# Black Widow teaser



## trappedslider (Dec 3, 2019)

FAMILY!


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Dec 3, 2019)

I know it's supposed to be set in the past, but I'd love it if it turned out that they had secretly undone her death in Endgame. It's not like people stay dead in the comics.


----------



## RSIxidor (Dec 3, 2019)

Looks pretty good. Average power level of characters being lower than the rest of the films should be interesting.



Ralif Redhammer said:


> I know it's supposed to be set in the past, but I'd love it if it turned out that they had secretly undone her death in Endgame. It's not like people stay dead in the comics.




We don't know much about the Soulworld in MCU. Would be something if this was entirely a construction of the Soulworld and Natasha facing her past somehow helped her escape.

Honestly, though, I seriously doubt they'll do that. Really feels like this is more of an exploration of the character without building her into another ongoing story from here.


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 3, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran (Dec 3, 2019)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> I know it's supposed to be set in the past, but I'd love it if it turned out that they had secretly undone her death in Endgame. It's not like people stay dead in the comics.




So, if this were a comic book, I'd be cool with that.

In the movies, though, I'm not sure why they'd do that - the Avengers, as she knew them, are done.  She was solidly entrenched in the history of that group.  Going forwards, there isn't a good hook to include her.  So, what story are you going to tell that justifies resurrection?

I expect my wife will have zero interest in this film.  I will see it because I find I'm a bit of a completionist with respect to Marvel movies. :7


----------



## Gradine (Dec 3, 2019)

Is it too much to ask for a Marvel movie that _doesn't _have any fat jokes? 

Pumped for the rest of it though.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 3, 2019)

I’m actually kinda excited for that. Didn’t expect to be, because it’s so far past the point where I thought a BW movie would be interesting (ya know, half a dozen movies ago at least), but it actually looks like a good movie.


----------



## Salthorae (Dec 3, 2019)

I'm intrigued... and so confused. I have no idea when this is supposed to be happening.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 3, 2019)

Umbran said:


> I will see it because I find I'm a bit of a completionist with respect to Marvel movies. :7



I don't need to be a Marvel completionist to watch this.

Heck, I don't need to even like superhero movies to watch ScarJo do backflips* in tight leather pants!
*) haven't watched the trailer at this time; would be surprised if there's no backflips


----------



## Morrus (Dec 3, 2019)

Marvel movies are definitely "wait till they're on TV or a streaming platform I have" territory for me now. After Endgame, where I felt kinda obliged to keep up, I don't feel that need any more.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Dec 3, 2019)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> I know it's supposed to be set in the past, but I'd love it if it turned out that they had secretly undone her death in Endgame. It's not like people stay dead in the comics.



I very much wonder how it shook out when Captain America returned the Soul Stone to Vormir. Do the rules of a soul for a soul work both ways?

I'm hoping for an end credits scene that resolves that question. But I'm not holding my breath or anything.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 3, 2019)

Morrus said:


> Marvel movies are definitely "wait till they're on TV or a streaming platform I have" territory for me now. After Endgame, where I felt kinda obliged to keep up, I don't feel that need any more.




Every movie they'd done since Thor 2 has, for me, hit the mark.  So, my completionist desire is somewhat supported by my enjoying the things.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Dec 3, 2019)

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it'll actually shake out that way. But it's not like they haven't brought back/are bringing back other characters:

Loki
The Vision
Thanos
Gamora

There are plenty of mechanical ways to bring her back - time travel, soul gem hijinks, etc. But I would agree, there needs to be a narrative reason to do so. I'm sure they could come up with something, but will they?



RSIxidor said:


> Honestly, though, I seriously doubt they'll do that. Really feels like this is more of an exploration of the character without building her into another ongoing story from here.






Umbran said:


> In the movies, though, I'm not sure why they'd do that - the Avengers, as she knew them, are done.  She was solidly entrenched in the history of that group.  Going forwards, there isn't a good hook to include her.  So, what story are you going to tell that justifies resurrection?






