This guy just keeps getting more and more wonderful ❤️
Arent you guys sick of the same 4 franchises? Marvel, Star wars, Lord of the rings, Harry Potter.
It’s a bit unfair to rope LOTR into this, it only has a single spin-off series which is pretty great. Which is pretty great if you’re not a fascist or hardcore nerd of the books. And hardcore nerds only have “fun” criticism discussing how the story spanning 3000 years is being adapted.
Mmmmmm. LOTR has 6 movies running 18hrs theatrical, 22hrs extended cut.
Multiple anime, TV show, comics, graphic novels, books, spin offs and more…over done. Over cooked. Trite.
Star wars has 9 mainline movies spanning 20hrs.
Multiple anime, TV show, comics, graphic novels, books, spin offs and more…Disney is literally wearing this franchise as a skin suit to keep it going.
The Marvel Infinity Saga core movies, 19 hours…etc…blah blah blah…Disney. Morning Erection…something something, cum daddy.
Haha forgot about the Hobbit and didn’t know about the anime. Comics, well, whatever. But I don’t think it can be compared to the constant marketing and big screen content of the other franchises. Tolkien estate is pretty careful not to turn out endless pulp.
I’m kind of the opinion that Harry Potter should have just ended with the deathly hallows book and 2 movies.
you drag out and milk an IP for too long and you just become star wars. and that isnt a compliment.
It seems like Rowling has been pushing for the series to be made because she doesn’t like the OG movie cast members for calling her out on her bigotry. Anytime Radcliffe or Watson tweet in support of humanity, Rowling gets all twisty-knickered and pouty because people still call them Harry Potter and Hermione.
That’s not what the decision said, but JK and their ilk are trying to push it as that.
Their decision is limited to what they believe was meant in the Equality Act 2010.
It’s just them indicating what a law meant originally.
A law that was written by people who didn’t know better.
Now we know better, as the science is undeniable, but what we know now doesn’t change what the law meant.
That’s why what the UK needs to do now is change the law to properly match science.
Rowling and other flavors of transfobes want to muddle the waters and act as if everything was set in stone, but it isn’t.
There have been amendments to the Equality act before, the latest in in 2023 and 2024, they can do more.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/primary+secondary?title=Equality+Act+2010+amendment
Do not play into their game. Instead, push for change.
Pascal has been a vocal ally of the transgender community, frequently using his platform to advocate for trans rights. At the UK premiere of “Thunderbolts,” he wore a shirt reading “Protect the Dolls,” a term of endearment for transgenderism.
I wonder if the author of the article realizes “transgenderism” is a right-wing, anti-trans term?
EDIT: ah, it looks like the author of that blog is probably anti-trans and holds other right-wing views: https://old.reddit.com/r/blankies/comments/rcczql/can_someone_give_me_context_for_the_film_blog/
Considering dolls is a term applied only to trans women, he should have just said “a term of endearment for trans women”. The only reason he didn’t is because he’s anti-trans, and maybe he doesn’t even understand that “dolls” is a term specific to trans women, or that trans men even exist, a lot of anti-trans bigots are obsessed with trans women and think the only trans people are trans women; there are estimated to be equal numbers of trans men as trans women, they just don’t get the same attention.
The bathroom debate shows this mindset, anti-trans activist want trans women to use men’s restrooms, but they aren’t thinking about the fact that those same laws and policies force trans men into women’s restrooms, leading to this kind of situation:
So the anti-trans movement claims they are keeping men out of women’s restrooms, while doing exactly the opposite.
I think the anti-trans movement wants to claim that the entire idea of trans people is ideologically driven, but they have it in reverse - the gender binary and anti-trans movement is ideologically driven, while the position that trans people exists and should have gender-affirming care is based on actual empirical evidence. The science shows reality is much more complicated than the gender binary, and that being trans is biologically determined, genetically inherited, and part of natural human variation throughout our history as a species.
