#lois talks fandom discourse

[icantturnthisthingoff]

okay i don’t want to give that one person more attention than necessary because they aren’t very reasonable so im just gonna put in my final opinions on this topic on my own post.

no singular civilian person is at fault for the actions of their government or their military. that is the fault of the people at the top of that decision tree alongside those who knowingly and willingly choose to spread propaganda.

its also a bad faith argument to suggest that it is the fault of the russian people due to their silence and inaction when we know that those who have spoken out against the kremlin have been assassinated and imprisoned. we also know that there is little to no democracy in russia.

russians who oppose the invasion of ukraine are not silent, they have been silenced.

and those who have left russia because they did not wish to be drafted or involved in said invasion in any capacity have been pretty fucking vocal about it offline at least from my experience living in hotspot area for slavic immigration.

but even without all that : just being from a country does not make you inherently bad or good or anything really because thats not how it works?? yes environmental factors can greatly impact the way somebody thinks politically and morally etc but its not inherent. like if you look within peoples families a set of siblings may all be raised the same in the same area by the same people with the same rules, regulations and beliefs but you will find that very often sibling 1 has a wildly different worldview to sibling 2 or 3 and so on. thats the beauty of human complexity we make up our own minds ultimately.

anyways i’ve ranted enough

tl;dr - the person at a JO concert singing UM in russian has no real say in the actions of their country and is not a bad person just because they are from russia, they might be a lovely person they might be awful, but whatever they are its not just because they are born in russia and to say so would be xenophobic

[soleminisanction]

Why did TD:R fail? Was it a flop? I could tolerate the art style but I’d feel bad if it was just for that.

There's no way for anybody on the outside to know for sure. You'd have to ask someone at DC, and they might not be able to tell you depending on the current NDA situation over there.

From the outside, I can tell you it sure felt like the art on the first arc is what tanked the series. I didn't have a problem with it either because I like stylized art (barring a few exceptions -- the coloring on Batgirls triggers my migraines), and because I gave it a shot I saw what they were going for. It was the art style that best suited the Clayface-gone-wrong tech the villains were using, and for establishing the quirky, offbeat and (some would say) off-putting setting and characters of the Gotham Marina.

But when the series was running, all you ever heard were two discussion points over and over again: the art is ugly, and how dare there be gay boys romance in my superhero comic, with people acting like Bernard was getting sooooo much more page time than, say... Lois Lane. Iris and Linda West. Selina Kyle. The romance between Dick and Babs over in Nightwing. The romance between Harley and Ivy in everything they're in. You get me.

(As if that relationship wasn't the thing that got the book greenlit in the first place, given that it scored DC a shitton of free mainstream press the year before.)

And the thing is, people are always going to bitch about the writing on an ongoing book. Always. Gestures vaguely at current comics discourse. It's a big-ass fandom, somebody's always unhappy with what they're doing, they always, always blame the writers, and that goes double for anything written by a young woman like Meghan Fitzmartin. Double double if that young women happened to shake up the status quo in a majorly progressive way, like say, making an established character canonically queer.

So if it had just been that the book probably could've gone on at least as long as Batgirls did. And when they switched artists, people who were invested in the Tim/Ber relationship and in Tim's ongoing story started paying attention again and actually talking about the story. But by then it was too late, the book had already been canceled and was wrapping up, and it was genuinely a shame.

The book is fine. It's not a masterpiece, but it's fun and perfectly workmanlike and it loves Tim without shitting on other characters -- even when he does get a "issue where he fights the other Robins" (I assume this was an editorial mandate because both Jason and Damian had similar issues in their solos around the same time and that feels like way too much of a coincidence) it's a) not actually them and b) mostly about praising them for how good they are and how the copies are inferior.

The above statement, admittedly, does not apply to the marketing around the book, which I can only imagine didn't help matters because it was very cringe.

So yeah, that's the long and short of it by my estimations. TD:R took a big artistic swing in its first arc that failed to connect with its audience and then was just never given the chance to recover. It's sad.

