@Fia1: You know, I could buy into the kool-aid and agree with the theory that Lucas sold off Star Wars to Disney knowing that they would run the franchise into the ground.

Lucas got sick of people attacking the prequels, his revisions to the original trilogy, and other stuff, so he sold it to Disney who closed down Lucasarts and sold the video game rights to EA who brought in lootboxes to Battlefield II, dumped the Extended Universe into the toilet of being non-canon, and are bound and determined to have a Star Wars movie out every since year, with the belief that what worked for the MCU must work for Star Wars.

All the while, Lucas is sitting at home with his money, his wife, his young kid, and is smiling knowing that he gives a final "f*** you" to Star Wars fans who bashed and insulted him, while watching Star Wars be taken down by Disney and their never-ending drive to make money.

I never understood why Lucas sold off the Star Wars franchise, which he owned 100% and never handed the keys to the empire to his kids.

Well, if Lucas intended to destroy Star Wars once and for all while sitting back and watching the show happen, then Disney is the perfect partner to sell the franchise to. Ironically, it might help the prequels get viewed in a better light.

Kinda like how people slam a new Zelda game, and then five years later praise it as a misunderstood classic when the next one arrives.

I'm already seeing people start to reverse their opinions on the prequels to some degree, with some people even saying they weren't as bad as people made them out to be.

So, Lucas also gets a boost to his legacy

@phinix: The problem is that once you start banging the drum of Social Justice and Political Correctness, then the line starts to move in an never ending cycle while things get "fixed" to fit your perfect image of what the world should be.

So, people bang enough pans and remove or change the character of Apu. What happens now? Do we ban the character from the episodes he's been in over 30 years? Do we redub his lines to make him less offensive?

As I asked before, what is offensive about Apu besides the fact that a white man voices him with an accent and some jackasses used him to bully South Asians?

Racists will find a way to mock and insult another race that they despise. It's sad that they chose to use Apu to mock people with, but let me ask this question. If people mocked Italian Americans with Mario, then should Nintendo ban Mario or change the character? It seems like rather than facing the source of the problem which is racist people, we are trying to find something else to blame.

Even if Apu had never existed, Racists would have found a way to mock innocent people.

Here's what bothers me, and I said this in my post. Apu is arguably the most-developed side character in the Simpsons besides Ned Flanders because we see his life change over the course of the series.

Most of the other side characters are static characters who have not really changed over the course of the series. Barney is still the same barfly drunk today that he was in season 1 with his storyline of him becoming Sober going nowhere. Mr. Burns has always been the rich man who is an amoral jackass who could care less about his employees, Principal Skinner has always been an underappreciated man who gets yelled at by Chalmers, has an overbearing mother who controls his life, and deals with a School that is underfunded with holligans like Bart and Nelson running around.

You could even make the argument that Apu is the most developed character on The Simpsons, even more so than even the Title Family. He's gotten his citizenship, gotten married, had kids, seen rough patches in his marriage, and has been an important part of the series in ways that ignore his job running a Convenience Store.

Plus, his culture has never really been played for laughs. The Citizenship Episode drove home the point that Apu should not give up his culture and beliefs just to take the easy path to citizenship, and other episodes often had him embracing his culture.

But most episodes don't focus on his culture. At the end of the day, Apu is an example of a successful immigrant who earned his citizenship, has a great family with his wife and kids, and in the context of the show is viewed as an important pillar of Springfield who is pretty much respected by his community, with The Simpsons being close friends with him.

This is what makes this so disturbing. You have a well-rounded character like Apu being blasted as a symbol of racism when other characters are arguably even bigger stereotypes of different cultures.

I understand the argument that bullies and people in the entertainment industry used Apu in twisted ways by using him to insult an ethnic group and demanding actors act like Apu. But the problem lies not with Apu, but with people who latched onto him and used his shallow elements such as catch-phrases and voice to insult people who did not deserve it.

All the while causing Apu to be labeled a racist character when much of his character relies very little on him being from India, especially when it comes to humor.

But this is the slippery slope. We ban or change Apu to suit the tasted of SJWs. Does it end? No, because they will just latch onto another popular character in media and use them to push their agenda of changing the world, while quite frankly not doing a damn thing.

