Anne Hathaway apologies for depiction of limb difference

...Ghost...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m really not. From Captain Hook in Peter Pan, to the servant in Scary Movie, the “baddie” always has some form of physical deformity. Can you think of any movies where the “hero” of the movie has a physical deformity? You’ll struggle a lot harder to come up with a list of the same length.

It’s not dishonest to say it because those physical characteristics are exactly how it is portrayed as being able to tell the difference between a witch and a normal woman.

Sloth from the goonies.
Edward Scissor hands.
Rocky Dennis from Mask
Benjamin Button
Hunchback of Notre Dame
Beast from beauty and the beast
Phantom of the opera
Wolverine and anyone from X-men really.
Ninja Turtles
Elephant man
Christy from my left foot

Should I go on?

No complaints that the heros in The Witches (Grandma and son) suddenly changed race from the source material, but the witches are all (or mostly) white. Interesting that. Yet another diversity box ticked and people still complain.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m really not. From Captain Hook in Peter Pan, to the servant in Scary Movie, the “baddie” always has some form of physical deformity. Can you think of any movies where the “hero” of the movie has a physical deformity? You’ll struggle a lot harder to come up with a list of the same length.

It’s not dishonest to say it because those physical characteristics are exactly how it is portrayed as being able to tell the difference between a witch and a normal woman.

Oh good christ almighty! Are you honestly saying Captain Hook is an example of how disabled people are portrayed as bad people?!?!?! Captain Hook got his arm chewed off by a crocodile because he was a ****.

The only people that could be offended by the portrayal of Captain Hook are poor unfortunate pirates who were partially eaten by amphibious reptiles.

While usually heroes in films aren't deformed, neither are the villains. Aside from superhero or fantasy films, anyone who is mean to a disabled character is usually the villain of the piece.

Your whole argument has turned from something reasonable into the absurd. Your assertion that the argument that FICTIONAL witches shouldn't have deformed hands as it somehow means that everyone will think that a similar deformity in real life will lead people to believe they are witches is MENTAL.

Then the captain hook reference?!!

One eyed Jack

...Ghost... wrote: »

Should I go on?

You can if you like, the point was that the list of baddies with physical deformities would be much longer than the list of heroes with physical deformities. Characters with physical deformities who are portrayed as being objects of pity doesn’t quite cut the “hero” portrayal.

...Ghost... wrote: »

No complaints that the heros in The Witches (Grandma and son) suddenly changed race from the source material, but the witches are all (or mostly) white. Interesting that. Yet another diversity box ticked and people still complain.

Are you making a complaint on their behalf, or just playing the victim, again?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You can if you like, the point was that the list of baddies with physical deformities would be much longer than the list of heroes with physical deformities. Characters with physical deformities who are portrayed as being objects of pity doesn’t quite cut the “hero” portrayal.





Are you making a complaint on their behalf or just playing the victim?

Ah here.

Outside of horror films and superhero films, I would argue that you are wrong. And in those films, they aren't deformed. They are supernatural.


And to accuse someone of playing the victim because of pointing out the racial imbalance of the villains while trying to claim Captain Hook is an example of negativity towards disabled people is bordering on parody at this stage.

Tony EH

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Or, more likely...

Like I said earlier...

Enough.

I don't have the life left in me to keep going round and round with this nonsense.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah here.

Outside of horror films and superhero films, I would argue that you are wrong. And in those films, they aren't deformed. They are supernatural.

They’re supernatural, and they’re still physically deformed! That’s the association right there, and you’re still going to tell me it doesn’t exist, that it is inferred by people with physical deformities? They sure as hell didn’t ask for that kind of representation in mainstream media! :pac:

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And to accuse someone of playing the victim because of pointing out the racial imbalance of the villains while trying to claim Captain Hook is an example of negativity towards disabled people is bordering on parody at this stage.

No, I’m asking the question because Ghost appears to be under the impression that there is a war against white men.

...Ghost...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You can if you like, the point was that the list of baddies with physical deformities would be much longer than the list of heroes with physical deformities. Characters with physical deformities who are portrayed as being objects of pity doesn’t quite cut the “hero” portrayal.

You are unable to back your argument with any facts and so your assertions are meaningless and can be written off as nothing more than drivel.

Are you making a complaint on their behalf, or just playing the victim, again?

I don't take to twitter with faux rage and upset, nor do I claim to be a victim. That's for the woke crowd to do.

trashcan

keano_afc wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaC1-U8LIY0

Deserves another watch.