[mikewheeler]

Vent o’clock: People need to understand that shipping will and mike is fine, but it’s truly (and I’m sorry to say this to Mike and will fans) not gonna happen. Not only is it too late to develop a relationship like this in the last season of a show. But also, There has been no indication AT ALL of mike returning wills feeling and a script that however way you interpret it isn’t proof because the millions of people who need to know these indications aren’t gonna read the script, if they were to want to drop hints at this “developing relationship” they need to make it clear for everyone not 1% of the audience who read the scripts. Moreover, people seem to interpret mikes insufferable (I don’t personally find him insufferable but I can see how other maybe do) character traits on him being secretly closeted which I know for a fact is not the case and NOT because I think it’s impossible for mike to be gay and there can only be one gay character in the whole show but because and talking from a writing stand point it would be too late in the show to establish it (look at how much it took them to establish will). What’s so annoying to me and what I see people putting as *proof* is whenever anyone talks about wills sexuality they always take it as confirmation to mike and wills relationship and it’s what started the *queer baiting* nonsense. Like wills SEXUALITY is established not mike and wills relationship, I swear I’ve seen people use Noahs interview from when he confirmed his sexuality and being in love with mike as proof for byler and it’s like ??? This is actually disrespectful to will, that his own sexuality and him coming to terms with it is always lumped with a non existent relationship (smh) And the main reason why they won’t happen is because they’ve always and I mean always said that Mike and eleven is their main couple they want them to be Superman and lois lane or iron man and pepper potts, leia and Han it is very clear that they want them to be like that iconic sci-fi couple that can be remembered till the show ends and years to come (whether they successfully make an iconic relationship it’s not the point but I’m talking about their intention). Anyways that’s my rant, I’m just so annoyed that people think that people who want eleven and mike to stay together are just “Milevens” like I’m not a shipper and I don’t care I’m just a fan of the show but my social media has been full of byler content and I’m just confused like there’s a difference between interpretation and just blatant delusion. Byeeee thanks for listening xoxo

Yeah I mean all of this discourse very much exists only inside the fandom bubble, I think that’s the most important thing to remember. No matter what our opinions are, we’re all weirdos that spend a lot more time than the average Joe talking about stranger things. That’s the first thing to remember lol.

Genuinely I do not think anyone outside the fandom really saw what went down in season 4 and thought mike has feelings for will. The “mike fighting homosexuality” theory very much exists only in the fandom space… nobody outside of tumblr/tik tok saw will crying in 4x08 and mike not even noticing and thought “damn mike is in love with will but just can’t acknowledge it.” I think a good portion of the GA was annoyed with mike bc they’re protective of will and thought he was a bad friend (and imo they’re wrong lmao but that’s a diff issue) but to the millions of ppl watching this show, the issue of “will mike and will get together?” is nonexistent.

Truly everyone is entitled to their opinion, I think that needs to be reiterated. There’s nothing weird or wrong about shipping Mike and Will. But I do get that it has gotten a little out of hand, post vol 2 especially, so I get the need to vent. Like some people have been disrespectful and frankly a little wackadoodle in the way they’re treating others. So long as everyone stays in their lane and nobody annoys me with their opinions (e.g. reblogging my gifsets with ur paragraphs long b*ler analysis in the tags), I’m cool.

[icantturnthisthingoff]

they are all so unlikely to have anything to do with nfts but i genuinely think steven is the least likely, especially considering the engagement ring. this man put his heart and soul into researching the most ethical ring possible. he didn’t have to do that, he could have stayed blissfully unaware and bought a standard diamond ring from anywhere and no one would have given him shit for it because way more than half of us have no clue about the diamond industry and how bad it can be. no way in hell would he just go “fuck the environment i want something thats completely worthless and does literally nothing for me.”

mega ignorant white person vibes

Sophie omg lemme join you and that anon because here's my ranking of Watcher boys' NFT likelihoods

Shane: will run you over with his Subaru if you so much as mention NFT near him

Ryan: agrees with Shane but seems like the kind of person who can be persuaded into NFT (though he won't post about it when he buys)

Steven: already has NFTs (plural) (derogatory)

LGHFDLKFGJDLFJG PLEASEEE this made me chuckle a lil im not gonna lieeee the (plural) (derogatory) got me dlfkjglfgjfgj

and i know this is a joke but give ryan SOME credit, the moment someone tells him it harms the environment he'd be joining shane in that subaru lfkjldfkj this is the same guy who body slammed a racist at 12 years old like cmon,, and steven would join too but he wouldnt run anybody over, he'd just aggressively talk to them LKJFLGJFG

[sage-nebula]

actualaster replied to your post: Real talk: If you think that Diana Prince is...

