So that happened... Whedon's “history of creating toxic and hostile work environments”

I don’t really want to wade into this dispute, but I do want to note that you’ve managed to put me and @Acsenray on the same side of a dispute about superheroes, which is kind of an accomplishment…

Yeah, we know what you mean.

You’re still wrong.

If you tell me that the Eiffel Tower is constructed out of cheese, you don’t need to keep clarifying which varieties of cheese you’re talking about. I won’t agree with you when I finally understand you’re referring to Brie, not Cheddar; I won’t gasp in sudden understanding when you tell me you’re only talking about unpasteurized cheeses. Your statement is commendably clear. The issues folks have with what you’re saying are entirely based around how wrong you are, not on any sort of ambiguity.

Those were both R-rated films, which means in the United States that most theaters will not allow unaccompanied minors into the screening: a parent or adult guardian must accompany anyone under 17. In the UK, they were released with “15” ratings, meaning no one under the age of 15 was allowed to watch them in a theater (cinema) at all. Similar ratings were issued in other countries. “Aiming” at a demographic that was physically prevented from buying tickets would seem to be beyond stupid.

I’m going purely off content of the movies. I’ve watched a few of those super movies.

I know they are now two dimensional characters and have both super powers and another one thing about them and there are now two sides to the story instead of Ra Ra let’s punch Hitler but that’s still kids stuff

I don’t have a problem with Bronies or adult Marvel fans, even when they are in the theatre with my children but you have to admit that the blurry area between adult and children’s worlds can sometimes be where a predator best hunts.

Even adult DC fans are fine I guess.

As much as I love the Deadpool movies I don’t think there is much debate that they are juvenile.

Of course, there is miles between making a juvenile movie for adults and older children and “pure children’s areas”. Not that Whedon had anything to do with Deadpool.

Trying to compare The Avengers with Sesame Street is where Manwhich is so wrong. I’m sure he believe that Michael Bay is a purveyor of children’s programing too.

Just because you may consider mass-market superhero movies too shallow and dumb for adult minds (and I think there’s a rational case to be made for such a position even if ultimately I don’t agree with it) doesn’t mean that such movies aren’t intended for adult audiences.

Studio marketers know full well what demographics they’re targeting, and no movie with an R rating is targeting under-17s as its core audience.

You can just come out and say that you consider superhero movies childish without having to construct elaborate fantasies about their creators actually making them for children, you know.

The other shitty behaviour that Whedon thrived on was the protection of stars and great creators. Just toss out cunts if they keep being cunts I say.

His name also makes Japanese baseball game designers seem like good creators of fake American baseball player names.

No it’s more like somewhere between Harry Potter and The Outsiders.

I’ve never heard of the Outsiders so I’ll just assume its your definition of adult entertainment. and that you are now moving away from the “Pure Children’s areas” since avengers is between books that were aimed a children to late teenagers and adult programing. At least you’re getting less ridiculous.

I commended your clarity of writing earlier, as it made it obvious how wrong your assertion was. But this? This makes no goddamned sense.

Your argument seems to boil down to, “Joss Whedon makes entertainment that adults like but that is geared toward kids because the content and themes are more appropriate for children but he makes these entertainments that adults like with adult content and themes AND THAT IS WHAT A PREDATOR DOES.”

No. That’s not what a predator does. That’s a ridiculous assertion.

None of this is a defense of Joss Whedon. I’m really disappointed in him, the more I hear; he really is coming across as an egomaniacal asshole. But I’ve seen no evidence that he’s preying sexually on children, and Manwich, you’re playing connect-the-dots with a pepperoni pizza and a can of spray-cheese.

And if that metaphor seems like a confusing, nonsensical reach, well, exactly.

Genre fiction isn’t for children by default. Understanding that isn’t difficult, yet here we are.

Warning and 1 day suspension for Manwich. It was felt he was trolling with his posts in this thread. I was holding myself out of the judgement but then many more flags came in and other mods chimed in.

Your posting privilege will be discussed.

There are at least 4 posts in this thread that are basically trolling.

Same here. Sometimes “hostile and toxic work environment” is just that, a toxic and hostile work environment. “I am not at ease around this person” does not have only one possible answer to fill in the blank.

And the whole “he’s a neurotic asshole but oh the results he delivers” thing is overrated. Especially because it’s more often used to give license to other people who are just plain assholes, to claim that to be their case – or that if the way you are treated stays just this side of criminal conduct, then it’s not abuse and you should not complain.

Somewhat O/T but obligatory citations to Tolkien’s “On Fairy Stories” and LeGuin’s Language of the Night.

Yeah, being an abusive jerk is bad enough that we don’t need to speculate on other awful things Joss might have done. And it’s kind of refreshing to see a Hollywood scandal involving someone powerful that doesn’t revolve around sexual harassment for a change. Not that I’m happy Whedon created a toxic environment, but with Ellen and now Whedon’s behavior becoming more known by the public I hope it encourages others to speak out against abuse behavior like #metoo encouraged women to speak about sexual harassment.

I’ve seen women complain that they were sexually harassed because someone they matched with on Tinder asked them on a date. While I think that’s an extreme example, it seems like people are just oblivious to context in a lot of cases. There’s definitely a problem with toxic workplaces and “boys will be boys” behavior still. But one of the issues with AA and the “woke warrior” thing being discussed here is a problem with identity and people painting themselves into a corner by embracing these labels and apparently forfeiting the right to act human and make human mistakes in the process of seeking out normal activities.