Pop culture stuff...
Apr. 7th, 2021 09:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. After listening to a lengthy podcast between Jay Edidin and Connor Goldsmith Cerebrocast Episode 9 - Cyclops - I realized that people really do only see what they want to see. Also people tend to bring their own baggage with them. So you really can't trust anyone's opinion on a story or film or comic.
I got frustrated with their review - because they left stuff out. And got various plot points wrong. I thought - wait a minute, what about this, and that - and no, you're wrong about that!
In the podcast - the two commentators made it all about them, focusing on the items that bothered them, and focusing only on those items that furthered the themes that interested them and their issues. [Ex: Cyclops was obviously on the autism spectrum because he reminded one of the casters of her father, and the other of themselves. Or, how they identified with Madelyn Prior and couldn't forgive Jean for making it all about her (well Maddie was a clone of Jean, and had all of Jean's memories, and married Jean's love, etc. Kind of hard not to do that. And considering both the pod-casters who over-identifying with the characters and making the story about them and their issues, kind of hypocritical.)
Anyhow, the larger take-away, and why I feel the need to write about it here - is how people, specifically fans, often will see a work of art through their own emotional needs or lens. And leave out anything that disagrees with that perspective or worldview. (It's my difficulty with book clubs. My favorite book clubs - or the only ones that worked for me - were facilitated by book store owners. Possibly because in those we talked about the books, not ourselves.)
Also the casters point out, and I think this is a valid point, often how people relate to a character - especially in a long-running serial - is based upon their point of entry. If they got into the X-men through the films or the cartoons, they probably don't like Cyclops. If they entered through a certain period in the comics, they do. [One of my difficulties with the fandom - and why I'm not really participating in the comic fandom - is its terribly self-absorbed. If the characters don't look like them, aren't this or that, they are very judgemental of them. They also assumed Scott and Jean were all WASP, uhm, not all White people are WASP, some are Hispanic, Irish, German, Russian, French, Scandinavian, Catholic, Jewish, etc. Also that's a stereotype and racial profiling as well. We're terribly tribal in this world. (Oh some people for some reason or other really hate the word Tribalism. I've gotten grief from a conservative white Brit and a liberal POC Brit on using that word in two different forums. I don't know why it bugged them. Barack Obama used it in a podcast, as do many Black authors. I mentioned this to the liberal one - stating, uhm a Nigerian female author used the term. What's your beef with it?)
To take this even further - it's similar with other things as well, such as television shows. If you entered Buffy in the fourth season, you probably preferred Spike to Angel. Or if you entered Star Trek from say Deep Space 9, you might not like the original series. Or if you entered Star Wars from Force Awakens, you may not get the appeal of the originals.
Add to this, a need for folks to make it relatable to them. And to label. I'm kind of sick of the labeling. I miss the 20th century, there was less labeling. The information age and technology has brought a lot of labeling with it.
2. Because of Ray Fisher's Interview about Whedon and how he feels that some of these people aren't fit for Leadership
Various other magazines and onzines felt the need to produce their own information on it.
Geoff Johns apparently didn't cast Rege Jean (Bridgerton fame) as Superman's Grandfather in Krypton, because he didn't think he should be black.
Other mags from People, USA Today to Indie Wire picked up bits and pieces from the Hollywood Reporter Interview.
Gail Gadot and Patty Jenkins fought Whedon regarding his take on Wonder Woman, and his abuse of Gail Gadot
3. Well, Whedon is about to be forgotten on Twitter and in the News in favor of Scott Rudin - the Broadway and Film Producer and latest to be called out on abusive behavior
Rudin apparently makes Whedon look rather tame in comparison.
On a brisk Halloween day in 2012, the thin facade of normalcy at Scott Rudin Productions shattered. Literally.
At about 4:15 p.m. — more than 10 hours into a typical Rudin day that began at 6 and never wrapped before 8 — the Oscar-winning producer was enraged that one of his assistants failed to get him a seat on a sold-out flight. In a fit of fury, he allegedly smashed an Apple computer monitor on the assistant's hand. The screen shattered, leaving the young man bleeding and in need of immediate medical attention. One person in the office at the time described the incident as sounding like a car crash: a cacophonous collision of metal, glass and limb. The wounded assistant headed to the emergency room, and Rudin called his lawyer, according to another staffer there that Halloween afternoon. Everyone else huddled in the conference room, shaken. No one stayed until 8 p.m., with most of the staff heading over to a Times Square bar for a therapeutic drink.
