How can Tommy be female? Power Rangers

Recommended Videos

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
hermes said:
Redryhno said:
Parasondox said:
Tomi. There we go. She's now female. What's the big deal here?
Being lore-friendly? I mean, what do you gain by playing with the power of 63 here? Like, make up a new character, don't be a lazy shit-fer-brains and bank on name recognition alone. It's part of why the new Ghostbusters was so reviled and uninteresting for so many long-time fans of the franchise.
Lore-friendly? On Power Rangers?
So, this

Kids with attitude


Ai-yi-yi-yi-yi


Sexy Rita
are fair game for the lore, but having a 3rd female ranger is "going too far"?
Cant speak for anyone else, but no, actually the first movie is already bad for it, and is why I am not more mad because I already stopped caring about these movies.

Edit: Also they ruined Goldar.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
Redryhno said:
hermes said:
For all intents and purposes, this IS a new character... unless they plan to make her into an evil ranger that changes her ways because of romantic (lesbian) feelings for the pink ranger, or remaking the story again, I am pretty sure she has nothing in common with the original Tommy (apart from their nicknames, which, like all the other characters in the movie, share the same name as their original counterparts), so... congratulations on getting a new character.

My point is that there are a lot of things that are not "lore-friendly" in the last movie. From the origin of major characters to their design and personalities... so why should THIS be the point were they draw a line in the sand and concern with such a thing as "lore-friendliness"? Making the yellow ranger latina and the black ranger asian... no problem. Making Rita Repulsa some sort of sexy Kerrigan... go ahead. Making the green ranger female... are you mad? How dare you tinker with the sacred Power Ranger mythology!

Unlike your example of Ghostbusters, no other character is gender bended in this movie and we don't even know her role, so what would be the point of invoking rule 63 here, or being horrified by it?
And yet again, things are turned into a bigger problem than the person making the statement has specifically said. Amazing how it always turns into "you just don't like females".

I don't like that the bit of the movie I've seen(long story short, fiance and I went, then had to leave like five minutes in because her baby brother is a bit of an idiot at times and decided to Tarzan off the roof of her parent's house and didn't jump far enough out to catch a tree branch, he's fine, just got a sorta nasty cut on his chest from a broken branch he fell through) has them all turn into some kind of weird mix of Animorphs and Breakfast Club. I don't like any of that, but I didn't really have a chance to see pretty much anything else you're talking about.

And alot of that applies here too, if you're going to use the original cast's names, then actually use the original character's characteristics. If not, then name them something else and have a ball. Got nothing wrong with original characters, provided they're actually done well. Hell, they've got like twenty years of characters to go through, mix and match could've been something interesting.
But that is the point... they used the original cast's names, but none of the characteristics. I am not sure if they change it be "more extreme", "more radical", to appeal to "the kidz", or why, but this movie is full of myriad different changes that makes you wonder "why even bother?".

So, I apologize if I jumped to the wrong conclusions because I lacked the context that you only saw the first 15 minutes of the movie, and this change in the adaptation seemed like a weird hill to die on for this "adaptation", but trust me... having Tommy be a girl is the least egregious change to "the lore" that movie has. Compared to some of the other stuff, having a classmate called the same as a character from generation 1 seems like a cute callback.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 13, 2010
8,577
2,990
118
Phasmal said:
How can Tommy be female? Because the Power Rangers aren't real.
Ok, that's kinda dismissive, but I'm sure if they want to do it they'll come up with some reason.
Just to clarify, in case you missed the actual intent of this thread in the devolving discussion, I'm not questioning the gender of the character. I don't care either way, if the best actor for the role is a woman, go ahead. I'm talking about the name. Since this is kind of a minor (I don't think so, but you know the internet) spoiler, I'm going to put it here, again.

