Culture (was Is Larry a time traveler/Dimension hopper?)

[Tawmis]

I went ahead and split the topic from the original thread since it was rapidly veering off the original topic.

*hands SierraDude the Staff of Necromancy +5-Years*

I've not tried any of the latest two "Leisure Suit Larry" games.

I have. They're ... um, interesting. But I wouldn't play them again. I kind of regret getting them, even on sale.
They trade on stereotypes (especially the first one). While all Larry games have stereotypes to some extent, the latest ones turn the notch up to 11, to the point where sometimes it stops being funny and starts being offensive.

Yeah - well... LSL5 was pretty offensive (especially in the rap music lab). Like... really offensive.

Of course, younger me - never picked up on it.

But that's been my problem with all post LSL Al Lowe Larry games - is that they go too much into trying to be funny, but end up being offensive instead, since they don't know how to ride the rail to keep it funny without going over the top in dialogue, or even visually. Like one of the new ones, straight up looks like it's trying to copy the Aladdin with the "cock" buildings on the cover. Right there, I know they don't understand subtle humor. Pass.

[Collector]

But that's been my problem with all post LSL Al Lowe Larry games - is that they go too much into trying to be funny, but end up being offensive instead, since they don't know how to ride the rail to keep it funny without going over the top in dialogue, or even visually. Like one of the new ones, straight up looks like it's trying to copy the Aladdin with the "cock" buildings on the cover. Right there, I know they don't understand subtle humor. Pass.

Al was a master at good old fashioned "dirty jokes". The kind that even your grandmother might titter at under her breath. That is classic. Gross, offensive or inappropriate jokes are completely different beast.

[Rath Darkblade]

Right. It's the difference between LSL games and games like "Quest for Glory 4.5".

[DeadPoolX]

Part of the issue is censorship, or rather, the lack of it.

Now I'm not someone who's in favor of censorship, but I've noticed that books, movies, TV shows, and games that had to deal with a greater level of censorship in the past managed to get their messages (or jokes) across in a more subtle manner. Today, with very little censorship present, those forms of media basically bash people over the head with extremely blunt use of dialogue, situations, jokes, messages, etc.

The current "woke" culture's damage to Star Trek is a good example of this. Instead of being subtle and managing to get your ideas across to your audience in a way that blends into the story, today they just toss it in your face (regardless of whether or not it fits the situation or story) and expects you to approve of it... because if you don't, you're a racist, sexist, whatever-ist monster.

Sometimes restrictions are a good thing because they can breed creativity. Nowadays "creativity" means taking an intellectual property you once loved and shitting all over it in the name of whatever ridiculous cause is this week's rallying cry. A lot of Netflix shows that initially play on nostalgia are guilty of this. The people behind those shows could just make a new show, but no... they'd rather hijack something and twist it to fit whatever their vision is (even if that vision has no compatibility with the original show) because they lack any talent whatsoever and are vindictive assholes.

[Collector]

Sometimes restrictions are a good thing because they can breed creativity. Nowadays "creativity" means taking an intellectual property you once loved and shitting all over it in the name of whatever ridiculous cause is this week's rallying cry. A lot of Netflix shows that initially play on nostalgia are guilty of this. The people behind those shows could just make a new show, but no... they'd rather hijack something and twist it to fit whatever their vision is (even if that vision has no compatibility with the original show) because they lack any talent whatsoever and are vindictive assholes.

[Tawmis]

Part of the issue is censorship, or rather, the lack of it.

and

The current "woke" culture's damage to Star Trek is a good example of this. Instead of being subtle and managing to get your ideas across to your audience in a way that blends into the story, today they just toss it in your face (regardless of whether or not it fits the situation or story) and expects you to approve of it... because if you don't, you're a racist, sexist, whatever-ist monster.

It's funny - because, while I agree - there is far less censorship all around (both in games, movies, and even music - before there was stuff like the PMRC wanting warnings on Heavy Metal / Rap Songs... now the stuff I hear? Far, far, far more sexualized both in the music and the lyrics, than any heavy metal song was!)

However, I think the "Woke Culture" you mention actually "breeds censorship."
I know not (not being the biggest Trek fan) what you're speaking of with the woke culture that happened with Star Trek.

But I definitely feel like movies and TV shows, now tread on eggshells, and thus censor themselves, for fear of offending someone.

