Why are ultraliberals so fucking anal about pop culture

[Gandalf]

I'm curious. What's "Sing" in this context?

A 2016 film.

[TheFeniX]

To which I would respond that Clark Kent might not technically be human, but he is, for all intents and purposes, a human. So is Logan. People project themselves onto as wish-fulfillment etc etc but the reader takes something back from that as well. When you project yourself onto someone like that, they rub off on you (phrasing) if they are sufficiently well-written. Doing this in both directions is easier the closer that person is to you in primary characteristics and life experiences.

True, but then you run into the issue of the majority of your viewership for a given movie being straight and white. With China entering the fold more and more and the time limtations of a movie means this is a hard sell to push (even minorities) gay issues to the front or even waste time with it other than "This character is gay, moving on."

This is why I've found, generally, Television would be a much better flagship for this and it generally has been such as I've mentioned previously: ER (which was a giant at NBC for years) pushed multiple angles such as racism and homosexuality.

X-Men kind of has it's own issues here. The entire human/metahuman debate is one big allegory for homosexuality. Previously, it would have been more about racism. Being black or gay isn't an emphasis: they have all joined together to hate mutants. Even then, there just aren't a lot of healthy relationships in any comics or their movies.

I was surprised when (even though a game) Injustice bothered with the Green Arrow/Black Canary marriage with kids line.

A game like Mass Effect, which lacked being gay as an option, gets really frustrating. You miss out on romance options, which given that your relationships with other characters are a pretty big part of those games...yeah. The only thing that made that palatable at all was the knowledge that such an option would finally exist in ME3, which allowed me to construct a head-cannon of being married to my work.

Bioware didn't seem to want to rock the boat all that much and they are probably glad they didn't what with Fox News and all. You couldn't even romance any of the non-Asari alien members of the crew. In fact, blue space babes were so popular, you could bang TWO of them in one playthrough. But even I was like "I'd totally take my bromance with Kaidan to the next level." But you aren't even capable of being turned down by Garrus or Wrex (if that's what does it for you).

I guarantee you that your kid notices that. Might not put two and two together right now depending on age, but his brain takes notice.

Well yea, this is why I have to make sure I'm the one explaining it to him and we discuss why those portrayals are done and give him the info to form his own opinions on the matter. This is kind of my beef with even some valid criticisms of entertainment: many times they just chicken out and take the easy route just to forestall blowback, make their lives a little easier, or just out of laziness and/or time constraints. But critics with an axe to grind view as this conscious decision to exclude or portray a minority group poorly. That COULD be the reason, but you don't know that. And I tend to analyze stories in a vacuum.

And there's always: "They could do better, but why would they while they're making money hand over fist?"

Like, Skyrim has Karliah. She has her own unique voice actress (which is rare except for REALLY important characters). She's the big mover in the Thieves Guild/Nightingale questline. You beat it and NEW FOLLOWER TIM.... nope, just she hang around the sepulcher. Now, this was pointed out as dumb, she's probably the most proactive female in the game, even beating out Aela and Delphine (Both of whom are 2 of the only characters that will tell the player to fuck off), and both of them became followers. So, what happened? Cut content: look in the Creation Kit. (EDIT: Modding tools for the game).

Now, you can make some assumptions that they let this happen to a female, rather than a male, but the CK is filled with content of both genders being cut. Then I also have to ask, is there even a Vanilla male follower WORTH using? Man, there are so many badass women in this game: Lydia, Aela, Mjoll. And that's not even a 1/4 of them. Maybe the developers just wanted hot women to follow them around and take orders. I don't know. But these women are there and near everyone renders unto the Dragonborn, so it's hard to call these women out as submissive. We have women in this game. Strong women, weak women, good women, evil women.

Q99 rightfully pointed out that good examples don't erase the bad ones. But I find Skyrim gets a lot of shit (and I'll happily dump on the game in multiple areas) for a few choices examples when it IMHO does REALLY well in others. Now, it does nothing for homosexuals, but at the least the marriage system is gender neutral.

I'm curious. What's "Sing" in this context?

Newish Universal Movie: IMDB Link Honestly has a really solid "I'm Still Standing" cover done by the guy from "Kinsgman." It's a really fun little movie (or it would be if I hadn't seen it 1,000 fucking times), but it falls into the "easy" area because due to (I assume) the idea that you would find pigs with pigs at a farm, etc: the anthro animal relationships in the movie comes off as "don't race mix."

It also doesn't portray women well at all, so this is why I really hate the phrase "kid's movie."

[Q99]

The question is: "What elements?" What elements suck?

Honestly? Doesn't matter. People finding just about any element sucky in criticism is fine (and open to counter critique). Could be too much of the color red!

The old far right criticism was trying to get elements they wanted flat out banned and control over video games. This stuff wants to either convince the creators to reconsider their choices and people to not buy stuff they don't like, or in some cases put on more specific content labels.

Ultimately two very different approaches and the latter is fine even if the specific opinions can be ones we disagree with, but that's fine, that's how normal criticism works. A bad criticism normally ends up carrying little weight and doesn't catch on- the problem with the old stuff was there were groups who wanted to litigate and gatekeep legally, actually lobbying for bans that could've happened. Them wanting there to be no blood in video games itself is fine if it's handled by asking publishers and fans and trying to change minds through normal criticism- I mean, it's not going to happen but sans the actual ban attempts it's just an attempt to convince.

