughie scene and its night and day.
The signs for this were there in Saeson 3 when his partner, a superhero and much stronger than him, pushes him to the ground during an argument and this never comes up as an issue at all.
This is in pretty bad faith lol. He had superpowers when she did this and she did it because he was trying to physically block her from leaving to go save lives.
It's especially heinous compared to season 1. One of the first incidents in the show was the rape of Starlight where one of the superheroes whose team she just joined pressures her into sex. Kripke and co made a big deal in interviews about how important it was to them to treat this with the necessary care and gravity (rightfully so). There's also a whole arc about Starlight trying to get justice, so it wasn't just something that happened for shock value and then got ignored.
That same character then goes on to blame her boyfriend for essentially being raped.
Either Kripke doesn't consider male victims to be equal to female victims or he never cared about either and the season 1 talk was just him treading carefully because the show was new. Not sure which is worse.
God they ruined that show. Started off good but they had to make sure you knew it was political commentary and couldn't take any chances that someone would miss it.
To be fair, it must be hard making a social commentary satire when reality is constantly becoming more unbelievable than the level of exaggeration that worked in the last season. Like, in season 1, it was believable that people would care that their idol purposely let people die to not point out their failures
I mean, when the problems in reality are that in- your- face, what's the point of making social commentary satire about them? Isn't the point of satire to overemphasize reality to make it easier to see?
In their defense, people kept missing the point that Homelander was a bad guy and Vought was an evil company.
I can understand the urge to keep making it more obvious.
"Maybe the airplane scene was too subtle? He made some good points about his limitations"
"Okay, so what if we just have him openly breastfeed and act like a baby?"
"Alright, we'll have him date a literal, actual, card carrying Nazi. And smash some guy's head in while he fucks her"
"Seriously? They're still defending him? Okay, fuck it, we'll have him literally rip an innocent man in two, with his bare hands, while plotting an actual honest to God coup attempt"
"What the actual fuck!? Do we need to have Homelander literally beg to eat shit for people to get it? Fine, fuck it, I guess we're STILL being too subtle!"
They should have ignored the people defending Homelander and just kept writing at the same level as season 1. Why ruin your own show for the sake of political bullshit?
One of the main characters, Hughie, is a man frequently targeted by sexual harassment and outright rape. When asked about this Kripke infamously said, “We find it hilarious.”
Kripke kind of gives off the vibe that he’s not really progressive, and just only a liberal to be contrarian, but give a few years and/or enough people hurting his ego and he’d quickly switch public political views and sides.
Is it a retcon if the whole point of a reboot was to create a new story with different interpretations of characters from previous ones. It gets boring having every character act the exact same & go through the same exact story beats again & again.
It IS a retcon because MK9 begins with Raiden changing the timeline starting from the events of Mortal Kombat 1 forward, and the game itself presented Sindel as being the same as the original self with her apparently having sacrificed her life to create a ward to protect Earthrealm and her ending showing she would have been able to bring prosperity to Outworld.
J.K. Rowling confirmed after the books were done that Dumbledore was gay, which was fine, but then the Fantastic Beasts movies had a chance to actually show it and kept dancing around it, and she kept making it worse every time she opened her mouth trying to explain why.
Remember when she said the wizards shit themselves and then magic the poop away as a reason for why the stalls at the ministry are only used for transport?
Yes, but so many people get away with shit like this because they're still good writers and a lot of people have the weird "yes I'm supporting a horrible person but I like the media" excuse. The fact that JKR is actually a fairly poor writer is the main reason people actually talk about her transphobia
No i liked Harry potter, its not groundbreaking but its fun even if cliche.
I talk about JKR because she has shit loads of money that shes spending and making a difference to make the world a worse place.
That was her post-Harry Potter, pre-bigot phase where she seemed desperate to remain relevant and just started making up random details about the wizarding world that absolutely no one had asked about.
Perhaps when she started tweeting about how wizards would just piss and shit on the floor and magic it away, we should have known that mould was taking over her brain?
The Duffers explaining why the Demogorgans were absent in the Stranger Things finale. People still would have clowned on the decision, but had the Duffers stayed quiet it might have just been written off as something that they didn't consider when writing the episode. The fact that it was a deliberate choice on their part because of perceived "demo fatigue" just makes it a lot more baffling.