Sometimes restrictions are a good thing because they can breed creativity. Nowadays "creativity" means taking an intellectual property you once loved and shitting all over it in the name of whatever ridiculous cause is this week's rallying cry. A lot of Netflix shows that initially play on nostalgia are guilty of this. The people behind those shows could just make a new show, but no... they'd rather hijack something and twist it to fit whatever their vision is (even if that vision has no compatibility with the original show) because they lack any talent whatsoever and are vindictive assholes.

I have to know, which shows you mean? The only show (off the top of my head) I can think of that NETFLIX had someone remake was "Lost in Space" - which, yes, drastically different (with some nods), but I still enjoyed it.

I know there's talks of remaking CLUE and THE CROW - which, I would outright protest.

[MusicallyInspired]

I'd just like to say, Tawmis, those are beautiful aspect-correct screenshots you posted way back when in the beginning of this thread.

Also don't forget that both the pic resource and the views have to share the same 8-bit palette.
pic650.png
This pic only uses 5 colors, which means that the views can use any of these 5 colors, the colors of the global palette (the 999 palette) and any other colors up to the total 256 colors minus the pic and global palettes.
This view only uses about 10 colors. Using the two in the same room would be no trouble and would still allow for more views. You are more likely to run out of hunk space before you would run out of palette colors.

Pedantic necrobump note here. Technically EGA graphics are 4-bit. VGA is 8-bit.

Part of the issue is censorship, or rather, the lack of it.

Now I'm not someone who's in favor of censorship, but I've noticed that books, movies, TV shows, and games that had to deal with a greater level of censorship in the past managed to get their messages (or jokes) across in a more subtle manner. Today, with very little censorship present, those forms of media basically bash people over the head with extremely blunt use of dialogue, situations, jokes, messages, etc.

Bam.

The current "woke" culture's damage to Star Trek is a good example of this. Instead of being subtle and managing to get your ideas across to your audience in a way that blends into the story, today they just toss it in your face (regardless of whether or not it fits the situation or story) and expects you to approve of it... because if you don't, you're a racist, sexist, whatever-ist monster.

BAM.

Sometimes restrictions are a good thing because they can breed creativity. Nowadays "creativity" means taking an intellectual property you once loved and shitting all over it in the name of whatever ridiculous cause is this week's rallying cry. A lot of Netflix shows that initially play on nostalgia are guilty of this. The people behind those shows could just make a new show, but no... they'd rather hijack something and twist it to fit whatever their vision is (even if that vision has no compatibility with the original show) because they lack any talent whatsoever and are vindictive assholes.

BAM!! Nailed it.

[DeadPoolX]

However, I think the "Woke Culture" you mention actually "breeds censorship."
I know not (not being the biggest Trek fan) what you're speaking of with the woke culture that happened with Star Trek.

But I definitely feel like movies and TV shows, now tread on eggshells, and thus censor themselves, for fear of offending someone.

It's true. Unless you drink the Kool-Aid, you're in danger of being "cancelled" which can destroy your career and any future prospects, regardless of your field of work. This is why I don't comment on anything remotely contentious on social media. Somebody, somewhere, will take offense to something and they'll inevitably have angry allies who'll jump at the chance to destroy someone.

Woke culture only accepts an echo chamber of like minds. Admittedly, there are other groups who do the same thing and we all gravitate towards those who think like us, but there's a difference between preferring the company of those with like-minds and outright wanting to wreck someone's professional and personal life because they have a different viewpoint.

I have to know, which shows you mean? The only show (off the top of my head) I can think of that NETFLIX had someone remake was "Lost in Space" - which, yes, drastically different (with some nods), but I still enjoyed it.

I know there's talks of remaking CLUE and THE CROW - which, I would outright protest.

Pretty much any intellectual property that was originally from the past. For instance...

Riverdale ("Archie comics" and has changed the races of many people, the sexuality of at least one person, and made goofy characters into "too cool for school" 90210-like analogs).

Sabrine the Teenage Witch (related to "Archie Comics" and started preaching inclusion and sexism from the first episode so strongly it was painful).

Voltron (multiple races, someone who's trans, at least one same-sex relationship, etc).

She-Ra (everyone is gay; no, I'm not kidding, that's the stated purpose of the showrunner who's a lesbian).

He-Man (slated for release sometime in July 2021, but they're changing characters to fit the current "woke" climate).

I realize some of my examples might give the impression I'm sexist and homophobic (and probably some other term I've never heard of), but that's not true. The issue isn't that they wanted to have shows with these topics, characters, or whatever else. If they had made new IPs it wouldn't have been a problem at all.

