Ferdinand Von Aegir fan
The below entry was removed and despite contacting the person who did so, did not receive a response. Moving it here for discussion so a consensus can be reached:
Star Wars The Last Jedi spends a bit of the film critiquing capitalism by portraying the people at Canto Bight as greedy people who don't care about the world outside them and only care about money. The film ends that section of the plot by having the heroes cause some minor damage to the area, and implying that Capitalism is a bad system. The film is the second part of a trilogy of films produced by Disney, one of the largest companies to come out of a Capitalist based economy, and the series was bought by Disney specifically to make more money. The entire social commentary left a number of viewers confused because the entire anti-capitalism message comes across as hypocritical with the additional context of who helped make the film, and why they were really made to begin with.
Muramasa got. Hide / Show Replies
Man in the Yellow Hat
What the hell happened to the Eizouken example? From what I last heard the situation was open and shut; creator makes a statement about personal responsibility, creator gets caught doing something illegal, creator blames everyone but himself.
There's so much I wish I could take back.
"This page is not an excuse to be Complaining About Shows You Don't Like. And please don't add internet drama."
But we have a web original folder on the page?
Edited by ScarletNebula Hide / Show Replies
The entire page seems pretty bad, to be honest. The header explicitly states that for this trope to apply to fictional media, the behavior behind the scenes has to be outright illegal or incredibly morally reprehensible, but there's an example in the video games tab about a developer...removing a choice that you can make. How reprehensible.
I fat-fingered enter on my edit removing the Mike Matei thing from the web videos header before I could put a reason, but, in case anyone's wondering: I essentially think the note there makes it, at best, a *subversion* of this. People grow and change. Someone can be shitty when they're young, realize they're shitty as they get older, and work to fight that shittiness after.
If he made racist comics, currently attempts to fight racism, and did not address the dissonance here whatsoever, then I would be fine with it standing as a straight example; however, the note clarifies that he views them as an Old Shame and is extremely not proud of them, indicating that, rather than being some sort of secret monster, he just got less awful as time went on.
"This is especially true on shows that involve people out with the actual members of the show who could say or do anything they like on or off camera."
This sentence is utterly incomprehensible to me. If someone does understand it, could they please rephrase it?
Per TRS
, this is now a disambiguation page.
You can't always get what you want.