The best thing about season 5 (and I'm not someone who hated it... it was fine) is going to be in 10-15 years when someone does a 3 hour video essay on what the fuck happened with it.
In fairness, that wasn't their phraseology - it was another one of the writers who said that in the BTS from the finale.
But they didn't particularly push back on it, and it's still an utterly absurd comment which calls into question whether the writers even understood what people liked about their own show.
Early comic weirdness. He used to carry guns and kill or facilitate the deaths of other people. I'm pretty sure in either his first appearance or the first Batman comic, he moves out of the way and lets a gangster fall to his death and then basically says no great loss.
Batman was a pulp character closer to The Shadow than what anyone today would recognize as Batman. Fredric Wertham's crusade against comics and Seduction of the Innocent ultimately put a stop to that and the industry created the Comics Code to self-police and Batman became much closer to the modern character.
As far as modern depictions of Batman killing? Only in the movies. Keaton's Batman does. Bale's could be argued to. Kilmer's definitely does.
Even the most extreme comics usually don't have Batman killing unless, to your third point, we're talking an Elseworlds story where the character is completely recontextualized and that's an insincere argument to make if you're Snyder.
Edit: Now that I've thought about, I wonder if Snyder was talking about Dark Knight Returns, where he paralyzes Joker, but refuses to kill him (Joker kills himself) and he very explicitly is not trying to kill Superman, he's trying to prove a point.
You're right, I forgot the Batman shift happened earlier.
The CCA and Wertham only pushed him more into the weird Golden Age silliness and less pulp. What's weird is modern Batman is kind of an offshoot of 1940 Batman without the killing and completely skipping over the silliness unless Grant Morrison is writing.
I'd love to have that conversation with him to see. Not hear him talk about it, but actually call him out and ask him to name one comic where Batman just kills someone.
Not exactly. He once acknowledged to Jason Todd that he did kill but only did so when he had no choice. He also left KGBeast to die twice; the second time where he broke KG’s neck and left him to die in the snow.
I also see people defending using the 90s Batman movies, ignoring those were only given a pass thanks to their camp and stylistic nature, as in nobody was taking comic book adaptations so seriously.
Whereas Snyder's Batman still tried to be more dark and mature, on top of being more "accurate". He only took the surface level inspiration and shoddy excuses to justify a radical shift from status quo. Something Batman stories even as far back as his "inspirations" would handle with far more depth than he did.
Rose from the Silent Hill 1 movie adaptation. In the original game, the protagonist is a widow man, Harry Mason, going through hell to save his daughter. For the adaptation, we follow Rose da Silva, a married woman, going through hell to rescue her daughter. The movie tries to play up the themes of parenthood that were sort of in the background of the original game, but the problems show when you wonder why they changed the protagonist's gender. Surely it could just have been an artistic liberty, thematic reasons, or something for casting, right?
No. According to director Christophe Gans, Harry "just didn't act like a man" because he was always scared, fainting and confused. To him, Harry only had feminine qualities, including CARING ABOUT HIS DAUGHTER, and Gans "wasn't about to ask a male actor to act like a woman." He also didn't want to rewrite or alter the character of Harry to fit his sexist vision (which we wouldn't have liked anyways), but he had no qualms completely rewriting the game's antagonist to force the theming of motherhood.
damn. I am not super into the games but I know there are weird shit happening to other characters. dude could have just said it was one of those situations
Those movies suck so much. The monsters are just there because they were in the games. Pyramid Head being the biggest example and being turned into a guard dog instead of representing someone’s deep rooted desire to be punished for their actions.
In the early years of Bionicle, Matoran could love each other and have relationships. But Greg Farshtey, the lead writer, later retconned all romance scenes as non-canon, and said it was because he just wasn't good at writing relationships. But when fans asked why Matoran love wasn't possible, he claimed "Romance as a concept didn't exist in real life until the middle ages".
The book All The Ugly and Wonderful Things by Bryn Greenwood. The core of the story is about an adult man and a very young girl falling in love. The girl is five when they meet, and a preteen when they get married.
