# An artist is stripping JK Rowling's name off Harry Potter books and reselling them to fans



## CraddaPoosta (Friday at 3:44 PM)

https://www.insider.com/jk-rowling-harry-potter-artist-strips-name-re-sells-books-2023-1

How does this make you feel?


----------



## Catastrophic (Friday at 3:49 PM)

I can do this for free. Just hand me a sharpie.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Friday at 3:50 PM)

Catastrophic said:


> I can do this for free. Just hand me a sharpie.


But then you couldn't sell another person's work for $1,600 for a set of seven books. 

Silly goose.


----------



## Hanafuda (Friday at 3:58 PM)

I agree as long as they're legally purchased and just being re-bound without the author's name, no copyright infringement. Carry on. But this struck me as funny:


"In February 2022, Flom said on TikTok their aim with this project is to "engage critically and give an option to people who do still want to enjoy Harry Potter_ without supporting JK Rowling_."

Still have to buy the book, dumbass.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Friday at 4:01 PM)

Hanafuda said:


> I agree as long as they're legally purchased and just being re-bound without the author's name, no copyright infringement. Carry on. But this struck me as funny:
> 
> 
> "In February 2022, Flom said on TikTok their aim with this project is to "engage critically and give an option to people who do still want to enjoy Harry Potter_ without supporting JK Rowling_."
> ...


Exactly. They aren't buying it for being a unique piece of work. They're buying it for being a derivative piece of work. She got paid the moment the books that are being rewrapped got sold. 

It's a terrible strategy to cut someone out from profiting when you have to buy their product to do so in the first place. 

The Beatles weren't mad when people were burning their records. All of those records had already been bought. Same with athletes when it comes to burning their jerseys. 

Go ahead and burn your own money, fools. AFTER you pay the people you hate. 

Really moving the needle, there, champ.


----------



## guisadop (Friday at 4:12 PM)

great way to make money off of dumb people. 
if you disagree with her opinions this won't make a difference at all to her, you're better off pirating the books or something


----------



## smilodon (Friday at 4:14 PM)

This whole culture war around Harry Potter and Rowlings is so stupid and tiring.


----------



## Doran754 (Friday at 6:38 PM)

Dumb, shes already a billionaire. Who is this meant to be owning, It sure isn't J.K.


----------



## mrdude (Friday at 8:23 PM)

There's an old proverb "A fool and his money are soon parted".

I wonder which fools will be down some serious cash soon? Someone with more money than common sense.


----------



## x65943 (Friday at 8:33 PM)

The idea that somehow you can divorce the artist from the art is so silly

Imagine buying a Picasso and then rubbing out his name 

If these people had any sense about them they would stop reading the books altogether


----------



## smilodon (Friday at 8:42 PM)

x65943 said:


> The idea that somehow you can divorce the artist from the art is so silly
> 
> Imagine buying a Picasso and then rubbing out his name
> 
> If these people had any sense about them they would stop reading the books altogether


When visiting a museum I don't know all of the artists, yet I can appreciate the art regardless. Look at everything through a political lens is a sad life to live.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Friday at 8:43 PM)

If they're making money from it, more power to them.  I think Rowling was a fool to have ever been talking about such issues that she's really not a part of, as nothing good was ever going to come of it for the franchise or her reputation. However, she's also a billionaire who probably doesn't really care much about the franchise being an even bigger success at this point than it already has been over all these years (pretty sure the 'quality' of her writing in the Fantastic Beasts movies beautifully illustrate this thought).  And with that kind of money, it's probably easy to not give a shit about your reputation as well.  So to circle back to the original point, who cares if this dude is doing this and making a little extra scratch on the side, Rowling almost certainly doesn't, I mean the books in question still had to have been bought to begin with.


----------



## x65943 (Friday at 8:44 PM)

smilodon said:


> When visiting a museum I don't know all of the artists, yet I can appreciate the art regardless. Look at everything through a political lens is a sad life to live.


If a museum presented for instance Hitler's art without a name placard I would feel a little cheated


----------



## The Catboy (Friday at 8:45 PM)

Honestly, this just feels like a roundtable way to piracy. Just pirate the shit and edit out the name yourself, it takes like 10 minutes of your time and you are still ensuring JK doesn't see a dime.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Friday at 8:47 PM)

x65943 said:


> The idea that somehow you can divorce the artist from the art is so silly
> 
> Imagine buying a Picasso and then rubbing out his name
> 
> If these people had any sense about them they would stop reading the books altogether


Conversely, imagine finding a painting that you genuinely loved, but had no idea who the artist was as there was no signature or information attached to the piece. For years and years, you look at that painting every day and feel many things that give you peace and happiness.  Then one day, you find out that that painting was done by Hitler.  I think in that situation I can forgive and even allow for the divorce from the artist and the art to exist for the person who had appreciated it for so long in their life.  Doesn't change that he was one of the most awful people in all of existence of course, but that was never what the appreciator of the art was ever aware of nor certainly thinking about when they looked at that painting every day and got whatever from it that the painting did for them.


----------



## x65943 (Friday at 8:48 PM)

MikaDubbz said:


> Conversely, imagine finding a painting that you genuinely loved, but had no idea who the artist was as there was no signature or information attached to the photo. For years and years, you look at that painting every day and feel many things that give you peace and happiness.  Then one day, you find out that that painting was done by Hitler.  I think in that situation I can forgive and even allow for the divorce from the artist and the art to exist for the person who had appreciated it for so long in their life.  Doesn't change that he was one of the most awful people in all of existence of course, but that was never what the appreciator of the art was ever aware of nor certainly thinking about when they looked at that painting every day and got whatever from it that the painting did for them.


Afterwards tho I think if you kept admiring it people might look at you a tad cross


----------



## MikaDubbz (Friday at 8:50 PM)

x65943 said:


> Afterwards tho I think if you kept admiring it people might look at you a tad cross


They might, but if they understood your history with the piece, I would hope they could see where you're coming from.  And if not, oh well, at least you yourself would know that your appreciation for the piece never had anything to do with the history of the person that made it.


----------



## mrdude (Friday at 8:50 PM)

x65943 said:


> If these people had any sense about them they would stop reading the books altogether


Why would they stop reading the books if they like them? 

I think Lord of The Rings movies are the greatest movies ever made, I liked all the parts the actors played. The actor that played Gandalf - Ian McKellen played the part brilliantly. I disagree with some of his lifestyle choices but it doesn't take anything away from his acting ability and I wouldn't deprive myself from watching LOTR or The Hobbit because of this, only someone with mental issues would do that.

Someone that would stop reading books they loved because they have heard someone accuse JK Rowling of being something she isn't is a retard - and I bet that ZERO people can find anything at all the JK Rowling has written or said that's transphobic or anti gay - they just heard some twat on the internet accuse her of that because they didn't like her for some reason or other. If you disagree post proof (not some hearsay by someone) or some video evidence...but you won't, because you can't, because JK Rowling has just stated biological facts  -  “‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?” she wrote.


----------



## AmandaRose (Friday at 8:51 PM)

One of the people I hate the most is the tv show writer Graham Linehan. He is one of the most transphobic people in existence yet two of my favourite TV shows were written by him. 

In life you need to somtimes just separate the art from the artist.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Friday at 8:52 PM)

MikaDubbz said:


> Conversely, imagine finding a painting that you genuinely loved, but had no idea who the artist was as there was no signature or information attached to the piece. For years and years, you look at that painting every day and feel many things that give you peace and happiness.  Then one day, you find out that that painting was done by Hitler.  I think in that situation I can forgive and even allow for the divorce from the artist and the art to exist for the person who had appreciated it for so long in their life.  Doesn't change that he was one of the most awful people in all of existence of course, but that was never what the appreciator of the art was ever aware of nor certainly thinking about when they looked at that painting every day and got whatever from it that the painting did for them.


The fact remains that Ms. Rowling has still done absolutely NOTHING wrong and has said absolutely NOTHING that is not scientifically, factually true.

Not once did she denigrate anyone in her books. The only people who did that shit were her paralells to the Nazis, the Death Eaters, who saw Mudbloods as lesser wizards, and humans as not even human at all. And what happened to them?