They call out Tommy's first and last name as being a new member of detention. Which wouldn't be the kind of thing that a school would do with someone's nickname. Your friends might call you Butt Stallion, but that's not what the administration is going to call you.
So I was just asking the forum, of how the name Tommy, a fairly traditionally male name, could be turned to be a female-ish name. That I couldn't think of a way using common English names that this would make sense, like with names like Leslie, and other gender neutral names that both genders use. So I was asking, if maybe some other languages might have a female-ish name that might be bastardized, or whatever, to be Tommy. Like perhaps Tomi, which is maybe some other language, and is pronounced differently, but nobody in the US ever gets it right, so the girl has just learned to live with the name. It was meant to just be a general discussion about language, and naming conventions in the world. Silly me, thinking it would stick to that when discussing something on this site. *le sigh*


Phasmal said:
I'm more interested in why people are now trying to convince Zontar that teh femalez/teh gayz aren't ruining games, films and comics.
If the mere inclusion is ruining it for him, yeah. We're ruining all the things, and it's just gonna keep happening.
I don't really give a shit what Zontar thinks either way. His/her rage boner over everything not his/her worldview is mildly amusing, but ultimately irrelevant to me personally.
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
undeadsuitor said:
The galaxy is massive. Shepard just didn't meet one.
So the fact we're explicitly told that the use of male pronouns (which are of alien origin) is used as an insult because of how inherently un-Asari it is just normal insults and not a modern day equivalent of using foreign slurs?

Phoenixmgs said:
Here's the proof of diversity comics not being the cause for the "death" of comics:
http://www.cbr.com/no-diversity-didnt-kill-marvels-comic-sales/
"Having dug into the data, it's become clear that diversity is not hurting Marvel. The truth is, Marvel's "diverse" titles actually sell decently. The problem, instead, appears to be a hollowing-out of Marvel's traditional A-List, titles whose sales have dropped by tens of thousands of copies in the past few years."
So Marvel's own editor lied?

It's not that diversity is an inherent problem, it's how social justice types go about trying to push it. The A-list titles doing down in sales makes sense when Captain America has Steve replaced with a far-left leaning Falcon who can't go 2 pages without going on a rant about how evil republicans are, or Thor having his name turned into a title just so it could be stripped, or Iron Man, well that one's complicated but still a train-wreak.

To put it simply, there's a reason why DC dominates the top 50 and why Image is doing better in the top 10: Marvel's only pandering to an audience which has shown itself uninterested in buying its product at the cost of the previously existing audience which is drying up. I'm a young guy by comic standards, and had a good 6 year run with them, but I'm not going to pay 4-5$ per issue for comics that are not worth my time, not worth my money and are made by people who have explicitly told me they don't want my money both in their social media accounts and in the pages of the very product they are supposed to be selling.

Happyninja42 said:
I don't really give a shit what Zontar thinks either way. His/her rage boner over everything not his/her worldview is mildly amusing, but ultimately irrelevant to me personally.
See, that's half the reason this problem isn't going away any time soon: so many people don't even understand the problem. I don't care about diversity either for or against, what I care is when diversity is used to the determent of the product, and I don't even need to list off the examples of that happening given how often we've talked about them here.

You want diversity? Fine, but don't take a steaming dump on the product while you're at it like Marvel Comics can't stop doing.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,580
7,215
118
Country
United States
Zontar said:
So Marvel's own editor lied?

It's not that diversity is an inherent problem, it's how social justice types go about trying to push it. The A-list titles doing down in sales makes sense when Captain America has Steve replaced with a far-left leaning Falcon who can't go 2 pages without going on a rant about how evil republicans are, or Thor having his name turned into a title just so it could be stripped, or Iron Man, well that one's complicated but still a train-wreak.