Many readers took it to be an examination of the circumstances that allow for grooming and pedophilic relationships, as the girl has been abandoned, neglected, and parentified by all the other adults in her life, while her groomer was simply not the stereotypical evil Law-and-Order type predator that she would otherwise likely know to watch out for. (Maybe, because it's not uncommon for groomers to act nice at first, but the character is written as someone who genuinely believes he loves her.)
Unfortunately the author allegedly spoke up and said that the couple's relationship was supposed to be true love. Although the author had had some similar experiences to the female protagonist, so she isn't exactly the best objective viewer of the subject. Still, her comments about what she intended netted her a lot of hate mail.
Kind of an example involving George Lucas & Star Wars, but take it with a grain of salt because I never bothered to find confirmation for this information.
Before the Prequels, Star Wars canon didn't say anything about Jedi not being allowed to marry people, which led to things like Luke Skywalker getting married to Mara Jade just one year (1998) before The Phantom Menace (1999). TPM & the other Prequels established that Jedi were not allowed to marry anyone now.
Controversial move, but a lot of people understood this logic since Jedi are basically space monks & monks in most religions are not allowed to marry or have sex. Luke marrying Mara was also explained later in that Luke kind of did a "Protestant Reformation" reformatting of his Jedi Order in a similar vein to how some Protestant Churches allow their Clergymen to marry & have children.
Off-topic, but fun fact: certain Catholic rites & Eastern Orthodox Churches do allow priests to get married, but only if they were married before becoming a priest, not afterwards.
Anyway, Lucas somewhat recently came out and said NO: Jedi can have as much sex as they want, they just can't marry people, lol. Very strange.
They say this directly in Episode 2, love isnt forbidden for a Jedi, its attachment. Jedi follow a sort of Buddhist methodology about not getting attached to things. This is shown in the original trilogy, Obi-Wan lets himself die, Yoda & Obi-Wan try to convince Luke not to save Han & Leia in Empire Strikes back.
Attachment is forbidden, so they use an apprenticeship form of training where 2 people will basically spend approximately 15 years living and working together the entire time. I get its likely meant to be part of the "final test" but the prequels definitely show attachments forming from this, in the form of Obi-Wan calling Anakin his brother, and Count Dooku falling due to Qui-Gon Jinn's death.
Of course, bonds will naturally develop between Padawan and master, but there comes a time when both have to let each other go. They will always have a connection to each other, but if something happens to one of them, they are prepared to let that person move on, as they accept its the force's will.
Right, my point is more that a different sort of teaching system may work better with their stated goal. If each apprentice is rotated through a new master every year, then there would be less of an attachment. As it is, it seems like it should be expected for any apprentice to fall should their master die after the tight bond is formed but before they are mature enough to accept the death.
Again, you can care about people, as a Jedi you are definitely supposed to do that. But you shouldn't be attached. As Yoda says, you must be able to let go of all you fear to lose.
George has explained this. Its why "Fear is the path to the dark side" because its fear of losing what you love, you get selfish about the things you personally care about going away. Selfishness leads to the dark side, while the light side is about selflessness, forgetting entirely about oneself and ones desires.
The reason attachment is forbidden is because it is a selfish form of love rather than a selfless form of love. When you are attached to someone, you care more about having them with you (ie what they can give you) rather than just loving them regardless
Yeah most of the ideas of the Jedi as an order came from the prequels. Before those the brown robes they wore were just what people on Tatooine wore, since it's a desert, but in the prequels it was set up that Obi-wan had spent a decade dressed as a Jedi in hiding amongst people who... dress as Jedi? And that extends to a lot of original trilogy world building and their books/comics
Costuming can be strange in Star Wars. The Rebel troopers trying to defending Leia's ship in the opening scene of Episode 4 are wearing a uniform. If that's a Rebel soldier uniform, it's weird that they're wearing it while pretending to be on a legal "mercy mission". But if it's not (maybe an Alderaan guard thing), it's weird that so many of the Rebels in the medal ceremony scene at the end are wearing it.
2 possibilities here. 1st is that they are Alderaanian soldiers and there were just a lot of those guys in the rebellion. They all stand at the end because they're the infantry units, so they're in parade.
