A Spirited 15 Rounds ...

Princess Leia

Well-Known Member
After Infinity War it seems they’re thankfully moving past that.
I really hope so. They had Ultron to introduce it, Ragnarok to reference it, and then Infinity War to end it (fingers crossed).

They have a lot they can do with Widow, because she’s incredibly secretive with practically every character (except maybe Fury and Clint), so most of her back story is up for grabs, as is whatever story they want to tell in the present day (if they do a flashback heavy story set in the present day).
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
Twitter of shadow banning their accounts (which is funny, because I wouldn't be able to see their tweets if that were the case).

Don't automatically believe everything that that some outlets - including Twitter themselves - want you to believe regarding this as they try to clean it up. They are being intentionally obtuse and it makes me want to puke. I mean, Twitter playing dumb in their blog post about it was the height of "are you kidding me?" Basically, they are using terminology for a defense of what was going on. The folks on the bandwagon to dismiss this are akin to gun-advocates who say "you misused the term 'assault' weapons, therefore any discussion of gun safety is invalid".

Traditionally, a true "shadow ban" is as you describe. If someone were shadowbanned on a traditional forum like this, what would happen is that they would see their own posts, but no one else would.

What Twitter was doing was not that. About a month and a half ago, they implemented a "quality filter" that was automatically enabled. Interesting that the Twitter blog response about this just said "an error" was leading to some of this (the parts they admitted to), and didn't talk about this feature at all What it did was prevent certain people (mainly conservatives) from being picked up in algorithms and search results. There are various websites that you can use to test if your account was affected by this at the time, including politically neutral places.

No big deal, right - they weren't actually totally hidden? Well, that's not exactly a very genuine thing to say to anyone who actually uses the internet daily. If you are searching for a name, the only way to find it was by exactly typing it out all the way with no errors because auto-complete wouldn't work if they were subject to this "quality filter". So you could search for "Adam Sandle..." and it wouldn't come up, along with various other things they did to minimize these accounts.

So, there indeed was something really nefarious going on in trying to minimize certain voices on Twitter. Including those of some elected and those running for elected office. This isn't some crazy conspiracy, people have screenshots and evidence up the wazoo about it. It also shouldn't be a surprise, as this is similar to what Facebook got caught red-handed doing a few years ago.

I know many don't care about the actual facts here because it was "bad people we don't like anyway" but just like so many of these issues - what if Twitter changes hands and next time it happens to the far-left and not the far-right? Will people care then?
 
Last edited:

Pixieish

Well-Known Member
Oh, I don't think Twitter is some innocent bystander at all - I've been experiencing exactly what you describe in my searches. And FB constantly changing its algorithm really annoys the ever-loving hell out of me. I think social media networks are in a precarious position in that I feel there should be some sort of enforcement for preventing horrible behavior (cyber-bullies), but at the same token, they shouldn't have anything to do with what shows up in our feeds beyond that, except perhaps labeling blogs as blogs and news as news. (To aid those who seem to fall into the trap of believing an opinion piece is actually a news story, etc.)
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
Anything’s possible, but it doesn’t seem like Gunn’s creative relationship with the company was strained. There are internal political reasons why Feige can’t comment, but the GotG cast defending him indicates general approval with his leadership.

"The cast" didn't defend him.

The guy who plays Drax was the only one who came out and said they disagreed with it. Saldana and Gillian just said that they cared about "all of their GoG" family, and Chris Pratt just made a bible quote that one could interpret multiple ways. Oh, and his brother of course did defend him.

Not that the cast opinion matters, really - this was a business decision and what is done is done, and they are under contract so /shrug, but let's not pretend they have all come together and taken some stand against this. Only cast member outside of Gunn's family has actually stepped out and actively defended anything.

He may very well be "good with actors" but there very possibly could be much more creative stuff going on behind the scenes that doesn't have to do with the celebrities acting on film.
 

Pixieish

Well-Known Member
"The cast" didn't defend him.

The guy who plays Drax was the only one who came out and said they disagreed with it. Saldana and Gillian just said that they cared about "all of their GoG" family, and Chris Pratt just made a bible quote that one could interpret multiple ways. Oh, and his brother of course did defend him.

Not that the cast opinion matters, really - this was a business decision and what is done is done, and they are under contract so /shrug, but let's not pretend they have all come together and taken some stand against this. Only cast member outside of Gunn's family has actually stepped out and actively defended anything.

He may very well be "good with actors" but there very possibly could be much more creative stuff going on behind the scenes that doesn't have to do with the celebrities acting on film.

I'm with you on this one. I understand their desire to not attack a company with whom they are under contract, but at the same time they could have voiced their opposition to cyber-attacks or something along those lines.

And Dave Bautista...man, he went nuclear on the 21st, and he keeps on going. I'm both raising my fists in the air for his taking a stand and shaking my head hoping he doesn't pay for it in the long run.
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
And Dave Bautista...man, he went nuclear on the 21st, and he keeps on going. I'm both raising my fists in the air for his taking a stand and shaking my head hoping he doesn't pay for it in the long run.

Yeah, I have been hearing more about how he keeps going on about this - it just isn't very smart of him. He said his peace, and should have left it at that, at least for the time being.
 

asianway

Well-Known Member
I'm with you on this one. I understand their desire to not attack a company with whom they are under contract, but at the same time they could have voiced their opposition to cyber-attacks or something along those lines.

And Dave Bautista...man, he went nuclear on the 21st, and he keeps on going. I'm both raising my fists in the air for his taking a stand and shaking my head hoping he doesn't pay for it in the long run.
It’s Drax a 4th rate character - pretty sure the MCU will go on fine without him
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
I have only seen the films twice each, but I don't recall any cloaks of invisibility - am I just getting old? Or am I missing a very obvious joke? LOL.

It's in Vol 2 Infinity War where Drax is standing very still because it believes it makes him invisible. And then he slowly brings a chip to his mouth.
 
Last edited:

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom