/b/ - Random

The Confluence of All Things

Index Catalog Archive Bottom Refresh
Name
Options
Subject
Message

Max message length: 12000

files

Max file size: 32.00 MB

Total max file size: 50.00 MB

Max files: 5

Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more

E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and posts)

Misc

Remember to follow the Rules

The backup domains are located at 8chan.se and 8chan.cc. TOR access can be found here, or you can access the TOR portal from the clearnet at Redchannit 3.0.

/wsj/ - Weekly Shonen Jump

8chan.moe is a hobby project with no affiliation whatsoever to the administration of any other "8chan" site, past or present.

"Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously." -Hunter S. Thompson Weapons|Queen Grace's Royal Palace|Politically Incorrect|Video Games|Books|Role Playing Games|comfy posting

(178.05 KB 1260x827 Oldgotham-1.jpg)

(216.63 KB 1260x834 Oldgotham-2.jpg)

(187.58 KB 1260x829 Oldgotham-3.jpg)

(183.23 KB 1260x830 Oldgotham-4.jpg)

(208.88 KB 1260x831 Oldgotham-5.jpg)

Anonymous 09/01/2024 (Sun) 05:00:09 No. 462708
Some of Anton Furst's concept art of Gotham City, for 'Batman' (1989)
(98.01 KB 458x817 Oldwaynetower.jpg)

(234.13 KB 552x397 furst-sketch-210409.jpg)