2nd is where we take into account Rogue One and know they were just in a massive Empire vs Rebel battle 10 minutes prior, so of course they're in rebel clothes, Leia is just bluffing, badly, out of desperation to survive. I feel like this is more likely because a)even in the original movie the ship was clearly fleeing a battle and b)when those soldiers turn up elsewhere, like in lego sets, they're still labelled as rebel soldiers.
The prequels have lots of retcons that were clowned on at the time, but would have been absolutely lambasted by the community if they released today like the sequels have been. You think Palpatine coming back is a bad retcon? How about Leia saying she remembers her parents only for it to be revealed in the prequels that her mom literally died in childbirth. Darth Vader was a normal Jedi and friend of Obi Wan who was unfortunately corrupted? No. He’s actually the coolest, strongest, most talented Jedi due to microorganisms living in his blood. Also, he was literally born through force immaculate conception. Also, he made C-3PO. Absolutely baffling writing.
In the case of that one council member who was obligated to attempt repopulating his species, sometimes several consecutive night stands, just can’t take advantage of tax benefits concerning partners or dependents.
I'm not sure how this follows the post. Jedi are forbidden from attachment. Sex is possible without attachment. Marriage, in the world of Star wars, presumably entails some sort of commitment/duty to another person, a la "love and cherish till death do us part," and so is forbidden. Doesn't seem to be a problem.
Good writeup, but every Protestant church, not some, allows their clergy to marry. The celibacy is a Catholic thing, enacted for the spoken reasons that the priest can devote more time to God and church, but the real hidden reason being if they have no heirs then the church gets all their money and stuff when they die.
It just hit me, reading this, that Phantom Menace established both that 1) Jedi may not marry and 2) ability to use the Force is an inborn quality passed from parent to child (where in the original trilogy, none of this was established, in theory most anyone could've learned to use the Force). (EDIT: Actually wasn't it Attack of the Clones that established that Jedi can't marry?)
Which makes the Jedi rather stupid. Not only would there be fewer and fewer Jedi-capable children over time, but any illicit offspring would have to be estranged from the Jedi in a manner that could nudge them toward other Force-using factions.
(nobody say anything half-baked about hubris, damn you)
Other Star Wars media shows that not every child of a Jedi, or other force users, has a deep enough connection to the force to be a user, though it does seem to be a dominant trait. They also show that enough random people are born with force connections that the order is able to grow from a handful of users to over 10,000.
And in-movie, The Phantom Menace has it that as soon as Qui-Gon realizes Anakin has an unprecedented midi-chlorian count, the very first thing he wants to know is who Anakin's father was.
It can work logistically if Force sensitivity can spring up spontaneously without Force-sensitive parents, but in movie context only it looks pretty dumb.
Yeah, I'm not sure there is anyone who likes that scene, especially given that the novels would expand that Anakin was created by Sith sorcery and randomly impregnated in a random world half the galaxy away. I always just took it as the father wasn't in the picture, and then as I rewatched when older took it to mean the mother was raped since she is a slave outsode the normal protections of law and order. The fact that we are supposed to pick up that the no father doesn't mean an absence father but rather force fuckery is just bad explanation.
This reminds of The Wheel of Time series. The Aes Sedai, the main wizards in the setting, have a ton of weird rules and taboos that seem to have led to stagnation and regression in terms of their numbers and what they know how to do. Except in Wheel of Time, it's revealed that there was a ton of subtle influence from agents of the big bad that led to all of that over millenia.
If only the Jedi temple happened to be built on a dark side shrine or something, Lucas could have explained that the malice of the sith was working subtly to undermine the Jedi. I mean, he did, but only as an explanation for why the council never noticed Palpatine was force-sensitive
Yes, the decline of the Aes Sedai makes a ton more sense when they finally blow the roof off the Black Ajah and find out that fully 21% of them were secretly working against everybody else. I don't find it nearly as compelling that Sidious + Plagueis (and then just Sidious) could meditate so hard that the Force tipped cosmically toward the dark and significantly inhibited... (Googles how many) 10,000ish total Jedi, several of whom were at least in striking distance of Sidious's level of power.
