|
ricdesi posted:Wonder Woman is at exactly zero points in her own movie in any danger because she is a weapon forged by the gods. Isn't Wonder Woman injured in the opening fight on the beach and they make a comment about how quickly she heals while inspecting the wound? Until she goes into god mode at during the boss fight, I don't see any reason to think she couldn't be killed by the Germans.
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 15:30 |
|
|
ricdesi posted:Which kinda makes her runway stroll through the Western Front even weirder, honestly. I leaned over to my girlfriend while we were watching and asked "Why isn't anyone just shooting her in the head?" and her response was "Why is she walking?" Um, they are almost exclusively trying to shoot her in the head during that scene, so they can have the close ups containing her bullet defections and her facial reactions in the same shots. The same happens when she is using the shield to protect herself from the machine gun, though there is a slightly comical shot before she crouches, where she's standing upright using a two foot shield to protect her six foot body. ricdesi posted:Welcome to the superhero genre. Same goes for, let's see... Also, half of these involve doomsday scenarios that would clearly impact the protagonist, and a bunch of others involve villains that are messing with the hero's subjects/company, so they aren't acting entirely selflessly. They have very clear personal motivations to become involved, which they then go above and beyond during the climax. Wonder Woman starts off selflessly joining the quest to end the war, because the war is not presented as a threat to the Amazons beyond the initial beach fight. But you're right that this is not unique, with Spiderman: Homecoming being another example of a hero putting themselves in harms way with no personal reason to, other than it's the right thing to do.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
Kim Justice posted:What Boogie said there was, like, par for the course for him and frankly it's just going over old ground - the guy is a centrist, he says centrist things, what else is there to cover? What sort of political spectrum has valuing maintaining the status quo above social equity as a centrist position and not a literal textbook conservative one? I’m not from the US, but I’m pretty sure the US right is not founded on bigotry but instead a sense of patriotism towards a national identity based on current social, economic, and cultural values (which can be bigoted based on existing structural power imbalances). Social changes represent innate threats, because the status quo represents the American ideals that oversaw prosperity for them, and any change, no matter how small or just, could deteriorate the greater whole (and marginalise their connection to it). The difference between Boogie and a normal conservative is his inability to rationalise away this fundamental fear of change. His inertia towards change, admitting the power structures are flawed but resisting the change he accepts is needed, is not some off-brand version of centrism, but conservatism in its purest form. That said, here in Australia, I don’t even know what constitutes a centrist anymore. I would normally have said that our political parties were based on conservative versus collectivist ideals, with centrists being liberalists. But now we have the two major parties both being centre-right, forcing them to be obstructionists to each other over petty technicalities, often implementing policy in government that they opposed while in opposition. This has led to a rise in minor parties occupying the actual left, right, and centre, while the major parties blame the voters and the electoral system for their declining fortunes. Ubik_Lives fucked around with this message at 09:45 on Jun 29, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2018 09:30
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:"This show is about forgiving nazis" I haven’t watched any of this show (so I apologise if this is all completely off the mark), but I think you guys are talking past each other now. The second line in the quote doesn’t refute the first. There’s a difference to showing sympathy to fascism the ideology or a fascist regime, and showing sympathy to individual fascists. Claiming that the show never pulls its punches when displaying how bad fascism is, doesn’t negate criticism that there’s never any comeuppance for the people enacting those atrocities, or that those actions can be easily forgiven. It’s the same as how there’s a difference between Scientology the religion, the organisation, and the individual members, and an attack on one isn’t the same as an attack on all three. That said, I’m pretty sure this is a show for children, and as such I don’t think it’s unfair for the show to have a clear message, at the expense of nuance. If the show is about working through all problems with compassion and forgiveness, and it’s shown to work no matter how big the problem appears to be (and for kids, every problem is as big as it could possibly be), that’s not a bad thing. Kids should be taught to take the high road, because for 95% of the time, this is a lesson for how to deal with other kids. I understand it may give them the wrong impression for how to deal with an abusive parent or the current global rise of bigotry and nationalism, but I don’t think that’s really either a problem that can be adequately addressed by a Saturday morning cartoon, or that it’s targeting a demographic that can properly comprehend and address such problems. It’s laying the foundation for a child’s morality to be based around empathy and sympathy for others, and then later in their development they’ll be better able identify people who deviate from that stance, and learn how to deal specifically with them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2018 05:33
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:You leave the rent-a-cops and civies alone and inflict ironic punishments worse than death on the actual perpetrators. It's way way better the standard "feel free to kill legions of goons, but you must spare their boss the guy actually responsible for this". I really enjoyed the combat non-lethal knockout in Dishonoured 2, with the slide kick to the groin, rising uppercut to the face combo. It was a fun middle ground for all the cops who didn’t deserve to be murdered, but should get some form of punishment. Also it was hilariously effective. No powers, high chaos, zero kills. Awww yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2019 09:23
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Batman is interesting specifically because he's a bad guy. He's not a friendly neighbourhood hero or a flying boy scout, he's a seriously unwell man with intense baggage, no oversight, and unlimited resources, spending those resources building a supertank and telling his pals it's ok becuase he 'doesn't kill people', presumably through the manic stare of a person who truly doesn't understand what tends to happen when you drive a tank through a mall or throw bat-shaped shurikens at humans, or punch people in the face with reinforced carbon fibre fists. It’s a work of fiction though. You may not be able to suspend your disbelief that Batman doesn’t kill, or that he lives in a world with gun-shy cops, porous prisons, immortal ninjas, wizards, aliens, plant-controlling women, etc, but that’s the buy in. Batman exists as mostly comic book fantasy and small amount of self-reflection. It’s a world with all the regular trappings of super villains that require super heroes to oppose them, but it also acknowledges that vigilantism is illegal and Batman must operate in the shadows, and that an avatar of justice would be concerned with the lives of both those in danger and the criminals. You may not like that the comics/shows let Batman have his cake and eat it too, but the majority of comic book heroes oppose their enemies with force without much acknowledgement for potential casualties. Superman may be a boy scout, but he still punches monsters through occupied apartment buildings, and never hits something a tiny bit too hard and kills it. It’s the same fiction, only Superman just asks you not to think about it, rather than pointing it out and asking you to trust Batman’s abilities. To each their own though. I like having a no-kill cartoon Batman, unrealistic as it is, because it shows us a world where it accepts that policing criminals will require force, but we should always strive for a bloodless outcome. Where criminals are often not just bad people, but victims of (massively over the top) circumstances, and could be rehabilitated (though the comic book need for reoccurring villains kind of screws this one over). Where Batman is just a band-aid, and actual change lies more in the realm of Wayne Foundation initiatives that target social inequality and opportunity. Where the hero exists outside the police force, allowing for stories critical of the police force. That said, to me the Nolan films weren’t the high-water mark, but in not-my-Batman territory. Batman getting information out of a mobster by throwing him onto the street to break his legs isn’t a minimal harm form of justice. His code wasn’t part of a greater ideology that we should strive for; it was just an arbitrary line in the sand. The Snyder films at least were having a commentary about the failings of our world against the fantasy world these heroes normally reside in. The Nolan films had him as a violent dick who knew white privilege might not get him out of a murder charge.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2019 10:25
|
|
|
Rockit posted:Just because she's salty(Wrongly or not) about people just posting memes that (Partly) came out of Hbomber's fan-base and nothing else doesn't mean she's putting hbomber in the same brush. But she states that she's referring to certain people, who are extremely popular. That feels like it's more targeted at other Youtube personalities than randoms on Twitter. Even if we assume this is about randoms, it's still a weirdly dismissive stance to take. The Donkey Kong meme is a direct result of Hbomb's trans charity event, so it seems super-disingenuous to claim that the tweeters didn't donate and weren't celebrating that the charity event was so successful to have a small cultural impact, but instead that they just care about displaying surface level support.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
Eschenique posted:Even though they could probably (legally) get away with a system where copyright holders have to manually report each individual video and youtube getting due time to investigate etc. Then when youtube does take it down the user just puts it back up again in 2 minutes. I think the outcome of the latter example explains the actions of the former. From what I understand, and people can correct me if I’m wrong, if Youtube doesn’t want to become liable for copyright violations on their site, they have to do certain things like taking reasonable steps to ensure they aren’t profiting from copyrighted material, passing on copyright claims and taking down disputed material immediately, and banning users who incur three violation strikes. Failure to comply won’t make them liable for the violations of specific users; the company as a whole will lose their safe harbour rights and will become liable for the violations of every user on the entire site. That result would functionally be the end of Youtube, so they err on the side of over-policing than under. So them having abusable reporting systems, but also throwing money at lawyers to sue a copyright troll makes sense in the larger scheme of things; it’s safer for them to protect their users by attacking those who would abuse their systems, than to change their systems to prevent attacks but with the chance of becoming less compliant to regulations.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2019 10:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 15:30 |
|
|
Dawgstar posted:And it feels like later they don't even particularly care about her race, just that she's not wearing cargo pants or whatever. It's much more about dress code. That bit amused me, but it did make me wonder that given those people have no concept of an outside world or other races, that maybe they just assumed Lara has some messed up skin condition. Plus the Hitman franchise has seriously lowered my standards as to what constitutes an acceptable disguise. The carabiner clips on her belt got to me though. She hides all her guns from these people, even when she's under direct attack, but she won't swap the clips out for some rope. I know you can tie a quick release knot Lara. Stop stealing all their poo poo for two seconds and fix this.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2020 05:24
|
|