You're not suggesting being loyal to the comics version of the character, though. In fact, you're suggesting aping a particular detail of the events of the comic (which is not at all the same thing) and making changes to the comics character's motives, just to crowbar in that particular detail, which is ultimately of very little importance. That's not being loyal to the comics version: it's just poor storytelling.
I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Corbyn is trying to do and how he sees not only his leadership, but how parties should work. Rightly or wrongly, he's simply not a believer in the idea that the leader must compel every MP to support him in his every judgement call, or be labelled 'weak'. So he's unlikely to see the issue in the terms above, and unlikely to behave accordingly. He's really not about the 'cult of personality' leadership style. That may yet turn out to be the root of his demise, of course. On the broader issue, I've yet to hear a single compelling argument as to why this is necessary. What I have heard is some really quite personal invective from Labour members (both rank-and-file folks that I know, and backbench MPs) who are talking about a reluctance to bomb people being proof that Corbyn is 'unfit to lead the party'. So clearly, this is a touchstone issue for many Corbyn opponents.
'Rely on the rape card'? The show doesn't even bring up the word 'rape' until over halfway through and never actually depicts it, either in flashback or in the present. It leaves it to the viewer to imply what happened and it never privileges the rape - it's presented as a part of the abuse, not some special category that is inherently more horrific. Meanwhile, the notion that the comics version is somehow not 'relying on the rape card' because it's not the protagonist herself who gets raped is, well, let's be kind and say 'absurd'. I'm sorry, but that's a cheap attempt at criticism that literally could not be more wrong.
The script is clear she doesn't want it because she thinks she deserves it: she just wants to hurt Hogarth the only way she can. Asking for 50% wouldn't do that (that's just an even split), so she asks for 70%, only going to 90% after Hogarth sends Jessica to threaten her. She's not even negotiating about it - she's just lashing out.
The episode was... great. A tour de force by Capaldi, great direction, great writing, great production. I can't complain about a single thing in the actual episode BUT Are they going to resurrect the 'The Doctor is half-human' bit from the movie?
Well, when I read review after review saying that the JJ series was true to the nature of the source material, and then one guy on a message board saying it's not, then I do tend to think: that's a subjective opinion, yes.
'True to the character', when you're talking about comic book characters with a long publication history like Kingpin and the Purple Man, is just another way of saying 'a version of the character I happen to like'. Kingpin started out, after all, as a Spider-Man villain with an 'obliterator ray' in his cane and a megalomaniacal supervillain attitude. Purple Man started out as a (rather silly-looking) Daredevil villain. The 'tone' of Kingpin has varied, a lot: Link Link Link Link You can take your pick which version of the Kingpin you like best, just as you can with Kilgrave, or Batman, or the Joker, or a whole range of others. Arguing that JJ got Kilgrave wrong while DD got Kingpin right, to me, just looks like personal preference and/or limited knowledge of the characters.
You appear to be basically saying that you wish the series had told another story than the one it went with - which is fine, as a matter of personal preference, but it's not really a substantial critique of the writing of that actual story. I have to say that the notion that the Kingpin from the DD series is essentially identical to the comics is one I find just weird. It's one portrayal, and it's a good one, but there have been many different portrayals of the Kingpin over the years. There's no single 'correct' portrayal of either Kingpin or Kilgrave.
But, even if we accept for the sake of argument that these are all valid points, they're neither cliches nor stereotypes. You've complained about that particular aspect of the writing, and come up with... one example of that, and five other things which are not that at all. This suggests the original criticism was misplaced, at the very least. In general, I'd say that if you genuinely think this series was badly written, then so be it. You're entitled to your opinion: we all have the right to be wrong.
But exaggerating features to the point where they're 'overblown' is pretty much the standard way to ridicule someone. Not every comical portrayal is ridicule. But some are. And this is one of them. I'm not saying I support a boycott, but I don't oppose people calling for one, and I don't think their feelings are phony, or exaggerated, or misplaced.
None in my mind, no. I've seen no substantial argument or point made in this thread or elsewhere that would explain why this is not ridicule but instead a 'comical portrayal' (although these two things are not mutually exclusive, and you've not defined what you think the distinction is).
I think it's more than that - there's an explosion at one point, and then the bit where Cap tells Bucky that there are people coming for him and they don't intend to take him alive. So I'm guessing it goes: - Superhero registration is proposed. - Bombing in response. - Bucky is blamed for the bombing. - Cap goes rogue to defend Bucky. - Iron Man brought in to apprehend both.
Ser C: please watch your terminology. There is no such thing as 'transgenders'. There are trans people. Also, it's never a good idea to tell someone else that their feelings are not their feelings. If someone is offended, and you don't have any good reason to think it's false, don't accuse them of pretending just because you don't share that feeling.