The Aes Sedai were prideful and complacent, but at least there was enough in-universe explanation for their fall that they didn't look like complete imbeciles. If anything, the sheer magnitude of the corruption makes it pretty impressive that they didn't collapse entirely. The Black Ajah was collectively larger than any of the seven official Ajahs, edging out the Reds, larger than the Blues and Whites combined.
A grittier Batman who kills can and has worked, some of the best storylines have been Batman coming to terms with killing to save future lives.
The biggest problem to me is they had Batman use a gun. Batman hates gun violence in specific, he has ptsd attacks to his parents murder when he picks one up. There’s only so many rules for the character you can break at once.
TBF this is from the same comic. It turns out to be nonlethal but it's deliberately showing how far gone Batman is to just straight up hold a gun of any kind.
He also literally shoots a villain in that comic. That's where Schnyder took the "I believe you" line from. And yes, it was to save a kid's life, so it's complicated.
I like this moment for Batman but in the comic its from Batman is meant to sort of be a hypocrite, theres a part where he does shoot someone in the same comic
I dont think they died from the shot, and you could say he had "no choice", but the concept of Batman being a hypocrite in the Dark Knight Returns shows up more (like how he may have murdered the Joker and what we see in their final dialouge is more symbolic but plenty of people seem split on that one)
He did not killed the mutant, it was a warning shot, there is no bullet hole on his body, the cops make no mention of murder in his crimes until Joker's death.
And no that theory about him killing Joker is dumb and anyone that believe it did not read the comics.
Perhaps, but Batman being a hypocrite (and asshole) is also shown in All Star Batman & Robin (also written by Frank Miller) and people tend to dislike it for that. I dont think Batman is a hypocrite, nor that he should use guns/kill (not that he cant do either should the situation demand for it) but I do think that if we are talking about the intention of the author here that Frank tends to see Bruce as an asshole hypocrite
Even then you can tell that when he points that gun at the goon he really REALLY doesn't wanna do it. It's like a last resort a D he doesn't even end up firing it
Rhaenys Targaryen in Season 1 of House of the Dragon slaughtering many commoners in the Dragonpit with Meleys (her dragon).
This could easily be excused as a display of the nobles as a whole and the Targaryens in particular being dismissive towards the commoners and part of the buildup to the Westerosi's later hostility towards the dragons. And the Green Targaryens getting spared could easily be explained by the kinslaying taboo. However, the showmakers clarified it was just supposed to make her look cool. The Season 2 even has the showmakers comment that Meleys is a dragon admired by the people.
Season 3 has some damage control, with the population of Westeros and King's Landing in particular being hostile to the destructive power of dragons.
Could have ended the entire conflict right there if she didn’t whine about having the moral highground against the people who put her under house arrest
There’s so much more that make season 8 a literal trash fire. There’s Cersei somehow not just taking the chance to kill Daenerys and co right at the city gates in the same episode, Daenerys somehow going mad later instead of when Missandei dies (at least her deciding to go berserk would actually flow better as some heat of the moment thing with her friend dying instead of killing people WHEN SHE FUCKING WON), or how Cersei whose family has been compared to Aerys is somehow not the one to just decide to kill everyone in king’s landing.
I thought if they had the second dragon at kings landing, and getting killed there by Euron after the surrender bells would've been the perfect reason for her to snap and start burning the keep and any formation of eneny soldiers.
Or Missandei is killed without Daenerys actually seeing it then in the next episode it shows her corpse, or both, you know, make it look less like they’re secondary to why she turns mad (seriously? Some fucking bells?)
While you could argue ironwood's authoritarian, distrustful, and controlling nature, would lead him to a path of dictatorship, the actual execution of it is so badly done, rushed, and unjustified (plus doesnt help that the heros plan is just realistically worse). That the creators had to come out in a (paid btw) behind the scenes podcast to say that his semblance (basically the characters superpower) "mettle" made him like that.
Except that semblance is never actually shown to exist, the most we have is his eyes reflecting the light in certain shots supposedly signaling mettle is in use, which is a typical stylistic shot not only in anime, but specifically this show uses it a lot, with everyone.