That is superb. Vintage Bill Maher.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They’re supernatural, and they’re still physically deformed! That’s the association right there, and you’re still going to tell me it doesn’t exist, that it is inferred by people with physical deformities? They sure as hell didn’t ask for that kind of representation in mainstream media! :pac:





No, I’m asking the question because Ghost appears to be under the impression that there is a war against white men.

They aren't deformed, thats the way they have been written to look. The fact they may share a characteristic with some real life person is unfortunate but absolutely unavoidable. They will inevitably look like a real life person due to the massive range of traits people possess. FFS, you used captain hook as an example. Does a film company need to be prepared to apologise for any fictional character if some lunatic takes offense because it looks a little like them?

They didn't get that representation in mainstream media any more than bald women did by the depiction of the witches.

And your perceived notion that Ghost thinks there is a war against men? Is that any more ridiculous than your assertion that disabled people are being victimised through film?

One eyed Jack

...Ghost... wrote: »

You are unable to back your argument with any facts and so your assertions are meaningless and can be written off as nothing more than drivel.

I don't take to twitter with faux rage and upset, nor do I claim to be a victim. That's for the woke crowd to do.

How’s that war against white men going? You winning? :pac:

...Ghost...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I’m asking the question because Ghost appears to be under the impression that there is a war against white men.

Are you suggesting that males (especially white ones) are not being overlooked based on their gender and skin colour?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How’s that war against white men going? You winning? :pac:

Ugh... What a horrible way to discuss any topic and a good example of what Ghost was actually alluding to.

Feelings of discrimination completely disregarded because of the colour and sex of the people involved, yet you expect your assertion of disabled people being vilified because of captain hook to be taken seriously?

...Ghost...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How’s that war against white men going? You winning? :pac:

Considering all the token appointments in politics and the shoehorned castings in hollywood, I think it will be a long fight with many divisions. Most recent example was Von Der Leyen asking Ireland to put forward a male and female candidate for Hogans job. We all knew what gender was to be selected before we knew who was being put forward. And the irony is the man actually had the better qualifications for the portfolio offered :pac:

...Ghost...

Deleted User wrote: »

Ugh... What a horrible way to discuss any topic.

Unfortunately he has run out of steam and deflects with a bit of mud slinging and poking. We are all used to it on boards

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They aren't deformed, thats the way they have been written to look. The fact they may share a characteristic with some real life person is unfortunate but absolutely unavoidable. They will inevitably look like a real life person due to the massive range of traits people possess. FFS, you used captain hook as an example. Does a film company need to be prepared to apologise for any fictional character if some lunatic takes offense because it looks a little like them?

It’s not unavoidable? They’re fictional, supernatural characters remember, they can be written any way anyone likes! It just so happens that writers often default to lazy stereotypes of reflecting character traits in physical characteristics, and that’s where the association comes from.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And your perceived notion that Ghost thinks there is a war against men? Is that any more ridiculous than your assertion that disabled people are being victimised through film?

It’s not MY perceived notion, when they’ve written it themselves right here -

...Ghost... wrote: »

But some things are. What some people call the fight for equality and inclusiveness, a reasonable person calls the war against white men and the exclusion of others.

Does it really seem unreasonable for anyone to point out don’t piss on my shoes and tell me it’s raining?

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ugh... What a horrible way to discuss any topic and a good example of what Ghost was actually alluding to.

Feelings of discrimination completely disregarded because of the colour and sex of the people involved, yet you expect your assertion of disabled people being vilified because of captain hook to be taken seriously?

It was a joke


You’d think people who are arguing people shouldn’t be so easily offended, wouldn’t be so easily offended themselves.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not unavoidable? They’re fictional, supernatural characters remember, they can be written any way anyone likes! It just so happens that writers often default to lazy stereotypes of reflecting character traits in physical characteristics, and that’s where the association comes from.

Why should they not have a deformed hand? Why should they be white? Why should they be bald? Why should they be female looking?

ANYONE can be offended if they look like them. **** that. They weren't specifically written to resemble a specific category of people or any specific person. It is unavoidable that they would.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It was a joke


You’d think people who are arguing people shouldn’t be so easily offended, wouldn’t be so easily offended themselves.

And here we go again. The accusation that I am offended.

I am not offended. Just because I don't like your post doesn't mean it offended me.