JK Rowling did absolutely nothing wrong. Just because there are folks out there suffering from gender dysphoria doesn't mean that she is a bad person for saying that only women menstruate. This is demonstrably true, and if this scientific fact triggers you, YOU just might be the problem, not her.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Friday at 8:54 PM)

AmandaRose said:


> One of the people I hate the most is the tv show writer Graham Linehan. He is one of the most transphobic people in existence yet two of my favourite TV shows were written by him.
> 
> In life you need to somtimes just separate the art from the artist.


True, I bet there are some really damning stories lost to time from much older beloved artists from long before every little piece of information was getting archived as it does today.  For all we know, there are some really godawful stories about Van Gogh, Picasso, Monet, etc. etc.  But we don't know those stories, so we just appreciate the art as we always have.

	Post automatically merged: Friday at 8:56 PM



CraddaPoosta said:


> THe fact remains that Ms. Rowling has still done absolutely NOTHING wrong and has said absolutely NOTHING that is not scientifically, factually true.
> 
> Not once did she denigrate anyone in her books. The only people who did that shit were her paralells to the Nazis, the Death Eaters, who saw Mudbloods as lesser wizards, and humans as not even human at all. And what happened to them?
> 
> JK Rowling did absolutely nothing wrong. Just because there are folks out there suffering from gender dysphoria doesn't mean that she is a bad person for saying that only women menstruate. This is demonstrably true, and if this scientific fact triggers you, YOU just might be the problem, not her.


That's not really the issue, it's not about these things being factual or not.  People have opinions, and many don't like her stance on those issues.  They have just as much of a right to reject her as she has to share those thoughts.


----------



## lokomelo (Friday at 8:56 PM)

With or without the author's name, she is get the money of the book sold, so If you really want to punish the author, get an illegal PDF and print yourself.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Friday at 8:58 PM)

lokomelo said:


> With or without the author's name, she is get the money of the book sold, so If you really want to punish the author, get an illegal PDF and print yourself.


I don't believe the point really is to punish the author.  It's just for the people that like the books in question but don't like what's become of the author.  They still want to properly own the books, but they don't want to see her name on their bookshelf.  At least that's how I perceive this.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Friday at 9:00 PM)

MikaDubbz said:


> True, I bet there are some really damning stories lost to time from much older beloved artists from long before every little piece of information was getting archived as it does today.  For all we know, there are some really godawful stories about Van Gogh, Picasso, Monet, etc. etc.  But we don't know those stories, so we just appreciate the art as we always have.
> 
> Post automatically merged: Friday at 8:56 PM
> 
> ...


You're not really "rejecting" someone if you are trying to capitalize off of their name and their work. 

This "artist" would have nothing to sell if he wasn't literally and figuratively ripping off someone else and trying to make a buck. 
This man knows what he is doing. Just cashing in on a bigger name than his, hoping stupid people give him money. 

JK Rowling already made hers when he bought her book to deface.


----------



## mrdude (Friday at 9:01 PM)

AmandaRose said:


> One of the people I hate the most is the tv show writer Graham Linehan. He is one of the most transphobic people in existence yet two of my favourite TV shows were written by him.
> 
> In life you need to somtimes just separate the art from the artist.


I started reading this an thought you were going to say Graham Norton, then I would have agreed, he is a poncy little annoying mincer. But alas Graham Linehan, I thought the IT Crowd and Father Ted were funny, and his only "crime" was tweeting “men aren’t women tho,”, which is a factual statement. men are men and women and women. Then you have the pretenders that pretend they are something they are not.

I don't start talking to a schizophrenic's make believe people to make them feel better, and I sure as hell ain't going to start gaslighting men or women into believing they are something they are not either - which isn't a crime in case you were unaware.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Friday at 9:01 PM)

CraddaPoosta said:


> You're not really "rejecting" someone if you are trying to capitalize off of their name and their work.
> 
> This "artist" would have nothing to sell if he wasn't literally and figuratively ripping off someone else and trying to make a buck.
> This man knows what he is doing. Just cashing in on a bigger name than his, hoping stupid people give him money.
> ...


If I bought one of these books, it would be to reject having her name on my bookshelf, while still welcoming the books into my life.  She could still get paid for the book in question all the same, there is more than one way to reject someone like this.


----------



## Jokey_Carrot (Friday at 9:01 PM)

Man Idc about Rowling's views on Trans rights but Harry Potter is Mid af. Like read another book god damn.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Friday at 9:03 PM)

MikaDubbz said:


> If I bought one of these books, it would be to reject having her name on my bookshelf, while still welcoming the books into my life.  She could still get paid for the book in question all the same, there is more than one way to reject someone like this.


Fred Rogers, of Mr. Rogers fame, sang lots of songs where he taught young boys and girls that only girls can grow up to be women, and only boys can grow up to be men.

Do you want this saint of a person to be cancelled, as well? Is he also Hitler?


----------



## Doran754 (Friday at 9:04 PM)

MikaDubbz said:


> I think Rowling was a fool to have ever been talking about such issues that she's really not a part of



You can't be serious with this, she's a woman talking about women's issues and you think she's unqualified. Who exactly is qualified then.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Friday at 9:05 PM)

CraddaPoosta said:


> Fred Rogers, of Mr. Rogers fame, sang lots of songs where he taught young boys and girls that only girls can grow up to be women, and only boys can grow up to be men.
> 
> Do you want this saint of a person to be cancelled, as well? Is he also Hitler?


When did I say I wanted anyone cancelled? I'm openly saying I'm cool with Rowling still getting her money from these books, and the people that want them on their shelves without her name should hopefully be able to recognize that she still gets paid, unless the books were stolen lol.

	Post automatically merged: Friday at 9:06 PM



Doran754 said:


> You can't be serious with this, she's a woman talking about women's issues and you think she's unqualified. Who exactly is qualified then.


I didn't say she couldn't talk about trans-issues.  I just said I think she was a fool to, and given all the backlash all these years later that continues to happen against her, I would say I'm correct in that assessment.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Friday at 9:08 PM)

This is what mental illness does to people.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Friday at 9:10 PM)

MikaDubbz said:


> When did I say I wanted anyone cancelled? I'm openly saying I'm cool with Rowling still getting her money from these books, and the people that want them on their shelves without her name should hopefully be able to recognize that she still gets paid, unless the books were stolen lol.
> 
> Post automatically merged: Friday at 9:06 PM
> 
> ...


Let's look at WHY it would have been foolish for her to speak abou WOMEN'S ISSUES, as a woman. 

Not because she wasn't correct and right. Because of cancel culture. THAT is why it would have been foolish, and has proven to be, for an actual woman to talk about issues relating to actual women. Not because SHE was wrong. Because the people against her are absolutely in the wrong, Scientifically and morally.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Friday at 9:15 PM)

CraddaPoosta said:


> Let's look at WHY it would have been foolish for her to speak abou WOMEN'S ISSUES, as a woman.
> 
> Not because she wasn't correct and right. Because of cancel culture. THAT is why it would have been foolish, and has proven to be, for an actual woman to talk about issues relating to actual women. Not because SHE was wrong. Because the people against her are absolutely in the wrong, Scientifically and morally.


It was foolish because it's alienated a shit ton of her fans, and has probably lost her some sizable revenue for the series because of it.  That's all it comes down to.  She may be a woman, but her claim to fame is being an author.  I'm not going to George Clooney to learn how to shave a beard lol, see what I'm saying?  As a dude who could probably grow a beard, he may have insight... but why would he of all people be the one to go to?  And on top of that, why would he feel compelled to even speak on it to begin with?


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Friday at 9:19 PM)

MikaDubbz said:


> It was foolish because it's alienated a shit ton of her fans, and has probably lost her some sizable revenue for the series because of it.  That's all it comes down to.  She may be a woman, but her claim to fame is being an author.  I'm not going to George Clooney to learn how to shave a beard lol, see what I'm saying?  As a dude who could probably grow a beard, he may have insight... but why would he of all people be the one to go to?  And on top of that, why would he feel compelled to even speak on it to begin with?


While I get what you are saying, and am fascinated by the source of the reference, I think we're talking about two sides of the same building. 

