|
To be fair, Grumman is primarily an Aerospace and Military Aviation company, not exactly Colt. Defense contractors are pretty much necessary for the country as it currently stands to keep moving with regards to militarization, and demonizing them so heavily seems a little weird to me; I mean, after a certain point, do you just not want the military to have planes? Marvel has been doing the "military good" thing for a while, considering Cap and all other sorts of heroes, and they're inevitably going to be all about glorifying someone punching someone else in the dick while in a tight spandex costume.
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 08:03 |
|
|
Well, too bad, I guess, Navy and Air Force need Wingnuts.. I've always sort of figured that Marvel and Disney in general were on the progressive train until the exact moment it lost them a cent of money, at which point they would hop right the gently caress off. If they see the ad deal with this corporation as being more likely to recoup cash than the comic sales they'll lose from it, it's pretty understandable to me why they'd go for it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
The way that the military works in this country can be a little uncomfortable, at times, but that's sort of the actual way of it, in the end. For why Marvel wants this, like I said, Grumman probably just dumped a bunch of money on them. It's very possible they want to do some recruiting comics to grab some engineering bodies, whether that would actually work or not, and Marvel is still a company; I never really expected they would, as a company, turn down dosh just because it wasn't progressive. I don't think anyone sat down in an office and said "Progressiveness bad, get me on the line with a defense contractor" they probably just got approached by someone from a company that has a massive amount of government money to dump on advertising and immediately chucked all thoughts of morals out the window because of a metaphorical bag with a dollar sign on it. Marvel has always been on the side of the military being primarily good and heroes, and I think they were just hoping people would see this as an extension of that, but it fell flat.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
I mean, we maintain planes because a superior air force is immensely important in modern day warfare. Defaulting to the thought that we'll probably just nuke each other eventually so it doesn't really matter doesn't seem to work in practice; that was the assumption that led to the USAF getting a bloodied nose from old MIG-15s in Vietnam. Still, regardless of whether you feel we need planes, it's definitely more than a little tone deaf to push this forward with a big smile considering their current reader base. Is it necessarily much worse to be trying to draw nerdy kids into going off to be engineers for a military aviation company than it is to try to be drawing kids to going off to join the military, though? It's hard to imagine that a partnership with Uncle Sam where Frank encourages kids to join the Marines would've been met with the same tenacity. e: There was a typo because I'm on my phone and I couldn't let it go Blade Runner fucked around with this message at 13:35 on Oct 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
I mean, yeah, it's the money. They wanted money. They're a corporation, I can't blame them too much over that. Grumman does legitimately do a lot of aerospace/NASA stuff, and I feel like you'd be hard pressed to find a company that's not doing something sort of hosed up at this point. I don't really feel animosity towards them for wanting advertisers, and I feel like there probably wouldn't be much outrage over them partnering up with Nestle for a classic "Superhero saves the day with the deliciousness of a candy bar" story, despite the reprehensible stuff that company has been up to lately.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
site posted:Things are going well at marvel pr dept I'm saying that blindly hating defense contractors just seems weird to me, and I don't feel like most of the people getting angry about this on Twitter are primarily annoyed about frivolous spending. Also to be fair, I believe Grumman is the primary support contact for A-10s and only has a minor role compared to other secondary contractors in Lockheed's aerospace developments (35 only, I think, primarily the radar and avionics suite, though I could be wrong) so if anything this post is a resounding advertisement for them