[TheFeniX]

Honestly? Doesn't matter. People finding just about any element sucky in criticism is fine (and open to counter critique). Could be too much of the color red!

That's not what you said. You said "We moved from "Video games should be heavily regulated/stopped!" to "People should stop putting this element in games, 'cause it sucks.""

That's not criticism, that's saying something you disagree with shouldn't exist. And your original comment does match up fairly well with criticisms about certain games. They aren't lobbying congress to get anything banned, but that doesn't make their argument any less shitty or their articles any less click-baity.

I'm getting a bit into inane bullshit here, but you have rags like Kotaku blasting Ubishit for the mechanic in Watchdogs where you could hack people's personal information at a glance and (this being the Internet) some guy made a video of him murdering Jews, Black people, homosexuals, Muslims, etc. Kotaku said something to the effect of "Ubisoft had to have known this would happen and should have done something about it." Thrilling journalism.

Do you have to murder randos or specific targets? No. That's kind of the point and why I harp on "Sing." There is no example of a "mixed-race" (species) couple. There is no example of a woman getting her shit together without a man being involved and giving her that push. That, to me, is a problem.

[Vendetta]

That's not criticism, that's saying something you disagree with shouldn't exist. And your original comment does match up fairly well with criticisms about certain games. They aren't lobbying congress to get anything banned, but that doesn't make their argument any less shitty or their articles any less click-baity.

A lot of negative criticism is saying that things you don't like shouldn't exist. It's a total false equivalence to mention that criticism in the same breath as campaigns for legal bans against things, unless you are making a specific point about how those two approaches are different.

[TheFeniX]

A lot of negative criticism is saying that things you don't like shouldn't exist.

Maybe in Hollywood, Television, and Video Games. I was extremely critical about fiction (and others) even in high school, as that was a requirement of our AP classes. We broke things down to the bone (at least in some classes). That attitude has held for years. I think the "place" for Mortal Kombat's over-the-top gore is limited and they should be focusing on cleaning up their animation and hiring professionals to show them how physical combat actually works (same complaint I have about Injustice) because their combat animations are some of the worst I've ever seen or how DOAX does zero for me in the titillation department and (based on reviews) the gameplay has become pretty terrible (while always limited, early version have been described as "solid," in this area" in their seeming desire for pure fanservice.

But none of that involved: "shouldn't exist." I think Twilight is garbage smeared on paper (I've read chunks, my wife is a fan), but I don't tell anyone "Man, can you believe trash like this exists?" No, because it has every right to. Just like bouncy 3D titties does as well. It trash, but if someone is willing to pay for it, whatever. And I expect critics, while obviously allowed to have opinions, to give something a fair shake first, and push their agenda second.

And this is where I'm probably just some old (and likely privileged, I'll admit) asshole because I remember Roger Ebert while growing up. I agreed with the guy so little on so many topics and he did have a few movies he went off on rants about. But I could near always expect him to give me the bad and the good, break something down, say why he did/didn't like something, and never really feel he wasn't giving even the dumbest piece of trash a fair shake (he even bothered to do this with Scary Movie and it was a pretty popular punching bag at the time).

But way to many bloggers masquerading as critics exist to grind axes down to the bone. Of course, "It's the Internet" is likely a key factor here.

It's a total false equivalence to mention that criticism in the same breath as campaigns for legal bans against things, unless you are making a specific point about how those two approaches are different.

I don't recall calling them equivalent, merely their desired end result being the same ("get rid of it") even though their motivations and methods differ. If either group gets what they want, then the end result is the same: only what's deemed acceptable by a certain group of people is what's allowed to be created. Conservative groups were the most likely to pull this off, publishers and developers have started to brush aside a lot of criticism (some doing "better" some decided just to opt out) and continue making money.

But at the end of the day, both groups want less options. And the current group, at a time when creating video game content is at it's cheapest, easiest, and most widely available. That dog won't hunt for me. As for movies, especially in the Comic Book area. I couldn't really give a shit less unless it contains "Deadpool + Ryan Reynolds" or anything with "Guardians" in the title. The "blueg" nature of the rest of them lately managed to sour me on Evans as Cap and that's just.... goddamn that's terrible. I've been mancrushing on Evans since Not Another Teen Movie.

[Q99]

I don't recall calling them equivalent, merely their desired end result being the same ("get rid of it") even though their motivations and methods differ. If either group gets what they want, then the end result is the same: only what's deemed acceptable by a certain group of people is what's allowed to be created. Conservative groups were the most likely to pull this off, publishers and developers have started to brush aside a lot of criticism (some doing "better" some decided just to opt out) and continue making money.

Well, it isn't, because if you get rid of something by convincing people not to make it, then you don't have a certain group presiding over the creators and telling them what to do and not to do, you have the creators... doing something else.

I mean, consider Hair Metal. No one said, "No, you cannot do Hair Metal any more!". What happened was Nirvana came out with 'Smells Like Teen Spirit,' the critics said 'hair metal is dead,' and then hair metal dropped drastically in popularity. While not 100% vanishing, what was made changed drastically due to people deciding they didn't want this any more, they wanted that.

That's the result of a convince-campaign, and that's fine in a way that 'ban hair metal, have a panel be able to shut down hair metal bands,' is not.