Rather than target a cartoon character, maybe they should focus their effort on exposing racism and push that agenda? Becuase even if they get rid of Apu, nothing will change. And it's not because the older episodes of The Simpsons with Apu will still be around.

Its because they are trying to put a bandage on the problem rather then trying to solve it for good.

@thomaswmak: That would never work, they would just attack Smithers for being an offensive gay stereotype who makes fun on them.

You know what, why don't we just cancel The Simpsons right now, recall the DVDs and Blu-Rays, and remove the show from all digital storefronts and lock the show deep inside Fox's Vault so nobody can ever see it again. Because if someone is offended by Apu, then how long before everyone else on the show "offends" someone?

Because almost every character in the Simpsons is based on a stereotype. Homer is a lazy, selfish, fat buffoon who comes off as a bad father at times, Barney is a drunk with no other qualities and will go to incredible lengths to get Beer, Ned Flanders is a Christian Fundamentalist who imposes his beliefs on other people to the point of spying on the whole town(remember that episode?) Mr. Burns is a terrible boss who runs a poorly maintained Nuclear Power Plant and is the stereotype that all rich men are amoral selfish assholes, the Italian Characters on the show are either in the mob or run an Italian restaurant, Lisa is written as a liberal know-it all who imposes her beliefs on people regardless of if they want to hear or not, Bart is a brat who does whatever he wants and often gets away with it, The Teachers at Spring Field Elementary don't give a damn about their jobs or the children they are supposed to take care of, the teenager on the show is a loser who is inept at his job, and let's not even get into the various countries the Simpsons have visited over the years that have has obvious stereotypical jokes made about them.

I think the people who complain about Apu are missing the point of the show. Everyone is a stereotype because the Simpsons is poking fun at life and some of the insane BS people have to deal with. Its also a cartoon, with no basis in reality. If we're going to stand on a soapbox and ban Apu from the show, then why not ban Homer? He makes white people look bad with the stereotype that all white men are lazy fat slobs who just coast through life and barely notice their children. Or how about Fat Tony? The stereotype that all italians are either mobsters or can only cook Italian food is insulting, right? How about the Springfield Police Department? Because all of then(outside of Lou) make cops look like idiots who openly abuse their power and could not solve a case if the clues were in glowing letters in front of them.

But you know what, its supposed to be fun to watch. We can laugh at Mr. Burns being behind the times, Homer getting himself into anise schemes that bite him in the ass, Chief Wiggum blowing it as a Cop. We know these people don't exist in real life, and if people are using them to insult other people, then its the fault of the person and not the show. If I called every Italian Mario, does that mean we should ban Mario games and change his voice actor?

What gets me about Apu is that he has some of the most character development out of the main Simpsons family. We've seen him get fired from his job, get married, have kids, cheat on his wife.

How much of that has anything to do with his Indian heritage? Because I don't see how they are mocking Indians with Apu banging the Squishee Lady.

Yeah, he works a stereotypical job, most likely a common ones for Indians when the show first came out. Do we have to get rid of Apu because of it? But let's look past Apu's job and look at the character himself. As I said before, he's the only character outside of the main Simpsons family to develop over the course of the series, and besides his Indian Heritage, they show him as a positive example of an immigrant who came to America and lived the dream. Did people forget the episode where Springfield passed the law banning immigrants, and outright slammed it as nothing more then a sleazy mayor using it to save his own ass.

Apu's heritage is shown is a positive light as something he should not reject just to stay in America, but as something he should embrace. How is this evil? Apu then goes on to become a citizen. Again, what is wrong with him?

I can't honestly recall a time Apu's Indian Heritage was used as a cheap throwaway joke outside of one time when Reverend Lovejoy dismissed Hindu as a real religion, but even that was mocking the habit Americans have of not recognizing religions outside of Christainy.

Apu has pretty much been treated with respect, and the more negative aspect of his character which was his infidelity, his selling of tainted meat, his habit of price gauging customers during a hurricane, and keeping a man frozen in a cooler have nothing to do with his heritage.

If we are going to raise a fuss over one character, then we might as well ban the Simpsons before another character offends someone else.

@alvisj: The Skywalker storyline ended when Luke redeemed Anakin to the light side. Do we really need a Skywalker in every Star Wars movie to make it work?