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:this really isn't a hard formula dude. Most people on the left side of things feel that we have a bloated military that sucks down billions while we're being told we just can't afford to feed kids or have healthcare. The contractors literally make their bones telling the government they actually need to keep buying planes that sit in hangars and rot just in case those crafty chinese start an air war or whatever. Again my major issue with them is the whole 'they also own a pmc that's doing genuine evil in the world and their weapon systems are being sold to our proxy wars and keeping them going' but the general 'blind hate' for defense contractors mainly comes from those of us who literally just recently got told that single payer healthcare was too expensive after a bipartisan budget boost of 700 billion for the military to just kinda do whatever was passed. Sure, but is that opposition wholly moral or more political? Like I said, I doubt anyone would skip a beat if you had a Nestle partnership with Marvel, and they've been going whole hog at murdering babies in impoverished countries, lately. I can accept that Grumman is awful, I just wonder at some types of awful being generally shrugged at. Marvel is partnered with Coca Cola and Ford, who have respectively hired PMCs to enslave and murder people in South America, and been a primary member of anti climate change lobbies. Acting like this is somehow a betrayal of their core values strikes me as weird. I guess this is sort of a "Well other companies are awful too" post, but realistically, they are, and specifically singling out this one partnership just strikes me as sort of weird.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
site posted:I can't speak for anyone else, but i haven't seen these other ads so i can't really post them to say look at them partnering up with this company that's a profiteer of slave labor and decimates local ecologies that's really gross and hosed up, and just because i haven't done so doesn't mean i endorse those ads and not these Coke's ad partnership with Marvel was their Superbowl commercial. That's pretty immense exposure. Their Ford ad was GotG 2.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
I think you're taking my statements personally, when that isn't how they're meant. I'm not saying you, personally, are cool with the acts of these mega corporations. I'm saying that the vast majority of people, comic readers among them, cannot seem to rouse themselves to give a gently caress; and in that same sense, you didn't see the Superbowl and you don't watch Network TV, but quite a lot of people do. Grumman also does innocuous aerospace stuff with NASA; honestly, it seems like the fact that it just plain hasn't needed good PR because it doesn't make consumer products is loving it over far more than its actual actions as a company. Getting up in arms about one thing because it's easy to do so but shying away from the acknowledgement of other similar things has always bothered me in that sense. It's the classic picture of someone saying that it's disgusting that a clothing company could use child labor, or abuse the third world for profit, posted from an iPhone 7.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:I mean, presumably you own a smartphone and/or a computer, so are you saying you yourself are not allowed to find any company's labor practices disgusting? Or do you think that maybe isn't the best argument? I post through a complex system of pulleys and levers But no, what I'm saying is that it feels like a pretty hollow thing to criticize Marvel for taking advertising money from one company simply because it owns a PMC subsidiary which does things that are inherently evil while sort of shrugging and saying "Well what can ya do" at best when confronted with another company that has far more closely and directly partnered with Marvel doing things that are(In my personal opinion, of course.)pretty much just as bad. I'm primarily talking about the outrage around this weirding me out; do you sincerely think that anyone would've even commented much on it if they'd announced they were coming out with a comic where Hulk eats some candy bars like Popeye downing spinach to beat up the Abomination? And isn't that sort of hyperfocus on the political accompaniments that go with tearing into a defense contractor over any corporation which just pisses on regulations and fucks people over a little hypocritical, when put into the lens of "associating with people who do hosed up things"? I'm not trying to put myself above anyone. I consume a ton of luxury goods and participate in lovely capitalism stuff more than even a normal person, in all likelihood. That's why I'm saying that I just can't really bring myself to find the partnership with Grumman so much more disgusting than their partnership with Coca Cola that I don't really feel like anything should be done about it. I'm saying that, if you're going to take a moral high ground sort of position with regards to advertising like that, you should do it with everything, not just selectively say that one company is bad for owning a PMC which does awful things(Though it definitely is bad for that.)and cannot be associated with, while another company is so ubiquitous that their own reprehensible acts just get a pass because there's nothing that can be done and Disney would sooner have literally nobody buying a single comic than lose a cent of that Coca Cola money. e: I can certainly accept that my line in the sand relative to capitalism is just different from other people's, and I'm willing to accept more awful acts than other people might be to be able to go into a grocery store and buy Wheaties in my pajamas. I'm also not advocating leaving the system(The iPhone analogy came up after an argument I got into with a friend about her claiming that a shirt I was wearing was made from child labor because of where I'd purchased it, me pointing out that she'd thrown a perfectly functioning iPhone 6 in the trash to