Boring I LOVE Tim Burton, as in love him As in I want to have sex with him But who cares about Gotham City? Christopher Nolan didn't A fantasy I have is going back to the 1930's and bringing Batman to the screen, the first time, the right way Though back then the commies wouldn't allow much violence in movies I have a great scene in mind where Batman sees Joker on top of a building and comes up behind him, and lightening illuminates Batman, and he turns on his night vision eyes, and you see Batman standing right behind Joker, his eyes white and glowing But AI image generators won't give me my vision
>>462710 Chris would not have been able to make his statements about Batman if Burton had not gone first. And this fantasy dystopian Gotham was the setting for that, which is also the ground work for the Gotham City of the Batman Arkham games, the Batman: Gotham Knight anime shorts, and most all the DC titles from 89 to today. It wasn't the 'commies' in Hollywood that would censor your gritty noir fantasy, but the very uptight conservative church ladies enforcing the Hayes Code. G1 Batman swung into action with twin revolvers on his hips, and dropped thugs in-panel. Batman didn't debut on the page until '39, but there was a Batman movie serial that came out in '43. Totes WW2 propaganda. it can be seen online.
>>462710 The Joker didn't exist in the 1930s. He was invented in 1940. >>462713 Batman only used a gun very sparingly for a very short amount of time. Even then, IIRC he never shot regular people. He shot some of Hugo Strange's Monster Men, but they weren't regular men. He did kill some other people early on, like he kicked Boss Zucco in the head and broke his neck. But this was pretty much his last instance of significant deadly force, and it was only like 11 months after he debuted. Once Robin was introduced (Boss Zucco is the guy who killed Robin's parents) things became much more lighthearted. That was the point of introducing Robin. It made things appeal to a younger audience. In-universe, this would later be explained as Robin actually having that influence on Batman, and helping him walk away from darkness that was consuming him. They also say Robin is the one who named all of Batman's gadgets. Batman just called things "the car" or "the cave," but Robin called them "The Batmobile" and "The Batcave." Also, it was eventually retconned so that the Batman who killed people in his very early adventures was actually a different Batman from a different universe called Earth-Two. All (or at least most) very early DC comics actually took place on Earth-Two, as an excuse to explain early issues that featured odd things that didn't match with later continuity, such as Batman using guns and killing, when later issues established that he would never use guns and never kill. There is no specific point when stories stopped taking place on Earth-Two and started taking place on Earth-One. This was all a retcon introduced in 1960 and fleshed out over the next few years. For some characters who were fully rebooted, like The Flash, it was simple. For characters who just continued uninterrupted, like Batman, it was trickier. The main Batman, from Earth-One, had very similar adventures as the one on Earth-Two, all those comics are still pretty much canon, but he never shot guns or killed people. He might have still killed those Monster Men, though. They don't count. Boss Zucco was still dead, but he probably died some way other than Batman kicking him in the head. They probably did do an Earth-One version of Robin's origin that featured Boss Zucco dying, but I wouldn't know which issue. It just sounds like something they'd do. Earth-Two Batman went on to have his own career and actually age in real-time. So they said he wasn't the main Batman, but he was the original, and treated with some reverence. His Catwoman eventually reformed. Basically, in the '40s there was an era when Catwoman reformed for an extended period of time, but eventually she relapsed. Later, in the '70s, they said that the moment when the issues stopped happening on Earth-Two and started happening on Earth-One was during this era. So basically, Earth-Two Catwoman never relapsed and stayed good. Anyway, this Batman and Catwoman eventually had a daughter, Helena Wayne. Batman retired and Bruce Wayne became the police commissioner. Robin never became Nightwing on Earth-Two, he just became an adult Robin and joined the Justice Society (the original, Earth-Two version of the Justice League). Around 1980, Catwoman got blackmailed by some thugs who wanted her to help them on a big heist, forcing her to go back into action. She got killed on the job. A couple of years later, Bruce also had to go back to his old ways for one last case, and also got killed. Helena Wayne became a superhero called The Huntress and teamed up with Robin to become a new dynamic duo. A couple of years after that, in 1986, The Anti-Monitor tried to destroy the multiverse. Earth-Two was one of very few worlds that survived, but only by merging with Earth-One. Earth-Two Robin and Huntress found they didn't fit in this "New Earth" because it was really Earth-One with the other surviving universes merged on top of it. This meant Batman and Robin and Catwoman were still young. Robin was Nightwing now, but the point is there were two Dick Graysons, and the one from Earth-Two didn't have a place in this universe. This Batman and Catwoman were not Huntress's parents, and she didn't make sense here. Conveniently, shortly after realizing this, both Robin and Huntress were killed fighting the Anti-Monitor's forces. However, a new Huntress appeared. This one was called Helena Bertenelli, and was the daughter of a big time gangster, but she didn't like her dad's line of work, and became a hero to oppose him. She looked very much like Helena Wayne, but did not