I am lamenting the state of society that exists in which a beloved author would even have to worry about their legacy being tarnished because they offended a bunch of silly folks who don't understand the scientific and irrefutable FACT that only women and females are capable of menstruation. 

It's sad and beyond pathetic that speaking this simple truth COULD cause someone's reputation and legacy to be in jeopardy. Do you get what I am saying? 

We're not going to cancel Stephen King if he says that the Earth is round and not flat. You won't see a die-hard flat-Earther out there feverishly scrubbing his name off of a hardbound copy of 'The Stand'.


----------



## The Catboy (Friday at 9:21 PM)

MikaDubbz said:


> When did I say I wanted anyone cancelled? I'm openly saying I'm cool with Rowling still getting her money from these books, and the people that want them on their shelves without her name should hopefully be able to recognize that she still gets paid, unless the books were stolen lol.


The users you are arguing with have always been bad actors and will always manipulate what other people are saying. I say this because they are just going to give you dishonest arguments in an attempt to rationalize their hateful positions.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Friday at 9:22 PM)

CraddaPoosta said:


> While I get what you are saying, and am fascinated by the source of the reference, I think we're talking about two sides of the same building.
> 
> I am lamenting the state of society that exists in which a beloved author would even have to worry about their legacy being tarnished because they offended a bunch of silly folks who don't understand the scientific and irrefutable FACT that only women and females are capable of menstruation.
> 
> ...


I mean you're lamenting it, while I'm questioning why we would want that?  It's like those damn awards shows, where the actors go up, say all of their thanks, and then start to go on some tangent about a political issue of some sort.  Like bitch, we're here to celebrate your part in the movie, nobody was asking about politics, certainly not from you of all people, and certainly not now.

If it's not evident, I'm the kind of person that rejected Twitter from day one.  I don't care what celebrities are thinking about throughout their day, why on earth should I, or anybody for that matter?


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Friday at 9:22 PM)

The Catboy said:


> The users you are arguing with have always been bad actors and will always manipulate what other people are saying. I say this because they are just going to give you dishonest arguments in an attempt to rationalize their hateful positions.


I have yet to see any hate expressed on this remarkably polite thread. If you have detected any, could you point it out for me?


----------



## mrdude (Friday at 9:23 PM)

CraddaPoosta said:


> Let's look at WHY it would have been foolish for her to speak abou WOMEN'S ISSUES, as a woman.
> 
> Not because she wasn't correct and right. Because of cancel culture. THAT is why it would have been foolish, and has proven to be, for an actual woman to talk about issues relating to actual women. Not because SHE was wrong. Because the people against her are absolutely in the wrong, Scientifically and morally.


Maybe if more people stood up to these cancel culture types, the only people that would be cancelled would be the one's doing the whining and the ones trying to cancel others. I am glad that women are standing up for women and JK Rowling, Sydney Watson, Jordan Peterson, Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull and others like them are standing up to these bullies that want to try to turn everyone into mindless mutants and to silence them - well to those people I say "Fuck you!", we will never be silenced, we will tell you exactly what we think about your idiotic views and everytime you try to shut us up or cancel us our resolve will become even stronger. You've already lost the war, you're heads just too far up your own arse that you can't see this.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Friday at 9:28 PM)

MikaDubbz said:


> I mean you're lamenting it, while I'm questioning why we would want that?  It's like those damn awards shows, where the actors go up, say all of their thanks, and then start to go on some tangent about a political issue of some sort.  Like bitch, we're here to celebrate your part in the movie, nobody was asking about politics, certainly not from you of all people, and certainly not now.


You know, I like your outlook on this. Confine the art to the actual work, not the person. That's a tough one for me. 

I deleted Hulk Hogan from my copy of WWE 2K15 because of his racial slurs after being a lifelong fan. Stopped listening to anything from Snoop Dogg after his racist comments during one of the recent presidential elections. I have no problem deading artists if they prove themselves to be shite people in real life. 

I do not believe that saying "Only women can menstruate" could possibly be taken as an expression of hate, and I think it's silly for people to attack her for saying that. I would GET IT if she deserved it. 

I just think it's funny that the same people who literally Stan'd for her and formed ranks behind her to support her when she got attacked for "making Dumbledore gay" immediately turned on her and tried to destroy her for saying that only females are capable of having periods. A fickle bunch, the Rainbow Nazi Brigade.


----------



## digipimp75 (Friday at 9:29 PM)

oh ffs


----------



## MikaDubbz (Friday at 9:34 PM)

CraddaPoosta said:


> You know, I like your outlook on this. Confine the art to the actual work, not the person. That's a tough one for me.
> 
> I deleted Hulk Hogan from my copy of WWE 2K15 because of his racial slurs after being a lifelong fan. Stopped listening to anything from Snoop Dogg after his racist comments during one of the recent presidential elections. I have no problem deading artists if they prove themselves to be shite people in real life.
> 
> ...


I do think there is something hypocritically funny about how Rowling has treated Harry Potter since it ended, and then how she went on to offend the LGBTQ community.  Like her books had no hint of Dumbledore being gay at all, but she wanted to seem retroactively more progressive and inclusive with her writing, so he was gay the whole time! Just don't look for any hair of evidence of that in the books.  Or like how Hermione was black for The Cursed Child play, and when asked about it, she was like, "Well I never said Hermione wasn't black,"  And yet people were able to find a passage that distinctly mentions Hermione's pale white face.

Not at all a social-political issue is this one too and this one just cracks me up: at some point she took to Twitter to explain that in the olden days witches and wizards would shit in the corners of rooms and then just magic the waste away.  Like holy shit bitch, stop tweeting, you are desecrating all over your own franchise.  And then there are those just awful Fantastic Beasts movies, she really should have left well enough alone years ago when it comes to Harry Potter.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Friday at 9:36 PM)

MikaDubbz said:


> It was foolish because it's alienated a shit ton of her fans, and has probably lost her some sizable revenue for the series because of it.  That's all it comes down to.  She may be a woman, but her claim to fame is being an author.  I'm not going to George Clooney to learn how to shave a beard lol, see what I'm saying?  As a dude who could probably grow a beard, he may have insight... but why would he of all people be the one to go to?  And on top of that, why would he feel compelled to even speak on it to begin with?


Believe it or not, people have opinions outside of their claims to fame, and that's ok. It's called having a conversation. It's what grownups do.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Friday at 9:38 PM)

TraderPatTX said:


> Believe it or not, people have opinions outside of their claims to fame, and that's ok. It's called having a conversation. It's what grownups do.


Yup, and hey if Rowling doesn't care about making as much money as quickly as she had been (totally understandable once you're a billionaire), then she has nothing to worry about when making such a statement, I absolutely agree.  However, if she still cares about that sweet sweet money, then she's a fool to address such controversial topics to begin with.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Friday at 9:39 PM)

mrdude said:


> Maybe if more people stood up to these cancel culture types, the only people that would be cancelled would be the one's doing the whining and the ones trying to cancel others. I am glad that women are standing up for women and JK Rowling, Sydney Watson, Jordan Peterson, Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull and others like them are standing up to these bullies that want to try to turn everyone into mindless mutants and to silence them - well to those people I say "Fuck you!", we will never be silenced, we will tell you exactly what we think about your idiotic views and everytime you try to shut us up or cancel us our resolve will become even stronger. You've already lost the war, you're heads just too far up your own arse that you can't see this.


I was told only far right fascists partake in cancel culture. I was also told that cancel culture was started by the far right.

I know, I'm laughing too.


----------



## mrdude (Friday at 9:42 PM)

MikaDubbz said:


> And then there are those just awful Fantastic Beasts movies, she really should have left well enough alone years ago when it comes to Harry Potter.


Hmmmm, The series has been commercially successful, having collectively grossed $1.8 billion across three films so far. How much do you think she has made from that? One things for sure, she doesn't ever need to worry about money ever again. She has an O.B.E and she's been very successful in life. I doubt she's worried about what a few scrotebags think about her, in the grand scheme of things these people are about as relevant as a grain of sand is in the middle of the Sahara desert.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Friday at 9:42 PM)

MikaDubbz said:


> Yup, and hey if Rowling doesn't care about making as much money as quickly as she had been (totally understandable once you're a billionaire), then she has nothing to worry about when making such a statement, I absolutely agree.  However, if she still cares about that sweet sweet money, then she's a fool to address such controversial topics to begin with.