That's not what you said. You said "We moved from "Video games should be heavily regulated/stopped!" to "People should stop putting this element in games, 'cause it sucks.""

That's not criticism, that's saying something you disagree with shouldn't exist. And your original comment does match up fairly well with criticisms about certain games. They aren't lobbying congress to get anything banned, but that doesn't make their argument any less shitty or their articles any less click-baity.

Note that specifically it is telling this to the creators, who are then free to listen or not.

And... plenty of criticism is saying something shouldn't exist. "This is just another dances with wolves plot, only with a different culture that's condescended to and saved by our western hero! Directors? Stop making this movie." - This, having no force other than convincing people, is fine. It's also not a bad argument, there's a lot of movies with that plot and it's really not the best plot. Or rather.. note that as this is saying something shouldn't be made, it's saying there shouldn't be more of that plot or what have you in existence, which is not the same as eliminated existing ones. You can still show old movies with crappy worn-out plots even if no-one makes another one with it, it's not banned.

I mean, it can be clickbaity, and the particular thing could be good ("Directors, stop having protagonists who get free passes for doing things that kill people just because they're protagonists, it's bad plotting and characterization and makes most of your cast look questionable rather than heroic like you intend,") or could be dumb ("Why must movies use the color green? Directors, stop using green immediately! I'm looking at you, X-mas movies! Elf, Grinch, all green everywhere! You should leave hollywood immediately."), but it is in an entirely different class from a ban, and ultimately telling people to stop doing something is a much more voluntary thing and not a danger to creative freedom in the same way a ban is.


The difference is choice. If you can convince people not to do something, that's an argument you're allowed to make.

[TheFeniX]

I mean, consider Hair Metal. No one said, "No, you cannot do Hair Metal any more!". What happened was Nirvana came out with 'Smells Like Teen Spirit,' the critics said 'hair metal is dead,' and then hair metal dropped drastically in popularity. While not 100% vanishing, what was made changed drastically due to people deciding they didn't want this any more, they wanted that.

Ok so, one of my "preps" for this hurricane was a bottle of whiskey, so I'm not in the mental state to argue the fickle nature of the music industry and fads. So, I'm going to take a mulligan here until I've sobered up. That said, the catalyst wasn't so much "this sucks" as it was "tastes changed." Now, I want to hit on this, hopefully I remember to.

Note that specifically it is telling this to the creators, who are then free to listen or not.

True, you tell the creators this. As a critic, then they ignore you and make millions with Dudebro shooter #11,111 or throwing whatever else you don't like into their next game, OR continuing to ignore a group or theme because other themes are continuing to pay dividends. And even for me: most anime (like I said, I've checked out of a lot of movies or TV) I've been watching over the past few months is incredibly cliche because I've seen it all 1000 times. But I still empathize with multiple characters from something like Fairytail.

For example, Natsu might be your standard "Anger Knight" or "clever berserker" but there's enough twists in there to say he's part of an archetype rather than a cliche or stereotype. This is important and is also an "eye of the beholder" type deal. You (as an example) might find him incredibly annoying and cliche.

And Deadpool is just Ryan Reynolds in a jumpsuit breaking the 4th wall in a standard revenge/love story plot. And that movie is incredibly good. You can twist old "outdated" themes and make them fun. This is because at a basic level, there are only like 7 (or 8 or 9, whatever number that Shaker-Spear guy came up with) real stories to tell in broadstrokes. The rest is just details.

And... plenty of criticism is saying something shouldn't exist. "This is just another dances with wolves plot, only with a different culture that's condescended to and saved by our western hero! Directors? Stop making this movie." - This, having no force other than convincing people, is fine. It's also not a bad argument, there's a lot of movies with that plot and it's really not the best plot. Or rather.. note that as this is saying something shouldn't be made, it's saying there shouldn't be more of that plot or what have you in existence, which is not the same as eliminated existing ones. You can still show old movies with crappy worn-out plots even if no-one makes another one with it, it's not banned.

This assumes there isn't a new generation being born every 20 years or so that isn't tired of the same old shit.

I mean, it can be clickbaity, and the particular thing could be good ("Directors, stop having protagonists who get free passes for doing things that kill people just because they're protagonists, it's bad plotting and characterization and makes most of your cast look questionable rather than heroic like you intend,") or could be dumb ("Why must movies use the color green? Directors, stop using green immediately! I'm looking at you, X-mas movies! Elf, Grinch, all green everywhere! You should leave hollywood immediately."), but it is in an entirely different class from a ban, and ultimately telling people to stop doing something is a much more voluntary thing and not a danger to creative freedom in the same way a ban is.

"Some motherfuckers are always trying to iceskate uphill." I have to agree in a lot of areas this shit is getting "tired," but they wouldn't do these things if they didn't sell, hence "make money." When humanity reaches the point where fantasy violence doesn't sell, you and I will be long dead and considered barely evolved cavemen by those humans.

The difference is choice. If you can convince people not to do something, that's an argument you're allowed to make.

Here's where we get to "tastes change" except they actually can't here except in mostly superficial ways.