My problem is that they took already well-established properties and changed them to fit someone or some group's vision in a manner that seems vengeful on some level. It's offensive, not because some people wanted inclusion, but because of how they treated these properties.

[Tawmis]

Riverdale ("Archie comics" and has changed the races of many people, the sexuality of at least one person, and made goofy characters into "too cool for school" 90210-like analogs).

Well, this one I think is reasonable. The show is targeting a different audience than the folks who read Archie comics.

Voltron (multiple races, someone who's trans, at least one same-sex relationship, etc).

This one doesn't bug me either. I mean there's so many iterations of cartoons. How many different versions of the Transformer cartoon have we seen, for example?

She-Ra (everyone is gay; no, I'm not kidding, that's the stated purpose of the showrunner who's a lesbian).

I tried to watch this when it came out. Made it two episodes in. Reminds me too much of Teen Titans Go, which I also disliked.

He-Man (slated for release sometime in July 2021, but they're changing characters to fit the current "woke" climate).

Who is slated to fill the woke culture? From the trailer, which is all I've seen, and watched repeatedly (I even have it saved to my desktop) - I've not seen any indication of this.

Will there be? Probably. But meh, it won't bug me, I don't think, based off the trailer.

I realize some of my examples might give the impression I'm sexist and homophobic (and probably some other term I've never heard of), but that's not true. The issue isn't that they wanted to have shows with these topics, characters, or whatever else. If they had made new IPs it wouldn't have been a problem at all.
My problem is that they took already well-established properties and changed them to fit someone or some group's vision in a manner that seems vengeful on some level. It's offensive, not because some people wanted inclusion, but because of how they treated these properties.

I think that's where it blurs is seeing character you might be familiar with being written differently.
For example, a few years ago in Marvel Comics, they suddenly made Iceman of the X-Men gay.
And it took awhile for my brain to wrap around it, because he was initially shown (like all the other males) to be head over heels for Jean. He'd made many references to dating women.
So I struggled with just accepting his gay to fill out some agenda/check box.
But then I saw on Twitter, how people appreciated it - because they had someone to identify with. (Granted, Northstar of Alpha Flight from Marvel came out as GAY, EONS before - and that one at least had hints as subtle as an elephant back in the 80s) - but Iceman was far more recognizable (from being one of the first X-Men, on several different teams, Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends) - and it was cool, for me anyway, to see people attach to it.

The thing I think is, back in the 80s - there were clearly gay people - there always HAS been in history. But in the 80s - most people were closet gays, for fear of how they'd be treated.
The guy who wrote Northstar as gay, was fired from the book a short while later. Despite the positive reaction the book got from doing this (Alpha Flight #106), and triggered other books (especially in Image) to make (new) characters, gay or bisexual.

I just think right now, there's still a lot of "old school thinking" (my own sister is one of them; who refuses to watch some show because they made the lead a black woman, when it was a white woman in history) so when they hear about gay, bisexual, trans, colored characters (that were white before), they get up in arms. (But never seem to mind when we white washed asian movie histories but putting white men in the asian roles).

When they changed Kingpin to a big black man (Michael Clarke Duncan) when he (Kingpin, not Michael Clarke Duncan) has always been white - didn't bother me. Michael Clarke Duncan knocked it out of the park as Kingpin.

In the end, no one is right or wrong. Everyone is entitled to opinions that will likely differ from others, because that's how people are.

[Rath Darkblade]

Sigh. I looked up what "Woke Culture" actually is, and according to google, it appears to be "alert to injustice in society, especially racism.".

Well, la-di-dah and aren't you special.

"Injustice" -- what the heck does that mean? "Justice" is a relative term. What was considered 'just' in previous centuries would probably seem barbaric today. All right, apart from that -- nobody with a brain likes injustice. Nobody likes to see someone picking on someone else because of their race, creed, religion, sex -- whatever. But it happens, and it happens all the time, because some people are jerks and/or bullies.

Or -- and I've especially seen it with bosses in offices -- they don't mean to discriminate, but some of the people that work for them are from the same (or similar) background as them. So they pay more attention to those people, give them more resources/promotions/whatever.

Is that justice? Don't ask me, apparently I'm not "woke" enough. But it happens more than you'd think. It's happened to me more than once.