Her net worth is $1.1 billion. That's called having enough f you money to be uncancellable.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Friday at 9:43 PM)

mrdude said:


> Hmmmm, The series has been commercially successful, having collectively grossed $1.8 billion across three films so far. How much do you think she has made from that? One things for sure, she doesn't ever need to worry about money ever again. She has an O.B.E and she's been very successful in life. I doubt she's worried about what a few scrotebags think about her, in the grand scheme of things these people are about as relevant as a grain of sand is in the middle of the Sahara desert.


I'm talking legacy when I'm talking about Fantastic Beasts being awful.  I'm sure they've made money, but they have hurt the Harry Potter brand all the more for me personally, and I say that as a fan of the franchise.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Friday at 9:44 PM)

TraderPatTX said:


> Believe it or not, people have opinions outside of their claims to fame, and that's ok. It's called having a conversation. It's what grownups do.


I ACTUALLY RESEARCHED THIS!

So, there are a total of two passages in the entire seven-book series that mentions something about Hermione's skin color or complexion. In one, it says her face went white. In another, it says her face went pink. 

I am the type of fan who believes that the original author is the Stan fucking Lee of it all, the Word of God, the Ultimate Say in the Matter. So, if JK Rowling says that Hermione can be black, or Dumbledore was gay all along, I am 100% rocking with that moving forward. 

When Marvel made Iceman gay, Bobby Drake, through a retcon, I didn't give a shit. Didn't change his character. Just added another layer to it. 

When DC decided to make Jonathan Kent bi, big whoop. It's the fucking world we live in, and comics reflects our reality. 
I do NOT like when they just take a character and gender swap it for the purpose of diversifcation, though. That's the laziest writing you can do. Just come up with your own unique character instead of, as you said, potentially alienating an entire fanbase. 

Once something reaches a certain level in the social consciousness, it ceases to be the property of the creator, and it then becomes OURS. It's part of our identity. We all collectively have an association with it, so it's natural that people would feel a sense of protectiveness over that. 

I don't give a fuck if Hermione is black. But, re-writing Li'l Orphan Annie as a black girl was bullshit, and was just pandering. There is a major, major difference, here. Jamie Foxx can go fuck himself. The Wiz was better than that garbage.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Friday at 9:45 PM)

TraderPatTX said:


> Her net worth is $1.1 billion. That's called having enough f you money to be uncancellable.


I mean yeah, have I not essentially said as much a few times now?  She has the money for nothing to really matter any more.  But I'm greedy, I can see the amount of money I've made never being enough, even when I'm a billionaire.  So in order to not slow down a huge revenue stream for me, I simply wouldn't bother to make public statements on such alienating matters.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Friday at 9:49 PM)

MikaDubbz said:


> I mean yeah, have I not essentially said as much a few times now?  She has the money for nothing to really matter any more.  But I'm greedy, I can see the amount of money I've made never being enough, even when I'm a billionaire.  So in order to not slow down a huge revenue stream for me, I simply wouldn't bother to make public statements on such alienating matters.


You are assigning you're emotions to her motives.


----------



## mrdude (Friday at 9:51 PM)

MikaDubbz said:


> I'm talking legacy when I'm talking about Fantastic Beasts being awful.  I'm sure they've made money, but they have hurt the Harry Potter brand all the more for me personally, and I say that as a fan of the franchise.


These have nothing to do with Harry Potter though, it's a completely different series/story.

For example, You can't compare the movies Misery to IT or The Shining. They were written by Stephen King but are different stories by the same author. Harry Potter is a fantasy series and so is Fantastic beasts, IT and the Shining are horror stories - but these are wildly different. Maybe don't try to compare Harry Potter to anything else, because there's nothing to compare it to being as it's a unique tale about a boy wizard and his friends.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Friday at 9:51 PM)

TraderPatTX said:


> You are assigning you're emotions to her motives.


I mean I started this all of by saying, "I think Rowling was a fool to have ever been talking about such issues" 

This is only my opinion based on putting myself in that situation.  As an opinion, it is not meant to be the undeniable truth of it all. It is simply how I personally view the whole situation, hence again, that pesky "I think" phrase that started this all.

	Post automatically merged: Friday at 9:53 PM



mrdude said:


> These have nothing to do with Harry Potter though, it's a completely different series/story.
> 
> For example, You can't compare the movies Misery to IT or The Shining. They were written by Stephen King but are different stories by the same author. Harry Potter is a fantasy series and so is Fantastic beasts, IT and the Shining are horror stories - but these are wildly different. Maybe don't try to compare Harry Potter to anything else, because there's nothing to compare it to being as it's a unique tale about a boy wizard and his friends.


You do know that Harry Potter and Fantastic Beasts exist in the same fictional universe right?  Its the same reason why I feel Legend of Korra retroactively hurts The Last Airbender, still a great franchise, but by extending and learning more of that world, it has damaged my opinion of parts of the original story that I once thought was nearly perfect.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Friday at 9:56 PM)

MikaDubbz said:


> I mean I started this all of by saying, "I think Rowling was a fool to have ever been talking about such issues"


I wasn't responding to your initial comment, just the one I quoted.


MikaDubbz said:


> This is only my opinion based on putting myself in that situation.  As an opinion, it is not meant to be the undeniable truth of it all. It is simply how I personally view the whole situation, hence again, that pesky "I think" phrase that started this all.


Her $1.1 billion disagrees with your assumptions.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Friday at 9:58 PM)

MikaDubbz said:


> I mean I started this all of by saying, "I think Rowling was a fool to have ever been talking about such issues"
> 
> This is only my opinion based on putting myself in that situation.  As an opinion, it is not meant to be the undeniable truth of it all. It is simply how I personally view the whole situation, hence again, that pesky "I think" phrase that started this all.


Well, celebrities and public figures, unless you are someone like Daniel Day-Lewis, have tended to cash in on their name recognition since the dawn of celebrity as a status. 

It's only recently that you could lose everything with one Tweet. Even when you're right. 

Do we really want our media and entertainment to be like this? Do we really want all artists to feel like they CAN'T speak their mind and express themselves, for fear of losing their entire empire? 

Isn't that the entire fucking POINT of being an artist? Genuine expression? 

I don't want to live in a world where we stifle creativity. Art is INTENDED to provoke and to inspire emotion. And sometimes it's not always going to be positive. The same thing applies to people and human interaction. If it means something, and if you actually remember it, that's a good thing. 

I can't count my forgotten days, but I can tell you everything about any day where something major happened. 

I'd rather have a life of constant provocation and challenge to what I believe. I'd prefer to have those beliefs tested and challenged daily. If they still stand at the end of the day, maybe they're worth keeping. 

Give me anything except for a boring, sheltered, protected life where I never have to confront anything and all I do is satisfy my own selfish desires.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Friday at 9:58 PM)

TraderPatTX said:


> I wasn't responding to your initial comment, just the one I quoted.
> 
> Her $1.1 billion disagrees with your assumptions.



But the one you initially quoted all stems from that first I think statement.  And again $1.1 billion is a lot, but for me, it wouldn't be enough, I'd always want more, and there are billionaires out there that make this mentality clear, not all billionaires stop caring about making money once they're a billionaire at all.

Again, I could absolutely be wrong, she might not care about money at all anymore.  But she might, and I personally think that she might, could absolutely be wrong, but that doesn't change my opinion on the matter.


----------



## mrdude (Friday at 9:58 PM)

MikaDubbz said:


> You do know that Harry Potter and Fantastic Beasts exist in the same fictional universe right?  Its the same reason why I feel Legend of Korra retroactively hurts The Last Airbender, still a great franchise, but by extending and learning more of that world, it has damaged my opinion of parts of the original story that I once thought was nearly perfect.


Iron Man, Doctor Strange and Ant Man all exist in the same fictional universe as well - but they are all different stories. Maybe try to seperate them and then they will be more enjoyable to you. Currently you're trying to compare chalk and cheese as being the same thing, when it's not.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Friday at 10:00 PM)

CraddaPoosta said:


> Well, celebrities and public figures, unless you are someone like Daniel Day-Lewis, have tended to cash in on their name recognition since the dawn of celebrity as a status.
> 
> It's only recently that you could lose everything with one Tweet. Even when you're right.
> 
> ...