BookBarbarian said:


> I very much wonder how it shook out when Captain America returned the Soul Stone to Vormir. Do the rules of a soul for a soul work both ways?
> 
> I'm hoping for an end credits scene that resolves that question. But I'm not holding my breath or anything.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 3, 2019)

I was afraid that it would just be another "Anna" or "Red Sparrow", with a Black Widow coat of paint. Glad to see it's more than that.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 3, 2019)

BookBarbarian said:


> I very much wonder how it shook out when Captain America returned the Soul Stone to Vormir. Do the rules of a soul for a soul work both ways?




Probably not.  Because otherwise, the sacrifice to get the stone isn't really an issue.  You want the stone?  Put your friend in a box for a while, come back and get them out when you are done.  No big deal.


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Dec 4, 2019)

.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 4, 2019)

Taskmaster?


----------



## Sadras (Dec 4, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Is it too much to ask for a Marvel movie that _doesn't _have any fat jokes?




These guys are required to be in peak condition all the time to fit into their tight suits/gear and perform - it is nice to see that they struggle (and lose sometimes) with weight. It humanizes them.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 4, 2019)

Ryujin said:


> I was afraid that it would just be another "Anna" or "Red Sparrow", with a Black Widow coat of paint. Glad to see it's more than that.



Those two movies sucked imo. There are better "female assassin" movies to hope for!


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 4, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> Those two movies sucked imo. There are better "female assassin" movies to hope for!




And both pretty much aped the Black Widow's origin story. Well, one of them at least; the later one.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 4, 2019)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> IIRC, the taskmaster can help tie in the MCU with the X-universe and Deadpool.




Taskmaster is mostly an Avengers villain.  He has interacted with Deadpool, but Taskmaster doesn't have a big X-universe history.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Dec 4, 2019)

Sadras said:


> These guys are required to be in peak condition all the time to fit into their tight suits/gear and perform - it is nice to see that they struggle (and lose sometimes) with weight. It humanizes them.



Right but they can have that without the joke in the trailer or indeed in the movie. Hell they could have one of them look at the guy who gained weight and say "Yeah, we're all getting older"


----------



## BookBarbarian (Dec 4, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Probably not.  Because otherwise, the sacrifice to get the stone isn't really an issue.  You want the stone?  Put your friend in a box for a while, come back and get them out when you are done.  No big deal.



But who, besides the Avengers would ever even consider putting it back. These are WMDs on a scale otherwise unknown.

Anyone one who gets the soul stone likely wants absolute power for themselves, or is enacting a grand design like Thanos himself and still wouldn't want to put it back.

Heck if the only reason the Avengers themselves are considering putting it back is to try to preserve their (already screwed up) timeline. If they weren't trying to do that they'd leave it in Wakanda or something.

I think we have here the only time someone has tried to return the Stone to Vormir. Which piques my curiosity about it.


----------



## Kaodi (Dec 4, 2019)

I am definitely in the boat where I need to wind down on seeing MCU films in theatre. There will be exceptions though - Spider-Man as a rule, and I think I may see this one, partly because studios need to see female led films succeed, partly to see Black Widow finally get her due.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 4, 2019)

BookBarbarian said:


> But who, besides the Avengers would ever even consider putting it back. These are WMDs on a scale otherwise unknown.




Once it became known that the Soulstone was available for cheap?  Pretty much anyone.  Great power, for a time, at very small cost?  Huzzah!



> Anyone one who gets the soul stone likely wants absolute power for themselves, or is enacting a grand design like Thanos himself and still wouldn't want to put it back.




Again, yes, if the cost is high, the only ones who will want it are those who wouldn't want to put it back.  But... once the price goes down?  I lose the love of my life.  My best friend goes with me, goes in a box for a bit, I get my love back, then retrieve my friend.  It'd be a bloody revolving door!



