|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 16, 2023 6:36:51 GMT
Oh yes, you had zero problems until it turned out she wasn't a useless shrieking damsel who needed Luke and Finn to do everything for her.
You are a miserable troll. Here’s hoping you get banned again. If not here, he would on Knowhere if he displays this kind of attitude towards opposition over there. Wasn't he banned originally for taking part in a very tasteless activity that was designed to offend one other user? I think it was intended for DC-Fan.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2023 6:45:23 GMT
You are a miserable troll. Here’s hoping you get banned again. If not here, he would on Knowhere if he displays this kind of attitude towards opposition over there. Wasn't he banned originally for taking part in a very tasteless activity that was designed to offend one other user? I think it was intended for DC-Fan. Yeah he actually used a picture of DC Fan’s real life brother (who he knew was dead) as his own avatar. A truly despicable and disgusting thing to do. I remind myself of this if I ever feel like I’m going too hard on him. The guy is not worthy of respect. We really all should just ignore him until he goes away.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 16, 2023 6:47:01 GMT
Oh yes, you had zero problems until it turned out she wasn't a useless shrieking damsel who needed Luke and Finn to do everything for her.
You are a miserable troll. Here’s hoping you get banned again. Yeah. I should have stuck to my guns and kept the guy on my ignore list. But I had a moment of weakness and replied to him... and I really should have known better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2023 6:49:27 GMT
You are a miserable troll. Here’s hoping you get banned again. Yeah. I should have stuck to my guns and kept the guy on my ignore list. But I had a moment of weakness and replied to him... and I really should have known better. Same here. Interacting with him is a total waste of time. It’s like arguing with a mental patient.
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Feb 16, 2023 8:01:26 GMT
On the topic of "woke" The Critical Drinker recently released a video about the whole thing and, which may surprise people like your formersamhmd, is that he warned people not to turn into "the boy who cried woke" when they see something diverse on the screen, because the quality of the storytelling and the filmmaking should matter most in the end. I agree with that. But I don’t care much for The Critical Drinker. I think his appeal is helped by his accent. My problem with him is he is frequently inserting comedy about himself into every narrative and it is very unfunny. That plus a the occasional repulsiveness makes me not want to view his videos.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 16, 2023 13:55:19 GMT
Naive woman child becomes...slightly less naive woman child. Wow.
It's more McAvoy's movie above hers. She's there to be the nominal hero, but spends most of it being beaten up, tortured and then having pointless lesbian sex.
Alice, who somehow no one calls a Mary Sue
I did. She's portrayed as "Born Sexy Yesterday" too much and gets easily led around by Waltz and Johnson too much. All her major decisions are influenced by them. Really she has as much agency as Katniss Everdeen, which is to say, not much.
So she takes over from him, meaning Krasinski the actual hero of the series.
IE, they knew full well that Stallone would be the big draw and it took 2 movies to phase him out.
And they were forgotten after that and never remembered by anyone in the Rebellion. The OT and ST never mentions her people.
How is she a naive woman child at the end of the movie? It's her movie, and she kicks plenty of rear-end that matches up with plenty of other male action heroes on film and television. I would actually call Alice from the Resident Evil movies a Mary Sue. I am having doubts that you have seen the picture, because what you have described has been either debunked or is flat-out wrong. They're both heroes. What are you getting at with this? Jordan wasn't a star at the time of release of the first Creed movie, but still the lead of the film. He was the lead in the second as well, and in the third it's all him because he is now a bankable name and Stallone is nowhere to be seen. The original trilogy doesn't mention her and her partners specifically - because they weren't conceived of till the film was developed after Disney's acquisition and Kathleen Kennedy becoming the head of Lucasfilm. The sequel trilogy takes place many years after the original trilogy, what Erso and company had accomplished doesn't really have relevance to the events of the films. Having turned out to be right about Ares all along means that he potential awakening to the darker nature of the world was shut down, so now she still believes in everything she believed in before and just has a dead Boyfriend.
McAvoy takes up more of the plot than her, while she's relegated to a token lesbian romance to titillate male moviegoers and gets captured and tortured more than she succeeds at anything.
Fine.
Would she have become a Hunter or a Sport Player without them? No? Then she has little to no agency of her own. And she's "Born Sexy Yesterday" to boot.
He does all the real heroing work for her till near the end.
That they had no faith in Jordan to be able to carry the movie on their own, nor did they think Creed as a character could, so they needed Stallone to be the real character anyone cared about to get the picture started. Then they sill had no faith in Jordan the second time and needed Dolph Lundgren for the 2nd. Only now in the 3rd one do they have any faith.
Which oh-so-conveniently means that for all the talk about her character and story, it turned out to be utterly meaningless because her character was forgotten in the larger scheme of things.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 16, 2023 13:59:33 GMT
Conflict and metaphor cannot exist without Agenda, because Agenda in an inherent part of overall storytelling. Even Slapstick comedy had an Agenda.
Stan Lee can say that he didn't want to do that...but the proof is in the pudding. Marvel's social commentary speaks for itself.
The Mona Lisa is supposed to be about the cosmic link between Humanity and the purity of Nature, the rare kind of harmony that exists in the moment when one allows their stress and anxieties over their existence to fade and they find inner peace and connection with the world around them.
Good Night Moon: Saying "good night" to everything you've put value and meaning into. Even if these things are inanimate objects and/or appliances. Which shows the connection a person can have to things that they treat them like they're alive and make you question whether there is a point to this and if we create value in our subjective interpretations of the world around us.
Whereas actual anti-women movies DO exist, and I don't see anyone complaining about them.
Yes, they actually can. An agenda, in this conversation, refers to the underlying intentions or motives of a particular group or person. A conflict is a condition in which a person experiences a clash of opposing wishes and needs. A metaphor is a figure of speech or symbolic of something. In storytelling, an agenda can be presented in conflict or in metaphor, a metaphor can exist in the conflict, but they do not have to tie into each other to tell a structured story. Interpretation of the consumer (you) might not be the intention of the creator (in this case, Stan Lee), therefore your argument that the creator clearly wanted themselves and their work as preaching cannot be seen as fact. It would be a different story entirely if Stan Lee left everything ambiguous, but in the interview, I shared, he makes it clear that he didn't like to preach and wanted himself and the company to be seen as providers of escapist entertainment. Which is your interpretation of the Mona Lisa, or someone else's. We may never know exactly what DaVinci really meant with the painting, as he passed away in 1519. That isn't an agenda, and not political. I am curious, however, what films you consider to be 'anti-women' though. Agenda: A list, plan, outline, or the like, of things to be done. This is core to all storytelling. Same with themes and commentary and ideas.
It's all one and the same, despite what Grifters say.
He can say what he wants, but the proof is in the pudding. Plenty of Marvel comics "Preach", ones written by him.
That is an agenda, and it's political. It speaks to the importance we as humans put into things and meaning we give them, which is applicable to politics.
The Godfather and Grease, off the top of my head.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 16, 2023 14:01:13 GMT
Too little, too late. He's part of the problem and now he's just trying to make himself look like less of a Grifter so he can avoid Alex Jones' fate. Or, he might really mean what he is saying. I don't regularly watch his content, so I don't know what the context is for why he decided to make the video (which I think is well argued and clarifies exactly what 'woke' really means), but the video does exist (I am not sharing it though because it presents footage of some cinema which may go against this website's guidelines). I don't expect you watch it, and I don't expect you to come out being of any agreement with the work, either, because of your (very unhealthy) obsession which has not done your skills in debate any wonders (I also wonder of your perception of reality, as you have denied Mr. Jordan's interview with the directors of Bad Boys For Life and Ms. Marvel from ever taking place when the video was shared to you). No, he most certainly does not. The man is an Alex Jones wannabe, meaning you can't trust him to have any self-awareness or integrity whatsoever. He's the kind of person who'd think Patrick Bateman was worthy of respect.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 16, 2023 14:04:12 GMT
So it's not Han, it's Ford. Perhaps, or perhaps not. Ford is the more charismatic of the three actors, though. He wasn't that charismatic after ANH, mainly because the character had nothing else to really do after that. Same with Fisher as Leia.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 16, 2023 14:05:32 GMT
You are a miserable troll. Here’s hoping you get banned again. If not here, he would on Knowhere if he displays this kind of attitude towards opposition over there. Wasn't he banned originally for taking part in a very tasteless activity that was designed to offend one other user? I think it was intended for DC-Fan. Admittedly I may have taken it a bit too far, it was because he found me on Facebook and was cyber-stalking me there and sending threats against my family.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 16, 2023 14:28:19 GMT
Yeah. I should have stuck to my guns and kept the guy on my ignore list. But I had a moment of weakness and replied to him... and I really should have known better. Same here. Interacting with him is a total waste of time. It’s like arguing with a mental patient. You don't know what it's been like talking to OT fans for the last 7 years...