"We were all shocked because we didn't know that that sort of thing could happen in that office," says Andrew Coles, a then-assistant and now-manager and producer, whose credits include Queen & Slim. "We knew a lot could happen. There were the guys that were sleeping in the office, the guys whose hair was falling out and were developing ulcers. It was a very intense environment, but that just felt different. It was a new level of unhinged — a level of lack of control that I had never seen before in a workplace." Through a spokesperson, Rudin declined to comment on any of the specific allegations mentioned in this story. The alleged victim declined to comment.
I got frustrated with their review - because they left stuff out. And got various plot points wrong. I thought - wait a minute, what about this, and that - and no, you're wrong about that!
In the podcast - the two commentators made it all about them, focusing on the items that bothered them, and focusing only on those items that furthered the themes that interested them and their issues. [Ex: Cyclops was obviously on the autism spectrum because he reminded one of the casters of her father, and the other of themselves. Or, how they identified with Madelyn Prior and couldn't forgive Jean for making it all about her (well Maddie was a clone of Jean, and had all of Jean's memories, and married Jean's love, etc. Kind of hard not to do that. And considering both the pod-casters who over-identifying with the characters and making the story about them and their issues, kind of hypocritical.)
Anyhow, the larger take-away, and why I feel the need to write about it here - is how people, specifically fans, often will see a work of art through their own emotional needs or lens. And leave out anything that disagrees with that perspective or worldview. (It's my difficulty with book clubs. My favorite book clubs - or the only ones that worked for me - were facilitated by book store owners. Possibly because in those we talked about the books, not ourselves.)
Also the casters point out, and I think this is a valid point, often how people relate to a character - especially in a long-running serial - is based upon their point of entry. If they got into the X-men through the films or the cartoons, they probably don't like Cyclops. If they entered through a certain period in the comics, they do. [One of my difficulties with the fandom - and why I'm not really participating in the comic fandom - is its terribly self-absorbed. If the characters don't look like them, aren't this or that, they are very judgemental of them. They also assumed Scott and Jean were all WASP, uhm, not all White people are WASP, some are Hispanic, Irish, German, Russian, French, Scandinavian, Catholic, Jewish, etc. Also that's a stereotype and racial profiling as well. We're terribly tribal in this world. (Oh some people for some reason or other really hate the word Tribalism. I've gotten grief from a conservative white Brit and a liberal POC Brit on using that word in two different forums. I don't know why it bugged them. Barack Obama used it in a podcast, as do many Black authors. I mentioned this to the liberal one - stating, uhm a Nigerian female author used the term. What's your beef with it?)
To take this even further - it's similar with other things as well, such as television shows. If you entered Buffy in the fourth season, you probably preferred Spike to Angel. Or if you entered Star Trek from say Deep Space 9, you might not like the original series. Or if you entered Star Wars from Force Awakens, you may not get the appeal of the originals.
Add to this, a need for folks to make it relatable to them. And to label. I'm kind of sick of the labeling. I miss the 20th century, there was less labeling. The information age and technology has brought a lot of labeling with it.
2. Because of Ray Fisher's Interview about Whedon and how he feels that some of these people aren't fit for Leadership
Various other magazines and onzines felt the need to produce their own information on it.
Geoff Johns apparently didn't cast Rege Jean (Bridgerton fame) as Superman's Grandfather in Krypton, because he didn't think he should be black.
Other mags from People, USA Today to Indie Wire picked up bits and pieces from the Hollywood Reporter Interview.
Gail Gadot and Patty Jenkins fought Whedon regarding his take on Wonder Woman, and his abuse of Gail Gadot
3. Well, Whedon is about to be forgotten on Twitter and in the News in favor of Scott Rudin - the Broadway and Film Producer and latest to be called out on abusive behavior
Rudin apparently makes Whedon look rather tame in comparison.
