Fanboy Wars Thread: Personal Attacks not allowed | With Digital Fur Technology

[lorddemaxus]

I'm not sure where this should go but since it is probably going to be controversial and it involves the Wizarding World franchise, I'll put it here....

 

 

I think this crap is really dumb. JK Rowling is saying these things just to pander to LGBTQ audiences without actually putting these elements in the books or movies. If Dumbledore and Grindelwald had an intense sexual relationship, please put in the upcoming movies instead of being a coward and just saying it in interviews so that you can get attention. And let's not forget that she is an intense TERF so I don't think she really supports the LGBTQ community. But that is another topic.

[robertman2]

1 hour ago, Napoleon said:

There's no comparison between MCU and DCEU in terms of diversity. Marvel had 10 years of white male dominance, while Zack Snyder cast diverse actors from the get go and pushed for a female led film very early.

 

That's not to say Marvel's recent efforts shouldn't be celebrated. But it's hilarious to see the film journalists congratulating Marvel like they're doing something no one ever did, and saying we should cheer for these movies even if they're bad or mediocre, when we all remember they did everything in their power to kill the DCEU. Only reason they didn't kill the most diverse franchise in history is because the movies were embraced by general audiences and DC comics fans (the same DC comics fans the film journalists bullied on Twitter during the entire 2016).

 

You regularly take credit away from women and minority directors in order to give credit to a shitty white guy director. Fuck off and stop acting you or Zack Snyder like give a remote fuck about women or minorities 

[2kt09]

@Nero

For whatever reason, 2016 onward is when there was this big push for racial diversity

BvS has its magnitude of female & poc characters

Dr Strange brandished Captain Planet colors (asian sidekick kick-off in the MCU)

Skwad (female villain)

Apoc (female side villains)

Vol 2 (female side villain)

WW (female side villain)

T:Ragnarok (female villain)

Power Rangers (female villain)

Homecoming has its magnitude of female & poc characters

JL

BP just flips the standard, so token white character

IW (female side villain)

DP 2

AM & W (female villain)

Aqm

CM

 

[2kt09]

@Nero

For whatever reason, 2016 onward is when there was this big push for racial & gender diversity

BvS has its magnitude of female & poc characters

Dr Strange brandished Captain Planet colors (asian sidekick kick-off in the MCU)

Skwad (female villain)

Apoc (female side villains)

Vol 2 (female side villain)

WW (female side villain)

T:Ragnarok (female villain)

Power Rangers (female villain)

Homecoming has its magnitude of female & poc characters

JL

BP just flips the standard, so token white character

IW (female side villain)

DP 2

AM & W (female villain)

Aqm

CM

Edited March 17, 2019 by 2kt09

[Avatree]

58 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

I'm not sure where this should go but since it is probably going to be controversial and it involves the Wizarding World franchise, I'll put it here....

 

 

I think this crap is really dumb. JK Rowling is saying these things just to pander to LGBTQ audiences without actually putting these elements in the books or movies. If Dumbledore and Grindelwald had an intense sexual relationship, please put in the upcoming movies instead of being a coward and just saying it in interviews so that you can get attention. And let's not forget that she is an intense TERF so I don't think she really supports the LGBTQ community. But that is another topic.

 

oh be quiet, this is not news, this is from the books. Once Rowling stated back in 2006 or whenever it was that Dumbledore was gay, it was quite obvious that Grindelwald and Dumbledore had a relationship.

 

Stop being offended by 15 year old books lmao

[lorddemaxus]

9 minutes ago, Avatree said:

 

oh be quiet, this is not news, this is from the books. Once Rowling stated back in 2006 or whenever it was that Dumbledore was gay, it was quite obvious that Grindelwald and Dumbledore had a relationship.

 

Stop being offended by 15 year old books lmao

It isn't quite obvious that Grindelwald and Dumbledore had a relationship in the books. There is literally 0 implication in the books that the characters were gay and had an "intense sexual relationship". Rowling is literally saying this stuff as a publicity stunt. She doesn't want to actually write it into canon. She also said Dumbledore's sexuality would be explored in Fantastic Beasts but that never happened and won't happen in the next film too because that pretty much loses most overseas markets. She doesn't believe in the ideas she supposedly espouses. As I said, she is also a massive TERF.

