Birds of Prey (And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn?)

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Fair enough, but I think we all play a part in it, even those that are complaining about the complaining of non-inclusiveness. Both sides making such a big deal about it means that it'll always be an issue now, it's like the arms race during the Cold War. Each side has to keep adding arsenal so that it doesn't look like the other side has some kind of advantage.

From my point of view, everyone against me is evil!

Spoiler Spoiler:


I just think it's funny (including this post here, in the world of make believe a Peele movie with an all white cast is funny.) It's only the big menace to society that we allow it to be. These "agendas" I keep reading about online, in movies I watch, mean nothing to me. I watch what I want to watch regardless of cast. Some work some don't. When I don't like something I give it no time. It's pretty simple for me and then I can reserve my anger (or ire, if anger is too strong a word) for things that truly require it. :peace

Agendas definitely exist, but it depends on the "creative piece". After all, they all exist to pass on the writer's/director's/artist's ideas on some topic, at least on some level. Peele choosing to make his movies with a predominantly black cast isn't an "agenda" in the sense that he's trying to promote something. It's just what he's interested in doing. The films themselves, as all films do, pass on some kind of message that he wants, through the stories and so on and so forth. Wes Anderson choosing the casts that he chooses is also not an "agenda"; he just likes working with those people and finds them working with his directing style. Again, whatever message is passed on through the films is another matter. If we diverge from those two, the casting in, say, the Expanse is not an "agenda". The playable characters in GTA V weren't an "agenda". And so ona nd so forth.

When it truly becomes an agenda, is something like BBC's Troy miniseries, which took Greek myths and inserted blacks in our very central stories. Aside from being historically, or at least canonically innacurate, it was also quite an insulting move. What is an agenda is the recent Mary, Queen Of Scots film where half the Court was played by Africans, Asians and whatnot. What's an agenda is the upcoming Netflix movie (or it could be series) about the Lady of the Lake where Arthur is black. You get my point.

You want to make Vigilante black? Sure, whatever, it's a fictional creation set in the [current year] (sliding timescales and all) and comes from funnybooks. I'll say "why do it" and they'll respond "why not". And I'll say "but why" and they'll say "but why not". And on and on it goes. Because, ultimately, it's not specified anywhere that the American under the mask must be this guy. I'll always think of Adrian Chase as a blonde guy, but if the rumous are true and Idris Elba is playing him in the new Suicide Squad film are true, it makes little difference. But you cannot make Daredevil black, since he's specifically an Irishman with tons of Catholic guilt. You can't make the Punisher black because he's specifically Italian. Even then you could twist them around and just make them generic something-Americans and be done with it.

But cultural myths and stories aren't cape****. When I see a black Achilles and some **** from New York is lecturing me on how "Homer" totes was onboard that ****, it infuriates me. That's an agenda. For what? That's a different discussion for a different type of forum. But I just want to say that Peele's films aren't agenda-driven in that regard. They're the films he wants to make. Same with Wes Anderson or even Spike Lee. Will I ever watch Peele's or Lee's films? So far I can say "not really" because the subject matter doesn't appeal to me. I simply don't care (Inside Man was good though). But that doesn't have to do anything with the people themselves, as they're just making the films they want to make, with the people they want to make.
 
WB has unleashed the bots:

QQmWRDl.png


Surely they shall turn the tide! All those genuine reactions, from actual humans, are a surefire way to influence moviegoers' choices! Boy, I just cannot believe Sonic is a Jihadist! I hear they got Rucka Rucka Ali to make the soundtrack for the Sonic movie.
 
WB has unleashed the bots:

QQmWRDl.png


Surely they shall turn the tide! All those genuine reactions, from actual humans, are a surefire way to influence moviegoers' choices! Boy, I just cannot believe Sonic is a Jihadist! I hear they got Rucka Rucka Ali to make the soundtrack for the Sonic movie.

People actually went to see a live action Sonic film :rotfl
 
Why did they change the title just because of bad ticket sales :lol


They thought with the original title being so long and having Harley's name at the very end of it, people were not realizing it was a Harley Quinn movie... So now it's Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey... so people will now know it's a Harley Quinn movie.... Yeah I don't think that's going to help either but I guess they have to blame something...

This movie has the same problem that the Charlie's Angels movie had, the trailers make it look like a Girl Power movie where they bash guys for 2 hours... And then they wonder why no guys want to go see it...