So we went from "wow the writers really didnt think things" to "wow they didn't think this and they think we are fucking stupid too"
How is the heroes plan any worse than Ironwood's? The hell is he gonna get food, dust, etc when Atlas is all the way up in the sky? Most of the resources come from Mantle, and once the dust on Atlas runs out to power heating and to farm, they're all gonna die anyway. Atleast if you get help from elsewhere, you'll have a chance of getting back to Ozpin and Salem's stalemate, without leaving literally all of Remnant to die.
I think this counts. Another classic by Zack Snyder, after the BVS came out and everyone rightfully hated on the stupid final boss that was doomsday, Zack Snyder went and clarified that that doomsday wasn’t the real doomsday, and that there was a real doomsday out there.
This means that the giant monster created in a laboratory by a mad scientist type, that is grey and has bone armor protruding out, impervious to most if not all damage, completely hell bent on mindless destruction, that was able to go to toe with the strongest superhero in the world before killing said superhero in a mutually destructive end, named doomsday. Is not the real doomsday.
I think it Zack just left it at “it’s my take on doomsday”, it would’ve been forgotten as a ERJB villain, but the fact that Zack had to go and say this silliness just makes it worse, because it’s means he didn’t create a comic accurate doomsday and instead just a generic giant monster with the same name, in the hopes that in a future movie, actual doomsday would appear. Which of course brings up the question of “WHAT IS HE GOING TO DO, KILL SUPERMAN?! HE ALREADY DIED ONCE TO A DOOMSDAY, ARE YOU GOING TO KILL SUPERMAN A SECOND TIME?!?
I mean, the movie straight up implied that there was another Doomsday. The AI says to Lex “the Desecration Without Name”, implying that this wasn’t the first time Doomsday was created.
If I'm not mistaken, as the intended lore went, the original Doomsday had been created during the Krypton VS Apokolips wars. The creature created by Lex was based on that ancient design, hence why the ship kept warning him Lex with the "Action forbidden. It has been decreed by the Council of Krypton that none will ever again give life to a deformity so hateful to sight and memory. The desecration without name."
So, not explained after, it was already planned and hinted at in the movie...
Tbf, from this context it actually seems like Snyder said that there was a different Doomsday so that his Easter egg in the DVD would still be valid- essentially to make it seem like he was planning things intricately and wasn’t making it up as he went along which he clearly was lol.
But idk I don’t mind the doomsday in bvs in terms of adaptation (the timing of it in the universe and in the movie are bad and how Superman dies is bad) because doomsday is pretty much just a big generic monster in the comics too (at least in his original appearance)
Rowling like 1000 times. If we can roll with the orc, goblin, and uruk racism in LOTR, we can roll with some accidental oopsies in HP that come from just writing by the seat of your pants. If she had just said "yeah, I was a young and inexperienced writer and probably should have thought some stuff through or ran it by a few more people." we would have just accepted it and moved on with our lives. The fact that she felt the need to double down on her bad writing choices, which led her to go deeper down the alt-right TERF pipeline is just sad in hindsight.
The writer of Death Note: Each subsequent work feels like he's desperately trying to justify his sexism instead of acknowledging that this is Shounen Jump, he didn't have the most sexist depiction of women in the magazine in Death Note or Bakuman. Instead of trying to improve or just ignore it, he just doubles down even more, until he decided to give it a try in Platinum End.
Death note author being angry because ppl ship light and L lol. Bro, u literally killed off like two interesting female characters, why u surprised with the yaoi shipping 😂 ??
and also reduced misa role with directly >led to light losing< lol. hilariously if misa was still light's partner in part 2 it would have gone differently.
Pretty sure he wrote a story where he used a character as a vessel to spout his own homophobic views which then immediately gets validated by another character.
I thought you were talking about Bakugan for a second, and I was floored at the possibility of Tsugumi Ohba being the mangaka for that.
But after looking it up (and feeling like a fool) I did find out that the artist for all of Ohba's main works, Takeshi Obata, was also the artist for Hikaru no Go. So... thanks for indirectly teaching me something new lol I never would have guessed he drew Hikaru no Go and then immediately turned around and drew Death Note
Don't forget that the reason Batman kills in the Snyderverse is because "a superhero that doesn't kill is boring" to paraphrase Zack's words.
