If you needed a another movie to explain a characters action in the first one, you really don’t know what the fuck you are doing and should not even try.

Let’s be honest though relying on a sequel to explain such a major shift from how Superman has been consistently portrayed is a terrible idea.

Because modern audiences can’t accept the idea of a character just having a moral center, apparently.

Henry Cavill is (potentially) a great Superman, Zack Snyder just refused to write a proper Superman.

And “We want whatthey have but don’t want to do the work,”

How about Superman doesn’t kill because his powers have allowed him to see and hear and experience more human suffering than most other characters in his world?

The dangers of “save it til the sequel...”

Agreed.

I didn’t really feel like the article was posed that way at all. In fact, I was kinda surprised by how little editorializing there was in the article. It seems to me that the article basically said, “Robin Wright has spoken on the issue for the first time and here’s what she said,” without assigning any motives or…

There is absolutely nothing Transphobic (which isn’t even a real thing and people are actually allowed to be averse to something if they want to be otherwise we can just called vegetarians carniphobic) about the lumberjack song. Graham Chapman was openly homosexual through out the entirety of his time alive with Monty…

Meaning you completely missed the point of the lumberjack sketch. Entirely.

Adults have the advantage of having been kids once, whereas kids have never been adults. If a time machine permitted you to meet your future self you should expect them to have some systematically different opinions, and on average you should defer to them based on having the same basic rationality (until dementia…

Are we supposed to be hating on the Lumberjack Song now? Because no, fuck that.  It's still great.

Graham Chapman was openly homosexual at a time when that still killed careers and was a vocal spokesman for LGBT rights all his life. Monty Python normalized homosexuality by twisting homophobic notions into absurdity. The Lumberjack Song is a great example of that.

Paul F Tompkins has a wonderful video that I don’t understand Kinja enough to figure out how to hotlink in this comment (google “Paul F Tompkins Political Correctness”) about how ANYTHING can be the topic of a joke... you just need a point. Always Sunny is a perfect example; are you taking the lazy route and making…

I’ve always thought that was spot on, none of them are against Loretta, they pass a motion of support for her.

I always thought the Lumberjack Song was very supportive of its lumberjack. The other characters freaking out, well, that was their problem.

I agree, but you make it sound like everything Python ever did was Seth MacFarlane-esque racist, sexist and homophobic jokes. In fact, most of it still holds up and is pretty neutral silliness, that actually more often makes fun of stiff squares. The stuff that doesn’t hold up is at least more “Well, those were…

Remarkably, the trans/Loretta joke in Life of Brian walked right along the border of offensive/supportive.

That wasn’t really my point. My point is that rather than adapt his material for the 2018, Gilliam is still using jokes that would have been funny 40 years ago, aren’t funny today, and is blaming the critics for “being too sensitive”. He’s blaming the audience for not laughing at his dated humor. Would the “With It”…