Frankly I want the platform(s) that enable us to know such things that get people to so easily be cancelled from to disappear entirely, we'd all be way better off if the likes of Twitter just shut down for good and never came back.

	Post automatically merged: Friday at 10:00 PM



mrdude said:


> Iron Man, Doctor Strange and Ant Man all exist in the same fictional universe as well - but they are all different stories. Maybe try to seperate them and then they will be more enjoyable to you. Currently you're trying to comapre chalk and cheese as being the same thing, when it's not.


So if the MCU started to only put out shitty films, I couldn't say that the legacy of the MCU is starting to get tainted?  Sorry I don't agree with your reasoning here at all.  The legacy of the Wizarding World has been tainted thanks to the Fantastic Beasts movies.  It has for me anyway.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Friday at 10:01 PM)

MikaDubbz said:


> Frankly I want the platform(s) that enable us to know such things that get people to so easily be cancelled from to disappear entirely, we'd all be way better off if the likes of Twitter just shut down for good and never came back.
> 
> Post automatically merged: Friday at 10:00 PM
> 
> ...


Fucking cheers to that, brother.


----------



## mrdude (Friday at 10:07 PM)

MikaDubbz said:


> So if the MCU started to only put out shitty films, I couldn't say that the legacy of the MCU is starting to get tainted?  Sorry I don't agree with your reasoning here at all.


MCU has started to put out shit films recently when it stated going woke, it still doesn't take away from the fact that it made good movies when Stan Lee was alive and kicking though, I mean FFS - Infinity War and Endgame, how great were they! they were amazing, but the crap that was Captain Marvel or Thor Love and Thunder - WTF were they thinking with that crap??? Still these crap movies don't make the other ones seem any less great, because I know how to seperate those, that's what you need to learn to do.


----------



## sombrerosonic (Friday at 10:08 PM)

You still have to buy the books however.......

Unless there printing them themselfs.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Friday at 10:09 PM)

mrdude said:


> MCU has started to put out shit films recently when it stated going woke, it still doesn't take away from the fact that it made good movies when Stan Lee was alive an kicking though, I mean FFS - Infinity War and Endgame, how great were they! they were amazing, but the crap that was Captain Marvel or Thor Love and Thunder - WTF were they thinking with that crap??? Still these crap movies don't make the other ones seem any less great, because I know how to seperate those, that's what you need to learn to do.


It was a hard pill for me to swallow to finally just accept that the MCU is never going to be faithful to the canon. 

I hated Love and Thunder before it even came out because I hated Jane Foster as Thor. 

Then I saw She-Hulk, and immediately felt better about it, because NOTHING could be as fucking godawful as that.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Friday at 10:13 PM)

MikaDubbz said:


> Frankly I want the platform(s) that enable us to know such things that get people to so easily be cancelled from to disappear entirely, we'd all be way better off if the likes of Twitter just shut down for good and never came back.


I'd be happy if the people who claim to not partake in cancel culture to stop partaking in cancel culture.

	Post automatically merged: Friday at 10:14 PM



CraddaPoosta said:


> It was a hard pill for me to swallow to finally just accept that the MCU is never going to be faithful to the canon.
> 
> I hated Love and Thunder before it even came out because I hated Jane Foster as Thor.
> 
> Then I saw She-Hulk, and immediately felt better about it, because NOTHING could be as fucking godawful as that.


That's how I felt about the Star Wars prequels, until the sequels came out.


----------



## mrdude (Friday at 10:26 PM)

CraddaPoosta said:


> Then I saw She-Hulk, and immediately felt better about it, because NOTHING could be as fucking godawful as that.


I tried to watch the first episode but it was ridiculous so I turned it off. How come the Hulk managed to give her blood? He tried to shoot himself in the head in previous movies, got shot by tanks and missiles etc and never got so much as a scratch.....did he just happen to have some special alloy syringe that day that could punture his hulk skin so he could give her some hulk blood.

I also never watched Ms Marvel, and Moon knight was kind of weird. As for Wakanda Forever.....I can't bring myself to watch it, If I wanted to watch a bunch of black chicks fighting each other I'd just go on youtube and watch them destroy a McDonalds or steal some stuff from a shop - which seems to be all the rage in USA just now.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Friday at 10:45 PM)

mrdude said:


> MCU has started to put out shit films recently when it stated going woke, it still doesn't take away from the fact that it made good movies when Stan Lee was alive and kicking though, I mean FFS - Infinity War and Endgame, how great were they! they were amazing, but the crap that was Captain Marvel or Thor Love and Thunder - WTF were they thinking with that crap??? Still these crap movies don't make the other ones seem any less great, because I know how to seperate those, that's what you need to learn to do.


Ok dude, nothing you're saying is going to make me feel like I'm wrong for recognizing how I don't think the Harry Potter brand is as strong and spot-free as it used to be, thanks in no small part to what the Fantastic Beasts did to the Wizarding World.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Friday at 10:48 PM)

MikaDubbz said:


> Ok dude, nothing you're saying is going to make me feel like I'm wrong for recognizing how I don't think the Harry Potter brand is as strong and spot-free as it used to be, thanks in no small part to what the Fantastic Beasts did to the Wizarding World.


I think you are relating Fantastic Beasts to the sprawling fucking three-part Hobbit movies.

I saw it as a cash-grab, too. But, as a rabid fan, I would eat up anything that gave me a chance to Expelliarmus one more time.

I'll take another spot of Bilbo, if you please, even if you construct a completely fucking bonkers stoy about Kili being in love with an elf. Dear god, why did this happen? SCHTUPIDEST THING EVAAA!!!

It's the main reason I am excited for Hogwarts: Legacy. If I dig something, I am into it fully, and I can forgive a few bumps and bruises on the fruit.

Hell, I even like Dragon Ball GT.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Friday at 10:50 PM)

CraddaPoosta said:


> I think you are relating Fantastic Beasts to the sprawling fucking three-part Hobbit movies.
> 
> I saw it as a cash-grab, too. But, as a rabid fan, I would eat up anything that gave me a chance to Expelliarmus one more time.
> 
> ...


Never saw those Hobbit movies.  Did see the Fantastic Beasts movies, all bad in my opinion, each one worse than the last.  Makes me reconsider my feelings towards the entire franchise.  And it's true, after watching some of the Harry Potter movies again since Fantastic Beasts, I find myself less and less inspired by the series.  It's still good, but it's also pretty dumb if I'm completely honest lol.

And hey, I'm with you, I unironically like GT too, it's the worst of the Dragon Ball shows for sure, but it's still decent and has it's own charm.


----------



## mrdude (Friday at 10:53 PM)

MikaDubbz said:


> I find myself less and less inspired by the series.  It's still good, but it's also pretty dumb if I'm completely honest lol.


Probably that's because you are older now and not some spotty kid.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Friday at 10:54 PM)

mrdude said:


> Probably that's because you are older now and not some spotty kid.


I mean I was loving the Harry Potter movies still when I was 28, I used to watch them every year.  Then Fantastic Beasts came out, and like flicking a switch, the entire series exposed its lameness to me.  Hard to explain, but it's a bummer, and I no longer watch the Harry Potter movies every year, still enjoy it, but my fandom for it is not at all what it used to be.  And I'm still a big nerdy fan for plenty of other things.  I really doubt age has anything to do with it, I mean hell I still love Adventure Time and watch far too much of it for any normal 35 year old lol.


----------



## Hanafuda (Friday at 10:57 PM)

MikaDubbz said:


> I mean I was loving the Harry Potter movies still when I was 28, I used to watch them every year.  Then Fantastic Beasts came out, and like flicking a switch, the entire series exposed its lameness to me.  Hard to explain, but it's a bummer, and I no longer watch the Harry Potter movies every year.



You just finally grew up. Fantastic Beasts didn't change anything, it just gave you a fresh look at the same silly world that you had outgrown, but clung to like you clung to youth. Happens to all of us with something or other.


