Apu To Be Dropped From The Simpsons

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by Sumac

Still better than movement that wants to censor comic books.

There isn't a movement to censor comics. What comicsgate was against was what they saw as 'forced diversity' and writers pushing what they saw as a liberal agenda and used the argument that it was hurting sales.

The irony is that the reason Marvel went down that route was because they hit three home runs in a row with Miles Morales, Kamala Khan and Jane Foster-Thor. They saw those successes particularly in mediums like trade and digital which made them more money and wanted more of the same.

Most of the characters who are about to be "canceled" or recasted are not stereotypes either.

They didn't need to be recast them. Literally no one was asking for that but after the show badly botched their response to nuanced and mild criticisms that resulted from Konubalu's documentary they obviously felt they needed a big gesture to correct the ship.

Maybe WB has some sort of professional integrity?
And, besides, when companies see they have an obvious stinker on their hands, they let reviewers to give they real thoughts about the product. Like in case of Rise of the Skywalker, since one thing is manufacture opinion when the movie is just divisive, like The Last Jedi or Captain Marvel and another, is trying to pretend that pile of **** is a diamond. If, say, 80% say that movie is bad, no amount of good reviews will salvage it. It's just a waste of money. Word of mouth will sink it anyway.

If I recall The Last Jedi got good reviews. The movie is not my cup of tea but I can see why critics liked it. It's basically an auteur movie from a franchise which after The Force Awakens was looking like a manufactured product. The movie wasn't for me but I actually respect the gutsyness.

Captain Marvel wasn't really divisive. It was an above average movie that got above average reviews. The only divisive part was that so many people took umbridge with a superhero movie about a womz that they lost their **** over it and started making up conspiracy theories that Disney bought all the tickets and that it was playing to empty theaters.

No one corporation (or as you call the corpoRATions) has that level professional integrity. Disney/Marvel/Pixar doesn't buy good reviews it simply knows how to make movies that appeal to a mass audience.

Granted the ubiquity of movies from the above studios does help shape the perception of what is considered good film making but what works...well works. Deviate from that you'd better know you're doing.

MCU movies are not outright political either, no more than any other standard Hollywood fare.

Also, it was not anti-SJW crowd which "made" Snyder's cut into something "political". It were journasluts who have started crying that it helps "alt-right", because, coproRATions obviously should follow the party line and not pander to common folk.

If left propagandists would've stayed silent and didn't start drama on the empty place - most people wouldn't really care about it one way or the other.

Also, what little part of people on Internet think, doesn't really indicate anything about the project. Unless you want propose that AT&T / WB is ruled by "alt-right", but this is so hilarious stupid, that I hope you won't go into that direction.

There's many reasons why it's ended up this way. Firstly brand loyalty is a big thing to comic books whether you're DC or Marvel. That's when you get people defending to the death movies they feel aren't really good because it's their team. Notice when Joss Whedon signed on to Justice League a lot of people who had spent years saying that DC movies had more integrity than the brainless Marvel movies were actually Joss was coming aboard to to correct the ship...then when that didn't work they were back to wanting this mythical Snyder (which didn't even exist).

No one is suggesting that the alt-right has taken control of Warner Bros. What I am suggesting is that the movement to get the Snyder cut released was propped up by people who have little interest in it other than they feel Marvel is all SJW hence why it also got coverage on certain websites and certain youtubers were obsessed with it and thinks that a win for the the distinguished competition knocks Marvel.

I'm not really sure it actually happening is a win for that crowd though. It's not suddenly going to replace the Whedon version as movie canon (such as that counts) as it's likely going to get Flashpointed into something more palatable to a mainstream audience for good or ill Ava Duvarney is still going to make that New Gods movie and everyone is going to have to deal with that.

[sdp]

I'm just sad that to me this is just another nail in the coffin of the Simpsons, now no longer is it a shadow of its former self but now they're replacing VAs we love to for social points, so now catching a new episode casually will be even worse. This also sets the precedent that they'll replace all the Simpsons cast eventually. The Simpsons were about controversy not bending over.

