Hello good people of CBM. I read an article this morning that many people seemed to find offensive and down right unfunny. It was RorMachines article on "fixing" Shailene Woodley so she could fit fanboys expectations of Mary Jane Watson. I for one found the article hilarious and instantly picked up on the sarcasm of the article. Unfortunately several people on this site don't seem to have a sense of humor about them.
I will admit I was very skeptical when I first saw the casting decision and admittedly it would have been nice to have gotten someone who was smoking hot. But Shailene isn't "fugly" she is rather cute, she may look young, but hell have you seen what ACTUAL high school girls look like? Even the hottest amongst them don't look like super models. Hell, as attractive as Emma Stone is she would still not even be considered for modeling, she has too many unique features (models all seem to have the same look to them, generic and "hot" Like I said I was not pleased, then I thought about it. Why the hell am I getting riled up about this? It's not like I'm gonna be having sex with this girl (though I totally would) And its not like Marc Webb is going to come to this site and see pathetic fanboys bitching about the casting choice and change her for my sake, so I decided to give her a chance wait til I see the ACTUAL film to JUDGE her. You know like a normal human being would. But you have to remember most people bitching about this are single fanboys who jerk off to Spider-Man comics in their parents basement daily
Ok, I am not trying to say that if you disagree with the casting you are sexist or even a horrible fanboy, or even one of those jerks who fap to comics all day long. I am saying that those who call her fugly because she want wearing make up or just attack the actress personally for something she has no control over. You are idiots. And those who want a character (especially a ridiculously hot drawn one) to look exactly like that character in the film version. Need I remind you that "hot" is not always the best. We have to look at acting chops. There were probably several super model looking girls who auditioned for that role and were complete shit then Shailene comes in and nails the part. And to me the person who DESERVES the role should get it, not necessarily based on looks.
Ok, now that I am done with that rant, Ror's article was hilarious, it pointed out the ridiculousness of peoples responses to the casting. The way he wrote it was so idiotic and no one being completely serious on the topic and would want to be taken seriously would write that. This was just a funny little attempt to make people realize how stupid some commentors can be. So please understand that this was not meant to be taken seriously, and if you don't find the article funny, that is on YOU not the person who wrote it.
Now, let me tell you how Satire works people, Satire is something that is not meant to be taken seriously. It is a type of humor that is presented in a serious manner, but is obviously joking. Many people do this. The most famous example of this would be Jonathan Swifts "A Modest Proposal" In which the writer says that the best way to solve poverty in out nation is to eat babies. If you have not read it, it is a hilarious piece of satire. Here is an excerpt:
"I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ..."
Freaking Genius, now while Ror is definitely no Jonathan Swift, his intentions were the same. Not to hurt the actress or be serious or anything, just a poke at idiot fanboys who DO attack the actress for getting role.
All in all I really enjoyed RorMachines little satire and well, if you didn't that doesn't mean its unfunny or hurtful, it just means you either didn't find it funny or you just don't have a sense of humor.