[Avatree]

6 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

It isn't quite obvious that Grindelwald and Dumbledore had a relationship in the books. There is literally 0 implication in the books that the characters were gay and had an "intense sexual relationship". Rowling is literally saying this stuff as a publicity stunt. She doesn't want to actually write it into canon. She also said Dumbledore's sexuality would be explored in Fantastic Beasts but that never happened and won't happen in the next film too because that pretty much loses most overseas markets. She doesn't believe in the ideas she supposedly espouses. As I said, she is also a massive TERF.

well before Crimes of Grindelwald came out last year fans were expecting the film to explore Grindelwald / Dumbledore relationship, and many fans expressed disappointment that this didnt' happen. How could fans have known about this before if its only revealed now in March 2019?

 

No it is not explicit in the books. However after discovering Dumbledore is a gay character it is quite clear whats implied in the books.

 

I have believed Grindelwald and Dumbledore had a relationship for as far as my memory goes back. So either I must have psychic abilies, OR you are wrong (like usual) .

]Which one?

[Avatree]

oh and what has her being an alleged "TERF" got to do with ANYTHING? this is about a gay character not tranny one.

 

as for grindelwald i just found this quote from a newspaper in 2007 reporting about JK Rowling revealing Dumbledore sexuality:

 

Quote

Mike Thomas of the Orlando Sentinel said that upon reflection, Dumbledore was gay from the beginning, and that this neatly explains the behaviour of his character and his relationship with Grindelwald.

 

Edited March 17, 2019 by Avatree

[Pure Spirit]

18 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

It isn't quite obvious that Grindelwald and Dumbledore had a relationship in the books. There is literally 0 implication in the books that the characters were gay and had an "intense sexual relationship". Rowling is literally saying this stuff as a publicity stunt. She doesn't want to actually write it into canon. She also said Dumbledore's sexuality would be explored in Fantastic Beasts but that never happened and won't happen in the next film too because that pretty much loses most overseas markets. She doesn't believe in the ideas she supposedly espouses. As I said, she is also a massive TERF.

[lorddemaxus]

28 minutes ago, Avatree said:

well before Crimes of Grindelwald came out last year fans were expecting the film to explore Grindelwald / Dumbledore relationship, and many fans expressed disappointment that this didnt' happen. How could fans have known about this before if its only revealed now in March 2019?

 

No it is not explicit in the books. However after discovering Dumbledore is a gay character it is quite clear whats implied in the books.

 

I have believed Grindelwald and Dumbledore had a relationship for as far as my memory goes back. So either I must have psychic abilies, OR you are wrong (like usual) .

]Which one?

Dumbledore loving Grindelwald was revealed in 2007 as you said. Rowling just added in that Grindelwald actually returned the feelings for each other recently. There was never any implication that Dumbledore loved Grindelwald in the books and Crimes of Grindelwald didn't explore this either (forget them having an intense sexual experience but at least something that explicitly showed that Dumbledore had feelings for Grindelwald).

 

You believed something that was never in the books in the first place and only added in years after the series completed.

 

Let me guess, you also think that the wizards shat themselves because Rowling said so.

 

And her being a TERF has to do with the fact that her "support" of the LGBTQ community is bullcrap.

Edited March 17, 2019 by lorddemaxus

[Avatree]

4 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Dumbledore loving Grindelwald was revealed in 2007 as you said. Rowling just added in that Grindelwald actually returned the feelings for each other recently. There was never any implication that Dumbledore loved Grindelwald in the books and Crimes of Grindelwald didn't explore this either (forget them having an intense sexual experience but at least something that explicitly showed that Dumbledore had feelings for Grindelwald).

 

You believed something that was never in the books in the first place and only added in years after the series completed.

 

Let me guess, you also think that the wizards shat themselves because Rowling said so.

 

And her being a TERF has to do with the fact that her "support" of the LGBTQ community is bullcrap.

added in years after? U ok, Hun?

 

I just looked this up and Dumbledore being gay was revealed in October 2007... that is three months after the last book.

 

Quote

 

She was asked by one young fan whether Dumbledore finds "true love."

"Dumbledore is gay," the author responded to gasps and applause.

