And a lot of Warner Media franchises have themes and characters that directly go against those views. A " I support people who say that queer representation in media is indoctrination while also wanting praise for the 6 entire seconds of queer Dumbledore content included in Fantastic Beasts 3"-level core part. Okay, so, uh, Rowling has decided to make hating trans people a core part of her online presence.
I miss 2015 when this conversation would be so much less complicated. Negotiations would go swimmingly, I'm sure! Rowling's personal views and I'm sure she'd approve the IP's inclusion in Multiversus! There's no elephant in the room here. Thankfully, there's nothing remotely controvesial or noteworthy about J.K.
#Beasts of prey gotham problematic skin#
This was a fanmade skin that was made official, so I won't be too harsh about the intimation. JK sucks and anything involving her in any form is a hard pass. **** her "What if the Irish character was always blowing things up" and "What if a black dude was called Shacklebolt" and calling the one prominent East Asian character Cho Chang and all the fake representation bull**** like Dumbledore being gay even though it was never in the books and is so easily cut from the third FB film among so many other things about herself and everything she's written. **** her "slavery is fine if the slaves are happy" bull**** and making Harry one of the "good" slave owners. **** JK Rowling, **** her TERF-ass bull****, **** her racist, fatphobic, anti-Semitic bull****. If this is sorted then I'd give a much much higher rating, if not then I think WB may well distance themselves from the IP for a bit, JK is toxic to the brand and Fantastic Beasts 3 is set to do poorly in America.
Well the thing is apparently there's some issues with JK and WB between getting the characters in. Surely WB would want to capitalise on having Harry Potter in right? The IP is massive, there's tons of merch and theme parks generating a lot of revenue.
0 kommentar(er)