> Heck if the only reason the Avengers themselves are considering putting it back is to try to preserve their (already screwed up) timeline. If they weren't trying to do that they'd leave it in Wakanda or something.




Wakanda has already shown an inability to protect a single stone, much less the full set.

And, no, they don't have to put them back to preserve their own timeline - that's not how this works.  They are putting them back because to do otherwise creates alternate timelines that are _screwed_ without them, and that's pretty unethical.



> I think we have here the only time someone has tried to return the Stone to Vormir.




I think that unlikely.  I mean, there appears to be a _system_ here.  The Space Stone _sent the Red Skull_ to Vormir.  Why?  

You don't need a complicated system to guard a thing that nobody is ever expected to access.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Dec 4, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Once it became known that the Soulstone was available for cheap?  Pretty much anyone.  Great power, for a time, at very small cost?  Huzzah!




Is there some kind of "extra! extra! read all about it" soul stone newspaper out there? The amount of people who know about the stones is few. The amount of people who know the soul stones location is even fewer. The amount of people who know about it's cost? even fewer. That we know of it's Thanos, Nebula speculating about the loss of her sister, and Clint bringing the news back to the Avengers.



Umbran said:


> Again, yes, if the cost is high, the only ones who will want it are those who wouldn't want to put it back.  But... once the price goes down?  I lose the love of my life.  My best friend goes with me, goes in a box for a bit, I get my love back, then retrieve my friend.  It'd be a bloody revolving door!



Again, who is going to know about this? Does the ghost of the Red Skull gossip in cheap bars?



Umbran said:


> Wakanda has already shown an inability to protect a single stone, much less the full set.



 Against a being wielding all the other stones yes, but now the Avengers have all those stones in their possession. Still it's a valid point that Cap and T'Challa are certain to consider and probably agree with you on. If Tony were alive however...



Umbran said:


> And, no, they don't have to put them back to preserve their own timeline - that's not how this works.  They are putting them back because to do otherwise creates alternate timelines that are _screwed_ without them, and that's pretty unethical.



 A great point. The Ancient one explained that, and I wasn't thinking about it.



Umbran said:


> I think that unlikely.



You are right it's probably not a singleton, but given the amount of people with intricate knowledge of the Stones/Gems, their locations, abilities, and drawbacks is pretty limited,  I just can't imagine the number of beings walking the stone back being very high.

That we know of, Thanos has the most knowledge on the subject and he didn't even know the cost at all before showing up on Vormir!

I think those who would have this knowledge of this cost aren't really the types to talk about. Clint did, but Thanos didn't tell a soul (pun intended) and I think of the kinds of beings who seek these stones they are far more likely to skew toward his perspective than Hawkeye's. That doesn't mean I'm right of course. The very fact that said knowledge would be so rare indicates that I also have no flipping idea how it works.

But speculate with me for a bit. if Nat did come back after Steve drops the stone, who would know about it? Who would know she was the cost in the first place? Who would connect the two together?Extrapolate that to anyone else who may have walked the stone back to Vormir and postulate the likelihood of such knowledge being as commonplace as you suggest when even the knowledge of the cost itself was so rare.

However, all the in world logic aside (which I admit is total speculation from my end anyway), from a greater storytelling perspective, it would obviously lessen the impact of the sacrifice on the audience, which probably means you are right. They won't do it.


----------



## MarkB (Dec 4, 2019)

I'm just so glad they're tying up the plot thread of what happened to Jim Hopper after the end of the last season of Stranger Things.


----------



## jonesy (Dec 4, 2019)

BookBarbarian said:


> Right but they can have that without the joke in the trailer or indeed in the movie. Hell they could have one of them look at the guy who gained weight and say "Yeah, we're all getting older"



The whole line is weird. I've watched the trailer multiple times and he is not fat. At all. He is normal size. If that is his fat then I'd really like to see how skinny he was before. It's almost like the line was written for another larger actor who then got replaced.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 4, 2019)

BookBarbarian said:


> Is there some kind of "extra! extra! read all about it" soul stone newspaper out there?