If you think about it the Animated Harley Quinn show on DC Streaming has the same basic story, it's about Quinn getting over Joker but that show is funny as hell (and R rated I might add), it's success might have something to do with the fact that it's not an all female cast... sure Harley has her best friend Ivy in it but the rest of her crew is guys, I think if they would of done the same thing in this movie it probably would of been a hit movie...
 
Last edited:
I liked Sonic back in the 90's. He was cool. However, my boy Mario is my all time favorite videogame character. I wish Guillermo Del Toro would make a live action Super Mario Bros film, even though he's a Nazi white-devil worshiping filmmaker who gets his ideas from interdimensional elves that secretly influence the human race to do horrible things because they want to kill God/Us. Anyways, Sonic is cool. Harley is lame. :chase
 
I liked Sonic back in the 90's. He was cool. However, my boy Mario is my all time favorite videogame character. I wish Guillermo Del Toro would make a live action Super Mario Bros film, even though he's a Nazi white-devil worshiping filmmaker who gets his ideas from interdimensional elves that secretly influence the human race to do horrible things because they want to kill God/Us. Anyways, Sonic is cool. Harley is lame.

GDT confirmed for KNULL.

latest


He's the new "IT WAS ME" Cosmic Big Bad of Marvel. Most people hate him on forums but I find him well enough. Starlin's still writting "canon" stories and wanking Thanos to the point where he's now literally TOAA, and you could swear that you could smell the cum on the page due to all the wanking. An edgy 90s cosmic bad guy isn't that bad and the design is fun enough, as he's Symbiote Elric.

Dunno how he'd fit a Mario movie though, kidding aside. I feel like Zelda is more suited to his style.



I still remember this...
 
From my point of view, everyone against me is evil!

Spoiler Spoiler:




Agendas definitely exist, but it depends on the "creative piece". After all, they all exist to pass on the writer's/director's/artist's ideas on some topic, at least on some level. Peele choosing to make his movies with a predominantly black cast isn't an "agenda" in the sense that he's trying to promote something. It's just what he's interested in doing. The films themselves, as all films do, pass on some kind of message that he wants, through the stories and so on and so forth. Wes Anderson choosing the casts that he chooses is also not an "agenda"; he just likes working with those people and finds them working with his directing style. Again, whatever message is passed on through the films is another matter. If we diverge from those two, the casting in, say, the Expanse is not an "agenda". The playable characters in GTA V weren't an "agenda". And so ona nd so forth.

When it truly becomes an agenda, is something like BBC's Troy miniseries, which took Greek myths and inserted blacks in our very central stories. Aside from being historically, or at least canonically innacurate, it was also quite an insulting move. What is an agenda is the recent Mary, Queen Of Scots film where half the Court was played by Africans, Asians and whatnot. What's an agenda is the upcoming Netflix movie (or it could be series) about the Lady of the Lake where Arthur is black. You get my point.

You want to make Vigilante black? Sure, whatever, it's a fictional creation set in the [current year] (sliding timescales and all) and comes from funnybooks. I'll say "why do it" and they'll respond "why not". And I'll say "but why" and they'll say "but why not". And on and on it goes. Because, ultimately, it's not specified anywhere that the American under the mask must be this guy. I'll always think of Adrian Chase as a blonde guy, but if the rumous are true and Idris Elba is playing him in the new Suicide Squad film are true, it makes little difference. But you cannot make Daredevil black, since he's specifically an Irishman with tons of Catholic guilt. You can't make the Punisher black because he's specifically Italian. Even then you could twist them around and just make them generic something-Americans and be done with it.

But cultural myths and stories aren't cape****. When I see a black Achilles and some **** from New York is lecturing me on how "Homer" totes was onboard that ****, it infuriates me. That's an agenda. For what? That's a different discussion for a different type of forum. But I just want to say that Peele's films aren't agenda-driven in that regard. They're the films he wants to make. Same with Wes Anderson or even Spike Lee. Will I ever watch Peele's or Lee's films? So far I can say "not really" because the subject matter doesn't appeal to me. I simply don't care (Inside Man was good though). But that doesn't have to do anything with the people themselves, as they're just making the films they want to make, with the people they want to make.

That's cool. When I put agendas in quotes it was more about how I personally watch movies. Again for me personally I don't acknowledge the agendas (though I completely understand that writers directors have an "agenda" or topic they are trying to discuss within the context of their film.) All of the historical films with questionable casting, I just don't watch or give any time to - they just don't exist in my world.