But it is telling that someone who thinks disabled people could be offended by Captain hook doesn't seem to know what offense actually is.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why should they not have a deformed hand? Why should they be white? Why should they be bald? Why should they be female looking?

ANYONE can be offended if they look like them. **** that. They weren't specifically written to resemble a specific category of people or any specific person. It is unavoidable that they would.

The point was never that the villian shouldn’t be deformed, the point being made is that most of the time, they are! Essentially the point is that people with deformities are overly represented as villians. I’ve already pointed out that it doesn’t have to be the case, that villians can be portrayed by their character and not their appearance, but you shot that down as something only adults would get, which is missing the point that the complaint is based upon children learning from film and media portrayals that people with disabilities or people who are deformed in some way are to be regarded with suspicion. It’s easily avoidable simply by writing characters based upon their character, without the association of their physical appearance with their character.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And here we go again. The accusation that I am offended.

I am not offended. Just because I don't like your post doesn't mean it offended me.

But it is telling that someone who thinks disabled people could be offended by Captain hook doesn't seem to know what offense actually is.

Ok then, people didn’t like how they were being portrayed in the film, they’re not offended though. Let’s be absolutely crystal clear about that much, they’re not offended, they just didn’t like it.

I didn’t say either that people who are disabled could be offended by Captain Hook. I was giving an example of a character who is a villian who is portrayed as having a physical deformity. I’m not the least bit offended that he is portrayed as being white, nor do I think it’s an attack on white men, nor do I have any issue with the portrayal personally. The point is that just because I don’t have an issue with the portrayal, doesn’t mean other people can’t, or that they’re being unreasonable, or that they are taking offence where none was intended just to break anyone’s balls.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The point was never that the villian shouldn’t be deformed, the point being made is that most of the time, they are! Essentially the point is that people with deformities are overly represented as villians. I’ve already pointed out that it doesn’t have to be the case, that villians can be portrayed by their character and not their appearance, but you shot that down as something only adults would get, which is missing the point that the complaint is based upon children learning from film and media portrayals that people with disabilities or people who are deformed in some way are to be regarded with suspicion. It’s easily avoidable simply by writing characters based upon their character, without the association of their physical appearance with their character.





Ok then, people didn’t like how they were being portrayed in the film, they’re not offended though. Let’s be absolutely crystal clear about that much, they’re not offended, they just didn’t like it.

I didn’t say either that people who are disabled could be offended by Captain Hook. I was giving an example of a character who is a villian who is portrayed as having a physical deformity. I’m not the least bit offended that he is portrayed as being white, nor do I think it’s an attack on white men, nor do I have any issue with the portrayal personally. The point is that just because I don’t have an issue with the portrayal, doesn’t mean other people can’t, or that they’re being unreasonable, or that they are taking offence where none was intended just to break anyone’s balls.

Nah **** this. It's getting circular and we are missing each others points.

So the people didn't like how they were portrayed but not offended? Grand, but it kind of flies in the face of the apology as they regretted any offense caused.... Oh, this was another one of your "jokes"?

The witches aren't deformed. They can't be. They have a couple of fingers and they are like cats claws. They aren't human so this isn't a deformity. The fact that some people happen to have a deformity similar to that is unfortunate. Either the guys complaining about this are a little over sensitive or the alopecia and toe amputee brigade are made of sterner stuff as these are also traits of the witches. No parallels were drawn by the film makers. No need for any apology.

And your last point is silly. You understand why people might get offended by Captain Hook but dismiss and joke about another poster who is concerned about white men being discriminated against?

It doesn't reconcile and it does smack of virtue signalling.

...Ghost...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ok then, people didn’t like how they were being portrayed in the film, they’re not offended though. Let’s be absolutely crystal clear about that much, they’re not offended, they just didn’t like it.

I have to call bullshít there. If we are to believe the faux rage and being offended from the majority of those who took to twitter with #NotaWitch, Hathaway wouldn't have been asked by Warner Brothers to issue an apology which included the words "in pain" from the first paragraph.




Warner Brothers had issued a statement a week before Hathaway had her apology issued.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nah **** this. It's getting circular and we are missing each others points.

So the people didn't like how they were portrayed but not offended? Grand, but it kind of flies in the face of the apology as they regretted any offense caused.... Oh, this was another one of your "jokes"?

