|
|
Post by Allie on Jul 25, 2012 15:25:36 GMT -5
good god what the fuck is this What the entire world is going to be like in 10-15 years. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2012 16:52:12 GMT -5
This is what would happen if you told Pokey he was on a Japanese TV show.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGunheart on Jul 26, 2012 17:29:26 GMT -5
You know, there was this one arc in the original Redwall novel that bothered the hell out of me. See, partway through the book, the villain breaks his leg in a failed attack on the titular monastery. He has a healer hired, and while she does indeed heal his leg, she intends to steal his battle plans and sell them to the Redwallers. The villain catches on and leaves a decoy plan for the taking, which she succeeds in stealing.
So, anyway, she sets up a secret meeting with the abbot, but he never hears of it. Instead, it's a different character who learns of it, and she's pretty much the resident badass. So she goes to the meeting herself, Falcon Punches the healer and takes the plans herself. Is my sense of morality messed up? Or does that sound...wrong, to anyone else? I mean, if the healer were planning to just kidnap the abbot and hold him for ransom, sure. But the aforementioned badass doesn't even assume that's the case. She more or less does it because the healer in question is a "bad guy". |
|
|
|
Post by thethird on Jul 29, 2012 22:23:16 GMT -5
Not related to what you posted, Gunheart, but people who really fixate/can't separate their morals from fiction kinda confuse me. It depends (for example, when a character is billed as a hero/good guy, and they act in a fucked up/morally questionable way that is presented as being "right" by the theme of the fiction, I get that. that's something worth discussing, like in Gunheart's post. there's a worthwhile discussion in that and, I think, a worthwhile reason to feel offended.), but when people ding movies with anti-heroes/villains as protagonists I don't get it. Like, "protagonist" isn't synonymous with "hero" or someone who is virtuous, the protagonist is just the main character of the story.
Like, on another forum I go to, someone takes shots at lots of popular movies because the morality of the characters offends them; for example, Pirates of the Caribbean because Jack Sparrow is a drunk dude who steals shit and tricks people and how the "morals" of the movie are fucked up. Beyond how mind-boggling that, of all the things to complain about in those movies, it's that character's morality that gets them - they're all god damn pirates. It's in the title! Pirates do shit like that! He's kind of a dickish coward who's presented in a "rockstar" light who finally only gets what he wants when he stops being such an asshat (at least in the first movie). Or something like Breaking Bad, if someone were to complain about the lack of decent morality in it, I'd be similarly confused, because it's a show largely concerned with outlaws, gangsters, murderers and the cooking and distribution of crystal meth and it's not exactly glorified, what with Walt, Jesse, and Skyler routinely fucking up everything and making horrible decisions. Or Unforgiven, with Clint Eastwood being a former bloodthirsty killer. If anybody tries to tell me that Unforgiven is bad as a result of that, I'd have to restrain myself.
It just seems dumb, is what I'm saying. What were you expecting? It's okay to want to avoid or not enjoy fiction that focus on characters with screwed up morals (hey, Talented Mr. Ripley kinda rubbed me the wrong way but I'm not going to say that it's a bad movie because the main character was a monster. i just had trouble enjoying it.), that's okay, but calling it "bad" in an objective sense as a result and expecting other people to feel the same doesn't make sense to me.
Did...did that make any sense?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2012 18:10:16 GMT -5
I just found out about 50 Shades of Gray. It makes me so mad I want to punch someone in the face. Women are always pissed off about not being treated like equals to men; yet, this book about a girl being the bottom in a BDSM relationship to some rich guy is some big phenomenon apparently. I guess it's all cool if the guy's got money, right?