Besides, it's not only white people who are racist. As dictators like Idi Amin etc. have shown, racism comes in many colours. But I suppose that's too complicated for "woke" people.

[Tawmis]

Besides, it's not only white people who are racist. As dictators like Idi Amin etc. have shown, racism comes in many colours. But I suppose that's too complicated for "woke" people.

(This whole thread is like a rattling train ready to veer off the tracks!)

Bt3FTMu.gif (744.98 KiB) Viewed 4427 times

I think the "Woke Culture" applies mostly to the US (maybe Canada?) - and not indicative of white people are the (only) racists.

I think it's more about that forever, white people held positions of "power" over other races and gender.
So only big directors, were white males; type of vibe (movie life wise) and white males got paid more not just for movies, but jobs in general (then females/colored counterparts who may have done as much, if not more).

And now things have shifted, where the gay, lesbian, trans (and the colored) community has a stronger voice - and are fighting for that taste of equality.

I say colored to indicate any race, other than white - so black, asian, hispanic, etc.

To me the people of the "Woke Culture" are like the PETA of Animal Rights. The "Woke Culture" is the extreme of DEMANDING things - and trying to shut things down.

[Tawmis]

So this is an example of "Woke Culture" for example (the fear that Wizards of the Coast may offend someone).

I was looking at STAR FRONTIERS (which was an old SciFi system TSR then - now Wizards of the Coast - released in the 80s). The site offers softback or hardback reprints (exact reprints).

But at the bottom has the following "Warning" in a larger font, all bold:

We (Wizards) recognize that some of the legacy content available on this website does not reflect the values of the Dungeons & Dragons franchise today. Some older content may reflect ethnic, racial, and gender prejudice that were commonplace in American society at that time. These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. This content is presented as it was originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed. Dungeons & Dragons teaches that diversity is a strength, and we strive to make our D&D products as welcoming and inclusive as possible. This part of our work will never end.

This is there, because, yes, especially in some of the older D&D modules (women were frequently victims in the modules), and there was a debacle of how Mongoloids were "the basis for orcs" in D&D (back in the day).

So now, all these old reprints bare this warning if you order it.

[DeadPoolX]

Well, this one I think is reasonable. The show is targeting a different audience than the folks who read Archie comics.

But why use the Archie IP then? If all you want is a 90210-like drama, then make one, but you don't need to take characters from an existing IP and then change it all around to fit whatever it is you're trying to do. That's lazy and offensive to fans.

To be honest, I never cared much about Archie (the only Archie comic I ever read was a crossover called Archie Meets The Punisher, which was beyond ridiculous), but Maia did and she couldn't stand the new show. I can't even mention it — not that I usually have any urge to — without her telling me to stop.

I just think right now, there's still a lot of "old school thinking" (my own sister is one of them; who refuses to watch some show because they made the lead a black woman, when it was a white woman in history) so when they hear about gay, bisexual, trans, colored characters (that were white before), they get up in arms. (But never seem to mind when we white washed asian movie histories but putting white men in the asian roles).

How does two wrongs make a right, though? Yes, it was stupid and insensitive for white people to play roles that should've gone to Asians (or other groups), but attempting to do the same thing back to Caucasians is extremely petty, especially if there's a basis in historical fact for someone to be of some race and ethnicity.

In other words, I wouldn't expect to see Henry VIII played by a black man anymore than I'd expect to see Harriet Tubman played by a white, blonde-haired, blue-eyed woman. Both are acts of cultural appropriation, yet somehow it's considered "breaking racial barriers" to do the former, but whitewashing to do the latter. In reality, neither should be acceptable.

When they changed Kingpin to a big black man (Michael Clarke Duncan) when he (Kingpin, not Michael Clarke Duncan) has always been white - didn't bother me. Michael Clarke Duncan knocked it out of the park as Kingpin.

In the end, no one is right or wrong. Everyone is entitled to opinions that will likely differ from others, because that's how people are.

Not if it steps on cultural toes, though. For instance, a while back there were rumors of changing Magneto from a European (presumably German, but maybe Polish) Jewish man into an African American man in upcoming films. That completely destroys his character because being Jewish and having lived through the Holocaust in a concentration camp is integral to his character.

Why is it okay to prop up one minority while stepping on another? There are plenty of well-known black characters in the Marvel universe, but only a small handful of Jewish ones, the vast majority of whom are virtually unknown to the general public.

Going by the movies and TV shows (because we can't assume the general public reads comics), here's the breakdown of African or African American characters and openly Jewish characters in any Marvel movie.