Since I started with "women," I'll stick with it: you will never reach a point where men aren't capable of enjoying attractive women unless men literally stop being men. And wheras tastes have changed: men find the female form attractive. A case in point that men find all types attractive was the addition of Mei and Zarya to Overwatch to address sexism issues. The idea that chubby women or muscle women wouldn't be sexualized by male (and maybe even female) fans was laughable. I find Zarya incredibly attractive as I've always been a fan of Red Sonya (me want snoo snoo) types.

I THINK I've got most my ducks in a row here and answered most of your points. If not, sorry. If I have power and/or internet tomorrow I may try and clean things up.

But I can give a tl;dr version: you've got this group of people screaming at content developers saying "people don't like this thing, stop doing it" while the content developers are staring at the pile of cash in front of them. Not to say going to other direction doesn't make money, it actually does. My point is that both can exist and have a right to.

[Darth Yan]

I actually found the depiction of Ludendorff - a real historical person who was not the warmongering lunatic depicted - in the film deeply depressing and a sign of the way in which pop-culture in the West is now being steered toward a narrative of WW1 as a just war. I nearly didn't go for that reason alone, was persuaded to against my better judgement, and would rather like the ticket money back.

The narrative, at least in Britain, has with the passing of more veterans of that awful conflict, become more and more patriotic of late, with the narrative that the British government was entirely justified in WW1. When I was in the Civil Service back in 2014, we were told at one point that the centenary of the start of the war was to be commemorated with a minute's applause in all offices; this was mercifully changed to a respectful minute's silence after the union objected to this, but the point remains that the government tried to make hundreds of thousands of workers clap for the start of a wholly miserable war.

Seeing a four-colour superhero supporting the war is, to me, part of the same regressive agenda, even while I appreciate that others saw her depiction as a breath of fresh air in some other ways. Remember, for some of the people who see this film, that's going to be their most vivid or formative impression of the conflict, Ludendorff being a crazed madman who tests gas on POWs (a variety of unethical testing schemas were de-rigeur on both sides in this conflict), assassinates the German High Command and happily murders entire towns of civilians for no military gain.

Am I being 'fucking anal?'

Except that as it turns out Ares (the big bad) is on the BRITISH side of things. And it helps that Ludendorff was still a pretty evil man in real life (he was one of hitler's supporters). Overall the film does show the war as miserable and evil

[Q99]

Except that as it turns out Ares (the big bad) is on the BRITISH side of things. And it helps that Ludendorff was still a pretty evil man in real life (he was one of hitler's supporters). Overall the film does show the war as miserable and evil

Also he coined the term 'total war,' thought the whole of society should be mobilized in conflict, felt that peace was merely the interval between wars, and is totally the type of guy I could see someone mistaking for Ares- it's just he was also capable of recognizing when a war was lost (which he blamed in large part on the Kaiser doing a poor job getting allies). Up til just a few months before the end and things were clearly lost he still pushing for offenses, and he did start to get delusional in his communications due to sleeping one hour a night.

And in the movie he hopped up on arcano-crack and his personal scientist producing god-inspired super weapons for him.

So in short, take someone who had a highly militaristic and aggressive mindset, give 'em the means to operate on one hour a sleep, and give them a chance where they really can win if they do something monstrous.


Flipside, the rest of the German high command was like, "Our soldiers lack food, we must have an armistace!", and the British high command (*not including Ares*) was "Soldiers dying? That is what they are for."

Ok so, one of my "preps" for this hurricane was a bottle of whiskey, so I'm not in the mental state to argue the fickle nature of the music industry and fads. So, I'm going to take a mulligan here until I've sobered up. That said, the catalyst wasn't so much "this sucks" as it was "tastes changed." Now, I want to hit on this, hopefully I remember to.

Hm, that's a good way to sum it up:
A lot of criticism is, in short, trying to get tastes to change.

And wheras tastes have changed: men find the female form attractive. A case in point that men find all types attractive was the addition of Mei and Zarya to Overwatch to address sexism issues. The idea that chubby women or muscle women wouldn't be sexualized by male (and maybe even female) fans was laughable. I find Zarya incredibly attractive as I've always been a fan of Red Sonya (me want snoo snoo) types.

This is definitely one which I view as a major success of criticism-

Critics: "We're tired of girls always having the same sexualized build, why is everyone looking like a model?"

OW: "Behold: Varied body types!"

Fans: "Awesome."

Original critics: "Awesome."

Some entirely different critics/'fans': "Who wants to look at (someone who doesn't conform to the older limits)?"

(Yes, there's people who got mad about Zarya and Mei looking like they do, or dislike that there's an old woman in the game)

But I can give a tl;dr version: you've got this group of people screaming at content developers saying "people don't like this thing, stop doing it" while the content developers are staring at the pile of cash in front of them. Not to say going to other direction doesn't make money, it actually does. My point is that both can exist and have a right to.

Basically, most criticism is trying to convince people to do or don't do something, it will come at all sides and all angles regardless, and then the criticism that is successful is the one that convinces creators and audiences that they've got a good point.

Change in taste is not directed entirely by money, sometimes studios just decide it's the right thing to do for quality, respect, or similar reasons, but it should be noted a lot of old hang-ups and bad ideas aren't supported in the idea that they make money anyway when it's actually tested out (A survey found zero correlation between 'movies with nudity' and making money, for example. And a more recent one found that the tendency to default to white casts not only doesn't make money by being 'default,' but flat costs a lot of money compared to the broader audiences brought in by diverse casts!).