She then explained that Dumbledore was smitten with rival Gellert Grindelwald, whom he defeated long ago in a battle between good and bad wizards. "Falling in love can blind us to an extent," Rowling said of Dumbledore's feelings

 

 

Seems pretty clear to me, like I said I remember knowing in 2007 that Dumbledore and Grindelwald were in love.

Only a retard or an incel would hear "fall in love" and think it means a one way crush kind of thing.

[Avatree]

6 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

Either Porgs or Goose, haven't read the comics but if Goose is made up for the film it's pretty scummy.

 

However Goose isn't added for toy sales.

 

Therefore Porgs are by far the worst. A corporate creation designed to take money from kids and adult children

ie the entire star wars franchise

[IronJimbo]

13 minutes ago, Avatree said:

ie the entire star wars franchise

First sixt had a creator/visionary behind it, he may be a bad director but his films did have heart.

Edited March 17, 2019 by IronJimbo

[lorddemaxus]

10 minutes ago, Avatree said:

added in years after? U ok, Hun?

 

I just looked this up and Dumbledore being gay was revealed in October 2007... that is three months after the last book.

 

I thought Deathly Hollows released in 2005 but ok, my point still stands.  Rowling introduced this after the series ended.

 

Quote

Seems pretty clear to me, like I said I remember knowing in 2007 that Dumbledore and Grindelwald were in love.

You knew because Rowling told you that. Show me where it is explicitly or implicitly shown in the books.

Again, Rowling also said wizards shat themselves. Did you "know" this also?

Quote

Only a retard or an incel would hear "fall in love" and think it means a one way crush kind of thing.

And thanks for calling me both of those things. I am done here.

[lorddemaxus]

Just now, IronJimbo said:

First sixt had a creator/visionary behind it, he may be a bad director but his films did have heart.

To say Rian Johnson and JJ Abrams didn't put their hearts into both their films is disingenuous. 

 

And Ewoks are worse than Porgs because Lucas actually changed the story to included Ewoks while Porgs where just there in a few scenes and didn't change the story. Same reason Han survived ROTJ. But either way, here is what Lucas had to say about merch:

 

Quote

Again, people tend to look at merchandising as an evil thing, but ultimately a lot of fun things come out of it and at the same time it pays for the overhead of the company of everybody’s salary.”

 

 

[IronJimbo]

1 minute ago, lorddemaxus said:

To say Rian Johnson and JJ Abrams didn't put their hearts into both their films is disingenuous. 

 

And Ewoks are worse than Porgs because Lucas actually changed the story to included Ewoks while Porgs where just there in a few scenes and didn't change the story. Same reason Han survived ROTJ. But either way, here is what Lucas had to say about merch:

 

 

To say they had 100% creative control is disingenuous.

 

You think they were making these films without some sort of toy to sell? Get real.

[Avatree]

6 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

I thought Deathly Hollows released in 2005 but ok, my point still stands.  Rowling introduced this after the series ended.

 

You knew because Rowling told you that. Show me where it is explicitly or implicitly shown in the books.

Again, Rowling also said wizards shat themselves. Did you "know" this also?

And thanks for calling me both of those things. I am done here.

 

Well since wizards are humans, I did assume yes that they were capable of defecating

 

I have no idea what the fuck you are on about mate.

 

I am not going to comb through the books i havent read them in 10 years but I already posted a link above from a writer referring to D & Grindelwald relationship in the books.

[Avatree]

George Lucas actually came across as wanting to inspire kids to make their own stories out of his films merchandise.... that's what separates SW from others. Of course Lucas did everything for money too but the merch stuff from the originals has heart, that's why its so ingrained in our culture and why the products were so successful.

[lorddemaxus]

3 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

To say they had 100% creative control is disingenuous.

 

You think they were making these films without some sort of toy to sell? Get real.

And where did I say Johnson had 100% creative control? I don't disagree with that and I am sure the Porgs were created to sell merch.

 

I know these films were made with selling toys in mind. Just saying, so did the OT and the PT. Not just that but ROTJ had narrative decisions changed so that more merch could be sold.

[cdsacken]

3 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

And where did I say Johnson had 100% creative control? I don't disagree with that and I am sure the Porgs were created to sell merch.

 

I know these films were made with selling toys in mind. Just saying, so did the OT and the PT. Not just that but ROTJ had narrative decisions changed so that more merch could be sold.

Dude you need to chill. Eat a snickers man.