have her history. Other Earth-Two characters did continue to exist in New Earth, though, like most of the Justice Society. Just not the ones who had the same secret identities, or were closely linked to characters with the same secret identities, as other characters on Earth-One. They just continued with little change at all. A significant exception is Fury, the daughter of Wonder Woman and Steve Trevor of Earth-Two. She kept existing, but now her parents were a new character called Fury who was retconned into the past, and a different guy also named Trevor. But all her stories still happened, just she had a different backstory now. 20 years after this, in 2006, the ghost of Batman of Earth-Two appeared in one Justice Society story. Nobody remembered he ever existed, because he didn't just die, he was not part of the history of New Earth, but his ghost still existed, even if nobody remembered him. A similar thing happened with Supergirl of Earth-One, who wasn't part of New Earth history, but appeared as a ghost once or twice, even though nobody remembered she ever existed. In 2011, The Flash went back in time and accidentally changed history. After this story, suddenly Huntress wasn't Helena Bertenelli anymore, but Helena Wayne. But not Helena Wayne of Earth-Two. Now she was Helena Wayne of Earth 2, a copy of Earth-Two created in 2006 and changed significantly by Flash's time travel. Earth 2 is similar to Earth-Two but explicitly not the same thing. In fact, when The Flash changed history, Earth 2 changed quite significantly. Anyway the trick here is that they were acting like this new Helena Wayne (Helena Wayne 2 rather than Helena Wayne-Two) had actually just been using the stolen identity of Helena Bertenelli, so those old stories with Bertenelli weren't invalidated, but at some point she apparently died and got replaced with Wayne 2. Precisely when is not specified. I figure the simplest thing is to say it happened right around the time Flash changed history (so you're not actually retconning Wayne 2 into earlier stories, even though that may have been the intent), but it could be earlier. This Helena Wayne at one point meets Damian Wayne, son of Batman of Prime Earth (which was previously called Earth 0, which was previously called New Earth, which is a continuation of Earth-One, so really this is Batman of Earth-One), and it's established that they're alt-universe versions of each other. Huntress is just a couple of years older. So basically Batman of Earth-One has now aged almost to the point of where Batman of Earth-Two was when he died, but due to sci-fi and fantasy stuff, he's also stayed physically younger. But Damian is only a bit younger than Helena was when she became Huntress. Anyway I just wanted to get autistic about comics. And oh yeah, it wasn't quite the conservative church ladies that censored comics, and it wasn't in the '40s. Batman became more kid-oriented in the early '40s, but that was simply a creative/business choice. Other dark comics continued. In the '50s, a guy named (((Fredric Wertham))) helped to spark a moral panic about comics with his book "The Seduction of the Innocent." This resulted in congressional hearings that spooked the comic industry into creating a self-censorship board, the Comics Code Authority (CCA), very much analogous to the MPAA (for film), PMRC (for music), and ESRB (for video games). Wertham was very much a progressive of his time. His "work" on the negative impacts of racial segregation (I put in quotes because not only is psychology largely bunk, but this guy was known to falsify data for his political ends) was cited in Brown v Board of Education. He was a defense witness for serial killer Albert Fish. He opened a charity clinic in Harlem "specializing in the treatment of Black teenagers." The media tries to act like it's conservatives always pushing the censorship, but not only is that plainly untrue today, but it's untrue at least with the big acts of censorship throughout the 20th century, and it goes beyond comics. Everyone knows Tipper Gore was behind the efforts to censor music in the 1980s, eventually leading to the creation of the PMRC. It really shows how stupid people are that they could be convinced the wife of then Senator, soon Vice President, later Democrat presidential candidate Al Gore was somehow a right-winger. Al fucking Gore, the presidential candidate that to this day the left said had the election stolen from him (even though you're not allowed to say Trump had the election stolen from him). Absolute hero of the left. But apparently we're just supposed to sit here and pretend he married the most right-wing woman of the 1980s. No, Tipper Gore and the big push behind the PMRC was incredibly left-wing. So was the ESRB. On this site of all places we should be aware of Joe Liberman leading the call to censor and ban video games in the 1990s, leading to the eventual creation of the ESRB. You know, Joe Liberman, the guy so right-wing that he was Al Gore's VP pick in 2000. No, again, the push to censor video games was lead by major left-wingers. They try to get us to act as if Jack Thompson is the guy responsible for censorship of video games, when he never made any headway at all. He was never anything more than a laughing stock. The most he did was get Rockstar to do an extra printing of San Andreas with some dummied out data actually deleted off the disk. But Joe Lieberman and the current lefties censoring vidya actually did have concrete impacts. And I haven't looked into the history of the MPAA before, but I'd be willing to bet it's the same situation.