[Elfdart]

Comic books, movies etc... these are our modern myths. They have largely taken the place of classic folk/morality tales in the modern west. Superman has taken the place of Achilles, basically. Whether we realize it or not, we learn lessons about how to act within society and view the world from these stories.

Greek Heroes are hard to compare with modern versions because the word "Hero" in this context means more "Does larger-than-life things" rather than "Does the right thing." Achilles started out as a war hero then pulled such a shitty stunt with Hector's body, Apollo had to stomp on him.

But you could be leading into another point that at least many Greek heroes taught us other lessons: "don't be a giant dick or the God's will ruin your day." This is something I feel gets lost in the shuffle: the ends justify the means. He's a "good guy" so it's ok he did something really shitty to resolve the plot. Roll credits.

Most of that has to do with the fact that the ancient Greeks were willing or eager to kill off heroes for their hubris, comic book and movie writers aren't. Hell, they keep bringing villains back -sometimes from the dead. You're not going to see anyone make Superman into an arrogant prick to the point where he deserves a smiting from above, let alone gets one.

As for Yan's question: part of it is a cry for attention, part of it is being oversensitive and part of it is the result of some people being so goddamned stupid that in the words of Mike Mornard, it's a wonder they can shit unassisted. So the actress playing Wonder Woman cheered on the Gaza Massacre. I didn't stop watching John Wayne movies when I found out he was a big supporter of the Vietnam War.

[Q99]

Most of that has to do with the fact that the ancient Greeks were willing or eager to kill off heroes for their hubris, comic book and movie writers aren't. Hell, they keep bringing villains back -sometimes from the dead. You're not going to see anyone make Superman into an arrogant prick to the point where he deserves a smiting from above, let alone gets one.

Though in comics, flipside, this is a pretty common thing, there's many Superman-expies that fit this!

The Plutonian was a gigantic asshole who deserved a smiting he ultimately got. The High reached too high in trying to change the world and died for his efforts. I could go on.

[Elfdart]

They haven't killed off Superman or Lex Luthor.

[Darth Yan]

Comic books, movies etc... these are our modern myths. They have largely taken the place of classic folk/morality tales in the modern west. Superman has taken the place of Achilles, basically. Whether we realize it or not, we learn lessons about how to act within society and view the world from these stories.

Greek Heroes are hard to compare with modern versions because the word "Hero" in this context means more "Does larger-than-life things" rather than "Does the right thing." Achilles started out as a war hero then pulled such a shitty stunt with Hector's body, Apollo had to stomp on him.

But you could be leading into another point that at least many Greek heroes taught us other lessons: "don't be a giant dick or the God's will ruin your day." This is something I feel gets lost in the shuffle: the ends justify the means. He's a "good guy" so it's ok he did something really shitty to resolve the plot. Roll credits.

Most of that has to do with the fact that the ancient Greeks were willing or eager to kill off heroes for their hubris, comic book and movie writers aren't. Hell, they keep bringing villains back -sometimes from the dead. You're not going to see anyone make Superman into an arrogant prick to the point where he deserves a smiting from above, let alone gets one.

As for Yan's question: part of it is a cry for attention, part of it is being oversensitive and part of it is the result of some people being so goddamned stupid that in the words of Mike Mornard, it's a wonder they can shit unassisted. So the actress playing Wonder Woman cheered on the Gaza Massacre. I didn't stop watching John Wayne movies when I found out he was a big supporter of the Vietnam War.

With Gadot she at least seems to acknowledge that there are Gazans who are innocent; i'll take her over someone like Shep or Aylet Shaked.

And Lex DID die in the New Earth continuity (86-11); They knew they were rebooting so they were able to give the story closure.

Hell the latest secret wars had Doom finally stop being an asshole

[TheFeniX]

Critics: "We're tired of girls always having the same sexualized build, why is everyone looking like a model?"

This is a major issue I take with this area of criticism. To preface: I'm always a big fan of diversity in casting if only because it means the developer is working harder. But the body diversity for both male and female characters in Overwatch was already there. Now "attractive" pretty much applies exclusively to the female characters, while men are able to look more "grizzled" (which actually is a selling point of attractiveness for male and female "viewers"), but the difference between Mei and D'Va was already there.

And then we dive into a thought-process that comes off to me as "we're too concerned about physical appearance! Now add in characters that look different." And let's face it, I like Zarya, but she's an incredibly cliche character. And she's not exactly a new concept. Look at Pro-wrestling: Muscled and bodacious bombshells that kick ass and look good while doing it. They don't/can't pack on the muscle someone like Zarya does because they are real women and have to deal with physical consequences of that physique.

If anything, Zarya is much more a depiction of an unrealistic expectation of what a woman can look like than someone like Mercy. Zarya, if a real person, also would have hit the genetic lotto since she's essentially Arnold but with the 10/10 features we find attractive in women.

And even then: nearly everyone in entertainment looks like a model. Even +sized women (and men) tend to be caked in make-up or drawn/sculpted so that any of the accompanying side-effects of being an actual person are hidden or not rendered (cellulite or double-chins, for two examples). The actual body build has little to do with that outside runways models who are all perpetually starving.

Basically, most criticism is trying to convince people to do or don't do something, it will come at all sides and all angles regardless, and then the criticism that is successful is the one that convinces creators and audiences that they've got a good point.