I dunno.  Gamora found the location all on her own.  She's physically powerful, but has no information-gathering powers to speak of.  



> he amount of people who know about the stones is few.




I don't know about that.  The things have been around literally forever.  There is sufficient lore that Thanos knows that if he brings them together he can pull off his plan.  Odin, Thor, Loki, and by extension a bunch of other Asgardians who deal with Odin's treasury knew what they were.  The Dark Elves knew what they were.  The Ancient One knew.  The Collector knew - and put out contracts for their retrieval, and low-life Ravagers could find them.  It actualy looks like, once you get off Earth, everyone and their grandmother knows at least a little about them.

It seems to me that it is not surprising Gamora could find them - just needed legwork from someone other than Thanos and his most creepy poor-social-skills minions to find it out.



> The amount of people who know the soul stones location is even fewer.




See above.  Maybe stuff comes together for someone to try every generation or so.  Most of them are power-hungry idiots, and they _can't_ get the Soul Stone because they don't actually love anyone but themselves.  



> The amount of people who know about it's cost? even fewer. That we know of it's Thanos, Nebula speculating about the loss of her sister, and Clint bringing the news back to the Avengers.




Dude, the whole point is that if it is cheap to use, it _wouldn't remain secret_.  Word of a good deal gets around.  If it is cheap, the people who die and come back again _would talk about their experience_ when they got back.  

Thus, it isn't cheap, because that would have become known.  Since it isn't known, it isn't cheap - you don't get your quarter back when you return the carriage.  

In the comics continuity, the Souls lost to the stone _can_ be gotten back.  But it is far more complicated than getting your deposit back when you return it.




> If Tony were alive however...




Tony was poster child for bad life decisions.  Tony's life was causing the problems he then had to go fix.  Do not listen to Tony.  



> You are right it's probably not a singleton, but given the amount of people with intricate knowledge of the Stones/Gems, their locations, abilities, and drawbacks is pretty limited,  I just can't imagine the number of beings walking the stone back being very high.




Then... how does the Stone get there at all?  If nobody ever takes it back, why would you have a deposit-bottle mechanism on the thing?  



> That we know of, Thanos has the most knowledge on the subject and he didn't even know the cost at all before showing up on Vormir!




Again, that doesn't suggest there's a deposit-bottle mechanism.  



> But speculate with me for a bit. if Nat did come back after Steve drops the stone, who would know about it?




Presumably Cap.  I mean, if Cap doesn't know and bring her back, then she's stuck on Vormir - interstellar travel's not in her power set.  



> Who would know she was the cost in the first place? Who would connect the two together?




All the Avengers knew she was the cost - and Cap comes back for Tony's funeral, to turn the shield over.  Do you think Cap would _let Clint Barton and the rest live with the guilt_ when he could remove it?  That's not how Cap rolls.


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 4, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Dec 5, 2019)

.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 5, 2019)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> So Deadpool IS part of the x-universe, and has intereacted with the Taskmaster.
> 
> Taskmaster is interacting with the Black Widow (SarJo).
> 
> ...




Oh, wait.  I think you misunderstood me.

Taskmaster has not yet appeared in any movie, to my knowledge.  In the movie continuity, he hasn't interacted with anyone yet.  Movie-Deadpool has never met Movie-Taskmaster.  There is no movie continuity to exploit here.

I was saying they'd interacted _in the comics_.  But, the Avengers (and Spider-Man, and everyone else) has interacted with the X-men directly in the comics.  You can hook them in my noting that, like, Peter Parker dated Kitty Pryde for a while, or whatever.  Taskmaster doesn't actually add anything you don't already have elsewhere for a hook.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 5, 2019)

jonesy said:


> The whole line is weird. I've watched the trailer multiple times and he is not fat. At all. He is normal size. If that is his fat then I'd really like to see how skinny he was before. It's almost like the line was written for another larger actor who then got replaced.