----------



## mrdude (Friday at 10:58 PM)

MikaDubbz said:


> I mean I was loving the Harry Potter movies still when I was 28, I used to watch them every year.  Then Fantastic Beasts came out, and like flicking a switch, the entire series exposed its lameness to me.  Hard to explain, but it's a bummer, and I no longer watch the Harry Potter movies every year.


You will probably get back in the zone when you play this.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Friday at 10:58 PM)

MikaDubbz said:


> Never saw those Hobbit movies.  Did see the Fantastic Beasts movies, all bad in my opinion, each one worse than the last.  Makes me reconsider my feelings towards the entire franchise.  And it's true, after watching some of the Harry Potter movies again since Fantastic Beasts, I find myself less and less inspired by the series.  It's still good, but it's also pretty dumb if I'm completely honest lol.
> 
> And hey, I'm with you, I unironically like GT too, it's the worst of the Dragon Ball shows for sure, but it's still decent and has it's own charm.


Listen to the audiobooks as narrated by Stephen Fry. 

Trust me. 

NO ONE. As in NO ONE, not even Gary Oldman, could replicate this many accents and voices. It is the single best audiobook series I have ever experienced, and is the absolute best way to experience the novels outside of reading them, and maybe even better than that. 

Beats the movies bloody. I think this is his best work ever, and probably the best narration in anything I have ever heard. 

It's that fucking good. I think most of them are even on YouTube somewhere.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Friday at 10:58 PM)

Hanafuda said:


> You just finally grew up. Fantastic Beasts didn't change anything, it just gave you a fresh look at the same silly world that you had outgrown, but clung to like you clung to youth. Happens to all of us with something or other.


Nah I doubt it.  Like I said in my edit, I really doubt age has anything to do with it, I mean hell I still love Adventure Time and watch far too much of it for any normal 35 year old lol.  I'll take a thousand more childlike cartoons like Adventure Time over some gritty drama or whatever the hell I'm 'supposed' to enjoy at this age.

	Post automatically merged: Friday at 10:59 PM



CraddaPoosta said:


> Listen to the audiobooks as narrated by Stephen Fry.
> 
> Trust me.
> 
> ...


Oh I have listened to the audioooks.  You don't have to tell me how great those were.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Friday at 11:13 PM)

It's not copyright infringement? That makes no sense whatsoever. At the very least, it's a derivative work, and that is covered by copyright law.


----------



## lokomelo (Yesterday at 12:32 AM)

The Real Jdbye said:


> It's not copyright infringement? That makes no sense whatsoever. At the very least, it's a derivative work, and that is covered by copyright law.


if you buy a Volkswagen, remove the badges and emblems and sell it, is it a copyright or patent infringement?

The person is not coping the book, it is cutting and gluing stuff on it. Stationary stores (google translated this, don't know if it is the right term) do this service for ages now, you bring them a book and say "hey, put a blue cover on it", they will do it for you.


----------



## Xzi (Yesterday at 12:45 AM)

CraddaPoosta said:


> It was a hard pill for me to swallow to finally just accept that the MCU is never going to be faithful to the canon.


Spoken like someone who has never read a Marvel comic.  They've literally always been "woke" and anti-fascist.  Female Thor was a story line first created in the 1960s, IIRC.

A laughing emoji won't change the fact that you're clueless and have obviously never been a true fan.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Yesterday at 12:51 AM)

Xzi said:


> Spoken like someone who has never read a Marvel comic.  They've literally always been "woke" and anti-fascist.  Female Thor was a story line first created in the 1960s, IIRC.


Oh, shut up, little boy. I know that female Thor already existed in several other iterations. I just knew that the specific bent of this particular cinematic movie was far, far away from the original image that was portrayed in the Silver Age of comics.

I feared, correctly, that this movie would just go as woke as they could, just like when they rebooted Ghostbusters with an all-female cast, just like Ocean's 8, just to appeal to the woke mob. And I just wish they didn't have to fuck with good original source material to be able to do this. It's exploitative and it's transparent and it's weak. Terrible storytelling.


----------



## Xzi (Yesterday at 12:58 AM)

CraddaPoosta said:


> Oh, shut up, little boy. I know that female Thor already existed in several other iterations. I just knew that the specific bent of this particular cinematic movie was far, far away from the original image that was portrayed in the Silver Age of comics.
> 
> I feared, correctly, that this movie would just go as woke as they could, just like when they rebooted Ghostbusters with an all-female cast, just like Ocean's 8, just to appeal to the woke mob. And I just wish they didn't have to fuck with good original source material to be able to do this. It's exploitative and it's transparent and it's weak. Terrible storytelling.


Love and Thunder wasn't a very good movie compared to Ragnarok, mostly because unneccessary cuts for time were made, but I struggle to see what exactly was so "woke" about it.  Spoiler alert: Jane Foster didn't even live through the movie.  If Marvel _really_ wanted to piss you off, they would've killed off Hemsworth's Thor instead and made Jane the new Thor by default.

If "woke" has just become an adjective to describe any movie co-featuring a woman or non-white protagonist, then that demonstrates how far off the deep end your ideology has truly gone.


----------



## Hanafuda (Yesterday at 1:08 AM)

lokomelo said:


> if you buy a Volkswagen, remove the badges and emblems and sell it, is it a copyright or patent infringement?
> 
> The person is not coping the book, it is cutting and gluing stuff on it. Stationary stores (google translated this, don't know if it is the right term) do this service for ages now, you bring them a book and say "hey, put a blue cover on it", they will do it for you.




Excellent analogy. This artist isn't claiming to have written the story or created the book, he's just making just a new "container" for it.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Yesterday at 1:36 AM)

Xzi said:


> Love and Thunder wasn't a very good movie compared to Ragnarok, mostly because unneccessary cuts for time were made, but I struggle to see what exactly was so "woke" about it.  Spoiler alert: Jane Foster didn't even live through the movie.  If Marvel _really_ wanted to piss you off, they would've killed off Hemsworth's Thor instead and made Jane the new Thor by default.
> 
> If "woke" has just become an adjective to describe any movie co-featuring a woman or non-white protagonist, then that demonstrates how far off the deep end your ideology has truly gone.


Woke also means that non-white actors are no longer given villain roles.

https://redstate.com/alexparker/202...s-hollywood-only-wants-white-villains-n687269


----------



## Xzi (Yesterday at 2:16 AM)

TraderPatTX said:


> Woke also means that non-white actors are no longer given villain roles.
> 
> https://redstate.com/alexparker/202...s-hollywood-only-wants-white-villains-n687269


Err...the villain in both Black Panther movies was non-white, and so is the big bad in this phase of Marvel movies (Kang).  "This one actor can't find a villain role anyone wants to cast him in" isn't really a story though, thus they run with the clickbait instead.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Yesterday at 2:43 AM)

Xzi said:


> Err...the villain in both Black Panther movies was non-white, and so is the big bad in this phase of Marvel movies (Kang).  "This one actor can't find a villain role anyone wants to cast him in" isn't really a story though, thus they run with the clickbait instead.


The entire cast of Black Panther was non-white, lol. It was the least diverse cast of any Marvel movie.


----------



## orangy57 (Yesterday at 2:48 AM)

I mean the person is really good at rebinding books but I was hoping that the new cover art would look a little more colorful. Most of this stuff is just outrage bait from news sites though like literally who cares it's just someone doing fun arts and crafts on their book


----------



## Xzi (Yesterday at 2:59 AM)

TraderPatTX said:


> The entire cast of Black Panther was non-white, lol. It was the least diverse cast of any Marvel movie.


That's not true either, both Martin Freeman and Andy Serkis played roles in the original.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Yesterday at 3:00 AM)

Xzi said:


> That's not true either, both Martin Freeman and Andy Serkis played roles in the original.


Wow, two people!! How could I have forgotten? That changes everything.


----------



## Xzi (Yesterday at 3:04 AM)

TraderPatTX said:


> Wow, two people!! How could I have forgotten? That changes everything.


I mean if you keep speaking in absolutes, it's super easy to keep proving you wrong.  I don't understand the conservative obsession with trying to play the victim card.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Yesterday at 3:07 AM)

Xzi said:


> Err...the villain in both Black Panther movies was non-white, and so is the big bad in this phase of Marvel movies (Kang).  "This one actor can't find a villain role anyone wants to cast him in" isn't really a story though, thus they run with the clickbait instead.