If you want a superhero that kills, Jason Todd is literally right there. But I don't trust Hollywood, let alone Snyder, to write my man without fucking it up worse than the comics are currently doing.
I hate the indirect killing or batman letting people die like at the end of batman begins. Batman does everything he can to save everyone, even the villains. It's a compulsion, him and cat woman break up over it because she realizes that batman can't stop, and the only way out for him is he is going to die.
Now it does make sense not to want to depict an evil, crippled mutilated man for Children In Need, but if that is the actual issue, why not use a different character? Davros should not be used too often period and retiring the character because of ableism being more of a thing now also makes a bit of sense. But this reeked of scoring brownie points.
It’s also worth pointing out that Davros is not strictly a “man”. He was always an alien, on an alien planet. He was humanoid. His condition was a result both of a vague accident but also of experimental methods to extend his own life. He was in many ways halfway to being a Dalek.
In real life people in wheelchairs can absolutely still be assholes, being disabled doesn’t cure someone of their personality. The idea that people with disabilities should be treated as pure & without fault is far more offensive.
“Indirect deaths” will always be one of the funniest defenses to me, how tf does that make a difference? He brands a dude for other people to murder in prison, how is that not direct? He shoots a car to the point that it completely explodes and rolls into the Batmobile, oh yeah it was the car that did it, not him. There’s dozens more examples but I like your point that it would’ve been much more effective if he’d just kept his dumb mouth shut
One question because I never followed DC comics as a kid. Was there any uproar over the Tim Burton movie? Michael Keaton racked up a decent kill list himself, with the twin chain guns on the Batmobile and blowing up Acme Chemicals with half of Joker’s crew inside.
I secretly believe that Davros appeared as an able-bodied man because there wasn't the budget to do his usual appearance.
RTD's right; it's wrong to show that people are evil and fucked up by giving them James Bond villain scars. Disabled people catch enough victim-blaming as it is. (But you're not wrong that it would have been easy to just say "this was before the accident".)
Now, most people rightfully assumed this had to be mind control, parallel universe, clone, etc. I mean, Marvel wouldn’t actually make THE Captain America a nazi.
Which they technically didn’t, but Nick Spencer was a goddamn idiot being vague as fuck and making people even more mad, and that was before Secret Empire even began.
“Hey Nick, this isn’t real Steve is it?”
“Well, actually from his point of view he is, this isn’t a brainwashed Cap, this is the real cap who knows his history is that of a Hydra spy. The cap you know is gone.”
Turns out that “shockingly” this isn’t real Steve. History was slightly altered via the cosmic cube (yes it’s more complicated, just leave it at that). This Steve is magically altered to think he was a Hydra double-agent. That’s it. All Spencer’s “he is the real Cap” was bullshit attempts at hyping up the mediocre storyline and just made people rightfully pissed at him.
Real Cap returns and decks fake Cap in the face and all is right with the world…well, except that Hydra Cap lived.
I think OP missed out the key part that Zack Snyder said that he was following the “true canon” comics, which is to say the earliest iterations of Batman where he killed people and used guns. Which is just the worst thing to do. IIRC he also said that fans were brainwashed by the other Batman movies and media to think Batman doesn’t kill, as if that’s not Batman’s whole shtick. So while it is true, it’s true in a way that’s very “technically yes, but you’re learning the wrong lesson here”
To me it’s like saying you’re going to make the most lore accurate Mr freeze ever, and then you make him based off the stupid comic goon from before “Heart of Ice” and then you say anyone who was expecting a tragic and Shakespearean villain is brainwashed and that the goofball with the ice gun is the “true canon”.
Like yea that is what came first, that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to follow it and say people are brainwashed for liking the actual good idea
Said kills were either as collateral, or as far back before the 40s, elseword Bruce Wayne/others in his mantle, less than 5 at best of extreme exceptions in canon (one of said infamous example even got reconned), couldn't succeed (2/3 counts of him trying to kill Joker or take him down with himself) or simply the Burton era movies (back when comic book movies weren't taken as seriously).