To put it simply, there's a reason why DC dominates the top 50 and why Image is doing better in the top 10: Marvel's only pandering to an audience which has shown itself uninterested in buying its product at the cost of the previously existing audience which is drying up. I'm a young guy by comic standards, and had a good 6 year run with them, but I'm not going to pay 4-5$ per issue for comics that are not worth my time, not worth my money and are made by people who have explicitly told me they don't want my money both in their social media accounts and in the pages of the very product they are supposed to be selling.the problem.
Judging by the data, Marvel's editor was mistaken. And I'm curious how you think [link=https://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/36913/top-300-comics-actual-february-2017]Image is doing better than Marvel in the top ten[/i], considering Image has one and Marvel has two.

And despite DC putting out 2 comics a month and dominating the top fifty with Batman and Batman adjacent comics, Marvel still has a 7% market share lead over them. How do you reconcile that?
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
Happyninja42 said:
Phasmal said:
How can Tommy be female? Because the Power Rangers aren't real.
Ok, that's kinda dismissive, but I'm sure if they want to do it they'll come up with some reason.
Just to clarify, in case you missed the actual intent of this thread in the devolving discussion, I'm not questioning the gender of the character. I don't care either way, if the best actor for the role is a woman, go ahead. I'm talking about the name. Since this is kind of a minor (I don't think so, but you know the internet) spoiler, I'm going to put it here, again.

They call out Tommy's first and last name as being a new member of detention. Which wouldn't be the kind of thing that a school would do with someone's nickname. Your friends might call you Butt Stallion, but that's not what the administration is going to call you.
So I was just asking the forum, of how the name Tommy, a fairly traditionally male name, could be turned to be a female-ish name. That I couldn't think of a way using common English names that this would make sense, like with names like Leslie, and other gender neutral names that both genders use. So I was asking, if maybe some other languages might have a female-ish name that might be bastardized, or whatever, to be Tommy. Like perhaps Tomi, which is maybe some other language, and is pronounced differently, but nobody in the US ever gets it right, so the girl has just learned to live with the name. It was meant to just be a general discussion about language, and naming conventions in the world. Silly me, thinking it would stick to that when discussing something on this site. *le sigh*


Phasmal said:
I'm more interested in why people are now trying to convince Zontar that teh femalez/teh gayz aren't ruining games, films and comics.
If the mere inclusion is ruining it for him, yeah. We're ruining all the things, and it's just gonna keep happening.
I don't really give a shit what Zontar thinks either way. His/her rage boner over everything not his/her worldview is mildly amusing, but ultimately irrelevant to me personally.
Ok, ignoring the whole source material thing...you do know that a woman can just be named Tommy, right? There are girls who have been named straight up Charlie before as well as other blatantly masculine names. (Though I think Charlie is an ugly name for any gender).
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
altnameJag said:
Judging by the data, Marvel's editor was mistaken. And I'm curious how you think [link=https://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/36913/top-300-comics-actual-february-2017]Image is doing better than Marvel in the top ten[/i], considering Image has one and Marvel has two.
We can agree he was mistaken, though only in so far as to why Marvel Comics is struggling when compared to DC's recent revitalisation.

Also I wasn't aware Marvel managed to sneak a second comic into the top 10 last month. The last time I'd checked it was DC: 8, Marvel: 1 and Image: 1.
And despite DC putting out 2 comics a month and dominating the top fifty with Batman and Batman adjacent comics, Marvel still has a 7% market share lead over them. How do you reconcile that?
The fact that DC has 68 comic titles sold in February compared to Marvel who has 102. A 7% lead in market share isn't impressive when you have 67% more titles fighting for that market.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,580
7,215
118
Country
United States
Zontar said:
altnameJag said:
Judging by the data, Marvel's editor was mistaken. And I'm curious how you think Image is doing better than Marvel in the top ten, considering Image has one and Marvel has two.
We can agree he was mistaken, though only in so far as to why Marvel Comics is struggling when compared to DC's recent revitalisation.
Recent revitalization meaning "Had a few months on top last year during a company wide relaunch". They got the same bump from the New52. It lasts about a year.
Also I wasn't aware Marvel managed to sneak a second comic into the top 10 last month. The last time I'd checked it was DC: 8, Marvel: 1 and Image: 1.
You know these numbers change every month, right?
And despite DC putting out 2 comics a month and dominating the top fifty with Batman and Batman adjacent comics, Marvel still has a 7% market share lead over them. How do you reconcile that?
The fact that DC has 68 comic titles sold in February compared to Marvel who has 102. A 7% lead in market share isn't impressive when you have 67% more titles fighting for that market.
Last fall, DC and Marvel went 50/50 in the top ten super hero franchises, and while DC has fewer franchises, most of them are publishing two comics a month. Like, 20 entries in that top 50 are held by 10 comics. And DC is still lagging behind.

