Personally, I would never, ever say that because I've read so much long and meandering worthless bullshit to be fooled by pretty language. Is this writing a shotgun or a rifle? Does it try to hit everything, cover all possible bases instead of having a real focus and point to what it's doing? Or...
Ehhhh. It's setting boundaries, whether arbitrary or not. They're free to do that. Everyone is. You're free to be upset about it.
I will always do it, primarily, for a baseline legality thing. In the most exacerbated situation possible--knowingly or even unknowingly talking to a minor about...
"Is that it?!" She stumbled, almost unable to reach the words through her anger. "That's the reason you'd fucking chase--" She couldn't grasp it through the surge. "Who?!"
Nothing. Hopeful. She shouldn't have hoped too much for answe--
"Was it a man by the name of Valentine?" His hesitance was...
It's a shame that this type of masculinity was not well picked up by audiences and while Rowling plans for Newt to be the protag for at least one more movie, it looks like he'll be shuffled out for a more traditionally masculine protag. :/
it was a pleasantly surprising movie and the de-toxifying of male protagonists is just as important to me as historical accuracy/diversity so I can personally forgive it for what it generally attempted (except /spoiler/ killing Credence with no end to his story or arc /spoiler/).
i liked it, and Newt is a different kind of nonmachismo protagonist whose strengths are empathy and deescalation (better summarized in the vid by Pop Culture Detective examining masculinity). o-x Tho the well was poisoned for me with a friend going "it's a bad movie because it takes place in...