From every Russian I’ve ever known, if he used to be noticeably more fit, the line isn’t out of place in the slightest. 

And he definitely is chubby. From a non American standard, “fat” isn’t wildly inaccurate. His fat is pretty well proportioned, but if he used to have the sort of physique we expect from superheroes...

It’s a crummy joke, but it’s not especially out of place.


----------



## Sadras (Dec 5, 2019)

BookBarbarian said:


> Right but they can have that without the joke in the trailer or indeed in the movie. Hell they could have one of them look at the guy who gained weight and say "Yeah, we're all getting older"




Because the word "fat" is now that offensive?
Stand-up comedy must be dying in USA. I miss the days of George Carlin.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 5, 2019)

I’ll watch it. But this should have come out years ago.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 5, 2019)

Sadras said:


> Because the word "fat" is now that offensive?




No.  Because we are becoming more aware that how we treat people matters, and shaming people for their  bodies is hurtful. 

It isn't as if fat jokes are thoughtful, insightful, well-crafted comedy that you can be proud of.  It's a pretty cheap shot, all in all.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 5, 2019)

Sadras said:


> Because the word "fat" is now that offensive?
> Stand-up comedy must be dying in USA. I miss the days of George Carlin.



He wouldn’t agree with you.


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 5, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 5, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Um, I won't quote it, but his whole, "Americans love to eat" routine might disagree with you.



He loved talking about social issues, including obesity, but he wouldn’t bemoan that some people don’t like fat jokes. 

And I know that routine. It was just a cheap fat joke. 

Also see, Carlin speaking on Andrew Dice Clay.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 5, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Um, I won't quote it, but his whole, "Americans love to eat" routine might disagree with you.




Carlin was old enough to be working under the false assumption that everything was about force of will and character.  I don't think he really grasped addiction and depression and socio-economic influences behind what he saw.


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 5, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 5, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> I don't know. I think it's, well, complicated. More complicated than many people want to let on. I mean - just look at this; you can't invoke Carlin without recognizing that many of his routines aren't cutting edge today- a lot of comedy is very time-sensitive, especially comedy that deliberately shocks. (I mean, Lenny Bruce is amazing for many reasons, but he's not actually ... ha ha funny to modern sensibilities).
> 
> It's very easy to say something like that the particular routine was just a cheap fat joke, because of the excessive and shocking verbiage. But it was also a critique of American culture at the time, and part of the overall "argument" in that Carlin was making.
> 
> ...




So, typos are really annoying. I typed that it *wasn’t just a cheap fat joke*. Probably missed a letter and it corrected to “was”. 

My point was exactly that Carlin _didn’t do that_. He shocked, but he did so while making a point about society, which is why I doubt he’d agree with the sentiment that something is missing from modern comedy. 

As for comedy on serious topics, I agree completely. In general, though, if a comedian isn’t part of a group involved with a serious issue, they should be pretty damn careful making jokes about it.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 5, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Look at what @Umbran just wrote; yes, there are many serious issues. And one approach is to always treat those serious issues, seriously. Deferentially. But that's not the only approach. We laugh about the most serious things there are, and always have - death, for example ("black humor"). Whether you subscribe to the Aristotelian/Plato view of humor (that humor is scorn and malicious) or not, I think that it is dangerous to begin roping off areas as being "too serious" or "too important" to approach with a comedic view.




Let me be clear - I didn't say anything about it being too serious to joke about.  I said the way he did it was hurtful.  While Carlin may have felt he was observing culture in that segment, what he was actually doing was normalizing bullying people for their weight.  He _misidentified the root cultural phenomenon_ he was observing, and took easy shots at the wrong targets.

This is a possible problem any time a comedian takes shots at an entire demographic group, rather than an individual.  I this case, Carlin got it wrong, and it aged very poorly as our understanding has increased.

It is a darn shame, because I think Carlin could have taken wonderful shots at the right targets. 

