Is "this character didn't even do much" the new buzz phrase for "they included a minority character as support and I need to pretend to have a criticism about them?" I notice this "criticism" is only used for blacks and browns. I'd honestly appreciate it more if people just said "I hate blacks" instead of trying to code it as an actual criticism of a story's writing
The fact people are still talking about her means she accomplished what they wanted, this thread being a case in point.
The main criticism for this character was that this woman was knowingly endangering her unborn child by fighting crime while pregnant which is a valid criticism. You just deflect to race because you cannot actually defend the inclusion of such a moronic character apart from "muh representation" so congrats OP you are just as shallow and racist as the nonexistent straw men you are complaining about
The same criticism was applied to Ben Reilly so your persecution fetish thread doesn't work
>The same criticism was applied to Ben Reilly
No it wasn't
Yes it was, your confirmation bias doesn't let you see it
Yes it was. And Luigi in Mario.
Where are the threads about it then?
Go get them from tbharchive.
People were complaining she didn't do much? She's there to be a mentor figure for Gwen that the latter grows disillusioned with before she reconciles with her dad. If anything, Jessica did more than Ben. Only problem I had with her was her fighting crime while pregnant. Didn't really seem to add anything.
Pointing out that a black or female or gay character was included purely for token reasons and didn't actually do anything in the script is a valid criticism of major studios' cheap attempts to market themselves as progressive when they're anything but.
How many times has Disney had their "first" gay character now? Eight? Nine?
>purely for token reasons
Can Jess even be token? She didn't do much but the central character is black and 2 of the other major characters that do arguably the most behind Miles are black and a woman respectively. You're kind of beyond token black characters at that point
>Can Jess even be token?
Does she do anything in the movie except act as a marketing tool by being a black woman?
The movie is ironically packed full of tokenism with the alt spiders. Sun Spider comes to mind first.
>Sun Spider comes to mind first.
Sun Spider reminds me of that old school inclusion thing where they used to put a wheelchair kid in stuff all the time.
She was only in the movie for, like, 15 seconds for a handicapped joke.
That's jess? Well, token for pregnant. Or unconventional female body type.
Character didn't do much is a descriptor not a criticism. It matters if you EXPECTED them to do more.
>Pointing out that a black or female or gay character was included purely for token reasons and didn't actually do anything in the script
Completely wrong. If the character fits in the setting, there doesn't to be an "excuse" to put them in. The meta circumstances behind a character's inclusion is entirely irrelevant to the quality of the writing and is only mixed in with it because culture war homosexuals like you want to lend legitimacy to your vapid complaints
>The meta circumstances behind a character's inclusion is entirely irrelevant to the quality of the writing
Okay, what if the reasoning is bad, and the character is bad, and the writing is bad, and they expect you to defend it anyways because they replaced a white woman with a black woman with a huge afro and that somehow makes her immune from criticism?
>the reasoning is bad
irrelevant
>the character is bad
She's not
>the writing is bad
Stop vaguely gesturing towards criticism instead of actually giving criticism. sayiing "x is bad" instead of anything substantive is peak brain rot
>they replaced a white woman with a black woman with a huge afro and that somehow makes her immune from criticism?
wrong, it makes her more susceptible to criticism from autists like you who wouldn't b***h about her half as much if she were white
>nuh uh!!
You are a braindead homosexual, but that much way obvious. I just wanted to be sure.
>says "x is bad" for no reason
>"x is not bad"
>"YOU'RE BRAINDEAD"
whoa, brainlets are impressive
>The meta circumstances behind a character's inclusion is entirely irrelevant to the quality of the writing
The quality of the writing for this character was poor
That's the reason it's tokenism in the first place
You're moronic
>The quality of the writing for this character was poor
It was not. You don't have any idea what good writing is, hence why you give such a vague "criticism" She perfectly fulfills her role as a support minor character
>That's the reason it's tokenism in the first place
No, you call it tokenism first and then work backwards to justify it. You are a mindless sheep who thinks he's more intelligent than he actually is
>Pointing out that a black or female or gay character was included purely for token reasons and didn't actually do anything in the script is a valid criticism of major studios' cheap attempts to market themselves as progressive when they're anything but.
>Completely wrong. If the character fits in the setting, there doesn't to be an "excuse" to put them in. The meta circumstances behind a character's inclusion is entirely irrelevant to the quality of the writing and is only mixed in with it because culture war homosexuals like you want to lend legitimacy to your vapid complaints
I'd say there's a difference between having a gay couple or interacial couple in the show as background characters, and having them as a obnoxious virtue signalling.
There's a difference between there is this gay character in the show, and there is this token gay character. It's not evil, its just cliche. It's like forced girl power scenes in tv shows.
The thing about disney (and other studios) is thats always done in VERY minor background characters so they can easily cut it out for distributing overseas. That's how you know they are just virtue signalling without actually caring. That's one way you know its a token.
They aren't going to make a main character obviously gay or flamboyantly homosexual. Because it would cut into their overseas market.