Doesn't look good when you're putting out more comics than the other guy and selling less, yeah?
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
altnameJag said:
Recent revitalization meaning [Had a few months on top last year during a company wide relaunch". They got the same bump from the New52. It lasts about a year.
Unlike Neo52 it was positively received though, and Marvel has been going through its own attempt at a relaunch too, just without success.

You know these numbers change every month, right?
Yes but it was pretty much the same for a few months so I didn't realize DC had lost one to Marvel. Though given Image has just over half as many active comics as Marvel and isn't one of the big two, that's still impressive.

Last fall, DC and Marvel went 50/50 in the top ten super hero franchises, and while DC has fewer franchises, most of them are publishing two comics a month. Like, 20 entries in that top 50 are held by 10 comics. And DC is still lagging behind.

Doesn't look good when you're putting out more comics than the other guy and selling less, yeah?
I think you're mixing up the numbers here. Marvel is significantly more titles then DC yet the gap between them in terms of market share is 1/9th that of the gap between their volume of titles. Franchises aren't a good metric for counting things given how many titles fall under each and how at the end of the day sales for said titles are what matter.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Zontar said:
Phoenixmgs said:
Here's the proof of diversity comics not being the cause for the "death" of comics:
http://www.cbr.com/no-diversity-didnt-kill-marvels-comic-sales/
"Having dug into the data, it's become clear that diversity is not hurting Marvel. The truth is, Marvel's "diverse" titles actually sell decently. The problem, instead, appears to be a hollowing-out of Marvel's traditional A-List, titles whose sales have dropped by tens of thousands of copies in the past few years."
So Marvel's own editor lied?

It's not that diversity is an inherent problem, it's how social justice types go about trying to push it. The A-list titles doing down in sales makes sense when Captain America has Steve replaced with a far-left leaning Falcon who can't go 2 pages without going on a rant about how evil republicans are, or Thor having his name turned into a title just so it could be stripped, or Iron Man, well that one's complicated but still a train-wreak.

To put it simply, there's a reason why DC dominates the top 50 and why Image is doing better in the top 10: Marvel's only pandering to an audience which has shown itself uninterested in buying its product at the cost of the previously existing audience which is drying up. I'm a young guy by comic standards, and had a good 6 year run with them, but I'm not going to pay 4-5$ per issue for comics that are not worth my time, not worth my money and are made by people who have explicitly told me they don't want my money both in their social media accounts and in the pages of the very product they are supposed to be selling.
The proof is in the numbers. Marvel went bankrupt pandering to their hardcore audience so that basically proves that kind of pandering to not work for the long term. A few posters have already said Marvel has more market share in the comic book industry than DC.

You are always going to have pandering being pushed on you. Why is this so-called SJW pandering ruining everything when lots of stuff was already kinda ruined beforehand? You wouldn't have SJW pandering if the "normal" pandering was working. Just look at the state of video game protagonists, that's not a good thing for the gaming industry. Pandering is always there, I'd rather have pandering that results in variety vs the same shit over and over again. It would take years of video games with literally only minority protagonists to make up for the years and years of suppression on devs from publishers.
 

