The team behind “Superman” is responding to the backlash after director James Gunn said the DC tentpole is the story of “an immigrant that came from other places.”
When asked about the reaction to his comments, James Gunn explained that the movie is for “everyone” and that he doesn’t have “anything to say to anybody” spreading negativity around “Superman.”
“I’m not here to judge people,” he told Variety at Monday night’s “Superman” premiere at Hollywood’s TCL Chinese Theatre. “I think this is a movie about kindness and I think that’s something everyone can relate to.”
I’m pretty sure I knew through popcultural osmosis before I ever saw any of the films
Some people weirdly don’t connect fictional scenarios to real life analogues though. Like in the Oz books, a princess is kidnapped and forced to grow up as a boy. Some people don’t see that as a transgender character because it’s a fantasy scenario. Some people don’t see Superman as an immigrant because their brains just don’t connect a science fiction situation with an alien to immigration
Right? I haven’t seen any of the movies. The only Super…person stuff I’ve seen is CW’s Supergirl and I knew his origin story when I was a child in the 90s.
Hence the entire point of the original Star Trek. Morality plays disguised by alien makeup, so the mouth breathing rednecks didn’t realize.
I’ve found that people who don’t understand or enjoy media literacy or criticism also don’t tend to understand the concept of an analogy/allegory, and don’t want to either. Superman represents the “American Way” and can’t be an immigrant and the idea that America is a nation of immigrants is not relevant in any way. Only the old statements from Bridget from Guilty Gear count and not any of the new ones that confirm she’s trans. Naoto from Persona 4 and some similar stories like hers in other games can’t be a commentary on social pressures around restrictive gender roles, dysphoria, and performativity simply because she ultimately still identifies as a cis woman. You can explain the nuances until you’re out of breath, they will never accept the nuances.
There was a post a while ago where someone was explaining that Star Wars was an allegory for the Vietnam war, and the next guy was all “well that’s not true, unless the Empire is supposed to be America!”
Like they’re so close to getting it, but their brain swats it away before it can become a fully formed thought.
These are the people who think that Hermione being non-white in the upcoming tv series is a problem because of how it will come across when Draco calls her a mudblood. Yeah, we can’t have people reading it as a racist slur when Draco uses a racist slur. I’m genuinely confused as to how they read that scene before.
There are people who write about Hermione feeling uncomfortable as her physical gender after taking the polyjuice potion to become Harry and wanting to transition back to her perceived gender — and who somehow can’t extend that to trans people in real life.
[:Looks vaguely in the direction of Jo Rowling:]
An excellent point. I’d like to ask Rowling, is Hermione still a woman when polyjuiced as Harry? If no, then she’s saying gender is changeable. If yes, then she should be able to understand how internal sense of gender isn’t dependent on the physical body.
https://youtu.be/xGVYK9GOVzI
Those people really need someone to explain the concept of subtext to them.
It’s not even subtext. It’s just the text.
Many of them are focusing very very hard on selectively ignoring the text of the religion they claim to follow. Subtext might as well not exist.