Batwoman

[yoco]

[alpacino]

The rate of likes/dislikes speaks loudly about how this is going to be a failure.

[anon]

This could actually be decent without all GIRL POWAH stuff going on... make no mistake, I'm all for equality, inclusion and respect, and it's good that some effort at all is being made towards that. However, the vibe I get from this trailer in particular (and other movies and TV shows in general) is less "anyone can be a hero" and more "we put a woman as the main character because we're so progressive, and we will let you know; oh, and she's a lesbian, too". To quote an analogy, it's as respectful as the Ku Klux Klan appointing a few token blacks as members...

[Instab]

"we put a woman as the main character because we're so progressive, and we will let you know; oh, and she's a lesbian, too".

you nailed it. the moral education many shows and movies have shown recently is annoying. how about letting the people decide for themselves what they like and what not? at least that's how a democracy is meant to be.

[austinpowers]

have u guys forgotten about Supergirl and her lesbian sister? LMAO

[slikrapid]

This could actually be decent without all GIRL POWAH stuff going on

we don't know what it could have been, because we will probably not see another version of this without the girl powerz

make no mistake, I'm all for equality, inclusion and respect

you're a male moderator on this forum, where are the equal female moderators?

the vibe ... is less anyone can be a hero

not everyone can be a hero (no equality in this case)

how about letting the people decide for themselves what they like and what not?

their decisions are to an extent based on movies/shows
movies/shows cannot be made without the moviemaker promoting his views or beliefs and therefore influencing the viewers

at least that's how a democracy is meant to be.

democracy is generally a poor system of governance

Democracy: Where any two idiots outvote a genius.

[Instab]

have u guys forgotten about Supergirl and her lesbian sister?

stuff like that is what we're referring to.

their decisions are to an extent based on movies/shows

which is their prerogative but does in no way mean the showrunners should use their products to indoctrinate the audience.

movies/shows cannot be made without the moviemaker promoting his views or beliefs

that's the showrunners' responsibility.

democracy is generally a poor system of governance

the very fact that you can say this here proves that it's not so bad after all

[slikrapid]

that's the showrunners' responsibility.

whatever the showrunner decides will promote his own views or beliefs, just like the moviemaker does in his own field of activity

the very fact that you can say this here proves that it's not so bad after all

but you could say the same sentence in some dictatorship... and the dictator would agree

[anon]

you're a male moderator on this forum, where are the equal female moderators?

I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body, so it all evens out

[Instab]

whatever the showrunner decides will promote his own views or beliefs

not necessarily. for example it depends on where the show is supposed to air, or which network it's supposed to be sold to, or what the people who finance the show want and so on ...

you could say the same sentence in some dictatorship... and the dictator would agree

i think you got what i meant

[slikrapid]

so it all evens out

karma would agree, so to speak

for example it depends on where the show is supposed to air, or which network it's supposed to be sold to, or what the people who finance the show want and so on ...

thats exactly my point: his choice of channels or networks shows his position/views, their choice of shows to run on their channels or networks shows their position/views, the people who finance the show will push their own position/views, etc. - all of this will have an effect, influencing the position/views of the audience

i think you got what i meant

sure, but the part of your conclusion that 'its due to democracy that this was possible' was erroneous, thus the 'dictator' example

[Instab]

thats exactly my point: his choice of channels or networks shows his position/views, their choice of shows to run on their channels or networks shows their position/views, the people who finance the show will push their own position/views, etc. - all of this will have an effect, influencing the position/views of the audience

looks like that got lost in translation. a showrunner is one specific person while what you listed are all involved parties.

the part of your conclusion that 'its due to democracy that this was possible' was erroneous

no. the point is that you can say what you want and not just what the "dictator" agrees with.

[slikrapid]

looks like that got lost in translation. a showrunner is one specific person while what you listed are all involved parties.

where is the problem? all of them have an influence - you can examine only the showrunner if you like

the point is that you can say what you want and not just what the "dictator" agrees with.

a democracy, just like any other system, also has laws, some of which regulate what you cannot say without the risk of getting prosecuted or punished, therefore it would be erroneous to claim that you can just say whatever you want without legal consequences

[Instab]

a democracy, just like any other system, also has laws, some of which regulate what you cannot say without the risk of getting prosecuted or punished, therefore it would be erroneous to claim that you can just say whatever you want without legal consequences

lol okay let me rephrase: you can say more than in most other forms of government.

[slikrapid]

let me rephrase: you can say more than in most other forms of government.

that depends on how benevolent or repressive the system is in practice - a benevolent ruler may allow more freedom of speech than a repressive democracy - in case you didn't notice, our current democracies have relatively steadily been heading towards an orwellian totalitarianism