get the 7 a couple of weeks before, etc. It was entirely anecdotal, and probably not entirely relevant, so I apologize for that.), I'm just saying that to criticize one it only feels proper to criticize another doing the same thing. If you're going to say that it's a moral wrong to advertise for Grumman, I feel like you also need to say it's wrong to advertise for Coca Cola, and apply the same sort of thrust to your push against Marvel for either of these things. Blade Runner fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Oct 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:I mean the thing about all of these "but aren't you being hypocritical arguments" is that they seem to just be an excuse for inaction, i.e. because you determine someone's actions to be inconsistent, they should do nothing, because otherwise it's "hollow". Like I said, it was mostly just the sheer vitriolic outrage that surprised me. The "How could Marvel possibly partner with such an evil corporation?! They're abandoning their core values." When they've been partnered with Coca Cola for years is a patently nonsensical thing to say that just refuses to acknowledge that Marvel has always been this sort of company, in my eyes. If partnering with Grumman is too far for some people, I can accept that. What I can't accept, at least without a bit of an odd look, is that sort of disgust and surprise like it's just out of nowhere or somehow any different from what they've always done.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:I mean I think part of the outrage being so intense this time is that people have been focusing more of a critical eye on Marvel lately in general as they've become more and more of an enormous media conglomerate and had more and more recent controversies (Ike Perlmutter being a huge Trump guy, Marvel saying diversity was killing its sales, etc). Political affiliations notwithstanding, I couldn't help but sort of laugh about Perlmutter essentially using money gained from sales of comics making fun of Trump to donate to his campaign. The sheer audacity of it killed me. As for the whole thing, I'm mostly saying that I feel it's necessary to acknowledge and keep in mind the other companies that Marvel partners with for their advertising before getting up in arms about this particular one. Taking a step in the right direction is good, but it needs to be acknowledged that it's a step in that direction. I can't bring myself to ever care about the actions of companies on a personal level to boycott because I'm a fuckman, but I definitely feel like if you're going to start scrutinizing Marvel for their advertising partners, stopping here is the wrong way to go with it. So it's the second one on a personal level, but the first one on the whole; I don't feel like I'm going to start really having the effort to care about any partnerships in advertising that Marvel is going to do. If someone does, and they want to start pushing against that, that's great; but they should also rail against other parts of that system doing the same thing, not act like the giant has been killed because his finger has been cut.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
I'm mostly confused about how someone like that manages to not get punched in the head constantly until he stops, honestly. Not even in a "Navy Seal man who would destroy anyone who so much as looked at me" way, just...how do you literally bite people and not get the poo poo kicked out of you as a reflexive reaction?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Frank Cho really should be in a ditch somewhere instead of working for prestigious comic companies. Why? I sincerely haven't heard of what he's done that's that bad, and didn't see it in a one minute Google search, so. Even in the article, his cited crime is drawing butts and refusing to stop drawing butts, ever, which hardly seems like "should die in a ditch" level stuff to me. And honestly, that article is all over the place. What Berganza did was awful by all rights, and while what David did was also pretty bad, acting like they're the same thing or on the same level is a little silly.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
zoux posted:Cho is a real dickhead about throwing his cheesecake in the faces of people who think that comics art can be oversexualized. Cho enjoying drawing butts and having some spicy opinions on people who do not want him to draw butts seems on a hugely different level than someone like Berganza, and does not seem like a reason to consign him to a ditch or make it impossible for him to work in comics ever again. It's bad for him to respond to people complaining that his work is over sexualized with an artistic "gently caress off idiot", but come on. The man likes drawing cheesecake and is annoyed that people don't want him to do that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Sure, but mentioning him right next to someone actually groping and pressuring women into sex is a little bit odd, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