True, but there's a difference between researched and intelligent criticism and muckraking. And the effects of "popular" criticism (which doesn't make it good) many times has the opposite desired effect. Such as the victory of changing Tracer's Pose. As an ass-man myself, I am not complaining either way. But also Kaplan is a jackass who helped destroy an entire genre, and I never get a chance to talk shit about him, so I can't miss this opportunity.

Change in taste is not directed entirely by money, sometimes studios just decide it's the right thing to do for quality, respect, or similar reasons, but it should be noted a lot of old hang-ups and bad ideas aren't supported in the idea that they make money anyway when it's actually tested out (A survey found zero correlation between 'movies with nudity' and making money, for example. And a more recent one found that the tendency to default to white casts not only doesn't make money by being 'default,' but flat costs a lot of money compared to the broader audiences brought in by diverse casts!).

I still have issues with the veracity of the diversity claim. Because before New Star Wars, the highest grossing movies were all pretty well dominated by white casts. If there was a reason for it, I would assume it's because any piece of trash would go with "safe" white actors/actresses, but movies with backing or a decent story to tell with go for "less safe" casting choices because they aren't morons who buy into bullshit like "minorities don't sell."

Sidenote: and I find it really hard to believe that the A New Hope reboot wouldn't have still made all the money ever if Boyega had been replaced with "random white dude."

[The Romulan Republic]

http://mondoweiss.net/2017/07/military- ... ent-888808

Seriously, this jackass makes the most absurd arguments (apparently the fact that Ares's mortal identity is the british politician pushing fora n armistace is supposed to be proof all pacifists are evil even though the real armistace was a total dumpster fire that led to Hitler's rise; or apparently we're supposed to believe that violence is NEVER EVER necessary EVER).

It's like David Brin arguing that Star Wars is elitist.

The same site has people acting like Wonder Woman is zionist propaganda. Yes Gal Gadot made incredibly uninformed statements about Gaza but acting like she's Aylet Shaked (who's "little snakes" comment helped incite some thugs to burn a teenage boy alive) is cretinous

Liberals criticizing popular culture should be taken as a compliment- its means we take it seriously enough to be worthy of analysis and social/political criticism.

And by the way, I kind of agree with the allegation that Wonder Woman has an anti-pacifist message (or, rather, that it has deeply self-contradictory messages on that topic).

[Q99]

True, but there's a difference between researched and intelligent criticism and muckraking. And the effects of "popular" criticism (which doesn't make it good) many times has the opposite desired effect. Such as the victory of changing Tracer's Pose. As an ass-man myself, I am not complaining either way. But also Kaplan is a jackass who helped destroy an entire genre, and I never get a chance to talk shit about him, so I can't miss this opportunity.

Btw, most I know *do* consider that one a step up. It's more dynamic and less 'look at my ass'. Yes, the ass is still there, but the context is shifted.

[TheFeniX]

Btw, most I know *do* consider that one a step up. It's more dynamic and less 'look at my ass'. Yes, the ass is still there, but the context is shifted.

The new pose is literally a rip-off/hommage of an old pin-up poster. Of which I take zero issue with. The new pose is still meant to emphasis the ass and legs and, once again, I take no issue with that. You could make the argument the new pose is meant to emphasize the ass/legs at a 50/50 ratio while the old one slid way more to the ass side. But is that really the point? The pose is meant to show off Tracer's physical form. Once again, I got no complaints here.

I take issue with criticism that is fooled by a new coat of paint. Because those people are either morons or are just looking to make mountains out of mole-hills for the sake of clicks.

Like how Nolan Batman is considered "more realistic" than past Batmans. How Batman has "been re-imagined for the 21st century" because.... I honestly don't know, the Batmobile is even less useful on city roads than previous versions? It isn't more realistic except on anything other than a superficial level.

Specifically to Tracer, the difference in the message is "make your animated character look sexy in a way I find acceptable."

[Q99]

Even with the inspiration, it still fits the character better and changes the emphasis to be more dynamic.

People aren't being fooled by a coat of paint, the new pose is better.

[Ender]

http://mondoweiss.net/2017/07/military- ... ent-888808

Seriously, this jackass makes the most absurd arguments (apparently the fact that Ares's mortal identity is the british politician pushing fora n armistace is supposed to be proof all pacifists are evil even though the real armistace was a total dumpster fire that led to Hitler's rise; or apparently we're supposed to believe that violence is NEVER EVER necessary EVER).

It's like David Brin arguing that Star Wars is elitist.

The same site has people acting like Wonder Woman is zionist propaganda. Yes Gal Gadot made incredibly uninformed statements about Gaza but acting like she's Aylet Shaked (who's "little snakes" comment helped incite some thugs to burn a teenage boy alive) is cretinous

Big picture, because ideologically they have bought into a combination of Gramsci and Fukuyama by way of Clinton and reinforced by the pop culture they consume. We are at the end of history, the system is more or less figured out, reject mass populist movements or large scale changes as desirable or even possible, mastery of procedure and minutia is all, what you really need is a few smart people to sit around a table and spit out some facts so they can make minor tweaks. Most of those tweaks take place in pop culture, since politics is downstream of culture, and my showcasing the right stuff in pop culture the right people will meritocratic-ly float up to the top, where their experiences informed by their identities will lead to appropriate minor tweaks. They also refuse to admit this is an ideology, because ideologies are inherently bad and blind you to procedure and minutia.