>>462749 The PCA, the Catholic League, The Family Research Council, the Moral Majority, Moms for Liberty, the scores of "concerned citizens" groups, the Heritage Foundation with their whole Project 2025 agenda, and several others both then and in the here and now. These are all right-wing, Christian conservative organizations that actively pursue the suppression of content they find objectionable. And it's not the 'the media' that reports these facts, these organizations are very open and proud of their position that they are more moral than you and should dictate your consumption of any content to conform to their beliefs. Blaming 'the media' is actually quite a 20th Century red herring, now with the Internet in full blase and everyone--- EVERY-ONE --- being given a platform.
>>462754 >the Heritage Foundation >Project 2025 >Conservative <The plan being pushed by outspoken Christian Socialists is "Consevative" What shit are you smoking?
>>462755 >The Heritage Foundation being anything even passingly Socialist You need to put down the blunt yourself. Also, Christian Socialism and Christian Nationalism are not the same thing.
>>462757 >Christian Socialism and Christian Nationalism are not the same thing Yes they are. And are you actually gonig to provide sources of what you're talking about beyond just that ONE example?
>>462758 What one example? There's six in my original post. Now pay attention class. Christian Socialism is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism While Christian Nationalism is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_nationalism See? Wasn't that easy?
>>462760 >Using Kikepedia as a source <When they redirect "Cultural Marxism" to "Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism <And were unironically debating if Maxwell's attempt to kill Trump even "counts" as an "Assassination attempt" https://archive.ph/F80HL Yeah, you're full of shit and don't know jack of what you're talking about.
>>462761 It should not be 'cultural marxism theory'. It should be 'cultural marxism myth'. Comically, the 'socialist' Heritage Foundation is a big opponent of this popular rightie boogey-man. And anyways this was supposed to be about Christian Nationalism/Socialism. Obvious deflection is obvious.
>>462762 >Comically, the 'socialist' Heritage Foundation is a big opponent of this popular rightie boogey-man. Because every version of Socialism is an opponent of every OTHER version of Socialism, despite the fact that they're all the same thing and desire the same end with the only "significant" difference being that one favors the color yellow and the other favoring the color green. And any time you ever say this to someone that follows this ideology, and they'll have an autistic fit because you pointed out how shallow their beliefs actually are. >And anyways this was supposed to be about Christian Nationalism/Socialism. Which are the same thing. >Obvious deflection is obvious. You stil haven't posted examples of how "The PCA, the Catholic League, The Family Research Council, the Moral Majority, Moms for Liberty" as seeking to "control" the media.
>>462754 I didn't say no others pursue censorship. I specifically mentioned Jack Thompson. I did say that the ones that actually succeed at achieving censorship tend to be left. It was relevant due to the claim that comics were censored due to the right, which is not the case. In response, you then mentioned a bunch of other impotent nothings, no different from Jack Thompson, and thus also already invalidated by the fact that they don't actually succeed. You're using them as boogeymen. Meanwhile, actual forces like The CCA, PMRC, and ESRB were all created due to left-wing moral crusades. Most relevant to the discussion is the CCA, of course. But since it's a trend, I think it's relevant to bring up the PMRC and ESRB. While technically "independent," they're major censorship boards created by the government essentially saying "censor this industry or we will do it for you." That's very different than Project 2025, which was immediately disavowed by the Republican presidential nominee, as soon as the left even made him aware of it. Because nobody was aware of it except for people like you, seeking a boogeyman. They're nothing. The Comics Code Authority was something, so much so that even though they were significantly weakened 50 years ago now, the industry is still completely fucked due to the ripple effects of their censorship. >>462762 >has the nerve to say a readily viewable philosophy, proudly preached by every university, is a boogeyman >tries to counter the CCA, PMRC, and ESRB's actual censorship of entire artforms by telling us we should be scared of things like Project 2025, which never did anything. Call me back when Project 2025 bans comic creators from having vampires in their stories, or drags Twisted Sister into court over lyrics and music videos. Censorship actually exists across many industries, and it just so happens that the censorship boards were created to placate leftists.
>>462763 Your mental gymnastics are glorious. If you don't even know who and what the Heritage Foundation is ... well, just wow. >Christian Nationalism/Socialism are the same thing You cannot prove it. >You still haven't posted examples ... Do your own research, sunshine. Clearly you can type. Look that shit up yourself. it's not hard. There's even sources for all this shit out there that isn't Wikipedia.
>>462765 >If you don't even know who and what the Heritage Foundation is ... well, just wow. He didn't say he didn't. But it wouldn't be that weird to not know an organization that has no relevance to the right and is only relevant as a boogeyman for leftists who are too stupid to look briefly and see that the right doesn't care about it. >You cannot prove it. It's a definitional argument. It's not something to "prove." >Do your own research, sunshine. Clearly you can type. Look that shit up yourself. it's not hard. There's even sources for all this shit out there that isn't Wikipedia. No argument. You're out.
(24.94 KB 720x533 cecin_estpasunargument.jpg)