Now, in the right context (which may appear in the movie) the Harbour thing may actually be good - a bit of wistful self-effacement on how middle-age takes us all, eventually.  And maybe it even turns into something more like what Lebowski-Thor eventually gets us - body shape doesn't determine value.


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 5, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 5, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 5, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> While I think that a comedian should be careful (and always strive for the better, less obvious joke), I also think it's important to give space for comedy to breathe, evolve, and change.
> 
> Think of any field that people get involved in; more often than not, you don't start out doing your best. The short stories you write in college are unlikely to be as nuanced or evolved as the novel you might write in your later 20s, with more reps. And so on.
> 
> ...



I’m fine with all that, and actively agree with most of it. 

When I say comedians have to be careful, I simply mean exactly that. If I, a white Hispanic dude, make a joke involving Black people/culture, it is even more important than otherwise that I’m not “punching down”. That doesn’t mean I can’t make jokes about the differences between Black and White American culture, or about racism, it just means that it is a much more “dangerous” territory for me.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 5, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> You think that the entire part of that act (discussing what he perceived to be the problems with consumerist culture, specifically Americans lulled into eating and buying stuff continuously to their own detriment while transferring all the wealth in the country to the richest) was misidentifying the target he was going for?



Tbf, he is kinda still “aiming” at the consumer, rather than the people making and selling the food, or creating the conditions where the cheap food is high calorie garbage full of excess sugar, etc. 

OTOH, he aims more strongly at the rich and powerful, as he almost always does, and at the fact that they are so greedy that they will destroy the health of generations of their neighbors to make a few extra bucks they’ll never even spend.


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 5, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 5, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran (Dec 5, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> ...specifically Americans lulled into eating and buying stuff continuously to their own detriment while transferring all the wealth in the country to the richest) was misidentifying the target he was going for?




So, let us be clear in language - I don't know, "the target he was going for."  I can't read his mind, and we can't ask him any more.

He misidentified the root causes of the high frequency of obesity in the US.  He laid blame for it on the individual, calling fat people personally stupid, mocking their potential for sexuality, and so on.  He attacked a thing that isn't the root cause, and did so in a way that we understand actually hinders people from taking action to improve their health.  

Maybe Carlin was a horrid bigot on this topic, and he just wanted to cause anguish to fat people?  I like to think not.  I like to think that, if he understood the problem better, he'd have attacked the actual causes for what he observed.  But, in this case, he didn't.  He set up a group of people to be unjustly mocked and bullied, so people who weren't in that group could laugh and feel superior.  It was not Carlin's finest hour.


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 5, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran (Dec 5, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Someone, more than 14 years after the fact, is taking a part of a larger piece (and point) and interpreting to say that maybe Carlin "wanted to cause anguish to fat people[.]"




Stop.  Stop.  Stop.

Read again.

"*I don't like to think that*."  Did you see that?  Did that sink in?  Because this opening sure doesn't look like it.

As usual, this discussion will not proceed well if we aren't actually reading what the other person writes.   And, so far as I can tell, you are off using me as a target for a general point that doesn't fit my position.  And that doesn't sit well at all.  I have no desire to play strawman target for your defense of the thing.


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 5, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 5, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> I hear you, I just think that it there are two, separate, things that go on.
> 
> The first is people that use bullying or hurtful rhetoric and, when called out on it, respond with some variation of, "It's a joke, man, get over it."
> 
> ...



Eh, the second one is overblown. Using people who are already social punching bags as a punchline isn’t good behavior. That has nothing to do with my sense of humor, and is even something that Carlin criticized doing. 



lowkey13 said:


> I mean, yeah. He is aiming at the consumer; he explicitly ties in the whole eating and shopping ans SUVs into the saying that the are efficient consumers ... and then going on to what real ownership means (as opposed to efficient consumption).
> 
> But certainly he is insulting Americans who blindly consume (whether it's food, or products, or the lies that we are fed about the American way) as a way of saying that the real issue is those who don't care about you.
> 
> I mean, he could certainly be more nuanced and discuss obesity in detail, but, you know, a five minute comedy bit isn't necessarily the place for a three-hour PBS miniseries on the rising rates of obesity.