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 16, 2023 21:21:57 GMT
If not here, he would on Knowhere if he displays this kind of attitude towards opposition over there. Wasn't he banned originally for taking part in a very tasteless activity that was designed to offend one other user? I think it was intended for DC-Fan. Yeah he actually used a picture of DC Fan’s real life brother (who he knew was dead) as his own avatar. A truly despicable and disgusting thing to do. I remind myself of this if I ever feel like I’m going too hard on him. The guy is not worthy of respect. We really all should just ignore him until he goes away. That is very terrible thing to do, even though DC-Fan was very annoying and looked to rile people up often, I wouldn't take my dislike of him that far. There are lines you just shouldn't cross.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2023 21:27:23 GMT
Same here. Interacting with him is a total waste of time. It’s like arguing with a mental patient. You don't know what it's been like talking to OT fans for the last 7 years... I hate to break it you, pal. It ain’t the OT fans or the sequel fans. It’s you.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 16, 2023 21:45:03 GMT
How is she a naive woman child at the end of the movie? It's her movie, and she kicks plenty of rear-end that matches up with plenty of other male action heroes on film and television. I would actually call Alice from the Resident Evil movies a Mary Sue. I am having doubts that you have seen the picture, because what you have described has been either debunked or is flat-out wrong. They're both heroes. What are you getting at with this? Jordan wasn't a star at the time of release of the first Creed movie, but still the lead of the film. He was the lead in the second as well, and in the third it's all him because he is now a bankable name and Stallone is nowhere to be seen. The original trilogy doesn't mention her and her partners specifically - because they weren't conceived of till the film was developed after Disney's acquisition and Kathleen Kennedy becoming the head of Lucasfilm. The sequel trilogy takes place many years after the original trilogy, what Erso and company had accomplished doesn't really have relevance to the events of the films. Having turned out to be right about Ares all along means that he potential awakening to the darker nature of the world was shut down, so now she still believes in everything she believed in before and just has a dead Boyfriend.
McAvoy takes up more of the plot than her, while she's relegated to a token lesbian romance to titillate male moviegoers and gets captured and tortured more than she succeeds at anything.
Fine.
Would she have become a Hunter or a Sport Player without them? No? Then she has little to no agency of her own. And she's "Born Sexy Yesterday" to boot.
He does all the real heroing work for her till near the end.
That they had no faith in Jordan to be able to carry the movie on their own, nor did they think Creed as a character could, so they needed Stallone to be the real character anyone cared about to get the picture started. Then they sill had no faith in Jordan the second time and needed Dolph Lundgren for the 2nd. Only now in the 3rd one do they have any faith.
Which oh-so-conveniently means that for all the talk about her character and story, it turned out to be utterly meaningless because her character was forgotten in the larger scheme of things.
Diana isn't the same character that she was from the start of the picture, therefore she experienced growth. You may disregard it, and use "Born Sexy Yesterday" to dismiss it, but the character development is there and she evolves into a better hero. It's still her movie, why is it an issue if Charlie Theron in the movie isn't squeaky clean, isn't indestructible, and isn't asking to be seen as a role model to the audience, and likes the company of other women? The character clearly is not designed to be seen as aspirational by the viewer. Alita isn't told to get involved in the sport or to be a hunter, she decides both things by herself and takes on the initiative. And your "Born Sexy Yesterday" argument isn't going to put a period on the conversation, so I would recommend to stop using it because no else agrees to it. And? She becomes the hero and the is the central hero in the sequel. They both learned to adapt to a new way of life to survive and the experience helps them best the creatures. Again, what is your point regarding the Creed series? It is a spin-off from Rocky, an iconic franchise that Stallone was the star and major creative force behind, it makes sense to have Stallone be present given the history Balboa has with Creed's father. Jordan was also, again, not a movie star at the time. He is now and is carrying the whole of Creed III. As for Creed II 'needing' Dolph Lundgren...Dolph Lundgren's star power faded in the early 90's. He stopped being bankable halfway into the decade and went on to lead mostly small budget direct-to-video offerings, only occasionally has he been cast in something major but it's usually supporting (like Aquaman). You pretty much said that the character has been forgotten about in Star Wars media, which isn't true because she has appeared in other content outside of the Rogue One film. Clearly there was a misunderstanding, but what I was getting at is that she has been used elsewhere in the franchise, so she has mad impact.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 16, 2023 21:52:50 GMT
Yes, they actually can. An agenda, in this conversation, refers to the underlying intentions or motives of a particular group or person. A conflict is a condition in which a person experiences a clash of opposing wishes and needs. A metaphor is a figure of speech or symbolic of something. In storytelling, an agenda can be presented in conflict or in metaphor, a metaphor can exist in the conflict, but they do not have to tie into each other to tell a structured story. Interpretation of the consumer (you) might not be the intention of the creator (in this case, Stan Lee), therefore your argument that the creator clearly wanted themselves and their work as preaching cannot be seen as fact. It would be a different story entirely if Stan Lee left everything ambiguous, but in the interview, I shared, he makes it clear that he didn't like to preach and wanted himself and the company to be seen as providers of escapist entertainment. Which is your interpretation of the Mona Lisa, or someone else's. We may never know exactly what DaVinci really meant with the painting, as he passed away in 1519. That isn't an agenda, and not political. I am curious, however, what films you consider to be 'anti-women' though. Agenda: A list, plan, outline, or the like, of things to be done. This is core to all storytelling. Same with themes and commentary and ideas.
It's all one and the same, despite what Grifters say.
He can say what he wants, but the proof is in the pudding. Plenty of Marvel comics "Preach", ones written by him.
That is an agenda, and it's political. It speaks to the importance we as humans put into things and meaning we give them, which is applicable to politics.
The Godfather and Grease, off the top of my head.
Agenda has more than one meaning, in the context of this conversation it is referring to the underlying intentions or motives of a particular group or person. It is not required to tell any story, and I am sorry to break it to you but many more people than "grifters" have explained that agenda, metaphor, and conflict are three separate things, and only conflict is required for any story while agenda and metaphor are not. Which sort of people? Professors. None of my creative writing instructors ever stated that agenda is crucial to storytelling. Just the same, you can say whatever you want, but Stan Lee didn't set out to preach in his writing and didn't want the whole of Marvel to be seen as anything much beyond entertainers. The story isn't presenting an agenda (the way of which I am referring to), and it isn't political (in the sense of left, right, center, etc.). Oh, please.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 16, 2023 21:54:04 GMT
Or, he might really mean what he is saying. I don't regularly watch his content, so I don't know what the context is for why he decided to make the video (which I think is well argued and clarifies exactly what 'woke' really means), but the video does exist (I am not sharing it though because it presents footage of some cinema which may go against this website's guidelines). I don't expect you watch it, and I don't expect you to come out being of any agreement with the work, either, because of your (very unhealthy) obsession which has not done your skills in debate any wonders (I also wonder of your perception of reality, as you have denied Mr. Jordan's interview with the directors of Bad Boys For Life and Ms. Marvel from ever taking place when the video was shared to you). No, he most certainly does not. The man is an Alex Jones wannabe, meaning you can't trust him to have any self-awareness or integrity whatsoever. He's the kind of person who'd think Patrick Bateman was worthy of respect. *Yawn* Your conspiracy theoretical-like conclusion just proves my point that your obsession with such people is very unhealthy and has affected your ability to debate better.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 16, 2023 21:56:01 GMT
If not here, he would on Knowhere if he displays this kind of attitude towards opposition over there. Wasn't he banned originally for taking part in a very tasteless activity that was designed to offend one other user? I think it was intended for DC-Fan. Admittedly I may have taken it a bit too far, it was because he found me on Facebook and was cyber-stalking me there and sending threats against my family. "May"? "A bit"? You really did take it too far; not to say DC-Fan is innocent in all of this, but you probably should have just ignored him instead of allowing the situation to escalate to such a point.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 16, 2023 21:56:30 GMT
Same here. Interacting with him is a total waste of time. It’s like arguing with a mental patient. You don't know what it's been like talking to OT fans for the last 7 years... Using fallacy to defend fallacy does not make a right.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 16, 2023 23:42:57 GMT
Yeah he actually used a picture of DC Fan’s real life brother (who he knew was dead) as his own avatar. A truly despicable and disgusting thing to do. I remind myself of this if I ever feel like I’m going too hard on him. The guy is not worthy of respect. We really all should just ignore him until he goes away. That is very terrible thing to do, even though DC-Fan was very annoying and looked to rile people up often, I wouldn't take my dislike of him that far. There are lines you just shouldn't cross. He came after my family, I don't let that stand.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 16, 2023 23:43:32 GMT
You don't know what it's been like talking to OT fans for the last 7 years... I hate to break it you, pal. It ain’t the OT fans or the sequel fans. It’s you. OT Fans threw the first punch, they started this, they deserve whatever they get.
|
|