So it seems acknowledging the reality and gender of trans people is not so much ideologically driven as much as it is more aligned with reality than the status quo of assigning gender according to a model of binary sex based an a quick inspection of genitals at birth, which we know is ideologically driven. The only reason to reject the undisputed science is for religious and political reasons, there is no actual debate or ambiguity about the science. Every single major medical and scientific association endorses gender affirming care for minors and adults, there is a firm consensus on this. These organizations are typically conservative, not “woke”, and they only support those treatments because they are the only known effective treatments of gender dysphoria.
The anti-trans movement has more in common with young earth creationism, the anti-vaxx movement, and other anti-science movements, which are often politically motivated and intersect with conservative forms of Christianity. These are truly ideologically based movements, and they support views of reality based not on what is empirically demonstrated but rather based on a dogmatic interpretation of religious texts.
For example, Matt Walsh’s anti-trans film What is a Woman was compared to antivax films like VAXXED or the anti-evolution film Expelled!.
anti-trans activist want trans women to use men’s restrooms, but they aren’t thinking about the fact that those same laws and policies force trans men women’s restrooms, leading to this kind of situation
Oh, that’s the point.
See, it’s about men protecting women from bad things. Not about women feeling uncomfortable.
It’s the same as the justification for Christian rejection of empathy (as opposed to more reserved compassion): the undertone is “women are more vulnerable to ‘falling for’ the empathee’s sin.”
Womens’ perspectives may be where the thoughts stop, but that is no accident.
there are estimated to be equal numbers of trans men as trans women, they just don’t get the same attention.
And this is a stunning example of the power of male privilege.
This sucks. I mean, I read Harry Potter as an adult, and still loved the stories, even if some parts were problematic (Cho Chang? The Irish kid blows stuff up? REALLY?). But I refuse to give that woman any of my money to do more evil with.
Harry Potter is one of the few IP’s that I 100% pirate guilt-free. In many cases, I use piracy to “try out” things before I buy them. For instance, I have the *arr stack running on my Jellyfin server, but most of the media on it is from my old DVD/Blu-ray collection. I have a few pirated games, but end up buying most of them if I enjoy them.
But not with Harry Potter. That shit gets pirated and stays pirated. I have the e-books and movies torrented, and will never spend a dime on them. I’ll never buy anything with a Hogwarts house on it. I’ll never stream any of the movies on Max. As far as capitalism is concerned, I have a full Harry Potter blackout.
OK let me defend Cho Chang specifically. Qiū Cháng is a perfectly valid chinese name. It is pronounced “Cho Chang.” Cho would not be standard (pinyin), but Chinese people historically have not always use Pinyin to transliterate their names. (And I assume a wizard might not use muggle pinyin.)
it just follows a trend of jkr using really shitty stereotypical names and sometimes just using down right offensive names. the only Asian character is cho chang, the only black character is literally named kingsley shacklebolt, etc. in Hogwarts legacy they named the first trans women in the series sirona ryan.
TBH the magic system seems low-effort too. You need a wand and pseudo-Latin, but neither are strictly necessary?
it sounds like CHING CHONG, just reworded to make it sound like its not offensive. theres also the issue her labeling goblins as bankers, aka greedy jews, by nature and lore goblins are greedy.
IMO she’s already rich, and more of your money goes to an evil multi-billion dollar corporation than to her. If you enjoy the world fuck it, enjoy the shows, have, books, etc… There is no ethical consumption under capitalism and we’re in dark times. You need to covet the things that bring you joy.
Side note: She plagiarized most of the first book from Anthony Horowitz’s “Groomsham Grange”. I understand there’s a lot of books about magical schools but seriously if you read them back to back it’s clear. This isn’t important to the conversation other than to supply another reason to hate the bitch.
Edit: you can’t boycott someone who’s already rich off selling the IP. Be mad as you want, people aren’t enabling her by purchasing content made by freaking Warner Brothers. She already got her bag.
No ethical consumption means: it’s hard to arrange for there to be clear alignment in people to boycott a particular entity, meaning many things that ought to go boycotted don’t. Therefore, when such a heinous person as Rowling or Musk arises that we can cohesively land a boycott, we ought to take advantage of it.