But again Twilight is a success and we see how positively that portrays women.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allie on Jul 30, 2012 18:34:43 GMT -5
I just found out about 50 Shades of Gray. It makes me so mad I want to punch someone in the face. Women are always pissed off about not being treated like equals to men; yet, this book about a girl being the bottom in a BDSM relationship to some rich guy is some big phenomenon apparently. I guess it's all cool if the guy's got money, right? But again Twilight is a success and we see how positively that portrays women. I'm kind of surprised that Dr. Helen Smith has never weighed on in 50 SoG. Her opinions aren't of the type that most people here would be willing to accept (as she believes that the culture has caused males for the most part to have been shifted into passive/submissive Beta types that nobody would want to marry), but it would still be interesting to hear what she'd have to say about how a book like that becomes popular. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2012 19:03:05 GMT -5
I just found out about 50 Shades of Gray. It makes me so mad I want to punch someone in the face. Women are always pissed off about not being treated like equals to men; yet, this book about a girl being the bottom in a BDSM relationship to some rich guy is some big phenomenon apparently. I guess it's all cool if the guy's got money, right? But again Twilight is a success and we see how positively that portrays women. Did you also hear that 50 Shades was originally a Twilight fanfic, and the author changed the character names so she could sell it as an original work of fiction? I think that explains a lot, really. |
|
|
|
Post by TheGunheart on Aug 1, 2012 0:39:46 GMT -5
Not related to what you posted, Gunheart, but people who really fixate/can't separate their morals from fiction kinda confuse me. It depends (for example, when a character is billed as a hero/good guy, and they act in a fucked up/morally questionable way that is presented as being "right" by the theme of the fiction, I get that. that's something worth discussing, like in Gunheart's post. there's a worthwhile discussion in that and, I think, a worthwhile reason to feel offended.), but when people ding movies with anti-heroes/villains as protagonists I don't get it. Like, "protagonist" isn't synonymous with "hero" or someone who is virtuous, the protagonist is just the main character of the story. I think what also bothers me personally is that there's a similar sequence in Infinite Space that doesn't bother me at all. In it, you pay an informant for information on a resistance movement you're trying to meet up with. He spills his guts but, not knowing who you are, proceeds to gloat about selling out said resistance. The main character proceeds to kill him. Though it helps that Infinite Space is considerably more gray in terms of morality. Redwall presents everything in as a squeaky clean, good versus evil situation, but it just makes all the wanton murder more unsettling. Apparently, the next book has the poisoner of a king led out into a clearing where she's subsequently shot by ten or more archers while only equipped with a dagger. I realize that's kind of close to the Infinite Space sequence, but at least that wasn't a kids' book. |
|
|
|
Post by megatronbison on Aug 1, 2012 4:42:10 GMT -5
You know when you are waiting on a bunch of stuff arriving in the mail and every day you check with great excitement only to find...nothing?
Especially irritating when these items were supposed to have been posted early last week ¬_¬
|
|
|
|
Post by Allie on Aug 1, 2012 11:50:58 GMT -5
When on other boards (with a "no politics" rule), someone posts something blatantly political, but prefaces it with "I know we can't talk politics, but..."
|
|
|
|
Post by Weasel on Aug 1, 2012 13:28:46 GMT -5
I really think most message boards should start users off with a hard-line "NO religion, NO politics" rule. Discussions about those two absolutely never seem to get on well.
Yes, I think this should also include message boards that are specifically for religious or political discussions. =P
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2012 16:10:57 GMT -5
I don't know what pisses me off more, the fact that lines are too long for me to get my chicken sandwich on, or the bitchy and whiny causeheads making a stink about this Chick Fil A situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by muteKi on Aug 1, 2012 16:48:40 GMT -5
Well, as long as we're talking politics, anybody have a count on the number of politicians claiming to be the real victims of the Aurora theater shooting?
|
|
|
|
Post by Weasel on Aug 1, 2012 17:29:49 GMT -5
Well, as long as we're talking politics, anybody have a count on the number of politicians claiming to be the real victims of the Aurora theater shooting? Fox News again points the blame in entirely the wrong direction, as they once again seem to think that World of Warcraft caused the shooting. GamePolitics actually did the damn research, thank God. |
|
|
|
Post by lanceboyle94 on Aug 1, 2012 17:51:13 GMT -5
World of Warcraft? Seriously?
|
|