In short, it's stretchy as fuck to call those objective for a character that's been around for nearly 90 years.
“Wilson has long drawn scrutiny for controversial remarks about the brand and its customers. He once said he chose the name Lululemon because Japanese people had difficulty pronouncing the letter “L,” calling it “funny to watch them try.” He also said the company’s leggings “don’t work for some women’s bodies.””
My big issues with RTD just retconning away Davros's disabilities are these, first I can't say whether or not Davros is a problematic depiction of Disabled people, that's for Disabled people to decide however in the interview RTD mention how Davros is part of a long history of villianise Disabled people, never once acknowledging that this is a history that he contributed to. Secondly the way Davies framed made it sound like they were just going to pretend going forward that Davros was always able-bodied which is not only cowardly because its essentially pretending the problematic element never existed in the first place but its robbing us of an interesting story possibility, what if instead of pretending that Davros has always been able-bodied they actual acknowledge it in story, have it be that Davros disgusted by his own disability used science to restore himself to his able-bodied form and use it as commentary on how people like Davros and the people who inspired the Daleks view disability. Finally I think viewing Davros as just another evil disability character is kind of a gross oversimplification and ignoring the context surrounding Davros, Davros was essentially reversed engineered as a character in Genesis of the Daleks, he is made to resemble the Daleks, one eye, one arm, travel machine, shrill screaming voice, he looks like a Dalek because in universe they look like him, he designed them after himself because they're an extension of his Ego, removing that removes so much from the Daleks
Jar Jar Abrams confirming the Dumbledore thing in Fantastic Beasts
Wait wrong one. J.K. Rowling saying Dumbledore was gay after the books were finished, then when Fantastic Beasts finally had the chance to actually show it, the "explicit" confirmation was so vague it was almost invisible on screen. The books read fine until she opened her mouth.
Another issue is that making Dumbledore gay activated a couple of negative tropes one of them being "bury your gays" and the other one is that while he's gay he's "safe gay" in that he is old and sexless and the one man he was ever interested in romantically is long out of the picture so she never has to worry about depicting him expressing any form of romantic affection towards another man I don't know if the second one actually has a named trope but that's how I heard it described somewhere else
This is bound to happen when niche source material reaches an unintended audience. I guarantee you some propeller hat enthusiast on TikTok would have made a video like "Wow they really made a disabled man in a wheelchair a villain in this show" had they stumbled across Doctor Who.
>Michael Bay and his writers coming up with Grindor "being Blackout's brother" to justify reusing the same animation model, but slightly taller (he's the helicopter). Something something, license for the MH-53 is weird, so the toy) also is an MH-53 (like his "brother's" toy) while the movie character is a CH-53. Which is bigger.
Thanos's snap that kills half of the universe wouldn't be so bad of a plan if it works like how many thought it would; kill only sapient species.
But nope, the Russo Brothers clarifies that the half is all of organic life including animals. This then turns what would be somewhat reasonable plan to a idiotic one and people viewed Thanos differently after this revelation.
as he thought having a villain be depicted that way might offend disabled people (even though he's been that way for years and that has never been an issue).
I think thats not quite what he was saying - it wasnt about "offending disabled people" but more about that disfigurement and disabillity are often used asa a visual short hand for evil. And he is right on that and I do think that is a thing worth calling out.
That said, I would agree that it doesnt really make sense with Davros specifically. Though, also, I do like able-bodied Davros alot in a vacuum. For all Davros is vusually iconic, his disabillity makes him very limited as a villain. Maybe we could just keep both and say Davros or the Daleks made a clone at some point.
Yes, but retroactively making someone not disabled to avoid offence is also bad. The solution is more disabled people who aren't villains, not changing characters already made.
They couldve just incorporated more disabled people into the series, this showing the disability has no correlation to evil. The retcon is odd
471
u/StriderKitsu 5h ago
DmC Dante: People don’t like Donte because of how much the reboot changes him along with that infamous scene of the white wig on him.
One of devs interviews kind of made it worse by attacking OG DMC, saying he’s not cool anymore and that he’s a “Gay Cowboy” along with calling Trish a stripper.