African or African American: Blade, Storm, Human Torch*, Falcon, MJ, Black Panther (both T'Chaka and T'Challa), Ayo, Killmonger, Kingpin, Nakia, Okoye, W'Kabi, Shuri, M'Baku, Ramonda, War Machine, Photon**, Luke Cage, Misty Knight, Mack, and Nick Fury***.

Jewish: Magneto.

In addition, out of that long list of black characters in Marvel films and TV shows, only two of them (Killmonger and Kingpin) were villains, with the rest of them being heroes of some sort or at least supporting characters. Magneto, on the other hand, is at best an anti-hero, but more commonly shown as the villain.

So it seems to me that changing Magneto into an African American man would be essentially wiping the only openly Jewish Marvel film/TV character out of existence.

* In the 2015 Fantastic Four movie, they changed the Human Torch into a black man, which feels odd because his sister, the Invisible Woman, is white in the same film.
** Photon is Monica Rambeau, who first appeared as a child in Captain Marvel, but was an adult in WandaVision and is supposed to appear in an upcoming MCU movie called The Marvels.
*** Yes, I know Fury was originally white, but he had virtually no personality to begin with, so changing his race meant nothing to the character as a whole.

[Tawmis]

Well, this one I think is reasonable. The show is targeting a different audience than the folks who read Archie comics.

But why use the Archie IP then? If all you want is a 90210-like drama, then make one, but you don't need to take characters from an existing IP and then change it all around to fit whatever it is you're trying to do. That's lazy and offensive to fans.

Could be the people who make Riverside are fans of the comics, and got permission to use it and had a vision of these kids in a "modern world setting."

I've certainly written enough fanfic (because I lack the reputation, experience, money) to be in the movie business they never saw the light of day . But I am sure some of my stuff, people would be like, "But why?"

To be honest, I never cared much about Archie (the only Archie comic I ever read was a crossover called Archie Meets The Punisher, which was beyond ridiculous), but Maia did and she couldn't stand the new show. I can't even mention it — not that I usually have any urge to — without her telling me to stop.

And I get Mia's thing (to be clear, I am not saying yer wrong for how you feel!) - because I know for sure, if they make a CROW or CLUE remake, I probably won't even give it a chance.

I just think right now, there's still a lot of "old school thinking" (my own sister is one of them; who refuses to watch some show because they made the lead a black woman, when it was a white woman in history) so when they hear about gay, bisexual, trans, colored characters (that were white before), they get up in arms. (But never seem to mind when we white washed asian movie histories but putting white men in the asian roles).

How does two wrongs make a right, though? Yes, it was stupid and insensitive for white people to play roles that should've gone to Asians (or other groups), but attempting to do the same thing back to Caucasians is extremely petty, especially if there's a basis in historical fact for someone to be of some race and ethnicity.
In other words, I wouldn't expect to see Henry VIII played by a black man anymore than I'd expect to see Harriet Tubman played by a white, blonde-haired, blue-eyed woman. Both are acts of cultural appropriation, yet somehow it's considered "breaking racial barriers" to do the former, but whitewashing to do the latter. In reality, neither should be acceptable.

I agree, to some extent. Because for me, it's people telling a spin of (let's say a historical event) where they change a person's color/gender - and to me, that's all it is. Their spin on some historical thing.
Like if they made a movie called "Christina Columbus" - and made it a woman who led the the Spanish Monarchs and did the great big sailing across the ocean, it wouldn't bug me. Even if they changed it up, where she lands, and helps the Indians in some fashion, to make it politically correct. To me - it'd be just a movie.

I watch PLENTY of shows (one of my favorites, VIKINGS) that are NOWHERE near historically accurate. Whether it's the story being told or the color of people's hair, or how they show specific characters.

It's entertainment, not history - and that's what I watch it for. If a movie/show entertains me - for, myself - I won't care really about gender/race/sexuality being swapped around.
Again, like Mia though - there are some movies I am so passionate about - I probably won't give the remakes a chance (Clue, The Crow) - heck, even the "Lethal Weapon" series - didn't watch any of it, because I love the movies, and to me the show will never hold up. So I definitely get when people are adamant about something.

Not if it steps on cultural toes, though. For instance, a while back there were rumors of changing Magneto from a European (presumably German, but maybe Polish) Jewish man into an African American man in upcoming films. That completely destroys his character because being Jewish and having lived through the Holocaust in a concentration camp is integral to his character.