In the end thats the issue with many studio made stuff, things are done in a forced manner rather than organically.
>I'd say there's a difference between having a gay couple or interacial couple in the show as background characters, and having them as a obnoxious virtue signalling.
That stopped being a meritorious argument after the cherrios commercial.
All commercials are obnoxious. It's impossible for an advertisement to be good. They don't count.
>having them as a obnoxious virtue signalling.
I'm not interested in trying to mind read people. The truth is that b***hing about minorities being "forced" is just a way to criticize the fact that they were included to begin with without actually having to look at the writing, unless it's a character that directly destroys the tone of a setting, ex: a black character in a story that's meant to be set in a realistic 1200s Germany.
>I'm not interested in trying to mind read people. The truth is that b***hing about minorities being "forced" is just a way to criticize the fact that they were included to begin with without actually having to look at the writing, unless it's a character that directly destroys the tone of a setting, ex: a black character in a story that's meant to be set in a realistic 1200s Germany.
That's true. I do wonder if sometimes characters are raceswapped to distract from bigger issues with the story.
Like the little mermaid. All the discourse is about the mermaid being black rather than it being an an unncessary live action remake.
Like you said, your example of something like medieval germany is more likely to be virtue signalling. For instance, the example of a raceswapping random british royalty is clearly virtue signalling.
But even that is not necessarily virtue signalling though. If its a school play and they didnt have enough actors thats one thing.
You can also have people journeying from far off places.
Or things can be set in a fictionalized version of a country. Kind of a far out example, but there were black britannian knights in code geass (vileta nu).
Anon
You know the person calling her token is saying we need better representation and not less, right?
You're screaming and shidding at a person that agrees with you because you assume everyone on Cinemaphile is racist
Black aren't minorities, I'm pretty sure there are more blacks than whites worldwide
These threads prove without a doubt people don’t actually watch anything they talk about. She “didn’t do much” AKA: was the mentor figure for Gwen to grow disillusioned with and be a foil to both Miguel and Peter B. If it’s not a memeable scene to be posted on Twitter, it may as well not exist on here, so I’m not surprised how hard Cinemaphile is revealing itself with these endless Spider-Verse shitpost threads
Now I know exactly what kind of shitposting to throw to get you to sperg out in the future. Be seeing you.
Still worth it if I can get you to bite constantly.
>"this character didn't even do much"
>is only used for blacks and browns.
So what CAN Brown do for you?
>Dude shows up and saves you
>Instantly antagonize him and casually allow him to get sucker-punched while in conversation with you rather than returning the favor
>Black lady shows up achieving little else than endangering her unborn child
>OMG ADOPT ME
I would also antagonize Miguel and let him get a little roughed up, he is sexiest when he a little pissy.
>Black lady shows up achieving little else than endangering her unborn child
>same criticism literally never levied at Peter despite him bringing his daughter to an extremely dangerous chase instead of leaving her with her mother
blatant double standards
Nah, people got pissy about People bringing Mayday too, even more so. Both are dumb criticisms, but people are consistently dumb at the very least
>even more so
absolutely not. i''ve never seen a single thread about it, meanwhile, that's the go to for spider woman
>Both are dumb criticisms
How are those "dumb"? Not even Batman is as bad as a parent than that.
They’re cartoons. They’re not real. They’re fricking Spider-Man/Spider-Woman, they’re more than capable of handling each other and their kids.
Nta but if you're fully aware that you'll eventually resort to that bro-its-just-a-cartoon "point", why pretend you actually care about the discussion any way or the other to begin with?
Indeed, since he gets shit for it but she doesn't (along with shit for literally everything else he says or does in the movie). Not to mention he's NOT in any actual fight scene, and certainly not in the Vulture one in particular referenced here
>literally never levied at Peter
Except for the scene that specifically does that of course.
Though to be fair the implication that he's an irresponsible jackass is nothing much compared to:
>the actual double standard of making a joke out of the fact that he's an stay-at-home dad
>the constant undermining and backpedaling on his role as Miles' mentor in the first movie
>being used for little else than as comedy relief to cap conversations
Are you moronic because that's what I've been saying since the movie released with morons like you calling it a nitpick. Peter Parker argues for the death of another kid's father while holding a child with him endangering her to risks in this and the next movie with only the justification being "OH YOU KNOW THERE IS NO GUIDE BOOK FOR RAISING THESE KINDS OF CHILDREN". What an ass movie.
Nta but the movie is full of mixed signals like that shrugging off actual commitment to concrete ideas out of the writers' weird relationship with the material. The movie is all about the gravitas of the tragedies that shape the Spider-people, but closely following the central dramatic exposition of that notion, there's a throwaway gag about how fricking tired of Uncle Ben death stories they claim people are.
The worst part it's that it's not even there fully out of misplaced timing or sensibilities: the writers are consciously undermining that "canon event" as the BIG ONE that the majority of the audience understands shaped the character, in order to build up the death-of-a-police-captain-close-to-Spidey nonsense that they need for their plot. It's shockingly sleazy.