[Sage Ninja]

Originally Posted by sdp

SJWs and redpilled people are cut from the same cloth of ****. **** them both.

To be honest I am so done with the extreme polarized Liberal/Conservative shenanigans at this point.

[Reinako666]

I like Apu. One of my all time favorites.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by Galactus

Captain Marvel wasn't really divisive. It was an above average movie that got above average reviews. The only divisive part was that so many people took umbridge with a superhero movie about a womz that they lost their **** over it and started making up conspiracy theories that Disney bought all the tickets and that it was playing to empty theaters.

Lies and slander. No one had a problem with a female lead. They just don't like Captain Marvel. Not that hard to understand. There is so such issue with the Wonder Woman movie nor the upcoming Black Widow movie, so *GASP* perhaps the issue is with Captain Marvel herself?

[Leo656]

Are people seriously blind to the fact that Disney flat-out owns - or at least has a stake in - most of the websites and magazines that in turn "review" their projects? Yeah, I'm totally sure that people being fed from The Mouse's table are nothing but totally objective.

They don't have to "buy reviews" when they already pay the people who write them. You don't bite the hand that feeds, that's simple common sense. BUT, it's also why critical reviews should ALWAYS be taken with a lot of salt because on some level everything is spin.

Furthermore, DID YOU KNOW that many movie critics don't even watch the movies they review, no matter who's paying them? It's true! It's not true in all cases but definitely in many cases, especially with "blockbusters" like Star Wars and super-hero stuff. It's extremely rare that most of the critics actually sit and watch the entire movie. You can tell who did and who didn't by what they actually say IN their reviews, but let's be honest, nobody reads the reviews, they just look at the star rating and decide if they're gonna go or not. But if you DO read the reviews, you can usually tell which critics actually saw the movie and who didn't.

Sounds totally untoward, but it's standard practice in the industry. What happens is, critics get a Press Kit with a pamphlet, some still photos from the biggest action scenes, and a summary of the plot with maybe a few of the story beats gone over in detail. They generally watch SOME of the movie but rarely stay for the entire thing. Often, they duck out about halfway through and write the "review" based on what they did see combined with what's in the press kit. And again, if you read the reviews, you can generally tell who did this because a lot of the reviews will be almost word-for-word the same without adding any extra details, and they all follow a generally predetermined consensus.

Apparently, this practice came about as something of a compromise when movies began to almost exclusively only be "blockbusters". Most "serious" critics hate blockbusters and "cape sh*t" movies to begin with and don't want to even watch them, let alone review them, but their opinions hold value among the audience so they kind of "have" to see and review them, because most people only go see movies if they're told by a trusted critic that they should (keep in mind everyone SAYS they're a free thinker but most of those people are lying). At some point, there was a compromise put forth where as long as the critic showed up to the movie and watched SOME of it, they'd be allowed to write the rest of the review based on the press kit. So now that's mostly what happens. Very, VERY few critic reviews of "blockbuster" movies were written by people who'd seen them in their entirety, and furthermore, they - like most of the audience - knew based on the trailer whether they were going to be Positive or Negative before they even sat down in the theater.

Not to bring this up again or make it a crusade, but simply to reinforce the point, BvS was not-so-secretly a victim of this very practice. Several critics who were at the premiere said that most of the others ducked out early to write the review based on the pamphlet, and knew 20 minutes in that they were going to bash it, and were all making a big joke about it. Many of them were saying BEFORE they sat down that they couldn't wait to write a scathing, snarky review based on the trailers alone. The movie was set up to fail from the jump, which is why the RT score is junk; most of those critics didn't watch it. Not trying to belabor the point, just saying, the practice happens, and that movie was a very famous example. Maybe those same critics would have been just as harsh if they HAD watched the full movie, but they didn't watch the full movie, so if you don't take their "reviews" with a giant shaker of salt, that's foolish.