Now personally I can't say anything about those movies as I haven't seen them. Maybe the casting is incorrect ( I mean once upon a time, white people played Asians, Native Americans and wore black face...) but the history is correct and it's a good movie. Now maybe that leads a bunch of people who would normally not see anything historical to see it and learn something. Maybe that is not a bad thing. Just throwing out alternatives, because maybe those films were terrible all around and now it turned everyone off to history. Who knows?

Now this Sonic thing is hilarious though...
 
That's cool. When I put agendas in quotes it was more about how I personally watch movies. Again for me personally I don't acknowledge the agendas (though I completely understand that writers directors have an "agenda" or topic they are trying to discuss within the context of their film.) All of the historical films with questionable casting, I just don't watch or give any time to - they just don't exist in my world.
They don't exist in anyboy's world from the ratings, but still, the "agenda" is there. But like I said, another talk for another thread.
Now personally I can't say anything about those movies as I haven't seen them. Maybe the casting is incorrect ( I mean once upon a time, white people played Asians, Native Americans and wore black face...) but the history is correct and it's a good movie.
Yes, it was brownface and yellowface, but it was akin to theatre and masks. They were playing Asians and Arabs as Asians and Arabs. This trend nowadays is Non-Whites playing Whites as Non-Whites. It's different. Was that practise not exactly cordial? Sure. But it was different than what's going on now. John McSmith got dressed up and played Xi Wen, as Xi Wen, not as Joxi McWen who somehow is a white guy in China and China is multicultural for some reason. This time, it's Tyrone Daymarcus playing Blackilles.

One was tasteless. It could be mean spirited if it was used in a mocking way. You can call it all those things, and I won't die on that hill defending it or anything close to it. But it wasn't altering the past so that Lord Elgin Draperworth IV could say "yup, Babylon, now that's a fine Germanic city". The other, the current, is a deliberate distortion of facts, peoples and cultures that span millenia. The closest you could come to it would be stuff like Captain Nemo being played by Whites and Non-Whites. But hey, he's a fictional character (and the original draft had him being Polish), so if black [insert white cape character turned black in adaptation] can happen, why not that? He was created by a Frenchman anyhow.
Now maybe that leads a bunch of people who would normally not see anything historical to see it and learn something. Maybe that is not a bad thing. Just throwing out alternatives, because maybe those films were terrible all around and now it turned everyone off to history. Who knows?
No, it presents a warped view of reality that makes those people accept said fake history as their own.

I won't say anymore because this really isn't the thread for such a topic, and I've already derailed it enough.
Now this Sonic thing is hilarious though...
It really is. How panicked can you be to set loose an army of bots to try and sabotize the Sonic movie? Even if it worked, it's not gonna make BoP any money.

I've never seen that Zelda trailer. I thought it was Jesse Eisenberg on the thumbnail. :lol
That and the Harry Partridge Watchmen Cartoon were great April Fools jokes. After those things started not being as fun. I guess it's because we were entering the new decade, and the 10s is when **** really hit the fan.
 
I liked Sonic back in the 90's. He was cool. However, my boy Mario is my all time favorite videogame character. I wish Guillermo Del Toro would make a live action Super Mario Bros film, even though he's a Nazi white-devil worshiping filmmaker who gets his ideas from interdimensional elves that secretly influence the human race to do horrible things because they want to kill God/Us. Anyways, Sonic is cool. Harley is lame. :chase

Mario is meh to me. Such a bland character with good gameplay mechanics. But he has no definitive traits
 
Lol the sonic backlash screams desperation. I can?t tell if the people who did that are actually fans or trolls making the fans look bad
 
Lol the sonic backlash screams desperation. I can?t tell if the people who did that are actually fans or trolls making the fans look bad

They're Bots. Notice the patterns in the tweets. Actual BoPfans trying to sabotaze the film are a minority.
 
WB has unleashed the bots:

QQmWRDl.png


Surely they shall turn the tide! All those genuine reactions, from actual humans, are a surefire way to influence moviegoers' choices! Boy, I just cannot believe Sonic is a Jihadist! I hear they got Rucka Rucka Ali to make the soundtrack for the Sonic movie.



You've got to be kidding me, none of those tweets are real.

Right side, 2nd down: ''Birds of Prey made me feel safe?'' :lol
 
People actually went to see a live action Sonic film :rotfl

Actually, it's a remake of "Hop" with a different CGI branded character inserted.

It's also sad to see Carrey doing the rounds on talk shows - the guy is now clearly crossing into actual mental illness but it's SOOO FUNNY.
 
Back
Top