So, like, artists are never aware of tropes previously used in the media that they’re working in, and each time, they’re like, “I have a novel idea! I’ll have the bad guy murder the hero’s daughter to motivate him to action?”

So, if I understand you, you agree that tropes exist, and you agree that some can be fairly interpreted as offensive, but you feel that simply naming a trope and saying “this is bad because it used a bad trope” is lazy criticism, because it doesn’t interrogate the context of the story as a whole?

or maybe there’s some intangible difference between what’s happening here and whatever’s happening with an NFT.

When one’s net worth hits, let’s say, $100M, they get a trophy for winning capitalism and a 100% marginal tax rate. 

And that’s . . . okay. Superheroes going the way of the Western has been predicted for more than a decade. The scale and volume will decrease, but, hopefully, the quality will increase. 

He says in the comment that you’re responding to that he knows it’s in the comics and liked it in the first movie, but less so in the 2nd. I’d say that’s a fair critique, comics fan or not. 

So, not rejecting the notion of tropes, only that their inclusion in a work of art does not necessarily make the work of art bad? In most cases, I would agree with this.

However, there are tropes that are born out of misogyny, racism, transphobia, and homophobia. In those cases, I would argue that their inclusion in a…

He did famously do that, though. The historical record is unclear on whether or not Admiral Akbar was heading up the Russian army at the time, however.

Hi, me again. Are you saying that, for example, there is no narrative cliche of women being killed or otherwise traumatized, primarily to motivate male characters? Or that that cliche exists but is fine? Or . . . do you just not like the word trope? Help me understand.

French & Saunders made the listicle. 

That’s right.

Might be worth noting that Simon is only calling for leniency in the case of “one of the four individuals arrested in connection” with Williams’ death. Could be that this is actually a pretty nuanced and well-researched position.

IIRC, they got the “wears clothes and speaks” part right, but not the “100+ year old pansexual revolutionary super-spy” part.

I’m still pissed that there’s never been a proper depiction of Mystique in any of the “Fox-Men” movies. She’s supposed to be a self-sufficient bad ass spy, who, and this is kind of important, not only speaks regularly, but almost always wears clothes. 

(The A.V. Club reached out to Singer for a comment, but has not heard back.)

I’ve got you.

*TickTok

I’ve heard this argument a lot, but I don’t get it. I’ve never found it necessary to believe that a major character could die in order to enjoy a TV show or movie. Also, it’s not unheard of in the MCU. Spider-Man: FFH went into production was announced before Endgame hit theaters, so we all knew Spider-Man (and, by…

Oof, yeah.