I think that runs the risk of alienating and exasperating general people and losing ground, though. Generally, most anyone on the street is gonna agree that what Berganza did is disgusting and he should face consequences. Cho, a lot less so, and I feel like you're just moving quickly towards losing support if you try going after comparatively minor things. Basically, bad or not, I feel like you just end up giving people ammunition with this stuff. It's hard to defend someone literally trying to rape women (not to say it doesn't happen, but...) where it's pretty easy for people to act like someone is being crazy for trying to push Cho out of comics for drawing cheesecake in his off time. Blade Runner fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Expecting DC and Marvel to crack down on people drawing porn of their characters is a little weird, considering the nature of porn on the internet. I'm not 100% comfortable with agreeing to the point that companies should be able to tell their employees what they can and can't do in their off time or what opinions they can have, lovely or not. I realize that's already the world we live in, where the boss of your corporation can fire you because you look too much like his ex-wife since you got that new haircut, but that's a bad thing. I'm not going to stop supporting that not being a thing anymore or advocate for an addendum of "unless they have opinions I dislike" (To be clear, this is specifically for Cho. I feel like Berganza should be going to jail more than he should be getting fired, but oh well, take what you can get.) And I mean if we're going after people who put their weird fetishes into comics we have to go after Claremont and I like Claremont
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Mr. Maltose posted:Actually getting fired for being a sexist prick or, like, a Nazi is super good and should be happening more often. Like I said, while I'm 100% against those things, it's not a long road from there to people getting fired for being Communists or not voting a certain way. I'm not comfortable with an employer being able to dictate the opinions their employees must hold off the job. Getting fired for opinions is not good just because you dislike the opinions someone is getting fired for, and I feel like you have to ask yourself if you'd still agree with the concept of firing over opinions if it were happening to people you agreed with instead of disagreed with. Again, currently you can get fired for literally whatever, but I think that's bad and want it changed. I don't think there should be a "but not if you have retard opinions on things though" caveat. As for the porn stuff specifically, it's been pointed out that artists do porn while also working on comics all the time. Are they supposed to do a blanket ban on that, or just the porn you personally don't like?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
I don't think it's at all a slippery slope argument. This is not a degradation or a succession of objects, it's the same thing but turned around.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Superstring posted:You are making a slippery slope argument. And the reality is that Nazis and sexists are already not getting fired without overwhelming pressure so changing the system in some amorphous way so that people don't get fired for their thoughts and beliefs wouldn't actually change things from how they are now. I am not making a slippery slope argument because there is not a degradation, here. It is not a false equivalency that detracts to something else. It's not "If we outlaw guns, next we'll be outlawing pickup trucks and beer!!!" it's literally just "If you create legislation and make it acceptable to allow corporations to tacitly control what opinions their employees hold and what those employees can do in their off time, that is not only going to apply to opinions and off time activities you personally dislike." because of loving course it isn't. Like was said above, going back into McCarthyism isn't something I really feel like striving for.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 08:03 |
|
|
Mr. Maltose posted:Also, no one whos even being discussed here are just 'holding different opinions'. This is a matter of noted actions that have negative impact on the business. Hate speech is already reasonable grounds for termination. Sexual Harassment is already reasonable grounds for termination. We don't need to envision some new legal state where all worker rights have been stripped and we all talk corporately enforced Newspeak on pain of immediate termination via firing squad to have a system where companies can be pressured, finally after years of struggle, to get rid of categorically noxious humans. Drawing butts and having spicy opinions on people who do not want you to draw those butts is not sexual harassment nor is it hate speech. What Berganza did extremely was, and I 100% want him to go to jail for it, not just get fired. However, at-will employment is bad and I want it not to exist. Just, like, it's weird to me that people who I feel would rail against at-will employment in most discussions are 100% on board with it if it is used against people with lovely opinions; I get that it's cathartic to see a douchebag get owned, but you realize that if you managed to get worker's rights to a place that is actually good, it wouldn't just protect people with normal, non-broken idiot brains, right?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2017 01:19
|
|