So, the movie decided to "emancipate" itself from its own title because apparently, that was too much work. Now it's just being called Birds of Prey. Warner Bros. is probably banking on this little tweak to squeeze out more cash by making it crystal clear to audiences who they’re actually watching. Or maybe they aren't. Who knows? Honestly, I doubt it'll make a lick of difference.
Everyone’s out here kneeling over everything lately, but honestly, the funniest part is watching the "progressives" tear each other apart in the process.
Back at the end of last year, the kneeling started when people claimed male audiences were intentionally boycotting the latest adaptation of Little Women. According to some "progressive" logic, a movie with a theme of "women about women for women" should have naturally drawn in massive crowds of men. In fact, they acted like men were practically obligated to show up. This was happening right when the film still needed to build some momentum at the box office, so they were all set to "progressively" blame the guys if it turned out to be a flop.
Once the movie actually started doing okay (it’s sitting at $107.3 million on a $40 million budget right now—and it’s being watched twice as much in the US as anywhere else in the world), the narrative flipped. Suddenly, everyone was arguing that Little Women didn't even need a male audience to succeed. Turns out, men make up about one-third of the audience for Little Women, which is totally normal for a movie like this.
Then, the finger-pointing shifted toward Greta Gerwig’s own feminist stances. Now they're questioning how Little Women romanticizes "white privilege" and accusing the whole thing of being nothing more than a lecture from one "privileged white woman."
northerndriver said:Look, there’s zero biological or phenotypic logic in having a Black actress play Elsa from Frozen or designing her as a dark-skinned character since she's from the far north. If they wanted to create a character like a little Eskimo girl, fine, but definitely not a dark-skinned one.
But hey, look at Moana as a prime example of a successful original character. It honestly feels like Black actors are actually overrepresented in Disney films lately. At this rate, all we need is for some gay Black tranny to play Elsa just to really complete the whole absurd circle...
People will easily toss biological or phenotypic logic out the window in favor of "progressivism" since we're dealing with a totally fictional, fairy-tale character anyway. It would almost make sense if skin color affected her powers, but within the reality of political correctness, it’s somehow "illogical" that an ice princess can't be dark-skinned. Isn't that the whole point of "inclusivity" nowadays—that anyone can be anything? The same goes for an Eskimo character. Why does she have to be stereotypically tied to coldness and ice? Why can't she be portrayed any other way?
But here's the kicker: this famous "inclusivity" is selectively pushed not because it makes sense for the fairy-tale world-building, but because they're chasing a specific demographic. Let's face it, a dark-skinned Elsa probably wouldn't be as profitable for Disney as this pale version. You only have to look at how much The Princess and the Frog made ($271m) versus Frozen ($1.276b), or compare the amount of Tian toys versus Elsa toys out there.
They already tried pushing the idea of Elsa being gay, but Disney knows that would be total suicide. Maybe that snowman can be gay, but Elsa? Hard pass. In the end, "political correctness" always turns out to be incredibly hypocritical.
velvetmaker78 said:Reading about their eyes is an even bigger nightmare. Honestly, it’s like some insecure teenager having a meltdown wrote this—it makes zero sense.
Hollywood can't even come up with original characters in white culture (just look at the current trends), let alone for a Black person, so why is everyone acting so shocked and disappointed? 🤔
So, where are all the original white characters? Seriously! Look at how Disney handled Rey—it was like they’d never even seen a Star Wars film before. And you wouldn't know it from the progressives, either; nobody was tearing their hair out to demand some young Black woman take over the role, even though it was such a perfect opportunity. Then Disney gives us everyone's favorite, Elsa from Frozen, and once again, she’s white as a sheet—and blonde on top of it! It’s like a textbook example of "diversity," just totally lopsided. Why weren't they "brave" enough to actually give us a dark-skinned ice princess? It's not like winter and ice are exclusive to white people. Or did Disney just decide that the target audience for Frozen wouldn't relate to a dark-skinned princess, so they’d make less money? Makes sense, right?
Honestly, you can't even deny there’s enough crazy material here to keep anyone stunned.
Honestly, I’m just constantly let down by how creatively bankrupt "progressive" Hollywood has become. Instead of actually doing the work to honor Black culture by building genuinely original characters, they just take the lazy route with all this racebending and raceswapping nonsense. It feels like they're just pandering rather than actually creating anything meaningful.
It’s pretty wild how all that "progressive" casting talk completely vanished when they were picking Belle for the 2017 Beauty and the Beast. Funny how it always seems to be the redheads who end up getting targeted for racebending, isn't it? I’m just gonna say it because someone has to: I am absolutely losing my mind over this whole "casting" debate. Seriously, can we please stop acting like a movie studio is committing a federal crime every time they cast someone who doesn't look exactly like the drawing in a storybook? It feels like every time a big studio announces a remake, the internet erupts into this massive, angry meltdown. People are out here acting like their entire identity is being erased because a certain character isn't a redhead or a specific shade of pale. Give me a break! It’s a movie. A fantasy. A piece of entertainment. Since when did watching a film become such a high-stakes political battlefield? Look, I get it. Representation matters. Truly. We need more diverse stories and more people seeing themselves on screen. But there’s a massive difference between fighting for actual visibility and throwing a tantrum because a character's hair color changed. When you scream "#NotMyAriel" every time Disney decides to shake things up, you aren't actually fighting for progress—you're just being loud and making it impossible for anyone to actually have a conversation about what matters. It’s exhausting. I’m sitting there trying to enjoy the magic, the music, and the spectacle, and then I scroll down and see people acting like the world is ending because a character looks a little different than they imagined. It’s not that deep, guys. Really. It’s just a movie. Let’s all take a collective breath and maybe find something else to be outraged about, because this is getting ridiculous.
Word on the street from the audition tapes for Ghostbusters III is that they might actually turn the main characters into a bunch of 12 or 13-year-old kids.
Leslie Jones is trying to wrap her nonsense in pretty little gift wrap now:
"It’s very sad that this is response I get.When the point is if they make this new one with all men and it does well which it will. It might feel that “boys are better”it makes my heart drop. Maybe I could have use different words but I’m allowed to have my feelings just like them."
bluebison8 said:I honestly don't give a damn about what those crazies in the States want or don't want. It looks like Hollywood is finally starting to realize they can't just force this group's insanity on the entire world overnight and expect everyone to buy it. Comics lost most of their readers when they tried that crap, and now various movie franchises have lost their fanbases too (ST, SW, Ghostbusters). The word on the street is that these franchises are going to try and get back on track—giving the original fans what they actually want first, and then maybe catering to the new crowd later (because let's face it, there are way more original fans out there).
The success of shows like Stranger Things just proves my point.
Yeah, Hollywood is finally getting a reality check. It’s just hilarious how much brain damage those "progressives" have; suddenly they’re crying because this new movie might have a "white male director," even though they didn't have a single issue with it during Ghostbusters 2016.
bluebison8 said:And what else was he supposed to say? Anything negative would’ve just absolutely buried him. The guy's goal is to make money and deliver a hit movie, not become some mascot for the Alt-right.
The whole point is that even though he respects the original movies, the "progressives" just can't handle his idea of making a sequel that actually ties back to the originals.
“I have so much respect for what Paul created with those brilliant actresses, and would love to see more stories from them. However, this new movie will follow the trajectory of the original film,”
So apparently, people are claiming the new flick insults the fans of Ghostbusters (2016) by basically ignoring its existence and pivoting back to the "original universe." Which is hilarious, because ignoring the "original universe" was supposedly such a huge, "progressive" move for Ghostbusters (2016). Seriously, how does a movie with all those "progressive" fans still end up being such a massive flop?
hollowowl15 said:Like, what if some white mouse dies in a lab?🙄 Seriously, who could even handle that? And then you've got some hungry mouse from South America eating the white one. My god, who's going to be there to wipe away all those white mice's tears? 😢
We already know who'd be doing the wiping: Minnie Mouse.
neondriver7 said:I honestly don't see them casting just two white actors for the four leads. If they did that, it would feel like they’re still overcompensating by centering white characters again. I’m betting on one person from every background. Maybe even a little cameo from an old character if they're feeling nostalgic.
"Overcompensating"? Are you serious? Like what happened with Ghostbusters (2016)? Because if I recall correctly, they weren't exactly "progressive" back then—they just had three white women with degrees and one Black woman who was supposedly "street smart."
Susan Taylor72 said:you're totally out of the loop. White feminism is basically trash right now.
Who’s actually saying this, though? Black feminists? If it's coming from them, then yeah, I get it. After all, their "white sisters" were the ones who flat-out said "no" when they tried to recast Buffy Summers as a Black woman in Buffy Summers.
nimblemarlin6 said:They’ve got everyone in there: gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual... you name it. But hey, let's be real—ghosts could just as easily be mixed-race or have any sexual orientation you can think of. That kind of lineup is a goldmine for endless plot twists, sequels, and spin-offs.
Honestly, that point about the ghosts is spot on. It would give all that "progressive" stuff a whole new dimension.
The main villain should definitely be genderfluid.
neondriver7 said:I’m thinking one white guy or girl. Everyone else? Black, Asian, or Latino/Arab.
Look, if there's a white woman in the mix, it’s obviously going to be because of that whole "white feminism" thing. And if they throw in a white guy, it’s just a blatant attempt to counter that last all-female lineup—which, let's be real, was pretty racist in its own way. If it isn't a white, hetero male, fans are gonna start boycotting again, and I bet you anything Sony is sweating bullets trying to play it safe this time.
neondriver7 said:Supposedly the main characters are just some teenagers, maybe 13 to 16 years old.
Look, if you ask me, I’d vote for a lineup like this: one white guy, one white girl, one Asian guy, and one Black girl. It hits that sweet spot of being diverse enough without feeling like they're shoving it down your throat, you know?
neondriver7 said:Not happening. They’re going with all-new characters. It’ll be a 50/50 split between men and women, and who knows what the racial makeup will be. Honestly, the actors from the original movies might not even show up at all—and if they do, it’ll just be cameos. Besides, let's be real, the original cast wasn't exactly a monolith of one race.
The whole point of this massive shitstorm is that the "progressive" crowd loses their minds the second they think a man might actually have a lead role, let alone a white guy. I mean, didn't Sigourney have a kid in the original? That kid could totally be one of the new Ghostbusters, especially since this movie is supposed to be a direct sequel.