>>462765 >Do your own research
>>462764 >I did say that the ones that actually succeed at achieving censorship tend to be left. All the orgs I listed are firmly right-wing and Christian, and they have all succeeded in censoring content they don't like, and they are quite proud of it. 'Cultural marxism' is a catchall phrase for all forms of social and economic thought and want for change that threaten white conservative elitism, comfort and position. That's all it's ever been. It's a bogey-man. The Heritage Foundation has made it clear that they intend for their Project 2025 to be finally enacted whenever any GOPer becomes president, Trump or no. HF does not need Trump, it need only wait. >Twisted Sister Dude! This is NOT the 80s! And given how disapproving the righties are about things like Harry Potter and Twilight, attacking vampire fiction just might be on the table again.
>>462767 Non. Ce n’est pas un argument. C’est une réponse. Vous voulez l’argument. Je corrigerai simplement.
>>462768 >All the orgs I listed are firmly right-wing and Christian, and they have all succeeded in censoring content they don't like, and they are quite proud of it. Name one censorship board akin to the CCA, PMRC, or ESRB that they have created. Bonus points if you can name three, so it's equal. >'Cultural marxism' is a catchall phrase for all forms of social and economic thought and want for change that threaten white conservative elitism, comfort and position. No, cultural marxism refers to taking the premise of Marxism, of viewing the world through the lens of oppressor and oppressed, and applying it to cultural classes rather than economic classes. This isn't complicated. It's plainly evident in the actual term. >The Heritage Foundation has made it clear that they intend for their Project 2025 to be finally enacted whenever any GOPer becomes president, Trump or no. HF does not need Trump, it need only wait. They can intend whatever they want. I intend to punch you through the internet, but it doesn't really matter since it's not gonna happen. They might as well intend to enact their whims when a Dem becomes president. Why wouldn't they want that, too? What they want isn't relevant to an argument about what has actually happened. What has actually happened is that leftists have succeeded many times over the years in getting the government to threaten entire industries into creating censorship boards, namely the CCA, PMRC, and ESRB. And instead of actually countering this point, you keep ignoring it and bringing up nobodies very much akin to Jack Thompson. >>462769 Not even sure if you intended this to be an argument for real. We're at Poe's Law here. The person we're arguing with is so stupid that it's hard to even identify parody.
>>462768 >All the orgs I listed are firmly right-wing and Christian And you still haven't posted what these groups are actually doing. >and they have all succeeded in censoring content they don't like Where? Show us the evidence. >'Cultural marxism' is a catchall phrase for all forms of social and economic thought and want for change that threaten white conservative elitism, comfort and position. No, Cultural Marxism, started by Socialists like Herbert Marcuse and Paulo Freire, is the belief that society's "means of production" is cultural institutions like schools and the media. And that to bring about the Marx's Prolitariate Revolution requires the Socialists to seize control of those institutions. >The Heritage Foundation has made it clear that they intend for their Project 2025 to be finally enacted whenever any GOPer becomes president Okay, how are they going to do that? Is there an actual plan that they're laying out? >>462770 >The person we're arguing with is so stupid that it's hard to even identify parody. I don't think the guy is stupid, I just think that he doesn't have an argument. I've seen this happen numerous times outside of imageboards, where someone's shouting baizuo talking points and just repeats those points ad infiniatum. And whenever someone attempts to counter those points with facts or even asks for proof, you're declared an "idiot" or a "troll" for not already knowing the answer because you're only asking such questions or making such asserts out of bad faith. I even recently encountered this on our resident vore board: >>>/vore1/54627
>>462768 >Dude! This is NOT the 80s! And given how disapproving the righties are about things like Harry Potter and Twilight, attacking vampire fiction just might be on the table again. Oh yeah, forgot to point to this. Again, nobody brought JK Rowling to court or into a fucking Senate hearing. Nobody created a censorship board to censor children's books, like how the PMRC was created to censor music. But ALSO, you're hilarious for saying my reference is out of date, then bringing up Harry Potter, something that only had light controversy amounting to nothing, controversy that was essentially only known because of people making fun of it, controversy which hasn't even existed in about 25 years. And Twilight? That didn't even have that level of controversy. By the time that was popular, the religious right was deep in the process of dying off, and were not at all able to even muster any butthurt over some novel and movie series for girls. The only controversy was people thinking it was fucking stupid and shitty. And have you forgotten how butthurt the left is at JK Rowling now? Given the actual laws leftists have managed to pass in the UK, the only reason Rowling isn't in jail right now, like many UK citizens currently imprisoned for violating leftist speech laws, is because of how immensely popular she and her works are. I wouldn't bring up Rowling in particular in the same breath as the CCA, PMRC, or ESRB, but it's not helping your case either. Especially since I was trying to keep this relevant to the US, but now if we're bringing up UK properties and UK censorship? Are you kidding me? Those motherfuckers use 1984 as an instruction manual.
>>462770 You do not need bureaucratic boards to enact suppression of content you do not like. Merely bullying the Supply Side and/or having determined adherents to your policy in high place does the trick just fine. All the attacks against CRT and DEI prove that. >Jack Thompson Jack Thompson Jack Thompson Jack Thompson Jack Thompson Is your needle stuck? >Not even sure if you intended this to be an argument for real. Can you not read?
>>462773 >You do not need bureaucratic boards to enact suppression of content you do not like. Merely bullying the Supply Side and/or having determined adherents to your policy in high place does the trick just fine. It's something, but actually being able to enact an actual censorship board is a step above. Thanks for conceding that you can't think of an example of the right actually doing that. >All the attacks against CRT and DEI prove that. Actually instituting CRT and DEI proves that, considering it's actually currently in place at every major institution in the western world. Done completely by bullying and coercion, including by the actual government. You're only owning your own argument by proving again that it's your side that uses coercion and force. >Is your needle stuck? You're the one just repeating the same non-arguments over and over again. Your examples are as silly non-factors as this one famous laughing stock, and I'm going to point it out. >Can you not read? We're reaching levels of irony and stupidity that are becoming indistinguishable.
>>462773 >Merely bullying the Supply Side and/or having determined adherents to your policy in high place does the trick just fine. All the attacks against CRT and DEI prove that. <See, the Left censors people by using government departments and trade organizations, and the Right censors people by choosing to not financially support people. It's the same thing, don't you see? >Can you not read? What we're seeing is that you have no argument. You have no sources. You have ONE example, that has as much validity as someone random nut posting The Turner Diaries. And the only thing that you have linked to as "proof" is a carefully controlled and moderated website who changes their information whenever it suites their political benefit.
>>462772 For the time being, actual Congressional hearings over 'witchcraft' pop culture are off the table, primarily because of how foolish government ended up looking back during all those decades-gone hearings you can't get off of. But again, the Morals Police does not need legislative theatre to make noise and get things done. It's the sentiment of the Potter fanbase that JK betrayed them when she came out against the trannies. When the righties and incels stop squawling about 'woke' Star Wars and super-hero comic books you might have some standing here.
>>462776 >Actual government prosecution is the "same thing" as someone autistically screeching on the internet
(22.02 KB 400x310 1278770364117.gif)