On a brisk Halloween day in 2012, the thin facade of normalcy at Scott Rudin Productions shattered. Literally.
At about 4:15 p.m. — more than 10 hours into a typical Rudin day that began at 6 and never wrapped before 8 — the Oscar-winning producer was enraged that one of his assistants failed to get him a seat on a sold-out flight. In a fit of fury, he allegedly smashed an Apple computer monitor on the assistant's hand. The screen shattered, leaving the young man bleeding and in need of immediate medical attention. One person in the office at the time described the incident as sounding like a car crash: a cacophonous collision of metal, glass and limb. The wounded assistant headed to the emergency room, and Rudin called his lawyer, according to another staffer there that Halloween afternoon. Everyone else huddled in the conference room, shaken. No one stayed until 8 p.m., with most of the staff heading over to a Times Square bar for a therapeutic drink.
"We were all shocked because we didn't know that that sort of thing could happen in that office," says Andrew Coles, a then-assistant and now-manager and producer, whose credits include Queen & Slim. "We knew a lot could happen. There were the guys that were sleeping in the office, the guys whose hair was falling out and were developing ulcers. It was a very intense environment, but that just felt different. It was a new level of unhinged — a level of lack of control that I had never seen before in a workplace." Through a spokesperson, Rudin declined to comment on any of the specific allegations mentioned in this story. The alleged victim declined to comment.
no subject
Date: 2021-04-08 07:01 pm (UTC)Whedon's jokes are racist and sexist in that film, but you don't pick up on it at all - until you see the other version, because they are so ingrained and so common. I mean, it's cringe-inducing in places, but you don't know that's Whedon, and you kind of handwave it. And the "white russian family" Whedon inserts in his film doesn't appear to be big deal - until you realize he removed Cyborg's black "successful" family, who tragically die, and his backstory to put that very white poor family in. And the jokes at Diana's expense and blatant flirting and oogling and objectifying aren't as blantant - until you discover he removed a sizable junk of her story, and her fight scenes, and her family to put them in - for what? To be funny? These choices are baffling.
Ugh.
no subject
Date: 2021-04-08 07:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-04-08 07:53 pm (UTC)What's so baffling about the Russian Family (which I'd forgotten about until I rewatched sections and read reviews) - was that Whedon "added" it. It's not in Snyder's original version at all. Whedon didn't just cut the movie - he reshot it and added scenes, which yes - that's normally done, but the choices he made? Are baffling. Some are clear inserts from Age of Ultron - the Russian Family kind of is one of his stand-bys, he has that in the Avenger films, an attempt to have them save people to humanize them? It doesn't work in the Avengers either. Because you're aware of all of the people dying. Also to remove the Cyborg back story - which is the same amount of screen time, and add the Russian storyline is baffling. I know the Cyborg back story was in the original Snyder version - because that's why Ray Fisher was so upset with the re-shoot.
Also, if you watch - Whedon removes a really good scene with Bruce and Alfred on the tarmac and replaces it with Alfred giving Bruce dating advice regarding Wonder Woman (which is inappropriate and kind of sexist and much longer than the original scene). He also removes a bonding scene between Diana and Aquaman - where they discuss their tribes/cultures similarities and clashes - and replaces it with Aquaman sitting on her lasso, and admitting his horny and wants her? (which is also longer and not necessary.)
And there's the Martha/Lois scenes - Whedon's which is cringe-inducing and sexually suggestive (also there's an implied sexual attraction pick-up by a co-worker as a joke), and Snyder's which is about grief and returning to work. Also, Whedon chooses to have Batman send Alfred after Lois and bring her to the Justice League battle against Superman, to stop Clark, when in Snyder's Lois was already there at Superman's monument, saying goodbye, and does it on her own.
I don't understand why they switched out those scenes at all. Many of the scenes Whedon adds - don't further the story at all. The scenes he removed? Did. These and other choices - really add up, and when you look at the Wonder Woman script in light of those choices, and Patty Jenkins/Snyder's, then look at the allegations? Yeah, there's no doubt in mind that Whedon abused his power on sets. And I don't blame the cast and crew of JL for hating him.