I'm literally chuckling and wasted a good bowl hit on this when I read that you said that Black Panther had non-White villains.

I'm starting to wonder who is the true Marvel fan, here. Genius. Knower of all. Millennial Beyond Compare.

Here's a news flash for you. What continent is Wakanda located in? Africa. Almost everybody in Wakanda is black. It is one of the most segregated nations on the planet, fictional or real. By intent and by design.

If you're one of those open border liberals, you would HATE Wakanda. They literally shut themselves off from the rest of the world using a force field by means of alien technology, for thousands of years. You want to talk about Trump and his border policy? You want to cry about some shipping containers along the border? Get mad at T'Challa. Please go fist yourself.


----------



## Foxi4 (Yesterday at 3:11 AM)

> ”The artist is selling the full set on their web store for $1,600 Canadian dollars, or $1191.”


This is a grift and a publicity stunt. You can get a book rebound in *leather* for a $100 a pop, $200 tops, plus a little extra for fancy-shmancy extras like raised bands, gold tooling and so on. This looks like standard magister thesis style binding that costs $30-$60. It shouldn’t cost more than $240-$480 in toto (probably less - costs decrease when you order multiple units) for all 8 books, maybe an extra $50 for all the faff with wax seals and other assorted nonsense. Anyone who falls for this is a sucker for a cause.

EDIT: Bwahahahaha! It’s *bookcloth*, my poor sides! 




This is *the* cheapest full-cover binding next to plain old cardboard. This service is worth next to nothing. Anyone gushing over this has never bound anything in their lives.


----------



## mrmagicm (Yesterday at 3:33 AM)

The guy that does this to JK Rowling should be sued, it's a mark not only of disrespect, but it against copyright, I would be the author, I would sue him specially for the "first" reason, not for the money!
In FRANCE, a music group (INDOCHINE) refused to play in a city because of the political edge of its town hall, is this normal?


----------



## Xzi (Yesterday at 3:35 AM)

CraddaPoosta said:


> Here's a news flash for you. What continent is Wakanda located in? Africa. Almost everybody in Wakanda is black. It is one of the most segregated nations on the planet, fictional or real. By intent and by design.


No shit Sherlock.  What's this have to do with anything being discussed?  The movie isn't set entirely in Wakanda, and it's not like Hollywood hasn't been known to do some blatant whitewashing for similar roles.  Both statements made by TraderPat remain incorrect, despite your nonsensical objections.



CraddaPoosta said:


> If you're one of those open border liberals, you would HATE Wakanda. They literally shut themselves off from the rest of the world using a force field by means of alien technology, for thousands of years.


Better than being imperialistic, certainly, but the entire theme of the first movie was that isolationism doesn't really work in the long term either.


----------



## Foxi4 (Yesterday at 3:36 AM)

mrmagicm said:


> The guy that does this to JK Rowling should be sued, it's a mark not only of disrespect, but it against copyright, I would be the author, I would sue him specially for the "first" reason, not for the money!


There is nothing unusual about this and no copyright is being violated - books get rebound in whatever cover the customer wants all the time, it’s not considered to be a part of the original work. Things would be different if the new covers were carbon copies of the original - at that point you’re violating reproduction copyright on the cover art (maybe, not necessarily). A custom cover is perfectly acceptable.


----------



## mrmagicm (Yesterday at 3:40 AM)

> There is nothing unusual about this and no copyright is being violated - books get rebound in whatever cover the customer wants all the time, it’s not considered to be a part of the original work. Things would be different if the new covers were carbon copies of the original - at that point you’re violating reproduction copyright on the cover art (maybe, not necessarily). A custom cover is perfectly acceptable.


Indeed, your are right but I would be the author, I would sue him for vilification and Slander which would be perfectly acceptable in my country, by what he his doing, he is building and so a prejudice toward the author.


----------



## Foxi4 (Yesterday at 3:43 AM)

mrmagicm said:


> Indeed, your are right but I would be the author, I would sue him for vilification and Slander which would be perfectly acceptable in my country.


What’s slanderous about removing the author’s name? The customer owns the book - they can do anything they want with it, including shredding it if that’s their fancy. The books aren’t sold under the premise that they were made by somebody else other than the author - they’re modified to order to look a certain way. You can certainly take it to court if you want, but don’t expect to win - intellectual property isn’t being violated and the author’s life is unaffected as the product was already sold - there’s no tangible loss or damages to speak of. If what you’re suggesting were true, prisons would be filled almost entirely with children sentenced for defacing their school books with obscene drawings.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Yesterday at 3:53 AM)

Xzi said:


> No shit Sherlock.  What's this have to do with anything being discussed?  The movie isn't set entirely in Wakanda, and it's not like Hollywood hasn't been known to do some blatant whitewashing for similar roles.  Both statements made by TraderPat remain incorrect, despite your nonsensical objections.
> 
> 
> Better than being imperialistic, certainly, but the entire theme of the first movie was that isolationism doesn't really work in the long term either.


Please describe any imperalistic society that you have witnessed in your own, personal living memory or experience. 

Oh. 

Oh, that's right. It's literally NEVER happened since you were born. You weren't alive when Korea split. You weren't alive when China decided that Taiwan should not be its own independent nation. Just in case you wanted to trot either of those out. 

I'd be careful trying to introduce imperialism into an argument, if you have absolutely no ground to stand on. 

You tried to move the goalpost when I made the pont that Wakanda doesn't exactly have a welcoming "migrant" program. They are a fictional UBERpower in their universe, with wealth and technology beyond that of any other nation (kind of like... America???), yet they completely refuse any refugees and wall themselves off from the world. 

This goes beyond the movie, if you want to play that angle. Been like this for thousands of years in the comics, and continues to be. Wakanda is NOT a nation with open borders, never has been, never will be. 

Why would you celebrate a fictional nation using its military and its technology to defend its borders, while continuing to put its people first as the chief priority, with a stance of non-involvement in outside or even global conflicts?

If you can accept it in theory; in FICTION, you can entertain the idea in reality. 

Maybe you learned something today.


----------



## Xzi (Yesterday at 4:02 AM)

CraddaPoosta said:


> Please describe any imperalistic society that you have witnessed in your own, personal living memory or experience.


You can't be fucking serious.  We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan for nearly TWENTY YEARS, all just so weapons manufacturers and defense contractors could make some more money.  The Russian invasion of Ukraine is still ongoing right this second.



CraddaPoosta said:


> You tried to move the goalpost when I made the pont that Wakanda doesn't exactly have a welcoming "migrant" program.


Yes, _I'm_ the one who moved the goalposts when the topic was initially non-white actors being cast in villain roles.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Yesterday at 4:24 AM)

It's extremely funny.

	Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 4:26 AM



Xzi said:


> You can't be fucking serious.  We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan for nearly TWENTY YEARS, all just so weapons manufacturers and defense contractors could make some more money.  The Russian invasion of Ukraine is still ongoing right this second.
> 
> 
> Yes, _I'm_ the one who moved the goalposts when the topic was initially non-white actors being cast in villain roles.


no no no xzi you don't get it, if YOU didn't see it personally happen, it's not imperialism!
now watch as neo immediately twists into a repressededly homosexual pretzel to explain how despite never living under socialism he can call everything he doesn't like communism/socialism


WAAAAAAAAIT PLEASE TELL ME THE NARUTO AVI GUY IS NOT GETTING HIS OPINIONS FROM MARVEL FLICKS AGAIN LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


----------



## mrmagicm (Yesterday at 6:23 AM)

> there’s no tangible loss or damages to speak of


Of course THERE IS, you just don't seen it!!.... It's reputation, it's a clear vision that the person doing this is NEGATING the work of the Author, but also darkenning her reputation, if you don't see this, you are blind! ^^
If I would try to obscur the fact that JAMES BALDWIN has written a particular book, you would call me rascist and indeed it is because it is a kind of PREJUDICE to obscur someone's fame or réputation (pretend for example the person didn't exist whereas there is proof of opposite). Would you lobscur the fact that jews were burnt by nazis during the 2nd world war and nobody did it? Of course not....lawyers will see this just like you say someone is violent or dead, your defame him (for example what did amber heard vs johnny depp....The person has made a profit and the author also has miss another sale exept if the buyer would have bought a used book which is not proven he might have bought a new book, don't you think?
ANY KIND of prejudice you do can make your way to the court, specially if someone is trying to create a chain reaction to someone's reputation).  Sorry, growns up don't live in a childish world....

