Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 7539737" data-attributes="member: 59082">If done well. That's the key - whether serious or silly. The GotG films are my least favorite of the MCU movies, not because I'm humorless but because I don't love the wink-wink, nudge-nudge kind of humor. I love Robert Downey Jr's humor, not so much the raccoon. But it was done well enough that I still liked the films, and I understand why people like it. If they can emulate GotG, sure. But its a fine line.I think we mean something different by "immersive." I agree about this sort of thing, but the other side of the spectrum is Xena-type dialogue, which sounds like people from 90s America in ancient Greece. You're getting into strawman territory. I'm not suggesting "playing the movie entirely straight." I'm saying don't mention game terminology within the movie; don't make corny D&D jokes; etc.Inherent means "existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute." By saying it is "inherently racist" you are saying that the mere idea of a dark-skinned evil race must be, always has to be, and is no matter what, a racist idea. That is simply illogical.Problematic because of how people might interpret it based upon their associations and historical context? Absolutely.Which is why it is problematic. What does this have to do with whether the idea of the drow itself is "inherently racist" or that any depiction of the drow as evil + dark-skinned is "inherently racist?"Yes, there is undoubtedly tinges of racism throughout. And I'm guessing that if you added up all the good guys and all the evils guys in the D&D canon, the good would tend towards European and white and the bad towards something other than European/white. I am not disagreeing with that. I am disagreeing with your use of "inherently racist" and conflation of it with "problematic." And...? First of all, you are judging GG in the 70s with an interpretive lens from 2018. Secondly, you are foisting your own value system onto it, as if one inherently must take a certain approach to such issues, or else be consigned to be racist.What I find troubling is that you are implying that an artist must self-consciously adjust their art to fit whatever the current social-political outlook du jour is, or else be considered racist (or whatever).I am not saying that one shouldn't be sensitive and aware. But I also worry when we start changing our art just to make sure we have all our boxes checked. I have no attachment to Gary as the Sacred Founder, and based upon what you say here I'm guessing he and I would not have been sympatico politically speaking. Who cares! But the problem here is that you take the "woke paradigm" as your default, unquestioned assumption. It is a paradigm, an outlook, based on academic social systems theory. It has value, but it is not objective fact and despite what many/most of its adherents (converts) think, it is not above criticism. And of course what is "woke" today will look myopic tomorrow. Hopefully!So while I don't disagree with your take on Gary, I don't like the implication that any perspective varying from the "woke paradigm" equates with being "unaware." This is just another way of saying, "If you disagree with me, you're wrong" or worse yet, "If you disagree with me on matters of race and don't buy into the woke paradigm, you're a racist." This is an endemic attitude, I'm afraid.</blockquote>

Verification