>The movie is all about the gravitas of the tragedies that shape the Spider-people, but closely following the central dramatic exposition of that notion, there's a throwaway gag about how fricking tired of Uncle Ben death stories they claim people are.
Those aren't mutually exclusive ideas if you interpret the former as a critique rather than dogma. I think the point is that the movie is asking IF Spider-man as a concept even DOES need to be so slavishly addicted to tragedy and drama. (Miguel is the only Spider that's not funny, Sun Spider notes they're using humor as a crutch rather than it being organic, etc).
I mean shit every non Spider-verse thread about the character is essentially complaining about whatever soap opera thing Peter has been dragged through that week, do you really think anons are so much smarter that someone in a script writing room can't also point out that it's kind of a fricked up cycle?
I get the movie's theme and I get wanting to get away from that Uncle Ben shit because I've seen autists constantly complain about that shit ever since TASM1 where Ben just gets kinda dropped after a while for a different thing. It's only been getting worse with that kind of discourse. The issue is that these Memeverse hacks and most fans of this film don't know why Ben's death makes Spider-Man who he is. It's a moment he could have prevented from happening by just acting on the goodness his parents taught to him. One single second of ignorance killed his father figure. It's baffling then that literally every Spider-Man but Miles then decides to rather be ignorant to the evils of this really contrived plot instead of searching for a solution at least. It all could have been prevented by just having Miguel and the gang say they're still searching for a way to not let canon kill their beloeved ones and Miles has to be a bit more patient but no. All of them are a-ok with having people of their family and friend circle die because their cult leader said that's how it works.
>OH YOU KNOW THERE IS NO GUIDE BOOK FOR RAISING THESE KINDS OF CHILDREN
the keep bringing this up but all the parenting issues in this movie have nothing to do with any fantastical power anything. Peter and jess should just not be in any fights, Miles is having basic b***h teenage angst and acting out/his parents are being typically stifling. There is a guidebook the writers just don't know it.
Miguel and MJ both call Peter out on it, and I've seen lots of people calling Peter out for it as well. If anything, I hate how Peter B. was turned into a "Look at the funny baby" shell of himself compared to how he could be serious and funny when appropriate in the first film.
>Miguel and MJ both call Peter out on it, and I've seen lots of people calling Peter out for it as well
follow along the conversation... that post was a response to an anon criticizing a character, so obviously the intent was to say that anons don't criticize Peter for the same thing, not that he wasn't criticized in the story
>Miguel shows up and basically refuses to say anything about why he's there
>Gwen shitposts him
>Jessica shows up and starts talking about how she's a spider person excited to have a child
>Gwen latches onto that because she's having daddy issues at the moment
What's the problem?
Miguelgays annoy the frick outta me. He
was blaming her for Kingpins collider as if she had ANYTHING to do with it, and by the time she was pulled in the damage had already been done. He deserved that sucker punch. b***h ass homie should’ve had spider sense.
Don't care, she's frickable.
>Is pregnant
>Still gets into danger knowing that dying could destroy a universe as well
>Supposed to be responsible
Well it's a shit movie so complaining about nonsensical shit characters is part of the deal
It's funny how killing literally any spider people in the next film, like Spot future vision with him killing a bunch of Spiderpeople, through this multiverse shit will disrupt their universe's canon and cause it's collapse. It's also would be a dead giveaway that there would have to be to be a time reset where Universe 42 Spider cannot bite Miles.
Yes.
You will never be a woman
And I'm very happy about that. You will never be a man, unfortunately.
She was much more endearing in the beginning of the movie when they fought Vulture. I have no idea why they made her a turbo c**t after that.
>"This character didn't do much"
>"RACISS"
/co/mblr moment
been reading this board for a week and now i understand why every other board considers it the worst
a poll i saw some months ago showed this board shares an insane amount of people with r/comicbooks, the place were they close their eyes whenever a sexy woman is in a panel
This horrid Black person only detracts from Miguel.
Miguel's into is intimidating and fierce. For all of 1 minute, then hes screaming
>help me diversity help mee!
So when Miguel pursues Myles we don't feel any tension at all because Miguel can't do anything without the most diverse character ever helping him.
Imagine how high the writers social credit score went up because of this negress.
Old and stale. Get new pasta homosexual.
>"I have no arguments therefore it's... LE BAIT?!"
please stay out of my thread
I would appreciate it if you have a nice day.
Does the dinosaur spider count as a minority? Cause the background characters barely ever do stuff in the Spiderverse.
Phasma genuinely did not do shit though and I feel like she was the subject of this phrase a lot.
I just don’t think it’s safe or cool to fight crime as a pregnant woman. You’re endangering the life of the child I assume you want to be born healthy and happy.
Why do people like you think in such extremes? So you want no criticism or people must hate her because of her race? You ever think there’s more complexity to it than that? Or is that too much for your libshit lizard brain to comprehend?