Elijin

Elite Muppet
Legacy
Feb 15, 2009
2,095
1,086
118
Happyninja42 said:
Phasmal said:
How can Tommy be female? Because the Power Rangers aren't real.
Ok, that's kinda dismissive, but I'm sure if they want to do it they'll come up with some reason.
Just to clarify, in case you missed the actual intent of this thread in the devolving discussion, I'm not questioning the gender of the character. I don't care either way, if the best actor for the role is a woman, go ahead. I'm talking about the name. Since this is kind of a minor (I don't think so, but you know the internet) spoiler, I'm going to put it here, again.

They call out Tommy's first and last name as being a new member of detention. Which wouldn't be the kind of thing that a school would do with someone's nickname. Your friends might call you Butt Stallion, but that's not what the administration is going to call you.
So I was just asking the forum, of how the name Tommy, a fairly traditionally male name, could be turned to be a female-ish name. That I couldn't think of a way using common English names that this would make sense, like with names like Leslie, and other gender neutral names that both genders use. So I was asking, if maybe some other languages might have a female-ish name that might be bastardized, or whatever, to be Tommy. Like perhaps Tomi, which is maybe some other language, and is pronounced differently, but nobody in the US ever gets it right, so the girl has just learned to live with the name. It was meant to just be a general discussion about language, and naming conventions in the world. Silly me, thinking it would stick to that when discussing something on this site. *le sigh*


Phasmal said:
I'm more interested in why people are now trying to convince Zontar that teh femalez/teh gayz aren't ruining games, films and comics.
If the mere inclusion is ruining it for him, yeah. We're ruining all the things, and it's just gonna keep happening.
I don't really give a shit what Zontar thinks either way. His/her rage boner over everything not his/her worldview is mildly amusing, but ultimately irrelevant to me personally.
I mean, I already pointed out that Tommy was in the top 40% of girls names in the US census for 2000. That's a significant enough use to establish that yes, Tommy is a girls name in the west. Is it the most common? No. But its not super obscure either.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,580
7,215
118
Country
United States
Zontar said:
altnameJag said:
Recent revitalization meaning [Had a few months on top last year during a company wide relaunch". They got the same bump from the New52. It lasts about a year.
Unlike Neo52 it was positively received though, and Marvel has been going through its own attempt at a relaunch too, just without success.
Marvel is not, in fact, rebooting their entire universe, and I'm curious as to how you got that impression. Is it the new legacy heroes?

And Rebirth is doing basically the same numbers as New52, just twice as quickly because they are being published every two weeks instead of monthly.

Yes but it was pretty much the same for a few months so I didn't realize DC had lost one to Marvel. Though given Image has just over half as many active comics as Marvel and isn't one of the big two. , that's still impressive.
It's The Walking Dead. You know, that hit tv show with the video games and the colossal amount of merch?

For that matter, find me two months in a row where the top ten was DC 8, Marvel 1, Image 1. Because I had to backtrack over 6 months to find 1, and it wasn't connected. And it was literally the thrid month of Rebirth, where two of those titles were #1s (#1s always sell better), three of them were Batman, and two of them were Justice League, all of which were still in their first story arcs.

Even then, DC's market share advantage of 8.5% slipped to 5% and kept dropping. Which proves the opposite point to "Marvel is failing because diversity and DC is cleaning up.
Last fall, DC and Marvel went 50/50 in the top ten super hero franchises, and while DC has fewer franchises, most of them are publishing two comics a month. Like, 20 entries in that top 50 are held by 10 comics. And DC is still lagging behind.

Doesn't look good when you're putting out more comics than the other guy and selling less, yeah?
I think you're mixing up the numbers here. Marvel is significantly more titles then DC yet the gap between them in terms of market share is 1/9th that of the gap between their volume of titles. Franchises aren't a good metric for counting things given how many titles fall under each and how at the end of the day sales for said titles are what matter.
No mate, it's your math that doesn't add up. Batman, the title, not the franchise, has been putting a new comic out twice a month since Rebirth. Same for Justice League, same for Harley Quinn, same for Suicide Squad, same for Superman, etc. Which means, even with only 60 odd titles, they're putting out upwards of 100 comics a month. Which you'd know if you knew about comics or looked at the charts, considering the same titles tend to show up multiple times. Marvel, on the other hand, is mostly running the one-comic-a-month thing. Math.