That’s a disparity that doesn’t actually exist, though. You can use obesity as an example of hyper-consumerism without blaming fat people and calling them idiots for being fat. 

He used fat people as a punch line to get everyone listen to his point. That isn't necessarily actually better than just making the fat joke without a greater context.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 5, 2019)

I'd report this to the mods for getting off the rails* but since they're already involved, I guess I can only bring out the popcorn.

With lots of butter.

* unless Black Widow has gotten fat were pages and pages off topic


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 5, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> I'd report this to the mods for getting off the rails* but since they're already involved, I guess I can only bring out the popcorn.
> 
> With lots of butter.
> 
> * unless Black Widow has gotten fat were pages and pages off topic



I mean, the trailer has a fat joke, and we are talking about. Not even a little off topic.


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 5, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I mean, the trailer has a fat joke, and we are talking about. Not even a little off topic.



No, the joke was talked about for a couple of post,then it crossed over into a discussion regarding Carlin and comedy


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 5, 2019)

trappedslider said:


> No, the joke was talked about for a couple of post,then it crossed over into a discussion regarding Carlin and comedy




Nitpicking how off topic something is is definitely off topic.


----------



## Sadras (Dec 6, 2019)

Umbran said:


> No.  Because we are becoming more aware that how we treat people matters, and shaming people for their  bodies is hurtful.




Who got hurt by this?

Also every Marvel movie, and I mean every one of them has the unrealistic body view of men. Toned and buff. Nice to see them have a portly hero. The fat joke only gives him licence and acknowledges that he's out of this norm but still got it. Really, no harm at all.
Nevermind that it sets up the whole family dynamic.



> It isn't as if fat jokes are thoughtful, insightful, well-crafted comedy that you can be proud of.  It's a pretty cheap shot, all in all.




Indeed, because Marvel, in particular, always brings the thoughtful, insightful, well-crafted comedy that one must be proud of in every joke that they tell. They're practically Shakespearean+.



Umbran said:


> I this case, Carlin got it wrong, and it aged very poorly as our understanding has increased.




Who is _our. _This post reeks with some sort of accepted authority/right-way and that it is generally known that "Carlin got it wrong."

Like someone funny once said - it's outrageous, egregious, preposterous.


----------



## Sadras (Dec 6, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> I'd report this to the mods for getting off the rails* but since they're already involved, I guess I can only bring out the popcorn.
> 
> With lots of butter.




How dare you bring food into such a sensitive topic - by Thor, don't you know people are getting hurt?


----------



## Sadras (Dec 6, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> He wouldn’t agree with you.




Seriously, which part?

_1. That I miss the days of George Carlin? _
Surely not?

2. _Because the word fat is now offensive?_
Really, a man who loved using the word? Nvm wanting to describe some kids as slow or stupid.

3. _Stand-up comedy must be dying in the USA?_
You mean with the increased freedom of speech which now exists? Do google his thoughts on the ever-growing and helpful euphemisms _we_ have created.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 6, 2019)

Sadras said:


> Seriously, which part?
> 
> _1. That I miss the days of George Carlin? _
> Surely not?
> ...



If you’re curious on my thoughts about that you can read them in this very thread. I’m not going to have the same conversation twice in 24 hours in the same thread.


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 6, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 6, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Eh, I think that as we often see, the second concern isn't overblown.
> 
> Humor (comedy) serves many social purposes; while the first I mentioned (the ratification of social status through the use of demeaning or bullying rhetoric; or to create a sense of otherness) is terrible, there are many positive uses of humor that can often get unfairly swept up.
> 
> ...




Okay, probably the last thing I’ll say on this, because I feel like we barely disagree and dissecting this is making it seem like we are further apart than we are. 