Yes, and like most of my jokes it fell flat on its arse, again. I was being entirely facetious because you’re trying to make a distinction between being offended and not liking something, whereas essentially the effect is the same - you spoke up about it.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The witches aren't deformed. They can't be. They have a couple of fingers and they are like cats claws. They aren't human so this isn't a deformity. The fact that some people happen to have a deformity similar to that is unfortunate. Either the guys complaining about this are a little over sensitive or the alopecia and toe amputee brigade are made of sterner stuff as these are also traits of the witches. No parallels were drawn by the film makers. No need for any apology.

You’d be sensitive about it too if characteristics you had in common with villians were constantly being used to perpetuate your being viewed with suspicion. You might even think it was unfair and unjustified. You might even speak up about it because you don’t like it, while other people as you quite rightly point out might indeed be made of sterner stuff.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And your last point is silly. You understand why people might get offended by Captain Hook but dismiss and joke about another poster who is concerned about white men being discriminated against?

It doesn't reconcile and it does smack of virtue signalling.

If I’m ever run over by an atheist black quadriplegic woman, I might just at that point think back on this moment and say to myself “Y’know that Ghost may have had an entirely reasonable point after all”.

randd1

Does anybody else think that this type of stuff is pointless and really nothing to get worked up about?

randd1

randd1 wrote: »

Does anybody else think that this type of stuff is pointless and really nothing to get worked up about?

Let me say that I apologise if reading this thread caused you any offense due to the fact you didn't find it interesting. If I had known that it would have, rest assured that I would not have created it. It is up to us all to ensure that each and every thread is representative of a world where each and every reader is safe from threads which may not interest them. We should all do better and I am constantly learning.

I can totally relate - growing up with red hair I'd have given anything for that Bosco f*cker to publicly acknowledge and apologise for the taunting I suffered. I still won't watch RTE to this day.

Kaybaykwah

Funny. We are living in a time where plenty of people are fleshing out their differences. Remember when the Punk movement used to hold shock value? Who cares anymore? Kidstuff.

Horn implants, full face tats, massive earlobe doughnuts. Transgendering and the concomitant change of mind back to the original gender. Lol

This is only the beginning of the transhumanist wave. One needs to get used to it. I wouldn't be surprised some nutjob somewhere decided to remove their 3 unfashionable fingers in the middle of both hands "for effect".

I never cared much for the SuperHero fad in comix or fillum, which certainly fostered the latter-day ideals of body modification in society. In Art history, the design of superhuman characters of all kinds has usually comprised animal elements and deformities, but these have not all been malevolent. Two hundred years ago, Frankenstein's monster appeared with human features in hybrid form from dead parts. In the more recent past, characters were fashioned from human and mechanical parts to create cyborgs and robots.


I liken this debate to the one surrounding the issue of blackface in the theatre or cultural misappropriation in general. Most of it is very silly and buggy at best.

Limpy

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

Funny. We are living in a time where plenty of people are fleshing out their differences. Remember when the Punk movement used to hold shock value? Who cares anymore? Kidstuff.

Horn implants, full face tats, massive earlobe doughnuts. Transgendering and the concomitant change of mind back to the original gender. Lol

This is only the beginning of the transhumanist wave. One needs to get used to it. I wouldn't be surprised some nutjob somewhere decided to remove their 3 unfashionable fingers in the middle of both hands "for effect".

I never cared much for the SuperHero fad in comix or fillum, which certainly fostered the latter-day ideals of body modification in society. In Art history, the design of superhuman characters of all kinds has usually comprised animal elements and deformities, but these have not all been malevolent. Two hundred years ago, Frankenstein's monster appeared with human features in hybrid form from dead parts. In the more recent past, characters were fashioned from human and mechanical parts to create cyborgs and robots.


I liken this debate to the one surrounding the issue of blackface in the theatre or cultural misappropriation in general. Most of it is very silly and buggy at best.

When transgenderism goes full circle we'll be back to normality.

gozunda

Ah here they've got it all wrong. #Witchesmattertoo

I feel deeply offended on behalf of all witches and warlocks and all other grades of differently hued magic arts practitioners where they are being stereotyped by everyone here :mad:

Frcking disgraceful

spook_cook

spook_cook wrote: »

Typical magic-normative person, daring to explain to magical folk how they should feel.

The irony of people complaining that The Witches are representative of all disabled people, yet the real life example of muslim jihadis aren't representative of all muslims.

*edit (a tongue in cheek remark)

gozunda

spook_cook wrote: »

Typical magic-normative person, daring to explain to magical folk how they should feel.

How dare you presume my magical status - you muggle!