Meanwhile, by November, Marvel had over an 11% market share lead, and the 4 DC titles in the top 10 were all Batman books. (Batman #10 and #11, All-Star Batman #4, and Batman Annual #1. This is not indicative of a healthy stable of heroes.) DC managed to claw some back, but it's hardly like they're dominating the market.

You're looking at the surface level of a single data point and you're extrapolating an entire thesis out of it. Meanwhile, the facts are different.
Saelune said:
Edit: Also they ruined Goldar.
You know, based on this thread I was thinking of giving the movie a theater watch, but now I dunno. Goldar was the man...ape...whatever.
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
The proof is in the numbers. Marvel went bankrupt pandering to their hardcore audience so that basically proves that kind of pandering to not work for the long term. A few posters have already said Marvel has more market share in the comic book industry than DC.
So the alternative from pandering to a fanbase that was shrinking due to a sharp drop in quality and other bad business decisions is to alienate that market (which in the early 00's was growing back) with another sharp drop in quality and other bad business decisions to attract a new base that is demonstrably not interested in spending their money at levels that make up for the losses?

Also, having a 7% lead in market share when you have 67% more products fighting for that market, in an industry dominated by two brands, that isn't an accomplishment, that's something that in any other industry would lead to heads rolling.
You are always going to have pandering being pushed on you. Why is this so-called SJW pandering ruining everything when lots of stuff was already kinda ruined beforehand? You wouldn't have SJW pandering if the "normal" pandering was working.
I don't think you understand the concept of opportunity cost [http://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/opportunitycost.asp]. Though evidently those trying to pander to SJW types don't either given you're supposed to change what you do to increase income, not decrease it.
Just look at the state of video game protagonists, that's not a good thing for the gaming industry. Pandering is always there, I'd rather have pandering that results in variety vs the same shit over and over again.
And I would rather a quality product be the industry standard instead of fiftyflavours of shit being celebrated because despite being shit it's different types of shit.
It would take years of video games with literally only minority protagonists to make up for the years and years of suppression on devs from publishers.
I'm going to ignore the conspiratorial nature of this statement and make this rebuttal instead: if you want games that have minorities who star in them (something which you seem to be under the mistaken impression is a right) then make one yourself. It's not that hard these days, there's practically software that does all the actual coding for you. Hell even Yahtzee made a few in his time.

And even ignoring the fact there's nothing to make up for, I'd like to point this out: America, Canada, Australia and Europe are, for Western developers, the primary target market. Do you know how much of that market is white? 11.7%. That is how large the non-white population is in the largest target markets for Western publishers.

Going beyond that for those attemping a truely global release, the only other nations of note to the industry due to the state of the global economy is Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Southern Cone, and Brazil. The only one on that expanded list that isn't either almost entirely homogeneously white or East Asian is Brazil, which is about half white and by a significant margin the largest single demographic.

And shock of shocks, in a world where most games are made, sold and consumed in either white or East Asian nations, by white or East Asian consumers, in markets that are almost all entirely white or East Asian, there's an over-representation of protagonists who are white or East Asian when you look at the minority of games that have a protagonist and then look at the ones with a human protagonist who isn't player created.

Who would have thought?

Though I do find it quite ironic that it's only people in white nations that tend to complain about this given that I've not only never seen a person from a non-white country complain about this, I've also seen plenty of non-whites from the third world laugh at those who do.