While I agree - you'd need to consider the age of the actor at that point. If they kept Magneto true to being Jewish and survivor of the Concentration Camps - if we say right at the tail end of Concentration Camps of WWII - was around, 1945. If Magneto was BORN in 1945 - he'd be 76 years old. In order to endure the Concentration camps - he'd need to have been a part of it, say for 5 years? So in there since 1940 - when he was born - released, 1945 - now, if the movie takes place in modern times, Magneto is now an 81 year old man.

So I can see why they would shift it to something else. Probably a black man who was in the Gulf War, who was a prisoner - so Gulf War is 1991, say he was 18 when he went in - now it's modern times - now the actor is 48 years old. Far more reasonable to think a 48 year old super villain is a threat, rather than an 81 year old.

Going by the movies and TV shows (because we can't assume the general public reads comics), here's the breakdown of African or African American characters and openly Jewish characters in any Marvel movie.
African or African American: Blade, Storm, Human Torch*, Falcon, MJ, Black Panther (both T'Chaka and T'Challa), Ayo, Killmonger, Kingpin, Nakia, Okoye, W'Kabi, Shuri, M'Baku, Ramonda, War Machine, Photon**, Luke Cage, Misty Knight, Mack, and Nick Fury***.
Jewish: Magneto.
In addition, out of that long list of black characters in Marvel films and TV shows, only two of them (Killmonger and Kingpin) were villains, with the rest of them being heroes of some sort or at least supporting characters. Magneto, on the other hand, is at best an anti-hero, but more commonly shown as the villain.
So it seems to me that changing Magneto into an African American man would be essentially wiping the only openly Jewish Marvel film/TV character out of existence.
* In the 2015 Fantastic Four movie, they changed the Human Torch into a black man, which feels odd because his sister, the Invisible Woman, is white in the same film.
** Photon is Monica Rambeau, who first appeared as a child in Captain Marvel, but was an adult in WandaVision and is supposed to appear in an upcoming MCU movie called The Marvels.
*** Yes, I know Fury was originally white, but he had virtually no personality to begin with, so changing his race meant nothing to the character as a whole.

For Nick Fury, he was also African American in the ULTIMATES universe of comics, which had met with considerable success back then - which is why, they made "616" (Normal Marvel Comics) Nick Fury, "fake his death" (then really died, then faked again?) - and brought in the other Nick Fury who is Fury's son (introduced in a series called "Battle Scars" where his son would go on to lose an eye as well - how convenient!)

For Photon, it's jarring - but if you make it through Captain Marvel, she starts as a kid, but the movie also goes through phrases of time (you see her at age of 5 when it's in the 1980's) - so she's in her early 30's which sits about right with how she appeared in WandaVision.

And the Fantastic Four movie, you can't count that in the list - it's not MCU. It's like including the X-Men movies!

[DeadPoolX]

Could be the people who make Riverside are fans of the comics, and got permission to use it and had a vision of these kids in a "modern world setting."

I've certainly written enough fanfic (because I lack the reputation, experience, money) to be in the movie business they never saw the light of day . But I am sure some of my stuff, people would be like, "But why?"

The difference is fanfic is meant to be a creative exercise, not a commercial endeavor. Doing whatever the author wants is something to fun to do, but not something to produce as an actual product.

Beyond that, Riverdale has also changed the way the comics look, so it goes beyond just being a show, but has completely altered other forms of media that belong to Archie comics. So even if you wanted to ignore the show and stick to the comics, you couldn't do that!

I agree, to some extent. Because for me, it's people telling a spin of (let's say a historical event) where they change a person's color/gender - and to me, that's all it is. Their spin on some historical thing.
Like if they made a movie called "Christina Columbus" - and made it a woman who led the the Spanish Monarchs and did the great big sailing across the ocean, it wouldn't bug me. Even if they changed it up, where she lands, and helps the Indians in some fashion, to make it politically correct. To me - it'd be just a movie.

I watch PLENTY of shows (one of my favorites, VIKINGS) that are NOWHERE near historically accurate. Whether it's the story being told or the color of people's hair, or how they show specific characters.

It's entertainment, not history - and that's what I watch it for. If a movie/show entertains me - for, myself - I won't care really about gender/race/sexuality being swapped around.
Again, like Mia though - there are some movies I am so passionate about - I probably won't give the remakes a chance (Clue, The Crow) - heck, even the "Lethal Weapon" series - didn't watch any of it, because I love the movies, and to me the show will never hold up. So I definitely get when people are adamant about something.