>>462775 You ARE skilled at the Gish Gallop, but I don't have to bring any arguments, even as you pile on more and more what-aboutisms. All this started because you don't know the difference between Christian Socialism/Nationalism and think that the Heritage Foundation is lefty in any what at all. You failed at both points. Not arguments. Mere points of easily verified fact. I'm calling a Xeelee's Retreat. I mean, this is only the internet, after all.
>>462778 >what-aboutisms So you have no argument.
>>462776 >For the time being, actual Congressional hearings over 'witchcraft' pop culture are off the table, primarily because of how foolish government ended up looking back during all those decades-gone hearings you can't get off of. Okay, so you admit I'm right. The latest examples of mass censorship have all been left. Glad we agree. I wonder how far back you'd have to go to find a right-wing one. >But again, the Morals Police does not need legislative theatre to make noise and get things done. It provides some serious evidence against them, which you're evidently butthurt about. You're also not doing yourself any favors by saying that modern censorship is equivalent to the CCA, PMRC, or ESRB, since modern censorship is practically all leftist, going so far as to literally lock up people in countries like the UK, Canada, Australia, and many others, for saying they don't like immigration, or refusing to play along with someone's fetish and pretend a man is a woman. You're really shooting yourself in the foot by going down this line. Go ahead and say the right does the same thing. Point to me an example of a western country locking someone up for speech that the right doesn't like, then we can talk about that. I wonder if it's the same as Canada stealing people's bank accounts for donating to a protest, right after the Prime Minister and tons of other world leaders openly supported a year of mass riots that literally set cities ablaze. >It's the sentiment of the Potter fanbase that JK betrayed them when she came out against the trannies. The Harry Potter fanbase is enormous and practically everybody who was of a certain age or younger when it came out. That's practically all that's protected Rowling from being sent to the gulag. >When the righties and incels stop squawling about 'woke' Star Wars and super-hero comic books you might have some standing here. Trannies are mad at Rowling because she said growing up as a woman influenced her life and just saying you're a woman doesn't give you those experiences that real women have. Normal people are mad at every other piece of media because mentally ill faggots bullied and bought their ways into positions of power in media companies so that they could turn beloved classics into blatant propaganda. Pretty major difference. And again, only one side actually puts their opponents in jail. Pretty good for the leftists, too, because while Rowling's extreme popularity helps her, nobody actually likes the propagandists ruining every classic series. >>462778 >whataboutisms >says the guy who tried to bring up a bunch of organizations that never achieved anything to counter the fact that the CCA, PMRC, and ESRB were all made to placate leftists who got the government to threaten whole industries and art forms.
>>462780 >Point to me an example of a western country locking someone up for speech that the right doesn't like, then we can talk about that. Watch as he posts about Russia, or some Socialist/Islam country.
>>462749 >The Joker didn't exist in the 1930s. He was invented in 1940. The point of my post was that I wish I could go back and introduce Batman and the Joker to the world As in I would have invented both
>>462785 You said you wanted to bring the characters to "the screen." That implies adapting the comics, not inventing the characters outright. That would just be bringing the characters to the world in general. Joker is visually based on the 1928 film "The Man Who Laughs" anyway. So he sort of already was brought to the screen.
>>462749 >And I haven't looked into the history of the MPAA before, but I'd be willing to bet it's the same situation. Decided to look up the MPAA. Their first president, Will H. Hays, was the former chairman of the Republican National Committee: https://infogalactic.com/info/Will_H._Hays On top of being staunchly anti-censorship: https://infogalactic.com/info/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America <From the early days of the association, Hays spoke out against public censorship, and the MPPDA worked to raise support from the general public for the film industry's efforts against such censorship. Large portions of the public both opposed censorship, but also decried the lack of morals in movies.


Forms
Delete
Report
Quick Reply