It also happens where we might write a title a certain way to grab attention and guide other members into a more nuanced debate. Sensational titles can boilerplate a simplified version of what we’re trying to say, but we can expound further once we know we have someone’s attention. Not always elegant but it’s not hurting anyone.
Age old adage, discuss the idea, not the person; if members keep their eye on criticizing the topic and not the person disagreeing with them, we cool.
TIME WILL TELL!!! The above adage is one of the tenants of the moderation team to help gut-check when scenarios get questionable. But it’s not always a perfect system. Maybe one day, when the sweet, sweet, singularity takes hold.
I feel very prepared to understand the context of your question, and I think we would agree on many other “media makeovers”, as well. I’m very much a purist. My personal exception was the recent HBO series Watchmen. I couldn’t believe how much I enjoyed it.
To answer your question, I have absolutely no visibility into the $$$ ###'s. But off-the-cuff, while I agree that corporations appear to be in the business of making money, in this case I think there is an impending/already-in-progress franchise fatigue that smart executives are tapping into. Execs like Walter Hamada, I believe, are changing the course of how films are making money. By tapping into what audiences actually want, instead of shoveling the same recycled content and doing what I call “pushing the nostalgia button”, or Alan Moore calls “squatting on the cultural stage”, they are looking forward to what characters and perspectives might brighten the landscape.
This might indeed call for a media make-over in some cases, especially when we’re talking about characters that were created in a completely different cultural climate. But this is one of the reasons I’m so looking forward to Strange Adventures, BizarroTV, and other deep digs into more obscure characters. We have a whole toybox we’re not playing with! Sometimes the right people in the right positions make the right decisions. Gale Anne Hurd knocked my socks off for years, calling those exec shots!
Sorry I didn’t reply sooner, Jess!! Office Hours is only live for roughly 60-90 minutes every Thursday night. In the future please contact the moderator team directly- you can message us with the @ tag “moderators”. You’ll get a much more immediate response.
You made a lot of great points that I didn’t think to articulate. Especially:
Who determines what the controversial topics are and how?
Will members behave, or take it as a free pass to disregard community guidelines and turn it into something toxic?
This one, in your “healthy back and forth”, gives me pause- just for the sake of philosophy, not because I necessarily disagree:
Stay away from insulting writers, artists and their works, because it can be taken as an affront to someone’s taste.
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, then what? If the creator isn’t involved in the discussion, and we say “Man, the way so-and-so writes is just grating to my eyes/ears”, that’s not exactly respectful, but the creator isn’t reading the comments… how far does it have to go when we insult a person that is now in the celebrity spotlight? And, do writers and artists, by pursuing a job that puts their talents on the line, naturally subject themselves to the critics? At some point if we remove all the texture, we won’t gain traction.
When people start saying "that Fing Dbg can s a c*, well, okay, that might break a guideline. But a softer criticism that still KINDA jabs at the artist, I’m guilty of leaving in the conversation.
Edit: Wow, the formatting of my example insult got messed up. Just… you know… come up with your own.
Oh my gosh I LOVE Dark Knight Rises! It’s incredible how Heath Ledger’s portrayal of Joker become instantly iconic. It’s been both heart-wrenching and satisfying to see it resurface alongside Joaquin Phoenix’s portrayal. Excellent choice, friend! If our industrious mod team aren’t too busy with cleaning up pejoratives we’ll try to at least stop in and say hi!
We actually wrote a few drafts and had selections of women chosen. We went through a lot of rounds on how to portray and select the men, as well. But ultimately, we only had so many weeks before Meta Madhouse, and the joke/idea started as “we need to give Nightwing a break, so the concept had to be simplified. Who’s taking over for Nightwing?” It was inititally all meant to be a “Bachelor” campaign, but that name wasn’t approved by legal. If this year’s round-up continues to go well, we’ll do a “ladies night” for 2021’s Valentine’s Day.
I wish you did! I feel like some of this has been felt in some of your recent posts, like you were forced into writing things you wouldn’t have otherwise. Part of your writing charm is you deep dives and writing from your vast knowledge base. I hope they continue to tap into that and less into other areas.
The concept is interesting, the definition and determination of who qualifies someone that isn’t a hero but is an anti-hero gives me “thought police” pause. Not “never” just “needs more incubating”.
I understand you @Applejack, and it’s why I mentioned it as more of a personal approach vs a “guideline”. May be some might find it helpful. Texture is fine, and there are many ways to do it. I just prefer to critique the work, instead of calling the creators names
The above adage is one of the tenants of the moderation team to help gut-check when scenarios get questionable. But it’s not always a perfect system. Maybe one day, when the sweet, sweet, singularity takes hold.