I can cherry pick too you know. I've never seen that image used by people who actually play games before today, so this is a first. Never seen it used from someone who wasn't an outsider looking in.
 

runic knight

New member
Mar 26, 2011
1,118
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Zontar said:
Phoenixmgs said:
Here's the proof of diversity comics not being the cause for the "death" of comics:
http://www.cbr.com/no-diversity-didnt-kill-marvels-comic-sales/
"Having dug into the data, it's become clear that diversity is not hurting Marvel. The truth is, Marvel's "diverse" titles actually sell decently. The problem, instead, appears to be a hollowing-out of Marvel's traditional A-List, titles whose sales have dropped by tens of thousands of copies in the past few years."
So Marvel's own editor lied?

It's not that diversity is an inherent problem, it's how social justice types go about trying to push it. The A-list titles doing down in sales makes sense when Captain America has Steve replaced with a far-left leaning Falcon who can't go 2 pages without going on a rant about how evil republicans are, or Thor having his name turned into a title just so it could be stripped, or Iron Man, well that one's complicated but still a train-wreak.

To put it simply, there's a reason why DC dominates the top 50 and why Image is doing better in the top 10: Marvel's only pandering to an audience which has shown itself uninterested in buying its product at the cost of the previously existing audience which is drying up. I'm a young guy by comic standards, and had a good 6 year run with them, but I'm not going to pay 4-5$ per issue for comics that are not worth my time, not worth my money and are made by people who have explicitly told me they don't want my money both in their social media accounts and in the pages of the very product they are supposed to be selling.
The proof is in the numbers. Marvel went bankrupt pandering to their hardcore audience so that basically proves that kind of pandering to not work for the long term. A few posters have already said Marvel has more market share in the comic book industry than DC.

You are always going to have pandering being pushed on you. Why is this so-called SJW pandering ruining everything when lots of stuff was already kinda ruined beforehand? You wouldn't have SJW pandering if the "normal" pandering was working. Just look at the state of video game protagonists, that's not a good thing for the gaming industry. Pandering is always there, I'd rather have pandering that results in variety vs the same shit over and over again. It would take years of video games with literally only minority protagonists to make up for the years and years of suppression on devs from publishers.
Hold up. Do I have this right now?

You think the best business decision to a market crashed caused by hyper-focus on the most profitable demographic and flooding the market with poor-quality products that audience just stopped wanting is to instead have a hyper-focus on the least profitable market and flooding the market with poor-quality products that the audience has demonstrated it doesn't buy regardless of being pandered to or not?

That isn't a good business decision. That is pretending why the numbers failed was pandering to the wrong audience instead of everything connected to what they did when trying to pander, and using that to claim "well, that failed, you should be pandering to thise even less profitable and less reliable audience instead".

Lets remember, marvel, and comics in general, dove off the deep end because they became entirely focused on milking the most profitable with gimmicks and generic mimics. The age of "dark and edgy" that grew after the success of mature comics like Watchmen, and the boom of the collector era had comic companies acting like internet start ups would later on in putting all eggs in one basket, and failing for a lot of the same reasons. They abandoned the quality to instead go edgy, destroyed the storylines and character history that made fans love the books, threw the issue numbering into chaos, and made so many gimmick and event issues that people who loved comics simply stopped caring. They spat on and ignored the complaints of the long-term fans to try to instead pull in the collectors and the edgy lovers because, hey, that was where the money was because it worked once, right? The biggest point to learn from the comic crash was that longtime and dedicated fans were leaving because they weren't getting products they wanted anymore. It was literally because the industry stopped "pandering" (if you want to use the term) to the usual audience and drove them away to instead pandering to one very select niche while simutanuously milking them for all they had that caused the crash in the first place.

Now your answer to those woes is to stop pandering to the niche (I agree with this part) and instead pander to a different niche. Only instead of it being the most profitable and historically reliably niche, you think they should instead concentrate on one of the least profitable demographic that they have had zero inroads in building lasting reliable audience with, and do so while continuing the problems of poor quality, going political minded instead of edgy this time, and actively driving away the few hardline fans they managed to hang onto all this time?