Yeah, the Skywalkers are important, and much of the story revolves around them, but I welcome the end of the Skywalker Bloodline.

Anakin and Luke are dead, Leia never really awakened her powers, which leaves Kylo Ren as the last one with Skywalker Blood in the Universe. Unless Ren turns to the Light side or him and Rey make whoopee to ensure there is another generation of Skywalkers, then the line ends when Kylo Ren dies.

Which I hope happens. Let the Skywalker storyline finally end with Rey restoring the Jedi Order that Anakin helped destroy so long ago.

Have the next trilogy focus on other Jedi besides the Skywalker family.

I don't get why people are so upset over Rey being the daughter of two average people on Jakku. The Jedi were pretty much all taken as infants from their parents once the order discovered they were force sensitive, which means most of the Jedis that we saw in the prequels and before those movies were force-sensitive people born to average parents who might not have even been force-sensitive themselves.

Even Anakin, the special nature of his conception aside was the son of a woman who was a slave. There were never generations of Jedi who passed down their force sensitive from generation to generation. That is what made Anakin so venerable to the influence of the Dark Side and Palpatine. Because he had formed attachments with Padame and gotten her pregnant.

Rey being the daughter of nobodies puts her in line with the Jedi of the Old Order, who were the children of nobodies or normal people but were born with the ability to use the force.

Having her just be another Skywalker or some lost descendant of a Jedi kinda ruins that. In fact, her being a nobody makes her special if she can successfully rebuild the Jedi Order, because she will accomplish what Luke could not, and also bring the Order back that the Chosen One(Anakin) destroyed years ago.

This also raises another question, what is the chosen one was never Anakin or Luke. What if the Chosen One was Rey, and the Jedi, Sith, and everyone else misread the prophecy.

Rather than another movie that focuses on the Joker in some form, why not put the spotlight on someone else from Batman's rogues gallery?

How about a Bane or Mr. Freeze Origin movie? Maybe someone else?

I get that the Joker is iconic and one of the biggest villains in comics, but when you have a rich rouge gallery like Batman has, do we need yet more Joker? This is almost as bad as Batman getting shoved into everything because DC thinks that a project will fail if Batman does not show up at some point.

And I have to admit, I'm confused. How would a Joker Origin story work anyway when he does not have a single concrete origin story? It differs from story to story and across the various forms of media. Why should I care about Joker's Origin anyway? I could get behind a Mr. Freeze movie because his Origin is pretty much set in stone since The Animated Series. It would be an interesting movie to watch, especially since Batman and Robin gave him a middle finger.

But the Joker? He's a crazy monster with an insane bodycount. Why would I care about how he became the Joker?

I would say scrap The Batman, and combine it with the Nightwing Movie. Mix in Damion Wayne into the plot(Bruce Wayne is old enough to have a kid), and have them fight a major threat like Bane, the League of Shadows, or something really big that pushes Bruce Wayne to his limits and forces the whole Bat-family to get involved(you also introduce Batgirl in this movie)

By the end of the movie, have Bruce Wayne either dead or too badly injured to carry on the mantle of Batman, and handing over the role to someone else.

So, Dick Grayson takes on the role of Batman with Damion Wayne as his Robin. It writes out Ben Affleck's Batman, and introduces something we have never seen before in the DC films. Another person besides Bruce Wayne taking on the role of Batman.

This could be a great way for the DCEU to stand out from Marvel. Peter Parker was never replaced as Spider-Man, but DC would take a huge chance by having another person take over as Batman. It could offer a version of Batman that has never been seen before.

I just hope they don't take the easy way out and just replace the actor who plays Bruce Wayne. If you're going to change actors, then go all the way and replace who is under the cowl as well. Nothing will get people talking then taking down

Why not do a World War Hulk Movie? Barring the X-Men, and the Fantastic Four, Marvel should own the rights to everyone else from that storyline, and you could modify the story to fit the MCU. I would assume Hulk characters are also usable given General Ross was in Civil War.

@Phazevariance: You are right, Ghost Rider does belong in the watchable tier given I remember that it got a pretty divided reception when it came out. Personally, I enjoyed it and Green Lantern, but alot of people did not.

The Supergirl movie came out in 1984, and was pretty much a flop.