So here's what we know for facts:
- Disney owns a ton of the media outlets that "report" on and review movies, from magazines to websites.
- Many critics don't actually watch the movies they review, they go by what's in the press kit, their gut feelings about the trailers, and whatever their boss wants them to write.

So yeah, Disney doesn't have to literally "buy reviews" or even buy out theaters to nudge things their way; enough shady sh*t happens that they don't even need to be so blatant about things, they have enough in their favor already without going full-blown super-villain.

They also sabotage plenty of movies by telling theaters not to run their competitors' movies as often, or at all, by threatening to withhold Marvel and Star Wars, which is trash of them to do. So they're already guilty of plenty.

These are facts, Things That Actually Happen, and not "conspiracy theories", so I'unno why anyone would defend them or try and brush it off. Objectively, we should all be pretty outraged about it. BUT, most reviews and such still generally fit in with popular consensus, and everyone likes being told what they want to hear, so nobody cares as much as they should. But again, these are very real, very dishonest, very shady things that are Standard Practice in the industry all the same, so... no need for "conspiracy theories" when, if anything, the truth is probably a lot worse than that.

[Andrew NDB]

A joke article, of course... but... lol...

https://babylonbee.com/news/to-promo...ynY0nN3kVqNMVo

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Galactus

There isn't a movement to censor comics. What comicsgate was against was what they saw as 'forced diversity' and writers pushing what they saw as a liberal agenda and used the argument that it was hurting sales.

And against censorship too, though reasons you mentioned are more important.
Also, it is hurting sales. Maybe it is not a deciding factor, but constant mud bath given to comic book fans by media, does turn away a lot of people.

Originally Posted by Galactus

The irony is that the reason Marvel went down that route was because they hit three home runs in a row with Miles Morales, Kamala Khan and Jane Foster-Thor. They saw those successes particularly in mediums like trade and digital which made them more money and wanted more of the same.

I think there was a significant amount of time between those three characters.

Originally Posted by Galactus

They didn't need to be recast them. Literally no one was asking for that but after the show badly botched their response to nuanced and mild criticisms that resulted from Konubalu's documentary they obviously felt they needed a big gesture to correct the ship.

Or they could just don't give a **** in the first place.
Otherwise, they've just summoned Streisand effect.

Originally Posted by Galactus

If I recall The Last Jedi got good reviews. The movie is not my cup of tea but I can see why critics liked it. It's basically an auteur movie from a franchise which after The Force Awakens was looking like a manufactured product. The movie wasn't for me but I actually respect the gutsyness.

IMO, TLJ is like the farthest thing from being an auteur movie.
Its basically standard sterile modern Hollywood blockbuster with big action set pieces tied by incoherent plot and cardboard characters.

The only way it might look like its trying to do something new is because it is not an outright clone of Empire Strikes Back, but that's hardly a compliment.

Everything that TLJ does to "subvert" expectations ends up being subverted in the movie itself, resulting in ideological cluster****, where it is completely unknown what the **** the movie was trying to say and for what purpose.

The only think, that is without a doubt auteur about this movie is an arrogance and pompousness of its creator.

Also, I am not talking about reviews from media. Those sell-outs gonna praise a piece of ****, if Disney pay them enough.

Originally Posted by Galactus

Captain Marvel wasn't really divisive. It was an above average movie that got above average reviews. The only divisive part was that so many people took umbridge with a superhero movie about a womz that they lost their **** over it and started making up conspiracy theories that Disney bought all the tickets and that it was playing to empty theaters.

How come almost no-one had an issue with Wonder Woman?
Stop drinking ****** left kool-aid. Its not about women. Its about narrative Disney / Marvel were pushing.

Originally Posted by Galactus

There's many reasons why it's ended up this way. Firstly brand loyalty is a big thing to comic books whether you're DC or Marvel. That's when you get people defending to the death movies they feel aren't really good because it's their team. Notice when Joss Whedon signed on to Justice League a lot of people who had spent years saying that DC movies had more integrity than the brainless Marvel movies were actually Joss was coming aboard to to correct the ship...then when that didn't work they were back to wanting this mythical Snyder (which didn't even exist).