Needless to say this is all shit.

Interestingly, because this is all shit, they are out of actual power, so they "power" they have is all enforcing social circle crap, and since social circles are joined by tastes, they try to enforce tastes in pop culture by talking like the above.

Oh and don't forget that the hypermonopolization of industries means that cultural mythos is more unified than at any point in history (and perpetuated through pop culture) so they have less to talk about in breadth so they make the same banal points again and again.

Liberals are useless.


Now, all that aside, Wonder Woman was utter crap in terms of its politics, both in text and subtext. If anything the review you refer to is vastly more kind than it deserves. At best Wonder Woman was perpetuating a hard core neocon line that should be resisted, and if we are being truly honest was straight up fascist. I mean jesus, the wealthy urban rootless cosmopolitan who bribes others to go fight for him is bribing, and assassinating german high command into a defeated peace that screws them over for the goal of triggering a greater war that will wipe out the german people... that was EXACTLY the Nazi Dolchstoßlegende myth. They literally had him whispering lies and commands into ears to get the germans to fuck up. And the subtext of having power means intervention even when you don't understand the situation is desirable because power necessitates its use is straight up the kind of shit Nixon, Kristol, and Cheney would rhapsodise about. That many liberals are tripping overthemselves calling such an explicitly anti feminist film feminist because it had a woman as the start (a woman who notably didn't even accomplish the plots goal; that was the man) shows the hollowness of liberalism.

I'd say enjoy it for action as bland entertainment but honestly outside of the Themiscyra scenes it isn't even great for that. But 80% of all things are crap, so take 3 hours for some entertainment equivalent of cotton candy, then go do something that makes you actually think. Brin was completely right about SW being elitist, Mieville is right that Tony Stark is a war criminal, and Harry Potter "by your own logic"-ed Voldemort to death. That doesn't mean it isn't still fun to watch. Just think while you are doing so.

[Ender]

Oh, and there is probably something else there to be said about how liberalism and the world it has created also creates a much extended adolescence and their response to it flows from that immaturity, since the ability to consume a media or cultural product, extract understanding from it, consider those ideas in depth without being swayed by them is one of the markers of "being a fucking adult" and they treat this shit like the tobacco companies marketing containments to children.

Or maybe that is another reflection of the way the media companies do market this shit. Fuck it, I don't know; it is a nice day out and I've already ground my teeth enough about their horseshit today

[Darth Yan]

http://mondoweiss.net/2017/07/military- ... ent-888808

Seriously, this jackass makes the most absurd arguments (apparently the fact that Ares's mortal identity is the british politician pushing fora n armistace is supposed to be proof all pacifists are evil even though the real armistace was a total dumpster fire that led to Hitler's rise; or apparently we're supposed to believe that violence is NEVER EVER necessary EVER).

It's like David Brin arguing that Star Wars is elitist.

The same site has people acting like Wonder Woman is zionist propaganda. Yes Gal Gadot made incredibly uninformed statements about Gaza but acting like she's Aylet Shaked (who's "little snakes" comment helped incite some thugs to burn a teenage boy alive) is cretinous

Big picture, because ideologically they have bought into a combination of Gramsci and Fukuyama by way of Clinton and reinforced by the pop culture they consume. We are at the end of history, the system is more or less figured out, reject mass populist movements or large scale changes as desirable or even possible, mastery of procedure and minutia is all, what you really need is a few smart people to sit around a table and spit out some facts so they can make minor tweaks. Most of those tweaks take place in pop culture, since politics is downstream of culture, and my showcasing the right stuff in pop culture the right people will meritocratic-ly float up to the top, where their experiences informed by their identities will lead to appropriate minor tweaks. They also refuse to admit this is an ideology, because ideologies are inherently bad and blind you to procedure and minutia.

Needless to say this is all shit.

Interestingly, because this is all shit, they are out of actual power, so they "power" they have is all enforcing social circle crap, and since social circles are joined by tastes, they try to enforce tastes in pop culture by talking like the above.

Oh and don't forget that the hypermonopolization of industries means that cultural mythos is more unified than at any point in history (and perpetuated through pop culture) so they have less to talk about in breadth so they make the same banal points again and again.

Liberals are useless.


Now, all that aside, Wonder Woman was utter crap in terms of its politics, both in text and subtext. If anything the review you refer to is vastly more kind than it deserves. At best Wonder Woman was perpetuating a hard core neocon line that should be resisted, and if we are being truly honest was straight up fascist. I mean jesus, the wealthy urban rootless cosmopolitan who bribes others to go fight for him is bribing, and assassinating german high command into a defeated peace that screws them over for the goal of triggering a greater war that will wipe out the german people... that was EXACTLY the Nazi Dolchstoßlegende myth. They literally had him whispering lies and commands into ears to get the germans to fuck up. And the subtext of having power means intervention even when you don't understand the situation is desirable because power necessitates its use is straight up the kind of shit Nixon, Kristol, and Cheney would rhapsodise about. That many liberals are tripping overthemselves calling such an explicitly anti feminist film feminist because it had a woman as the start (a woman who notably didn't even accomplish the plots goal; that was the man) shows the hollowness of liberalism.