I for one found the way the love interest was handled to be quite good compared to how it usually goes.

Same! Like, it wasn’t perfect---there are a couple slight changes I would have made, had I been the one writing/directing---but it doesn’t have to be perfect. Hardly anything is, and even setting that aside, the romance subplot was honestly not the main focus of the film. It’s why it was a subplot. That was one part of Diana’s origin story, but it wasn’t the entirety of it. And since it was a small part of the film, it didn’t have to be perfect. It just had to be good, and it was. 

But honestly, I’m just so beyond sick of this double standard that I see time and again in basically every fandom---this idea that a woman can’t be badass or strong if she has a love interest (particularly if it’s a male love interest, but then again, we pretty much never get woman/woman couples in media, as unjust as that unfortunate fact is, so it’s a moot point to even specify). A female character can do all of the things Diana does: She can choose to go on her adventure of her own accord, she can carry every single battle, she can save herself whenever she’s in distress, she can show boundless courage, determination, and power . . . and yet, if she has a love interest, somehow that makes her strength diminished and it’s seen as poor storytelling, regardless of how the actual story is told. It doesn’t matter how well-written the relationship is, or what else the woman does; if the story even so much as suggests that part---not all, but part---of the female character’s motivations lie in her love for the love interest, then suddenly she’s no longer the empowering character she was before. Suddenly it’s no longer about her, but about the love interest, despite the narrative making it very, very clear that no, she is the hero, the story is about HER.  

And I’m so sick of it. I’m so, so beyond sick of it, because it is a double-standard. While you will hear complaints about how, say, Thor and Jane Foster had no chemistry on-screen, you never see people doubting Thor’s badassery or strength because he fell in love with Jane. You never see people talking about how Spider-Man is a less capable hero because he has a big ol’ crush on MJ. You don’t see people doubting for even one second that Superman is a true hero who can do anything just because he has timeless love for Lois Lane, and so on and so forth. Male characters---and especially male superheroes---have love interests all the damn time. But the second that script is flipped and Wonder Woman is given a love interest of her own, she’s no longer a badass? She’s no longer strong? Her determination, her courage, and her will are suddenly meaningless? It’s a straight up sexist double-standard borne out of internalized misogyny (specifically the strand that says that women have to basically be fierce and cold warrior machines to be worth anything, and falling in love makes them cease to be fierce, cold warrior machines, hence why it is Bad™), and I’m so beyond fucking tired of it. So beyond fucking tired. 

(again, please don’t reblog, I don’t want the Discourse™, thanks.)

[kiseiakhun]

I've been in other fandoms where the fans all hate each other and at least it feels coherent, you know. Like we're all in the same fandom for the same thing. And when we argue over character interpretations we're arguing over the same character. There is canon to reference, the same canon that can be interpreted in different ways.

Meanwhile in comics, I'll look at a long meta write up about a character, referencing events that have happened in canon, and I'll be like wow. We are talking about completely different people. And I can't even be mad about it because maybe their first introduction to the character was in Elseworlds #49 where walruses struck back against the Atlantean hegemony and conquered the western seaboard and eventually the world, ruling from their base of Sub Diego, and also they are all Batman and the Joker has to team up with Superman who is also a green lantern and on the run from the Guardians of the Universe, and Lex Luthor is in a polygamous marriage with Lois Lane and Harley Quinn. And it runs for 200 issues, and it's not canon but the image of Superman cradling Bat-Walrus' body and crying over its corpse while Lex Luthor (who is a speedster) punches a space-leviathan to death in the background becomes so iconic people don't realize that panel comes from an elseworlds. And Bat-walrus gets introduced to canon proper as a skinny white girl teenager who travels to the future and gets stuck in a timeloop for 200 years and comes back and has Oliver Queen's ghost baby and then dies but it turns out the version who died was a clone and the real Bat-Walrus (renamed Wall-bat) has been kidnapped by Amanda Waller.

Like. How do you make sense of all that. How do you pick which one is the True Canon. It is an exercise in futility but comic fans while make multiple discourse blogs solely to argue over Bat-Walrus or Wall-bat or Whelma "Rus" Bateman and they will all hate each other.

I love comics. I'm scrolling through the tags of one because someone on my dash is in a frothing rage, and two posts in I see someone praising it for the exact same thing that has my mutual so steamed.