I'd agree with you IF people weren't stupid, but they are and they see media that was meant purely as entertainment and believe it's historically accurate.

People do this ALL the time with all sorts of historical information simply because they show something in a movie or a show.

For instance, lots of people think knights in full plate armor existed during the Dark Ages, but that's nowhere even close to accurate. The full plate we associate with knights didn't come into effect until the latter half of the late Medieval period, which ended in 1500 CE.

While we're on knights, people think their armor was so heavy they were slow and needed help getting up on a horse, and if they were knocked down or off a horse, they couldn't get back up. None of that is correct.

Knights, in full plate, were extremely fast and maneuverable. You could literally do cartwheels and run an obstacle course in full plate.

Full plate only weighed about 35 to 55 lbs, which sounds like a lot until you realize it was distributed all over their body (so it didn't feel particularly heavy) and knights began their training when they were seven years old, so they were used to it! For reference, the average infantry soldier in 2021 carries more weight than that (about 100 lbs, but some Marines have claimed as much as 200 lbs) on his back and waist.

Now why does the public believe that BS about knights? Because they've seen that crap in media.

And it's more than that!

On social media, there are people who're insisting that Cleopatra VII was black because Egypt is in Africa. This completely ignores historical and geographical details that are important to the time period, person and place, not the least of which is that Cleopatra was not Egyptian, she was Greek. Cleopatra was part of the Ptolemaic Dynasty, which was created by Ptolemy, one of the generals who served under Alexander the Great.

According to these nutcases, do you know who's also black? Mozart! Yeah... Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, who was born on January 27, 1756 in Salzburg in the Holy Roman Empire. I can't even begin to imagine the mental gymnastics that one required to think up.

So given enough time and general lack of education (especially when it comes to history), how long do you think it'll be before we have a generation of people who would seriously think "Christina Columbus" is a real person or that Henry VIII was a black man?

While I agree - you'd need to consider the age of the actor at that point. If they kept Magneto true to being Jewish and survivor of the Concentration Camps - if we say right at the tail end of Concentration Camps of WWII - was around, 1945. If Magneto was BORN in 1945 - he'd be 76 years old. In order to endure the Concentration camps - he'd need to have been a part of it, say for 5 years? So in there since 1940 - when he was born - released, 1945 - now, if the movie takes place in modern times, Magneto is now an 81 year old man.

So I can see why they would shift it to something else. Probably a black man who was in the Gulf War, who was a prisoner - so Gulf War is 1991, say he was 18 when he went in - now it's modern times - now the actor is 48 years old. Far more reasonable to think a 48 year old super villain is a threat, rather than an 81 year old.

We're talking about a universe where people have all sorts of fantastical powers and abilities, time travel, alien invasions and so forth, and age is the unrealistic part? Seriously?

As a comics fan, I'm sure you're aware that Magneto has been de-aged before in the comics, so they could do something similar in the movies. Compared to all the other crazy stuff that goes in the Marvel universe, reducing someone's age doesn't seem that weird or unrealistic to me.

They could even blame it on the Infinity Stones and make up some BS about what happened between the Avengers and Thanos and how that did something and reverted Magneto to a young man. Why not? Apparently the Infinity Stones didn't just kill 50% of the population, they also brought them all back, so who's to say everything worked perfectly?

For Nick Fury, he was also African American in the ULTIMATES universe of comics, which had met with considerable success back then - which is why, they made "616" (Normal Marvel Comics) Nick Fury, "fake his death" (then really died, then faked again?) - and brought in the other Nick Fury who is Fury's son (introduced in a series called "Battle Scars" where his son would go on to lose an eye as well - how convenient!)

For Photon, it's jarring - but if you make it through Captain Marvel, she starts as a kid, but the movie also goes through phrases of time (you see her at age of 5 when it's in the 1980's) - so she's in her early 30's which sits about right with how she appeared in WandaVision.

And the Fantastic Four movie, you can't count that in the list - it's not MCU. It's like including the X-Men movies!

I didn't say MCU, I said "Marvel movies and TV shows." That includes ALL of the Marvel properties, including those that were originally owned by other entities. And ever since Disney bought 20th Century Fox, they own the X-Men as well, so it's only a matter of time before they get absorbed into the MCU itself anyway.