I'd say enjoy it for action as bland entertainment but honestly outside of the Themiscyra scenes it isn't even great for that. But 80% of all things are crap, so take 3 hours for some entertainment equivalent of cotton candy, then go do something that makes you actually think. Brin was completely right about SW being elitist, Mieville is right that Tony Stark is a war criminal, and Harry Potter "by your own logic"-ed Voldemort to death. That doesn't mean it isn't still fun to watch. Just think while you are doing so.

Technically Diana DOES kill Ares, which means that he won't be able to push people to destruction anymore; hell her entire arc involves realizing that things are more complicated and that while you can inspire people they have to make the choice themselves (which is a fair point). And if anything the High Command of Germany is portrayed sympathetically (the reason they want to surrender is because their soldiers are dying and they can't win); Ludendorff is portrayed as a psychopathic jackass.

And I have seen conservatives make similar obnoxious proclomations (in the 90s they were the ones going "OH THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!); even now there are those who are complaining about "SJW's" ruining comics (hence why they got furious when sam wilson takes on violent racists; or Superman protects illegal immigrants from a white supremacist." Liberals don't have a monopoly

[Darth Yan]

And David Brin is still a complete idiot. One of the entire points of the prequels is that their arrogance and being out of touch is what allowed palpatine to maul them. Vader's not as bad because it's made clear that in a perverse way karma already punished him (he's a bitter self hating fuck who loathes himself but feels he can't go back) and it's made clear that the jedi, while wise are NOT infallible and not necissarily better than mortals (Han saves luke at one point, wedge saves him at another)

And the thing about ares is that he wants to kill ALL humans; since the Versailles deal WAS pretty crappy in real life it's more like he engineered a shitty deal to ensure that humans will continue to fight

[TheFeniX]

Even with the inspiration, it still fits the character better and changes the emphasis to be more dynamic.

Judging from what I've seen and what I know about Tracer, something more along the lines of a male bodybuilding pose would fit her character better being that she's a lesbian and seemingly has zero fucks to give about traditional sexy poses. Like swap her poses with the ones Zarya does and it's played for comedy, because that's the kind of character Blizzard showed in cutscenes.

People aren't being fooled by a coat of paint, the new pose is better.

Why? And this same question applies to something like the new Batmobile. How is it "better" than older designs? How is it not a new coat of paint? If you like "blue paint" more than "red paint:" then a blue coat of paint is "better." They didn't change the point of the pose: to showcase Tracer's physical assets (and I'll take the fucking pun here).

But we're essentially arguing taste here and that wasn't my intention. My argument was to point out that the criticisms against the original pose should apply to the new one, but just because we're somehow talking a matter of degrees: one is acceptable and one is not.

Liberals are useless.

A rather large portion of your post hits home for me, but I don't know if you can say liberals are useless without also applying this to everyone else (which is something I would do) because a rather large portion of the populace seems vulnerable to being taken in by superficial aspects and forming cults of opinion around them.

Like, "New" Lara Croft is this feminist icon. Whereas "Old" Lara Croft is a sexist piece of shit. And I ask: why?

Because new Lara has smaller boobs? Because new Lara wears pants? I honestly don't get it. And then I read shit that these two aspects make old Lara "hypersexualized*" (also of note, the camera focuses on her butt...... in a 3rd person... platformer...) and all I can really think to say is "Fuck you."

And I can't really take either group seriously while me and a whole shitton of other gamers are shaking our heads at the idea that either "DOAX3" or "Mass Effect 1" are porn games.

*Honestly, with this kind of criticism and the randomness behind it, if I was a developer: I might just be inclined to forgo female anything and just deal with criticism due to the "crime" of exclusion. I mean, I wouldn't. But I can see why this ends up being a thing in the industry.

[Ender]

Technically Diana DOES kill Ares, which means that he won't be able to push people to destruction anymore; hell her entire arc involves realizing that things are more complicated and that while you can inspire people they have to make the choice themselves (which is a fair point). And if anything the High Command of Germany is portrayed sympathetically (the reason they want to surrender is because their soldiers are dying and they can't win); Ludendorff is portrayed as a psychopathic jackass.

But the quest - end the war - was accomplished by Steve when he blew up the gas. Had the attack gone through the war would have continued. He stopped it, ending the war. Killing Ares did nothing at all.

And I have seen conservatives make similar obnoxious proclomations (in the 90s they were the ones going "OH THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!); even now there are those who are complaining about "SJW's" ruining comics (hence why they got furious when sam wilson takes on violent racists; or Superman protects illegal immigrants from a white supremacist." Liberals don't have a monopoly

Yeah, well, scratch a liberal...

And David Brin is still a complete idiot. One of the entire points of the prequels is that their arrogance and being out of touch is what allowed palpatine to maul them. Vader's not as bad because it's made clear that in a perverse way karma already punished him (he's a bitter self hating fuck who loathes himself but feels he can't go back) and it's made clear that the jedi, while wise are NOT infallible and not necissarily better than mortals (Han saves luke at one point, wedge saves him at another)

Brin wrote his essay before the prequels were out.

And the thing about ares is that he wants to kill ALL humans; since the Versailles deal WAS pretty crappy in real life it's more like he engineered a shitty deal to ensure that humans will continue to fight

Yeah, that's kind of the point of how shitty the politics of the film are.