No one is suggesting that the alt-right has taken control of Warner Bros. What I am suggesting is that the movement to get the Snyder cut released was propped up by people who have little interest in it other than they feel Marvel is all SJW hence why it also got coverage on certain websites and certain youtubers were obsessed with it and thinks that a win for the the distinguished competition knocks Marvel.

I'm not really sure it actually happening is a win for that crowd though. It's not suddenly going to replace the Whedon version as movie canon (such as that counts) as it's likely going to get Flashpointed into something more palatable to a mainstream audience for good or ill Ava Duvarney is still going to make that New Gods movie and everyone is going to have to deal with that.

Josh Whedon is a sellout. He'll say whatever would be the most lucrative to him at the moment.
And I say mixing alt-right into this is a hilarious misunderstanding.
No, Snyder's cut is definitely a win for everyone. Especially after journasluts said everyone who support are "evil white people".

[ZariusTwo]

We have a new voice for Carl

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-54292939

[frank_one]

Alex Desert! Julio Mendez from The Flash (1990 TV series).

[Leo656]

Jesus, STAAAAAHHHHHHHP!

I do like that actor, though, but c'mon already. Enough is Too Much. They're cartoons!

[neatoman]

I've been thinking, do you think the producers are actually doing this kind of thing to covertly phase out all the elderly actors with cheaper ones, with the "social issues" being little more than a cover story?

Nancy Cartwright, Kelsey Grammer, Joe Mantegna, Harry Shearer, Dan Castellaneta, Julie Kavner, Pamela Hayden, Tress MacNeille and Albert Brooks are all over 60 and take up a signifigant portion of the budget. And Jan Hooks, Alex Rocco, Marcia Wallace, Phil Hartman, Doris Grau and Russi Taylor have straight up died, leading to many of their characters being retired out of "respect". If they still want to keep the show going indefinitely, it might be a good idea to get someone cheaper to replace the actors while they're still kicking.

[sdp]

Yes, I do think this is in a way an excuse to start replacing actors, in this way they can't get too many complains since it's being done for "diversity", but you can bet that instead of retiring actors after certain VAs die like Krabapple's, they'll start replacing them. And so when one of the Simpson family is eventually replaced it'll be a big del but people will live with it and once they replace one, they'll replace them all. Disney just acquired the Simpsons one of the biggest pop culture icons, they won't end the show when one of the main actors dies sadly.

[Leo656]

I can kind of see that, and it's probably a little bit of A, a little bit of B.

Problem is, if the incoming minority actor gets paid significantly less than the departing white actor for playing the same character, even though they're the new guy and the other actor was more famous and tenured... That's Racist! And then we're right back where we started.

Seriously, tell me you can't imagine Mendez demanding to be paid as much as Azaria and crying "racism" if he didn't get it. You may laugh, but that's absolutely the world we live in, now.

[Wildcat]

Like with Family Guy it’s not really necessary but it’s fine.

I’d rather they replace a voice actor than get rid of a whole character.

[Leo656]

There was an episode of The Simpsons on earlier where they went to a knock-off Disney theme park and came upon the Pirates of the Caribbean ride, which Lisa said was revamped "after massive complaints from Two People."

That was actually very funny and spot-on. To go from jokes like that to all the bending over they've done since being acquired by Disney is very sad and disheartening. They were right in the first place to give a dismissive middle finger to all the crybabies whining about Apu and everything else and just keep doing what they always did, and they never should have walked back on it. Nobody should ever listen to those types of people; they're morons walking around with their skin on inside out looking for stuff to whine about.

FACT: The very same people who will whine about a black or non-white cartoon character being played by a white voice actor and insist that it's a grave injustice to be corrected, will also DEMAND that white characters in live-action movies and TV shows be played by minority actors instead, "because something something Diversity something something White Privilege something something Systemic Racism," and they will never for a second understand how one situation completely contradicts the other or what wrong-headed nitwits they are.

