Ahh, so brave to watch a classic, beloved movie from the 80s in 2025 and judge it by the modern lens. Folks used homophobic language in the 80s and do today. The Confederate flag will still exist even if you digitally remove it, although I confess it being in a school in 80s Illinois seems a tad odd.

Still, what precisely is the point of taking a movie from 30+ years ago and viewing it and judging it by our current standards, mores, folkways etc?

Umm, the Bridge was remade in the US for 2 seasons and was about a body found half on the US and half in Mexico and dealt with Border crime issues. Great show, surprised you didn't mention it here. I would also argue that Wire in the Blood is among the best crime shows ever made.

No, I did. I actually read the whole thing. My point is that crying about people "not understanding the symbol". which has changed over time and been coopted by other things is kind of the point. Symbols and words change meanings over time. If Swat teams and Special Forces want to use the Punisher symbol because they think its cool, who cares?

Yeah Alex, that is simply untrue. You think Frank Castle would go after the J6 people first? You don't think he would be tracking down and executing the cartels and those who pushed all the fentanyl into our country? Another Punisher tourist I see.

I mean Ian, have you read Punisher? He literally has worked with cops in the past. Bruv, the comics didn't come out last year, they have been around for decades. Pick up a book and read before outing yourself as foolish

I would also posit that you are not accurately communicating who Frank Castle is. He does not hate cops or the justice system, he hates corruption and despises those who use the system to subvert it, hence he delivers his own form of justice.

This is ridiculous. It is fairly irrelevant what was the meaning or intention behind this all those years ago. Meanings, definitions, heck even the audiences change over time. Bad guys always end up becoming idolized and then made into anti-heroes or even outright heroes. This article is being deliberately obtuse about such a simple concept

My first encounter of the Drow was the cover for the Shard of Winter which showed Drizzt looking like a black dude with white hairy and pointy ears. The next thing I knew, with his book Homeland, they has re-conceptualized them with the different look that was far more fantastical and far less humanized. In fairness I think that was a better look for the Drow than the other version. Elves had a tendency to look like humans with pointed ears in some pictures.

Cristina Wait what? Do we care what people who know nothing about D&D think? Wouldn't the best approach to let the story speak for itself? The truth is that if they did Drizzt's story accurately and kept what made it great, folks would watch it and any controversy would be proved to have been brought up by people who aren't actually fans of the property. You cannot negotiate with terrorists, so why worry about people who don't argue in good faith? Once folks simply move past those voices, people will stop caring about these bad faith arguments.

I will it to being confused by this article. The Drow that we encounter in the Underdark in the Drizzt series are worshippers of Lolth. We actually see Drizzt and his mentor, two Drow who seemingly don't conform to what Lolth wants for her Drow. It is not that Drow are inherently evil, but the Goddess they serve and worship, she is evil and her aims are pretty clear. I feel like when I read an article like this that the writer just used some wiki to learn about this stuff and just ignores anything that challenges the narrative they wish to push.

As has been said countless times, black people exist in D&D. So do Asian-looking folks and brown-skinned people. The fantasy races are not human. They have their own stuff going on and while I don't care if you wish to portray them in a better fashion, take a page from Richard Knaak who took the seemingly universal evil Minotaur and made them complex and interesting characters.