Ps: .Futur will tell who is right, I don't want to discuss anymore when I know the result in advance, in that case


----------



## Xzi (Yesterday at 6:50 AM)

mrmagicm said:


> Of course THERE IS, you just don't seen it!!.... It's reputation, it's a clear vision that the person doing this is NEGATING the work of the Author, but also darkenning her reputation, if you don't see this, you are blind! ^^


If Rowling hadn't fucked up her own reputation, there never would've been demand for this type of service to begin with.  She also likely knew her opinions on the topic would be divisive, which is why she chose not to voice those opinions until after all the Harry Potter books and movies had already been released to massive success.


----------



## Viri (Yesterday at 7:17 AM)

From what I seen, people are paying for more than the book is worth, 1000 dollars for all the books. I'm just angry I didn't think of this first.


----------



## mrdude (Yesterday at 8:51 AM)

CraddaPoosta said:


> Oh, shut up, little boy. I know that female Thor already existed in several other iterations. I just knew that the specific bent of this particular cinematic movie was far, far away from the original image that was portrayed in the Silver Age of comics.
> 
> I feared, correctly, that this movie would just go as woke as they could, just like when they rebooted Ghostbusters with an all-female cast, just like Ocean's 8, just to appeal to the woke mob. And I just wish they didn't have to fuck with good original source material to be able to do this. It's exploitative and it's transparent and it's weak. Terrible storytelling.


Have you ever noticed how these writers hardly ever invent their own characters, they just rip of some male character and add women to the end, bat-woman, spider-woman, she-hulk etc. To be honest there's some good women characters in DC/MCU movies - Harley Quinn, Gamora (GOTG), Nebula (GOTG) Mantis (GOTG), maybe if the writers concentrated on making more characters like these they wouldn't turn people off by trying to copy male characters all the time.
As for the female Ghostbusters - yep I agree, total crap compared to original ghostbusters, maybe if it had been original and ghostbusters had never existed more people would have liked it, buy for me it was a "mey" movie and very forgetable. Same with Ocean's 8 - I can't even remember what that was about now.


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (Yesterday at 9:12 AM)

J.K. Rowling is doing a multimillionaire donation to the LGBTQ+ community, hopefully they'll find a cure.

lol


----------



## Xzi (Yesterday at 10:25 AM)

JuanBaNaNa said:


> J.K. Rowling is doing a multimillionaire donation to the LGBTQ+ community


Guess that's easier for her than simply issuing a straightforward apology.  Just another rich person with way more money than common sense.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Yesterday at 2:21 PM)

I give it a few years and JK Rowling is gonna change her name to JQ Rowling after a convo with some other far right loser.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Yesterday at 3:17 PM)

Xzi said:


> Guess that's easier for her than simply issuing a straightforward apology.  Just another rich person with way more money than common sense.


She has nothing to apologize for. 

What is incorrect about her statement that only women can menstruate?


----------



## mrmagicm (Yesterday at 3:25 PM)

> If Rowling hadn't fucked up her own reputation


I suppose you don't like her (maybe me?), I don't mind....For me, she has not fuck up.
Who cares of what you think, when you're a billionnaire? She hasn't fucked her reputation, it's only bugged people who says so. Also, she can sue every one she wants if she wish that's what you don't understand. All what she thinks is true, been Gay or a transgenre is not a "bad" thing at all, it's "BUG" in humanity and whatever you think cannot change that, you can cry, it wouldn't change that also.  You don't think it's true?   I haven't convince you?? 
Well just view this:  
PLEASE ALL, HAVE A LOOK AT THIS VIDEO, it is IMPORTANT to UNDERSTAND.
It has been also proven you can change sex orientation by changing something in the brain of mices, so don't you think that can been done on humans?
It's just the same, been left handed, been Trisomic or been gay, it just ODDS. Gays are a kind of mutation like having a perfect eternal memory, the odd is around 4% out of 100. Can you deny science?
I Saying it AGAIN:  I don't say been gay or left handed is a bad Thing, I don't deny it exists, but I must say, people not admitting it's not a particularity of an individual tend to make me laugh, also talking to Interficial intelligence has proven to lead to that conclusion.
Is a BUG a bad thing?? All I can say, I'm sure it's not a disease. I'll let you determine, I have my opinion.....Having a very nice mutation is VERY rare, because even having a perfect eternal memory has it's drawbacks.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Yesterday at 3:35 PM)

mrmagicm said:


> I suppose you don't like her (maybe me?), I don't mind....For me, she has not fuck up.
> Who cares of what you think, when you're a billionnaire? She hasn't fucked her reputation, it's only bugged people who says so. Also, she can sue every one she wants if she wish that's what you don't understand. All what she thinks is true, been Gay or a transgenre is not a "bad" thing at all, it's "BUG" in humanity and whatever you think cannot change that, you can cry, it wouldn't change that also.  You don't think it's true?   I haven't convince you??
> Well just view this:
> PLEASE ALL, HAVE A LOOK AT THIS VIDEO, it is IMPORTANT to UNDERSTAND.
> ...



The Rainbow Nazis have never been interested in science or facts. Feelings are all they have. You won't win them over with something as silly as the truth.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Yesterday at 4:54 PM)

lokomelo said:


> if you buy a Volkswagen, remove the badges and emblems and sell it, is it a copyright or patent infringement?
> 
> The person is not coping the book, it is cutting and gluing stuff on it. Stationary stores (google translated this, don't know if it is the right term) do this service for ages now, you bring them a book and say "hey, put a blue cover on it", they will do it for you.


Oh, I thought they were printing books, but they're just making new binding and putting it on legitimately purchased books. I kinda skimmed the article and must've missed that bit. It still makes it a derivative work of the cover art itself, but maybe it's covered under fair use? 

Removing the badges from a car doesn't require modifying a piece of art. Unless you consider cars art pieces, which I don't think most people do. The law works differently when it comes to forms of art. 

I'm unsure how it would fare in court, now that I realized they're not printing books, the person might be right that it's not copyright infringing, but ultimately it would be up to the judge to decide. It's not always black and white, the law doesn't detail every possible scenario.


----------



## lokomelo (Yesterday at 5:06 PM)

The Real Jdbye said:


> Oh, I thought they were printing books, but they're just making new binding and putting it on legitimately purchased books. I kinda skimmed the article and must've missed that bit. It still makes it a derivative work of the cover art itself, but maybe it's covered under fair use?
> 
> Removing the badges from a car doesn't require modifying a piece of art. Unless you consider cars art pieces, which I don't think most people do. The law works differently when it comes to forms of art.
> 
> I'm unsure how it would fare in court, now that I realized they're not printing books, the person might be right that it's not copyright infringing, but ultimately it would be up to the judge to decide. It's not always black and white, the law doesn't detail every possible scenario.


This situation is pretty much black and white. You are on the right to resell and repurpose books you own.

Sometimes we are so sunken in capitalism, that we overestimate what a corporation or a rich person can actually do but they clearly can't own the books you already own.


----------



## BlazeMasterBM (Yesterday at 5:25 PM)

x65943 said:


> If a museum presented for instance Hitler's art without a name placard I would feel a little cheated


I wouldn't. It would actually be an interesting experience.


----------



## x65943 (Yesterday at 10:00 PM)

BlazeMasterBM said:


> I wouldn't. It would actually be an interesting experience.


Would it really be interesting if they were hiding it was from Hitler?


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Today at 12:53 AM)

lokomelo said:


> This situation is pretty much black and white. You are on the right to resell and repurpose books you own.
> 
> Sometimes we are so sunken in capitalism, that we overestimate what a corporation or a rich person can actually do but they clearly can't own the books you already own.


You might be right, I'm not a lawyer and I don't know much law so I'm not qualified, I just know that the law is rarely that black and white.


----------



## Xzi (59 minutes ago)

CraddaPoosta said:


> She has nothing to apologize for.


If that were true, she wouldn't bother with the donation either.


----------