My issue with the bit isn’t really that Carlin pokes fun at American consumerism via fat people, although that has always bothered me.*

The issue is that while using fat people as a prop to draw in the audience, he also still actually really does blame fat people for being too stupid to not get fat. The fact that he turns that around on the audience doesn’t change how ugly it is, or how objectively incorrect. 

He gets very close, and I’m not sure I really 100% blame him for being wrong on it since most people were back then, but he is still wrong. 

Obesity isn’t an epidemic because of people eating too many ounces of food per meal, or too many meals. It’s an epidemic because there is little external incentive to be strenuously active for most people (and humans are evolutionarily inclined toward “efficiency” aka laziness), and because all pre-prepared foods contain vastly too much salt and sugar, and are too highly processed, so the same poundage of food is higher in calories, and more importantly sugar specifically. 

And that is a thing that “the real owners” have done to us knowingly because they don’t care if their wealth comes from ruining the health of multiple generations. 

*Carlin meant well, but using a common social punching bag as a punching bag in your bit to draw the audience in doesn’t become good just because you’re gonna make a really good point at the end. 

The ends don’t justify the means.


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 6, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 6, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> At a certain point, I feel like you are saying to me, "Look. I get that maybe Swift wasn't really advocating for cannibalism. Maybe. But really now, can't you see that the issue of endemic poverty and the British rule over Ireland is much to serious a topic to be taken lightly? Sure, Swift meant well, but using the poor and the Irish as punching bags, and suggesting that they engage in cannibalism and infanticide in his bit in order to draw in the unsuspecting audience doesn't become good just because he might be making a really good point in the end.
> 
> The end doesn't justify the means."
> 
> ...



Swift was Irish.


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 6, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 6, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Um.... I think you might be entirely missing the point here.



Ditto. If Carlin was fat, vanishingly few fat people would be offended by him using a thing he experiences as a way to draw an audience into a bit. 

Because when you’re part of the group, you have more room to joke about being in the group without being a jerk.


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 6, 2019)

so...we gonna toss theories,ideas etc about Black Widow or should I ask the mods to just change the title of this thread to something else?


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 6, 2019)

trappedslider said:


> so...we gonna toss theories,ideas etc about Black Widow or should I ask the mods to just change the title of this thread to something else?



This thread would indeed be best served by being retitled into something else, since it has been successfully and thoroughly derailed.

(If y'all want to argue EVERY Black Widow thread deserves to be drowned in fat-shaming-shaming then please do it here while I go elsewhere.)


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 6, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 6, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> .....and I'll end it here, by saying that he wasn't joking about the Irish. That's the point. In fact, he wasn't given "room to joke" because he was Irish. Because, again, Swift didn't really consider himself Irish,* the Irish weren't the audience, and that was a different time.
> 
> The point is that if you read that and think it's really about punching down against the poor and the Irish, then you're really missing the point. Which often happens with satire, sarcasm, sardonic takes, black humor, irony, and other forms of comedy. It's really odd to me that someone would look at easily the most famous historical example of satire and say, "Yeah, Swift only got away with it because he was born in Ireland." It just doesn't compute. It's completely ahistorical.
> 
> ...



You’ve completely misunderstood my point about Swift. I never suggested that he was punching down on the Irish.


----------



## Derren (Dec 6, 2019)

BookBarbarian said:


> I very much wonder how it shook out when Captain America returned the Soul Stone to Vormir. Do the rules of a soul for a soul work both ways?




In that scenario I am rather wondering how he would react to Red Skull meeting him there.


----------



## Gradine (Dec 6, 2019)

I just wanted to complain about another cheap, stupid, low-hanging-fruit fat joke in a Marvel movie for a sec. I didn't mean for it devolve into a 40-post argument about the legacy of George Carlin. 

The movie looks pretty cool though.


----------



## MarkB (Dec 6, 2019)

Derren said:


> In that scenario I am rather wondering how he would react to Red Skull meeting him there.



Something like this?


----------