That will not work. At all.

Pandering to profitable, reliable customers makes sense. Pandering to a smaller group of them with strategies that would yield more money overall because of gimmicks and price changes makes sense (but is less wise a business decision, comic crash demonstrated this). Pandering to an audience that doesn't buy your products in any relevant numbers while doing so is demonstrably driving away the audience that does buy them, solely to promote a political belief... that is just stupid.

Marvel was best, both quality wise and financial stability wise, when it made good stories, maintained its characters, and actually concentrated on entertaining first and foremost. Audiences latched onto those and it is from those stories that people delved deeper into comics.

Suggesting marvel's failure for concentrating on one niche over another is already shaky reasoning, but when you realize you are saying they should cease concentrating on the most profitable one to instead hyper-focus so hard on another, even to the detriment of the most profitable audience... Well, that is just company suicide.
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
I heard about this. And almost all of the complaints I saw boiled down to, "Waah! They're changing something about something incredibly stupid that, had I not liked it as a kid (because I was a dumb kid back then) I wouldn't give a flipping shit about now! HOW DARE THEY?!", or, "Waah! They made a normally male character female! I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH MY SEXUALITY, AND I'M NERVOUS AROUND WOMEN, SO THIS FRIGHTENS ME!"

Get the hell over it, I say. It's the fucking Power Rangers. Who the hell cares?

And I can already see someone saying, "I care! Because lore!"

It's a shitty movie franchise based on a shitty kids cartoon with bad actors mock-fighting other actors while wearing cheap rubber suits and spouting terrible one liners out of the 90s. It's awful. And more importantly, it's fiction. If someone making changes to a fictional story gets your knickers in a bunch I think it might be time to reassess your life. Christ...[footnote]For the record: This is NOT pointed at the OP or anyone in the thread specifically. It's more towards the fans who've been throwing tantrums across the disparate corners of the 'net.[/footnote]
 

deadish

New member
Dec 4, 2011
694
0
0
Makoto in Ghost in the Shell should have been made a man in the Hollywood movie.

Maybe they can make Wonder Woman a man in the Justice League movie.
 

Winnosh

New member
Sep 23, 2010
492
0
0
deadish said:
Makoto in Ghost in the Shell should have been made a man in the Hollywood movie.

Maybe they can make Wonder Woman a man in the Justice League movie.
Those are huge differences and you know it. Hell it's bad enough that Makoto was white When you are doing an adaptation you try and keep things close to the source material. When you are doing a Reboot, which is what Power Rangers is, you toss everything out the window and see how you can fit the new stuff together.
 

Winnosh

New member
Sep 23, 2010
492
0
0
Ezekiel said:
Winnosh said:
deadish said:
Makoto in Ghost in the Shell should have been made a man in the Hollywood movie.

Maybe they can make Wonder Woman a man in the Justice League movie.
Those are huge differences and you know it. Hell it's bad enough that Makoto was white When you are doing an adaptation you try and keep things close to the source material.
No. You adapt the setting to your own audience. Kurosawa's Shakespeare adaptations wouldn't have been so impressive if they had just been straight adaptations with European actors. Ghost in the Shell's problem is that it's a half-measure, taking place in Japan (?), featuring a protagonist named Kusanagi (in a new shell), but not starring a Japanese actress. I would have set it in Los Angeles. If anyone thinks L.A. doesn't lend itself to science fiction, just look at Blade Runner. The city there is unrecognizable. It's also heavily Chinese, like the Hong Kong-inspired world of this movie.
I agree if they set it in LA and completely changed the character then I wouldn't have had a problem. It's why I'm perfectly fine with what they are doing with Death Note. It's a new setting, the characters just have the same name so it's all ok. It's not an adaptation it's something new. Just like with Power Rangers. Hell Misa could be a guy in this version and I'd be fine just like I'm ok with a Female Tommy in Power Rangers. It's not pretending to be an adaptation of the original.