Thus, they're not worth listening OR pandering to. Not a little, not ever. They're fools.

[Wildcat]

I don’t know if I’d call replacing some voices “bending over” or if it has anything to do with Disney. The Apu thing started way before they got it.

I do find it funny that all their Disney parodies are officially part of Disney though.

[Leo656]

It's "bending over" because nobody of consequence ever complained that Apu was "offensive" or that Carl was voiced by Hank Azaria. Literally no one EVER gave a sh*t.

Then some guy whines, "Ohhhh, I'm Indian, and when I was a kid people at school teased me and called me 'Apu'! It was awful!" and decided to make a whole movie about what a problem this was and how it created a worldwide ripple effect of Systemic Racism or whatever. I got news for ya, buddy, I'm white, and when I was in school kids nonetheless still called me a LOT worse than f*cking "Apu". My complaints about such taunts and "abuse" weren't listened to, nor was I afforded an opportunity to make a documentary about my mighty struggle against bullies and schoolyard taunts. I was just told to get a thicker skin and quit being a whiny bitch, and I did.

THEN one or two black people are like, "Hey, you ever notice that some black cartoon characters are played by white guys? That's SO racist!" And for some reason, instead of saying, "What are you, a f*cking moron?", people who make the Big Decisions decided that these one or two people spoke for everyone, and that this was actually a problem in need of "fixing" when No it f*cking ISN'T. And now suddenly people have to lose jobs they've been performing diligently for decades, because of this insipid, whiny, "Every Single Thing Is Racist Now" bullsh*t that's infected our entire culture. And they can't even recognize how offensive it would be when played in reverse, which makes it even more funny and tragic.

It's stupid. The whole thing is f*cking stupid. Hank Azaria was BULLIED into stepping down from roles he's made iconic over many years, because some f*cking loser nobody who's never going to get a real job or make a meaningful contribution to society because they're gonna be too busy "fighting injustice" until they die of starvation, decided to whine on the internet about how someone playing a goddamn cartoon character is racist.

These idiots shouldn't be indulged. They should be mocked and derided as whiny sissies trying to sow discord and make mountains out of molehills, not dictating policy. Yet they are being indulged, and their whining and whinging DOES dictate policy. Thus, "bending over".

"Too Many Honkies. Gotta Fix That." That's their unspoken battle cry. And guess what? THAT'S racist.

Live action movies and TV? White actors should play white characters and non-white actors should play non-white characters. Cartoons, though? It's just a voice, for f*ck's sake. Hank Azaria playing Carl Carlson isn't any more offensive than Tara Strong playing Clark Kent as a kid is offensive; it's just a goddamn voice. We're not exactly talking Mickey Rooney in "Breakfast At Tiffany's", here. Nobody's putting on f*cking blackface before they sit down and talk into a goddamn microphone. Jesus, these people.

People who can't understand these things, simply ate too many paint chips as kids and it's unfortunate that now we ALL have to deal with them and their pissy bullsh*t. Walking advertisements for the benefits of abortion, every single one of them.

[Wildcat]

I watched the documentary but I do not remember if the guy wanted the voice actor changed. Did he?

I remember him being upset that Apu was a stereotype. I guess he just wanted the character to become something more. He never wanted him removed either. He said he would remain a fan regardless because it was one of his favorite shows.

I think Kal Penn DID say he refused to watch during one of the interviews. That's pretty ridiculous.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

I watched the documentary but I do not remember if the guy wanted the voice actor changed. Did he?

I remember him being upset that Apu was a stereotype. I guess he just wanted the character to become something more. He never wanted him removed either. He said he would remain a fan regardless because it was one of his favorite shows.

I think Kal Penn DID say he refused to watch during one of the interviews. That's pretty ridiculous.

No, he flat out wanted the character gone. I'm sure had he thought of it he woulda considered a different voice actor of actual Indian descent, but since no one saw them ever replacing Apu's voice actor.... it sounded like he just flat out wanted Apu gone from the show.